HomeMy Public PortalAbout11 November 12, 2015 CommissionMEETING AGENDA
TIME/DATE: 9:30 a.m. / Thursday, November 12, 2015
LOCATION: BOARD ROOM
Eastern Municipal Water District
2270 Trumble Road, Perris
COMMISSIONERS
Chair – Daryl Busch
Vice Chair – Scott Matas
Second Vice Chair – John F. Tavaglione
Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside
John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside
Chuck Washington, County of Riverside
John J. Benoit, County of Riverside
Marion Ashley, County of Riverside
Deborah Franklin / Art Welch, City of Banning
Brenda Knight / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont
Joseph DeConinck / Tim Wade, City of Blythe
Ella Zanowic / Jim Hyatt, City of Calimesa
Dawn Haggerty / Jordan Ehrenkranz, City of Canyon Lake
Greg Pettis / Shelley Kaplan, City of Cathedral City
Steven Hernandez / To Be Appointed, City of Coachella
Karen Spiegel / Randy Fox, City of Corona
Scott Matas / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs
Adam Rush / Clint Lorimore, City of Eastvale
Linda Krupa / Paul Raver, City of Hemet
Dana Reed / Douglas Hanson, City of Indian Wells
Troy Strange / Glenn Miller, City of Indio
Frank Johnston / Brian Berkson, City of Jurupa Valley
Robert Radi / To Be Appointed, City of La Quinta
Bob Magee / Natasha Johnson, City of Lake Elsinore
Scott Mann / John Denver, City of Menifee
Jesse Molina / Jeffrey J. Giba, City of Moreno Valley
Rick Gibbs / Jonathan Ingram, City of Murrieta
Berwin Hanna / Kathy Azevedo, City of Norco
Jan Harnik / Susan Marie Weber, City of Palm Desert
Ginny Foat / Paul Lewin, City of Palm Springs
Daryl Busch / Rita Rogers, City of Perris
Ted Weill / To Be Appointed, City of Rancho Mirage
Rusty Bailey / Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside
Andrew Kotyuk / Scott Miller, City of San Jacinto
Michael S. Naggar / Michael McCracken, City of Temecula
Ben Benoit / Timothy Walker, City of Wildomar
John Bulinski, Director, Governor’s Appointee Caltrans District 8
Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission,
please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board.
COMM-COMM-00052
Tara Byerly
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Importance:
Tara Byerly
Monday, November 09, 2015 9:36 AM
Tara Byerly
Jennifer Harmon
RCTC: November 12 Commission Meeting
1st page of the October 14 Commission Minutes.pdf
High
Good morning Commissioners,
Attached is the 1st page of the amended October 14 minutes to reflect the presence of
Commissioner Rick Gibbs. Please swap out this page and replace with the above attachment.
Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.
Respectfully,
Tara Byerly
RCTC
1
Tara Byerly
From: Tara Byerly
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, November04, 201511:13AM
Tara Byerly
Cc: Jennifer Harmon
Subject: RCTC: November Commission Agenda -11.12.2015
Importance: High
Good morning Commissioners:
The November Agenda for the meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 12, 2015 @ 9:30 a.m. is available. Please
copy the link:
http://www.rctc.org/uploads/media items/november-12-2015.original.pdf
In addition, for your review is the attached conflict of interest memo and the form. Please let me know if you have any
questions. Thank you.
Conflict of Conflict of
Interest Form.pdflnterest Memo.pdf
Respectfully,
rfara S. (]3yer[y
Deputy Clerk of the Board
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
(951) 787-7141
1
Tara Byerly
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Importance:
Tara Byerly
Wednesday, November04, 201511:12AM
Tara Byerly
RCTC: November Commission Agenda -11.12.2015
High
Good morning Commission Alternates:
The November Agenda for the meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 12, 2015@ 9:30 a.m. is available. Please
copy the link:
http://www.rctc.org/ uploads/media ite ms/novem ber-12-2015.o rigi na I. pdf
rrara s. <Byer{y
Deputy Clerk of the Board
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
(951) 787-7141
1
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board
DATE: November 4, 2015
SUBJECT: Possible Conflicts of Interest – Riverside County Transportation Commission
Agenda of November 12, 2015
The November 12, 2015 agenda of the Riverside County Transportation Commission includes
items that may raise possible conflicts of interest. A Commissioner may not participate in any
discussion or action concerning a contract or amendment if a campaign contribution of more
than $250 is received in the past 12 months or 3 months following the conclusion from any
entity or individual listed.
Agenda Item No. 7C – Amendment to Agreement with Cofiroute USA, LLC for Electronic Toll and
Traffic Management Systems Integration and Implementation for the State Route 91 Corridor
Improvement Project
Consultant(s): Cofiroute USA, LLC
Gary Hausdorfer, President and CEO
20 Pacifica, Suite 420
Irvine, CA 92618
Agenda Item No. 7F – Agreement for Station Electrical Services
Consultant(s): Elite Electric Inc.
Carl Dawson, President
9415 Bellegrave Avenue
Riverside, CA 92509
Agenda Item No. 12A – Closed Session – Conference with Real Property Negotiators
Property Owner(s): The State of California, Department of Water Resources
William R. Sweeney, Nancy B. Cunningham, Lori A. Sukoff,
Gregory J. Buchanan, William J. Buchanan, Nuevo Develops, Inc.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
www.rctc.org
AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda
9:30 a.m.
Thursday, November 12, 2015
BOARD ROOM
Eastern Municipal Water District
2270 Trumble Road, Perris, CA
In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed
72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available
for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street,
Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission’s website, www.rctc.org.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Government Code Section 54954.2, and the Federal
Transit Administration Title VI, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141 if special assistance is
needed to participate in a Commission meeting, including accessibility and translation services. Assistance is
provided free of charge. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting time will assist staff in assuring
reasonable arrangements can be made to provide assistance at the meeting.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS – Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or
less. The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Commission,
waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the
number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2)
continuous minutes. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or
topic is thirty (30) minutes. Also, the Commission may terminate public comments if such comments
become repetitious. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any
written documents to be distributed or presented to the Commission shall be submitted to the Clerk of
the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items.
Under the Brown Act, the Commission should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public
comment portion of the agenda that are not listed on the agenda. Commission members may refer
such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for
consideration.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – OCTOBER 14, 2015
Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda
November 12, 2015
Page 2
6. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS – The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a
finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to
the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding
an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the
Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote.
Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR – All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single
motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled
from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
7A. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT
Page 1
Overview
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority
report for the first quarter ended September 30, 2015.
7B. FUNDING PLAN FOR INTERSTATE 15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT
Page 3
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Provide input and direct staff regarding the preliminary funding plan for the
Interstate 15 Express Lanes project; and
2) Approve $60 million in federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
or Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds for costs related to the I-15
Project and direct staff to program the funding in the 2015 Federal
Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP).
7C. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH COFIROUTE USA, LLC FOR ELECTRONIC TOLL
AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION FOR
THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Page 6
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve an increase in the contingency amount for Agreement No.
14-31-071-00 with Cofiroute USA, LLC (Cofiroute) related to additional scope
of work items for the electronic toll and traffic management systems
integration and implementation for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement
Project (91 Project) for an additional amount of $837,930 and a total not to
exceed $27,517,930; and
Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda
November 12, 2015
Page 3
2) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up
to the total amount not to exceed as required for the project.
7D. CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION’S ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAM CYCLE 2 FOR FISCAL YEARS 2016/17 – 2018/19
Page 8
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve the Riverside County Active Transportation Program (ATP) projects
for inclusion in the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) ATP Regional
Program Cycle 2 consisting of the highest scoring projects identified in Table 2
in the total amount of $9,204,000;
2) Approve programming ATP and/or a combination of SB 821 and federal funds
of up to $2,293,000 for one or more projects scoring 80/90 points in order to
maximize Riverside County MPO ATP funds;
3) Approve programming additional ATP funds to projects scoring 80/90 should
any ATP Cycle 2 funds become available based on Caltrans findings of ineligible
project line item costs;
4) Submit the recommended projects to the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) for inclusion in the MPO ATP Regional Program and
subsequent submittal to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for
final approval in January 2016;
5) Submit the MPO ATP regional projects to SCAG for inclusion in the Federal
Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) programming; and
6) Direct staff to coordinate with the MPO ATP Regional Program project
sponsors regarding timely funding allocations, obligations, and project
delivery.
7E. METROLINK BUDGET ACTIONS TO SUPPORT LOCOMOTIVE PROCUREMENTS
Page 15
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve Commission participation in the Metrolink lease of BNSF Railway
(BNSF) locomotives in the amount of $1,585,231;
2) Approve Commission participation in the optional procurement of 17 new
Metrolink Tier IV locomotives in the amount of $2.7 million;
Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda
November 12, 2015
Page 4
3) Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 16-25-014-02,
Amendment No. 1 to MOU No. 16-25-014-01, with the Southern California
Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) for additional funding in the amount of
$1,585,231 related to the locomotives lease for a total operating budget
subsidy amount of $15,577,255 and for authorization to use $2.7 million of
Fiscal Year 2015/16 or carryover rehabilitation/renovation funds for the
procurement of the Tier IV locomotives; and
4) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission.
7F. AGREEMENT FOR STATION ELECTRICAL SERVICES
Page 31
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Award Agreement No. 16-24-005-00 to Elite Electric, Inc. for the provision of
station electrical maintenance and repair services, for a three-year term, plus
two two-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount of $603,700,
plus a contingency of $60,370 for a total amount not to exceed $664,070;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute the agreement, including option years, on behalf of the Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to execute task orders awarded
to the contractor under the terms of the agreements;
4) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve contingency work up
to the total amount not to exceed as required for these services;
5) Authorize $935,000 for capital improvements to complete a light-emitting
diode (LED) lighting retrofit of the commuter rail stations, including the new
Perris Valley Line stations; and
6) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute
the agreement(s) for LED lighting retrofit on behalf of the Commission.
7G. AGREEMENT FOR STATION PEST CONTROL SERVICES
Page 52
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Award Agreement No. 16-24-015-00 to Global Pest Solutions for the provision
of station pest control services for a three-year term, plus two two-year
options to extend the agreement, in an amount of $34,776 for maintenance
and on-call services, plus a contingency amount of $3,478, for a total amount
not to exceed $38,254;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute the agreement, including option years, on behalf of the Commission;
Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda
November 12, 2015
Page 5
3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to execute task orders awarded
to the contractor under the terms of the agreement; and
4) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve contingency work up
to the total amount not to exceed as required for these services.
7H. OPERATION OF THE FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Page 74
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 16-45-033-00 with the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) for the operation of the Riverside County Freeway
Service Patrol (FSP) program in the amount of $1,559,523 in state funding for
FY 2015/16; and
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to
execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission.
8. TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE REGIONAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM – PROJECT
DELIVERY UPDATE
Page 85
Overview
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
(TUMF) Regional Arterial Program – Project Delivery Update.
9. COACHELLA VALLEY – SAN GORGONIO PASS RAIL CORRIDOR: DELIVERY OF THE PHASE 1
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Page 88
Overview
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Receive and file the draft Coachella Valley – San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Study
Alternatives Analysis (Alternatives Analysis); and
2) Authorize staff to submit the draft Alternatives Analysis to the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) for its review and approval.
10. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA
Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda
November 12, 2015
Page 6
11. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
Overview
This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to
report on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission
activities.
12. CLOSED SESSION
12A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Agency Negotiator: Executive Director or Designee
Property Owner(s): See Below
Item APN(s) CPN(s) Property Owner(s)
1
(portions of)
307-070-001
307-040-004
N/A The State of California,
Department of Water Resources
2
426-060-001
426-430-001
426-420-001
426-420-002
426-420-004
N/A
William R. Sweeney, Nancy B. Cunningham,
Lori A. Sukoff, Gregory J. Buchanan,
William J. Buchanan, Nuevo Develops, Inc.
12B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1)
Case No(s). RIC 1313171
13. ADJOURNMENT
The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday,
December 9, 2015, Board Room, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon
Street, Riverside.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
ROLL CALL
NOVEMBER 12, 2015
County of Riverside, District I
County of Riverside, District II
County of Riverside, District Ill
County of Riverside, District IV
County of Riverside, District V
City of Banning
City of Beaumont
City of Blythe
City of Calimesa
City of Canyon Lake
City of Cathedral City
City of Coachella
City of Corona
City of Desert Hot Springs
City of Eastvale
City of Hemet
City of Indian Wells
City of Indio
City of Jurupa Valley
City of La Quinta
City of Lake Elsinore
City of Menifee
City of Moreno Valley
City of Murrieta
City of Norco
City of Palm Desert
City of Palm Springs
City of Perris
City of Rancho Mirage
City of Riverside
City of San Jacinto .
City of Temecula
City of Wildomar
Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8
Absent
Cl ;zr
Cl
%
Cl
Cl
~
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
~
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
~
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl ~\/~ Cif '! 3'l ". fn.
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
D
Cl
D
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
COMMISSIONER SIGN-IN SHEET
NOVEMBER 12, 2015
NAME E_MAIL ADDRESS
AGENDA ITEM 5
MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MINUTES
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by
Chair Daryl Busch at 9:34 a.m. in the Board Room at the County of Riverside
Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Joey DeConinck led the Commission in a flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL
Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent
Marion Ashley Brenda Knight John J. Benoit
Rusty Bailey Linda Krupa Rick Gibbs
Ben Benoit Bob Magee Ginny Foat
Brian Berkson Scott Mann Andrew Kotyuk
John Bulinski Scott Matas John F. Tavaglione**
Daryl Busch Jesse Molina Chuck Washington
Joseph DeConinck Michael Naggar* Ted Weill
Deborah Franklin Greg Pettis
Rick Gibbs Robert Radi
Dawn Haggerty Dana Reed
Berwin Hanna Adam Rush
Jan Harnik Karen Spiegel
Steven Hernandez* Troy Strange
Kevin Jeffries Ella Zanowic
*Arrived after the meeting was called to order
**Proxy vote to Commissioner Marion Ashley.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no requests to speak from the public.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
October 14, 2015
Page 2
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – SEPTEMBER 9 AND SEPTEMBER 16, 2015 – SPECIAL
MEETING MINUTES
M/S/C (Radi/Spiegel) to approve the September 9 and September 16, 2015
minutes as submitted.
Abstain: Berkson and Rush
6. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS
There was a revision to Agenda Item 7C, “2016 State Transportation Improvement
Program – Interstate 15/French Valley Parkway Interchange and Interstate 15/Railroad
Canyon Interchange Project Programming Recommendations”.
Anne Mayer announced per staff’s request, Agenda Item 7F, “Agreement for Station
Electrical Services”, is being pulled from the agenda.
Anne Mayer requested to add an urgency item, “Update on 91 Project Construction
Accident”, which requires a 2/3 vote of the Commission.
M/S/C (Mann/Franklin) recognizing that staff became aware of this item after
posting and mail out of the agenda and that it will need action by the
Commission at this time, to add the urgency item as Agenda Item 10, "Update
on 91 Project Construction Accident".
At this time, Commissioner Steven Hernandez joined the meeting.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
M/S/C (Matas/Krupa) to approve the following Consent Calendar items.
7A. COMPENSATORY MITIGATION AGREEMENT WITH INLAND EMPIRE RESOURCE
CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION FOR THE STATE ROUTE
91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
1) Approve Agreement No. 16‐31‐023‐00 with the Inland Empire Resource
Conservation District (IERCD) for compensatory mitigation (Coastal Sage
Scrub Restoration) in an amount not to exceed $1,241,459;
2) Approve Agreement No. 16‐31‐024‐00 with California Department of
Parks and Recreation for maintaining Coastal Sage Scrub Restoration in
perpetuity in an amount not to exceed $289,342; and
3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
October 14, 2015
Page 3
7B. 91 EXPRESS LANES RIVERSIDE ORANGE FACILITY AGREEMENT
1) Approve the 91 Express Lanes Riverside Orange Facility Agreement
(ROFA), Agreement No. 16‐31‐025‐00, with the Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA) for the Anaheim Toll Operations Center
in the amount of $421,242 for tenant improvements, $237,055 for rent
through January 31, 2018, and a contingency amount of $32,915, for a
total amount not to exceed $691,212;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and
3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve contingency
work up to the total amount not to exceed as required.
7C. 2016 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM – INTERSTATE
15/FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY INTERCHANGE AND INTERSTATE 15/RAILROAD
CANYON INTERCHANGE PROJECT PROGRAMMING RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Approve programming the Interstate 15/French Valley Parkway
interchange project (Phase 2) in the 2016 State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) in Fiscal Year 2019/20 in the amount of
$47.6 million for construction activities as agreed upon by the city of
Temecula (Temecula), Caltrans, and the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA);
2) Approve programming the I‐15/Railroad Canyon interchange project in
the 2016 STIP in FY 2016/17 or FY 2017/18 in the amount of $2,865,000
for the design phase; and
3) Remove I‐215 South connector gap closure project from the STIP and
reprogram in the amount of $8,965,000 to I‐15/French Valley Parkway
interchange project and I‐15 Railroad Canyon interchange project, as
indicated above.
7D. AGREEMENTS FOR ON‐CALL RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT SERVICES
1) Award the following agreements to provide on‐call right of way support
services for a three‐year term, in an amount not to exceed an aggregate
value of $2 million;
a) Agreement No. 16‐31‐001‐00 with Bender Rosenthal, Inc.;
b) Agreement No. 16‐31‐018‐00 with Epic Land Solutions, Inc.; and
c) Agreement No. 16‐31‐019‐00 with Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc.;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and
3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to execute task orders
awarded to contractors under the terms of the agreements.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
October 14, 2015
Page 4
7E. RIGHT OF WAY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MANUAL
1) Approve the revised RCTC Right of Way Policies and Procedures Manual
for the acquisition and sale of real property, relocation of displaced
individuals and businesses, utility relocations, appraisal of real property,
project certification, project closeout, and property management,
pursuant to legal counsel review as to conformance to federal and state
law;
2) Adopt Resolution No. 15‐020, “Resolution of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission Amending the RCTC Right of Way Policies and
Procedures Manual”; and
3) Authorize the Executive Director to approve the final revisions to the
RCTC Right of Way Policies and Procedures Manual.
7G. AGREEMENT FOR COMMUTER RAIL STATION VENDING SERVICES
1) Award Agreement No. 16‐24‐007‐00 to First Class Vending, Inc. for the
provision of commuter rail station vending services, a revenue‐based
agreement, for a term of five years, plus one five‐year option to extend
the agreement; and
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to execute the agreement, including option years, on behalf of
the Commission.
7H. SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM REALLOCATION FOR
THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
1) Approve the reallocation of Fiscal Year 2013/14 returned project funds in
the amount of $130,000 to the city of Jurupa Valley’s (Jurupa Valley)
Golden West Avenue sidewalk infill project, previously funded with
$70,000 in the FY 2013/14 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
program recommended funding list; and
2) Receive and file an update on the status of the $556,508 remaining from
the FY 2015/16 call for projects.
7I. TRADE CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT FUND UPDATE AND AVENUE 66
1) Allocate up to $15 million in Congestion Management Air Quality (CMAQ)
funds to the county of Riverside (County) for the Avenue 66 at‐grade
railroad crossing;
2) Direct staff to work with the Coachella Valley Association of Governments
(CVAG), the County, Caltrans, and the California Transportation
Commission (CTC) to secure the balance of funding required; and
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
October 14, 2015
Page 5
3) Submit Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) project application and
supporting documentation to the CTC requesting allocation of $5,708,444
in TCIF funding for Avenue 66.
8. REVIEW OF RAIL SAFETY PUBLIC OUTREACH/OPERATION LIFESAVER EDUCATION PLAN
John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director, presented a short promotional video
prepared by Metrolink of an aerial tour of the Perris Valley Line (PVL). Mr. Standiford
then presented the rail safety public outreach and Operation Lifesaver education plan,
highlighting the following areas:
Metrolink 91/PVL: 1) service begins in late December; 2) test trains started mid‐
October; 3) safety is RCTC’s utmost priority; and 4) trespassers;
Frequent trespassing and safety challenges;
Rail vs. person/vehicle collision statistics;
RCTC, Operation Lifesaver, Inc. (OLI), and Metrolink partnership;
OLI is a non‐profit, educational organization that works to reduce collisions,
injuries, and fatalities at rail crossings and on railroad right of way;
OLI’s Three E’s – Education – Increased awareness; Engineering – Signs, signals,
pavement markings, flashing red lights, or other warning devices; and
Enforcement – Illegal to trespass on railroad right of way;
Targeted groups for outreach – K‐12 students, parents, and cross‐country teams,
UC Riverside students, and community/ business members near railroad tracks;
Signs, advertising, enforcement, current efforts, and future efforts; and
See Tracks? Think Train.
At this time, Commissioner Michael Naggar joined the meeting.
John Standiford welcomed and introduced Sara Logan from OLI.
Sara Logan expressed appreciation to the Commission for its support of the rail safety
education effort in Riverside County.
Mr. Standiford expressed appreciation to OLI, Metrolink, and the Los Angeles County
Sheriffs for their participation. He explained this is an ongoing priority and referred to
the rail safety promotional items distributed to the Commissioners.
Commissioner Rusty Bailey expressed appreciation to the Commission and OLI for
making themselves available for his Mayor’s Day Out event. He stated it will be a great
educational opportunity to speak to the University of California, Riverside students.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
October 14, 2015
Page 6
Commissioner Karen Spiegel asked the Commission to ensure rail safety education is
also provided to the city of Corona and the unincorporated area of Home Gardens as
there are a number of schools and residences near railroad tracks.
Anne Mayer briefed the Commission on the Operation Lifesaver efforts in the Coachella
Valley. She then discussed the Riverside County Parks District master plan of trails for
the Box Springs recreation area and the funding needs.
M/S/C to receive and file the rail safety public outreach and Operation
Lifesaver education plan.
9. FEDERAL AND STATE LEGISLATION
Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager, presented the year end state update,
highlighting the Commission‐supported bills signed by Governor Brown and the
continuance of the Special Session.
M/S/C to receive and file an update on federal and state legislation.
10. UPDATE ON 91 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT
Anne Mayer provided an update on the October 9 construction accident on the
91 Project, including the investigations currently underway.
David Thomas, Toll Project Manager, provided background information for the
91 Project and the bridge jacking/lowering operation, highlighting the following areas:
91 Project map and the location of the accident; and
Graphical representations of a bridge jacking/lowering operation.
Anne Mayer explained staff felt it was important to provide simplistic visuals for a
bridge jacking/lowering operation. Ms. Mayer stated the Commission is handling all
press for the project and this accident. She requested if any Commissioners receive
press inquiries to refer them to John Standiford or Community Relations Manager
Eliza Echevarria.
11. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION
There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar.
12. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT
There were no reports from Commissioners or the Executive Director.
Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes
October 14, 2015
Page 7
At this time, Commissioner Kevin Jeffries and Caltrans District 8 Representative John Bulinski
left the meeting.
13. CLOSED SESSION
13A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Item APN(s) Property Owner(s)
1 285‐210‐023 Riverside County Transportation Commission
2 206‐151‐029
206‐151‐036
209‐020‐022
209‐020‐047
209‐020‐048
209‐060‐022
209‐060‐026
209‐070‐010
(Ferguson Property)
Riverside County Transportation Commission
13B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1)
Case No(s). RIC 1307299
There were no announcements from Closed Session items.
14. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County
Transportation Commission, Chair Busch adjourned the meeting at 10:31 a.m. The next
Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Thursday,
November 12, 2015, Board Room, Eastern Municipal Water District, 2270 Trumble Road,
Perris, CA.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Harmon
Clerk of the Board
AGENDA ITEM 7A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: November 12, 2015
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
Marla Dye, Procurement Analyst
Matt Wallace, Procurement Manager
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Single Signature Authority report for the
first quarter ended September 30, 2015.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Certain contracts are executed under single signature authority as permitted in the
Commission’s Procurement Policy Manual adopted in December 2012. The Executive Director
is authorized to sign services contracts that are less than $100,000 individually and in an
aggregate amount not to exceed $1 million in any given fiscal year. Additionally, in accordance
with Public Utilities Code Section 130323(c), the Executive Director is authorized to sign
contracts for supplies, equipment, materials, and construction of all facilities and works under
$50,000 individually.
The attached report details all contracts that have been executed for the first quarter ended
September 30, 2015, under the single signature authority granted to the Executive Director.
The unused capacity of single signature authority for services at September 30, 2015, is
$965,000.
Attachment: Single Signature Authority Report as of September 30, 2015
Agenda item 7A
1
CONSULTANT DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES ORIGINAL CONTRACT
AMOUNT
PAID AMOUNT REMAINING
CONTRACT AMOUNT
AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2015 $1,000,000.00
The Alberts Firm Client Trust Settlement Agreement 35,000.00 0.00 35,000.00
AMOUNT USED 35,000.00
35,000.00
$965,000.00
None N/A -$ -$ -$
Marla Dye Theresia Trevino
Prepared by Reviewed by
AMOUNT USED
SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY
AS OF September 30, 2015
Note: Shaded area represents new contracts listed in the first quarter.
AMOUNT REMAINING through September 30, 2015
Agreements that fall under Public Utilities Code 130323 (C)
2
AGENDA ITEM 7B
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: November 12, 2015
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer
Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director
Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Funding Plan for Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Provide input and direct staff regarding the preliminary funding plan for the
Interstate 15 Express Lanes project; and
2) Approve $60 million in federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) or Surface
Transportation Program (STP) funds for costs related to the I-15 Project and direct staff
to program the funding in the 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program
(FTIP).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The I-15 Express Lanes project will construct one to two tolled express lanes in each direction
between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the 15/60 interchange. All proposed
improvements are anticipated to be constructed within existing Caltrans right of way with the
majority of the improvements occurring within the existing I-I5 median. There are no
significant environmental impacts anticipated. Right of way impacts will be limited, and some
soundwalls will be built.
With tolled express lanes, users benefit from reduced travel times achieved through congestion
pricing. Tolls to be charged will vary by time of day based on congestion levels. The I-15
Express Lanes will provide many travel choices including carpooling, vanpooling, express bus,
and single occupant vehicle travel. A completely electronic toll collection system will be used,
and all vehicles in the tolled express lanes will be required to have a FasTrak transponder.
Environmental work is well underway, and environmental approval via a findings of no
significant impact is expected by March 2016. A Project and Construction Management (PCM)
team has been in place since April 2015. The investment grade traffic and revenue study is
Agenda Item 7B
3
underway and should be complete by March 2016. The project finance team including a
financial advisor and underwriters is in place and financial close is expected by mid 2017. Once
financial close occurs, construction will begin. The projected project opening is by mid 2020.
Preliminary Funding Plan
Based on prior cost estimates, traffic and revenue studies, and financial modeling, staff
developed a preliminary funding plan that anticipates use of toll revenue bonds, a federal loan
through the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program, Measure
A sales tax bonds, Measure A sales tax receipts, and federal CMAQ and/or STP grant funds. The
toll revenue bonds and TIFIA loan would be paid back by future tolls generated from express
lane users.
This preliminary funding plan above will change somewhat as the Commission progresses
through the project financing work. Currently project capital and long-term operating costs are
being re-estimated to reflect current pricing and other assumptions. An investment grade
traffic and revenue study is expected in early 2016. With updated cost and revenue estimates,
an updated financial model will be developed in 2016, which will provide the basis for a final
funding plan. The final funding plan will serve the Commission, as it applies for a federal TIFIA
loan, markets and sells toll revenue and sales tax bonds, and generally works to obtain financial
close.
Federal CMAQ and STP Funds
CMAQ funds are available for transportation projects and programs that help meet the
requirements of the Clean Air Act. STP funds are flexible and can be used for various types of
transportation improvements. The Commission is responsible for programming these funds
and has previously allocated CMAQ and STP funds directly to support Measure A projects, or
through a call for projects. Given the high cost of the I-15 Project and the desire to minimize
debt financing, staff recommends allocating $60 million of CMAQ and/or STP funds for this
project.
Agenda Item 7B
4
In Riverside County, CMAQ funds are primarily apportioned to two air basins in Riverside
County: South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB). The Commission
allocates funds for the SCAB or Western Riverside County, and the Coachella Valley Association
of Governments (CVAG) allocates SSAB CMAQ funds in Eastern Riverside County. The
$60 million is comprised of three years of SCAB CMAQ apportionment levels, annual
apportionment level is approximately $20 million and would be programmed in the FTIP in
FYs 2017/18 through 2019/20. As a result, CMAQ funds would be fully maximized during these
years.
CMAQ funding is not available for capacity increasing projects for single occupancy vehicles, but
it is available for projects such as the I-15 Project that fall under the air quality category of
Transportation Control Measures and is categorized in the Southern California Association of
Governments’ Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy as a
Transportation Demand Management strategy.
STP funds are apportioned based on population across the county. Project categories eligible
for STP funds include, but are not limited to: capacity enhancements, high occupancy vehicle
lanes, safety, road rehabilitation, active transportation, and intersection improvements. Annual
apportionment levels are approximately $26 million.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2016/17+ Amount: $462,359,860
Source of Funds:
2009 Measure A sales tax receipts and
sales tax revenue bonds; toll revenue
bonds; TIFIA loan; federal CMAQ and/or
STP funds
Budget Adjustment: N/A
GL/Project Accounting No.:
003027 000 59102 262 31 59102 (sales tax/toll revenue bonds)
003027 000 59102 262 31 59102 (TIFIA loan)
003027 414 41403 262 31 41401 (CMAQ/STP funds)
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 10/19/2015
Agenda Item 7B
5
AGENDA ITEM 7C
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: November 12, 2015
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
David Thomas, Toll Project Manager
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Amendment to Agreement with Cofiroute USA, LLC for Electronic Toll and
Traffic Management Systems Integration and Implementation for the State
Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve an increase in the contingency amount for Agreement No. 14-31-071-00 with
Cofiroute USA, LLC (Cofiroute) related to additional scope of work items for the
electronic toll and traffic management systems integration and implementation for the
State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (91 Project) for an additional amount of
$837,930 and a total not to exceed $27,517,930; and
2) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the
total amount not to exceed as required for the project.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At its January 31, 2014 meeting, the Commission adopted the sole source findings and awarded
Agreement No. 14-31-071-00 to Cofiroute to provide electronic toll and traffic management
systems integration and implementation for the 91 Project in the amount of $25.9 million, plus
a contingency amount of $780,000, for a total amount not to exceed $26,680,000.
DISCUSSION:
The work under this agreement has progressed to completion of the final design phase with
procurement of materials currently underway and construction scheduled to begin in April
2016. During the final design phase, additional details have come to light and are being
recommended by staff to be added to the scope. Additional scope items that need to progress
now to maintain the project schedule are presented in the table below and are considered
outside the scope of the original agreement. Additional scope items pertaining to toll collection
software development have been identified and will be brought to the Commission at a later
date as an additional contract amendment request.
Agenda Item 7C
6
The video wall item, identified in the table below, is a cost borne by the Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA) and has received OCTA board approval for inclusion into the
project. As part of the existing agreement between the Commission and OCTA, OCTA has the
ability to request additions to the project at its cost. Staff recommends OCTA’s addition of the
video wall upgrade at the Anaheim Traffic Operations Center for the joint benefit of both
agencies operating the 91 Express Lanes.
ADDITIONAL SCOPE ITEMS
Item Description RCTC Share OCTA Share
Video Wall Design, procure, and install a high level
traffic monitoring system video wall at
the Anaheim Traffic Operations Center.
The system includes larger screen
monitors, servers, recording devices,
and software.
N/A $458,330
Repair Fiber Repair a tree damaged OCTA fiber
conduit to the Anaheim Data Center in
exchange for sharing use of OCTA’s
conduit.
$63,034 N/A
Channelizers Procure 8,000 white channelizers for
installation on the toll lanes by the
design-builder. These channelizers
separate the tolled express lanes from
the general purpose lanes.
$316,566 N/A
Agency Subtotal: $379,600 $458,330
AMENDMENT TOTAL: $837,930
Staff recommends an increase of $837,930 in contingency amount for the electronic toll and
traffic management systems integration and implementation agreement related to the
additional scope items. Accordingly, the total authorized agreement with Cofiroute is a total
not to exceed $27,517,930. Staff will issue contract change orders for the additional scope
items.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2015/16 Amount: $837,930
Source of Funds: Toll Revenue Bond proceeds Budget Adjustment: No
GL/Project Accounting No.: 003028 81301 262 31 81301
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 10/19/2015
Agenda Item 7C
7
AGENDA ITEM 7D
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: November 12, 2015
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Budget and Implementation Committee
Lorelle Moe-Luna, Senior Management Analyst
Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: California Transportation Commission’s Active Transportation Program
Cycle 2 for Fiscal Years 2016/17 – 2018/19
BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve the Riverside County Active Transportation Program (ATP) projects for
inclusion in the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) ATP Regional Program
Cycle 2 consisting of the highest scoring projects identified in Table 2 in the total
amount of $9,204,000;
2) Approve programming ATP and/or a combination of SB 821 and federal funds of up to
$2,293,000 for one or more projects scoring 80/90 points in order to maximize Riverside
County MPO ATP funds;
3) Approve programming additional ATP funds to projects scoring 80/90 should any ATP
Cycle 2 funds become available based on Caltrans findings of ineligible project line item
costs;
4) Submit the recommended projects to the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) for inclusion in the MPO ATP Regional Program and subsequent
submittal to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for final approval in
January 2016;
5) Submit the MPO ATP regional projects to SCAG for inclusion in the Federal
Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) programming; and
6) Direct staff to coordinate with the MPO ATP Regional Program project sponsors
regarding timely funding allocations, obligations, and project delivery.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
SB 99 created the ATP focusing state and federal funds toward projects that improve public
health and reduce greenhouse gases. The CTC is responsible for administering the program
including the development of guidelines, which involves public input. Project categories for
these funds mainly include pedestrian and bike facilities or programs that enhance or
encourage walking and bicycling. The second cycle began with the release of a call for projects
on March 26, 2015. The call for projects included three categories of funding:
Agenda Item 7D
8
Funding Category Amount
Statewide Competitive (50 percent set aside) $ 179,500,000
Small Urban and Rural Competitive (10 percent set aside) 35,900,000
Large MPO Competitive (40 percent set aside) 143,600,000
Total Available ATP Funds – Cycle 2 $ 359,000,000
Applications were due to the CTC and Caltrans by June 1. The CTC received a total of 617
project applications valued at over $1 billion. Scoring of applications was managed by the CTC
and involved the participation of various agencies including, but not limited to, regional
transportation planning agencies, MPOs, Caltrans, councils of governments, county public
health departments, and advocacy and interest groups such as Safe Routes to Schools,
California Bicycle Coalition, and Rails to Trails. In total, Riverside County agencies submitted
31 projects requesting approximately $45 million of ATP funding in this cycle of funding.
The ATP process allows applicants two rounds of opportunity to be awarded – statewide and
MPO level. As part of the sequential project selection, projects are first evaluated statewide
and those that are not ranked high enough for statewide funding are automatically provided a
second opportunity for funding through the large MPO share.
Applications were scored based on the following criteria:
TOTAL
POINTS ATP CYCLE 2 SCORING CRITERIA
30 pts Potential for increased walking and bicycling
25 pts Potential for reducing the number and/or rate of
bicycle/pedestrian fatalities and injuries
15 pts Public participation and planning
5 pts Cost Effectiveness
10 pts Improved Public Health
10 pts Benefits to Disadvantaged Communities
5 pts Leveraging of Funds
100 pts Total
Points were also deducted if the applicant did not contact the California Conservation Corps or
a Certified Community Conservation Corps prior to submitting the application to Caltrans,
and/or if the applicant’s performance on past grants and deliverability of projects were not
satisfactory.
CTC/Caltrans Statewide Competitive Funding Recommendations
On October 22, 2014, the CTC approved its project recommendations for the statewide
competitive component, which included the following two projects from Riverside County:
Agenda Item 7D
9
TABLE 1
CTC/CALTRANS ATP PROJECT FUNDING FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY – STATEWIDE COMPETITION
Agency Project ATP Funds *DAC CTC
Score
Riverside County
Public Health Department
Safe Routes to School, East Riverside $500,000 99.0
Riverside County
Transportation Department
(RCTD)
3rd Place Sidewalk and Roadway Safety
Improvements (in the Blythe area)
721,000 92.0
Riverside County Statewide Total $1,221,000
*DAC – Disadvantaged Community per CTC guidelines
Large MPO Competitive Program
The SCAG MPO ATP share is approximately $74 million for implementation projects and up to
approximately $2.3 million for planning activities. The SCAG MPO implementation ATP funds
are distributed by county based on population as follows:
County Implementation
Funding Amount
Imperial $707,659
Los Angeles 39,975,068
Orange 12,429,163
Riverside 9,203,863
San Bernardino 8,347,786
Ventura 3,343,581
Total $74,007,120
MPO ATP guidelines allow each county transportation commission to add up to 10 points to the
CTC score for projects based on local criteria. At its May 2014 meeting, the Commission
approved adding 10 points to projects consistent with adopted local and regional plans. All
Riverside County projects, at a minimum, are consistent with the SCAG adopted 2012 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Adding 10 points to Riverside County
project scores for the projects not recommended for the statewide competitive program results
in the next highest scores for consideration of MPO ATP funds:
TABLE 2
RIVERSIDE COUNTY MPO ATP 10 POINT SCORING
Agency Project CTC
Score
CTC
Score +
10 pts
ATP
Requested
Funds
Cumulative
Total
Wildomar Grand Avenue Multi-Use Trail
Improvement Project
83.0 93.0 $1,223,000 $1,223,000
Agenda Item 7D
10
Moreno Valley Segment of the Juan Bautista De Anza
Multi-Use Trail
83.0 93.0 1,431,000 2,654,000
Jurupa Valley Jurupa Valley High School Safe Routes
to School
82.0 92.0 1,252,000 3,906,000
Riverside Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian
Improvements
82.0 92.0 1,042,000 4,948,000
Banning Bicycle and Safe Routes to School
Improvements
82.0 92.0 1,082,000 6,030,000
San Jacinto San Jacinto Valley Connect 81.0 91.0 646,000 6,676,000
RCTD Camino Aventura Sidewalk Safety
Improvements
81.0 91.0 902,000 7,578,000
RCTD Mecca Sidewalk and Roadway Safety
Improvements
80.0 90.0 851,000 8,429,000
RCTD Thousand Palms Sidewalk Safety
Improvements
80.0 90.0 868,000 9,297,000
Coachella ATP Cycle 2 Bike and Pedestrian
Improvements
80.0 90.0 2,200,000 11,497,000
Total $11,497,000 $11,497,000
Total Riverside County MPO/ATP Share $ 9,204,000
Difference $ 2,293,000
SCAG will recommend approval of the project below in its 3 percent planning pot
WRCOG Limonite Ave. Corridor Active
Transportation Study
88.0 98.0 $250,000 $250,000
Staff Recommendations for Large MPO, Riverside County Projects
Based on the above table, staff recommends projects with scores of 81/91 and above receive
ATP funds. However, there are three projects that scored 80/90 points resulting in a three-way
tie: city of Coachella’s bike and pedestrian improvement project, county of Riverside’s Mecca
sidewalk and roadway safety improvements, and county of Riverside’s Thousand Palms
sidewalk safety improvements. Unfortunately, there is insufficient funding remaining for all
three projects, which would result in overprogramming in the amount of $2,293,000.
In order to approve all of the projects scoring 80 and above, staff proposes the following:
• Coachella, ATP Cycle 2
Fund this project with ATP or a combination of available SB 821 and/or federal
funds.
• Riverside County, Mecca Sidewalk and Roadway Safety Improvements
Fund this project with ATP and/or a combination of available SB 821 and/or
federal funds. This project is a smaller project, less than $1 million, and located
in a rural and unincorporated area of the county.
Agenda Item 7D
11
" R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y , T h o u s a n d P a l m s S i d e w a l k a n d S a f e t y I m p r o v e m e n t s
F u n d t h i s p r o j e c t w i t h A T P a n d / o r a c o m b i n a t i o n o f a v a i l a b l e S B 8 2 1 a n d / o r
f e d e r a l f u n d s . T h i s p r o j e c t i s a s m a l l e r p r o j e c t , l e s s t h a n $ 1 m i l l i o n , a n d l o c a t e d
i n a r u r a l a n d u n i n c o r p o r a t e d a r e a o f t h e c o u n t y .
T h e s e p r o j e c t s w i l l b e r e v i e w e d f o r e l i g i b i l i t y r e q u i r e m e n t s u n d e r S B 8 2 1 a n d f e d e r a l S u r f a c e
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P r o g r a m a n d C o n g e s t i o n M i t i g a t i o n a n d A i r Q u a l i t y p r o g r a m f u n d s . F u n d i n g
a v a i l a b i l i t y f r o m t h e s e p r o g r a m s i s l i m i t e d , h o w e v e r , p r o g r a m m i n g a c o m b i n a t i o n o f f u n d
s o u r c e s w o u l d l i k e l y r e s u l t i n f u n d i n g t h e r e q u e s t e d a m o u n t o f f u n d s f o r t h e s e t h r e e p r o j e c t s
s c o r i n g 8 0 / 9 0 p o i n t s .
U p o n a p p r o v a l o f t h i s i t e m , C T C i s r e q u i r i n g a l l p r o j e c t s r e c o m m e n d e d t o b e f u n d e d w i t h M P O
A T P f u n d s m u s t b e r e v i e w e d b y C a l t r a n s f o r e l i g i b i l i t y p u r p o s e s . C a l t r a n s w i l l p r o v i d e a n
a n a l y s i s a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n f o r M P O A T P p r o j e c t s p r i o r t o t h e C T C s a p p r o v a l o f A T P M P O
p r o j e c t s . A s a r e s u l t o f t h e a n a l y s i s , C a l t r a n s m a y i d e n t i f y i n e l i g i b l e p r o j e c t l i n e i t e m c o s t s . I f
t h i s o c c u r s , s t a f f w i l l r e p r o g r a m A T P C y c l e 2 f u n d s t o p r o j e c t s s c o r i n g 8 0 / 9 0 t o m a x i m i z e A T P
f u n d i n g .
N e x t S t e p s
U p o n a p p r o v a l o f t h e a b o v e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r M P O A T P f u n d i n g , s t a f f w i l l s u b m i t t h e
p r o j e c t s t o S C A G f o r C a l t r a n s e l i g i b i l i t y r e v i e w a n d i n c l u s i o n i n t h e M P O A T P R e g i o n a l P r o g r a m
C y c l e 2 , w h i c h w i l l b e a p p r o v e d a t t h e S C A G R e g i o n a l C o u n c i l m e e t i n g o n J a n u a r y 7 , 2 0 1 6 .
S u b s e q u e n t l y , S C A G w i l l s u b m i t t h e M P O R e g i o n a l A T P p r o j e c t s t o t h e C T C f o r f i n a l a p p r o v a l a t
t h e J a n u a r y 2 0 C T C m e e t i n g .
S t a f f w i l l w o r k c l o s e l y w i t h p r o j e c t s p o n s o r s i n p r e p a r i n g a l l o c a t i o n f u n d i n g r e q u e s t s a n d
r e q u e s t s f o r o b l i g a t i n g f e d e r a l f u n d s . P r o j e c t s w i l l a l s o b e r e q u i r e d t o b e i n c l u d e d i n t h e F T I P .
A s a c o n d i t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t a l l o c a t i o n , t h e C T C w i l l r e q u i r e p r o j e c t s p o n s o r s t o s u b m i t s e m i -
a n n u a l r e p o r t s o n t h e a c t i v i t i e s a n d p r o g r e s s m a d e t o w a r d i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t , a n d
a f i n a l d e l i v e r y r e p o r t i s r e q u i r e d u p o n p r o j e c t c o m p l e t i o n . T h e p u r p o s e o f t h e r e p o r t s i s t o
e n s u r e t h e p r o j e c t i s i m p l e m e n t e d i n a t i m e l y m a n n e r a c c o r d i n g t o t h e s c o p e a n d b u d g e t
i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e p r o j e c t a p p l i c a t i o n .
S t a f f w i l l c o n t i n u e t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n C T C / C a l t r a n s w o r k i n g g r o u p s t o f u r t h e r d e v e l o p a n d
i m p r o v e t h e A T P g u i d e l i n e s a n d p r o c e s s , a n d p a r t i c i p a t e i n f u t u r e e v a l u a t i o n s o f A T P p r o j e c t
a p p l i c a t i o n s .
A g e n d a I t e m 7 D
1 2
Financial Impact
ATP funds are administered through the CTC, Caltrans, and Federal Highway Administration.
The Commission is not a recipient of these MPO ATP funds; therefore, there is no fiscal impact
to the Commission’s budget. However, the Commission administers the SB 821 program for
Riverside County and staff anticipates these funds would be budgeted in FY 2016/17 and
beyond.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2016/17+ Amount: Not to exceed $2,293,000
Source of Funds: Transportation Development Act SB 821 Budget Adjustment: N/A
GL/Project Accounting No.: 002211 86106 601 62 86106
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 10/19/2015
Attachment: CTC Score Rankings for All Riverside County Applications
Agenda Item 7D
13
*Western Riverside Limonite Corridor Active Transportation Study $250,000 $250,000 83.00
Wildomar Grand Avenue Multi-Use Trail Improvement Project $1,541,000 $1,223,000 $1,223,000 83.00
Moreno Valley Segment of the Juan Bautista De Anza Multi-use Trail $1,431,000 $1,431,000 $2,654,000 83.00
Jurupa Valley Jurupa Valley High School SRTS $1,467,000 $1,252,000 $3,906,000 82.00
Riverside Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements $1,249,000 $1,042,000 $4,948,000 82.00
Banning Bicycle and SRTS Improvements $1,082,000 $1,082,000 $6,030,000 82.00
San Jacinto San Jacinto Valley Connect $656,000 $646,000 $6,676,000 81.00
RCTD Camino Avenue Sidewalk Safety Improvements $1,002,000 $902,000 $7,578,000 81.00
*City of Coachella ATP Cycle 2 $2,755,000 $1,626,000 $9,204,000 80.00
*Coachella requested $2.2M of ATP. $1.626M is available for project.
*CTC Notified WRCOG that project was deemed ineligible for MPO Planning funds
RCTD Mecca Sidewalk and Roadway Safety Improvements $945,000 $851,000 $ 10,055 8,429,000 80.00
RCTD Thousand Palms Sidewalk Safety Improvements $1,085,000 $868,000 $ 10,923 9,297,000 80.00
City of Coachella ATP Cycle 2 $ 2,755,000 $ 2,200,000 $ 11,497,000 80.00
Indio SRTS Project $1,897,000 $1,897,000 79.00
Eastvale SRTS Citywide Safety Improvements, Education and $577,000 $461,000 78.00
Perris Perris Valley Storm Drain Channel Trail-Phase 2 $1,743,000 $1,572,000 75.00
RCTD Clark Street Sidewalk and intersection Safety Improvements $2,376,000 $1,324,000 74.00
Riverside Gage Canal Bike Path and Multi-use Trail $2,213,000 $2,213,000 72.00
Perris Perris Metrolink Station Bike Route and Pedestrian Connectivity $1,311,000 $950,000 69.00
Temecula Santa Gertrudis Creek Ped/Bicycle Trail Extension and $4,362,000 $3,581,000 68.00
Riverside County DPH Active Transportation Program, North Shore $628,000 $500,000 62.00
Wildomar Union Street Multi-Use Path $2,071,000 $2,050,000 61.00
RCTD Dillon Road Bike Lane Improvements $2,560,000 $2,560,000 60.00
Moreno Valley Gap Closure Sidewalk on Alessando Blvd at Old 215 Frontage Rd.$934,000 $934,000 60.00
Moreno Valley Cactus Avenue/Philo Street School Crossing Traffic Signal $646,000 $646,000 59.00
CVAG Coachella Valley-CV Link Spurs $4,836,000 $4,652,000 53.00
Hemet Hemet Valley Bikeway Connect $977,000 $977,000 50.00
Riverside Railroad Crossing Sidewalk improvements $2,071,000 $2,071,000 49.00
Riverside Ramona Sidewalk Improvements $5,521,000 $5,521,000 48.50
Beaumont Bikeway and Pedestrian Master Plan $23,000 $23,000 31.00
Cathedral City Festival Park Plan and Corresponding Pedestrian Plan $297,000 $250,000 28.00
CVAG = Coachella Valley Association of Governments RCTD = Riverside County Transportation Department
Large MPO ATP Cycle 2 Project Recommendations
Recommend Funding with ATP and/or any combination of SB 821, Federal STP and/or CMAQ Funds
Below Projects Not Recommended for Large MPO ATP Cycle 2 (score <80)
REVISION TO ATTACHMENT 1 TO AGENDA ITEM 7D
ADDITIONS ARE NOTED BY BOLD ITALICS, DELETIONS ARE NOTED BY STRIKETHROUGH
AGENDA ITEM 7E
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: November 12, 2015
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee
Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Metrolink Budget Actions to Support Locomotive Procurements
BUGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve Commission participation in the Metrolink lease of BNSF Railway (BNSF)
locomotives in the amount of $1,585,231;
2) Approve Commission participation in the optional procurement of 17 new Metrolink
Tier IV locomotives in the amount of $2.7 million;
3) Approve Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 16-25-014-02, Amendment No. 1
to MOU No. 16-25-014-01, with the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA)
for additional funding in the amount of $1,585,231 related to the locomotives lease for
a total operating budget subsidy amount of $15,577,255 and for authorization to use
$2.7 million of Fiscal Year 2015/16 or carryover rehabilitation/renovation funds for the
procurement of the Tier IV locomotives; and
4) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute
the agreement on behalf of the Commission.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
BNSF Locomotives
At its September 25, 2015 meeting, the SCRRA Board of Directors (SCRRA Board) took the initial
step toward the implementation of a lease agreement with BNSF upon its approval to expend
$5,275,000 for the lease of 40 General Electric AC4400CW locomotives from BNSF. This action
was necessitated by Metrolink operating parameters wherein the train consists are set up in a
“push – pull” configuration and a temporary need has been identified, which requires that a
locomotive be placed at each end in order to eliminate the use of the cab-car taking the lead.
On October 9, 2015, the SCRRA Board further memorialized the lease agreement with BNSF by
taking action to formally amend the FY 2015/16 Metrolink budget to provide the authority to
execute the contract actions needed to lease the 40 locomotives from BNSF. The budget
authority approved by the SCRRA Board for the lease of the locomotives now totals an
Agenda Item 7E
15
additional $17,892,000 for the lease, operation, maintenance, and modification of the 40
locomotives. This figure includes the $5,275,000 previously approved by the SCRRA Board for
the lease in September.
New Purchase of Tier IV Locomotives
On three previous occasions, the SCRRA Board approved the purchase of 40 Tier IV locomotives
from EMD Corporation (EMD) at the price of $6.3 million each. Twenty locomotives have been
purchased and are currently under construction. SCRRA is now working with the member
agencies on finalizing the option for the additional locomotives. While the option consists of 20
locomotives for a total of 40, the member agencies have only agreed in concept to a total of 37
locomotives.
DISCUSSION:
BNSF Locomotives
Staff is in receipt of a request from SCRRA dated October 15, 2015, which is attached wherein
the agency formally requested the Commission to participate in the lease arrangement. Staff
concurs with the calculation outlined in the request for the Commission to provide an
additional subsidy of $1,585,231 in order to fund the BNSF locomotive lease and operations
through the remainder of FY 2015/16.
At its June 10 meeting, the Commission approved the FY 2015/16 budget, which included
funding authorization for Metrolink operations in the amount of $16 million. At the time, staff
was still actively negotiating with SCRRA the actual amount of subsidy required and ultimately
agreed on an agency subsidy of approximately $14 million for the fiscal year. Since the final
subsidy number came in lower than the staff estimate used to prepare the Commission’s
budget, sufficient Commission approved budget authority currently exists for the Commission
to participate in the BNSF lease without a budget adjustment.
Staff is however, bringing this issue to the Commission’s attention in order to ensure
transparency with respect to Metrolink operations and the financial resources required to
support them since the lease of additional locomotives to operate in a “pull – pull”
configuration was not envisioned at the time the budget was approved. Given that passenger
safety is of utmost importance, staff is recommending the Commission approve the
participation in the BNSF lease on a temporary basis in order to structure the train consists into
a “pull – pull” configuration.
New Purchase of Tier IV Locomotives
South Coast Air Quality Management District grant funds have off-set the majority of costs for
SCRRA to purchase the new Tier IV locomotives. Additionally, member agencies including the
Commission programmed funds for locomotive rehabilitation in FYs 2014/15 and 2015/16.
Agenda Item 7E
16
These rehabilitation funds can easily be reprogrammed so as to minimize the financial impact
to the member agencies. No budget adjustment is necessary for the locomotives purchase.
Staff is now in receipt of a letter from SCRRA dated October 13, 2015, which is attached
wherein the agency formally requested Commission participation in the purchase of additional
locomotives. Staff concurs with the Metrolink calculation of an additional subsidy of
$2.7 million for the locomotive funding plan. Of that, roughly $2.2 million of funds is available
from the Commission-held Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Grant CA-05-0268. The
Commission has the ability to provide a cash payment to Metrolink for this amount since the
funds pass through the Commission. For the remaining funding commitment balance of
$500,000, those are funds that Metrolink currently has in previously approved FTA grants
(CA-05-0235-01 and CA-90-Y934) that it will need to draw down directly.
Next Steps
The Commission is in a solid position with respect to funding both locomotive initiatives,
however, this is not the case for all member agencies. While grants are in place with the other
member agencies to support the optional purchase of 17 additional Tier IV locomotives, they
are reimbursable in nature and cash flow at Metrolink may in fact be an issue with respect to
making a down payment on the option with EMD. The BNSF lease may also prove to be a
stumbling block for other member agencies as well for similar reasons.
As directed by the Commission at its September 9 meeting, staff is in the process of executing
the annual MOU with SCRRA. This MOU will need to be amended to accommodate both the
BNSF locomotives lease as well as the purchase of the additional Tier IV locomotives.
As previously mentioned, the Commission has sufficient funds in the current budget for both
locomotive procurements. Therefore, a budget amendment is not required at this time. Staff
will continue to keep the Commission informed as events unfold with respect to both
locomotive procurements.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2014/15 Amount: $4,285,231
Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds (lease);
FTA (purchase) Budget Adjustment: No
GL/Project Accounting No.: 254199 86101 103 25 86101 $1,585,231 (BNSF lease & operations)
004017 86102 265 33 86102 $2,700,000 (locomotives purchase)
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 10/19/2015
Attachments:
1) Letter Dated October 13, 2015 Regarding Purchase of Locomotives
2) Letter Dated October 15, 2015 Regarding BNSF Locomotives Lease
3) Draft MOU No. 16-25-014-02
Agenda Item 7E
17
ATTACHMENT 118
October 15, 2015
SENT VIA EMAIL
Anne Mayer, Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon St., 3rd Flr
Riverside, CA 92501
AMayer@RCTC.org
Dear Anne:
First, I would like to thank the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) for its support
and commitment to providing safe transportation options for Southern California. As you may know, at
Metrolink’s regularly-scheduled meeting on October 9th, its Board of Directors approved an item to
fund the 12-month lease, operation, maintenance and modification of 40 BNSF locomotives. These
locomotives will be added to Metrolink trains in an abundance of caution while the NTSB continues its
investigation of the Oxnard incident. The BNSF locomotives are newer than the majority of Metrolink’s
current locomotives and will provide the additional benefit of improved reliability due to a reduction in
mechanical delays.
While there have been various meetings and discussions on this matter with the Metrolink Board and
with the member agencies over the past five weeks, I wanted to advise you that Metrolink’s Board
has approved the funding of the locomotives. This communication outlines the cost, each member
agency’s individual contribution and information on the timeline for the funding. Additionally, I have
attached the board item from the October 9, 2015 Board meeting that outlines the funding request.
The total estimated cost to lease and operate 40 PTC-equipped BNSF locomotives for 12 months is
$17.9 million for FY2015-16 and $6 million for FY2016-17. Individual member agency’s percentage
shares for FY2015-16 will be allocated based on budgeted train miles. RCTC’s share for FY2015-16
is 8.86 percent ($1,585,231). Metrolink plans to incorporate the lease and associated costs into the
operating subsidy billing cycle for each member agency. After your board has approved a budget
amendment, our Finance Department will be in touch with your staff to coordinate an arrangement for
billing this additional cost.
FY2016-17 costs and agency shares will be included in the upcoming budget. Please note that staff
assembled information and developed the cost estimates in an accelerated manner and were
conservative. As potential opportunities to reduce costs are identified, staff will strive to do so in order
to minimize expenses to member agencies.
ATTACHMENT 2
19
Locomotive Lease Costs letter
Page 2
While this action offers the benefits of safety and reliability for our employees, passengers and
contractors, I realize this is an unexpected, substantial cost for your agency. Thank for for continuing
to make safe transportation the top priority for Metrolink and for Southern California. I appreciate and
am grateful for our partnership.
Please let me know if I can provide you with additional information.
Sincerely,
Arthur T. Leahy
Chief Executive Officer
20
One Gateway Plaza, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012
S OUTHERN C ALIFORNIA R EGIONAL R AIL A UTHORITY
TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 2, 2015
MEETING DATE: October 9, 2015 ITEM 7
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Arthur T. Leahy
SUBJECT: Authorize Expenditure of Funds and Contract Actions to
Support Locomotive Lease from BNSF Railway Company
Issue
Approval is required to amend the FY2015-16 Operating Budget and execute the contract
actions required to support the lease of 40 locomotives from BNSF Railway Company.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Board amend the FY2015-16 Operating Budget by $17.892 million
and authorize the Chief Executive Officer to take the contract actions identified in Table 3 to
modify, maintain, and operate the locomotives leased from BNSF.
Alternatives
The Board may decline to authorize the action and amend the Operating Budget.
If the Board selects the alternative the current operating plan would require that Metrolink service
be reduced by approximately half, from 165 daily trains to 80 or 90 daily trains.
Background
At its September 25, 2015 meeting, the Board approved an increase the FY2015-16 Operating
Budget by $5.275 million and authorized the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute a lease
of 40 locomotives from BNSF in order to address a temporary need to place a locomotive in the
lead position on all Metrolink trips.
While the September 25, 2015 Board action was specific to the FY2015-16 lease, delivery and
return costs totaling $5.275 million, the staff report detailed the full costs of putting the BNSF
leased locomotives in service under the Authority’s operations, including ensuring Positive Train
Control (PTC) compatibility. Because the BNSF locomotives are dissimilar to Metrolink’s
existing locomotive fleet in many respects, the Authority’s current maintenance staff would need
to be augmented and trained to maintain the leased locomotives. Additionally, spare parts would
need to be procured and some modification would be required to make these locomotives
compliant and compatible for Metrolink service. The September 25, 2015 Board item included
cost estimates to lease, modify, operate, fuel, and maintain the leased locomotives for
REVISED – as identified
at the 10/9/15 Board
meeting
21
Authorize Expenditure of Funds and Contract Actions to Support Locomotive Lease from BNSF
Railway Company
Transmittal Date: October 2, 2015 Meeting Date: October 9, 2015
Page 2
FY2015-16 totaling $12,665,000.9 million and costs for PTC modifications totaling
$5,227,0006.22 million, similar to Tables 1 and 2 provided below.
The current request is to obtain budget authorization for the remainder of the costs associated
with putting the BNSF locomotives in service as detailed in Tables 1 and 2 below. These tables
reflect the total estimated cost for utilizing the leased locomotives over a 12-month period.
Table 1: BNSF Locomotive Lease Cost Not Including PTC Modifications
Cost Item FY2015-16 FY2016-171
(Oct-Jun) (Jul-Sept)
BNSF Lease Cost: $500/Day ($15,000/locomotive month)
Staggered arrival of units (Oct-Dec):
15 units x 9 mos. (Oct-Jun) = 135 locomotive months
15 units x 8 mos. (Nov-Jun) = 120 locomotive months
10 units x 7 mos. (Dec-Jun) = 70 locomotive months
40 units total FY16: 325 locomotive months $4,875,000
40 units total FY17: 155 locomotive months $2,325,000
Delivery of locomotives ($5,000/locomotive) $200,000
Return delivery ($5,000/locomotive) $200,000
Major Component Parts - from GE or certified GE parts
$800,000 distributor minus main engine covered by BNSF lease/warranty
($20,000/locomotive)
Additional Labor for Maintenance – 10 persons from TCS, a
new, specialized equipment maintenance contractor, additional
Bombardier equipment maintenance labor ($300,000/mo.)
$2,700,000 $900,000.00
Additional Fuel @ $2.20 Gal (2.8GPMI x 4,600 miles/mo. =
$28,340/locomotive month) $9,210,500 $3,400,800
Diesel Fuel Offset - from forecasted underrun of FY16 fuel ($7,010,500) ($2,588,492)
Wheel Truing (6 axles/locomotive @ $1500/axle =
$9,000/locomotive) $360,000
Work Management System Software Modification $80,000 ($2,000/locomotive)
Potential Brake, PEI, ATS, Train Line, Door Stop,
Other Modifications, Parts, Development And FRA
Submittals $1,000,000
($25,000/locomotive)
1 FY2016-17 dollars are included for informational purposes only at this time and will be included in the FY2016-17 budget.
22
Authorize Expenditure of Funds and Contract Actions to Support Locomotive Lease from BNSF
Railway Company
Transmittal Date: October 2, 2015 Meeting Date: October 9, 2015
Page 3
Temporary Facility Modifications, Security, Miscellaneous
Items - CMF, Keller Yard, and other storage yard modifications
to accommodate locomotives or displaced fleet storage,
equipment rental, trailers, test tools, manuals, etc., increased
track inspection, repair, lubrication at LAUS and Dayton, CMF,
other yards and track. PNA Ramps and Signage at Stations
($50,000/mo.)
$450,000 $150,000
SUBTOTAL NOT INCLUDING PTC MODIFICATIONS $12,665,000 $4,387,308
Table 2: BNSF Locomotive Modification, Testing and Documentation for Authority’s
Positive Train Control Program
Cost Item FY2015-16 FY2016-17
(Oct-Jun) (Jul-Sept)
PTC Consultants - design, QA/QC, FRA coordination,
documentation, PM/CM $1,620,000 $540,000
PTC Contractors - software/hardware installation,
modification, unit testing, configuration management
($30,000/locomotive)
$1,200,000
Additional PTC Equipment/Hardware modifications or
relocations from cab cars and back - SLOT 10, TMC, event
recorder, etc. ($30,000/locomotive)
$1,200,000
PTC Contractors - removal of software/hardware, restore to
original condition, configuration management
($20,000/locomotive)
$800,000
Test Trains Staffing & Operation (50 test runs @ $5,000/run) $250,000
PTC Back Office Modifications for Revised Consists $400,000 $100,000
Contingency $557,000 $174,000
SUBTOTAL PTC MODIFICATIONS $5,227,000 $1,614,000
NET TOTAL Including Potential Fuel Offset Costs $17,892,000 $6,001,308
Member agency shares will be allocated based on budgeted train-miles. For FY16, the
allocation percentages are:
23
Authorize Expenditure of Funds and Contract Actions to Support Locomotive Lease from BNSF
Railway Company
Transmittal Date: October 2, 2015 Meeting Date: October 9, 2015
Page 4
In order to put the BNSF leased locomotives in service, operate and maintain them, the Authority
must issue contract task orders or change orders to a number of existing contracts. Contract
actions will be executed with existing contractors, consultants and vendors in accordance with
the budget provided in Tables 1 and 2 above. Due to limited contract authority or contract
expirations, Board approval is needed to authorize the following changes to the existing
contracts as provided in Table 3.
Table 3: Contract Actions Needed to Support BNSF Leased Locomotives
NON-PTC CONTRACT ACTIONS
Firm Contract # Board Action
Bombardier OP120-03 Extend term and increase contract
funding authorization
Fuel (Merit Oil and SC Fuels) PO577-15 &
PO651-15 Increase contract authority
General Electric or Authorized
Distributor TBD Non-competitive award and contract
funding authorization
TCS Maintenance Support for
Locomotives TBD Non-competitive award and contract
funding authorization
Various Yards, Facility
Modifications, Rentals and
Security
Various Increase contract funding authorization
PTC CONTRACT ACTIONS
Firm Contract # Board Action
AECOM E737B-08
No cost time extension to existing
General Engineering Contract - 9 month
term, from 12/31/15 to 9/30/16.
Systra E733-09C
No cost time extension to existing
Signal contract of 10.5 months, from
11/19/15 to 9/30/16.
Parsons Transportation Group H1636-10
There is a separate Board Item to
increase Contract Authority by $5M (for
Perris Valley Line and BNSF lease)
Wabtec Railway Electronics H1655-14 Increase Contract Authority by
$300kRefer to Item No. 9
Telco Vendors (ATT, Verizon) Various Increase budget authority
24
Authorize Expenditure of Funds and Contract Actions to Support Locomotive Lease from BNSF
Railway Company
Transmittal Date: October 2, 2015 Meeting Date: October 9, 2015
Page 5
A wide variety of contract actions will be required to quickly implement the maintenance, service
and parts support of the BNSF’s locomotives lease. In general these contract actions are listed
in the Table 3.
At its September 25, 2015 meeting, the Board authorized the lease with BNSF. This approval
was in accordance with Board-approved Contract Administration Policies and Procedures, CON-
18, Emergency Procurement, which allows entering into contracts without observance of
competitive bids, advertisement or notice, and CON-19, Non-Competitive Procurements, which
authorizes the Board to enter into non-competitive procurements when goods or services are
available only from a single source and when it is in the Authority’s best interest.
Staff has analyzed the prices and found them to be competitive, fair, and reasonable, as well as
available on the short notice.
Risks
Several low to moderate risks have been identified in association with these actions and are
categorized below:
1) In order for the leased BNSF freight locomotives to be compliant with Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) regulations, modifications or approved FRA waiver requests will be
required. These modifications or waivers would include Passenger Emergency Intercom
(PEI), Automatic Train Stop (ATS), Door Stop Interlock, and certain brake modifications.
There is a low risk that the modifications cannot be effectively made and a low to
moderate risk that the FRA may not grant requested waivers in a timely manner or grant
waivers at all.
2) Because the Authority is now at a relatively advanced stage of operating with PTC in
FRA-approved Revenue Service Demonstration (RSD), it is highly desirable to maintain
this status. The BNSF locomotives are being delivered equipped with PTC but must be
modified to work within the Authority’s PTC System. Authority staff must perform tests
and submit documents to the FRA in order to qualify this type of locomotive for Authority
PTC service. There is a low to moderate risk that the PTC on-board equipment cannot be
modified to operate within the Authority’s PTC system or that the FRA may not grant
requested waivers in a timely manner.
Next Steps
Staff will finalize the contact actions identified in the Table 3 in order to execute the lease of
locomotives from BNSF and put them in service. Staff will return on a quarterly basis, or more
frequently if desired, to keep the Board apprised of status.
Budget Impact
The budget for the items described in this item will come from an increase in the FY2015-16
Operating Budget in the amount of $17.892 million and would be allocated based on budgeted
25
Authorize Expenditure of Funds and Contract Actions to Support Locomotive Lease from BNSF
Railway Company
Transmittal Date: October 2, 2015 Meeting Date: October 9, 2015
Page 6
train-miles formulae. Staff will continue to explore additional funding offset opportunities (i.e.,
diesel fuel savings) as a way to decrease the overall project budget.
Prepared by: Darrell Maxey, Deputy Chief Operating Officer, PTC & Engineering
Kimberly Yu, Deputy Chief Operating Officer, Planning and Project Delivery
Lia McNeil-Kakaris, Assistant Director, Contacts and Procurement
Gary Lettengarver
Chief Operating Officer
26
Agreement No. 16-25-014-02
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AND
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY
FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2015-16 ANNUAL FUNDING MOU
1.PARTIES AND DATE
This Amendment No. 1 to the memorandum of understanding (MOU) is effective as of this ___
day of ____________ 2015, by and between the Southern California Regional Rail Authority
(hereinafter referred to as “SCRRA”), One Gateway Plaza 12th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90012,
and the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside,
California 92501, a public agency (hereinafter referred to as “RCTC”), which are sometimes
individually referred to as “PARTY”, and collectively referred to as “PARTIES”.
2.RECITALS
2.1 The parties have entered into an MOU dated _________ for the purpose of defining
RCTC’s financial commitments to the SCRRA fiscal year (FY) 2015-16 operating budget
and rehabilitation/renovation and capital budget (collectively, the “BUDGET”)
2.2 The parties now desire to amend the MOU for additional funding related to the lease,
operation, maintenance, and modification of 40 BNSF Railway (BNSF) locomotives and
for authorization to use rehabilitation/renovation funds for the procurement of 17 Tier IV
locomotives.
3.TERMS
3.1 Exhibit "A" of the MOU, titled "SCRRA Budget", shall be replaced, in its entirety, with the
version of Exhibit "A" attached to this Amendment and incorporated herein by reference.
3.2 The maximum operating budget subsidy for the BNSF locomotives lease pursuant to
this Amendment shall be One Million Five Hundred Eighty-Five Thousand Two Hundred
Thirty-One Dollars ($1,585,231) for a total net subsidy amount of $15,577,254.40, as
further set forth in Exhibit “A” attached to this Amendment and incorporated herein by
reference.
3.3 SCRRA shall reprogram Two Million Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,700,000) of
FY 2015/16 rehabilitation/renovation or Carryover rehabilitation/renovation & new
capital budget funds for the procurement of 17 new Metrolink Tier IV locomotives, as
further set forth in Exhibit "A" attached to this Amendment and incorporated herein by
reference.
ATTACHMENT 3
27
3.4 Except as amended by this Amendment, all provisions of the Master Agreement,
including without limitation the indemnity and insurance provisions, shall remain in full
force and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties under this Amendment.
[Signatures on following page]
17336.00000\1514236.2 2
28
SIGNATURE PAGE
TO
AGREEMENT NO. 16-25-014-02
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on
the date first herein above written.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION
Chief Executive Officer Executive Director
Reviewed and Approved as to Form:
SCRRA Legal Counsel RCTC General Legal Counsel
17336.00000\1514236.2 3
29
EXHIBIT A-SCRRA BUDGET
RCTC’s shares of SCRRA’s FY 2015-2016 Budget, as approved by the SCRRA
Board of Directors in July 2015, as amended in October 2015, are shown below:
Operating Budget:
Expenses $ 23,232,425.56
Revenues 7,655,171.16
Net Subsidy $ 15,577,254.401
Rehabilitation/Renovation New Authority Budget:
RCTC Share $ 4,169,755.562
Rotem Settlement 456,894.00
Total $ 4,626,649.56
New Capital Authority Budget:
Ticket Vending Machines $ 4,822,318.13
Carryover Rehabilitation/Renovation & New Capital Budget:
RCTC Share $ 5,134,000.002
1 Includes $1,585,231 for the lease, operation, maintenance and modification of 40 BNSF locomotives. 2 Includes $2.7 million reprogrammed from rehabilitation of locomotives to the purchase of 17 Tier IV
locomotives.
Exhibit A
17336.00000\1514236.2
30
AGENDA ITEM 7F
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: November 12, 2015
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
Dan Mathers, Facilities Administrator
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Agreement for Station Electrical Services
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Award Agreement No. 16-24-005-00 to Elite Electric, Inc. for the provision of station
electrical maintenance and repair services, for a three-year term, plus two two-year
options to extend the agreement, in an amount of $603,700, plus a contingency of
$60,370 for a total amount not to exceed $664,070;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute
the agreement, including option years, on behalf of the Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to execute task orders awarded to the
contractor under the terms of the agreements;
4) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve contingency work up to the
total amount not to exceed as required for these services;
5) Authorize $935,000 for capital improvements to complete a light-emitting diode (LED)
lighting retrofit of the commuter rail stations, including the new Perris Valley Line
stations; and
6) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the
agreement(s) for LED lighting retrofit on behalf of the Commission.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Commission owns and operates five commuter rail stations and the Perris Transit Center in
Riverside County. Additionally, three new Commission-owned and operated Perris Valley Line
(PVL) stations and the rail portion of the Perris Transit Center will begin operations in December
2015. Station lighting and electrical maintenance services are essential to provide continued
safety and security for commuter rail passengers, as well as preserving and maintaining the
Commission’s property.
The Commission requires the services of a qualified contractor to provide quarterly electrical
and lighting maintenance services, annual solar panel and battery-backed emergency lighting
Agenda Item 7F
31
systems maintenance and testing, tri-annual infrared survey and reporting, and on-call
electrical and lighting maintenance services, which includes the cleaning of station lights and
the repair or replacement of all defective lighting system components and fixtures.
Under Commission supervision, quarterly field inspections will be conducted at each station for
a fixed price in order to identify all necessary repairs. Based upon the successful contractor’s
proposed labor rates, equipment costs, material costs, and associated markup, the contractor
will then clean, repair, and/or replace all broken or defective lighting and remedy any electrical
issues identified during the quarterly inspection. Alternatively, on-call services would be used
on an as-needed basis and provided through the Commission’s issuance of a contract task order
to address repairs required between quarterly inspections. Pricing for work completed on an
on-call basis will also be based upon fixed labor rates and a pre-established markup on
materials.
Staff also identified additional electrical lighting capital improvements that will be funded with
Proposition 1B Public Transportation, Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement
Account (PTMISEA) grant funds. The improvements consist of the conversion of all lighting
elements at the existing stations and the new PVL stations, including the Perris Transit Center,
from high pressure sodium, metal halide, halogen, incandescent, and fluorescent elements to
LED lighting elements, substantially reducing energy consumption, carbon footprint, and
lighting maintenance costs.
Procurement Process
Staff determined the weighted factor method of source selection to be the most appropriate
for this procurement, as it allows the Commission to identify the most advantageous proposal
with price and other factors considered. Non-price factors include elements such as
qualifications of firm, personnel, and the ability to respond to the Commission’s needs for
electrical services as set forth under the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. 16-24-005-00.
RFP No. 16-24-005-00 for commuter rail station electrical services was released by staff on
August 6, 2015. A public notice was advertised in the Press Enterprise, and the RFP was posted
on the Commission’s PlanetBids website, which is accessible through the Commission’s website.
Utilizing PlanetBids, emails were sent to 45 firms, ten of which are located in Riverside County.
Through the PlanetBids site, ten firms downloaded the RFP; two of these firms are located in
Riverside County. A pre-bid conference was held on August 19 and attended by one firm. Staff
responded to all questions submitted by potential proposers prior to the August 25 clarification
deadline date. Three firms – Baker Electric (Escondido); Elite Electric, Inc. (Riverside); and
Wesco Electric (Torrance) – submitted proposals prior to the 2:00 p.m. submittal deadline on
September 3. Two of the three firms were determined to have submitted responsive and
responsible proposals. Utilizing the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, the two firms were
evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee comprised of Commission and Bechtel staff.
Agenda Item 7F
32
As a result of the evaluation committee’s assessment of the written proposals including price,
the evaluation committee recommends contract award to Elite Electric, Inc. to perform station
electrical maintenance services for a three-year term, plus two two-year options to extend the
agreement, as this firm earned the highest total evaluation score. Elite Electric, Inc. is the
Commission’s incumbent electrical maintenance contractor and has been providing satisfactory
services to the Commission’s rail stations.
The Commission’s standard form professional services agreement will be entered into with the
consultant subject to any changes approved by the Executive Director, and pursuant to legal
counsel review. Outside of the routine electrical maintenance, on-call services will be provided
through the Commission’s issuance of contract task orders to Elite Electric, Inc. on an as-needed
basis. Staff oversight of the contract will maximize the effectiveness of the consultant and
minimize costs to the Commission.
Regarding the electrical lighting capital improvements, LED lighting will be procured through
use of the California Multiple Award Schedules (CMAS) or State Master Agreements pursuant to
Public Contract Code section 10299(a) and the RCTC Procurement Manual. Retrofit work may
be awarded pursuant to a task order issued under the Elite Electric, Inc. agreement, or pursuant
to CMAS/State Master Agreements.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes
N/A Year: FY 2015/16
FY 2016/17+ Amount: $ 530,700
$1,068,370
Source of Funds: Local Transportation Fund funds,
Proposition 1B PTMISEA grant funds Budget Adjustment: No
N/A
GL/Project Accounting No.: 2440XX 73315 00000 0000 103 24 73301
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 10/19/2015
Attachment: Standard Form Professional Services Agreement
Agenda Item 7F
33
Agreement No. 16-24-005-00
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AGREEMENT FOR STATION ELECTRICAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES
WITH ELITE ELECTRIC, INC.
1. PARTIES AND DATE.
This Agreement is made and entered into this day of , 2015,
by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("the
Commission") and ELITE ELECTRIC, INC. ("Contractor"), a California Corporation.
2. RECITALS.
2.1 Contractor desires to perform and assume responsibility for the
provision of certain professional consulting services required by Commission on the
terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Contractor represents that it is a
professional Contractor, experienced in providing electrical maintenance services to
public clients, is licensed in the State of California, and is familiar with the plans of
Commission.
2.2 Commission desires to engage Contractor to render electrical
maintenance services at the Commission owned commuter rail stations ("Project") as
set forth herein.
3. TERMS.
3.1 General Scope of Services. Contractor promises and agrees to
furnish to Commission all labor materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and
customary work necessary to fully and adequately provide professional consulting
services and advice on various issues affecting the decisions of Commission regarding
the Project and on other programs and matters affecting Commission, hereinafter
referred to as "Services". The Services are more particularly described in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to,
and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the exhibits attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules
and regulations.
Any services performed pursuant to a Task Order (TO) issued pursuant to
Section 4.0 of Exhibit "A" shall be subject to all terms and conditions of this Agreement,
17336.00000\8752982.2
34
including the indemnification and defense obligations, and shall be considered
"Services" as that term is defined under the Agreement.
3.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first
specified above to ________________, unless earlier terminated as provided herein.
The Commission, at its sole discretion, may extend this Agreement for two (2) two (2)-
year periods. Contractor shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement
and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines.
3.3 Schedule of Services. Contractor shall perform the Services
expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the Schedule of
Services set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Contractor represents that it has the professional and technical personnel required to
perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate
Contractor's conformance with the Schedule, the Commission shall respond to
Contractor's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of the Commission,
Contractor shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet
the Schedule of Services.
3.4 Independent Contractor; Control and Payment of Subordinates.
The Services shall be performed by Contractor under its supervision. Contractor will
determine the means, method and details of performing the Services subject to the
requirements of this Agreement. Commission retains Contractor on an independent
contractor basis and Contractor is not an employee of Commission. Contractor retains
the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of this
Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on
behalf of Contractor shall not be employees of Commission and shall at all times be
under Contractor's exclusive direction and control. Contractor shall pay all wages,
salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of
Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Contractor shall be responsible
for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not
limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and
workers' compensation insurance.
3.5 Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by
Contractor shall be subject to the approval of Commission.
3.6 Substitution of Key Personnel. Contractor has represented to
Commission that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under
this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, Contractor
may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence and experience upon
written approval of Commission. In the event that Commission and Contractor cannot
agree as to the substitution of key personnel, Commission shall be entitled to terminate
this Agreement for cause, pursuant to provisions of Section 3.16 of this Agreement.
The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are as follows:
__________________________________.
2
17336.00000\8752982.2
35
3.7 Commission’s Representative. Commission hereby designates
Executive Director, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the
performance of this Agreement ("Commission’s Representative"). Commission's
representative shall have the power to act on behalf of Commission for all purposes
under this Agreement. Contractor shall not accept direction from any person other than
Commission's Representative or his or her designee.
3.8 Contractor’s Representative. Contractor hereby designates
[___INSERT NAME OR TITLE___], or his or her designee, to act as its representative
for the performance of this Agreement ("Contractor’s Representative"). Contractor’s
Representative shall have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the Contractor
for all purposes under this Agreement. The Contractor’s Representative shall supervise
and direct the Services, using his or her best skill and attention, and shall be
responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the
satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement.
3.9 Coordination of Services. Contractor agrees to work closely with
Commission staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to Commission's
staff, Contractors and other staff at all reasonable times.
3.10 Standard of Care; Licenses. Contractor shall perform the Services
under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the standard
generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the
State of California. Contractor represents and maintains that it is skilled in the
professional calling necessary to perform the Services. Contractor warrants that all
employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the
Services assigned to them. Finally, Contractor represents that it, its employees and
subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever
nature that are legally required to perform the Services and that such licenses and
approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Contractor shall
perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from Commission, any
Services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Contractor’s
failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein, and shall be fully
responsible to the Commission for all damages and other liabilities provided for in the
indemnification provisions of this Agreement arising from the Contractor’s errors and
omissions.
3.11 Laws and Regulations. Contractor shall keep itself fully informed of
and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any
manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA
requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Contractor shall be liable for all
violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Contractor
performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and
without giving written notice to Commission, Contractor shall be solely responsible for
all costs arising therefrom. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its
3
17336.00000\8752982.2
36
officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the
indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any
failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations.
3.12 Insurance.
3.12.1 Time for Compliance. Contractor shall not commence work
under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that
it has secured all insurance required under this section, in a form and with insurance
companies acceptable to the Commission. In addition, Contractor shall not allow any
subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance
required under this section.
3.12.2 Minimum Requirements. Contractor shall, at its expense,
procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for
injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with
the performance of the Agreement by the Contractor, its agents, representatives,
employees or subcontractors. Contractor shall also require all of its subcontractors to
procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Agreement. Such
insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage:
(A) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at
least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance
Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001 or
exact equivalent); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto
Coverage (form CA 0001, code 1 (any auto) or exact equivalent); and (3) Workers’
Compensation and Employer’s Liability: Workers’ Compensation insurance as required
by the State of California and Employer’s Liability Insurance.
(B) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall
maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily
injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance
or other form with general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit
shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be
twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for
bodily injury and property damage; and (3) if Contractor has an employees, Workers’
Compensation and Employer’s Liability: Workers’ Compensation limits as required by
the Labor Code of the State of California. Employer’s Practices Liability limits of
$1,000,000 per accident.
3.12.3 [Reserved]
3.12.4 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall
contain the following provisions, or Contractor shall provide endorsements on forms
approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies:
4
17336.00000\8752982.2
37
(A) General Liability.
(i) Commercial General Liability Insurance must
include coverage for (1) bodily Injury and property damage; (2) personal
Injury/advertising Injury; (3) premises/operations liability; (4) products/completed
operations liability; (5) aggregate limits that apply per Project; (6) explosion, collapse
and underground (UCX) exclusion deleted; (7) contractual liability with respect to this
Agreement; (8) broad form property damage; and (9) independent Contractors
coverage.
(ii) The policy shall contain no endorsements or
provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for
claims or suits by one insured against another; or (3) contain any other exclusion
contrary to this Agreement.
(iii) The policy shall give the Commission, its
directors, officials, officers, employees, and agents insured status using ISO
endorsement forms 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact
same coverage.
(iv) The additional insured coverage under the
policy shall be “primary and non-contributory” and will not seek contribution from the
Commission’s insurance or self-insurance and shall be at least as broad as CG 20 01
04 13, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage.
(B) Automobile Liability. The automobile liability policy
shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers,
employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the
ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned,
leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor or for which the Contractor is responsible;
and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission,
its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an
unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Contractor’s scheduled underlying coverage.
Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials,
officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Contractor’s insurance and shall
not be called upon to contribute with it in any way.
(C) Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability
Coverage.
(i) Contractor certifies that he/she is aware of the
provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer
to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance
in accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such
provisions before commencing work under this Agreement.
5
17336.00000\8752982.2
38
(ii) The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of
subrogation against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and
agents for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work
performed by the Contractor.
(D) All Coverages.
(i) Defense costs shall be payable in addition to
the limits set forth hereunder.
(ii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits
contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other
requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. It shall
be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader
than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or
limits set forth herein shall be available to the Commission, its directors, officials,
officers, employees and agents as additional insureds under said policies. Furthermore,
the requirements for coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits
specified in this Agreement; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of
coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured;
whichever is greater.
(iii) The limits of insurance required in this
Agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess
insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a
provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis
for the benefit of the Commission (if agreed to in a written contract or agreement) before
the Commission’s own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a
named insured. The umbrella/excess policy shall be provided on a “following form”
basis with coverage at least as broad as provided on the underlying policy(ies).
(iv) Contractor shall provide the Commission at
least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this
Agreement, except that the Contractor shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written
notice of cancellation of any such policy due to non-payment of premium. If any of the
required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term of this Agreement, the
Contractor shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General Liability Additional
Insured Endorsement to the Commission at least ten (10) days prior to the effective
date of cancellation or expiration.
(v) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to
be no later than the effective date of this Agreement. Contractor shall maintain such
coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the
work under this Agreement. Contractor shall purchase a one (1) year extended
reporting period A) if the retroactive date is advanced past the effective date of this
Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by
6
17336.00000\8752982.2
39
another claims-made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of
this Agreement.
(vi) The foregoing requirements as to the types
and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Contractor, and any approval of
said insurance by the Commission, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit
or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Contractor pursuant to
this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification.
(vii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement,
any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these
specifications or is canceled and not replaced, Commission has the right but not the
duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by Commission
will be promptly reimbursed by Contractor or Commission will withhold amounts
sufficient to pay premium from Contractor payments. In the alternative, Commission
may cancel this Agreement. The Commission may require the Contractor to provide
complete copies of all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project.
(viii) Neither the Commission nor any of its
directors, officials, officers, employees or agents shall be personally responsible for any
liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement.
Each insurance policy required by this Agreement
shall be endorsed to state that:
3.12.5 Deductibles and Self-Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles
or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Commission. If the
Commission does not approve the deductibles or self-insured retentions as presented,
Contractor shall guarantee that, at the option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer
shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the
Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents; or, (2) the
Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related
investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses.
3.12.6 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with
insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in
California, and satisfactory to the Commission.
3.12.7 Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish
Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage
required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates
and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by
that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be
received and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission
reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies,
at any time.
7
17336.00000\8752982.2
40
3.12.8 SubContractor Insurance Requirements. Contractor shall
not allow any subcontractors or subContractors to commence work on any subcontract
until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that they have
secured all insurance required under this section. Policies of commercial general
liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or subContractors shall be endorsed
to name the Commission as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 or an
endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Contractor, the
Commission may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular
subcontractors or subContractors.
3.13 Safety. Contractor shall execute and maintain its work so as to
avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the
Contractor shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal
laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety
of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the
work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be
limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B)
instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe
walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space
procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and
wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries;
and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety
measures.
3.14 Fees and Payment.
3.14.1 Compensation. Contractor shall receive compensation,
including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at
the rates set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto. The total compensation shall not
exceed [___INSERT WRITTEN DOLLAR AMOUNT___] ($[___INSERT NUMERICAL
DOLLAR AMOUNT___]) without written approval of Commission's Executive Director
(“Total Compensation”). Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if
authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement.
3.14.2 Payment of Compensation. Contractor shall submit to
Commission a monthly statement which indicates work completed and hours of
Services rendered by Contractor. The statement shall describe the amount of Services
and supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the
subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement.
Commission shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review the statement and
pay all approved charges thereon.
3.14.3 Reimbursement for Expenses. Contractor shall not be
reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by Commission.
3.14.4 Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement,
8
17336.00000\8752982.2
41
Commission may request that Contractor perform Extra Work. As used herein, "Extra
Work" means any work which is determined by Commission to be necessary for the
proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate
would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Contractor shall not perform,
nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from Commission's
Executive Director.
3.15 Accounting Records. Contractor shall maintain complete and
accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred and fees charged
under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Contractor shall
allow a representative of Commission during normal business hours to examine, audit,
and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created
pursuant to this Agreement. Contractor shall allow inspection of all work, data,
documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three
(3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement.
3.16 Termination of Agreement.
3.16.1 Grounds for Termination. Commission may, by written
notice to Contractor, terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and
without cause by giving written notice to Contractor of such termination, and specifying
the effective date thereof. Upon termination, Contractor shall be compensated only for
those services which have been fully and adequately rendered to Commission through
the effective date of the termination, and Contractor shall be entitled to no further
compensation. Contractor may not terminate this Agreement except for cause.
3.16.2 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated as
provided herein, Commission may require Contractor to provide all finished or
unfinished Documents and Data, as defined below, and other information of any kind
prepared by Contractor in connection with the performance of Services under this
Agreement. Contractor shall be required to provide such document and other
information within fifteen (15) days of the request.
3.16.3 Additional Services. In the event this Agreement is
terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, Commission may procure, upon such
terms and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those
terminated.
3.17 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this
Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such
other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose:
9
17336.00000\8752982.2
42
CONTRACTOR: COMMISSION:
______________________ Riverside County
______________________ Transportation Commission
______________________ 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
_____________________ Riverside, CA 92501
Attn: ________________ Attn: Executive Director
Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when
mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid
and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed
adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service.
3.18 Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality.
3.18.1 Documents & Data. This Agreement creates an exclusive
and perpetual license for Commission to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sub-license any
and all copyrights and designs embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings,
estimates, materials, data and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any
tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data
magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or
caused to be prepared by Contractor under this Agreement (“Documents & Data”).
Contractor shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that
Commission is granted an exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data
the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement.
Contractor represents and warrants that Contractor has the legal
right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Documents & Data.
Contractor makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data
which were prepared by design professionals other than Contractor or provided to
Contractor by the Commission.
Commission shall not be limited in any way in its use of the
Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes
intended by this Agreement shall be at Commission’s sole risk.
3.18.2 Intellectual Property. In addition, Commission shall have
and retain all right, title and interest (including copyright, patent, trade secret and other
proprietary rights) in all plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials,
data, computer programs or software and source code, enhancements, documents, and
any and all works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium or expression, including
but not limited to, physical drawings or other data magnetically or otherwise recorded on
computer media (“Intellectual Property”) prepared or developed by or on behalf of
Contractor under this Agreement as well as any other such Intellectual Property
prepared or developed by or on behalf of Contractor under this Agreement.
10
17336.00000\8752982.2
43
The Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest in
Intellectual Property developed or modified under this Agreement whether or not paid
for wholly or in part by Commission, whether or not developed in conjunction with
Contractor, and whether or not developed by Contractor. Contractor will execute
separate written assignments of any and all rights to the above referenced Intellectual
Property upon request of Commission.
Contractor shall also be responsible to obtain in writing separate
written assignments from any subcontractors or agents of Contractor of any and all right
to the above referenced Intellectual Property. Should Contractor, either during or
following termination of this Agreement, desire to use any of the above-referenced
Intellectual Property, it shall first obtain the written approval of the Commission.
All materials and documents which were developed or prepared by
the Contractor for general use prior to the execution of this Agreement and which are
not the copyright of any other party or publicly available and any other computer
applications, shall continue to be the property of the Contractor. However, unless
otherwise identified and stated prior to execution of this Agreement, Contractor
represents and warrants that it has the right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license
for all such Intellectual Property as provided herein.
Commission further is granted by Contractor a non-exclusive and
perpetual license to copy, use, modify or sub-license any and all Intellectual Property
otherwise owned by Contractor which is the basis or foundation for any derivative,
collective, insurrectional, or supplemental work created under this Agreement.
3.18.3 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans,
procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written
information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to Contractor
in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by
Contractor. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of Commission,
be used by Contractor for any purposes other than the performance of the Services.
Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the
performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Contractor which is
otherwise known to Contractor or is generally known, or has become known, to the
related industry shall be deemed confidential. Contractor shall not use Commission's
name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services
or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production
or other similar medium without the prior written consent of Commission.
3.18.4 Infringement Indemnification. Contractor shall defend,
indemnify and hold the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees,
volunteers and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of
this Agreement, for any alleged infringement of any patent, copyright, trade secret, trade
name, trademark, or any other proprietary right of any person or entity in consequence
11
17336.00000\8752982.2
44
of the use on the Project by Commission of the Documents & Data, including any
method, process, product, or concept specified or depicted.
3.19 Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with
one another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as
may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement.
3.20 Attorney's Fees. If either party commences an action against the
other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with
this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and
recover from the losing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs of such actions.
3.21 Indemnification. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the
Commission, its directors, officials, officers, agents, Contractors, employees and
volunteers free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action,
costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages or injuries, in law or in equity, to property or
persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any
alleged negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of the Contractor, its officials,
officers, employees, agents, Contractors, and contractors arising out of or in connection
with the performance of the Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without
limitation, the payment of all consequential damages, attorneys fees and other related
costs and expenses. Contractor shall defend, at Contractor’s own cost, expense and
risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind
that may be brought or instituted against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers,
agents, Contractors, employees and volunteers. Contractor shall pay and satisfy any
judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against the Commission or its
directors, officials, officers, agents, Contractors, employees and volunteers, in any such
suit, action or other legal proceeding. Contractor shall reimburse the Commission and
its directors, officials, officers, agents, Contractors, employees and volunteers, for any
and all legal expenses and costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred by each
of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided.
Contractor’s obligation to indemnity shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any,
received by the Commission or its directors, officials, officers, agents, Contractors,
employees and volunteers. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent Contractor's
Services are subject to Civil Code Section 2782.8, the above indemnity shall be limited,
to the extent required by Civil Code Section 2782.8, to claims that arise out of, pertain
to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Contractor. This
Section 3.21 shall survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement.
3.22 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement
of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior
negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be
supplemented, amended, or modified by a writing signed by both parties.
3.23 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of
the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County.
12
17336.00000\8752982.2
45
3.24 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every
provision of this Agreement.
3.25 Commission's Right to Employ Other Contractors. The
Commission reserves the right to employ other Contractors in connection with this
Project.
3.26 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the
successors and assigns of the parties, and shall not be assigned by Contractor without
the prior written consent of Commission.
3.27 Prohibited Interests and Conflicts.
3.27.1 Solicitation. Contractor maintains and warrants that it has
not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee
working solely for Contractor, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Contractor
warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than
a bona fide employee working solely for Contractor, any fee, commission, percentage,
brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or
making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, Commission shall
have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability.
3.27.2 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no
member, officer or employee of Commission, during the term of his or her service with
Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or
anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.
3.27.3 Conflict of Employment. Employment by the Contractor of
personnel currently on the payroll of the Commission shall not be permitted in the
performance of this Agreement, even though such employment may occur outside of
the employee’s regular working hours or on weekends, holidays or vacation time.
Further, the employment by the Contractor of personnel who have been on the
Commission payroll within one year prior to the date of execution of this Agreement,
where this employment is caused by and or dependent upon the Contractor securing
this or related Agreements with the Commission, is prohibited.
3.27.4 Employment Adverse to the Commission. Contractor shall
notify the Commission, and shall obtain the Commission’s written consent, prior to
accepting work to assist with or participate in a third-party lawsuit or other legal or
administrative proceeding against the Commission during the term of this Agreement.
3.28 Equal Opportunity Employment. Contractor represents that it is an
equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any employee or
applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex
or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related
13
17336.00000\8752982.2
46
to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment
advertising, layoff or termination. Contractor shall also comply with all relevant provi-
sions of Commission's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action
Plan or other related Commission programs or guidelines currently in effect or
hereinafter enacted.
3.29 Subcontracting. Contractor shall not subcontract any portion of the
work or Services required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without
prior written approval of the Commission. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision
making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement.
3.30 Prevailing Wages. By its execution of this Agreement, Contractor
certified that it is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et
seq. and 1770 et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000
et seq. (“Prevailing Wage Laws”), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates
and the performance of other requirements on certain “public works” and “maintenance”
projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or
“maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total
compensation is $1,000 or more, Contractor agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing
Wage Laws. The Commission shall provide Contractor with a copy of the prevailing
rate of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Contractor
shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification
or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon
request, and shall post copies at the Contractor's principal place of business and at the
project site. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its elected
officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities,
costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the
Prevailing Wage Laws.
3.30.1 DIR Registration. Effective March 1, 2015, if the Services
are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project,
then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Contractor and all
subContractors must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. If
applicable, Contractor shall maintain registration for the duration of the Project and
require the same of any subContractors. This Project may also be subject to
compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It
shall be Contractor’s sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and
labor compliance requirements.
3.31 Employment of Apprentices. This Agreement shall not prevent the
employment of properly indentured apprentices in accordance with the California Labor
Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise qualified
employees as indentured apprentices on the work performed hereunder solely on the
ground of race, creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. Every qualified apprentice
shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or
14
17336.00000\8752982.2
47
trade in which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or trade to
which he or she is registered.
If California Labor Code Section 1777.5 applies to the Services,
Contractor and any subcontractor hereunder who employs workers in any
apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering
applicable standards for a certificate approving Contractor or any sub-Contractor for the
employment and training of apprentices. Upon issuance of this certificate, Contractor
and any sub-Contractor shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as
well as contribute to the fund to administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or
trade in the area of the work hereunder.
The parties expressly understand that the responsibility for compliance
with provisions of this Section and with Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 of the
California Labor Code in regard to all apprenticeable occupations lies with Contractor.
3.32 No Waiver. Failure of Commission to insist on any one occasion
upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not
be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or
relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at any one time or more times be
deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power at any other time or
times.
3.33 Eight-Hour Law. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor
Code, eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work, and the time of service of
any worker employed on the work shall be limited and restricted to eight hours during
any one calendar day, and forty hours in any one calendar week, except when payment
for overtime is made at not less than one and one-half the basic rate for all hours
worked in excess of eight hours per day ("Eight-Hour Law"), unless Contractor or the
Services are not subject to the Eight-Hour Law. Contractor shall forfeit to Commission
as a penalty, $50.00 for each worker employed in the execution of this Agreement by
him, or by any sub-Contractor under him, for each calendar day during which such
workman is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day
and forty hours in any one calendar week without such compensation for overtime
violation of the provisions of the California Labor Code, unless Contractor or the
Services are not subject to the Eight-Hour Law.
3.34 Subpoenas or Court Orders. Should Contractor receive a
subpoena or court order related to this Agreement, the Services or the Project,
Contractor shall immediately provide written notice of the subpoena or court order to the
Commission. Contractor shall not respond to any such subpoena or court order until
notice to the Commission is provided as required herein, and shall cooperate with the
Commission in responding to the subpoena or court order.
3.35 Survival. All rights and obligations hereunder that by their nature
are to continue after any expiration or termination of this Agreement, including, but not
15
17336.00000\8752982.2
48
limited to, the indemnification and confidentiality obligations, and the obligations related
to receipt of subpoenas or court orders, shall survive any such expiration or termination.
3.36 No Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third party
beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties.
3.37 Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Contractor certifies
that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which
require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers’ Compensation or to
undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to
comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services.
3.38 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts,
each of which shall constitute an original.
3.39 Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and
correct and are incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein.
3.40 Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared
invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the
remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
3.41 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached
exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language,
terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and
obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties’ understanding concerning
the performance of the Services.
3.42 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or
marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have
no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein.
3.43 Assignment or Transfer. Contractor shall not assign, hypothecate,
or transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein,
without the prior written consent of the Commission. Any attempt to do so shall be null
and void, and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or
interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer.
3.44 Authority to Enter Agreement. Contractor has all requisite power
and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the
Agreement. Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement
have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and bind each
respective Party.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
16
17336.00000\8752982.2
49
SIGNATURE PAGE
TO
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AGREEMENT FOR STATION ELECTRICAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES
WITH [___CONTRACTOR___]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed on the date first
written above.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY CONTRACTOR
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION [INSERT NAME OF CONTRACTOR]
By: _________________________ By: ____________________________
Daryl R. Busch Signature
Chair
__________________________
Name
__________________________
Title
Approved as to Form: Attest:
By: ____________________________ By: ________________________
Best Best & Krieger LLP Its: Secretary
General Counsel
17
17336.00000\8752982.2
50
EXHIBIT "A" - SCOPE OF SERVICES [TO BE INSERTED]
EXHIBIT "B" - COMPENSATION [TO BE INSERTED]
A-1
17336.00000\8752982.2
51
AGENDA ITEM 7G
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: November 12, 2015
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
Dan Mathers, Facilities Administrator
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Agreement for Station Pest Control Services
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Award Agreement No. 16-24-015-00 to Global Pest Solutions for the provision of station
pest control services for a three-year term, plus two two-year options to extend the
agreement, in an amount of $34,776 for maintenance and on-call services, plus a
contingency amount of $3,478, for a total amount not to exceed $38,254;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute
the agreement, including option years, on behalf of the Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to execute task orders awarded to the
contractor under the terms of the agreement; and
4) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve contingency work up to the
total amount not to exceed as required for these services.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Station pest control services are an important component in providing a safe environment for
the commuter rail passengers as well as preserving and maintaining the Commission’s property
investments. This is especially important at the new Perris Valley Line stations which are
located in previously vacant acreage and where the incidence of animal pests moving around
the stations may be more prevalent.
Staff recommends approval of pest control services for the five Commission owned commuter
rail stations – Riverside Downtown, La Sierra, North Main Corona, Pedley, West Corona, and the
Perris Transit Center, and extension of these services for the three new stations – Moreno
Valley/March Field, Riverside Hunter Park and South Perris.
Agenda Item 7G
52
Procurement Process
On September 3, 2015, the Commission sent out an informal Invitation for Quote (IFQ)
No. 16-24-015-00 for station pest control services. The IFQ was emailed to six firms listed on
the PlanetBids website, two of which are located in Riverside County. Staff responded to all
questions submitted by potential bidders prior to the September 10 clarification deadline date.
On September 17, two bids were received from Global Pest Solutions (Riverside) and Pest
Options Inc. (Anaheim).
The basis for award for this IFQ is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder as defined by
the Commission’s procurement policy and state law. The bid analysis determined that the
lowest responsible and responsive bidder is Global Pest Solutions with a bid amount of $28,980
for bi-monthly services.
This is an on-call agreement, which consists of fixed prices for routine bi-monthly maintenance
services, labor rates, and miscellaneous pest control services. On a bi-monthly basis, the
contractor will perform routine pest control maintenance for the Commission-owned
commuter rail stations. Outside of the routine pest control maintenance, on-call services
estimated at $5,796 will be provided through the Commission’s issuance of contract task orders
on an as-needed basis. The contractor is not subject to compensation for on-call task order
work until such work is approved by staff. Staff oversight of the contract will maximize the
effectiveness of the consultant and minimize costs to the Commission. Staff also recommends
a 10 percent contingency of $3,478 for pest control services.
Staff recommends award of Agreement No. 16-24-015-00 for station pest control services to
Global Pest Solutions with bi-monthly maintenance services to begin in February 2016.
The Commission’s standard form professional services agreement will be entered into with the
consultant, subject to any changes approved by the Executive Director, and pursuant to legal
counsel review.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes
N/A Year: FY 2015/16
FY 2016/17+ Amount: $2,750
$35,504
Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds Budget Adjustment: No
N/A
GL/Project Accounting No.: 2440XX 73304 00000 0000 103 24 73301
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 10/19/2015
Attachment: Standard Form Professional Services Agreement
Agenda Item 7G
53
Agreement No. 16-24-015-00
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AGREEMENT FOR PEST CONTROL SERVICES
WITH GLOBAL PEST SOLUTIONS
1. PARTIES AND DATE.
This Agreement is made and entered into this _ day of ____ ,
2015, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
("the Commission") and GLOBAL PEST SOLUTIONS ("Consultant"), a California
corporation.
2. RECITALS.
2.1 Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the
provision of certain professional consulting services required by Commission on the
terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Consultant represents that it is a
professional consultant, experienced in providing pest control services to public clients,
is licensed in the State of California, and is familiar with the plans of Commission.
2.2 Commission desires to engage Consultant to render certain
consulting services for the Commission-owned Commuter Rail Stations ("Project") as
set forth herein.
3. TERMS.
3.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant promises and agrees to
furnish to Commission all labor materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and
customary work necessary to fully and adequately provide professional consulting
services and advice on various issues affecting the decisions of Commission regarding
the Project and on other programs and matters affecting Commission, hereinafter
referred to as "Services". The Services are more particularly described in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to,
and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the exhibits attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules
and regulations.
3.2 Term. The term of this Contract shall be from February 1, 2016 (“Effective Date”)
through January 31, 2019 unless earlier terminated as provided herein. The
Commission, at its sole discretion, may extend this Agreement for two (2) additional
17336.00000\8752982.2
54
two-year terms. Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of this
Agreement and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines.
3.3 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services
expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the Schedule of
Services set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel required to
perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate
Consultant's conformance with the Schedule, the Commission shall respond to
Consultant's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of the Commission,
Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet
the Schedule of Services.
3.4 Independent Contractor; Control and Payment of Subordinates.
The Services shall be performed by Consultant under its supervision. Consultant will
determine the means, method and details of performing the Services subject to the
requirements of this Agreement. Commission retains Consultant on an independent
contractor basis and Consultant is not an employee of Commission. Consultant retains
the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of this
Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on
behalf of Consultant shall not be employees of Commission and shall at all times be
under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages,
salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of
Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible
for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not
limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and
workers' compensation insurance.
3.5 Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by
Consultant shall be subject to the approval of Commission.
3.6 Substitution of Key Personnel. Consultant has represented to
Commission that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under
this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable,
Consultant may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence and experience
upon written approval of Commission. In the event that Commission and Consultant
cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel, Commission shall be entitled to
terminate this Agreement for cause, pursuant to provisions of Section 3.16 of this
Agreement. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are as follows:
Chenoa Morris.
3.7 Commission’s Representative. Commission hereby designates
Executive Director, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the
performance of this Agreement ("Commission’s Representative"). Commission's
representative shall have the power to act on behalf of Commission for all purposes
2
17336.00000\8752982.2
55
under this Agreement. Consultant shall not accept direction from any person other than
Commission's Representative or his or her designee.
3.8 Consultant’s Representative. Consultant hereby designates
Chenoa Morris, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance
of this Agreement ("Consultant’s Representative"). Consultant’s Representative shall
have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the Consultant for all purposes
under this Agreement. The Consultant’s Representative shall supervise and direct the
Services, using his or her best skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all
means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory
coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement.
3.9 Coordination of Services. Consultant agrees to work closely with
Commission staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to Commission's
staff, consultants and other staff at all reasonable times.
3.10 Standard of Care; Licenses. Consultant shall perform the Services
under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the standard
generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the
State of California. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled in the
professional calling necessary to perform the Services. Consultant warrants that all
employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the
Services assigned to them. Finally, Consultant represents that it, its employees and
subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever
nature that are legally required to perform the Services and that such licenses and
approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Consultant shall
perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from Commission, any
Services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Consultant’s
failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein, and shall be fully
responsible to the Commission for all damages and other liabilities provided for in the
indemnification provisions of this Agreement arising from the Consultant’s errors and
omissions.
3.11 Laws and Regulations. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of
and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any
manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA
requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Consultant shall be liable for all
violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Consultant
performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and
without giving written notice to Commission, Consultant shall be solely responsible for
all costs arising therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its
officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the
indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any
failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations.
3
17336.00000\8752982.2
56
3.12 Insurance.
3.12.1 Time for Compliance. Consultant shall not commence work
under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that
it has secured all insurance required under this section, in a form and with insurance
companies acceptable to the Commission. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any
subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance
required under this section.
3.12.2 Minimum Requirements. Consultant shall, at its expense,
procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for
injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with
the performance of the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives,
employees or subcontractors. Consultant shall also require all of its subcontractors to
procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Agreement. Such
insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage:
(A) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at
least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance
Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001 or
exact equivalent); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto
Coverage (form CA 0001, code 1 (any auto) or exact equivalent); and (3) Workers’
Compensation and Employer’s Liability: Workers’ Compensation insurance as required
by the State of California and Employer’s Liability Insurance.
(B) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall
maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily
injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance
or other form with general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit
shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be
twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for
bodily injury and property damage; and (3) if Consultant has an employees, Workers’
Compensation and Employer’s Liability: Workers’ Compensation limits as required by
the Labor Code of the State of California. Employer’s Practices Liability limits of
$1,000,000 per accident.
3.12.3 [Reserved]
3.12.4 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall
contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms
approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies:
(A) General Liability.
(i) Commercial General Liability Insurance must
include coverage for (1) bodily Injury and property damage; (2) personal
4
17336.00000\8752982.2
57
Injury/advertising Injury; (3) premises/operations liability; (4) products/completed
operations liability; (5) aggregate limits that apply per Project; (6) explosion, collapse
and underground (UCX) exclusion deleted; (7) contractual liability with respect to this
Agreement; (8) broad form property damage; and (9) independent consultants
coverage.
(ii) The policy shall contain no endorsements or
provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for
claims or suits by one insured against another; or (3) contain any other exclusion
contrary to this Agreement.
(iii) The policy shall give the Commission, its
directors, officials, officers, employees, and agents insured status using ISO
endorsement forms 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact
same coverage.
(iv) The additional insured coverage under the
policy shall be “primary and non-contributory” and will not seek contribution from the
Commission’s insurance or self-insurance and shall be at least as broad as CG 20 01
04 13, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage.
(B) Automobile Liability. The automobile liability policy
shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers,
employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the
ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned,
leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible;
and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission,
its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an
unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant’s scheduled underlying coverage.
Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials,
officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall
not be called upon to contribute with it in any way.
(C) Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability
Coverage.
(i) Consultant certifies that he/she is aware of the
provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer
to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance
in accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such
provisions before commencing work under this Agreement.
(ii) The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of
subrogation against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and
agents for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work
performed by the Consultant.
5
17336.00000\8752982.2
58
(D) All Coverages.
(i) Defense costs shall be payable in addition to
the limits set forth hereunder.
(ii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits
contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other
requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. It shall
be a requirement under this Agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader
than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or
limits set forth herein shall be available to the Commission, its directors, officials,
officers, employees and agents as additional insureds under said policies. Furthermore,
the requirements for coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits
specified in this Agreement; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of
coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured;
whichever is greater.
(iii) The limits of insurance required in this
Agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess
insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a
provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis
for the benefit of the Commission (if agreed to in a written contract or agreement) before
the Commission’s own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a
named insured. The umbrella/excess policy shall be provided on a “following form”
basis with coverage at least as broad as provided on the underlying policy(ies).
(iv) Consultant shall provide the Commission at
least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this
Agreement, except that the Consultant shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written
notice of cancellation of any such policy due to non-payment of premium. If any of the
required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term of this Agreement, the
Consultant shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General Liability Additional
Insured Endorsement to the Commission at least ten (10) days prior to the effective
date of cancellation or expiration.
(v) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to
be no later than the effective date of this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain such
coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the
work under this Agreement. Consultant shall purchase a one (1) year extended
reporting period A) if the retroactive date is advanced past the effective date of this
Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by
another claims-made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of
this Agreement.
(vi) The foregoing requirements as to the types
and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Consultant, and any approval of
6
17336.00000\8752982.2
59
said insurance by the Commission, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit
or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Consultant pursuant
to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning
indemnification.
(vii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement,
any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these
specifications or is canceled and not replaced, Commission has the right but not the
duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by Commission
will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or Commission will withhold amounts
sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, Commission
may cancel this Agreement. The Commission may require the Consultant to provide
complete copies of all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project.
(viii) Neither the Commission nor any of its
directors, officials, officers, employees or agents shall be personally responsible for any
liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement.
Each insurance policy required by this Agreement
shall be endorsed to state that:
3.12.5 Deductibles and Self-Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles
or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Commission. If the
Commission does not approve the deductibles or self-insured retentions as presented,
Consultant shall guarantee that, at the option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer
shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the
Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents; or, (2) the
Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related
investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses.
3.12.6 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with
insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in
California, and satisfactory to the Commission.
3.12.7 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish
Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage
required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates
and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by
that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be
received and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission
reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies,
at any time.
3.12.8 Subconsultant Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall
not allow any subcontractors or subconsultants to commence work on any subcontract
until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that they have
7
17336.00000\8752982.2
60
secured all insurance required under this section. Policies of commercial general
liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or subconsultants shall be endorsed
to name the Commission as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 or an
endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Consultant, the
Commission may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular
subcontractors or subconsultants.
3.13 Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to
avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the
Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal
laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety
of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the
work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be
limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B)
instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe
walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space
procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and
wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries;
and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety
measures.
3.14 Fees and Payment.
3.14.1 Compensation. Consultant shall receive compensation,
including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at
the rates set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto. The total compensation shall not
exceed [___INSERT WRITTEN DOLLAR AMOUNT___] ($[___INSERT NUMERICAL
DOLLAR AMOUNT___]) without written approval of Commission's Executive Director
(“Total Compensation”). Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if
authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement.
3.14.2 Payment of Compensation. Consultant shall submit to
Commission a monthly statement which indicates work completed and hours of
Services rendered by Consultant. The statement shall describe the amount of Services
and supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the
subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement.
Commission shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review the statement and
pay all approved charges thereon.
3.14.3 Reimbursement for Expenses. Consultant shall not be
reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by Commission.
3.14.4 Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement,
Commission may request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, "Extra
Work" means any work which is determined by Commission to be necessary for the
proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate
would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform,
8
17336.00000\8752982.2
61
nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from Commission's
Executive Director.
3.15 Accounting Records. Consultant shall maintain complete and
accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred and fees charged
under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall
allow a representative of Commission during normal business hours to examine, audit,
and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created
pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data,
documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three
(3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement.
3.16 Termination of Agreement.
3.16.1 Grounds for Termination. Commission may, by written
notice to Consultant, terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and
without cause by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination, and specifying
the effective date thereof. Upon termination, Consultant shall be compensated only for
those services which have been fully and adequately rendered to Commission through
the effective date of the termination, and Consultant shall be entitled to no further
compensation. Consultant may not terminate this Agreement except for cause.
3.16.2 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated as
provided herein, Commission may require Consultant to provide all finished or
unfinished Documents and Data, as defined below, and other information of any kind
prepared by Consultant in connection with the performance of Services under this
Agreement. Consultant shall be required to provide such document and other
information within fifteen (15) days of the request.
3.16.3 Additional Services. In the event this Agreement is
terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, Commission may procure, upon such
terms and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those
terminated.
3.17 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this
Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such
other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose:
9
17336.00000\8752982.2
62
CONSULTANT: COMMISSION:
______________________ Riverside County
______________________ Transportation Commission
______________________ 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
_____________________ Riverside, CA 92501
Attn: ________________ Attn: Executive Director
Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when
mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid
and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed
adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service.
3.18 Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality.
3.18.1 Documents & Data. This Agreement creates an exclusive
and perpetual license for Commission to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sub-license any
and all copyrights and designs embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings,
estimates, materials, data and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any
tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data
magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or
caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement (“Documents & Data”).
Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that
Commission is granted an exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data
the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement.
Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal
right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Documents & Data.
Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data
which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or provided to
Consultant by the Commission.
Commission shall not be limited in any way in its use of the
Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes
intended by this Agreement shall be at Commission’s sole risk.
3.18.2 Intellectual Property. In addition, Commission shall have
and retain all right, title and interest (including copyright, patent, trade secret and other
proprietary rights) in all plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials,
data, computer programs or software and source code, enhancements, documents, and
any and all works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium or expression, including
but not limited to, physical drawings or other data magnetically or otherwise recorded on
computer media (“Intellectual Property”) prepared or developed by or on behalf of
Consultant under this Agreement as well as any other such Intellectual Property
prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement.
10
17336.00000\8752982.2
63
The Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest in
Intellectual Property developed or modified under this Agreement whether or not paid
for wholly or in part by Commission, whether or not developed in conjunction with
Consultant, and whether or not developed by Consultant. Consultant will execute
separate written assignments of any and all rights to the above referenced Intellectual
Property upon request of Commission.
Consultant shall also be responsible to obtain in writing separate
written assignments from any subcontractors or agents of Consultant of any and all right
to the above referenced Intellectual Property. Should Consultant, either during or
following termination of this Agreement, desire to use any of the above-referenced
Intellectual Property, it shall first obtain the written approval of the Commission.
All materials and documents which were developed or prepared by
the Consultant for general use prior to the execution of this Agreement and which are
not the copyright of any other party or publicly available and any other computer
applications, shall continue to be the property of the Consultant. However, unless
otherwise identified and stated prior to execution of this Agreement, Consultant
represents and warrants that it has the right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license
for all such Intellectual Property as provided herein.
Commission further is granted by Consultant a non-exclusive and
perpetual license to copy, use, modify or sub-license any and all Intellectual Property
otherwise owned by Consultant which is the basis or foundation for any derivative,
collective, insurrectional, or supplemental work created under this Agreement.
3.18.3 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans,
procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written
information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to Consultant
in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by
Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of Commission,
be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services.
Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the
performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is
otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the
related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use Commission's
name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services
or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production
or other similar medium without the prior written consent of Commission.
3.18.4 Infringement Indemnification. Consultant shall defend,
indemnify and hold the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees,
volunteers and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of
this Agreement, for any alleged infringement of any patent, copyright, trade secret, trade
name, trademark, or any other proprietary right of any person or entity in consequence
11
17336.00000\8752982.2
64
of the use on the Project by Commission of the Documents & Data, including any
method, process, product, or concept specified or depicted.
3.19 Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with
one another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as
may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement.
3.20 Attorney's Fees. If either party commences an action against the
other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with
this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and
recover from the losing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs of such actions.
3.21 Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the
Commission, its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and
volunteers free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action,
costs, expenses, liabilities, losses, damages or injuries, in law or in equity, to property or
persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any
alleged negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of the Consultant, its officials,
officers, employees, agents, consultants, and contractors arising out of or in connection
with the performance of the Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without
limitation, the payment of all consequential damages, attorneys fees and other related
costs and expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant’s own cost, expense and
risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind
that may be brought or instituted against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers,
agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any
judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against the Commission or its
directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, in any such
suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse the Commission and
its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, for any
and all legal expenses and costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred by each
of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided.
Consultant’s obligation to indemnity shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any,
received by the Commission or its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants,
employees and volunteers. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent Consultant's
Services are subject to Civil Code Section 2782.8, the above indemnity shall be limited,
to the extent required by Civil Code Section 2782.8, to claims that arise out of, pertain
to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant.
This Section 3.21 shall survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement.
3.22 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement
of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior
negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be
supplemented, amended, or modified by a writing signed by both parties.
3.23 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of
the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County.
12
17336.00000\8752982.2
65
3.24 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every
provision of this Agreement.
3.25 Commission's Right to Employ Other Consultants. The
Commission reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with this
Project.
3.26 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the
successors and assigns of the parties, and shall not be assigned by Consultant without
the prior written consent of Commission.
3.27 Prohibited Interests and Conflicts.
3.27.1 Solicitation. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has
not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee
working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant
warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than
a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage,
brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or
making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, Commission shall
have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability.
3.27.2 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no
member, officer or employee of Commission, during the term of his or her service with
Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or
anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.
3.27.3 Conflict of Employment. Employment by the Consultant of
personnel currently on the payroll of the Commission shall not be permitted in the
performance of this Agreement, even though such employment may occur outside of
the employee’s regular working hours or on weekends, holidays or vacation time.
Further, the employment by the Consultant of personnel who have been on the
Commission payroll within one year prior to the date of execution of this Agreement,
where this employment is caused by and or dependent upon the Consultant securing
this or related Agreements with the Commission, is prohibited.
3.27.4 Employment Adverse to the Commission. Consultant shall
notify the Commission, and shall obtain the Commission’s written consent, prior to
accepting work to assist with or participate in a third-party lawsuit or other legal or
administrative proceeding against the Commission during the term of this Agreement.
3.28 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an
equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any employee or
applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex
or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related
13
17336.00000\8752982.2
66
to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment
advertising, layoff or termination. Consultant shall also comply with all relevant provi-
sions of Commission's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action
Plan or other related Commission programs or guidelines currently in effect or
hereinafter enacted.
3.29 Subcontracting. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the
work or Services required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without
prior written approval of the Commission. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision
making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement.
3.30 Prevailing Wages. By its execution of this Agreement, Consultant
certified that it is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et
seq. and 1770 et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000
et seq. (“Prevailing Wage Laws”), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates
and the performance of other requirements on certain “public works” and “maintenance”
projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or
“maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total
compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing
Wage Laws. The Commission shall provide Consultant with a copy of the prevailing
rate of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Consultant
shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification
or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon
request, and shall post copies at the Consultant's principal place of business and at the
project site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its elected
officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities,
costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the
Prevailing Wage Laws.
3.30.1 DIR Registration. Effective March 1, 2015, if the Services
are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project,
then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Consultant and all
subconsultants must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. If
applicable, Consultant shall maintain registration for the duration of the Project and
require the same of any subconsultants. This Project may also be subject to
compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It
shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and
labor compliance requirements.
3.31 Employment of Apprentices. This Agreement shall not prevent the
employment of properly indentured apprentices in accordance with the California Labor
Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise qualified
employees as indentured apprentices on the work performed hereunder solely on the
ground of race, creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. Every qualified apprentice
shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or
14
17336.00000\8752982.2
67
trade in which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or trade to
which he or she is registered.
If California Labor Code Section 1777.5 applies to the Services,
Consultant and any subcontractor hereunder who employs workers in any
apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering
applicable standards for a certificate approving Consultant or any sub-consultant for the
employment and training of apprentices. Upon issuance of this certificate, Consultant
and any sub-consultant shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as
well as contribute to the fund to administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or
trade in the area of the work hereunder.
The parties expressly understand that the responsibility for compliance
with provisions of this Section and with Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 of the
California Labor Code in regard to all apprenticeable occupations lies with Consultant.
3.32 No Waiver. Failure of Commission to insist on any one occasion
upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not
be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or
relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at any one time or more times be
deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power at any other time or
times.
3.33 Eight-Hour Law. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor
Code, eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work, and the time of service of
any worker employed on the work shall be limited and restricted to eight hours during
any one calendar day, and forty hours in any one calendar week, except when payment
for overtime is made at not less than one and one-half the basic rate for all hours
worked in excess of eight hours per day ("Eight-Hour Law"), unless Consultant or the
Services are not subject to the Eight-Hour Law. Consultant shall forfeit to Commission
as a penalty, $50.00 for each worker employed in the execution of this Agreement by
him, or by any sub-consultant under him, for each calendar day during which such
workman is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day
and forty hours in any one calendar week without such compensation for overtime
violation of the provisions of the California Labor Code, unless Consultant or the
Services are not subject to the Eight-Hour Law.
3.34 Subpoenas or Court Orders. Should Consultant receive a
subpoena or court order related to this Agreement, the Services or the Project,
Consultant shall immediately provide written notice of the subpoena or court order to the
Commission. Consultant shall not respond to any such subpoena or court order until
notice to the Commission is provided as required herein, and shall cooperate with the
Commission in responding to the subpoena or court order.
3.35 Survival. All rights and obligations hereunder that by their nature
are to continue after any expiration or termination of this Agreement, including, but not
15
17336.00000\8752982.2
68
limited to, the indemnification and confidentiality obligations, and the obligations related
to receipt of subpoenas or court orders, shall survive any such expiration or termination.
3.36 No Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third party
beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties.
3.37 Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies
that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which
require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers’ Compensation or to
undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to
comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services.
3.38 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts,
each of which shall constitute an original.
3.39 Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and
correct and are incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein.
3.40 Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared
invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the
remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
3.41 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached
exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language,
terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and
obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties’ understanding concerning
the performance of the Services.
3.42 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or
marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have
no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein.
3.43 Assignment or Transfer. Consultant shall not assign, hypothecate,
or transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein,
without the prior written consent of the Commission. Any attempt to do so shall be null
and void, and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or
interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer.
3.44 Authority to Enter Agreement. Consultant has all requisite power
and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the
Agreement. Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement
have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and bind each
respective Party.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
16
17336.00000\8752982.2
69
SIGNATURE PAGE
TO
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AGREEMENT FOR PEST CONTROL SERVICES
WITH GLOBAL PEST SOLUTIONS
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed on the date first
written above.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY GLOBAL PEST SOLUTIONS
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
By: _________________________ By: ____________________________
Daryl R. Busch Signature
Chair
__________________________
Name
__________________________
Title
Approved as to Form: Attest:
By: ____________________________ By: ________________________
Best Best & Krieger LLP Its: Secretary
General Counsel
17
17336.00000\8752982.2
70
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
[ATTACHED BEHIND THIS PAGE]
A-1
17336.00000\8752982.2
71
EXHIBIT "B"
STATION LOCATIONS
B-1
17336.00000\8752982.2
72
EXHIBIT "C"
COMPENSATION
[ATTACHED BEHIND THIS PAGE]
C-1
17336.00000\8752982.2
73
AGENDA ITEM 7H
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: November 12, 2015
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM:
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
Jillian Guizado, Management Analyst
Brian Cunanan, Commuter and Motorist Assistance Manager
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Operation of the Freeway Service Patrol Program in Riverside County
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 16-45-033-00 with the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) for the operation of the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP)
program in the amount of $1,559,523 in state funding for FY 2015/16; and
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute
the agreement on behalf of the Commission.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In 1986, the Commission established itself as the Riverside County Service Authority for
Freeway Emergencies (RC SAFE) after the enactment of SB 1199 in 1985. The purpose of the
formation of SAFEs in California was to provide call box services and, with excess funds, provide
additional motorist aid services. Funding for RC SAFE is derived from a one dollar per vehicle
registration fee on vehicles registered in Riverside County. Initially, these funds were used only
for the call box program. As additional motorist aid services were developed, SAFE funds were
also used to provide FSP and the Inland Empire 511 traveler information services as part of a
comprehensive motorist aid system in Riverside County.
In 1990, Proposition C was passed to fund transportation improvements and to help reduce
traffic congestion in California. From this, the FSP program was created by Caltrans, which
developed the corresponding Local Funding Allocation Plan to distribute funds to participating
jurisdictions through a formula based on population, urban freeway lane miles, and levels of
congestion.
The Commission, acting in its capacity as the RC SAFE, is the principal agency in Riverside
County, in partnership with Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol, managing the FSP
program. The purpose of the FSP program is to provide a continuously roving tow services
Agenda Item 7H
74
patrol along designated freeway segments (referred to as beats) to relieve freeway congestion
and facilitate the rapid removal of disabled vehicles and those involved in minor accidents on
local freeways. Currently, the Commission contracts with four tow truck operators to provide
service on a total of nine beats Monday through Friday during the peak commute hours,
5:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. (12:30 p.m. on Fridays) to 6:30 p.m. In FY 2014/15, FSP
performed over 42,000 assists.
DISCUSSION:
In October 2015, the Commission received the attached fund transfer agreement from Caltrans
for FY 2015/16. Caltrans funding agreements are reimbursement-based and allow for the
carryover of contract balances not expended in the agreement’s stated fiscal year. This allows
the Commission to fully expend allocated amounts and also helps to accommodate the timing
of the Caltrans allocation release, which is typically later during the fiscal year for which it is
intended. The table below summarizes the use of these funding agreements by fiscal year:
Amount Expended
Caltrans Funding
Agreement No. FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16
10-45-036-00
($1,657,171) $1,464,528
11-45-105-00
($1,577,721) $303,402 $1,274,319
12-45-068-00
($1,653,564) $536,958 $1,116,606
13-45-075-00
($1,606,567) $621,880 $984,687
14-45-084-00
($1,557,104) $782,185 $774,919
15-45-027-00
($1,635,846)
$1,107,166 $528,680
The Caltrans funding agreement for FY 2015/16 provides for continued state funding in the
amount of $1,559,523. The Commission will fund the required local match of $399,881 with
RC SAFE revenues. As with prior funding agreements, any state funds not claimed in the
current fiscal year will be carried over and claimed in FY 2016/17. A budget adjustment is not
required and upon approval of this agenda item, the Commission will execute this fund transfer
agreement with Caltrans.
Agenda Item 7H
75
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes
N/A Year: 2015/16
2016/17 Amount: $1,300,000
$ 259,523
Source of Funds: State of California Budget Adjustment: No
N/A
GL/Project Accounting No.: 002173 415 41508 0000 201 45 41505
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 10/19/2015
Attachment: FSP Fund Transfer Agreement
Agenda Item 7H
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
AGENDA ITEM 8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: November 12, 2015
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Regional Arterial Program – Project
Delivery Update
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
(TUMF) Regional Arterial Program – Project Delivery Update.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In 2004, the Commission approved a total of 23 projects for Western Riverside County TUMF
Regional Arterial Program funding. During the last few years, the Commission approved
adjustments to the original 23 TUMF Regional Arterial projects at the request of the local
agencies. The changes were primarily due to the lack of revenues as a result of the recent
recession and environmental challenges. Therefore, a few projects were suspended, and the
programmed funds were transferred to existing projects that were in need of additional funds,
or new projects were nominated in place of projects that could not move forward due to
environmental challenges and increased costs associated with these challenges. This resulted
in a total of 20 projects continuing in the program; these projects are summarized in the
attachment.
To date, the Commission has programmed a total of $135 million, and project expenditures
total $95 million. Of the 20 projects in the TUMF Regional Arterial Program, 11 have completed
construction or total agreement phase, 4 projects are under construction, and 5 projects are in
the preliminary engineering phase. Three of the projects in the preliminary engineering phase
will require a future programming action for construction funds. These projects are the I-
15/Limonite Avenue interchange, I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange, and Van Buren
Boulevard widening from Washington Street to Wood Road. Estimated construction costs for
all three projects are estimated at over $80 million. Programming capacity at the end of fiscal
year 2015/16 is currently estimated at $18 million.
The Commission approves programming/funding one phase at a time to maximize cash flow.
When an agency completes a phase (e.g. environmental, design, right of way), the next phase
Agenda Item 8
85
will be programmed and an agreement for that phase will be executed. Some local agencies
requested TUMF regional arterial funds for a particular phase(s), but funded other phases with
non-TUMF Regional Arterial funds. Therefore, the project’s TUMF commitment would be
considered complete.
The Commission approved one developer credit reimbursement agreement with the city of
Corona in the amount of $3,051,636. The Commission originally set aside 5 percent for
developer credit reimbursements on an annual basis, but increased it to 10 percent to
accommodate a larger than anticipated repayment amount. The balance of $1,416,646 will be
paid based on 10 percent of the budgeted amount for TUMF Regional Arterial revenues on an
annual basis.
Since the majority of TUMF Regional Arterial projects have been completed, the Commission
will need to consider the next cycle of projects. The Western Riverside Council of
Governments’ TUMF Zones include projects on the regional arterial system. Staff is discussing
the possibility of shifting some of these projects to the TUMF Regional Arterial program. Staff
will develop and recommend an approach and phase-in process for the inclusion of additional
regional arterial projects in a future agenda item.
Attachment: TUMF Regional Arterial Program – Current Project Delivery Status
Agenda Item 8
86
*Western Riverside Limonite Corridor Active Transportation Study $250,000 $250,000 83.00
Wildomar Grand Avenue Multi-Use Trail Improvement Project $1,541,000 $1,223,000 $1,223,000 83.00
Moreno Valley Segment of the Juan Bautista De Anza Multi-use Trail $1,431,000 $1,431,000 $2,654,000 83.00
Jurupa Valley Jurupa Valley High School SRTS $1,467,000 $1,252,000 $3,906,000 82.00
Riverside Citywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements $1,249,000 $1,042,000 $4,948,000 82.00
Banning Bicycle and SRTS Improvements $1,082,000 $1,082,000 $6,030,000 82.00
San Jacinto San Jacinto Valley Connect $656,000 $646,000 $6,676,000 81.00
RCTD Camino Avenue Sidewalk Safety Improvements $1,002,000 $902,000 $7,578,000 81.00
*City of Coachella ATP Cycle 2 $2,755,000 $1,626,000 $9,204,000 80.00
*Coachella requested $2.2M of ATP. $1.626M is available for project.
*CTC Notified WRCOG that project was deemed ineligible for MPO Planning funds
RCTD Mecca Sidewalk and Roadway Safety Improvements $945,000 $851,000 $ 10,055 8,429,000 80.00
RCTD Thousand Palms Sidewalk Safety Improvements $1,085,000 $868,000 $ 10,923 9,297,000 80.00
City of Coachella ATP Cycle 2 $ 2,755,000 $ 2,200,000 $ 11,497,000 80.00
Indio SRTS Project $1,897,000 $1,897,000 79.00
Eastvale SRTS Citywide Safety Improvements, Education and $577,000 $461,000 78.00
Perris Perris Valley Storm Drain Channel Trail-Phase 2 $1,743,000 $1,572,000 75.00
RCTD Clark Street Sidewalk and intersection Safety Improvements $2,376,000 $1,324,000 74.00
Riverside Gage Canal Bike Path and Multi-use Trail $2,213,000 $2,213,000 72.00
Perris Perris Metrolink Station Bike Route and Pedestrian Connectivity $1,311,000 $950,000 69.00
Temecula Santa Gertrudis Creek Ped/Bicycle Trail Extension and $4,362,000 $3,581,000 68.00
Riverside County DPH Active Transportation Program, North Shore $628,000 $500,000 62.00
Wildomar Union Street Multi-Use Path $2,071,000 $2,050,000 61.00
RCTD Dillon Road Bike Lane Improvements $2,560,000 $2,560,000 60.00
Moreno Valley Gap Closure Sidewalk on Alessando Blvd at Old 215 Frontage Rd.$934,000 $934,000 60.00
Moreno Valley Cactus Avenue/Philo Street School Crossing Traffic Signal $646,000 $646,000 59.00
CVAG Coachella Valley-CV Link Spurs $4,836,000 $4,652,000 53.00
Hemet Hemet Valley Bikeway Connect $977,000 $977,000 50.00
Riverside Railroad Crossing Sidewalk improvements $2,071,000 $2,071,000 49.00
Riverside Ramona Sidewalk Improvements $5,521,000 $5,521,000 48.50
Beaumont Bikeway and Pedestrian Master Plan $23,000 $23,000 31.00
Cathedral City Festival Park Plan and Corresponding Pedestrian Plan $297,000 $250,000 28.00
CVAG = Coachella Valley Association of Governments RCTD = Riverside County Transportation Department
Large MPO ATP Cycle 2 Project Recommendations
Recommend Funding with ATP and/or any combination of SB 821, Federal STP and/or CMAQ Funds
Below Projects Not Recommended for Large MPO ATP Cycle 2 (score <80)
REVISION TO ATTACHMENT 1 TO AGENDA ITEM 8
ADDITIONS ARE NOTED BY BOLD ITALICS, DELETIONS ARE NOTED BY STRIKETHROUGH
TUMF Regional Arterial Program - Current Project Delivery Status (Including original 23 Projects Approved Sept 2004)
1 Corona Green River, Dominguez Ranch Rd - SR 91 Funding Complete X Funded phase.
2 Corona Foothill Parkway Extension Funding Complete X
3 Corona I-15/El Cerrito Rd Funding Complete X
4 Riverside Co.I-15/Limonite IC Needs Cons Funds X In 2012, Commission approved as substitution.
Riverside Co.I-15/Schleisman IC Substitued Environmental issues. Replaced with Limonite IC.
Riverside Co.I-15/Clinton Keith Rd Funding Complete X Project funded & completed w non TUMF RA funds.
-Riverside Co.New IC at Eastern Bypass Suspended X In 2009, Commission approved suspension/balance to SR79.
5 Riverside Co.Bundy/Scott Road improvements Funding Complete X Funded phase.
6 Riverside Co.SR79 - widen Thompson-Domenigoni Funding Complete X
7 Riverside Co.Van Buren Bridge, Clay - SAR Funding Complete X
8 Riverside Co.Van Buren, Washington -Wood Needs R/W, Cons X
-Riverside Co.Eastern Bypass, Auld - I-15 Suspended In 2009, Commission approved suspension/balance to SR 79.
-Riverside Co.Potrero Blvd, San Tim-Oak Valley-SR79 Suspended No agreement for project. Postponed.
9 Riverside SR91/Van Buren IC Funding Complete X
10 Riverside Van Buren, Andrew - Garfield Funding Complete X
11 Riverside Van Buren, SAR - Jackson Funding Complete X
12 San Jacinto Ramona Expwy - Sanderson - WCL Funding Complete X
-San Jacinto Ramona Expwy - Seventh - Cedar Substituted Environmental issues. Replaced with Sander-Eagle
13 San Jacinto Ramona Expwy Ext., Sanderson - Eagle Funding Complete X In 2012, Commission approved as substitution.
14 Temecula I-15/French Valley Pkwy Funding Complete X Project phased. STIP funds programmed for Cons.
15 Temecula I-15/SR79 IC Funding Complete X
16 Temecula Western Bypass Study Funding Complete X Study complete.
17 Moreno Valley Perris Blvd, PVSD Lateral B - Cactus Funding Complete X
18 Moreno Valley Perris Blvd, Ironwood - Manzanita Funding Complete X
19 Lake Elsinore I-15 Railroad Canyon IC Needs Cons funds X Project currently finishing PA&ED
20 Perris Perris Blvd, Ramona Expwy - PVSD Lat. B Funding Complete X
Bolded projects require future construction programming.
Shaded projects have been removed from the TUMF Regional Arterial program or delayed indefinitely.
Project Status
Agency Project CommentNo. #
Programming
Status
Under
Cons
Cons Comp/
Invoicing
Cons Complete/
Closed OutPre-Cons
Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee -Regional Arterial
Project Delivery Update
Shirley Medina
Planning and Programming Director
TUMF Regional Arterial Commission Actions
September 2004 -Approved 23 projects in Western Riverside County
October 2009 -Approved suspending 3 projects due to very
limited available funds (recession)
March and Sept. 2012 -Approved 2 Substitutions due to environmental
challenges:
1)Riverside County -I-15/Schleisman IC was replaced
with I-15/Limonite IC
2)San Jacinto -Ramona Expwy, 7th to Cedar was
replaced with Eagle to Sanderson
October 2013 -Approved Developer Credit Agreement with city of Corona
for $3,051,636
Funding Status -
Total Programmed:$135 million
Total Expenditures:$ 95 million
Programming Status -
Project Programming Complete 17
Project Programming Incomplete 3
Delivery Status -
Total Regional Arterial Projects:20
Projects Completed Construction:11
Projects Under Construction:4
Projects in PE phase:5
Agency Project Status Commitment
Met? Y/N
1 Corona Green River, Dominguez –SR 91 Comp Phase Y
2 Co. of Riverside *I-15/Clinton Keith Comp w non-TUMF N/A
3 Co. of Riverside Bundy/Scott Comp Phase Y
4 Co. of Riverside SR-79, Thompson –Domenigoni Comp Construction Y
5 Co. of Riverside Van Buren Bridge, Clay -SAR Comp Construction Y
6 Riverside Van Buren, Andrew -Garfield Comp Construction Y
7 Riverside Van Buren, SAR -Jackson Comp Construction Y
8 San Jacinto Ramona Expwy, Sanderson–WCL Comp Construction Y
9 San Jacinto Ramona Expwy, Sanderson-Eagle Comp Construction Y
TUMF Regional Arterial Funding Commitments:
*Project completed with non-TUMF funds
10 Temecula Western Bypass Study Comp Study Y
11 Moreno Valley Perris Blvd, PVSD Lat. B -Cactus Comp Construction Y
12 Riverside SR-91/Van Buren IC Comp Construction Y
13 Corona Foothill Pkwy Extension Under Construction Y
14 Temecula I-15/SR-79 IC Under Construction Y
15 Moreno Valley Perris Blvd, Ironwood -Manzanita Under Construction Y
16 Perris Perris Blvd, Ramona –PVSD Lat B Under Construction Y
17 Temecula *I-15/French Valley Pkwy IC PE Phase Y
Agency Project Status Commitment
Met? Y/N
Bolded projects are under construction
*Construction funded with STIP
Project Funding Needs:
Three Projects Waiting for Programming/Funding for R/W
and/or Construction:
I-15/Railroad Canyon Interchange
I-15/Limonite Interchange
Van Buren widening (Washington Street to Wood Road)
Construction for above projects is estimated at over $80 million.
Estimated programming capacity (year end): $18 million
Estimated TUMF Regional Arterial Revenues:$ 7 million per year
Developer Credit Reimbursement Balance:$ 1.4 million
(annual payments based on 10 percent of budget)
If revenues do not substantially increase, it will take approximately
9 years to accumulate enough TUMF Regional Arterial funds to fully
fund the remaining 3 projects.
Next TUMF Regional Arterial Program (Cycle 2):
-Staff will work with WRCOG in reviewing future options for the next
cycle of regional arterial projects
-Sufficient revenues will determine the ability to include additional
projects
-Considerations in developing the next regional arterial program
include:
-Commission priorities
-Regional arterial projects in TUMF Zones
-Ability to leverage other fund sources
AGENDA ITEM 9
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: November 12, 2015
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Study Ad Hoc Committee
Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Coachella Valley – San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor: Delivery of the Phase 1
Alternatives Analysis
COACHELLA VALLEY-SAN GORGONIO PASS RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY AD HOC COMMITTEE AND
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Commission to:
1) Receive and file the draft Coachella Valley – San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Study
Alternatives Analysis (Alternatives Analysis); and
2) Authorize staff to submit the draft Alternatives Analysis to the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) for its review and approval.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Coachella Valley – San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Study, undertaken by the Commission in
coordination with Caltrans and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), is intended to study
the potential implementation of an intercity passenger rail service between Indio in the
Coachella Valley through the San Gorgonio Pass to Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS) in Los
Angeles, California.
At inception, the project was divided up into two distinct phases of work. This was primarily
due to funding constraints both at the state and Commission levels. The Commission took the
lead for Phase 1 by committing $4.2 million of Proposition 1B Public Transportation,
Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) funds towards the
work, of which $2.1 million is available for the initiation of service planning studies. In June
2014, the Commission executed Agreement No. 14-25-072-00 with HDR, Inc. (HDR) to complete
Phase 1 of the Coachella Valley – San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Study. Phase 1 consists of the
following elements:
Task 1 – Project Work plan Development and Public Outreach
Task 2 – Preliminary Service Planning and Alternatives Analysis Development
Subsequent to HDR beginning the Phase 1 work, the Commission in partnership with Caltrans
and HDR submitted the project for and ultimately was awarded grant funds by the FRA for the
Agenda Item 9
88
Phase 2 portion of the work. While the grant funds will reside with Caltrans, the Commission
will be responsible for the delivery of the various project reports, analysis, and approvals from
the FRA. Phase 2 will consist of the following elements:
Task 3 – Tier 1 Environmental Impact Study/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR)
Task 4 – Project Service Development Plan (SDP)
During fall 2014, the project work plan and public outreach elements were approved by staff
and presented to the Commission for review and approval. Outreach then commenced and has
occurred on a regular and continual basis from project initiation. Outreach consisted of
individual meetings with Commissioners, meetings with other elected officials, the convening of
a technical advisory committee (TAC) and several hearings in which the general public was
invited to participate and provide input. Outreach also includes social media postings and
regular project newsletter distribution.
Additionally, in June 2015, the Commission reviewed and approved the project’s Purpose and
Need Statement that was the first step towards the development of the Alternatives Analysis.
The Purpose and Need Statement was then forwarded to the FRA for review on August 24. At
this point, the development of the Alternatives Analysis commenced.
DISCUSSION:
The Alternatives Analysis begins by describing the project’s Purpose and Need Statement, the
supporting market analysis, the stakeholder and public outreach process along with the input
received from the outreach conducted to date and most importantly, the initial range of route
alternatives proposed for consideration.
Furthermore, the Alternatives Analysis provides the screening methodology and criteria used to
evaluate the proposed route alternatives. The screening methodology consists of a two step
process: an initial coarse-level screening to identify whether any route alternative is hindered
by major challenges and a fine-level screening to evaluate the route alternatives, which were
not eliminated during the coarse-level screening, in greater quantitative and qualitative detail.
This process, which follows FRA guidance, was employed in order to eliminate those route
alternatives from detailed analysis that do not meet the purpose and need for the study, are
found to be either not reasonable and/or feasible, and/or have environmental, physical, or
right of way constraints that make them less reasonable than one or more other route
alternatives. This process is intended to allow the Tier 1 EIS/EIR to focus on only those route
alternatives that truly warrant consideration.
Route Specific Alternative Development and Analysis
Public outreach, review of previous studies, and ideas or concepts that were suggested by
resource agencies, elected officials and/or the public along with the development of the
Agenda Item 9
89
Purpose and Need Statement, identified a number of potential route alternatives and service
options for the corridor. In addition, a no-build alternative, which consists of existing and
programmed services that currently serve the corridor, connecting the Coachella Valley with
the Los Angeles Basin, was identified.
After compiling all of the proposed or suggested routes and along with the No-Build
Alternative, six route alternatives were then identified as warranting additional analysis in the
course-level screening. All of the six alternative routes identified utilize the Union Pacific
Railroad’s (UP) Yuma Subdivision between Indio and Colton for the eastern portion of the
alignment, and then various combinations of four existing rail lines between Colton and Los
Angeles.
The coarse-level screening concluded two of the six route alternatives were not reasonable or
feasible. Both of these alternatives consist of high-density freight lines, with substantial
sections of single track that would require costly construction in order to create the additional
capacity needed to reliably operate the proposed passenger rail service and mitigate effects on
freight rail capacity and reliability. Both routes also experience freight train congestion and
serve freight terminals where trains enter and exit at low speeds. These issues were
determined to have a significant negative impact on passenger rail operations. The remaining
four route alternatives were carried forward for more detailed consideration in the fine-level
screening.
The fine-level screening then concluded that of the remaining four alternatives carried forward
from the coarse-level screening, three were not reasonable or feasible due to a variety of
factors including cost, technical complexity, and ridership/revenue to warrant no further
evaluation.
Alternatives Analysis Recommendation
The draft Alternatives Analysis, which staff is recommending to be transmitted to the FRA for
review and approval, concludes the following:
Route Alternative 1 in which the alignment traverses the Coachella Valley through Riverside and
Fullerton to LAUS, is to be carried forward for analysis in the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP because,
when compared to the other route alternatives considered, it:
• Meets the project’s purpose and need;
• Has relatively low construction complexity and low construction costs (technical and
economic feasibility);
• Has a competitive passenger train travel time (purpose and need);
• Serves the largest population (purpose and need);
• Has the highest ridership and revenue forecast (purpose and need, and economic
feasibility); and
• Has no unreasonable environmental resource issues (environmental concerns)
Agenda Item 9
90
The No-Build Alternative will also be carried forward for analysis in the Tier 1 EIS/EIR because
evaluation of ‘No Action’ is required by NEPA/CEQA, and the alternative serves as a basis of
comparison for likely impacts of constructing and operating the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio
Pass Rail Corridor service.
Next Steps
Staff, in conjunction with HDR and Caltrans, submitted the grant documents to the FRA that are
required for obligation of the FRA awarded funds. These grant funds will be used to initiate and
complete Phase 2 of the project study. As previously mentioned, Phase 2 is comprised of two
tasks, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR analysis and the project SDP. The completion of the Alternatives
Analysis in addition to the obligation of the grant funds is a pre-requisite to the implementation
of Phase 2. Upon Commission approval of the draft Alternatives Analysis, staff will formally
transmit the draft Alternatives Analysis to the FRA for review and approval.
Staff expects the FRA to approve the grant obligation documents during late fall 2015 with a
projected start date of Phase 2 sometime in January 2016. Staff also intends to conduct a
meeting of the project TAC on November 4 at 10:00 a.m., at which time the draft Alternatives
Analysis will be presented. The meeting will be held at the SCAG Riverside office and video
conferencing will also be provided.
There is no budgetary impact related to this report or the staff recommendation to transmit the
draft Alternatives Analysis to the FRA. Upon FRA execution of the grant obligation documents,
staff will return to the Commission with a recommendation to approve the modification of the
HDR agreement to include the Phase 2 work and to authorize staff to issue a notice to proceed.
Attachment: Draft Coachella Valley – San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Study Alternatives
Analysis – Posted on the Commission Website
Agenda Item 9
91
DRAFT
Alternatives Analysis
for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass
Rail Corridor Service Study
October 12, 2015
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | i
Contents
ES Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... ES-1
ES.1 Study Area .................................................................................................................. ES-1
ES.2 Purpose and Need for the Study ................................................................................ ES-2
ES.3 Market Analysis .......................................................................................................... ES-2
ES.4 Methodology ............................................................................................................... ES-3
ES.5 Outreach ..................................................................................................................... ES-4
ES.6 Range of Route Alternatives ....................................................................................... ES-4
ES.7 Description of the Proposed Service .......................................................................... ES-6
ES.8 Coarse-Level Screening ............................................................................................. ES-6
ES.9 Fine-Level Screening .................................................................................................. ES-6
ES.10 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ ES-8
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1
2 Purpose and Need for the Study ............................................................................................ 5
2.1 Need for Transportation Improvements ............................................................................ 5
2.2 Purpose and Objectives for Transportation Improvements ............................................... 5
3 Market Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 7
3.1 Corridor Demographics .................................................................................................... 7
3.1.1 Overall Population and Employment .................................................................... 7
3.1.2 Tourism ................................................................................................................ 9
3.1.3 Disadvantaged Communities................................................................................ 9
3.1.4 Key Points: Corridor Demographics ................................................................... 12
3.2 Transportation Facilities and Services ............................................................................ 12
3.2.1 Highway System Serving the Corridor ................................................................ 12
3.2.2 Transit System Connecting Coachella Valley and LA Basin .............................. 14
3.2.3 Key Points: Transportation Facilities and Services ............................................. 23
3.3 Travel Volumes and Trip Patterns .................................................................................. 23
3.3.1 Daily Travel Volumes ......................................................................................... 24
3.3.2 Hourly Volumes and Peaking Characteristics .................................................... 30
3.3.3 Origin-Destination Patterns ................................................................................ 36
3.3.4 Trip Purposes ..................................................................................................... 45
3.3.5 Future Travel Demand Growth ........................................................................... 46
3.3.6 Rail and Bus Ridership ....................................................................................... 47
3.3.7 Key Points: Travel Volumes and Trip Patterns ................................................... 47
3.4 Transportation System Performance .............................................................................. 48
3.4.1 Regional Highway Congestion ........................................................................... 48
3.4.2 Travel Times ....................................................................................................... 49
3.4.3 I-10 Emergency Closures ................................................................................... 51
3.4.4 Key Points: Transportation System Performance ............................................... 51
3.5 Key Findings of Market Analysis ..................................................................................... 52
4 Screening Methodology ........................................................................................................ 54
4.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................... 54
4.2 Screening Criteria ........................................................................................................... 55
4.2.1 Criteria 1: Purpose and Need ............................................................................. 55
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | ii
4.2.2 Criteria 2: Environmental Concerns .................................................................... 56
4.2.3 Criteria 3: Technical Feasibility ........................................................................... 56
4.2.4 Criteria 4: Economic Feasibility .......................................................................... 56
4.3 Screening Process ......................................................................................................... 56
4.3.1 Coarse-Level Screening ..................................................................................... 56
4.3.2 Fine-Level Screening ......................................................................................... 58
5 Outreach ................................................................................................................................. 63
6 Range of Route Alternatives ................................................................................................. 68
6.1 No-Build Alternative ........................................................................................................ 68
6.2 Consideration of Possible “Build” Alternatives ................................................................ 73
6.2.1 Potential Intercity Rail Options ........................................................................... 73
6.2.2 Potential Intercity Bus Service Options .............................................................. 79
6.3 “Build” Alternatives to be Studied ................................................................................... 80
7 Description of the Proposed Service ................................................................................... 90
7.1 Speed and Travel Time .................................................................................................. 90
7.2 Stations........................................................................................................................... 90
7.3 Frequency ....................................................................................................................... 91
7.4 Infrastructure .................................................................................................................. 91
8 Coarse-Level Screening ........................................................................................................ 93
8.1 Route Alternative 1 ......................................................................................................... 93
8.1.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand ................................................................... 94
8.1.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes ........................... 95
8.1.3 Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges ...................................................... 95
8.1.4 Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas ......................................................... 95
8.1.5 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way ............................................................. 95
8.1.6 Technical Feasibility ........................................................................................... 95
8.1.7 Economic Feasibility ........................................................................................... 97
8.2 Route Alternative 2 ......................................................................................................... 97
8.2.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand ................................................................... 98
8.2.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes ........................... 98
8.2.3 Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges ...................................................... 98
8.2.4 Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas ......................................................... 99
8.2.5 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way ............................................................. 99
8.2.6 Technical Feasibility ........................................................................................... 99
8.2.7 Economic Feasibility ......................................................................................... 100
8.3 Route Alternative 3 ....................................................................................................... 101
8.3.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand ................................................................. 102
8.3.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes ......................... 102
8.3.3 Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges .................................................... 102
8.3.4 Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas ....................................................... 102
8.3.5 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way ........................................................... 102
8.3.6 Technical Feasibility ......................................................................................... 103
8.3.7 Economic Feasibility ......................................................................................... 104
8.4 Route Alternative 4-A ................................................................................................... 104
8.4.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand ................................................................. 105
8.4.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes ......................... 106
8.4.3 Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges .................................................... 106
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | iii
8.4.4 Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas ....................................................... 106
8.4.5 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way ........................................................... 106
8.4.6 Technical Feasibility ......................................................................................... 106
8.4.7 Economic Feasibility ......................................................................................... 108
8.5 Route Alternative 4-B ................................................................................................... 108
8.5.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand ................................................................. 110
8.5.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes ......................... 110
8.5.3 Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges .................................................... 110
8.5.4 Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas ....................................................... 110
8.5.5 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way ........................................................... 110
8.5.6 Technical Feasibility ......................................................................................... 111
8.5.7 Economic Feasibility ......................................................................................... 112
8.6 Route Alternative 5 ....................................................................................................... 112
8.6.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand ................................................................. 114
8.6.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes ......................... 114
8.6.3 Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges .................................................... 114
8.6.4 Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas ....................................................... 114
8.6.5 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way ........................................................... 114
8.6.6 Technical Feasibility ......................................................................................... 115
8.6.7 Economic Feasibility ......................................................................................... 116
8.7 No-Build Alternative ...................................................................................................... 117
8.7.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand ................................................................. 117
8.7.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes ......................... 117
8.7.3 Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges .................................................... 118
8.7.4 Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas ....................................................... 118
8.7.5 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way ........................................................... 118
8.7.6 Technical Feasibility ......................................................................................... 118
8.7.7 Economic Feasibility ......................................................................................... 118
8.8 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 118
9 Fine-Level Screening ........................................................................................................... 122
9.1 Route Alternative 1 ....................................................................................................... 123
9.1.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand ................................................................. 123
9.1.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes ......................... 124
9.1.3 Environmental Concerns: Environmental Impacts ............................................ 124
9.1.4 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way ........................................................... 124
9.1.5 Technical Feasibility: Passenger and Freight Capacity .................................... 125
9.1.6 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Alignment ...................................................... 126
9.1.7 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Structures ...................................................... 126
9.1.8 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Grade Crossings ............................................ 126
9.1.9 Economic Feasibility ......................................................................................... 127
9.2 Route Alternative 4-A ................................................................................................... 127
9.2.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand ................................................................. 128
9.2.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes ......................... 128
9.2.3 Environmental Concerns: Environmental Impacts ............................................ 129
9.2.4 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way ........................................................... 132
9.2.5 Technical Feasibility: Passenger and Freight Capacity .................................... 132
9.2.6 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Alignment ...................................................... 134
9.2.7 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Structures ...................................................... 135
9.2.8 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Grade Crossings ............................................ 136
9.2.9 Economic Feasibility ......................................................................................... 136
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | iv
9.3 Route Alternative 4-B ................................................................................................... 136
9.3.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand ................................................................. 137
9.3.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes ......................... 138
9.3.3 Environmental Concerns: Environmental Impacts ............................................ 139
9.3.4 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way ........................................................... 141
9.3.5 Technical Feasibility: Passenger and Freight Capacity .................................... 141
9.3.6 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Alignment ...................................................... 144
9.3.7 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Structures ...................................................... 145
9.3.8 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Grade Crossings ............................................ 145
9.3.9 Economic Feasibility ......................................................................................... 145
9.4 Route Alternative 5 ....................................................................................................... 146
9.4.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand ................................................................. 147
9.4.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes ......................... 148
9.4.3 Environmental Concerns: Environmental Impacts ............................................ 149
9.4.4 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way ........................................................... 151
9.4.5 Technical Feasibility: Passenger and Freight Capacity .................................... 152
9.4.6 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Alignment ...................................................... 155
9.4.7 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Structures ...................................................... 156
9.4.8 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Grade Crossings ............................................ 157
9.4.9 Economic Feasibility ......................................................................................... 157
9.5 No-Build Alternative ...................................................................................................... 158
9.5.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand ................................................................. 158
9.5.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes ......................... 158
9.5.3 Environmental Concerns: Environmental Impacts ............................................ 158
9.5.4 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way ........................................................... 159
9.5.5 Technical Feasibility: Passenger and Freight Capacity .................................... 159
9.5.6 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Alignment ...................................................... 159
9.5.7 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Structures ...................................................... 159
9.5.8 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Grade Crossings ............................................ 159
9.5.9 Economic Feasibility ......................................................................................... 159
9.6 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 159
9.6.1 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................... 159
9.6.2 Environmental Concerns .................................................................................. 160
9.6.3 Technical Feasibility ......................................................................................... 162
9.6.4 Economic Feasibility ......................................................................................... 163
9.6.5 Summary .......................................................................................................... 164
10 Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives Carried Forward .................................................. 165
10.1 Results from the Coarse-Level Screening .................................................................... 166
10.2 Results from the Fine-Level Screening ......................................................................... 166
10.2.1 Route Alternative 1 ........................................................................................... 169
10.2.2 Route Alternative 2 ........................................................................................... 169
10.2.3 Route Alternative 3 ........................................................................................... 169
10.2.4 Route Alternative 4-A ....................................................................................... 169
10.2.5 Route Alternative 4-B ....................................................................................... 169
10.2.6 Route Alternative 5 ........................................................................................... 170
10.2.7 No-Build Alternative .......................................................................................... 170
10.3 Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives ......................................................................... 170
11 References ............................................................................................................................ 171
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | v
Tables
Table ES-1. Route Alternative Comparison .............................................................................. ES-6
Table 1. California Counties Traversed by Routes in the Study Area’s Western
Section ........................................................................................................................ 3
Table 2. Coachella Valley Corridor Population and Density Forecasts (2008-2035) ................ 7
Table 3. Coachella Valley Corridor Population Forecasts by County (2008-2035) ................... 8
Table 4. Coachella Valley Corridor Employment Forecasts (2008-2035) ................................. 8
Table 5. Coachella Valley Corridor Employment Forecasts by County (2008-2035) ................ 8
Table 6. Major Events in Coachella Valley ............................................................................... 9
Table 7. Coachella Valley and Pass Area Cities – Population and Poverty Rates ................. 11
Table 8. Metrolink Service by Direction .................................................................................. 22
Table 9. Average Vehicles on I-10 Freeway ........................................................................... 24
Table 10. Weekday Person-Trips through San Gorgonio Pass ................................................ 25
Table 11. Peak Hours of Travel ................................................................................................ 30
Table 12. Distribution of Person-Trips into Coachella Valley (Eastbound) ............................... 36
Table 13. Distribution of Person-Trips leaving Coachella Valley (Westbound) ......................... 36
Table 14. Existing and Forecast Coachella Valley Corridor Trip Purpose (2000 to 2030) ........ 45
Table 15. Weekday Commute Trips between the Coachella Valley and Los Angeles
Basin: SCAG............................................................................................................ 46
Table 16. Weekday Commute Trips between the Coachella Valley and Los Angeles
Basin: AirSage ......................................................................................................... 46
Table 17. Total Daily Person Trips between the Coachella Valley and the Los Angeles
Basin ......................................................................................................................... 47
Table 18. Percent Growth in Total Daily Person Trips between the Coachella Valley
and the Los Angeles Basin (2008 to 2035) ............................................................... 47
Table 19. Typical Driving Times for Selected Trips (minutes) ................................................... 50
Table 20. Travel Times Using Rail and Transit (minutes) ......................................................... 51
Table 21. Coarse-Level Screening Criteria ............................................................................... 57
Table 22. Fine-Level Screening Criteria ................................................................................... 58
Table 23. Invited TAC Members ............................................................................................... 64
Table 24. Stakeholder Briefings ................................................................................................ 66
Table 25. Purpose & Need Objectives Consistency for No-Build Alternative ........................... 69
Table 26. Established Passenger Rail Routes in Western Section of the Corridor ................... 74
Table 27. Purpose and Need Objectives Consistency for Intercity Rail .................................... 78
Table 28. Purpose and Need Objectives Consistency for Intercity Bus .................................... 79
Table 29. Coachella Valley – San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Route Alternatives ................. 82
Table 30. Route Alternative 1 Westbound Schedule ................................................................ 94
Table 31. Route Alternative 1 Eastbound Schedule ................................................................. 94
Table 32. Route Alternative 2 Westbound Schedule ................................................................ 97
Table 33. Route Alternative 2 Eastbound Schedule ................................................................. 98
Table 34. Route Alternative 3 Westbound Schedule .............................................................. 101
Table 35. Route Alternative 3 Eastbound Schedule ............................................................... 101
Table 36. Route Alternative 4-A Westbound Schedule ........................................................... 105
Table 37. Route Alternative 4-A Eastbound Schedule ............................................................ 105
Table 38. Route Alternative 4-B Westbound Schedule ........................................................... 109
Table 39. Route Alternative 4-B Eastbound Schedule ............................................................ 109
Table 40. Route Alternative 5 Westbound Schedule .............................................................. 113
Table 41. Route Alternative 5 Eastbound Schedule ............................................................... 113
Table 42. Route Alternatives Comparison – Coarse-Level Screening .................................... 121
Table 43. Alternative 1 Annual Ridership and Revenue Forecasts ......................................... 123
Table 44. Alternative 4-A Annual Ridership and Revenue Forecasts ..................................... 128
Table 45. Route Alternative 4-A Environmental Impacts within ROW and Buffer ................... 129
Table 46. Alternative 4-B Annual Ridership and Revenue Forecasts ..................................... 137
Table 47. Route Alternative 4-B Environmental Impacts within ROW and Buffer ................... 139
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | vi
Tables (Continued)
Table 48. Alternative 5 Annual Ridership and Revenue Forecasts ......................................... 147
Table 49. Route Alternative 5 Environmental Impacts within ROW and Buffer....................... 149
Table 50. Initial Operation Year 2022 Forecast Results, All Alternatives ................................ 160
Table 51. Future Year 2040 Forecast Results, All Alternatives .............................................. 160
Table 52. Comparative Running Times, All Build Alternatives ................................................ 160
Table 53. Environmental Resources within ROW and Buffer for Route Alternatives .............. 161
Table 54. Economic Feasibility Comparison, All Build Alternatives ........................................ 164
Table 55. Route Alternative Comparison ................................................................................ 166
Figures
Figure ES-1. Study Area ............................................................................................................ ES-1
Figure ES-2. Screening Methodology Flow Chart ...................................................................... ES-4
Figure ES-3. Coachella Valley – San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Route Alternatives ............. ES-5
Figure 1. Study Area .................................................................................................................. 4
Figure 2. Study Area Population ................................................................................................ 7
Figure 3. CalEnviroScreen 2.0 Overlay on Coachella Valley Rail Alignment Options .............. 10
Figure 4. Key Corridor Highways ............................................................................................. 13
Figure 5. Rail and Bus Services within the Corridor ................................................................. 14
Figure 6. SunLine Route 220 ................................................................................................... 15
Figure 7. Beaumont Transit Commuter Link 120 ..................................................................... 16
Figure 8. Amtrak Sunset Limited Route ................................................................................... 17
Figure 9. Amtrak Thruway Route Schedules ........................................................................... 19
Figure 10. Greyhound Service Connections .............................................................................. 20
Figure 11. Metrolink System Map .............................................................................................. 21
Figure 12. I-10 Eastbound Daily Traffic Volumes – Monthly Average by Day of Week
(vehicles) .................................................................................................................. 25
Figure 13. I-10 Westbound Daily Traffic Volumes – Monthly Average by Day of Week
(vehicles) .................................................................................................................. 26
Figure 14. I-10 Eastbound Weekday Traffic Variations (vehicles) ............................................. 27
Figure 15. I-10 Westbound Weekday Traffic Variations (vehicles) ............................................ 27
Figure 16. I-10 Eastbound Friday Traffic Variations (vehicles) .................................................. 28
Figure 17. I-10 Westbound Friday Traffic Variations (vehicles) ................................................. 28
Figure 18. I-10 Eastbound Saturday/Sunday Traffic Variations (vehicles) ................................. 29
Figure 19. I-10 Westbound Saturday/Sunday Traffic Variations (vehicles) ................................ 29
Figure 20. I-10 Eastbound Average Hourly Traffic Volumes by Day of Week (vehicles) ........... 31
Figure 21. I-10 Westbound Average Hourly Traffic Volumes by Day of Week (vehicles) .......... 31
Figure 22. I-10 Eastbound Tuesday and Wednesday Hourly Traffic Volumes, Focus
Period (vehicles) ....................................................................................................... 32
Figure 23. I-10 Westbound Tuesday and Wednesday Hourly Traffic Volumes, Focus
Period (vehicles) ....................................................................................................... 33
Figure 24. I-10 Eastbound Friday Hourly Traffic Volumes, Focus Period (vehicles) .................. 34
Figure 25. I-10 Westbound Friday Hourly Traffic Volumes, Focus Period (vehicles) ................. 34
Figure 26. I-10 Eastbound Hourly Weekend Traffic Volumes, Focus Period (vehicles) ............. 35
Figure 27. I-10 Westbound Hourly Weekend Traffic Volumes, Focus Period (vehicles) ............ 35
Figure 28. Normal Weekday Trips into Coachella Valley ........................................................... 38
Figure 29. Normal Weekday Trips out of Coachella Valley ........................................................ 39
Figure 30. Normal Saturday Trips into Coachella Valley ........................................................... 40
Figure 31. Normal Saturday Trips out of Coachella Valley ........................................................ 41
Figure 32. Normal Friday Trips into Coachella Valley ................................................................ 42
Figure 33. Normal Friday Trips out of Coachella Valley ............................................................. 43
Figure 34. Peak Friday Trips into Coachella Valley ................................................................... 44
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | vii
Figures (Continued)
Figure 35. Areas of Recurring Congestion ................................................................................. 49
Figure 36. Screening Methodology Flow Chart .......................................................................... 55
Figure 37. Public Meeting Survey Sample Question and Response .......................................... 65
Figure 38. No-Build Alternative - Transit and Rail Services ....................................................... 71
Figure 39. No-Build Alternative - Intercity Bus Service .............................................................. 72
Figure 40. Corridor Rail Lines .................................................................................................... 75
Figure 41. Potential “Short Rail” Service Options between Indio and the Inland Empire ........... 77
Figure 42. Coachella Valley – San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Route Alternatives ................. 83
Figure 43. Route Alternative 1 ................................................................................................... 84
Figure 44. Route Alternative 2 ................................................................................................... 85
Figure 45. Route Alternative 3 ................................................................................................... 86
Figure 46. Route Alternative 4-A ................................................................................................ 87
Figure 47. Route Alternative 4-B ................................................................................................ 88
Figure 48. Route Alternative 5 ................................................................................................... 89
Appendices
Appendix A Congestion and Travel Time Mapping
Appendix B Outreach Plan and Survey Results
Appendix C Amtrak Pacific Surfliner Operations & Maintenance Costs
Appendix D Station Access Analysis
Appendix E Environmental Technical Memos
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | ES-1
ES Executive Summary
The Coachella Valley – San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study (the Study), undertaken
by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) in coordination with the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), will
study the potential implementation of an intercity passenger rail service between Indio in the
Coachella Valley through San Gorgonio Pass to Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS) in Los
Angeles, California. The major work during the first phase of this Project is completion of an
Alternatives Analysis and initial service development planning for potential routes in the
Coachella Valley – San Gorgonio Pass Corridor (the Corridor).
This report describes the project Purpose & Need statement and supporting market analysis,
the stakeholder and public outreach process, the initial range of route alternatives proposed for
consideration, the screening methodology and criteria used to evaluate these route alternatives,
and the results of the alternatives analysis. Through a two-step screening process, preliminary
service planning elements were analyzed to identify the range of route alternatives that will be
considered in the next phase.
ES.1 Study Area
The Corridor extends from a terminus in Indio, California, on the east to LAUS in downtown Los
Angeles, California, on the west. The Study Area consists of two sections:
The Eastern Section is approximately 71 miles long between Indio and Colton,
California, and includes the only existing rail route alternative for that section of the
Corridor; and
The Western Section between Colton and Los Angeles contains six passenger rail route
alternatives that use all or portions of four existing rail routes, from which one may be
selected as the preferred route alternative. The six alternatives in the Western Section
vary in length between 58 and 70 miles.
Figure ES-1. Study Area
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | ES-2
ES.2 Purpose and Need for the Study
Need for Transportation Improvements
1. For interregional travel between the Coachella Valley and the Los Angeles Basin there
are very limited options to driving a private vehicle, so people who cannot afford to own
and operate a private vehicle, or choose not to, have very limited ability to travel
between the regions, and people who might prefer not to drive and do not have a viable
alternative.
2. Congested highway conditions in the Los Angeles Basin cause delays and unreliability
for longer-distance corridor driving trips. Emergency closures of Interstate 10 through
San Gorgonio Pass further undermine the reliability of the corridor’s transportation
system. Future growth will result in more congestion and even longer travel times, and
more unreliability. Thus driving is an increasingly unattractive and inconvenient mode of
travel through the corridor.
Purpose and Objectives for Transportation Improvements
The transportation service improvements should achieve the following objectives:
1. Provides travelers between the Coachella Valley and the Los Angeles Basin with a
public transportation service that offers more convenient and competitive trip times,
better station access, and more frequency, than currently-available public transportation
services;
2. Provides travelers between the Coachella Valley and the Los Angeles Basin with an
alternative to driving that offers reliable travel schedules;
3. Provides travelers between the Coachella Valley and the Los Angeles Basin with a
transportation service that is affordable.
4. Serves a range of trip purposes traveling between the Coachella Valley and the Los
Angeles Basin, particularly including business, social, medical, leisure, and recreational
trips;
5. Improves regional travel opportunities between the Coachella Valley and the Los
Angeles Basin for transit dependent people;
6. Is planned to serve the expected population growth in the Coachella Valley and the Los
Angeles Basin;
7. Does not preclude, by choice of alignment or technology, a possible future corridor
expansion between the Coachella Valley and Phoenix.
ES.3 Market Analysis
A detailed market analysis of the Coachella Valley region was performed for this study, looking
at demographics, existing transportation facilities and services, existing and future travel
volumes and trip patterns, and how the transportation system performs both now and in the
future. The key points identified in this analysis are summarized below.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | ES-3
The market analysis confirmed the need and purpose identified in Section 2. The needs of the
corridor included providing reliable transportation options. The purpose and objectives identified
included addressing the projected growth in trips between the two regions, providing an
affordable, convenient and reliable alternative to driving, serving transit dependent people in the
corridor, and serving a range of trip purposes.
There is a strong economic, demographic, and cultural connection between the Coachella
Valley and the Los Angeles Basin – every day 130,000 people travel between the two regions,
and that number increases on weekends. As the Los Angeles Basin population continues to
grow while the Coachella Valley is expected to experience rapid population growth, the
connection will become even stronger, with a projected 47% increase in travel over the next
20 years (SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS).
Analysis of weekday trip patterns shows that more than 60% of the travelers are moving
between the Coachella Valley and the Inland Empire. On weekends that percentage is reduced
but Los Angeles County travelers make up the difference (Caltrans PeMS data, December
2014).
Based on the origins and destinations information gathered by AirSage, business and commuter
trips comprise an important component of weekday travel, and a combination of
social/recreational and visitor trips increases the travel volumes on Fridays and weekends
(AirSage, 2014).
Virtually all of the travelers drive on I-10 through San Gorgonio Pass because there are few
alternatives to driving and few road options to the freeway. Corridor travelers experience
significant recurring highway congestion through many parts of the Corridor, but have limited
public transportation alternatives: one Amtrak long-distance train, two commuter bus routes, one
Amtrak Thruway bus that connects with the Pacific Surfliner train in Fullerton, and private
intercity bus service operated by Greyhound. The lack of available transportation options leaves
the Corridor underserved, yet travel demand is expected to increase in the future.
As illustrated in Section 3, the numbers support a need for a convenient, reliable, and affordable
alternative to driving in the Los Angeles-Coachella Valley corridor. The projected growth,
existing travel patterns and congestion, and lack of existing options all suggest that a transit
alternative to driving the I-10 corridor could be successful.
ES.4 Methodology
The screening process included two steps: an initial coarse-level screening to identify whether
any route alternative is hindered by major challenges (and would thus be eliminated from
subsequent fine-level screening) and a fine-level screening to evaluate each route alternative
not eliminated in coarse-level screening in greater quantitative and qualitative detail. This two-
step screening process was used to eliminate those route alternatives from detailed analysis
that do not meet the Purpose and Need for the Study, are not reasonable and/or feasible,
and/or have environmental, physical, or right-of-way (ROW) constraints that make them less
reasonable than one or more other route alternatives. This process is intended to allow the
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | ES-4
Tier 1 NEPA document to focus on only those route alternatives that truly warrant consideration.
Figure ES-2 illustrates the screening methodology.
Figure ES-2. Screening Methodology Flow Chart
ES.5 Outreach
At the initiation of the analysis process, the team developed a comprehensive outreach plan,
which serves as the blueprint for community engagement. Key components of the project
outreach efforts include:
Development and ongoing maintenance of a contact database
Updating existing RCTC website pages and responding to inquires via the website
Creation of fact sheets and frequently asked questions (FAQ) in English and Spanish
An ongoing social media campaign on Facebook and Twitter
Engaging agency partners through Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings
Hosting stakeholder briefings for elected officials
Hosting public outreach meetings using in-person and webcast formats
ES.6 Range of Route Alternatives
The Study identified potential route alternatives and service options for the Corridor based on
the Purpose and Need Statement, review of previous studies, and ideas or concepts that were
suggested by resource agencies or the public during the outreach process.
The No-Build Alternative consists of existing and programmed services that currently serve the
Corridor (connecting the Coachella Valley with the Los Angeles Basin). Five intercity rail and
bus services currently provide such regional linkages, and no new corridor services are
programmed and funded for implementation at this time.
Six route alternatives in addition to the No Build Alternative were identified, as shown in Figure
ES-3. All of the alternatives would utilize the Union Pacific Railroad’s (UP) Yuma Subdivision
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | ES-5
between Indio and Colton for the Eastern portion of the alignment, and various combinations of
four existing rail lines between Colton and Los Angeles.
Figure ES-3. Coachella Valley – San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Route Alternatives
Route Alternatives 1 through 3 use the UP Yuma Subdivision between Indio and Colton and
then follow three of the four rail lines west of Colton, as described below.
Route Alternative 1 uses the BNSF Railway (BNSF) San Bernardino Subdivision from
Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach LAUS;
Route Alternative 2 uses the UP Los Angeles Subdivision from Colton through Riverside
and Pomona to reach LAUS;
Route Alternative 3 uses the UP Alhambra Subdivision from Colton through Ontario and
Pomona to reach LAUS.
Route Alternative 4 uses the UP Yuma Subdivision between Indio and Colton, the SCRRA Short
Way Subdivision between Colton and San Bernardino, and the Metrolink San Gabriel
Subdivision (owned by Los Angeles Metro (Metro) and SANBAG) between San Bernardino and
Los Angeles. It has two variations between San Bernardino and Los Angeles.
Route Alternative 4-A uses the Metrolink San Gabriel Subdivision through Rialto and
Montclair to reach LAUS, but does not travel east to serve the new E Street Station in
downtown San Bernardino that is currently under construction, making its length
approximately 4 miles shorter than Alternative 4-B;
Route Alternative 4-B also uses the Metrolink San Gabriel Subdivision, but travels east
from the SCRRA Short Way Subdivision to serve the new E Street Station in San
Bernardino so its route is approximately four miles longer than Alternative 4-A. .
Route Alternative 5 uses the UP Yuma Subdivision between Indio and Colton, the SCRRA Short
Way Subdivision between Colton and San Bernardino, the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision
between San Bernardino and El Monte, and the UP Alhambra Subdivision between El Monte
and Los Angeles.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | ES-6
ES.7 Description of the Proposed Service
For purposes of this analysis the assumed endpoints of the proposed passenger rail service are
Indio and Los Angeles. The proposed maximum speed of the service is 79 miles per hour
(mph), which would result in scheduled one-way travel times between Indio and Los Angeles of
approximately 3 hours 6 minutes to 3 hours 38 minutes, depending upon the route alternative
that is chosen and the number of station stops. Of the two potential endpoints, only the Los
Angeles station location has been identified at this time (LAUS). Intermediate station stops
would be located on each route alternative at some of the larger intermediate cities; however,
specific sites have not been identified in this Alternatives Analysis and will be studied in the
subsequent Service Development Plan. The frequency of the proposed passenger rail service
has been initially defined as two daily round trips between Indio and Los Angeles. Although the
proposed passenger rail service would use existing infrastructure, additional infrastructure (such
as track, wayside signals, drainage and grade-separation structures, and stations) is likely to be
necessary, to varying degrees, for each route alternative.
ES.8 Coarse-Level Screening
The coarse-level screening concluded that two of the six route alternatives, Route Alternatives 2
and 3, were not reasonable or feasible. Both are high-density freight lines, with substantial
sections of single track that would require costly expansion projects to create the additional
capacity needed to reliably operate the proposed Coachella Valley passenger rail service and
mitigate effects on freight rail capacity and reliability. Both routes also experience freight-train
congestion and serve freight terminals where trains enter and exit at low speeds. The remaining
four route alternatives were carried forward for more detailed consideration in the fine-level
screening.
ES.9 Fine-Level Screening
The fine-level screening concluded that of the remaining four alternatives carried forward from
the coarse-level screening, three are not reasonable or feasible. Each of the route alternatives
is discussed below. Table ES-1 provides a side-by-side comparison of each alternative.
Table ES-1. Route Alternative Comparison
Route Alternative
Route Description 1 4-A 4-B 5 No-Build
LA to Colton
Colton to Indio
BNSF San
Bernardino
Subdivision
UP Yuma
Subdivision
Metrolink San
Gabriel
Subdivision
UP Yuma Sub
Metrolink San
Gabriel
Subdivision
UP Yuma Sub
Alhambra
Subdivision +
San Gabriel
Subdivision
UP Yuma Sub
None
None
Intermediate
Stations (LA to
Colton)
Fullerton,
Riverside
Montclair,
Rialto
Montclair,
San
Bernardino
Montclair,
San
Bernardino
None
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | ES-7
Table ES-1. Route Alternative Comparison
Route Alternative
Route Description 1 4-A 4-B 5 No-Build
LA to Colton
Colton to Indio
BNSF San
Bernardino
Subdivision
UP Yuma
Subdivision
Metrolink San
Gabriel
Subdivision
UP Yuma Sub
Metrolink San
Gabriel
Subdivision
UP Yuma Sub
Alhambra
Subdivision +
San Gabriel
Subdivision
UP Yuma Sub
None
None
Purpose and Need:
Travel Demand
10.73 million
total corridor
population in
2008
8.75 million
total corridor
population in
2008
8.72 million
total corridor
population in
2008
8.72 million
total corridor
population in
2008
No additional
service
Ridership Forecast
(2022 to 2040)
189,100 to
272,300
161,600 to
229,600
148,200 to
210,600
148,200 to
210,600 None
Revenue Forecast
(2022 to 2040)
$3.25 million to
$4.66 million
$2.84 million
to $4.04
million
$2.55 million
to $3.62
million
$2.55 million
to $3.62
million
None
Est. Running Time
Westbound
Eastbound
3:10
3:16
3:06
3:14
3:27
3:35
3:28
3:38
Not Applicable
Purpose and Need:
Competitive and
Attractive Travel
Modes*
141 miles
Competitive
travel time
131 miles
Competitive
travel time
134 miles
Excessive
travel time
134 miles
Excessive
travel time
No new travel
mode
Environmental
Concerns:
Environmental
Impacts
No
unreasonable
environmental
resource
issues
identified
Potentially
impacted by
4 Superfund
sites
21 Section
4(f)
resources
5 identified
Historic
Sites/
Districts
Potentially
impacted by
4 Superfund
sites
21 Section
4(f)
resources
7 identified
Historic
Sites/
Districts
Potentially
impacted by
4 Superfund
sites
21 Section
4(f)
resources
8 identified
Historic
sites/
Districts
No unreasonable
environmental
resource issues
identified
Environmental
Concerns: Right-of-
Way
None
High
percentage of
residential and
commercial
uses that
would need to
be acquired
and relocated
High
percentage of
residential and
commercial
uses that
would need to
be acquired
and relocated
High
percentage of
residential and
commercial
uses that
would need to
be acquired
and relocated
None
Technical
Feasibility:
Passenger and
Freight Capacity
No change to
existing
capacity
Partial
second main
track
New
Gonzales
Connection
at Colton
New CP-
Vernon
connection
New
Shortway
Partial
second main
track
New
Gonzales
Connection
at Colton
Potential
new San
Bernardino
station track
Potential
Partial
second main
track
New
Gonzales
Connection
at Colton
Potential
new San
Bernardino
station track
Potential
No change to
existing capacity
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | ES-8
Table ES-1. Route Alternative Comparison
Route Alternative
Route Description 1 4-A 4-B 5 No-Build
LA to Colton
Colton to Indio
BNSF San
Bernardino
Subdivision
UP Yuma
Subdivision
Metrolink San
Gabriel
Subdivision
UP Yuma Sub
Metrolink San
Gabriel
Subdivision
UP Yuma Sub
Alhambra
Subdivision +
San Gabriel
Subdivision
UP Yuma Sub
None
None
Flyover at
San
Bernardino
new San
Bernardino
Flyover
new San
Bernardino
Flyover
Freight
congestion
Technical/Economic
Feasibility:
Alignment
No change to
existing
alignments
Heavy
earthwork
requirements
and property
acquisition to
build Shortway
Flyover
Heavy
earthwork
requirements
and property
acquisition to
build San
Bernardino
Flyover
Heavy
earthwork
requirements
and property
acquisition to
build San
Bernardino
Flyover
No change to
existing alignments
Technical/Economic
Feasibility:
Structures
No changes to
structures
New San
Bernardino
flyover
New San
Bernardino
flyover
New San
Bernardino
flyover
No changes to
structures
Technical/Economic
Feasibility: Grade
Crossings
No changes to
grade crossings
Moderate
number of
grade
crossings, but
not technically
complicated
Moderate
number of
grade
crossings, but
not technically
complicated
Moderate
number of
grade
crossings, but
not technically
complicated
No changes to
grade crossings
Economic
Feasibility Base Base plus
$141 million
Base plus
$130 million
Base plus
$162 million Not applicable
Meets Purpose
and Need Yes No No No No
Carried Forward Yes No No No Yes**
Source: HDR, 2015 (Appendix E)
*In comparison to currently-available transportation services.
**While the No-Build Alternative does not meet purpose and need, it is carried forward to provide a basis of
comparison to any route alternative (40 CFR 1502.14; 64 FR 28545).
ES.10 Conclusion
Route Alternative 1 will be carried forward for analysis in the Tier 1 EIS and SDP because,
when compared to other route alternatives considered, it:
Meets Project Purpose and Need
Has relatively low construction complexity and low construction costs (technical and
economic feasibility)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | ES-9
May not require a flyover above an active rail line (technical and economic feasibility)
Has a competitive passenger-train travel time (purpose and need)
Serves the largest population (purpose and need)
Has the highest ridership and revenue forecast (purpose and need, and economic
feasibility)
Has no unreasonable environmental resource issues (environmental concerns)
The No-Build Alternative will also be carried forward for analysis in the Tier 1 EIS because
evaluation of No Action is required by NEPA, and the alternative serves as a basis of
comparison for likely impacts of constructing and operating the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio
Pass Rail Corridor service. The Tier 1 EIS analysis will provide a basis for selecting the service
level (station stops and frequency) that will best meet the purpose and need for the new
passenger rail service.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 1
1 Introduction
The Coachella Valley – San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail
Service Study (the Study) undertaken by the Riverside
County Transportation Commission (RCTC) in coordination
with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) will identify
the possibility for implementation of an intercity passenger
rail service between Indio in the Coachella Valley through
San Gorgonio Pass to Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS) in
Los Angeles, California. The major work during the first
phase of this Project is completion of an Alternatives
Analysis and initial service development planning for potential routes in the Coachella Valley –
San Gorgonio Pass Corridor (the Corridor). If RCTC decides that the Project is viable after
completion of the first phase, a second phase will commence to prepare Environmental
Documentation (ED) and a Service Development Plan (SDP). All work for this Project will be
consistent with FRA requirements and expectations on previous Tier 1 (Service) Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS)/Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and SDP service
level studies and subsequent FRA guidance for planning of intercity passenger rail corridors.
This report describes the initial range of route alternatives proposed for consideration for the
Study, the screening methodology and criteria used to evaluate these route alternatives, the
results of the alternatives analysis, and agency and public input on the alternatives analysis.
Through a two-step screening process, preliminary service planning elements were analyzed to
identify the range of route alternatives that will be considered in the ED and SDP, which will be
prepared to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The ED will
evaluate potential impacts of route alternatives carried forward from the screening process for
detailed analysis and comparison. In addition, a No-Build Alternative will be retained for analysis
in the ED to serve as the baseline for comparison of the route alternatives carried forward. It will
also help decision makers and the public understand the consequences of taking no action.
Ultimately, RCTC, Caltrans and FRA will select one route alternative based on the detailed
evaluation in the ED and input from resource agencies and the public.
This report is organized as follows:
Section 1, Introduction – Describes the Study Area and provides an overview of the
alternatives analysis review process.
Section 2, Purpose and Need of the Study – Defines the purpose of and need for the
Study.
Section 3, Market Analysis – Describes the market, demographics, and relevant
geographic information.
Section 4, Screening Methodology – Describes the screening criteria and the screening
process for both coarse- and fine-level screening.
The Introduction
Section describes the
Study Area and
provides an overview
of the alternatives
analysis review
process.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 2
Section 5, Outreach – Describes opportunities for agency and public input and
summarizes input received.
Section 6, Identification of a Range of Route Alternatives – Identifies the alternatives to
be evaluated using the screening methodology discussed in Section 4.
Section 7, Description of the Proposed Service – Describes the proposed passenger rail
service to be provided by the selected route alternative.
Section 8, Coarse-Level Screening – Presents the results of coarse-level screening and
identifies the route alternatives carried forward for fine-level screening.
Section 9, Fine-Level Screening – Presents the results of fine-level screening and
identifies the route alternatives carried forward for evaluation in the ED.
Section 10, Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives Carried Forward – Summarizes the
route alternatives carried forward from coarse- and fine-level screening for detailed
evaluation in the ED.Section 11, References – Provides detailed information on the
sources used to prepare this Alternatives Analysis Report.
Study Area
The Corridor extends from a terminus in Indio, California on the east to LAUS in downtown Los
Angeles, California, on the west. The Study Area consists of two sections:
The Eastern Section is approximately 71 miles long between Indio and Colton,
California, and is the only established rail route alternative for that section of the
Corridor; and
The Western Section between Colton and Los Angeles contains six passenger rail route
alternatives that use all or portions of four established passenger routes, from which one
may be selected as the preferred route alternative. The six alternatives in the Western
Section vary in length between 58 and 70 miles.
The Eastern Section extends from Indio west to Colton, and operates through urban, suburban,
and rural areas. This portion of the Corridor is situated in one of the fastest-growing areas of the
Southern California region, owing to increased residential development that has resulted in a
doubling of population between 1990 and 2010 (SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS). In addition, the
Coachella Valley has a large number of tourist destinations that attract regional visitors from
Southern California as well as national and international visitors, including Palm Springs, Desert
Hot Springs, and Joshua Tree National Park. The Eastern Section traverses San Bernardino
and Riverside counties.
The Western Section extends from Colton to Los Angeles, a densely developed region with
many residential communities and employment centers. All four route alternatives in this section
have a western terminus at LAUS, which is a hub for passenger and commuter rail services in
Southern California, as well as local light rail, rail rapid transit, and bus transit serving Los
Angeles County, including the FlyAway express bus service to Los Angeles International Airport
(LAX). The four established passenger rail routes in the Western Section to be evaluated are
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 3
numbered from south to north. For each route, the California counties traversed are indicated in
Table 1. The Study Area is shown in Figure 1.
Table 1. California Counties Traversed by Routes in the Study Area’s Western Section
Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4-A Route 4-B Route 5
San Bernardino San Bernardino San Bernardino San Bernardino San Bernardino San Bernardino
Riverside Riverside
Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Orange Los Angeles Los Angeles
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study Draft Alternatives Analysis Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 4 Figure 1. Study Area
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 5
2 Purpose and Need for the Study
The purpose and need for the Study were developed after
extensive study of the current and forecasted market
conditions in the corridor and outreach to elected officials,
stakeholders, and the general public. The market analysis
results are reported in Section 3, and the outreach program
is described in Section 6.
2.1 Need for Transportation
Improvements
1. For interregional travel between the Coachella Valley
and the Los Angeles Basin there are very limited options to driving a private vehicle, so
people who cannot afford to own and operate a private vehicle, or choose not to, have
very limited ability to travel between the regions, and people who might prefer not to
drive and do not have a viable alternative.
2. Congested highway conditions in the Los Angeles Basin cause delays and unreliability
for longer-distance corridor driving trips. Emergency closures of Interstate 10 through
San Gorgonio Pass further undermine the reliability of the corridor’s transportation
system. Future growth will result in more congestion and even longer travel times, and
more unreliability. Thus driving is an increasingly unattractive and inconvenient mode of
travel through the corridor.
2.2 Purpose and Objectives for Transportation
Improvements
The transportation service improvements should achieve the following objectives:
1. Provides travelers between the Coachella Valley and the Los Angeles Basin with a
public transportation service that offers more convenient and competitive trip times,
better station access, and more frequency, than currently-available public transportation
services;
2. Provides travelers between the Coachella Valley and the Los Angeles Basin with an
alternative to driving that offers reliable travel schedules;
3. Provides travelers between the Coachella Valley and the Los Angeles Basin with a
transportation service that is affordable;
4. Serves a range of trip purposes traveling between the Coachella Valley and the Los
Angeles Basin, particularly including business, social, medical, leisure, and recreational
trips;
5. Improves regional travel opportunities between the Coachella Valley and the Los
Angeles Basin for transit dependent people;
Section 2 defines the
purpose of and need
for the Study based on
the findings of the
Market Analysis and
outreach to elected
officials, stakeholders,
and the general public.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 6
6. Is planned to serve the expected population growth in the Coachella Valley and the Los
Angeles Basin; and
7. Does not preclude, by choice of alignment or technology, a possible future corridor
expansion between the Coachella Valley and Phoenix.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 7
3 Market Analysis
Multiple sources of information have been utilized in
order to present a comprehensive picture of the Study
Area. The market analysis is presented below in four
sections:
Corridor Demographics,
Transportation Facilities and Services,
Travel Volumes and Trip Patterns, and
Transportation System Performance.
At the end of each section there is a list of key points that highlight information that is especially
significant to the understanding of corridor travel. References and data sources are listed in
Section 11.
3.1 Corridor Demographics
3.1.1 Overall Population and Employment
According to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2012 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), the four counties
comprising the corridor (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino) have a current
population of approximately 17 million, as shown in Figure 2. Between 2008 and 2035, the
population is projected to increase by 23 percent, adding more than 4 million new residents for a
total of 20.8 million residents, as shown in Table 2.
Figure 2. Study Area Population
Table 2. Coachella Valley Corridor Population and Density Forecasts (2008-2035)
2008 2020 2035 % Change
Total Corridor Population (Thousands) 16,911 18,530 20,848 23%
Population Density (Pop./sq. mile) 526 577 649 23%
Source: SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS
The Market Analysis describes
the corridor’s travelers and trip
making (corridor
demographics, travel volumes,
and trip patterns) as well as
the corridor transportation
system (facilities, services,
and performance).
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 8
Table 3 shows the population growth forecast by county to 2035. The permanent population of
the Coachella Valley (443,000 in 2008) represents 21% of Riverside County, but is forecast to
grow at an even faster rate than the County as a whole, with a projected doubling of population
by 2035. The population of the Pass Area (Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, and the
unincorporated community of Cabazon) is 77,000 and is also projected to grow by more than
double by 2035 with a forecast population approaching 175,000. (SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS)
Table 3. Coachella Valley Corridor Population Forecasts by County (2008-2035)
County 2008 2035 % Growth
Los Angeles 9,778,000 11,353,000 16%
Orange 2,989,000 3,421,000 14%
Riverside 2,128,000 3,324,000 56%
Coachella Valley 443,000 884,000 100%
Pass Area 77,000 175,000 134%
San Bernardino 2,016,000 2,750,000 36%
Source: SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS, US Census 2010
Total employment in the corridor exceeds 7 million, and is forecast to increase by 22% by 2035,
as shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Coachella Valley Corridor Employment Forecasts (2008-2035)
County 2008 2020 2035 % Change
Total Corridor Employment 7,329,000 7,933,000 8,908,000 22%
Source: SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS
Table 5 shows future total employment growth rate by county through 2035. The Coachella
Valley’s employment (168,000) represents 25% of the Riverside County total, and is projected
to increase 83% by 2035. The Pass Area employment (including Banning, Beaumont, and
Calimesa, as employment figures for Cabazon are not available separately) is currently 15,000
and projected to grow by more than 125%.
Table 5. Coachella Valley Corridor Employment Forecasts by County (2008-2035)
County 2008 2035 % Growth
Los Angeles 4,340,000 4,827,000 11%
Orange 1,624,000 1,779,000 10%
Riverside 664,000 1,243,000 87%
Coachella Valley 168,000 308,000 83%
Pass Area 15,000 34,000 127%
San Bernardino 701,000 1,059,000 51%
Source: SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 9
3.1.2 Tourism
Tourism is a major industry in the Coachella Valley, and the Valley is a major destination for
recreation and leisure travel for residents of the Los Angeles Basin.
The Greater Palm Springs Convention and Visitors Bureau (GPSCVB) reported 12.2 million
annual visitors to the Coachella Valley in the 2013 Economic Impact Report. Of those annual
visitors, approximately 45% stayed overnight, and the average length of stay was 2-4 days. The
GPSCVB also tracks conventions, and approximately 40%, or just under 70,000, of the
convention / meeting room nights in 2013 were occupied by visitors from California.
Major festivals and events, as well as local attractions, attract millions of visitors each year.
Joshua Tree National Park receives 1.4 million annual visitors (NPS.gov, accessed August
2015). A sample of the larger events is listed in Table 6. The economic impact of the highest
grossing events, the Coachella and Stagecoach Festivals, exceeds $254 million annually
(SCPR.org, accessed August 2015).
Table 6. Major Events in Coachella Valley
Event Month Location Duration 2013
Attendance
Humana Challenger (PGA Golf) and LPGA
Major Championship
January
and April
La Quinta and
Rancho Mirage
5 days and
4 days 135,000a
Riverside County Fair & National Date Festival February Indio 7 day 294,864
Tour de Palm Springs Bike Event February Palm Springs 1 day 10,000
BNP Paribas Open Tennis Tournament March Indian Wells 14 days 340,000
El Paseo Fashion Week March Palm Desert 7 days 11,000
Palm Desert Food & Wine Festival March Palm Desert 2 days 2,334
The Dinah Shore Weekend Festival April Palm Springs Area 2 days 15,000
Coachella Valley Music & Arts Festival b April Indio 2 weekends 158,000
Stagecoach Country Music Festival b April Indio 2 days 55,000
Modernism Week October Palm Springs Area 11 days 30,000
Sources: Greater Palm Springs Convention and Visitors Bureau 2013 Economic Impact Report; Greater Palm
Springs Convention and Visitors Bureau 2013 Annual Report; Coachella Valley Association of Governments
(CVAG) 2004 Origin-Destination Travel Survey
a combined total of PGA and LPGA golf events
3.1.3 Disadvantaged Communities
Disadvantaged communities in California are defined at the Census tract level by the California
Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) using a combination of socioeconomic and
environmental factors, including area median income, levels of educational attainment,
community health indicators (such as hospitalization rates for asthma), and exposure to
environmental hazards. Many of these disadvantaged communities are located within or
adjacent to the Corridor, as shown below in Figure 3, with the red shaded areas representing
the most disadvantaged. Portions of the Corridor have also been identified as Non-Attainment
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 10
and Attainment-Maintenance Areas for ozone, Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10), Fine
Particulate Matter (PM2.5), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) under federal
and state air quality conformity requirements.
Figure 3. CalEnviroScreen 2.0 Overlay on Coachella Valley Rail Alignment Options
Source: California Environmental Protection Agency, 2015
Enhanced intercity passenger rail service is consistent with State and regional efforts to mitigate
pollution impacts on disadvantaged communities along the Corridor, including the Coachella
Valley, by reducing mobile source emissions associated with highway and truck traffic on
parallel highways from Los Angeles to Indio including I-10.
The market analysis provides a more in-depth understanding of which potential users will
benefit from the proposed service. To the extent that the users of the proposed service are
drawn from disadvantaged communities, the proposed service will be positioned more
competitively for various state discretionary grant programs that use the CalEPA’s mapping of
disadvantaged communities as a selection criterion in awarding funds. Per Assembly Bill 1532,
all grant programs funded by cap and trade revenues that require at least 25 percent of the
proceeds generated from the program to benefit disadvantaged communities. The State’s cap
and trade program is anticipated to generate over $2 billion in revenues in FY 2015/16, making
it a significant source of potential funding for intercity rail projects. The State’s Active
Transportation Program (ATP), established by Senate Bill 99, also uses disadvantaged
community status as one of many selection criteria. ATP funds could be used, for example, to
improve multimodal station access and thereby reinforce Corridor ridership. Disadvantaged
community status will assist RCTC in leveraging various State funding programs in the
implementation of enhanced passenger rail service.
Transportation projects that can demonstrate a direct, meaningful, and assured benefit to
disadvantaged communities are thus more competitive for funding.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 11
Demographics and Income
The State of California identifies a Disadvantaged Community (DAC) as any community where
the median household income is below 80 percent of the statewide household income, relying
upon 2010 Census data. According to this definition, there are more than 84 disadvantaged
communities in the six-county Southern California region (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Diego, and Imperial). As shown in Table 7, four of the nine incorporated cities
in the Coachella Valley, containing over 40% of the Valley’s population, have poverty rates
exceeding the county, state, and federal average of 14%, and in two of them the poverty rate
exceeds 25%. Two of the unincorporated communities of the Coachella Valley have poverty
rates approaching 50% (Mecca and Oasis). Two of the three Pass Area cities, containing 85%
of the Pass Area population, have poverty rates exceeding the county, state, and federal
average of 14% (Banning and Beaumont), and in Beaumont the poverty rate exceeds 22%. The
unincorporated community of Cabazon also has a poverty rate that exceeds 22%.
Table 7. Coachella Valley and Pass Area Cities – Population and Poverty Rates
Population Poverty Rate
City (2008 Population)
Cathedral City (Coachella Valley) 50,200 18.8%
Coachella (Coachella Valley) 38,200 26.3%
Desert Hot Springs (Coachella
Valley) 25,200 25.6%
Indian Wells (Coachella Valley) 4,800 4.4%
Indio (Coachella Valley) 73,300 21.0%
La Quinta (Coachella Valley) 36,100 7.7%
Palm Desert (Coachella Valley) 47,100 8.7%
Palm Springs (Coachella Valley) 43,400 13.3%
Rancho Mirage (Coachella Valley) 16,900 11.4%
Banning (Pass Area) 28,900 18.0%
Beaumont (Pass Area) 33,600 22.8%
Calimesa (Pass Area) 7,700 13.4%
Community (2010 Population)
Thousand Palms (Coachella Valley) 7,700 9.1%
Desert Palms (Coachella Valley) 7,000 3.0%
Mecca (Coachella Valley) 8,600 47.8%
Oasis (Coachella Valley) 6,900 48.5%
Bermuda Dunes (Coachella Valley) 7,300 7.0%
Cabazon (Pass Area) 2,500 22.1%
Region (2010 Population)
USA 309.3 million 14.3%
California 37.4 million 14.4%
Riverside County 2.2 million 14.2%
Source: SCAG 2008; 2010 U.S. Census
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 12
3.1.4 Key Points: Corridor Demographics
The overall corridor has a very large population (17 million) and employment base (7
million).
The corridor is projected to continue growing at a robust rate, with the Coachella Valley
and Pass Area expected to be two of the most rapidly growing parts of the state.
The Coachella Valley is home to a large tourism industry that attracts millions of visitors
annually from Southern California and around the world.
There are a number of disadvantaged communities within the corridor that could have a
significant improvement in regional mobility from an intercity passenger rail service.
3.2 Transportation Facilities and Services
This section describes the existing transportation facilities and services within the corridor.
These include the highway network, bus and rail systems, and freight and air travel.
The Coachella Valley is connected with the Greater Los Angeles area to the west via the San
Gorgonio Pass, a major transportation corridor that includes I-10 and the Union Pacific Railroad.
The only other connecting roads travel through the mountains and carry a small volume of
travelers.
3.2.1 Highway System Serving the Corridor
The key regional highways serving the corridor are highlighted in Figure 4. Within the Coachella
Valley, the main roadways that carry vehicles to the San Gorgonio Pass are Interstate 10 (I-10)
and State Route 111 (SR 111). I-10 runs along the northeastern rim of the Coachella Valley
while SR 111 runs for about 30 miles along the southwestern rim of the Coachella Valley and
serves as the main arterial highway between almost all Coachella Valley cities.
I-10 is the only roadway that traverses the San Gorgonio Pass to connect the Coachella Valley
with the Los Angeles Basin. I-10 is the southernmost transcontinental highway in the American
Interstate Highway System. It stretches from the Pacific Ocean at State Route 1 (Pacific Coast
Highway) in Santa Monica, California to Interstate 95 in Jacksonville, Florida. Between
downtown Los Angeles and Indio, I-10 varies from 6 to 14 lanes, with 6 to 8 lanes through the
majority of the Coachella Valley.
State Route 60 (SR 60) also connects Los Angeles with the Coachella Valley, tying into I-10 at
Beaumont. It runs from I-10 near the Los Angeles River in Los Angeles east to I-10 in Riverside
County, with overlaps at State Route 57 (SR 57) and Interstate 215 (I-215). The highway varies
from six to eight lanes in width, with some segments of two high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes
as well.
State Route 91 (SR 91) is the east-west freeway route that carries Orange County travelers to
the Coachella Valley, tying into SR 60 in the City of Riverside. SR 91 varies from six to ten
lanes in width, also with two HOV lanes through much of its length and four express lanes from
SR 55 to the Riverside County line.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study Draft Alternatives Analysis Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 13 Figure 4. Key Corridor Highways
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 14
SR 111 is the main arterial highway corridor through the Coachella Valley. It runs from the U.S.-
Mexico border crossing in Calexico to Interstate 10 at White Water. SR 111 enters the
southeast corner of the Coachella Valley as a two-lane highway. SR 111 continues northwest as
a major arterial road, four lanes or wider, through the Coachella Valley cities. The highway
enters Palm Springs where it swings north and then west to bypass downtown. SR 111
Business passes through the congested downtown Palm Springs area. The highway widens
from an arterial road to a divided expressway as it exits Palm Springs just northwest of San
Rafael Drive. It ends at an interchange with I-10 just east of the San Gorgonio Pass.
3.2.2 Transit System Connecting Coachella Valley and LA Basin
There are a limited number of bus and rail transit services within the Corridor, as shown in
Figure 5 and described in this section.
Figure 5. Rail and Bus Services within the Corridor
Bus Transit Service
Public transportation in the Coachella Valley is provided by the SunLine Transit Agency, a Joint
Powers Authority created in 1977 to provide public transit service to its member cities and
unincorporated communities in the Coachella Valley. SunLine’s service area is 1,120 square
miles, with transit service offered throughout the urbanized areas and larger unincorporated
communities of the Coachella Valley. SunLine offers fixed route and paratransit services.
(SunLine Transit Agency, June 2014)
SunLine’s Commuter Link, Line 220, introduced in September 2012, offers service between the
Coachella Valley and Western Riverside County. Two trips are operated weekday mornings
westbound, with two trips returning eastbound weekday afternoon/evenings. As shown in
Figure 6, the route is 73 miles long, and has stops in the Coachella Valley, the Pass Cities
(Morongo Casino/Cabazon, Banning, Beaumont), Moreno Valley, and the University of
California Riverside and the downtown Riverside Metrolink train and bus stations. (SunLine
Transit Agency, June 2014)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 15
Figure 6. SunLine Route 220
Source: SunLine Transit Agency, 2013
Beaumont Commuter Link 120 provides express bus service between Beaumont and the San
Bernardino Metrolink station, with stops in Calimesa and at the Loma Linda Veterans
Administration (VA) Hospital. The service makes seven round trips throughout the day each
weekday (no weekend service), with the first bus leaving Beaumont at 5:35 AM and the last bus
arriving back in Beaumont at 7:25 PM. In San Bernardino riders can catch Metrolink trains to
travel to other parts of the Los Angeles Basin. This service originates in the western part of the
Pass Area, so it does not directly serve Banning, Cabazon, or the Coachella Valley. The route
map for Commuter Link 120 is shown in Figure 7. (City of Beaumont, June 2014)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 16
Figure 7. Beaumont Transit Commuter Link 120
Source: City of Beaumont, June 2014
Intercity Rail and Bus
Amtrak Rail
The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak, is a publicly funded
passenger railroad operated and managed as a for-profit corporation. Amtrak began operations
on May 1, 1971, to provide long-distance and intercity passenger rail service in the United
States.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 17
In Los Angeles, Amtrak shares right of way with freight railroads and Metrolink commuter rail.
One Amtrak train serves the Coachella Valley – the Sunset Limited – a long-distance train that
travels between Los Angeles and New Orleans three days per week, as shown in Figure 8. The
westbound Sunset Limited is scheduled to stop in Palm Springs at 2:02 AM on Monday,
Wednesday, and Friday en route to Los Angeles, and the eastbound Sunset Limited is
scheduled to stop at Palm Springs at 12:36 AM on Monday, Thursday, and Saturday en route to
New Orleans. The Palm Springs station is unstaffed and located in a fairly isolated location with
no local transit access. (Amtrak, June 2014)
Figure 8. Amtrak Sunset Limited Route
Source: Amtrak, June 2014
Amtrak Thruway
Thruway Motorcoach is Amtrak's system of Amtrak-owned intercity motorcoaches, locally
contracted transit buses, through-ticketed local bus routes, and taxi services to connect Amtrak
train stations to areas not served by its railroads. Train and Thruway Motorcoach tickets are
purchased together from Amtrak for the length of a passenger's journey, and the connections
are timed for convenient dedicated transfers between the two services. In addition to providing
connecting service to unserved rail areas, some Thruway Motorcoaches operate as redundant
service along well-established passenger rail corridors to add extra capacity. California has an
extensive network of Thruway Motorcoaches; however, due to California state law, tickets are
sold only as part of train journeys. (Amtrak, June 2014)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 18
Eight daily Thruway buses on two routes serve portions of the Coachella Valley (stops are listed
in parentheses):
Bus 4968: Fullerton to Palm Springs (Fullerton, Riverside, Cabazon, Palm Springs
Downtown, Palm Springs Airport). Pacific Surfliner Trains 768, 769, and 572 connect
with this Route in Fullerton. This bus makes one one-way trip per day.
Bus 4984: Fullerton to Indio (Fullerton, Riverside, Cabazon, Palm Springs Downtown,
Palm Springs Airport, Palm Desert, La Quinta, Indio). Pacific Surfliner Trains 784 and
785 connect with this Route in Fullerton. This bus makes one one-way trip per day.
Bus 4969: Indio to Fullerton (Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs Airport, Palm
Springs Downtown, Cabazon, Riverside, Fullerton). Pacific Surfliner Trains 769 and 572
connect with this Route in Fullerton. This bus makes one one-way trip per day.
Bus 4985: Palm Springs to Fullerton (Palm Springs Airport, Palm Springs Downtown,
Cabazon, Riverside, Fullerton). Pacific Surfliner Trains 785 and 784 connect with this
Route in Fullerton. This bus makes one one-way trip per day.
Bus 5402: Bakersfield to Indio (Bakersfield, La Crescenta, Pasadena, Claremont,
Ontario, Riverside, San Bernardino, Cabazon, Palm Springs Downtown, Palm Springs
Airport, Palm Desert, La Quinta, Indio). San Joaquin Train 702 connects with this Route
in Bakersfield. This bus makes one one-way trip per day.
Bus 5414: Bakersfield to Indio (Bakersfield, La Crescenta, Pasadena, Claremont,
Ontario, Riverside, San Bernardino, Cabazon, Palm Springs Downtown, Palm Springs
Airport, Palm Desert, La Quinta, Indio). San Joaquin Train 714 connects with this Route
in Bakersfield. This bus makes one one-way trip per day.
Bus 5415: Indio to Bakersfield (Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs Airport,
Palm Springs Downtown, Cabazon, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ontario, Claremont,
Pasadena, La Crescenta, Bakersfield). San Joaquin Train 715 connects with this Route
in Bakersfield. This bus makes one one-way trip per day.
Bus 5403: Indio to Bakersfield (Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs Airport,
Palm Springs Downtown, Cabazon, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ontario, Claremont,
Pasadena, La Crescenta, Bakersfield). San Joaquin Train 703 connects with this Route
in Bakersfield. This bus makes one one-way trip per day.
In summary, the eight Amtrak Thruway busses combine to provide two daily round trips
between the Coachella Valley and Fullerton by way of Riverside, and two daily round trips
between the Coachella Valley and Bakersfield by way of San Bernardino, Ontario, and
Pasadena. Figure 9 shows Amtrak Thruway Schedules.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 19
Figure 9. Amtrak Thruway Route Schedules
Source: Amtrak, June 2014
Greyhound Bus
Founded in 1914, Greyhound Lines, Inc. is the largest provider of intercity bus transportation,
serving more than 3,800 destinations across North America. It serves nearly 18 million
passengers each year in the United States and Canada. Greyhound is owned by FirstGroup plc.
Greyhound operates direct service between Los Angeles and Indio, with seven weekday trips
from Los Angeles to Indio and six from Indio to Los Angeles. About half of these trips extend to
Phoenix. Intermediate stops are made on some of these trips in El Monte, Claremont, Riverside,
San Bernardino, Banning, and the Palm Springs Amtrak station. From three stations,
Greyhound provides connecting service to six other locations throughout the Los Angeles
Basin – Perris, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Long Beach, North Hollywood, and San Fernando.
Figure 10 shows the corridor cities connected by Greyhound service. (Greyhound.com, June
2014)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 20
Figure 10. Greyhound Service Connections
Metrolink Rail
Metrolink commuter rail service does not operate within the Coachella Valley. However, three of
the four rail corridors west of Colton being considered for the Coachella Valley rail service
currently have Metrolink service. These include the San Bernardino Line (LAUS to San
Bernardino), the Riverside Line (LAUS to Riverside), and the 91 Line (LAUS to Riverside, via
Orange County). Two additional Metrolink routes also operate on tracks shared with portions of
the 91 Line: the Orange County Line (LAUS to Oceanside) and the Inland Empire-Orange
County Line (San Bernardino to Oceanside). The Southern California Regional Rail Authority
(SCRRA) operates Metrolink service, which is funded through a JPA between the five Southern
California transportation commissions. The Metrolink system map is shown in Figure 11.
(SCRRA, June 2014)
The San Bernardino Line runs on the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision on headways ranging
from 10 to 95 minutes, providing 19 round trip trains on weekdays. Stations served include Los
Angeles, Cal State LA, El Monte, Baldwin Park, Covina, Pomona (North), Claremont, Montclair,
Upland, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, Rialto, and San Bernardino. On Saturdays, 10 trains
running at approximately 90-minute headways provide round trip service, and on Sundays,
seven round trip trains operate at approximately 2 to 3-hour headways. (SCRRA, June 2014)
The Riverside Line operates on the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) Los Angeles Subdivision,
serving stations in Los Angeles, Montebello/Commerce, Industry, Downtown Pomona, East
Ontario, Pedley, and Riverside. On weekdays, six trains travel from Riverside to LAUS, primarily
in the morning, and six return in the afternoon/evening. Headways vary from approximately
30 minutes to 2 hours. (SCRRA, June 2014)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 21
Figure 11. Metrolink System Map
Source: Metrolink, 2014
The 91 Line swings to the south on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) San
Bernardino Subdivision, which is also used by Metrolink’s Orange County Line and Inland
Empire-Orange County Line commuter trains, Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner intercity passenger
trains and the long-distance Southwest Chief between LAUS and Chicago. Between LAUS and
Fullerton, the segment hosts twelve Amtrak trains in each direction, and between Fullerton and
San Bernardino, one Amtrak train in each direction uses the line segment. Metrolink’s Riverside
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 22
Line commuter trains also use a small portion of the San Bernardino Subdivision. Stations
served by 91 Line commuter trains include Norwalk, Buena Park, Fullerton, West Corona, North
Main Corona, Riverside La Sierra, and Riverside Downtown. On weekdays, four trains operate
west, primarily in the morning, and five trains operate east, primarily in the evening. On
weekends, two 91 Line trains operate in each direction. (SCRRA, June 2014)
Table 8 illustrates the number of Metrolink trains operating on each subdivision (includes
portions of each right of way).
Table 8. Metrolink Service by Direction
Subdivision, Line, and Service Area
Number of Metrolink Trains
Weekdays Saturday Sunday
San Gabriel Subdivision
San Bernardino Line (LA-San Bernardino)
Westbound 19 10 7
Eastbound 19 10 7
UP Los Angeles Subdivision
Riverside Line (LA-Riverside)
Westbound 6 0 0
Eastbound 6 0 0
San Bernardino Subdivision
LA-Fullerton a
Westbound 14 6 6
Eastbound 14 6 6
Fullerton-Anaheim Canyon b
Westbound 4 2 2
Eastbound 5 2 2
Anaheim Canyon-Riverside b
Westbound 12 4 4
Eastbound 13 4 4
Riverside-San Bernardino b
Westbound 4 2 2
Eastbound 4 2 2
Source: SCRRA, 2015
a This line segment also hosts 12 Amtrak trains in each direction, in addition to Metrolink trains
b This line segment also hosts 1 Amtrak train in each direction, in addition to Metrolink trains
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 23
Other Transportation
Aviation in the area is served by the Palm Springs International Airport in Palm Springs,
Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport in Thermal, and Bermuda Dunes Municipal Airport in
Bermuda Dunes. Commercial flights serve the Palm Springs International Airport, while the
other two are general aviation airports. The average number of daily flights (all operated by
United) varies seasonally – in 2014 it ranged from 9.0 flights per day (total both directions) in
August to 13.5 flights per day in March. The advance one-way fare is more than $500 (Spring
2015). (United.com, May 2015)
Freight rail operations on the UP and BNSF lines described previously are high-volume. The
Yuma Subdivision, Los Angeles Subdivision, and Alhambra Subdivision carry UP’s
transcontinental freight traffic while the San Bernardino Subdivision carries BNSF’s
transcontinental freight traffic.
3.2.3 Key Points: Transportation Facilities and Services
I-10 is the only highway facility connecting the Coachella Valley with the Los Angeles
Basin through the San Gorgonio Pass.
Other key highways serving the corridor include SR 60 and SR 91 in the LA Basin, and
SR 111 in the Coachella Valley.
Rail and bus connections are limited, consisting of:
o SunLine Route 220 commuter bus service with two weekday peak trips each way
between the Coachella Valley and Riverside;
o Beaumont Commuter Link 120 bus service with seven weekday round trips
between Beaumont, Loma Linda, and the San Bernardino Metrolink station;
o Amtrak Sunset Limited long-distance passenger train, stopping in Palm Springs
three times per week in the middle of the night);
o Amtrak Thruway bus service, with two daily trips each way to connect to Amtrak
trains in Fullerton and two daily trips each way to connect to connect to Amtrak
trains in Bakersfield; and
o Greyhound intercity bus service, with seven daily trips between Los Angeles and
the Coachella Valley.
3.3 Travel Volumes and Trip Patterns
Traffic data on I-10 was obtained from the Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS)
to determine traffic volumes and peaking patterns through the San Gorgonio Pass area.
AirSage was contracted to provide trip origins and destinations of I-10 users who travel through
the Banning Pass, using a proprietary cell phone tracking program. SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS
regional model data was used to identify existing and future trip origins and destinations by trip
purpose. Weekday volumes include Monday through Thursday, while weekend volumes include
Friday through Sunday.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 24
3.3.1 Daily Travel Volumes
As noted in the transportation system description, travel on I-10 through San Gorgonio Pass
constitutes virtually all of the trips between the Coachella Valley and the Los Angeles Basin.
Vehicle counts on I-10 in the San Gorgonio Pass were obtained from PeMS to determine travel
volumes on weekdays, Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays. (Caltrans PeMS, December 2014)
Table 9 shows the average daily traffic (ADT) volume over a 12-month period, as well as the
ADT during this Study’s Focus Period when AirSage data was obtained to determine trip origin-
destination patterns (April 29 to May 14, 2014) and the peak weekend (April 18-21, 2014, during
the Coachella Music Festival). (AirSage, June 2014) As the table shows, observed traffic
volumes during the Focus Period were consistent with the annual average volumes.
The typical weekday volume through the San Gorgonio Pass is approximately 92,000 vehicles.
The average Friday volume is 24% higher than the average weekday volume (Monday through
Thursday), with the directional split indicating heavier eastbound volumes traveling to the desert
for the weekend. The average Saturday volume is 7% higher than the weekday volume, but
lower than the Friday volume and slightly heavier in the eastbound direction. The average
Sunday volume is 8% higher than the weekday volume and slightly higher than the Saturday
volume, with a heavy westbound component as travelers return to the LA Basin from their
weekend trip.
Table 9. Average Vehicles on I-10 Freeway
Annual Average
Weekday Friday Saturday Sunday
Number of Vehicles 92,352 114,938 98,748 102,333
% Eastbound 51% 54% 52% 44%
% Westbound 49% 46% 48% 56%
Focus Period (April 29 – May 14, 2014)
Weekday Friday Saturday Sunday
Number of Vehicles 90,878 114,882 99,160 106,681
% Eastbound 50% 54% 52% 42%
% Westbound 50% 46% 48% 58%
Peak Weekend (Coachella Festival, 2014)
Friday Saturday Sunday Monday
Number of Vehicles 137,195 103,354 120,021 130,930
% Eastbound 57% 51% 41% 40%
% Westbound 43% 49% 59% 60%
Source: Caltrans PeMS data, accessed July 2, 2014 and AirSage, June 2014
The peak weekend volumes show that the heaviest Friday has 49% more person-trips than a
typical Friday, and the return traffic is spread over Sunday and Monday. Nearly 25,000
additional vehicles travel I-10 on the Friday of the peak weekend, 15,000 additional vehicles on
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 25
Sunday, and 40,000 additional vehicles on Monday, when compared to both the Annual
Average and the Focus Period counts.
The approximately 92,000 weekday vehicle trips through the San Gorgonio Pass represent a
total of about 130,000 person-trips (Caltrans PeMS data, July 2014). Table 10 shows the
composition of person-trips in terms of their eastern terminus – 55% in the Coachella Valley,
27% to the east on I-10, 14% in the high desert along SR 62, and 4% in the Imperial Valley.
Table 10. Weekday Person-Trips through San Gorgonio Pass
Terminus Trips %
Coachella Valley 69,949 55%
I-10 (Palo Verde Valley & Arizona) 35,190 27%
High Desert (SR 62 Corridor) 17,486 14%
Imperial Valley 5,628 4%
Total 128,253 100%
Source: SCAG Model, Caltrans 2012 Traffic Volumes
Figures 12 and 13 depict the average daily traffic volumes (number of vehicles) through San
Gorgonio Pass, illustrating seasonal fluctuations in traffic volumes by day of the week. Fridays
consistently have the highest eastbound traffic volumes as commuters and visitors share the
roadway, with a seasonal peak in April for spring break, the Coachella Festival, Stagecoach
Festival, and other events. The graphs also indicate substantial travel on the Thursday prior to
the events. At the conclusion of the events, attendees depart on Sunday and Monday.
Westbound travel is highest on Sundays throughout the year, followed by a peak on Mondays in
April from event traffic.
Figure 12. I-10 Eastbound Daily Traffic Volumes – Monthly Average by Day of Week (vehicles)
Source: Caltrans 2012 Traffic Volumes
40000
45000
50000
55000
60000
65000
70000
75000
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 26
Figure 13. I-10 Westbound Daily Traffic Volumes – Monthly Average by Day of Week
(vehicles)
Source: Caltrans 2012 Traffic Volumes
The daily and seasonal variations of weekday traffic volumes (number of vehicles), and the
relationship between the Focus Period volumes and the rest of the year, are shown in Figures
14 (eastbound traffic) and 15 (westbound traffic). The figures show the fluctuations in travel
patterns over the course of 15 months (April 2013 – June 2014), and the trend during the Focus
Period. Travel volumes during the Focus Period approximate the average weekday volumes
over the course of a year.
40000
45000
50000
55000
60000
65000
70000
75000
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 27
Figure 14. I-10 Eastbound Weekday Traffic Variations (vehicles)
Source: Caltrans 2012 Traffic Volumes
Figure 15. I-10 Westbound Weekday Traffic Variations (vehicles)
Source: Caltrans 2012 Traffic Volumes
Figures 16 and 17 show the weekly and seasonal variations of Friday traffic volumes (number of
vehicles), and the relationship between the Focus Period and the rest of the year. On Fridays,
38000
43000
48000
53000
58000
63000
68000
73000
78000
83000
Apr 2013May 2013Jun 2013Jul 2013Aug 2013Sep 2013Oct 2013Nov 2013Dec 2013Jan 2014Feb 2014Mar 2014Apr 2014May 2014Jun 2014I-10 Eastbound Weekday Traffic Variations
Weekday ADT
Focus Period
38000
43000
48000
53000
58000
63000
68000
73000
78000
83000
Apr 2013May 2013Jun 2013Jul 2013Aug 2013Sep 2013Oct 2013Nov 2013Dec 2013Jan 2014Feb 2014Mar 2014Apr 2014May 2014Jun 2014I-10 Westbound Weekday Traffic Variations
Weekday ADT
Focus Period
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 28
eastbound travel varies much more than weekday travel (Monday through Thursday) and
westbound travel, in accordance with weekend events in the Coachella Valley. Friday travel
volumes during the Focus Period approximate the average Friday volumes over the course of a
year.
Figure 16. I-10 Eastbound Friday Traffic Variations (vehicles)
Source: Caltrans 2012 Traffic Volumes
Figure 17. I-10 Westbound Friday Traffic Variations (vehicles)
Source: Caltrans 2012 Traffic Volumes
45000
50000
55000
60000
65000
70000
75000
80000
I-10 Eastbound Friday Traffic Variations
Friday ADT
Focus Period
45000
50000
55000
60000
65000
70000
75000
80000
I-10 Westbound Friday Traffic Variations
Friday ADT
Focus Period
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 29
Figures 18 and 19 show the weekly and seasonal variations of Saturday and Sunday traffic
volumes (number of vehicles), and the relationship between the Focus Period and the rest of
the year. The constant up-and-down fluctuation caused by consistently higher Saturday
volumes than Sunday volumes in the eastbound direction, and consistently higher Sunday
volumes than Saturday volumes in the westbound direction. Weekend travel volumes during the
Focus Period approximate the average Saturday and Sunday volumes over the course of a
year. The heavier westbound traffic volumes on Sundays indicate a return trip for the traffic that
traveled east earlier in the week.
Figure 18. I-10 Eastbound Saturday/Sunday Traffic Variations (vehicles)
Source: Caltrans 2012 Traffic Volumes
Figure 19. I-10 Westbound Saturday/Sunday Traffic Variations (vehicles)
Source: Caltrans 2012 Traffic Volumes
35000
40000
45000
50000
55000
60000
65000
70000
75000
80000
I-10 Eastbound Saturday/Sunday Traffic
Variations
Weekend ADT
Focus Period
35000
40000
45000
50000
55000
60000
65000
70000
75000
80000
I-10 Westbound Saturday/Sunday Traffic
Variations
Weekend ADT
Focus Period
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 30
3.3.2 Hourly Volumes and Peaking Characteristics
Peak hours of travel through the San Gorgonio Pass are shown in Table 11. Peak hours
identified during the Focus Period are similar to the annual average peak hours, while those on
the peak weekend vary slightly due to the different profile of traveler during that period. On
weekdays, the traffic peak occurs during typical commute hours, with the higher volume
eastbound toward the desert in the morning and westbound in the afternoon. Notably, the peak
hours represent only 6.4-7.4% of total daily traffic, meaning that traffic volumes are spread out
over the course of the day, rather than having a concentrated peak during commute hours.
(Caltrans PeMS data, accessed July 2, 2014)
Figures 20 and 21 show I-10 hourly volumes through the San Gorgonio Pass by day of the
week based on annual averages, and Figures 22 through 27 show volumes observed through
the San Gorgonio Pass on days during the Focus Period. Figures 20 and 21 depict the average
volume of traffic along the I-10 at hourly intervals for each day of the week in both eastbound
and westbound directions. Peak volumes occur on Friday afternoons in the eastbound direction
and on Sunday midday in the westbound direction, indicating that the highest travel periods
coincide with weekend visitor travel.
Table 11. Peak Hours of Travel
Eastbound I-10 Westbound I-10
Peak Hour % of Daily Traffic Peak Hour % of Daily Traffic
Annual Average
Weekday 7-8 AM 6.4% 3-4 PM 7.4%
Friday 2-3 PM 6.8% 3-4 PM 7.4%
Saturday 11 AM-12 PM 7.2% 11 AM-12 PM 7.0%
Sunday 2-3 PM 7.5% 12-1 PM 7.8%
Focus Period
Weekday 7-8 AM 6.8% 5-6 PM 7.4%
Friday 2-3 PM 6.6% 3-4 PM 7.2%
Saturday 12-1 PM 7.1% 10-11 AM 7.0%
Sunday 3-4 PM 7.4% 12-1 PM 7.9%
Peak Weekend
Friday 12-1 PM 7.5% 11 AM-12 PM 7.0%
Saturday 5-6 PM 7.5% 12-1 PM 7.0%
Sunday 11 AM-12 PM 6.7% 11 AM-12 PM 7.1%
Monday 11 AM-12 PM 6.7% 11 AM-12 PM 7.1%
Source: Caltrans, PeMS data, accessed July 2, 2014
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 31
Figure 20. I-10 Eastbound Average Hourly Traffic Volumes by Day of Week (vehicles)
Source: Caltrans 2012 Traffic Volumes
Figure 21. I-10 Westbound Average Hourly Traffic Volumes by Day of Week (vehicles)
Source: Caltrans 2012 Traffic Volumes
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
00:0001:0002:0003:0004:0005:0006:0007:0008:0009:0010:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
00:0001:0002:0003:0004:0005:0006:0007:0008:0009:0010:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 32
Figures 22 and 23 depict the traffic volumes along the I-10 at hourly intervals for Tuesdays and
Wednesdays during the three-week Focus Period of April 29, 2014 through May 14, 2014 in
both eastbound and westbound directions. This shows that the midweek peak in the eastbound
direction occurs in the morning while the westbound peak occurs in the late afternoon. This
indicates a directional commute pattern into the Coachella Valley in the morning and west in the
evening, consistent with the peak hour numbers in the table above.
Figure 22. I-10 Eastbound Tuesday and Wednesday Hourly Traffic Volumes, Focus Period
(vehicles)
Source: Caltrans 2012 Traffic Volumes
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:0010:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:004/29/2014
4/30/2014
5/6/2014
5/7/2014
5/13/2014
5/14/2014
Average Weekday
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 33
Figure 23. I-10 Westbound Tuesday and Wednesday Hourly Traffic Volumes, Focus Period
(vehicles)
Source: Caltrans 2012 Traffic Volumes
Figures 24 and 25 depict the Friday hourly traffic volumes along I-10 observed during the Focus
Period between May 2, 2014 and May 9, 2014. Fridays during the Focus Period were analyzed
to determine how peak traffic volumes differ from those during the weekdays. While weekdays
showed clear commute directionality (morning peaks in the eastbound direction and evening
peaks in the westbound direction), Fridays show multiple peaks in the eastbound direction: a
morning commute peak, and early afternoon and evening peaks, presumably by visitors en
route to Coachella Valley and points east. The westbound direction shows a more consistent
peak in line with weekday commutes.
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:0010:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:004/29/2014
4/30/2014
5/6/2014
5/7/2014
5/13/2014
5/14/2014
Average Weekday
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 34
Figure 24. I-10 Eastbound Friday Hourly Traffic Volumes, Focus Period (vehicles)
Source: Caltrans 2012 Traffic Volumes
Figure 25. I-10 Westbound Friday Hourly Traffic Volumes, Focus Period (vehicles)
Source: Caltrans 2012 Traffic Volumes
Figures 26 and 27 depict the weekend (Saturday and Sunday) traffic volumes along the I-10 at
hourly intervals during the Focus Period between May 3, 2014 and May 11, 2014 in both
eastbound and westbound directions. Traffic volumes peaked at midday in both directions
during this period, with higher eastbound volumes on Saturday and higher westbound volumes
on Sunday.
40060080010001200140016001800200022002400260028003000320034003600380040004200
0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:0010:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:005/2/2014
5/9/2014
Average Fridays
40060080010001200140016001800200022002400260028003000320034003600380040004200
0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:0010:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:005/2/2014
5/9/2014
Average Fridays
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 35
Figure 26. I-10 Eastbound Hourly Weekend Traffic Volumes, Focus Period (vehicles)
Source: Caltrans 2012 Traffic Volumes
Figure 27. I-10 Westbound Hourly Weekend Traffic Volumes, Focus Period (vehicles)
Source: Caltrans 2012 Traffic Volumes
200400600800100012001400160018002000220024002600280030003200340036003800400042004400460048005000
0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:0010:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00Saturday 5/3/2014
Sunday 5/4/2014
Saturday 5/10/2014
Sunday 5/11/2014
Average Weekend
200400600800100012001400160018002000220024002600280030003200340036003800400042004400460048005000
0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:0010:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00Saturday 5/3/2014
Sunday 5/4/2014
Saturday 5/10/2014
Sunday 5/11/2014
Average Weekend
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 36
3.3.3 Origin-Destination Patterns
To analyze the regional travel patterns of trips between the Coachella Valley and the Los
Angeles Basin, mobile phone data was obtained from AirSage for users traveling through the
San Gorgonio Pass, and used to determine origins and destinations of travelers going through
the San Gorgonio Pass. Tables 12 and 13 show the number of person-trips into and out of the
Coachella Valley by county. In addition, several maps have been prepared to illustrate the
origin-destination patterns on different days during the Focus Period. In Figures 28 through 34,
the distribution of the Coachella Valley end of the trips (either the origin or the destination) is
shown in blue, while the distribution of the LA Basin end of the trips (either the origin or
destination) is shown in red. Each figure depicts travel distribution in only one direction
(eastbound or westbound). The numbers on the maps indicate the number of trips in thousands
to or from that area, and the various shades of red and blue are used to indicate the percentage
of total trips through the San Gorgonio Pass that start or end in that area.
Table 12. Distribution of Person-Trips into Coachella Valley (Eastbound)
Origin County Weekday Typical Friday Saturday Peak Friday
Ventura 1,517
2%
2,684
2%
2,814
2%
7,164
4%
Los Angeles 19,526
25%
36,048
31%
44,836
38%
86,600
46%
Orange 9,332
12%
16,047
14%
19,337
16%
25,906
13%
San Bernardino 16,186
21%
21,220
19%
19,086
16%
26,927
14%
Riverside 31,185
40%
38,444
34%
32,632
27%
42,987
23%
Total 77,746 114,443 118,705 189,584
Source: AirSage, 2014
Table 13. Distribution of Person-Trips leaving Coachella Valley (Westbound)
Origin County Weekday Typical Friday Saturday Peak Friday
Ventura 1,570
2%
2,671
2%
3,094
3%
5,283
3%
Los Angeles 18,756
24%
32,303
30%
41,027
37%
66,193
42%
Orange 9,312
12%
18,150
17%
18,804
17%
24,004
15%
San Bernardino 16,002
21%
18,924
17%
18,202
16%
21,452
14%
Riverside 31,635
41%
37,087
34%
30,115
27%
40,701
26%
Total 77,275 109,135 111,242 157,633
Source: AirSage, 2014
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 37
Figures 28 through 34 show the distribution of trips traveling through the San Gorgonio Pass on
different days during the Focus Period. Figures 28 and 29 illustrate the distribution of typical
weekday trips, when the majority of trips originate or terminate in the Inland Empire, a regional
term for the combined Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Figures 30 and 31 show typical
Saturday trips, and indicate a higher proportion of travel to the San Gabriel Valley and West Los
Angeles. Normal Friday trips, shown in Figures 32 and 33, are spread throughout the Inland
Empire, San Gabriel Valley, and West Los Angeles. On the peak Fridays studied during this
analysis (Easter weekend and the Coachella Festival), the highest concentration of trips into the
Coachella Valley came from West Los Angeles and the San Gabriel Valley, as shown in
Figure 34.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study Draft Alternatives Analysis Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 38 Figure 28. Normal Weekday Trips into Coachella Valley Source: AirSage, 2014
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study Draft Alternatives Analysis Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 39 Figure 29. Normal Weekday Trips out of Coachella Valley Source: AirSage, 2014
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study Draft Alternatives Analysis Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 40 Figure 30. Normal Saturday Trips into Coachella Valley Source: AirSage, 2014
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study Draft Alternatives Analysis Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 41 Figure 31. Normal Saturday Trips out of Coachella Valley Source: AirSage, 2014
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study Draft Alternatives Analysis Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 42 Figure 32. Normal Friday Trips into Coachella Valley Source: AirSage, 2014
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study Draft Alternatives Analysis Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 43 Figure 33. Normal Friday Trips out of Coachella Valley Source: AirSage, 2014
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study Draft Alternatives Analysis Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 44 Figure 34. Peak Friday Trips into Coachella Valley Source: AirSage, 2014
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 45
3.3.4 Trip Purposes
Data on the purpose of corridor trips can be used to evaluate the relative importance of
commute travel through the San Gorgonio Pass, and was obtained from three sources: the
market analysis for the California State Rail Plan, the SCAG regional travel demand forecast
model, and the AirSage data for weekday trips during the Focus Period.
A market analysis prepared for the California State Rail Plan in 2012 estimated that 27% of the
trips in the Coachella Valley Corridor involve travel for business or commute purposes, and due
to the changing demographics in the corridor this percentage would increase to 30% by 2030.
Table 14 compares Coachella Valley Corridor trip purposes with those for travel in the southern
portion of the Pacific Surfliner Corridor (LAUS to San Diego), to illustrate the similarity in trip
purpose characteristics of the two travel corridors.
Table 14. Existing and Forecast Coachella Valley Corridor Trip Purpose (2000 to 2030)
Trip Purpose
Coachella Valley Pacific Surfliner South
2000 2030 2000 2030
Business/Commute 27% 30% 30% 31%
Recreation/Other 73% 70% 70% 69%
Source: CSRP Market Analysis, March 19, 2012
The SCAG model provided estimates of the number and origin/destination of weekday commute
trips between the Coachella Valley and the Los Angeles Basin, as well as the direction of travel
(identifying the “home” end of the trip and the “work” end) (SCAG Model, Base Year (2008) trip
data). Table 15 shows the weekday trips to and from the Coachella Valley. The SCAG model
estimates that on a normal weekday, a total of 13,755 commute trips travel between the
Coachella Valley and the Los Angeles Basin. The majority (74%) of the commute trips to the
Coachella Valley are from Western Riverside County. The commute trips originating in the
Coachella Valley are more widely distributed with 42% to Western Riverside County, 22% to the
San Bernardino County Valley area, and 18% to Los Angeles County.
AirSage identifies commute trips by cell phone movement patterns that stay in one place
overnight and then travel during the day to another location where it stays for several hours.
The AirSage data in Table 16 indicate a similar total number of daily commute trips to that
estimated by SCAG (the AirSage one-way trip volume of 12,710 trips occur during the AM peak
period, whereas the SCAG estimate of 13,755 one-way trips covers the entire day), which
constitutes around 17% of the trips between the Coachella Valley and the Los Angeles Basin.
However, AirSage indicates a greater number of commute trips starting in the Los Angeles
Basin and traveling to work in the Coachella Valley, which is consistent with the hourly traffic
patterns observed with the PeMS data for I-10 discussed in Section 3.3.2.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 46
Table 15. Weekday Commute Trips between the Coachella Valley and Los Angeles Basin:
SCAG
Weekday Home-to-Work Trips (one-way)
Coachella Valley Work End Coachella Valley Home End
# % # % Trips to/from: Orange County 85 2% 1,166 14%
Los Angeles County 213 4% 1,499 18%
Western Riverside County 4080 74% 3,464 42%
San Bernardino County Valley 938 17% 1,820 22%
Victor Valley 212 4% 201 2%
Ventura County 12 0% 67 1%
Total 5,540 100%8,215 100%
Source: SCAG Model, Base Year (2008) trip data
Table 16. Weekday Commute Trips between the Coachella Valley and Los Angeles Basin:
AirSage
Weekday AM Peak Home-to-Work Trips (one-way)
Coachella Valley Work End Coachella Valley Home End
# % # % Trips to/from: Orange County 681 9% 815 15%
Los Angeles County 1,319 18% 1,589 30%
Western Riverside County 4,217 57% 1,962 37%
San Bernardino County Valley 1,122 15% 885 17%
Ventura County 70 1% 51 1%
Total 7,408 100%5,302 100%
Source: AirSage trip data for 4/29/14-5/14/14
3.3.5 Future Travel Demand Growth
The Corridor’s existing travel market is substantial, with more than 58 million daily person trips
in the four-county area, and projections for 10 million additional daily trips by 2035. The current
volume of travel through the San Gorgonio Pass is approximately 130,000 daily person trips,
and is projected to increase by 47 percent by 2035 (SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS).
Table 17 identifies the total daily person trips for all travel modes between the Coachella Valley
and the five counties to the west (does not include trips through the San Gorgonio Pass that
come from the high desert, I-10, and the Imperial Valley), and Table 18 presents the projected
rate of growth.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 47
Table 17. Total Daily Person Trips between the Coachella Valley and the Los Angeles Basin
Los Angeles Orange Ventura
San
Bernardino
Riverside
(West)
Total Daily
Trips
2008 10,952 6,209 419 17,175 35,194 69,949
2035 15,507 8,089 637 27,903 50,778 102,914
Source: SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS
Table 18. Percent Growth in Total Daily Person Trips between the Coachella Valley and the
Los Angeles Basin (2008 to 2035)
Los Angeles Orange Ventura
San
Bernardino
Riverside
(West)
Total Daily
Trips
Riverside
(Coachella
Valley)
42% 30% 52% 62% 44% 47%
Source: SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS
3.3.6 Rail and Bus Ridership
Amtrak Sunset Limited
In 2013, just over 2,000 riders embarked or disembarked at the Palm Springs station, which is
an average of six passengers per long-distance passenger train (Amtrak, 2013).
SunLine
According to the SunLine FY2014 Short Range Transportation Plan, Route 220 carried 17,850
passengers in 2013 on two vehicles for a total of 116,918 passenger miles and 2,358 revenue
hours or approximately 70 riders per day (SunLine FY2014 Short Range Transportation Plan).
Amtrak Thruway
According to the Caltrans Division of Rail and Amtrak, ridership on Thruway routes in the
Coachella Valley was 22,339 people during fiscal year 2013, or approximately 88 riders per day.
Of those riders, 79% used the service to access the Pacific Surfliner in Fullerton, and 21% used
it to access the San Joaquin in Bakersfield. (Caltrans and Amtrak, 2014)
3.3.7 Key Points: Travel Volumes and Trip Patterns
On a typical weekday, 130,000 people travel through the San Gorgonio Pass, with just
over half (55%) of the trips having their eastern terminus in the Coachella Valley. The
remaining trips have their eastern terminus either in the high desert areas of Yucca
Valley and Twentynine Palms (14%), east to Blythe and Arizona (27%), or south to the
Imperial Valley (4%). (SCAG Model, Base Year (2008) trip data)
The trips encompass a variety of purposes, with work commute trips comprising the
largest single purpose of weekday trips – approximately 13,000 commuters make the
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 48
daily round trip between the Coachella Valley and the Los Angeles Basin. (SCAG Model,
Base Year (2008) trip data; AirSage trip data for 4/29/14-5/14/14 )
Weekday travel through the Pass exhibits a modest commuter peaking pattern, with the
eastbound peak occurring from 7-8 AM and the westbound peak from 3-4 PM. On
Fridays the peak travel hours typically occur in mid to late afternoon (2-5 PM). On
weekends, the peak typically occurs in the middle of the day (11 AM – 1 PM). (Caltrans
PeMS data, June 2014)
Leisure and social/recreational trips increase the corridor travel flows on weekends, with
45% more trips made through the San Gorgonio Pass on a typical Friday than a typical
midweek day. As a result, Friday is the peak travel day for eastbound trips, and Sunday
is the peak travel day for westbound trips. (Caltrans PeMS data, June 2014)
Weekday trip patterns to and from the Coachella Valley are primarily oriented to the
Inland Empire, which represents 61% of the daily travel volume, while Los Angeles
County has 25% and Orange County 12%. Weekend trips include a greater percentage
traveling longer distances – the Inland Empire drops to 53% of the trips, while Los
Angeles County increases to 31% and Orange County to 14%. (AirSage trip data for
4/29/14-5/14/14)
Commute and business trips represent about 17% of the weekday travel market, and
almost two-thirds of these trips travel between the Coachella Valley and the Inland
Empire. (AirSage trip data for 4/29/14-5/14/14)
Corridor weekday travel is projected to increase by 47% by the year 2035, with a higher
percentage growth in trips to San Bernardino and Western Riverside Counties. (SCAG
2012 RTP/SCS)
3.4 Transportation System Performance
3.4.1 Regional Highway Congestion
Figure 35 illustrates the areas of recurring congestion on I-10 and other regional freeways,
which primarily occur in the western half of the Corridor, while the eastern half is relatively
congestion-free unless an incident closes lanes.
Appendix A contains “heat maps” which figures denote the average observed speeds in the
eastbound direction along the corridor, as reported by PeMS, and provide a visual
representation of where congestion occurs, how slowly the traffic is moving, and how long the
congestion lasts (purple, blue, and black shading indicate slower speeds and increasing
congestion).
In summary, the Eastbound I-10 has congested areas between Alhambra and Pomona during
typical weekday afternoons, with longer durations and slower speeds on Friday afternoons. It is
noteworthy that the eastern half of the corridor has minimal areas with reduced speeds
throughout the day on typical weekdays and Fridays. Saturdays show some congested areas in
the western half of the corridor and no congestion in the eastern half.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 49
Figure 35. Areas of Recurring Congestion
Source: PeMS, Caltrans, Accessed: 10/28/2014
For the sake of comparing typical conditions with worst-case conditions, congestion charts were
obtained from PeMS for the peak weekend that in 2013 included Easter and the Coachella
Festival. I-10 eastbound speeds on the Friday leading into the peak weekend show a pattern of
congestion similar to the normal Friday. Westbound I-10 travel speeds on the Monday following
the Coachella Festival show that traffic is particularly congested between Indio and Banning
through most of the morning and afternoon, with congestion present from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
In the western half of the corridor, westbound I-10 exhibits typical commute congestion between
Pomona and Alhambra in the morning hours, as well as periodic slowing in several areas at
different times throughout the afternoon.
Much of the SR-60 corridor is congested from East Los Angeles to Rowland Heights, from
Pomona to East Ontario, and from Rubidoux to Moreno Valley on normal weekday afternoons.
On normal Fridays the congestion through these areas intensifies. The eastbound SR-91 is
congested for much of its length from Anaheim to Riverside during most of the afternoon on
normal weekdays and Fridays.
3.4.2 Travel Times
Table 19 shows typical driving times between Indio and four cities in the Los Angeles Basin: Los
Angeles, Fullerton, Chino, and Claremont. These cities are sample locations near the Corridor’s
three key highways: I-10, SR 60, and SR 91. The data indicate substantial variability in travel
times depending on day of week, time of day, and direction of travel. Data was obtained from
three sources: Caltrans PeMS, Google Maps, and TomTom. Caltrans PeMS collects traffic data
from over 39,000 detectors across the state of California and archives the information for ten
years. Google Maps calculates driving times based on a variety of data including official and
recommended speed limits, historical average speed data, actual travel times from previous
users, and real-time traffic information. TomTom operates a database of more than nine trillion
anonymously collected data points that allows the software to predict driving behavior across
the road network.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 50
Table 19. Typical Driving Times for Selected Trips (minutes)
Origin Destination Source
Weekday (4/29) Friday (5/2) Saturday
(5/3)
AM Peak
(7:00 AM)
PM Peak
(5:00 PM)
AM Peak
(7:00 AM)
PM Peak
(5:00 PM)
Midday
(noon)
Los
Angeles Indio
PeMS 114 139 112 165 119
Google
Maps 120 - 150 120 - 200 120 - 150 120 - 200 120 - 150
TomTom 120 142 120 146 118
Indio Los
Angeles
PeMS 141 114 130 119 116
Google
Maps 120 - 200 120 - 150 120 - 160 120 - 150 120 - 160
TomTom 127 120 121 121 117
Fullerton Indio
PeMS 89 110 90 116 98
Google
Maps 110 - 140 110 - 180 110 - 130 110 - 190 110 - 130
TomTom 112 128 112 130 110
Indio Fullerton
PeMS 114 94 124 95 103
Google
Maps 110 - 160 110 - 130 110 - 140 110 - 130 110 - 140
TomTom 116 113 112 113 109
Chino Indio
PeMS 75 81 75 85 77
Google
Maps 85 - 110 85 - 150 85 - 110 85 - 150 85 - 110
TomTom 89 100 90 102 88
Indio Chino
PeMS 82 76 80 76 76
Google
Maps 85 - 120 85 - 110 85 - 110 85 - 110 85 - 110
TomTom 93 90 91 91 87
Claremont Indio
PeMS 85 88 84 96 85
Google
Maps 90 - 110 90 - 140 90 - 110 90 - 150 90 - 110
TomTom 92 99 92 104 99
Indio Claremont
PeMS 89 86 85 88 84
Google
Maps 90 - 120 90 - 110 90 - 110 90 - 110 90 - 110
TomTom 94 93 92 93 99
Source: PeMS, Caltrans, Accessed December 15, 2014; Google Maps, accessed August 10, 2015; TomTom
(http://routes.tomtom.com), accessed August 10, 2015
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 51
Existing travel times using rail and transit can be much longer than highway travel because the
trip is indirect, involves intermediate stops, and may require mode transfers. Table 20 illustrates
each existing service’s current travel time between Los Angeles and the Coachella Valley / San
Gorgonio Pass Area. Trip times were calculated assuming that Metrolink service is used for the
portion of the SunLine and Beaumont trips between Downtown Los Angeles and the respective
western bus route terminus.
Table 20. Travel Times Using Rail and Transit (minutes)
Western Terminus Eastern Terminus
Travel Time
(minutes)
Sunset Limited Los Angeles Palm Springs 156
Amtrak Thruway Los Angeles Indio 240
SunLine CL 220 + Metrolink Los Angeles Palm Desert 234
Beaumont CL 120 + Metrolink Los Angeles Beaumont 145
Greyhound Los Angeles Indio 240
Notes: The Sunset Limited stops in Palm Springs and there are no connecting services to Indio. The SunLine
Commuter Link 220 eastern terminus is in Palm Desert. The Beaumont Commuter Link 120 eastern terminus is in
Beaumont.
Source: Amtrak, June 2014; SunLine Transit Agency, June 2014; City of Beaumont, June 2014; SCRRA, June
2014; Greyhound, June 2014
3.4.3 I-10 Emergency Closures
Since I-10 is the only road through the San Gorgonio Pass, Corridor travel is susceptible to
significant disruption if an incident closes the roadway for any period of time. In the past ten
years, four separate incidents in the Pass have disrupted travel for several hours, as reported in
the Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles Times, accessed June 2014):
June 2005: A high-speed pursuit of a homicide suspect led to gunfire and a 12-hour
shutdown of the freeway near Cabazon. Stranded drivers slept in their cars while others
needed medical attention due to the heat.
December 2010: A fatal collision involving a big rig and a spill of fertilizer and diesel oil
near Whitewater closed I-10 for six hours.
February 2012: A broken computer system led to a delay in concrete slabs needed for
lanes that were ground up during repaving. Three of the four westbound lanes were
closed for almost a full day, leading to a 25-mile backup in Banning and traffic spilling
into Palm Springs.
September 2014: A fiery big rig crash shut down westbound I-10 east of Cabazon.
Three of the four westbound lanes were closed all morning.
3.4.4 Key Points: Transportation System Performance
Recurring highway congestion in the western half of the corridor lengthens the travel
time and reduces travel time reliability for driving trips between the Coachella Valley and
the Los Angeles Basin,
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 52
The highways in the eastern half of the corridor experience relatively little regular
recurring congestion.
Typical driving times between Indio and Los Angeles range from 112 minutes during off-
peak times to 200 minutes during afternoon peak hours. The same trip using existing
rail or bus services takes about 240 minutes. (PeMS, Caltrans, Accessed December
2014; Google Maps, accessed August 2015; TomTom (http://routes.tomtom.com),
accessed August 2015; Amtrak, June 2014; Greyhound, June 2014)
Emergency closures of I-10 through San Gorgonio Pass can severely disrupt corridor
travel, as I-10 is essentially the only transportation facility available to move people
through the San Gorgonio Pass.
3.5 Key Findings of Market Analysis
The market analysis provides the technical basis for the need and purpose identified in
Section 2. The needs of the corridor include providing reliable transportation options. The
identified purpose and objectives include addressing the projected growth in trips between the
two regions, providing an affordable, convenient and reliable alternative to driving, serving
transit dependent people in the corridor, and addressing a range of trip purposes. A fuller
explanation of these key findings is provided below.
Market Analysis Findings Addressing Need for Transportation Improvements
Virtually all of the travelers between the Coachella Valley and the Los Angeles Basin travel on I-
10 through San Gorgonio Pass because there are few alternatives to driving and few road route
options to the freeway. Corridor travelers experience significant recurring highway congestion
through many parts of the Corridor, but have limited public transportation alternatives: one
Amtrak long-distance train, two commuter bus routes, one Amtrak Thruway bus that connects
with the Pacific Surfliner train in Fullerton, and private intercity bus service operated by
Greyhound.
The lack of available transportation options leaves the Corridor underserved, yet travel demand
is expected to increase in the future. Transportation alternatives are needed in order to
accommodate the increased travel throughout the region. While I-10 is likely to carry most of the
trips through the San Gorgonio Pass, a new transit service could provide a valuable alternative.
Market Analysis Findings Addressing Purpose and Objectives for Transportation
Improvements
Regular and reliable transportation service along the corridor could serve business trips and
personal travel during weekdays, and could provide travel options for resort visitors and
vacationers and the numerous events that occur in Coachella Valley throughout the year. This
service could also provide a transportation option for disadvantaged populations and other
travelers who do not own an automobile.
Based on the origins and destinations information presented in Section 3.3.3, business and
commuter trips comprise an important component of weekday travel, and a combination of
social/recreational and visitor trips increases the travel volumes on Fridays and weekends.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 53
There is a strong economic, demographic, and cultural connection between the Coachella
Valley and the Los Angeles Basin – every day 130,000 people travel between the two regions,
and that number increases on weekends. The Los Angeles Basin population continues to grow
while the Coachella Valley is expected to experience rapid population growth. And as such, the
connection will become even stronger with a projected 47% increase in travel over the next 20
years (SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS).
Analysis of weekday trip patterns shows that more than 60% of the travelers are moving
between the Coachella Valley and the Inland Empire. On weekends that percentage is reduced
but Los Angeles County travelers make up the difference (Caltrans PeMS data, December
2014).
In summary, the numbers support a need for a convenient, reliable, and affordable alternative to
driving in the Coachella Valley-Los Angeles corridor. The projected growth, existing travel
patterns, freeway traffic congestion, and lack of travel mode options all suggest that a transit
alternative to driving the I-10 corridor could be successful.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 54
4 Screening Methodology
This section describes the screening methodology used
to evaluate the route alternatives identified in Section 6
and the approach for documenting the Alternatives
Analysis. The two-step screening methodology describes
how preliminary service planning elements were:
1. Analyzed for each route alternative identified for
consideration in the Alternatives Analysis; and
2. Describes the alternatives that were eliminated
from consideration and describe in detail the
alternatives carried forward for environmental
evaluation in a Tier 1 NEPA document, consistent with the FRA’s NEPA requirements,
and a concurrent CEQA document.
Development of the Screening Methodology
A technical memorandum describing the draft screening methodology was provided to Caltrans,
RCTC and FRA for review and comment. It was vital to obtain consensus between RCTC and
FRA on the screening methodology prior to conducting detailed evaluation of proposed route
alternatives. The final agreed upon methodology was implemented during the two-step
screening process.
After completion of the alternatives analysis, an agency outreach (Technical Advisory
Committee) meeting will be conducted to obtain comments from interested federal, state, and
local resource agencies on the analysis of route alternatives, and the analysis will be reviewed
and approved by RCTC.
Other opportunities for resource agencies and the public to review route alternatives and the
potential impacts associated with project implementation will occur during the public scoping
periods and meetings conducted prior to preparation of the Tier 1 EIS/EIR process.
4.1 Overview
The screening process included two steps: an initial coarse-level screening to identify whether
any route alternative is hindered by major challenges (and would thus be eliminated from
subsequent fine-level screening) and a fine-level screening to evaluate each route alternative in
greater quantitative and qualitative detail. This two-step screening process was used to
eliminate those route alternatives from detailed analysis that do not meet the Purpose and Need
for the Study, are not reasonable and/or feasible, and/or have environmental, physical, or right-
of-way (ROW) constraints that make them less reasonable than one or more other route
alternatives. This two-step screening process is intended to allow the Tier 1 NEPA document to
focus on only those route alternatives that truly warrant consideration. Figure 36 illustrates the
screening methodology.
The screening
methodology used to
evaluate the route
alternatives
incorporates a two-
step screening:
coarse-level and fine-
level.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 55
Figure 36. Screening Methodology Flow Chart
Subsequent to the Alternatives Analysis, a Tier 1 NEPA document will be prepared to evaluate
the environmental effects of the proposed rail corridor program, including the broader service-
level issues associated with the No-Build Alternative and the reasonable and feasible route
alternatives carried forward for detailed analysis and comparison. The Tier 1 NEPA review will
be conducted jointly with a programmatic California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review,
with RCTC serving as the CEQA lead agency. Ultimately, RCTC and the FRA will select an
alternative based on the detailed evaluation in the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and input from resource
agencies and the public.
4.2 Screening Criteria
The screening process for evaluating and selecting reasonable and feasible route alternatives to
carry forward for detailed consideration in the Tier 1 Service NEPA document relies on the
following four broad screening criteria:
Meeting the Purpose and Need for passenger rail service between Indio and Los
Angeles
Environmental constraints
Technical feasibility
Economic feasibility
These screening criteria were used to compare each route alternative during both levels of the
two-step screening process. These criteria were examined in the initial coarse-level screening
and then in greater detail in the subsequent fine-level screening. The four criteria are described
below.
4.2.1 Criteria 1: Purpose and Need
A Purpose and Need Statement for Public and Agency Scoping was developed to describe the
purpose and need for the Study. The Purpose and Need Statement will eventually be
incorporated into the Tier 1 Service NEPA document, which will provide additional detail and
incorporate input received from agencies and the public during the scoping process. The
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 56
Study’s Purpose and Need will be used as the baseline for evaluating and comparing the range
of reasonable and feasible route alternatives in the Tier 1 document. Therefore, each proposed
route alternative was evaluated based on the following factors related to the Purpose and Need:
Travel demand in the Corridor (both existing and potential for a 20-year horizon after
implementation of the proposed service in the Study) resulting from population growth
and changing demographics; and
Competitive and attractive travel modes compared to other currently-available public
transportation services, including competitive travel times and convenience (i.e. modal
connectivity).
4.2.2 Criteria 2: Environmental Concerns
A high-level environmental evaluation was conducted for each proposed route alternative to
determine whether there are substantial constraints with respect to impacts on the natural and
human environment and the potential for mitigating these impacts. In particular, each route
alternative was compared to other route alternatives that have a similar ability to meet the
Study’s Purpose and Need.
4.2.3 Criteria 3: Technical Feasibility
Each proposed route alternative was evaluated to determine if it is feasible with respect to
technical considerations. Screening included a high-level analysis of physical route
characteristics; infrastructure requirements to achieve the desired passenger train travel times,
frequency, and reliability; infrastructure required to obtain necessary capacity for existing and
future freight trains and other passenger trains; and safety.
4.2.4 Criteria 4: Economic Feasibility
Each proposed route alternative was evaluated to determine its feasibility with respect to
economic considerations, including assessment of market potential as measured by high-level
ridership and revenue forecasts and capital and operating cost forecasts.
4.3 Screening Process
A two-step screening process—coarse-level screening and fine-level screening—was used to
evaluate proposed route alternatives using the four criteria described above. The purpose of a
two-step screening process as the agreed upon methodology for this project is to eliminate
route alternatives burdened by major challenges during the coarse-level screening, thus
reducing the number of route alternatives considered for detailed analysis during the fine-level
screening and focusing the effort on those alternatives most likely to be built. Coarse-level
screening and fine-level screening are described in Sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2, respectively.
4.3.1 Coarse-Level Screening
Coarse-level screening was used to determine which route alternatives meet the Purpose and
Need, were environmentally reasonable, and were technically and economically feasible. Route
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 57
alternatives that met all of these criteria were carried forward to fine-level screening. Route
alternatives that did not meet all of these criteria were eliminated from further consideration.
The first criterion to be evaluated was Purpose and Need. Any route alternative that did not
meet the Purpose and Need was eliminated from further evaluation. The route alternatives that
did meet Purpose and Need were evaluated concurrently based on the environmental,
technical, and economic parameters, as presented in Table 21. The coarse-level screening
results are presented in Section 8.
The environmental review was conducted using mapping and open-source aerial photography
to identify key constraints along the route alternatives. The economic review used uniform unit
costs for new infrastructure to provide a consistent basis for screening.
Table 21. Coarse-Level Screening Criteria
Criteria Parameter
Purpose and Need:
Travel Demand
What is the population served by the route alternative?
Purpose and Need:
Competitive and
Alternative Travel
Modes
Would the route alternative provide a time-competitive and attractive travel mode
compared to other route alternatives?
Environmental
Constraints: Major
Challenges
Based on qualitative analysis, does the route alternative have major environmental
challenges, including key environmental constraints that make the route alternative
unreasonable?
Environmental
Constraints: Sensitive
Areas
Based on qualitative analysis, would the route alternative traverse substantially more
environmentally sensitive areas (such as wetlands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and
park and recreation lands) than other route alternatives?
Environmental
Constraints: Right-of-
Way
Would the route alternative require substantially more ROW acquisition than other
route alternatives?
Technical Feasibility Would the route alternative involve substantially more technical hurdles than other
route alternatives? Parameters considered will include:
• Major construction efforts, such as major earthwork efforts and major new
bridges
• Potential for freight and commuter train traffic conflicts and scope of
engineering solutions for such conflicts
Economic Feasibility Would the route alternatives, upon first inspection, have costs far in excess of its
reasonably anticipated benefits? Would the route alternative be substantially more
expensive than other route alternatives?
Information collected during the scoping process was used to help compare and screen route
alternatives.
The final product was a list of potentially feasible route alternatives that were carried forward for
consideration during the fine-level screening.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 58
4.3.2 Fine-Level Screening
Fine-level screening was conducted to further evaluate the reasonable and feasible route
alternatives remaining after the coarse-level screening. During fine-level screening, route
alternatives (or combinations of route alternatives) were identified that offered the highest
potential ridership; the least potential construction, operating, and maintenance cost; and the
least potential impact on communities and the environment, as well as appropriate mitigation
feasibility.
Fine-level screening was based on open-source aerial imagery and/or geographic information
systems (GIS) data, which was used to characterize each route alternative. Because several
route alternatives, each with lengths on the order of 60 miles, were carried forward from coarse-
level screening, field visits were not conducted during fine-level screening.
Fine-level screening incorporated ridership forecasts provided by Caltrans. Caltrans, in
collaboration with Amtrak, has developed a passenger rail forecasting model to assist in the
development of the state rail plan by forecasting ridership on intercity train services in California.
Caltrans developed the ridership forecasts for this study by first running the model with varying
services levels (ranging from one round-trip per day up to four round-trips per day) to determine
optimum service levels for the corridor. The model determined that two round-trips per day
obtained the best ridership per train while meeting the Purpose and Need of allowing people to
go both directions on the same day (Caltrans Division of Rail, 2015). During the fine-level
screening, model runs for the alternatives assumed two round-trips per day as the level of
service for comparison and assumed stations as listed in the alternative descriptions.
The criteria and related parameters used during fine-level screening are identified in Table 22.
Further detail on the methodology for evaluating each criterion follows the table. The fine-level
screening analysis and results are documented in Section 9.
Table 22. Fine-Level Screening Criteria
Criteria Parameter
Purpose and Need:
Travel Demand
Does an initial, “high-level” travel demand analysis indicate that the route alternative
would attract a substantially greater or lesser number of riders compared to other route
alternatives?
Purpose and Need:
Competitive and
Alternative Travel
Modes
Based on information from coarse-level screening, determine if running times can be
further refined for each route alternative. Would the route alternative provide a time-
competitive and attractive travel mode compared to other route alternatives?
Environmental
Constraints:
Environmental
Impacts
Upon initial evaluation of the route alternative and quantification of conceptual
environmental effects, would the route alternative have the potential to impact
substantially more environmentally sensitive areas in the following categories compared
with other route alternatives?
• Floodplains
• Wetlands and non-wetland waters
• Farmland
• Threatened and endangered species
• Cultural and historic resources
• Section 4(f)/6(f) protected properties
• Environmental justice/community impact assessment
• Noise and vibration
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 59
Table 22. Fine-Level Screening Criteria
Criteria Parameter
• Hazardous materials
• Air quality and climate change
• Visual resources
• Land use and planning
• Energy
• Transportation and traffic
• Water quality
• Safety and security
Environmental
Constraints: Right-of-
Way
Determine conceptual ROW acquisition for each route alternative for purposes of
comparison (refined from coarse-level screening). Would the route alternative require
acquisition and demolition/disruption of substantially more structures, developments,
agricultural resources, or features of the built environment than other route alternatives?
Technical Feasibility:
Passenger and
Freight Capacity
Determine general infrastructure improvements that would be required to deliver desired
passenger train travel times, frequency, and reliability. Determine general infrastructure
improvements required to maintain existing and future freight and commuter rail services
while enabling prioritized passenger-train operation.
Technical/ Economic
Feasibility: Alignment
Would the route alternative involve a more challenging alignment or grading problems,
including flyovers, in order to meet schedule and capacity requirements?
Technical/ Economic
Feasibility: Structures
Establish conceptual costs for structures for each route alternative for purposes of
comparison.
Technical/ Economic
Feasibility: Grade
Crossings
Determine the number of new and expanded grade crossings and grade separations for
each route alternative for purposes of comparison.
Economic Feasibility Determine O&M costs for each route alternative as a basis for comparison.
Purpose and Need
Fine-level screening of route alternatives based on the Purpose and Need built on the
evaluations conducted during coarse-level screening and determined whether the conclusions
regarding which route alternatives meet the Purpose and Need remain valid. A more detailed
look at travel demand and competitive and attractive travel modes was conducted.
Environmental Constraints
Fine-level screening for environmental constraints was based on a more detailed comparison of
the route alternatives carried forward to determine whether a particular route alternative would
result in substantially greater environmental impacts in comparison to other route alternatives.
Resource analysis was completed using the most recent GIS data available from sources such
as the U.S. Census, California Native Diversity Database (CNDDB), United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Geological Survey, National Wetland Inventory, and data
available from state agencies (e.g., State Historic Preservation Office). Route alternatives were
evaluated by reviewing existing GIS data on environmental resources present along each route
alternative deemed feasible during coarse-level screening, and by qualitatively assessing the
potential environmental impacts associated with developing each route alternative for
passenger rail service. Data on the environmental resources was compiled through publicly
available datasets and information made available from resource agencies through the scoping
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 60
process. A 300-foot-wide area on either side of each route alternative was reviewed via GIS to
determine whether sensitive resources are present. The existing resources along the route
alternatives were compared to determine if one or more route alternatives have a larger
proportion of sensitive resources as compared to other route alternatives, and thus have the
potential for greater environmental impact.
Technical Feasibility
Railroad operating parameters that influence train speed have an effect on overall travel time
and therefore on travel demand. Railroad operating parameters also influence line capacity and
the severity of scheduling conflicts between freight and passenger trains, particularly with
respect to overall line capacity. In turn, these operating considerations can possibly influence
the necessary infrastructure associated with each route alternative.
Fine-level technical screening began with an evaluation of operating considerations and line
capacity for each route alternative, as described below:
Conceptual Train Performance Calculation (TPC) runs were developed for each route
alternative as follows:
o TPC runs were set for the highest possible speed commensurate with prior
studies conducted by RCTC and Caltrans, and with the likely infrastructure costs
and ridership demand.
o TPC runs assumed unimpeded passenger train runs and station stops in urban
areas.
o Train consists used in TPC runs used locomotives and rolling stock
commensurate with the speed regime used in RCTC/Caltrans studies and with
the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) Section 305
committee specifications for Next Generation locomotives and rolling stock. TPC
runs were calculated using an assumed trainset of one EMD F59PHI locomotive
and six bi-level Pacific Surfliner coaches, which is the standard trainset currently
in use on the intercity Amtrak Pacific Surfliner route between San Diego, Los
Angeles, and San Luis Obispo.
o Existing curve speeds, zone speeds, and 2015 railroad Employee Timetables
and System Special Instructions were used to determine maximum initial train
speeds.
TPC runs were used to develop conceptual meet and pass locations and conceptual
schedules. Schedules assumed that passenger trains are unimpeded by freight trains,
other passenger trains, or themselves.
The passenger train schedule and speed were used to identify high-level, conceptual
infrastructure capacity for each route alternative. These infrastructure requirements
include:
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 61
o Track capacity and features to enable unimpeded passenger train runs and
reliable service, such as sidings for passenger/passenger meet-pass events,
station tracks, and servicing facilities.
o Track capacity to avoid degradation of existing freight capacity, service, and
reliability, and estimated growth in freight traffic for a 20-year horizon after
implementation of the service proposed by the Study.
o Consideration of available passenger train slots under existing operating
agreements with the host railroad.
After operating requirements were established, new and existing infrastructure was examined
through high-level Conceptual Engineering work undertaken as part of the fine-level screening.
Parameters included:
Improved track structure necessary to deliver reliable passenger train service (for
example, reductions in slow-order frequency and duration), to enable maintenance
activities to be conducted without impedance to passenger, commuter, and freight trains,
and to reduce ongoing maintenance costs.
Additional infrastructure necessary to support passenger trains, such as station tracks, a
layover facility, high-speed sidings and connections, signaling, and additional main track.
Additional infrastructure necessary to mitigate effects on existing and forecasted
commuter and freight rail service and industrial development.
Additional infrastructure at road/rail at-grade crossings, such as improved warning
devices and roadway improvements.
Infrastructure necessary to deliver passengers to trains and receive passengers from
trains, including stations, intermodal connections, and parking requirements.
Economic Feasibility
Generalized capital costs for construction or improvement of track, signaling and
communications systems, bridges and drainage structures, and roadway crossings were
assessed for each route alternative in order to provide a quick and consistent basis for
evaluating the technical challenges and conceptual costs of each route alternative. Capital costs
were totaled using a “base plus multiplier” method to enable cross-alternative comparisons. The
lowest-cost alternative was established as the base cost, and higher cost alternatives were
compared using a multiplier.
Several broad categories of terrain (for example, single-track shallow cuts and fills, double-track
deep cuts and fills, single-track major structure, or double-track urban grade crossing) were
defined, with accompanying generalizations about construction cost in each category. This
became the basis for conceptual cost estimates for each route alternative carried forward for
fine level screening. This is a valuable step because it is assumed that civil construction will
represent both a major component of the cost and a major contributor to environmental impacts.
Quantities were tabulated in spreadsheets; however, owing to the extensive length of the route
alternatives to be evaluated, plan sheets were not produced. Generalized annual operating
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 62
costs were assessed for each route alternative. Capital and operating costs assumed maximum
train speeds of 79 mph.
Infrastructure requirements in the LAUS terminal area were not specified, owing to the
complexity of rail traffic in that area and the potential for the added effects of other major
passenger rail initiatives in that area, and that each of the alternatives is likely to have identical
requirements for trackage and platform capacity.
Equipment costs were compared for the Corridor alternatives. If a particular route alternative
required additional equipment, such as additional locomotives to overcome grades, additional
trainsets to account for slower schedules and fewer equipment turns, or additional trainsets to
account for greater capacity demand, these were used to for an equipment cost additive for that
route alternative.
High-level operating costs were forecast based on equipment turns, schedules, and the
characteristics of each route alternative. Any known host railroad or operator requirements that
may affect operating costs for a particular route alternative were included, such as additional
crew districts or additional personnel requirements. The high-level operating costs included
high-level maintenance costs for infrastructure and equipment, which were forecast based on
the requirements of each route alternative. Infrastructure that could not be shared with freight or
commuter railroads were assessed as a stand-alone cost, whereas infrastructure that could be
shared with freight or commuter railroads were assessed using existing Amtrak cost-
reimbursement schedules. Equipment costs were forecast on a stand-alone basis to avoid
assumptions of economies with other route alternatives that may not prove viable.
The application of those technical criteria related specifically to rail operations equipment, and
maintenance will be addressed in greater detail in the SDP.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 63
5 Outreach
At the outset of the study process, the team developed a
comprehensive outreach plan (Appendix B). The plan
serves as the blueprint for community engagement in two
distinct geographic areas. For areas in Riverside County the
team worked closely with transportation agencies and other
stakeholders including elected officials and the general
public. For surrounding counties within the study area the
team worked directly and exclusively with the transportation
agencies and host railroads.
Key components of the outreach effort included:
Development and ongoing maintenance of a contact
database
Updating existing RCTC website pages and
responding to inquires via the website
Creation of fact sheets and frequently asked questions (FAQ) in English and Spanish
An ongoing social media campaign on Facebook and Twitter
Engaging agency partners through Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings
Hosting stakeholder briefings and public meetings
In particular, the outreach process was used to obtain input from the TAC, the stakeholder
meetings, and the public outreach meetings for the Purpose & Need and the range of
alternatives to be studied. The Purpose and Need (Section 2), Market Analysis findings
(Section 3), and screening methodology (Section 4) were reviewed by the TAC prior to moving
forward into the screening process.
Another opportunity for resource agencies and the public to review route alternatives and the
potential impacts associated with project implementation will be in the next phase during the
public scoping periods and meetings conducted prior to preparation of the Tier 1 EIS/EIR
process.
TAC Meetings
TAC meetings offer the opportunity for project partners and agency stakeholders to convene to
discuss study direction, findings, and key milestones. Agencies invited to participate in the TAC
are listed in Table 23.
Public and agency
involvement was an
integral part of the
Alternatives Analysis
process. An outreach
plan was developed at
the outset of the study
to provide multiple
avenues of
communication.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 64
Table 23. Invited TAC Members
Category Partner Name
Agency Partners Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) (Lead)
Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG)
San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG)
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro)
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)
Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) (Metrolink)
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 7
Caltrans, District 8
County of Riverside
City of Riverside
City of Palm Springs
City of Rancho Mirage
City of Indio
Federal / State Partners Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA)
Caltrans Division of Rail
Rail / Transit Partners LOSSAN (staffed by OCTA)
Riverside Transit Agency (RTA)
Pass Transit
Omnitrans
SunLine
Tribal Partners Morongo Band of Mission Indians (BMI)
Cabazon BMI
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (BCI)
Participating Railroads Union Pacific (UP)
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)
Amtrak
Public Meetings
Two public meetings were held to solicit feedback about the project Purpose and Need. One
meeting was held Monday, February 23, 2015, at Banning City Hall; the second meeting was
held Thursday, February 26, 2015, at the Coachella Valley Association of Governments offices
in Palm Desert. The February 26 meeting included a webcast option.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 65
A variety of communication methods were used to invite visitors to the meetings, including
mailings to the contact database and local cities / agencies, social media communications,
advertisements in newspapers, a press release, updates to the RCTC and partner agency
websites, and verbal announcements at RCTC meetings prior to the events.
While some attendees opted not to sign in at the registration table, the Banning meeting had 22
registrants, and the Palm Desert meeting had 75 registrants. The webcast had 56 participants.
There were 98 additional views of the webcast after the public meeting (as of April 3, 2015).
After the meetings, the visitor contact information was added to the database; 88 were new
additions to the database.
During both meetings, project team members worked to engage visitors in meaningful
discussions about their existing travel patterns and future service needs. Exhibits were placed
around the perimeter of the meeting rooms to prompt discussion between the team members
and visitors. Written surveys were distributed to visitors during the meetings to request input
about their travel patterns and potential future use of rail and transit service. The same survey
was also available online during several months leading up to the meetings. Full survey results
are shown in Appendix B. As an example, Figure 37 below illustrates that nearly 90% of
respondents said they would utilize rail to travel west.
Figure 37. Public Meeting Survey Sample Question and Response
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 66
Stakeholder Briefings
During February and March 2015, briefings were conducted with 16 elected officials from the
Coachella Valley and the Pass area, listed in Table 24. The goals of the briefings were to solicit
feedback about who they envision as the primary users of the service, major hurdles to be
overcome, pros and cons of establishing the service and other key points or action items.
Table 24. Stakeholder Briefings
Elected Official Briefing Date Location
Brenda Knight, Mayor, City of Beaumont February 11, 2015 Banning City Hall
Marion Ashley, Supervisor, District 5 February 11, 2015 County Administrative Center
John Benoit, Supervisor, District 4 February 17, 2015 Videoconference
Michael Wilson, Council Member, City of Indio February 19, 2015 Teleconference
Ella Zanowic, Council Member, City of Calimesa February 23, 2015 RCTC Offices
Debbie Franklin, Mayor, City of Banning February 23, 2015 Banning City Hall
Jan Harnik, Council Member, City of Palm Desert February 26, 2015 CVAG Offices
Iris Smotrich, Mayor, City of Rancho Mirage February 26, 2015 CVAG Offices
Ted Weill, Council Member, City of Rancho Mirage February 26, 2015 CVAG Offices
Doug Hanson, Council Member, City of Indian Wells February 26, 2015 CVAG Offices
Glenn Miller, Council Member, City of Indio February 26, 2015 CVAG Offices
Troy Strange, Council Member, City of Indio February 26, 2015 CVAG Offices
Greg Pettis, Council Member, City of Cathedral City March 5, 2015 Teleconference
Dana Reed, Council Member, City of Indian Wells March 11, 2015 RCTC
Ginny Foat and Paul Lewin, Council Members, City of Palm
Springs
March 12, 2015 Teleconference
The elected officials noted a number of likely system users: recreational travelers, commuters,
youth and college students, medical patients, and seniors. They indicated a clear understanding
of the challenges of sharing track and negotiating with Union Pacific and obtaining project
funding. They also designated travel time, establishing service reliability, maintaining public
interest, managing expectations and navigating the regulatory and approval process as other
hurdles to overcome to implement service.
The officials also were asked to name pros and cons to creating the new rail service. Positive
factors included promoting tourism in the Coachella Valley, creating an alternate travel option,
increasing employment opportunities and socioeconomic justice, and willingness of cities to
support station improvements. Officials mentioned difficulties related to farebox subsidies, the
3.5-hour project train travel time between Los Angeles and the Coachella Valley, and the length
of the regulatory/approval process to establish service.
A number of additional key points were raised, namely station locations, tribal coordination,
connecting transit, alternative technologies, rail-to-rail and bus-to-rail options, and others.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 67
Outreach Summary
Outreach is a key component of this work effort to identify and define an alternate transportation
service within the Coachella Valley. It informs every phase of the analysis and ensures that the
ultimate project will meet the Purpose and Need. Stakeholders and the public provide input
through social media, public meetings, stakeholder briefings and the TAC. As the study moves
forward, additional outreach opportunities will be utilized in order to continue communicating the
study progress and ensuring that stakeholder concerns and issues are incorporated.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 68
6 Range of Route Alternatives
The Study identified potential route alternatives and service
options for the Corridor based on the Purpose and Need
Statement and market analysis, review of previous studies,
and ideas or concepts that were suggested by resource
agencies or the public during the outreach process.
Potential alternatives were compared with the Purpose and
Need objectives to determine their ability to satisfy the
project Purpose and Need. The alternatives that could
achieve the Purpose and Need objectives were moved
forward into the coarse-level screening process, while those
that could not achieve the objectives were dropped from further consideration.
6.1 No-Build Alternative
A No-Build Alternative will be evaluated because evaluation of No Action is required by NEPA.
The No-Build Alternative consists of existing and programmed services that currently serve the
Corridor (connecting the Coachella Valley with the Los Angeles Basin). As discussed in Section
3.2.2, five intercity rail and bus services currently provide such regional linkages:
The Amtrak Sunset Limited provides long-distance passenger rail service three times
per week between Palm Springs and LAUS as part of its route between Los Angeles and
New Orleans;
The Amtrak Thruway service provides two bus trips each way daily between Indio and
Fullerton for passengers riding on the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner;
The SunLine Commuter Link 220 provides two bus trips each way between Palm Desert
and the Riverside Metrolink station on weekdays during commute hours;
The Beaumont Commuter Link 120 provides seven bus trips each way between
Beaumont and the San Bernardino Metrolink station on weekdays; and
Greyhound Lines provides intercity bus service that connects various locations
throughout the Los Angeles Basin with Banning, Palm Springs, and Indio.
No new corridor services are programmed and funded for implementation at this time. As
indicated in Table 25, the No-Build Alternative would not meet most of the Purpose and Need
objectives. However, the No-Build Alternative is carried forward throughout the Study to serve
as the baseline for comparison of the route alternatives. Figure 38 illustrates the rail and transit
services connecting the Coachella Valley and Los Angeles Basin, and Figure 39 illustrates the
cities connected by Greyhound service.
The range of route
alternatives and
service options to be
evaluated in the initial
round of coarse-level
screening are
identified in Section 6.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 69
Table 25. Purpose & Need Objectives Consistency for No-Build Alternative
# Purpose & Need Objective Consistency for No-Build Alternative
1
Provides travelers between the Coachella Valley
and the Los Angeles Basin with a public
transportation service that offers more
convenient and competitive trip times, better
station access, and more frequency, than
currently-available public transportation services
Objective Not Achieved. The No-Build Alternative does
not include any programmed improvements to existing
services, so this alternative does not improve upon the
travel times of existing services.
2
Provides travelers between the Coachella Valley
and the Los Angeles Basin with an alternative to
driving that offers reliable travel schedules.
Objective Not Achieved. Existing services are limited
and not convenient and reliable for most travelers
because of service timing, frequency, or poor
connections as noted below.
• The Amtrak Sunset Limited operates only three
times per week, stops in Palm Springs after
midnight at a station location 2.5 miles from the
edge of the developed part of the city, often runs
well behind schedule because of delays during its
long cross-country journey, and there is no
connecting service to provide access to the
station.
• Of existing services only the Sunset Limited
would be able to operate through San Gorgonio
Pass in the event of Interstate 10 being shut
down.
• The Amtrak Thruway bus service carries only
travelers with a ticket to ride on a connecting
Amtrak train, provides only two round trips each
day to the Amtrak station in Fullerton, and
operates in a highly congested freeway corridor.
• The SunLine Commuter Link 220 bus only serves
the schedule of commuters, with two weekday
trips into Riverside in the morning and two trips
back to the Coachella Valley at the end of the
normal work day.
• The Beaumont Commuter Link 120 travels only
as far east as Beaumont so it does not serve the
eastern part of the pass area or the Coachella
Valley and does not provide weekend service.
• Greyhound does not conveniently serve most of
the corridor travelers from the Coachella Valley,
the Indio station is located in the eastern end of
the Corridor, and the Palm Springs stop is at the
Amtrak station, which is in a remote location with
no transit access.
3
Provides travelers between the Coachella Valley
and the Los Angeles Basin with a transportation
service that is affordable.
Objective Achieved. Existing services are affordable.
4
Serves a range of trip purposes traveling
between the Coachella Valley and the Los
Angeles Basin, particularly including business,
social, medical, leisure, and recreational trips.
Objective Not Achieved. Existing services are limited
and not convenient for most travelers because of
service timing, frequency, or poor connections (see
Objective 2 explanation above.) In addition, the
Commuter Link bus services do not provide the kinds of
traveler amenities desired by leisure and recreational
travelers. The intercity (Greyhound) buses do have
traveler amenities.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 70
Table 25. Purpose & Need Objectives Consistency for No-Build Alternative
# Purpose & Need Objective Consistency for No-Build Alternative
5
Improves regional travel opportunities between
the Coachella Valley and the Los Angeles Basin
for transit-dependent people.
Objective Not Achieved. The No-Build Alternative does
not include any programmed improvements to existing
services, so this alternative does not enhance the
regional travel connections.
6
Is planned to serve the expected population
growth in the Coachella Valley and the Los
Angeles Basin.
Objective Not Achieved. The No-Build Alternative does
not include any programmed improvements to existing
services, so this alternative does not do anything to
enhance service for the growing regional population.
7
Does not preclude, by choice of alignment or
technology, a possible future corridor expansion
between the Coachella Valley and Phoenix.
Objective Achieved. Existing Greyhound service
provides connections from the Coachella Valley to
Phoenix and could be expanded.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study Draft Alternatives Analysis Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 71 Figure 38. No-Build Alternative - Transit and Rail Services Source: Amtrak, 2014; SunLine, 2014; City of Beaumont, 2014
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study Draft Alternatives Analysis Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 72 Figure 39. No-Build Alternative - Intercity Bus Service Source: Greyhound, 2014
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 73
6.2 Consideration of Possible “Build” Alternatives
The improvement options identified for study (sometimes called “build” alternatives) must
represent a range of potential improvements that meet the objectives identified in the Purpose
and Need Statement. In order to meet the Purpose and Need objectives the travel mode must:
Be an alternative to driving
Connect the Coachella Valley with the Los Angeles Basin and be accessible from
throughout both regions.
Be affordable.
The only two travel modes that meet these requirements and have the potential to reduce
current rail/transit travel times are intercity rail and intercity bus. Air travel and high-cost
individual and small-group travel modes such as taxis or shuttles are not affordable modes and
were dismissed from further consideration.
6.2.1 Potential Intercity Rail Options
New Alignments
The rail route alternatives considered use existing freight-passenger routes, rather than
constructing a new route on new ROW. Development of entirely new rail routes is more
expensive and more disruptive to the environment and to communities than adding capacity or
improvements to existing rail routes. Route alternatives with entirely new alignments were
deemed unreasonable, owing to the cost of new ROW and the challenge of timely property
acquisition. Additionally, grading entirely new ROW, rather than expanding as needed along
existing ROW, would cause more impact on the natural environment and human environment
than on-alignment route alternatives. For these reasons, rail alternatives that involve a new
route were dropped from further consideration.
Existing Rail Routes
There are existing rail lines that connect the Coachella Valley with the Los Angeles Basin, and
these could be used to accommodate a new intercity passenger rail service in the corridor. The
existing rail lines in the Corridor are shown in Figure 40. A single existing rail line – the UP
Yuma Subdivision – runs through the San Gorgonio Pass to connect the Coachella Valley with
the Los Angeles Basin. In the City of Colton, the Yuma Subdivision intersects other rail lines
that provide four alternative routes linking Colton to Los Angeles:
1. The San Bernardino Subdivision (owned by BNSF Railway), which passes through
Riverside and Fullerton;
2. The Los Angeles Subdivision (owned by Union Pacific (UP)), which passes through
Riverside and Pomona;
3. The Alhambra Subdivision (owned by UP), which runs due west from Colton and passes
through Pomona; and
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 74
4. The San Gabriel Subdivision (owned by the San Bernardino Associated Governments
(SANBAG) and the LA County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro)), which lies
north of Colton and carries the Metrolink San Bernardino Line commuter rail service
between San Bernardino and Los Angeles.
Table 26 shows these four established passenger rail routes identified by a designator number,
subdivision name, current operator, and intermediate cities used to define the location of the
route. All route alternatives in the Western Section will also use the River Subdivision trackage
owned by SCRRA for the final 0.9 mile to 5.3 miles to access LAUS.
Table 26. Established Passenger Rail Routes in Western Section of the Corridor
Route Number Subdivision Name Current Operator and Route
1 BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision BNSF Railway via Riverside and Fullerton, California
2 UP Los Angeles Subdivision BNSF Railway from Colton to Riverside, then Union
Pacific west of Riverside via Pomona, California
3 UP Alhambra Subdivision Union Pacific via Ontario and Pomona, California
4 SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision BNSF Railway from Colton to San Bernardino, then
SCRRA San Gabriel Sub (Metrolink’s San
Bernardino Line) via Rialto and Montclair, California
Source: Amtrak, 2014; SCRRA, 2014
Each of the four routes listed in Table 26 can be combined with the Yuma Subdivision to provide
route alternatives from Indio on the east to LAUS on the west. Indio is a potential eastern
terminus for the service because it is near the eastern end of the Coachella Valley and could
capture travelers from throughout the Valley, it has an existing transportation center next to the
rail line, and it is accessible to the highly transit-dependent communities further south and east.
LAUS is the logical western terminus for service because it is the primary hub of rail and transit
connections for the rest of Southern California.
Previous studies of potential rail service in this corridor – the 2010 Coachella Valley Rail Study
Update (RCTC, 2010) and the Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study (Caltrans,
2013) both recommended the use of the UP Yuma Subdivision in the Eastern Section between
Indio and Colton and the passenger-freight route owned by BNSF Railway in the Western
Section between Colton and Los Angeles (identified in Table 26 as Route Number 1).
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study Draft Alternatives Analysis Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 75 Figure 40. Corridor Rail Lines Source: Amtrak, 2014; SCRRA, 2014
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 76
Option to Use the Redlands Rail Route
For Route 4, an option to connect the San Gabriel Subdivision to the Yuma Subdivision through
Colton might be to connect them using a new passenger rail route being developed to connect
the existing San Bernardino Metrolink station and the City of Redlands along the Redlands
Branch line (see Figure 40). This alignment would require construction of new track
approximately 1.5 miles in length in the Loma Linda/Redlands area. This would require the
acquisition of new right of way and construction of new track, and would involve associated
environmental impacts.
In addition to the challenges of developing a new 1.5 mile rail alignment to connect the two
lines, the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass (CV-SGP) service may be incompatible with the
planned operations along the Redlands Branch line. The Redlands Passenger Rail Project
(RPRP) proposes to use Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) vehicles, which may not be compliant with
FRA passenger equipment requirements. For intercity trains to operate in the same corridor as
non-compliant DMU vehicles, either a second track would need to be constructed along the
Redlands Branch line or all three services (the RPRP operation, freight service, and intercity
service) would need to be time-separated through this area, which could jeopardize the
reliability and utility of all three types of service.
The combination of these factors makes the RPRP route connection a very implausible option
for carrying the CV-SGP service, therefore Route 4 will be considered only using the BNSF line
to connect the San Gabriel Subdivision to the Yuma Subdivision.
“Short Line” Rail Options
Another possible way to provide passenger rail service between Indio and Los Angeles would
be to operate a new intercity rail service between Indio and the Inland Empire, where
passengers could transfer to existing Metrolink commuter rail lines to continue on to Los
Angeles or other parts of the Los Angeles Basin (see Figure 41). One such “short rail” route
option would follow the UP Yuma Subdivision from Indio to Colton, then turn south on the BNSF
San Bernardino Subdivision to Riverside, where passengers could transfer to Metrolink’s IE-OC
Line, Riverside Line, or 91 Line. The other “short rail” route option would also follow the UP
Yuma Subdivision from Indio to Colton, then turn north on the BNSF San Bernardino
Subdivision to San Bernardino, where passengers could transfer to Metrolink’s San Bernardino
Line or IE-OC Line.
Comparison of Rail Options with Purpose and Need Objectives
The Indio-Los Angeles intercity service options (assumed to be a one-seat ride) and the Indio-
Inland Empire “short line” intercity rail service options (assumed to be a connection to existing
Metrolink service in Riverside or San Bernardino) were compared to the project’s Purpose and
Need objectives. The results of this comparison, shown in Table 27, indicate that the Indio-Los
Angeles service options could achieve all of the objectives, whereas the Indio-Inland Empire
options would not be able to achieve three of the objectives. Therefore, all four Indio-Los
Angeles intercity rail routes were carried forward into the screening process, and the “short line”
rail options were dropped from further consideration.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study Draft Alternatives Analysis Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 77 Figure 41. Potential “Short Rail” Service Options between Indio and the Inland Empire Source: SCRRA, 2014
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 78
Table 27. Purpose and Need Objectives Consistency for Intercity Rail
# Purpose & Need Objective Consistency for Indio-Los
Angeles Intercity Rail Service
Consistency for Indio-Inland Empire “Short
Rail” Intercity Rail Service
1
Provides travelers between
the Coachella Valley and the
Los Angeles Basin with a
public transportation service
that offers more convenient
and competitive trip times,
better station access, and
more frequency, than
currently-available public
transportation services.
Objective Achieved. An
intercity passenger rail service
between Indio and Los Angeles
would have a substantial trip
time reduction compared to the
existing bus-rail trip using
Amtrak Thruway and Pacific
Surfliner.
Objective Not Achieved. Because of the need
to transfer in Riverside or San Bernardino, the
possible reduction in rail/transit travel time is
decidedly less than a service that provides
passengers with a one-seat ride between Indio
and Los Angeles.
2
Provides travelers between
the Coachella Valley and the
Los Angeles Basin with an
alternative to driving that
offers reliable travel
schedules.
Objective Achieved. An
intercity passenger rail service
between Indio and Los Angeles
would have reliable schedules
because it would operate in an
rail right-of-way and would not
involve transfer to another, less
reliable, service. An intercity
train service between Indio and
Los Angeles would be able to
operate through San Gorgonio
Pass in the event of Interstate
10 being shut down.
Objective Not Achieved. Because of the
variability in Metrolink’s travel times due to
scheduling issues, reliability would be decidedly
less for a service that requires passengers to
rely on Metrolink for a significant portion of their
travel through the corridor. Scheduled Metrolink
travel times between Riverside and Los
Angeles vary depending on time of day and
service capacity on the shared tracks. An
intercity passenger train between Indio and the
Inland Empire would be able to operate through
San Gorgonio Pass in the event of I-10 being
shut down.
3
Provides travelers between
the Coachella Valley and the
Los Angeles Basin with a
transportation service that is
affordable.
Objective Achieved. Intercity
passenger rail service would be
an affordable travel option.
Objective Achieved. Intercity passenger rail
service would be an affordable travel option.
4
Serves a range of trip
purposes traveling between
the Coachella Valley and the
Los Angeles Basin,
particularly including
business, social, medical,
leisure, and recreational trips.
Objective Achieved. Intercity
passenger trains provide
travelers with comfortable and
spacious seating, baggage
service, wifi connection, café
service, and other amenities
suited to leisure/recreation and
business travelers that are not
available on Metrolink.
Objective Not Achieved. While a rail service
between Indio and the Inland Empire could be
customized to address a specific demographic,
existing Metrolink schedules and traveler
amenities are geared to commuters traveling to
and from work, and do not accommodate as
well the needs and desires of the leisure and
recreational travelers that constitute a very
significant component segment of this corridor’s
travelers.
5
Improves regional travel
opportunities between the
Coachella Valley and the Los
Angeles Basin for transit
dependent people.
Objective Achieved. A new
intercity passenger rail service
between Indio and Los Angeles
would provide direct service to
Los Angeles and connections
throughout the Los Angeles
Basin.
Objective Achieved. A new intercity
passenger rail service between Indio and the
Inland Empire (Riverside or San Bernardino)
would provide travelers with connections to
much of the Los Angeles Basin by transfer to
Metrolink commuter rail service.
6
Is planned to serve the
expected population growth in
the Coachella Valley and the
Los Angeles Basin.
Objective Achieved. Intercity
passenger rail service could be
expanded to accommodate
ridership growth.
Objective Achieved. Intercity passenger rail
service could be expanded to accommodate
ridership growth.
7
Does not preclude, by choice
of alignment or technology, a
possible future corridor
expansion between the
Coachella Valley and
Phoenix.
Objective Achieved. The UP
Yuma Subdivision offers a
potential opportunity for service
expansion from Indio to the
Phoenix area.
Objective Achieved. The UP Yuma
Subdivision offers a potential opportunity for
service expansion from Indio to the Phoenix
area.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 79
6.2.2 Potential Intercity Bus Service Options
There are two ways that intercity bus service could be operated to connect Indio to Los Angeles,
either (1) as a one-seat ride between Indio and LAUS, or (2) with service between Indio and a
rail station in Riverside, San Bernardino, or Fullerton, where riders could connect with Amtrak or
Metrolink train services. The bus service would operate almost entirely on the freeway system
with a very limited number of intermediate stops with minimal diversion from the freeway route.
The two types of intercity bus service options were compared to the project’s Purpose and Need
objectives. The results of this comparison, shown in Table 28, indicate that the Indio-Los
Angeles bus service would not be able to address three of the objectives, and the Indio-
Metrolink bus service options would not be able to achieve three of the objectives. Therefore, all
of the intercity bus service options were dropped from further consideration.
Table 28. Purpose and Need Objectives Consistency for Intercity Bus
# Purpose & Need Objective Consistency for Indio-Los
Angeles Bus Service
Consistency for Bus Service Connecting
Indio to Metrolink (Riverside, San
Bernardino, or Fullerton)
1
Provides travelers between
the Coachella Valley and the
Los Angeles Basin with a
public transportation service
that offers more convenient
and competitive trip times,
better station access, and
more frequency, than
currently-available public
transportation services.
Objective Not Achieved. A new
intercity bus service would
operate over the same highway
and street system as the existing
intercity service, so a new bus
service would not be able to
provide any reduction in travel
time. A new bus service would
have essentially the same travel
times as the existing Greyhound
service between Indio and Los
Angeles.
Objective Not Achieved. Because of the
need to transfer between bus and rail,
combined with the need to exit the freeway for
intermediate stops, the potential for
substantially reducing travel time with this
type of service is small. A new bus/Metrolink
service would have comparable travel times to
the existing SunLine service and Metrolink
between Palm Desert and Los Angeles.
2
Provides travelers between
the Coachella Valley and the
Los Angeles Basin with an
alternative to driving that
offers reliable travel
schedules.
Objective Not Achieved. A new
intercity bus service would be
subject to the same recurring
congestion on the Los Angeles
area freeway system that is
encountered by the existing
intercity bus service; therefore, a
bus option would not offer any
improvement in reliability.
Because buses travel on the
roadway system, a closure of I-
10 through the San Gorgonio
Pass would render bus service
inoperable through the area, so
this option would not be able to
achieve this objective.
Objective Not Achieved. This service option
would be subject to the variability in
Metrolink’s travel times and to recurring
freeway congestion in the part of the corridor
where buses would travel on freeways.
Scheduled Metrolink travel times between
Riverside and Los Angeles vary depending on
time of day and service capacity on the
shared tracks. Also, both freeways leading
east from Riverside and San Bernardino (SR-
60 and I-10) experience regular recurring
peak period congestion. So this option would
not improve existing service reliability, and
travelers would be subject to both Metrolink
schedule variability and recurring freeway
congestion. Because buses travel on the
roadway system, a closure of I-10 through the
San Gorgonio Pass would render bus service
inoperable through the area, so this option
would not be able to achieve this objective.
3
Provides travelers between
the Coachella Valley and the
Los Angeles Basin with a
transportation service that is
affordable.
Objective Achieved. Intercity
bus service would be an
affordable travel option.
Objective Achieved. Intercity bus service
would be an affordable travel option.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 80
Table 28. Purpose and Need Objectives Consistency for Intercity Bus
# Purpose & Need Objective Consistency for Indio-Los
Angeles Bus Service
Consistency for Bus Service Connecting
Indio to Metrolink (Riverside, San
Bernardino, or Fullerton)
4
Serves a range of trip
purposes traveling between
the Coachella Valley and the
Los Angeles Basin,
particularly including
business, social, medical,
leisure, and recreational
trips.
Objective Achieved. Intercity
bus service would include
traveler amenities.
Objective Not Achieved. Metrolink
schedules and traveler amenities are geared
to commuters traveling to and from work, and
do not accommodate as well the needs and
desires of the leisure and recreational
travelers that constitute a very significant
component segment of this corridor’s
travelers. Bus service connecting to Metrolink
would be restricted to meeting Metrolink
schedules.
5
Improves regional travel
opportunities between the
Coachella Valley and the
Los Angeles Basin for transit
dependent people.
Objective Not Achieved. This
option would not improve
regional connections – it would
provide essentially similar
regional connections to the
existing intercity bus service
operated by Greyhound. This
service option could somewhat
increase the service area
compared to existing SunLine
service (with an eastern terminus
in Palm Desert rather than Indio)
and provide service during more
hours of the day. (The SunLine
service operates only during
weekday commute hours.)
Objective Achieved. This option would
provide more regional bus opportunities
between the Coachella Valley and the Los
Angeles Basin for transit-dependent people
through an intercity bus service with service
between Indio and a rail station in Riverside,
San Bernardino, or Fullerton, where riders
could connect with Amtrak or Metrolink train
services. This service option could somewhat
increase the service area compared to
existing SunLine service (with an eastern
terminus in Palm Desert rather than Indio) and
provide service during more hours of the day.
(The SunLine service operates only during
weekday commute hours.)
6
Is planned to serve the
expected population growth
in the Coachella Valley and
the Los Angeles Basin.
Objective Achieved. This
service could be expanded to
accommodate ridership growth.
Objective Achieved. This service could be
expanded to accommodate ridership growth.
7
Does not preclude, by
choice of alignment or
technology, a possible future
corridor expansion between
the Coachella Valley and
Phoenix.
Objective Achieved. An
intercity bus service could be
expanded to provide service to
Phoenix, though it would
essentially duplicate the existing
Greyhound service to Phoenix.
Objective Achieved. An intercity bus service
could be expanded to provide service to
Phoenix, though it would essentially duplicate
the existing Greyhound service to Phoenix.
6.3 Alternatives to be Studied
Based on the results of the Purpose and Need comparisons above, the alternatives to be
studied will be comprised of intercity rail passenger service between Indio and Los Angeles,
operating on the Yuma Subdivision between Indio and Colton and on the four existing rail lines
between Colton and Los Angeles.
A total of six route combinations were identified for evaluation in the coarse-level screening
(Section 8).
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 81
Route Alternatives 1 through 3 use the UP Yuma Subdivision between Indio and Colton and
then follow three of the four rail lines west of Colton, as described below.
Route Alternative 1 uses the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision, travels from Colton
through Riverside and Fullerton to reach LAUS;
Route Alternative 2 uses the UP Los Angeles Subdivision, travels from Colton through
Riverside and Pomona to reach LAUS;
Route Alternative 3 uses the UP Alhambra Subdivision, travels from Colton through
Ontario and Pomona to reach LAUS.
Route Alternative 4 uses the UP Yuma Subdivision between Indio and Colton and the San
Gabriel Subdivision between San Bernardino and Los Angeles. It has two variations.
Route Alternative 4-A travels from Colton through Rialto and Montclair to reach LAUS;
Route Alternative 4-B travels from Colton to San Bernardino, then reverses its direction
to travel through Montclair to LAUS.
Route Alternative 4-A bypasses downtown San Bernardino to provide a more direct route with a
shorter travel time. Route Alternative 4-B serves the downtown San Bernardino Transit Center.
Having a stop at San Bernardino would involve a 20- to 30-minute station layover to reverse the
train’s operation (due to the operational needs of Positive Train Control) and would involve
some backtracking along the route to serve downtown San Bernardino.
Route Alternative 5 was identified for study because the San Gabriel Subdivision (Route
Alternative 4-A and 4-B) has a single-track capacity constraint where it operates at capacity
during peak commute hours in the median of I-10 east of LAUS. Route Alternative 5 avoids the
constrained segment of the San Gabriel Subdivision by using the UP Alhambra Subdivision
while serving the same stations as Route Alternatives 4-A and 4-B.
Route Alternative 5 uses the UP Yuma Subdivision between Indio and Colton, the
SCRRA Short Way Subdivision between Colton and San Bernardino, the SCRRA San
Gabriel Subdivision between San Bernardino and El Monte, and the UP Alhambra
Subdivision between El Monte and Los Angeles.
The alternatives are summarized in Table 29 and illustrated in Figures 42 through 48.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 82
Table 29. Coachella Valley – San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Route Alternatives
Alt. Description
Termini
Mode Rail Lines
East West
1 LA-Indio Rail Service via
Fullerton/Riverside Indio Los Angeles
Union Station Intercity Rail BNSF San Bernardino Sub
+ UP Yuma Sub
2 LA-Indio Rail Service via
Pomona/Riverside Indio Los Angeles
Union Station Intercity Rail UP Los Angeles Sub + UP
Yuma Sub
3 LA-Indio Rail Service via
Pomona/Ontario Airport Indio Los Angeles
Union Station Intercity Rail UP Alhambra Sub + UP
Yuma Sub
4-A LA-Indio Rail Service via
Montclair/Rialto Indio Los Angeles
Union Station Intercity Rail SCRRA San Gabriel Sub +
UP Yuma Sub
4-B LA-Indio Rail Service via
Montclair/San Bernardino Indio Los Angeles
Union Station Intercity Rail SCRRA San Gabriel Sub +
UP Yuma Sub
5 LA-Indio Rail Service via
Montclair/San Bernardino Indio Los Angeles
Union Station Intercity Rail
UP Alhambra + SCRRA
San Gabriel Sub + UP
Yuma Sub
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study Draft Alternatives Analysis Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 83 Figure 42. Coachella Valley – San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Route Alternatives
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study Draft Alternatives Analysis Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 84 Figure 43. Route Alternative 1
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study Draft Alternatives Analysis Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 85 Figure 44. Route Alternative 2
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study Draft Alternatives Analysis Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 86 Figure 45. Route Alternative 3
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study Draft Alternatives Analysis Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 87 Figure 46. Route Alternative 4-A
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study Draft Alternatives Analysis Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 88 Figure 47. Route Alternative 4-B
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study Draft Alternatives Analysis Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 89 Figure 48. Route Alternative 5
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 90
7 Description of the
Proposed Service
Regardless of which route alternative is selected, the
proposed passenger rail service between Indio and Los
Angeles would have several similar characteristics—speed
and travel time, stations, frequency, and infrastructure.
7.1 Speed and Travel Time
The proposed maximum speed of the passenger rail
service is 79 miles per hour (mph), which would result in scheduled one-way travel times
between Indio and Los Angeles of approximately 186 to 218 minutes. As detailed in Section 3,
an automobile requires between 112 to 200 minutes to drive the approximately 127 miles
between downtown Los Angeles and Indio. Existing transit requires about 240 minutes between
Indio and Los Angeles. Air service between Los Angeles and Palm Springs is approximately
55 minutes flying time, and a total downtown-to-downtown travel time of approximately 2 hours,
30 minutes. Direct air service is available only between Los Angeles and Palm Springs, but not
from Los Angeles to Indio or from intermediate city to intermediate city.
The passenger rail service would be designed for an on-time performance of 90 percent to
provide a competitive option with personal automobile and commercial bus and airline service,
which may have a lower reliability due to inclement weather and highway traffic congestion. The
proposed Los Angeles terminus is Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS), which is located in the
downtown Los Angeles core and is the hub station for Amtrak’s intercity and long-distance
passenger rail services and much of Los Angeles’ commuter-rail service. The station is also
served by Los Angeles’ heavy-rail and light rail rapid-transit system, by Los Angeles’ bus
system, and offers a direct link to Los Angeles International Airport via the FlyAway Express
Bus. LAUS is also a proposed station for the California High Speed Rail system.
7.2 Stations
For this Alternatives Analysis the assumed endpoints of the proposed passenger rail service are
Indio and Los Angeles. The proposed station in Los Angeles is LAUS, which is the current hub
for Amtrak intercity and long distance passenger trains serving Los Angeles, and is a proposed
station for the California High Speed Rail system. Intermediate station stops are located on
each route alternative at the largest intermediate cities, or as close as possible to the largest
intermediate cities to attract and serve the largest possible ridership. Other specific station sites
have not been identified during the Alternatives Analysis and will be studied during the
subsequent Service Development Plan. The intermediate station stops are different for each
route alternative, as the route alternatives share a common alignment only in the Eastern
Section between Indio and Colton, then are geographically separated in the Western Section
between Colton and Los Angeles until rejoining at LAUS. The number of station stops was
identified with recognition that too many stops would make the overall travel time unacceptably
The general
characteristics of the
proposed passenger
rail service include
speed and travel time,
stations, frequency,
and infrastructure.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 91
long and less competitive with automobile travel times, thus reducing ridership. Likewise, station
dwell times were kept to a minimum, to reduce overall travel times, which is common on
corridor-type services where many travelers are making day-trips and most travelers tend to
carry less baggage.
7.3 Frequency
The frequency of the proposed passenger rail service has been initially defined as two daily
round trips between Indio and Los Angeles, based on the ridership model’s service optimization
analysis (described in Section 4.3.2) which found that two round trips per day would attract the
greatest number of riders per train while providing an opportunity for passengers to make a
round trip in one day. Experience with other similar corridor services in Illinois, Wisconsin,
Missouri, California, and Washington has shown that more round trips increase ridership
because passengers have more options for departure and arrival times; the increased
convenience corresponds to increased ridership (Iowa DOT, October 2012). The number of
daily round trips also influences the technical complexity of the infrastructure required because
more trains require more line capacity.
7.4 Infrastructure
Although the proposed passenger rail service would use existing infrastructure, additional track,
signal, and structure infrastructure is likely to be necessary, to varying degrees, for each route
alternative. This is in order to provide adequate main track capacity and track quality for
passenger trains so as to allow them to operate reliably and consistently at a speed as near to
the proposed maximum speed as possible. It also serves to mitigate any potential loss in
existing freight capacity and freight capacity expansion potential. Segments of additional second
main track or sidings for trains to meet and pass each other would be required where existing
sidings or double-track is insufficient, or needed to mitigate the impacts of the proposed service
on existing freight or commuter rail operations.
Additional tracks at some or all stations are also likely infrastructure requirements. A new
maintenance facility for passenger rail equipment is not expected to be needed since the initial
service level is only two round trips per day and there is an existing Amtrak maintenance facility
near LAUS. Additional track, signal, and structure infrastructure may expand the footprint of the
existing infrastructure. Areas where the infrastructure footprint would be expanded were
identified and included in the identification of potential impacts on environmental,
socioeconomic, and cultural resources.
A Shared Use Agreement between BNSF and RCTC which was signed in 1992 relates staged
infrastructure improvement projects to available passenger train slots on the route (Atchison,
Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway Company and RCTC, October 1992). Improvements completed
since 1992 bring the corridor to Stage 4 of the infrastructure staging plan, which provides 36
train slots for RCTC between Riverside and Fullerton. In addition, a memorandum of
understanding between SANBAG, UP, and BNSF for the Colton Crossing rail grade separation
project provides for the conversion of four non-revenue passenger train movements to revenue
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 92
train movements in the segment of the San Bernardino Subdivision between San Bernardino
and Riverside (San Bernardino Associated Governments, Union Pacific Railroad Company, and
BNSF Railway, April 2010).
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 93
8 Coarse-Level Screening
The Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor
route alternatives were evaluated against the coarse-
level screening criteria defined in Section 4.3, and the
results of this evaluation are presented below. A
summary of the screening results is provided at the end
of this chapter in Table 42.
As described in Section 1, the Study Area consists of two
sections: the Eastern Section and the Western Section.
The Eastern Section is not included in the coarse-level
screening effort because that 71-mile portion of the
project is a common component of all of the alternatives.
The coarse-level screening addresses the six rail route alternatives in the Western Section
between Colton and Los Angeles, described in Section 6. All six rail route alternatives have a
western terminus at LAUS, which requires the use of River Subdivision trackage owned by
SCRRA.
The River Subdivision is a high-density, multiple-track railroad that provides the rail access into
LAUS for all Amtrak passenger and Metrolink commuter trains arriving from all directions. It is
the only existing rail alternative that provides access to LAUS. Because all route alternatives
require use of the River Subdivision to access LAUS, at distances ranging from 0.9 to 5.3 miles,
it was not included as a basis for comparison because it was not considered a differentiator for
comparing route alternatives, except for the following criteria: mileage, travel time, ridership and
revenue (as influenced by travel time), and operations and maintenance costs. Passenger train
connections already exist between the River Subdivision and each route alternative being
evaluated, and no additional connections are contemplated. No additional infrastructure or
capacity improvements are anticipated on the River Subdivision as a result of the
implementation of this service.
All route alternatives have similar station access plans and costs, as shown in Appendix D, and
thus are not compared in this analysis.
8.1 Route Alternative 1
The BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision is the southernmost of the route alternatives (see
Figures 40 and 41). This route alternative is 70 miles long between Colton and LAUS, and
would form a total Indio-Los Angeles corridor length of 141 miles. This route is used by Amtrak’s
Southwest Chief long-distance passenger train between Colton and Los Angeles, and Amtrak’s
Pacific Surfliner intercity passenger trains between Fullerton and Los Angeles. The route is also
used by three Metrolink commuter services: Inland Empire-Orange County Line trains between
Colton and Atwood; 91 Line trains between Riverside and Los Angeles; and Orange County
Line trains between Fullerton and Los Angeles.
The coarse-level
screening process
evaluated the route
alternatives and
identified alternatives
to move forward into
the fine-screening
process.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 94
The schedule for this alternative is shown in Table 30 and Table 31, assuming two round trips
per day.
Table 30. Route Alternative 1 Westbound Schedule
Westbound AM Trip PM Trip
Indio 9:50 AM 3:20 PM
Rancho Mirage 10:05 AM 3:35 PM
Palm Springs 10:15 AM 3:45 PM
Cabazon 10:30 AM 4:00 PM
Loma Linda 11:05 AM 4:35 PM
Riverside-Downtown 11:38 AM 5:08 PM
Fullerton 12:20 PM 5:50 PM
LAUS 1:00 PM 6:30 PM
Total Schedule Time 3:10 3:10
Source: Caltrans Travel Forecasting, 2015; Appendix D
Table 31. Route Alternative 1 Eastbound Schedule
Eastbound AM Trip PM Trip
LAUS 10:20 AM 3:25 PM
Fullerton 10:52 AM 3:57 PM
Riverside-Downtown 11:36 AM 4:41 PM
Loma Linda 12:06 PM 5:11 PM
Cabazon 12:41 PM 5:46 PM
Palm Springs 12:56 PM 6:01 PM
Rancho Mirage 1:11 PM 6:16 PM
Indio 1:36 PM 6:41 PM
Total Schedule Time 3:16 3:16
Source: Caltrans Travel Forecasting, 2015; Appendix D
8.1.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand
This alternative would serve the intermediate major communities of Riverside and Fullerton,
California. The total population within a 15-mile catchment area of these intermediate stops is
approximately 5.63 million, and is projected to grow to 6.08 million by 2020. The catchment area
around Fullerton has the largest population of any potential intermediate stop among all six
route alternatives, with a current population of approximately 4.19 million (and projected to
reach 4.47 million by 2020). The selection of this alternative would form an Indio-Los Angeles
corridor that would serve a total population of approximately 10.73 million, with a projected
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 95
increase in total population along the corridor by 2020 to 11.63 million, which is the highest
population reach among the six route alternatives. (SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS)
8.1.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes
This alternative is the longest (i.e., miles from end to end) of the route alternatives being
evaluated, but would have a travel time comparable to the other alternatives, given the route’s
79-mph maximum allowable passenger train speed and multiple-track main line. Projected
running times between Indio and Los Angeles are 3 hours, 10 minutes westbound and 3 hours,
16 minutes eastbound (Table 30 and Table 31).
8.1.3 Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges
Since sufficient passenger train slots are available under current operating agreements for this
route, additional infrastructure will not be needed if RCTC dedicates the needed slots to the
Coachella Valley service, so this route would not involve any major direct environmental
challenges.
8.1.4 Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas
This route is adjacent to LBV critical habitat that has been established by the USFWS as it
passes through the community of Corona. This alternative also passes through critical habitat
for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher between the communities of Grand Terrace and Colton.
The Western Section of this alternative does not pass through and is not adjacent to any Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) Areas of Critical of Environmental Concern (ACEC) or USFWS
National Wildlife Refuges; it does pass through or is adjacent to seven areas of regulated
wetlands. In addition, the Western Section of this alternative crosses over the Santa Ana River
(twice), the San Gabriel River, the Rio Hondo Channel, and Coyote Creek. This alternative also
passes through and is adjacent to the southern-most boundary of Chino Hills State Park and is
adjacent to seven city parks.
8.1.5 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way
Based on a review of aerial mapping along the route, land uses adjacent to this alternative are
primarily commercial, industrial, and residential (Google Maps, 2015). Since sufficient
passenger train slots are available under current operating agreements for this route, additional
infrastructure will not be needed if RCTC dedicates the needed slots to the Coachella Valley
service, so this route would not involve any right-of-way issues.
8.1.6 Technical Feasibility
This alternative is a high-density freight train route that also hosts Amtrak passenger and
Metrolink commuter rail traffic. In addition, Union Pacific freight trains operating to and from the
UP Los Angeles Subdivision at Riverside have trackage rights on BNSF’s San Bernardino
Subdivision between San Bernardino and Riverside. The route plays a critical role in the
movement of domestic and imported consumer goods carried in BNSF intermodal trains
between Southern California ports and terminals and the U.S. Interior. Intermodal trains to and
from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach operate the entire length of Route Alternative 1,
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 96
and use a connection at the route’s western end with the Alameda Corridor rail line serving the
Ports. BNSF operates additional intermodal trains to and from its own intermodal terminals
located along Route Alternative 1 at Commerce and Hobart.
This alternative is the only alternative that has multiple main tracks for its entire length,
consisting of alternating sections of double track and triple track. Current train traffic between
Riverside and Los Angeles exceeds 40 freight trains per day, on average, and the section
between San Bernardino and Riverside exceeds 60 freight trains per day, on average,
according to the Southern California Association of Governments Comprehensive Regional
Goods Movement Pan and Implementation Strategy. Two daily Amtrak long-distance trains
operates the entire length of the route, and 22 daily Amtrak Pacific Surfliner trains use the
portion of the route between Fullerton and Los Angeles. Weekday Metrolink commuter rail traffic
varies by segment, with eight trains between Colton and Riverside; 25 trains between Riverside
and Atwood; nine trains between Atwood and Fullerton; and 28 trains between Fullerton and
Los Angeles. Weekend Metrolink commuter rail traffic also varies, with four trains between
Colton and Riverside; eight trains between Riverside and Atwood; four trains between Atwood
and Fullerton; and 12 trains between Fullerton and Los Angeles.
Maximum allowable passenger train speed is 60 mph east of Fullerton and 79 mph west of
Fullerton. The maximum allowable freight train speed is 50 mph throughout. (Information about
all BNSF track speeds, gradients, terminal locations, mileages, and signaling in this report have
come from the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision employee timetable dated June 25, 2014.)
However, grades of 1% ascending eastward from Fullerton to Colton have the potential to slow
or prevent freight trains from reaching track speed. The route is equipped with wayside signaling
and Centralized Traffic Control, and Metrolink launched a revenue service demonstration project
of Positive Train Control on the route in 2014. At Colton, a low-speed (20 mph) connecting track
is in operation that enables trains from Indio operating westbound on UP’s Yuma Subdivision to
directly access and operate westbound on BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision.
To accommodate additional passenger trains on the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision will not
require additional infrastructure if RCTC dedicates to this service some of the passenger train
slots that are available under current operating agreements:
Between Los Angeles and Fullerton, the near-term completion of the triple track project
will allow for 50 train movements, up from the current 28. If needed, RCTC can commit
four of those train slots to the Coachella Valley service.
Between Fullerton and Riverside the agreement currently allows for 36 train movements,
and there are 25 daily train movements at present. If needed, RCTC can commit four of
those train slots to the Coachella Valley service.
For the segment between Riverside and Colton, the 2013 completion of the Colton
Crossing and some additional provisions allow for conversion of four non-revenue
movements to revenue movements between Riverside and San Bernardino. If needed,
RCTC can commit those four new revenue slots to the Coachella Valley service.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 97
The base train equipment sets would be adequate for this alternative. Route Alternative 1 has
no specific characteristics that would change operating or maintenance costs substantially
compared to the other alternatives.
8.1.7 Economic Feasibility
Because there are available passenger train slots for the entire route between Colton and Los
Angeles, additional capacity construction would not be required for this route alternative.
8.2 Route Alternative 2
Route Alternative 2, the UP Los Angeles Subdivision, is situated north of Route Alternative 1
(see Figures 40 and 42). This alternative is 67 miles long between Colton and LAUS and would
form a total Indio-Los Angeles corridor length of 138 miles. This alternative utilizes 6 miles of
BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision between West Colton and Riverside, then follows Union
Pacific’s Los Angeles Subdivision, which diverges from BNSF’s main line at Riverside and
extends west to Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Subdivision is owned by UP. The BNSF portion
of this alternative is used by Amtrak’s Southwest Chief long-distance passenger train and
Metrolink’s Inland Empire-Orange County Line commuter trains. The UP portion of the route is
used by Metrolink’s Riverside Line commuter trains between Riverside and Los Angeles.
The schedule for this alternative is shown in Tables 32 and 33, assuming two round trips per
day.
Table 32. Route Alternative 2 Westbound Schedule
Westbound AM Trip PM Trip
Indio 9:50 AM 3:20 PM
Rancho Mirage 10:05 AM 3:35 PM
Palm Springs 10:15 AM 3:45 PM
Cabazon 10:30 AM 4:00 PM
Loma Linda 11:05 AM 4:35 PM
Riverside-Downtown 11:38 AM 5:08 PM
Pomona 12:08 PM 5:38 PM
LAUS 1:00 PM 6:30 PM
Total Schedule Time 3:10 3:10
Source: Caltrans Travel Forecasting, 2015; Appendix D
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 98
Table 33. Route Alternative 2 Eastbound Schedule
Eastbound AM Trip PM Trip
LAUS 10:20 AM 3:25 PM
Pomona 11:03 AM 4:08 PM
Riverside-Downtown 11:34 AM 4:39 PM
Loma Linda 12:04 PM 5:09 PM
Cabazon 12:39 PM 5:44 PM
Palm Springs 12:54 PM 5:59 PM
Rancho Mirage 1:09 PM 6:14 PM
Indio 1:34 PM 6:39 PM
Total Schedule Time 3:14 3:14
Source: Caltrans Travel Forecasting, 2015; Appendix D
8.2.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand
This alternative is located between Colton and Los Angeles serving the intermediate major
communities of Riverside and Pomona, California. The total population within a 15-mile
catchment area of these intermediate stops is approximately 3.78 million, and is projected to
grow to 4.14 million by 2020. This alternative would form an Indio-Los Angeles corridor that
would serve a total population of approximately 9.38 million, with a projected increase in total
population along the corridor by 2020 to 10.20 million. (SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS)
8.2.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes
This alternative is the second longest of the alternatives, but would have a travel time
comparable to the other alternatives, given the route’s 79-mph maximum allowable passenger
train speed. As shown in Tables 31 and 32, projected running times between Indio and Los
Angeles are 3 hours, 10 minutes westbound and 3 hours, 14 minutes eastbound.
8.2.3 Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges
Additional ROW and modifications to existing track infrastructure resulting in new or expanded
bridges over waterways would require intensive coordination with the USFWS, CDFW, and
other responsible resource agencies. In the event that a new or expanded bridge is needed at
the Santa Ana River, mitigation could be difficult to obtain since the route crosses critical habitat
for LBV and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (both are listed as a Federal and State
endangered species). The route also crosses through the Santa Ana River Wildlife Area. In
addition, the project would have to comply with the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan, which has strict requirements and mitigation measure strategies for
impacted species.
For other areas where a new or expanded bridge crosses over a waterway (e.g. San Gabriel
River, Rio Hondo Channel), coordination with the USFWS, CDFW, and ACOE is likely to be less
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 99
complex since no critical habitat or wildlife management areas are identified for these
waterways.
8.2.4 Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas
This alternative passes through least Bell’s vireo critical habitat as it crosses the Santa Ana
River between the communities of Pedley and Riverside. This alternative also passes through
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher critical habitat between the communities of Grand Terrace and
Colton. The Western Section of this alternative does not pass through and is not adjacent to any
BLM ACECs or USFWS National Wildlife Refuges. However, this alternative does pass through
a CDFW Wildlife Management Area (Santa Ana River Wildlife Area) and passes through or is
adjacent to six areas of regulated wetlands. In addition, the Western Section of this alternative
crosses over the Santa Ana River (twice), the San Gabriel River, and the Rio Hondo Channel.
This alternative does not pass through any federal, state, or local parks but is adjacent to six
local parks.
8.2.5 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way
Based on a review of aerial mapping along the route, land uses along this alternative are mostly
urban uses consisting of commercial, industrial, and residential uses (Google Maps, 2015).
Based on preliminary estimates (assuming a worst-case 20-foot right-of-way acquisition
requirement along the entire rail route from Colton to Los Angeles), approximately 666 acres of
land would need to be acquired. In addition to being very expensive, this would require
displacement of many landowners, particularly where the route alternative passes through
highly urbanized areas. Additional research will be conducted on the fine-level screening
analysis.
8.2.6 Technical Feasibility
Route Alternative 2 is a high-density freight train route that also hosts Metrolink commuter rail
service. The route carries UP intermodal, automotive, and manifest freight traffic operating
between Southern California and main lines headed east from California to the Midwest and
South Central regions of the U.S. Intermodal trains to and from the Ports of Los Angeles and
Long Beach use a connection at Route Alternative 2’s western end with the Alameda Corridor
rail line serving the Ports. In addition to Port traffic, UP operates freight trains to and from major
rail terminals of its own situated along Route Alternative 2. These terminals are located at East
Los Angeles, a major domestic and international intermodal container facility; Montclair, a
manifest support yard for local traffic; and Mira Loma, UP’s primary automotive facility in the Los
Angeles area. Current traffic averages approximately 20 to 40 freight trains per day, and 12
commuter trains per day on weekdays, according to Metrolink and the Southern California
Association of Governments Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Pan and
Implementation Strategy. Route Alternative 2 has a maximum allowable speed of 79 mph for
passenger trains and 65 mph for freight trains. However, grades approaching 1% in both
directions between Riverside and Los Angeles may slow or prevent heavy from freight trains
from achieving track speed. The route is equipped with wayside signaling and Centralized
Traffic Control. (Information about all UP track speeds, gradients, terminal locations, mileages,
and signaling in this report have come from the UP Los Angeles Subdivision employee
timetable dated October 28, 2013.)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 100
The 55 miles of UP’s Los Angeles Subdivision that would be used for Route Alternative 2
include almost 10 miles of single-track main line. This presents an impediment to freight
operations during the morning and evening commuter train windows, as the single main track
must be kept clear for commuter trains. Further, UP’s Los Angeles Subdivision terminates at
Riverside, and all trains operating east of Riverside use trackage rights on BNSF’s San
Bernardino Subdivision for 7 miles east to UP’s Yuma Subdivision at Colton, or for 102 miles
east to UP’s main line to Salt Lake City at Daggett, California. Eastbound UP trains on the Los
Angeles Subdivision approaching Riverside must receive permission from the BNSF San
Bernardino Subdivision dispatcher to proceed onto BNSF’s trackage at Riverside. If contact with
the dispatcher or permission to continue east is not quickly received, this process may require
trains to stop and wait on UP’s trackage west of Riverside. If there is a long wait for a train to
receive permission to proceed onto BNSF’s busy San Bernardino Subdivision, the effects can
ripple west along the Los Angeles Subdivision and delay other trains.
The Los Angeles Subdivision is one of two east/west routes that UP owns between Colton and
Los Angeles. The other is the Alhambra Subdivision that is primarily single track (Route
Alternative 3). To mitigate the potential for delays caused by UP’s heavy freight train volumes,
Metrolink commuter trains, BNSF operating conditions, and limited mainline capacity, UP
operates the Los Angeles and Alhambra subdivisions directionally for through trains operating
between Colton and Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Subdivision handles a majority of UP’s
eastbound traffic leaving the LA region, including intermodal traffic originating at the Ports of Los
Angeles and Long Beach. It also handles westbound intermodal trains bound for the Ports that
use a connection from the Alhambra Subdivision onto the Los Angeles Subdivision at Pomona.
Local freight trains also operate in both directions on the line to serve a large number of
industries between Riverside and Los Angeles.
To accommodate additional passenger trains on Route Alternative 2 without degrading freight
train capacity, additional infrastructure would likely be required to enable overtakes of freight
trains, meet/pass events for the proposed Coachella Valley passenger trains and Metrolink
commuter traffic, and adequate windows for track maintenance. Obstacles to constructing an
additional main track between Riverside and Pomona include a lack of available ROW between
Riverside and Arlington, where the alignment descends an escarpment and is constrained by a
quarry. An additional bridge over the Santa Ana River would also be needed to supplement the
existing single-track concrete arch structure.
The base train equipment sets would be adequate for this alternative. Route Alternative 2 has
no specific characteristics that would change operating or maintenance costs substantially
compared to the other alternatives.
8.2.7 Economic Feasibility
Because this alternative is near capacity, additional capacity construction would be required.
This would likely require extensive improvements, including constructing an additional main
track at locations where only one track currently exists, and potentially constructing additional
sidings to store freight trains during passenger train operating windows or while waiting for
clearance to proceed onto BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 101
8.3 Route Alternative 3
Alternative 3, the UP Alhambra Subdivision, is a westward continuation of UP’s Yuma
Subdivision from Indio (see Figures 40 and 43). The two subdivisions join at the Rancho
interlocking in Colton, at the east end of a major UP hump classification yard. This alternative is
58 miles long between Colton and Los Angeles Union Station, and would form a total Indio-Los
Angeles corridor length of 129 miles. The Alhambra Subdivision is owned by UP. This route is
used by Amtrak’s tri-weekly Sunset Limited long-distance passenger train between Colton and
Los Angeles. The schedule for this alternative is shown in Tables 34 and 35, assuming two
round trips per day.
Table 34. Route Alternative 3 Westbound Schedule
Westbound AM Trip PM Trip
Indio 9:50 AM 3:20 PM
Rancho Mirage 10:05 AM 3:35 PM
Palm Springs 10:15 AM 3:45 PM
Cabazon 10:30 AM 4:00 PM
Loma Linda 11:05 AM 4:35 PM
Ontario (Airport) 12:08 PM 5:38 PM
Pomona 12:24 PM 5:54 PM
LAUS 1:13 PM 6:43 PM
Total Schedule Time 3:23 3:23
Source: Caltrans Travel Forecasting, 2015; Appendix D
Note: Alternative 3 uses a hypothetical Ontario Airport stop instead of the existing
Amtrak Ontario Station.
Table 35. Route Alternative 3 Eastbound Schedule
Eastbound AM Trip PM Trip
LAUS 10:20 AM 3:25 PM
Pomona 11:01 AM 4:06 PM
Ontario (Airport) 11:17 AM 4:22 PM
Loma Linda 12:18 PM 5:23 PM
Cabazon 12:53 PM 5:58 PM
Palm Springs 1:08 PM 6:13 PM
Rancho Mirage 1:23 PM 6:28 PM
Indio 1:48 PM 6:53 PM
Total Schedule Time 3:28 3:28
Source: Caltrans Travel Forecasting, 2015; Appendix D
Note: Alternative 3 uses a hypothetical Ontario Airport stop instead of the existing
Amtrak Ontario Station.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 102
8.3.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand
This alternative connects Colton and Los Angeles and would serve the intermediate major
communities of Ontario and Pomona, California. The total population within a 15-mile catchment
area of these intermediate stops is approximately 4.04 million, and is projected to grow to 4.41
million by 2020. The selection of Alternative 3 would form an Indio-Los Angeles corridor that
would serve a total population of approximately 9.28 million, with a projected increase in total
population along the corridor by 2020 to 10.08 million. (SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS)
8.3.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes
Route Alternative 3 has the shortest distance among the six route alternatives; however, it has
one of the longest projected travel times. This can be attributed to the Alhambra Subdivision’s
slower maximum allowable speed for passenger trains of 65 mph, versus 79 mph for all other
route alternatives; the lack of multiple main tracks (approximately 70 percent of Route
Alternative 3 is single track between Colton and Los Angeles); and the high volume of freight
train traffic in the vicinity of the West Colton freight yard and intermodal facilities in Industry and
Los Angeles. Projected running times between Indio and Los Angeles are 3 hours, 23 minutes
westbound and 3 hours, 28 minutes eastbound, one of the slowest of the route alternatives.
8.3.3 Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges
Aside from the potential acquisition of right-of-way along the corridor, there appear to be no
major environmental challenges for Route Alternative 3. For areas on this route where a new or
expanded bridge crosses over a waterway (e.g. San Gabriel River, Rio Hondo Channel,
Alhambra Wash, and Rubio Wash), coordination with the USFWS, CDFW, and ACOE is likely to
be less complex since no critical habitat or wildlife management areas are identified for these
waterways. Although the route is in close proximity to a designated cultural resource (San
Gabriel Mission complex), it is anticipated that any additional right-of-way needed along this
area would not encroach on the San Gabriel Mission complex.
8.3.4 Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas
Route Alternative 3 does not pass through any identified critical habitat. While the Western
Section of Route Alternative 3 does not pass through and is not adjacent to any BLM ACECs or
USFWS National Wildlife Refuges, it does pass through or is adjacent to three areas of
regulated wetlands. In addition, the Western Section of this alternative crosses over the San
Gabriel River, Rio Hondo Channel, Alhambra Wash, and Rubio Wash. This alternative does not
pass through any federal, state, or local parks but is adjacent to two local parks. In addition, the
San Gabriel Mission complex (designated as a California Historical Landmark and identified on
the United States National Register of Historic Places) is located approximately 200 feet from
the existing track alignment.
8.3.5 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way
Based on a review of aerial mapping along the route, land uses along this alternative are mostly
urban uses consisting of commercial, industrial, and residential uses (Google Maps, 2015).
Based on preliminary estimates (assuming a worst-case 20-foot right-of-way acquisition
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 103
requirement along the entire route from Colton to Los Angeles), approximately 625 acres of land
would need to be acquired. In addition to being very expensive, this would require displacement
of many landowners, particularly where the route alternative passes through highly urbanized
areas. Additional research will be conducted on the fine-level screening analysis.
8.3.6 Technical Feasibility
Route Alternative 3 is a high-density freight train route that also hosts Amtrak’s Sunset Limited
three days per week in each direction. The subdivision carries UP’s long-haul intermodal,
automotive, and manifest freight traffic destined to and from major terminals in Southern
California, including the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. In addition to handling
intermodal traffic for the Ports, UP operates freight trains to and from major rail terminals of its
own situated along this alternative. These terminals are located at West Colton, UP’s primary
Southern California manifest freight classification hump yard; City of Industry, site of a domestic
intermodal terminal and local freight yard; and Los Angeles, the location of a domestic
intermodal terminal serving premium, time-sensitive traffic (the Los Angeles Transfer Container
facility, or LATC). Current traffic averages approximately 15 to 25 freight trains per day west of
Pomona and approximately 40 freight trains per day east of Pomona, along with 1 Amtrak long-
distance train that operates three days per week in each direction, according to Amtrak and
SCAG’s Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy. Route
Alternative 3 has a maximum allowable speed of 65 mph for passenger trains, the slowest
among the route alternatives, and 60 mph for freight trains. However, grades of 1% in both
directions between Colton and Los Angeles may slow or prevent heavy freight trains from
achieving track speed. The route is equipped with wayside signaling and Centralized Traffic
Control. (Information about all UP track speeds, gradients, terminal locations, mileages, and
signaling in this report have come from the UP Alhambra Subdivision employee timetable dated
October 28, 2013.)
Of the 56 miles of UP’s Alhambra Subdivision that would be used for Route Alternative 3 70%
are single main track, with limited passing sidings that have a combined total length of 11.5
miles, while the remaining 16 miles are double main track. This presents an impediment to
current freight and passenger operations, and would be exacerbated with additional passenger
trains, given the high volume of freight traffic and the number of freight terminals located along
the route. Trains destined for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach sometimes have to wait
for permission to travel south on the Alameda Corridor, and there are limited locations where
trains can be staged without disrupting operations. The schedule of Amtrak’s Sunset Limited
reflects the slow travel times associated with Route Alternative 3. Running times between
Ontario and Los Angeles, a distance of 38 miles, are 54 minutes eastbound and 1 hour, 41
minutes westbound, with time allotted for an intermediate stop at Pomona, and schedule
recovery time added into the westbound trip. The average speed for the Sunset Limited
between Ontario and Los Angeles is 42 mph eastbound and 29 mph westbound.
The Alhambra Subdivision is one of two east/west routes that UP owns between Colton and Los
Angeles. The other is the Los Angeles Subdivision (Route Alternative 2). To mitigate the
potential for delays caused by UP’s heavy freight train volumes and the unique operating
constraints of each route, UP operates the Alhambra and Los Angeles subdivisions directionally
for through trains operating between Colton and Los Angeles. The Alhambra Subdivision
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 104
handles a majority of UP’s westbound traffic entering the LA region, including intermodal traffic
destined for the Ports. However, not all traffic can operate directionally, notably the manifest
freight trains that enter and leave UP’s hump classification yard at West Colton via the
Alhambra Subdivision.
To accommodate additional passenger trains on Route Alternative 3 without degrading freight
train capacity, additional infrastructure would likely be required to enable overtakes of freight
trains and meet/pass events for the proposed Coachella Valley passenger trains, and to provide
adequate windows for track maintenance. In addition, a new station is proposed at the Ontario
Airport that Coachella Valley passenger trains would serve instead of the existing Amtrak station
at Ontario.
The base train equipment sets would be adequate for this alternative. Route Alternative 3 has
no specific characteristics that would change operating or maintenance costs substantially
compared to the other alternatives.
8.3.7 Economic Feasibility
Because Alternative 3 is near capacity, additional capacity construction would be required. This
would likely require extensive improvements, including constructing an additional main track at
locations where only one track currently exists, and potentially constructing additional sidings in
which to store freight trains destined for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach that are
waiting for permission to proceed onto the Alameda Corridor. Additional track would likely also
be required near the West Colton classification yard to mitigate potential passenger train delays.
8.4 Route Alternative 4-A
Route Alternative 4-A, the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision, is the northernmost of the
alternative alignments (see Figures 40 and 44). This alternative uses a combination of BNSF’s
San Bernardino Subdivision between Colton and San Bernardino and SCRRA’s San Gabriel
Subdivision between San Bernardino and Los Angeles. The BNSF-owned portion of this route is
used by Amtrak’s Southwest Chief long-distance passenger train and Metrolink’s Inland Empire-
Orange County Line commuter trains. The SCRRA-owned portion of this route is used by
Metrolink’s San Bernardino Line commuter trains.
Route Alternative 4-A uses BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton north to BNSF’s B
Yard in San Bernardino, then SCRRA’s San Gabriel Subdivision from Control Point (CP)
Rancho to Los Angeles. A flyover would likely be required to cross passenger trains from one
side of the BNSF main line to the other between Colton and B Yard, as the main tracks are
frequently occupied by freight and commuter trains and there are no mainline holding locations
on either side that could be used to create slots for the passenger trains to crossover at grade.
This route alternative saves considerable travel time by eliminating the need for passenger
trains to change their direction of operation at San Bernardino as would be required under
Alternative 4-B, but also precludes service to the Metrolink/Amtrak San Bernardino station. To
serve customers in the San Bernardino metropolitan area, trains using Route Alternative 4-A
would stop at the Metrolink Rialto station in San Bernardino County. This alternative is 58 miles
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 105
long between Colton and Los Angeles Union Station, and would form a total Indio-Los Angeles
corridor length of 130 miles.
The schedule for this route alternative is shown in Tables 36 and 37, assuming two round trips
per day.
Table 36. Route Alternative 4-A Westbound Schedule
Westbound AM Trip PM Trip
Indio 9:50 AM 3:20 PM
Rancho Mirage 10:05 AM 3:35 PM
Palm Springs 10:15 AM 3:45 PM
Cabazon 10:30 AM 4:00 PM
Loma Linda 11:05 AM 4:35 PM
Rialto 11:31 AM 5:01 PM
Montclair 12:01 PM 5:31 PM
LAUS 12:55 PM 6:25 PM
Total Schedule Time 3:05 3:05
Source: Caltrans Travel Forecasting, 2015; Appendix D
Note: Trains operate over new connection track to San Gabriel Flyover and bypass
San Bernardino Amtrak Station
Table 37. Route Alternative 4-A Eastbound Schedule
Eastbound AM Trip PM Trip
LAUS 10:20 AM 3:25 PM
Montclair 11:07 AM 4:12 PM
Rialto 11:38 AM 4:43 PM
Loma Linda 12:03 PM 5:08 PM
Cabazon 12:38 PM 5:43 PM
Palm Springs 12:53 PM 5:58 PM
Rancho Mirage 1:08 PM 6:13 PM
Indio 1:33 PM 6:38 PM
Total Schedule Time 3:13 3:13
Source: Caltrans Travel Forecasting, 2015; Appendix D
Note: Trains operate over new connection track to San Gabriel Flyover and bypass
San Bernardino Amtrak Station
8.4.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand
Route Alternative 4-A connects Colton and Los Angeles and would serve the intermediate major
communities of San Bernardino and Montclair, California. The total population within a 15-mile
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 106
catchment area of these intermediate stops is approximately 3.15 million, and is projected to
grow to 3.46 million by 2020. The selection of Route Alternative 4-A would form an Indio-Los
Angeles corridor that would serve a total population of approximately 8.75 million, with a
projected increase in total population along the corridor by 2020 to 9.52 million. (SCAG 2012
RTP/SCS)
8.4.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes
This alternative is similar in length to Route Alternative 3. However, Route Alternative 4-A would
have the fastest projected running time of all six route alternatives. This can be attributed to the
use of the SCRRA San Gabriel Line, a commuter train line that has no through freight traffic and
serves no major freight terminals. The San Gabriel Line hosts Metrolink commuter trains and
local freight trains. Projected running times between Indio and Los Angeles via Route
Alternative 4-A are 3 hours, 5 minutes westbound and 3 hours, 13 minutes eastbound.
8.4.3 Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges
Aside from the potential acquisition of right-of-way along the corridor, there appear to be no
major environmental challenges for Route Alternative 4-A. For areas on this route where a new
or expanded bridge crosses over a waterway (e.g. San Gabriel River and Rio Hondo Channel),
coordination with the USFWS, CDFW, and ACOE is likely to be less complex since no critical
habitat or wildlife management areas are identified for these waterways.
8.4.4 Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas
This alternative does not pass through any identified critical habitat. While the Western Section
of Route Alternative 4-A does not pass through and is not adjacent to any BLM ACECs or
USFWS National Wildlife Refuges, it does pass through or is adjacent to four areas of regulated
wetlands. The Western Section of this alternative crosses over the San Gabriel River and the
Rio Hondo Channel. This alternative does not pass through any federal, state or local parks, but
is adjacent to seven local parks.
8.4.5 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way
Based on a review of aerial mapping along the route, land uses along this alternative are mostly
urban uses consisting of commercial, industrial, and residential uses (Google Maps, 2015).
Based on preliminary estimates (assuming a worst-case 20-foot right-of-way acquisition
requirement along the entire route from Colton to Los Angeles), approximately 634 acres of land
would need to be acquired. In addition to being very expensive, this would require displacement
of many landowners, particularly where the route alternative passes through highly urbanized
areas. Additional research will be conducted on the fine-level screening analysis.
8.4.6 Technical Feasibility
Route Alternative 4-A has two distinct sections. It is a high-density freight route on the 2-mile
portion of BNSF trackage used between Colton and San Bernardino, and it is a commuter route
on the 54-mile portion of SCRRA trackage used between San Bernardino and Los Angeles.
Current train traffic on the BNSF portion of the route exceeds 60 freight train per day on
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 107
average, and has 8 Metrolink commuter trains and 2 Amtrak long-distance trains, according to
current Amtrak and Metrolink schedules and SCAG’s Comprehensive Regional Goods
Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy. Current train traffic on the SCRRA portion of the
route consists of 38 Metrolink commuter trains on weekdays (20 trains on Saturday and 14
trains on Sunday); up to 12 freight trains per day between San Bernardino and Fontana; and 2
to 4 local freight trains per day between Fontana and Los Angeles. Both the BNSF and SCRRA
lines are equipped with wayside signaling and Centralized Traffic Control. Metrolink began a
revenue service demonstration of Positive Train Control on the San Gabriel Subdivision in 2015.
Passenger and freight trains are limited to 30 mph between Colton and San Bernardino
because of the numerous yard operations on BNSF. On the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision,
the maximum allowable speed is 79 mph for passenger trains and 55 mph for freight trains.
Because no connection currently exists at Colton, a new connecting track would have to be built
to enable westbound trains from Indio on UP’s Yuma Subdivision to turn and head north
(timetable east) at Colton onto BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision, and eastbound trains to
connect from BNSF’s trackage onto UP’s Yuma Subdivision. Given the limited space in the area
and tight curvature required, this connecting track would be low speed, however, the track could
be constructed on existing railroad property.
Once on BNSF at Colton, passenger trains would have to cross all of BNSF’s three main tracks
within an approximately 2-mile stretch in order to access the West Leg Wye Track in BNSF’s B
Yard in San Bernardino. Given the high volume of BNSF freight traffic in this stretch, a flyover
would have to be constructed to enable Coachella Valley passenger trains to move from one
side of the BNSF right-of-way to the other without impacting mainline freight operations or
existing passenger and commuter rail operations.
A dedicated passenger track would likely be required between the BNSF main line and B Yard.
At B Yard, the West Leg Wye Track connects BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision with the
SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision at the CP Rancho interlocking. Current track speed of the
West Leg Wye Track is 10 mph, and would likely require upgrading to efficiently accommodate
passenger trains.
Of the 54 miles of SCRRA’s San Gabriel Subdivision that would be used for Alternative 4-A 80%
are single main track, with passing sidings that have a combined total length of 6.7 miles, while
the remaining 10 miles are double main track. Public timetables show that the San Gabriel
Subdivision is Metrolink’s busiest commuter line (SCRRA, 2015). (Information about all SCRRA
track speeds, gradients, terminal locations, mileages, and signaling in this report have come
from a SCRRA employee timetable dated June 2, 2013) During rush hours, approximately 3
trains per hour operate west in the morning and east in the evening. Accommodating Coachella
Valley passenger trains during peak periods is not possible with existing infrastructure.
Route Alternative 4-A and Route Alternative 4-B are also the only alternatives that do not have
mainline freights, thus minimizing the potential for passenger trains to be delayed by freight train
congestion. Because the majority of the traffic on the line is moving at a passenger train speed,
Coachella Valley passenger trains could be scheduled to operate in slots between scheduled
Metrolink commuter trains with minimal potential for delay.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 108
To accommodate additional passenger trains on Route Alternative 4-A without delaying existing
commuter trains, additional infrastructure would likely be required to enable overtakes of
commuter trains and meet/pass events for the proposed Coachella Valley passenger trains, and
to provide adequate windows for track maintenance. Obstacles to constructing an additional
main track between San Bernardino and Los Angeles include a lack of available ROW through
Pomona and Baldwin Park, and an approximately 11-mile segment between El Monte and Los
Angeles, where the ROW is hemmed in by highways or operating within the median of I-10.
The base train equipment sets would be adequate for this alternative. Route Alternative 4-A has
no specific characteristics that would change operating or maintenance costs substantially
compared to the other alternatives.
8.4.7 Economic Feasibility
Use of this alternative would require several track construction projects. A new track connection
at Colton would have to be constructed to enable westbound trains leaving UP trackage to turn
north (timetable east) onto BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision and vice-versa. A flyover above
the BNSF main line would have to be constructed to enable passenger trains to cross from one
side of the BNSF right-of-way at Colton to the other side at San Bernardino. Improvements to
BNSF’s West Leg Wye Track and connections to accommodate passenger trains operating
between BNSF’s line and SCRRA’s line are also likely to be required. Because of the
preponderance of single track on SCRRA’s busy commuter line, additional capacity construction
would likely be required between San Bernardino and Los Angeles. This would likely require
constructing an additional main track at locations where only one track currently exists.
However, if Coachella Valley passenger trains were scheduled outside of peak hours, the
infrastructure requirements could potentially be reduced.
8.5 Route Alternative 4-B
Route Alternative 4-B is the second of two route alternatives that would make use of SCRRA’s
San Gabriel Subdivision (see Figures 40 and 45). To serve customers in the San Bernardino
metropolitan area, this alternative includes a stop at the San Bernardino station, whereas Route
Alternative 4-A would stop in Rialto. This alternative uses a combination of BNSF’s San
Bernardino Subdivision in Colton, SCRRA’s Short Way Subdivision between Colton and San
Bernardino to access the Amtrak/Metrolink Santa Fe Depot in San Bernardino, and SCRRA’s
San Gabriel Subdivision between San Bernardino and Los Angeles. The BNSF-owned portion
of this route alternative is used by Amtrak’s Southwest Chief long-distance passenger train and
Metrolink’s Inland Empire-Orange County Line commuter trains. The SCRRA Short Way
Subdivision is used by Metrolink’s Inland Empire-Orange County Line commuter trains. The
SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision is used by Metrolink’s San Bernardino Line commuter trains.
Route Alternative 4-B diverges from BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision at CP Rana and
continues north on SCRRA’s Short Way Subdivision to reach the SCRRA San Gabriel
Subdivision at CP Vernon in San Bernardino. At CP Vernon, trains would head east a short
distance on the San Gabriel Subdivision to serve the current Amtrak/Metrolink San Bernardino
Santa Fe Depot. During the station stop, trains would be required to change their end of
operation in order to operate westbound to Los Angeles over the San Gabriel Subdivision. Indio-
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 109
bound trains would also be required to change ends of operation at the San Bernardino station
to negotiate the connection between the San Gabriel Subdivision and the Short Way
Subdivision. The San Gabriel Subdivision is on an elevated structure west of the CP Vernon
junction, and no direct connection exists that would allow northbound trains on the Short Way
Subdivision to turn westward onto San Gabriel Subdivision and continue to Los Angeles without
making a reverse move. This alternative is 60 miles long between Colton and LAUS, and would
form a total Indio-Los Angeles corridor length of 132 miles.
The schedule for this route alternative is shown in Tables 38 and 39, assuming two round trips
per day.
Table 38. Route Alternative 4-B Westbound Schedule
Westbound AM Trip PM Trip
Indio 9:50 AM 3:20 PM
Rancho Mirage 10:05 AM 3:35 PM
Palm Springs 10:15 AM 3:45 PM
Cabazon 10:30 AM 4:00 PM
Loma Linda 11:05 AM 4:35 PM
San Bernardino 11:50 AM 5:20 PM
Montclair 12:17 PM 5:47 PM
LAUS 1:11 PM 6:41 PM
Total Schedule Time 3:21 3:21
Source: Caltrans Travel Forecasting, 2015; Appendix D
Note: Trains stop at San Bernardino Amtrak station, requiring changing of train
operating ends and 15 minute dwell
Table 39. Route Alternative 4-B Eastbound Schedule
Eastbound AM Trip PM Trip
LAUS 10:20 AM 3:25 PM
Montclair 11:09 AM 4:14 PM
San Bernardino 11:54 AM 4:59 PM
Loma Linda 12:19 PM 5:24 PM
Cabazon 12:54 PM 5:59 PM
Palm Springs 1:09 PM 6:14 PM
Rancho Mirage 1:24 PM 6:29 PM
Indio 1:49 PM 6:54 PM
Total Schedule Time 3:29 3:29
Source: Caltrans Travel Forecasting, 2015; Appendix D
Note: Trains stop at San Bernardino Amtrak station, requiring changing of train
operating ends and 15 minute dwell
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 110
8.5.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand
This route alternative connects Colton and Los Angeles and would serve the intermediate major
communities of San Bernardino and Montclair, California. The total population within a 15-mile
catchment area of these intermediate stops is approximately 3.05 million, and is projected to
grow to 3.36 million by 2020. The selection of Route Alternative 4-B would form an Indio-Los
Angeles corridor that would serve a total population of approximately 8.72 million, with a
projected increase in total population along the corridor by 2020 to 9.49 million. (SCAG 2012
RTP/SCS)
8.5.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes
This alternative is longer than Route Alternative 4-A by 2 miles, but would have a considerably
longer travel time because of the need to change ends of operation at the San Bernardino
Station. This activity requires a projected 20-minute station dwell time at San Bernardino, versus
a projected dwell at all other intermediate stations of 2 or 3 minutes. Projected running times
between Indio and Los Angeles via Route Alternative 4-B are 3 hours, 21 minutes westbound
and 3 hours, 29 minutes eastbound, one of the slowest of the route alternatives.
Use of the San Bernardino Santa Fe Depot introduces opportunities for connections with the
planned Redlands passenger rail service. This project, currently scheduled for completion no
earlier than 2018, will create a passenger rail service between the cities of San Bernardino and
Redlands.
8.5.3 Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges
Aside from the potential acquisition of right-of-way along the corridor, there appear to be no
major environmental challenges for Route Alternative 4-B. For areas on this route where a new
or expanded bridge crosses over a waterway (e.g. San Gabriel River and Rio Hondo Channel),
coordination with the USFWS, CDFW, and ACOE is likely to be less complex since no critical
habitat or wildlife management areas are identified for these waterways.
8.5.4 Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas
This alternative does not pass through any identified critical habitat. While the Western Section
of Route Alternative 4-B does not pass through and is not adjacent to any BLM ACECs or
USFWS National Wildlife Refuges, it does pass through or is adjacent to four areas of regulated
wetlands. The Western Section of this alternative crosses over the San Gabriel River and the
Rio Hondo Channel. This alternative does not pass through any federal, state or local parks, but
is adjacent to seven local parks.
8.5.5 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way
Based on a review of aerial mapping along the route, land uses along this alternative are mostly
urban uses consisting of commercial, industrial, and residential uses (Google Maps, 2015).
Based on preliminary estimates (assuming a worst-case 20-foot right-of-way acquisition
requirement along the entire route from Colton to Los Angeles), approximately 634 acres of land
would need to be acquired. In addition to being very expensive, this would require displacement
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 111
of many landowners, particularly where the route alternative passes through highly urbanized
areas. Additional research will be conducted on the fine-level screening analysis.
8.5.6 Technical Feasibility
Route Alternative 4-B has two distinct sections. It is a high-density freight route on the 1-mile
portion of BNSF trackage used in Colton, and it is a commuter route on the two SCRRA
subdivisions used between Colton, San Bernardino and Los Angeles. Current train traffic on the
BNSF portion of the route exceeds 60 freight trains per day on average, and has eight Metrolink
commuter trains and two Amtrak long-distance trains. Current train traffic on the SCRRA Short
Way Subdivision, which provides a direct route between BNSF’s trackage and the
Amtrak/Metrolink San Bernardino station, consists of eight Metrolink commuter trains on
weekdays and four Metrolink commuter trains on weekends. Current train traffic on the SCRRA
San Gabriel Subdivision consists of 38 Metrolink commuter trains on weekdays (20 trains on
Saturday and 14 trains on Sunday); up to 12 freight trains per day between San Bernardino and
Fontana; and two to four local freight trains per day between Fontana and Los Angeles. All of
the BNSF and SCRRA lines are equipped with wayside signaling and Centralized Traffic
Control. Metrolink began a revenue service demonstration of Positive Train Control on the San
Gabriel Subdivision in 2015. Because of the numerous yard operations on BNSF, passenger
and freight trains are limited to 30 mph between Colton and San Bernardino. The SCRRA Short
Way Subdivision is also limited to a 30-mph maximum allowable speed for passenger and
freight trains. On the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision, the maximum allowable speed is 79 mph
for passenger trains and 55 mph for freights.
Because no connection currently exists at Colton, a new connecting track would have to be built
to enable westbound trains from Indio on UP’s Yuma Subdivision to turn and head north
(timetable east) at Colton onto BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision and eastbound trains to
diverge from the BNSF line to head east on UP’s Yuma Subdivision. Given the limited space in
the area and tight curvature required, this connecting track would be low speed, however, the
track could be constructed on existing railroad property. This connection would enter the BNSF
main line on the east side of the right-of-way, which is the same side that the SCRRA Short
Way Subdivision diverges from 1 mile east, so passenger trains would not have to cross all of
the BNSF main tracks for the brief portion of the BNSF main line they use. At CP Vernon in San
Bernardino, an existing turnout would enable trains to make a direct move from the Short Way
Subdivision onto the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision to enter the Amtrak/Metrolink Santa Fe
Depot in San Bernardino. Once at the station trains would have to reverse direction to operate
westbound on the San Gabriel Subdivision to reach Los Angeles. There is no connection to
permit a direct move from the Short Way Subdivision to operate westbound on the San Gabriel
Subdivision or vice-versa, and one would be difficult to build since the San Gabriel Subdivision
begins a westward climb on elevation to fly over the BNSF main line immediately after the
turnout with the Short Way Subdivision.
Of the 55 miles of SCRRA’s San Gabriel Subdivision that would be used for Route Alternative 4-
B more than 80% are single track, with passing sidings that have a combined total length of 6.7
miles, while the remaining 10 miles are double main track. Public timetables show that the San
Gabriel Subdivision is Metrolink’s busiest commuter line (SCRRA, 2015). During rush hours,
approximately three trains per hour operate west in the morning and east in the evening.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 112
Accommodating Coachella Valley passenger trains during peak periods is not possible with
existing infrastructure.
Route Alternative 4-A and 4-B are the only route alternatives that do not have overhead
mainline freights, thus minimizing the potential for passenger trains to be delayed by freight train
congestion. Because the majority of the traffic on the line is moving at a passenger train speed,
Coachella Valley passenger trains could be scheduled to operate in slots between scheduled
Metrolink commuter trains with minimal potential for delay.
To accommodate additional passenger trains on Route Alternative 4-B without delaying existing
commuter trains, additional infrastructure would likely be required to enable overtakes of
commuter trains and meet/pass events for the proposed Coachella Valley passenger trains, and
to provide adequate windows for track maintenance. Obstacles to constructing an additional
main track between San Bernardino and Los Angeles include a lack of available ROW through
Pomona and Baldwin Park, and an approximately 11-mile segment between El Monte and Los
Angeles, where the ROW is hemmed in by highways, or operating in the median of I-10.
The base train equipment sets would be adequate for this alternative. Route Alternative 4-B has
no specific characteristics that would change operating or maintenance costs substantially
compared to the other alternatives.
8.5.7 Economic Feasibility
Because of the preponderance of single track on SCRRA’s busy San Gabriel Subdivision,
additional capacity construction would be required for Route Alternative 4-B. This would likely
require constructing an additional main track at locations where only one track currently exists. If
Coachella Valley passenger trains were scheduled outside of peak hours, the infrastructure
requirements could potentially be reduced.
8.6 Route Alternative 5
Route Alternative 5 is a combination of Route Alternatives 3 and 4-B that would be used by
Indio-Los Angeles trains operating during peak commuter travel periods (see Figures 40 and
46). Route Alternative 5 uses BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision in Colton; SCRRA’s Short
Way Subdivision between Colton and San Bernardino; SCRRA’s San Gabriel Subdivision
between San Bernardino and CP Bassett near El Monte; and UP’s Alhambra Subdivision
between CP Bassett and Los Angeles.
Approximately 82 percent of SCRRA’s San Gabriel Subdivision between San Bernardino and
Los Angeles is single track, including a segment of approximately 11 miles between El Monte
and Los Angeles that runs in the median of I-10 with no room for construction of a second track.
In addition, the San Gabriel Subdivision has an intense morning and evening peak travel
commuter operation; the line has a 2-hour window in the morning and a 2-hour window in the
evening that sees approximately three trains per hour operating in the direction of peak travel
(to LA in the morning, from LA in the evening). Metrolink trains traveling in the opposite direction
of peak travel flow are not granted priority on the single-track sections, and have 15 to 35
minutes of running time added to their scheduled trips to accommodate for peak travel trains.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 113
Route Alternative 5 has been developed to enable Coachella Valley passenger trains scheduled
to operate during peak commuter periods without a similar 15- to 35-minute addition to travel
time. Route Alternative 5 also avoids potential congestion or delays along the San Gabriel
Subdivision’s west end, by using UP’s Alhambra Subdivision between Bassett and Los Angeles.
There are no proposed station stops between Bassett and LA.
Trains using this alternative would operate to the Amtrak/Metrolink Santa Fe Depot in San
Bernardino and change their direction of operation, just as they would in Route Alternative 4-B.
Route Alternative 5 is 60 miles long between Colton and Los Angeles Union Station, and would
form a total Indio-Los Angeles corridor length of 132 miles. The schedule for this alternative is
shown in Tables 40 and 41, assuming two round trips per day.
Table 40. Route Alternative 5 Westbound Schedule
Westbound AM Trip PM Trip
Indio 9:50 AM 3:20 PM
Rancho Mirage 10:05 AM 3:35 PM
Palm Springs 10:15 AM 3:45 PM
Cabazon 10:30 AM 4:00 PM
Loma Linda 11:05 AM 4:35 PM
San Bernardino 11:50 AM 5:20 PM
Montclair 12:17 PM 5:47 PM
LAUS 1:12 PM 6:42 PM
Total Schedule Time 3:22 3:22
Source: Caltrans Travel Forecasting, 2015; Appendix D
Table 41. Route Alternative 5 Eastbound Schedule
Eastbound AM Trip PM Trip
LAUS 10:20 AM 3:25 PM
Montclair 11:12 AM 4:17 PM
San Bernardino 11:57 AM 5:02 PM
Loma Linda 12:22 PM 5:27 PM
Cabazon 12:57 PM 6:02 PM
Palm Springs 1:12 PM 6:17 PM
Rancho Mirage 1:27 PM 6:32 PM
Indio 1:52 PM 6:57 PM
Total Schedule Time 3:32 3:32
Source: Caltrans Travel Forecasting, 2015; Appendix D
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 114
8.6.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand
This alternative between Colton and Los Angeles would serve the intermediate major
communities of San Bernardino and Montclair, California. The total population within a 15-mile
catchment area of these intermediate stops is approximately 3.05 million, and is projected to
grow to 3.36 million by 2020. The selection of Route Alternative 5 would form an Indio-Los
Angeles corridor that would serve a total population of approximately 8.72 million, with a
projected increase in total population along the corridor by 2020 to 9.49 million. (SCAG 2012
RTP/SCS)
8.6.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes
Route Alternative 5 is similar in length to Route Alternative 4-B, and also has a lengthened
travel time caused by the need to change ends of operation at the San Bernardino Station. This
activity requires a projected 20-minute station dwell time at San Bernardino, versus a projected
dwell at all other intermediate stations of 2 or 3 minutes. Projected running times between Indio
and Los Angeles via Route Alternative 5 are 3 hours, 22 minutes westbound and 3 hours, 32
minutes eastbound, one of the slowest of the route alternatives. Running times on this
alternative are slightly longer than Route Alternative 4-B, by 1 to 3 minutes, because of the high
volume of freight traffic and slower maximum allowable speed for passenger trains on UP’s
Alhambra Subdivision.
8.6.3 Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges
Aside from the potential acquisition of right-of-way along the corridor, there appear to be no
major environmental challenges for Route Alternative 5. For areas on this route where a new or
expanded bridge crosses over a waterway (e.g. San Gabriel River, Rio Hondo Channel,
Alhambra Wash, and Rubio Wash), coordination with the USFWS, CDFW, and ACOE is likely to
be less complex since no critical habitat or wildlife management areas are identified for these
waterways.
8.6.4 Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas
This alternative does not pass through any identified critical habitat. While the alternative does
not pass through and is not adjacent to any BLM ACECs or USFWS National Wildlife Refuges,
it does pass through or is adjacent to four areas of regulated wetlands. In addition, the Western
Section of Route Alternative 5 crosses over the San Gabriel River, Rio Hondo Channel,
Alhambra Wash, and Rubio Wash. Route Alternative 5 does not pass through any federal, state,
or city parks but is adjacent to nine local parks.
8.6.5 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way
Based on a review of aerial mapping along the route, land uses along this alternative are mostly
urban uses consisting of commercial, industrial, and residential uses (Google Maps, 2015).
Based on preliminary estimates (assuming a worst-case 20-foot right-of-way acquisition
requirement along the entire route from Colton to Los Angeles), approximately 636 acres of land
would need to be acquired. In addition to being very expensive, this would require displacement
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 115
of many landowners, particularly where the route alternative passes through highly urbanized
areas. Additional research will be conducted on the fine-level screening analysis.
8.6.6 Technical Feasibility
Route Alternative 5 has three distinct sections. It is a high-density freight route on the 1-mile
portion of BNSF trackage used in Colton; a commuter route on the two SCRRA subdivisions
used between Colton, San Bernardino and Bassett, totaling 44 miles; and a high-density freight
route on the 14-mile portion of UP trackage used between Bassett and Los Angeles.
Current train traffic on the BNSF portion of the route exceeds 60 freight trains per day on
average, and has eight Metrolink commuter trains and two Amtrak long-distance trains,
according to Amtrak, Metrolink, and SCAG’s Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan
and Implementation Strategy. Current train traffic on the SCRRA Short Way Subdivision, which
provides a direct route between BNSF’s trackage and the Amtrak/Metrolink San Bernardino
station, consists of eight Metrolink commuter trains on weekdays and four Metrolink commuter
trains on weekends. Current train traffic on the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision consists of 38
Metrolink commuter trains on weekdays (20 trains on Saturday and 14 trains on Sunday); up to
12 freight trains per day between San Bernardino and Fontana; and two to four local freight
trains per day between Fontana and Los Angeles. Current train traffic on UP’s Alhambra
Subdivision averages approximately 15 to 25 freight trains per day, along with one Amtrak long-
distance train that operates three days per week in each direction.
All of the BNSF, SCRRA, and UP lines are equipped with wayside signaling and Centralized
Traffic Control. Metrolink began a revenue service demonstration of Positive Train Control on
the San Gabriel Subdivision in 2015. Because of the numerous yard operations on BNSF,
passenger and freight trains are limited to 30 mph between Colton and San Bernardino. The
SCRRA Short Way Subdivision is also limited to a 30-mph maximum allowable speed for
passenger and freight trains. On the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision, the maximum allowable
speed is 79 mph for passenger trains and 55 mph for freight trains. UP’s Alhambra Subdivision
has a maximum allowable speed of 65 mph for passenger trains and 60 mph for freight trains.
Because no connection currently exists at Colton, a new connecting track would have to be built
to enable westbound trains from Indio on UP’s Yuma Subdivision to turn and head north
(timetable east) at Colton onto BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision, and eastbound trains to
diverge from the BNSF line to head east on UP’s Yuma Subdivision. Given the limited space in
the area and tight curvature required, this connecting track would be low speed, however, the
track could be constructed on existing railroad property. This connection would enter the BNSF
main line on the east side of the right-of-way, which is the same side that the SCRRA Short
Way Subdivision diverges from 1 mile east, so passenger trains would not have to cross all of
the BNSF main tracks for the brief portion of the BNSF main line they use. At CP Vernon in San
Bernardino, an existing turnout would enable trains to make a direct move from the Short Way
Subdivision onto the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision to enter the Amtrak/Metrolink Santa Fe
Depot in San Bernardino. Once at the station, trains would have to reverse direction to operate
westbound on the San Gabriel Subdivision to reach Los Angeles. There is no connection to
permit a direct move from the Short Way Subdivision to operate westbound on the San Gabriel
Subdivision, or vice-versa, and one would be difficult to build since the San Gabriel Subdivision
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 116
begins a westward climb on elevation to fly over the BNSF main line immediately after the
turnout with the Short Way Subdivision.
As described in Route Alternatives 4-A/4-B and 3, respectively, both the SCRRA San Gabriel
Subdivision and the UP Alhambra Subdivision are primarily single-track railroads, with minimal
sections of second main track. The SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision has frequent commuter rail
traffic, but does not have overhead freight traffic. Because the majority of the traffic on the line is
moving at a passenger train speed, Coachella Valley passenger trains could be scheduled to
operate in slots between scheduled Metrolink commuter trains with minimal potential for delay.
However, trains operating during peak periods against the prevailing flow of rush-hour
commuter traffic could require up to 35 minutes or more of additional running time, due to the
limited number of locations where meet/pass events can occur on the single-track line. During
peak hours, approximately three Metrolink trains per hour operate west in the morning and east
in the evening. Use of the UP Alhambra Subdivision west of Bassett would enable Coachella
Valley passenger trains to operate during peak commuter periods by avoiding the capacity-
constrained, single-track western segment of the San Gabriel Subdivision within the median of I-
10. However, use of the Alhambra Subdivision would also require additional running time and
could introduce the potential for delay from the UP subdivision’s slower passenger train speeds,
predominantly single-track infrastructure, and heavy freight volumes.
To accommodate additional passenger trains on Route Alternative 5 without delaying existing
traffic, additional infrastructure would likely be required to enable overtakes of commuter and
freight trains, meet/pass events for the proposed Coachella Valley passenger trains, and to
provide adequate windows for track maintenance. Use of the UP Alhambra Subdivision allows
for the possibility for the construction of additional infrastructure between Bassett and Los
Angeles, where the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision is located adjacent to or in the median of I-
10 and construction of a second track there highly unlikely. A connection between the SCRRA
and UP lines at Bassett already exists and would not have to be constructed.
The base train equipment sets would be adequate for this alternative. Route Alternative 5 has
no specific characteristics that would change operating or maintenance costs substantially
compared to the other alternatives.
8.6.7 Economic Feasibility
An expensive new track connection at Colton would have to be constructed to enable
westbound trains leaving UP trackage to turn north (timetable east) onto BNSF’s San
Bernardino Subdivision, and eastbound trains to diverge from the BNSF line to head east on
UP’s Yuma Subdivision.
Additional capacity construction would likely be required because of the preponderance of
single track on SCRRA’s busy commuter line. This would likely require constructing an
additional main track at locations where only one track currently exists. Similarly, additional
main track would track would likely be required on UP’s single-track Alhambra Subdivision,
which is operating near capacity.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 117
8.7 No-Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative would result in the continued use of automobiles, as well as the
existing and programmed services that currently serve the corridor, including rail, airplane and
bus transportation. Amtrak’s Sunset Limited would continue operating along the Corridor three
days per week, and the intercity bus services listed in Section 6.1 would continue operation. No
new corridor services are programmed and funded for implementation at this time.
8.7.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand
The No-Build Alternative does not include any programmed improvements to existing services,
so this alternative does not improve upon the travel times of existing services.
8.7.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes
The No-Build Alternative would not meet the need for competitive and attractive travel modes
between Los Angeles and Indio because no new mode or additional service would be provided.
The Project would not be developed and would not provide a competitive option among existing
travel modes.
Existing services are limited and not convenient and reliable for most travelers because of
service timing, frequency, or poor connections (see Section 6.1):
The Amtrak Sunset Limited operates only three times per week, stops in Palm Springs
after midnight at a station location 2.5 miles from the edge of the developed part of the
city, often runs well behind schedule because of delays during its long cross-country
journey, and there is no connecting service to provide access to the station.
Of existing services only the Sunset Limited would be able to operate through San
Gorgonio Pass in the event of Interstate 10 being shut down.
The Amtrak Thruway bus service carries only travelers with a ticket to ride on a
connecting Amtrak train, provides only two round trips each day to the Amtrak station in
Fullerton, and operates in a highly congested freeway corridor.
The SunLine Commuter Link 220 bus only serves the schedule of commuters, with two
weekday trips into Riverside in the morning and two trips back to the Coachella Valley at
the end of the normal work day.
The Beaumont Commuter Link 120 travels only as far east as Beaumont so it does not
serve the eastern part of the pass area or the Coachella Valley and does not provide
weekend service.
Greyhound does not conveniently serve most of the Corridor travelers from the
Coachella Valley, the Indio station is located in the eastern end of the Corridor, and the
Palm Springs stop is at the Amtrak station, which is in a remote location with no transit
access.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 118
8.7.3 Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges
The Project would not be constructed under the No-Build Alternative and would not present
major environmental challenges. However, the current rail routes between Indio and Los
Angeles would continue to be used, resulting in continued minor environmental impacts such as
air emissions, erosion and sedimentation from railroad grades to adjacent waterbodies and
wetlands, and noise.
8.7.4 Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas
The Project would not be constructed under the No-Build Alternative and would not impact
sensitive areas. However, the current rail routes between Indio and Los Angeles would continue
to be used, resulting in continued minor environmental impacts such as air emissions, erosion
and sedimentation from railroad grades to adjacent waterbodies and wetlands, and noise near
sensitive areas. Other travel modes would continue to be used and would likely be more
congested in the future as travel demand increases, resulting in potential impacts on sensitive
areas.
8.7.5 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way
The Project would not be constructed under the No-Build Alternative and would not require
acquisition of ROW. However, other passenger or commuter rail sections of the Corridor could
be developed and result in acquisition of ROW. Additionally, other travel modes could be more
congested as travel demand increases, resulting in ROW acquisition for infrastructure
improvements.
8.7.6 Technical Feasibility
The No-Build Alternative cannot be evaluated for technical feasibility because the Project would
not be constructed. Other passenger or commuter rail sections of the Corridor would be
evaluated for technical feasibility on their own merits as independent projects.
8.7.7 Economic Feasibility
The No-Build Alternative cannot be evaluated for economic feasibility because the Project would
not be constructed. However, under the No-Build Alternative, other passenger or commuter rail
sections of the Corridor could be independently determined to be economically feasible.
8.8 Summary
The coarse-level screening results are summarized in Table 42.
The six route alternatives between Colton and Los Angeles all share similar traits. With the
exception of Route Alternatives 4-A and 4-B, the route alternatives involve the use of high-
density freight lines. With the exception of Route Alternative 1, the alternatives are
predominantly single-track routes.
Route Alternative 1 has the highest ridership potential by 1 million to 2 million people by virtue of
its alignment through Orange County, which increases the population reach of the corridor.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 119
The difference in running times between the fastest alternative and the slowest alternative
varies by 18 minutes in each direction. The fastest projected running time occurs on Route
Alternative 4-A, whereas the slowest running times occur on Route Alternatives 3 and 5 (both of
which involve the use of Union Pacific’s congested, single-track Alhambra Subdivision) as well
as Route Alternative 4-B (owing primarily to the long dwell time at the San Bernardino station for
reversing direction, a condition that also affects Route Alternative 5).
Projected running times between Indio and Los Angeles range from 3 hours, 5 minutes ( Route
Alternative 4-A) to 3 hours, 32 minutes (Route Alternative 5). Using the driving times recorded in
the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Market Analysis, these projected
running times are 60 to 100 minutes slower than the driving time between Los Angeles and
Indio during non-peak periods, and 20 to 50 minutes slower than the driving time during morning
and evening peak periods. However, the projected travel times support the project’s Purpose
and Need by improving upon the travel times of currently-available public transportation
alternatives between Indio and Los Angeles.
High existing freight and passenger volumes and the preponderance of single-track routes
create technical complexities for several of the route alternatives that will require high-cost
solutions.
Route Alternative 1 already has two main tracks throughout its entire length, and also has
sections of third main track. Sufficient passenger train slots are available under current
operating agreements for this route, so additional infrastructure will not be needed if RCTC
dedicates the needed slots to the Coachella Valley service.
Of the six route alternatives, the greatest challenges are presented by Route Alternatives 2 and
3. Both are busy freight lines operating near capacity, with substantial sections of single track.
Both would likely require costly capacity expansion projects. For Route Alternative 3, this could
entail construction of up to 39 miles of second track. Route Alternative 2 could require up to 10
miles of second track potentially sections of third track to accommodate Metrolink commuter
services, and construction of locations to hold freight trains waiting for space to enter BNSF’s
San Bernardino Subdivision or the Alameda Corridor. Both routes experience freight-train
congestion and serve freight terminals where trains enter and exit at low speeds, all of which
has the potential to affect passenger-train travel reliability. The Alhambra Subdivision, used by
Route Alternatives 3 and 5, has a lower maximum passenger train speed than the other route
alternatives and have the slowest projected travel times. Given the extensive sections of single
main track and the presence of heavy unscheduled freight train traffic, the potential for
introducing travel unreliability, slow projected running time, and the high technical complexity
and high cost for expanding capacity, Route Alternatives 2 and 3 are deemed infeasible and are
eliminated from further study.
Route Alternatives 4-A, 4-B, and 5 would require a connection at Colton between UP’s Yuma
Subdivision from Indio and BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision to San Bernardino. Among
these three alternatives, the lowest cost and least complex option is Route Alternative 4-B,
which uses the least amount of freight trackage between Colton and Los Angeles. Route
Alternative 4-A would likely require a flyover above the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision.
Route Alternative 5 would likely require additional capacity on UP’s freight-heavy Alhambra
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 120
Subdivision. A retiming of Coachella Valley passenger trains to avoid peak commuter periods
on SCRRA’s San Gabriel Subdivision would preclude the use of Route Alternative 5 altogether
due to current heavy usage on that section. In addition, scheduling Coachella Valley passenger
trains to avoid peak-period conflicts on SCRRA’S San Gabriel Subdivision could minimize the
capacity requirements for Route Alternative 4-B.
Route Alternatives 1, 4-A, 4-B, and 5 have been retained for further analysis in the fine
screening analysis. The fine screening analysis will include more detailed operational analysis
to refine travel times, conceptual definition of impacts of superimposing passenger trains upon
existing and likely future freight train traffic, and conceptual cost estimates.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study Draft Alternatives Analysis Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 121 Table 42. Route Alternatives Comparison – Coarse-Level Screening Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4-A Alternative 4-B Alternative 5 No Build Route Description: LA to Colton BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision UP Los Angeles Subdivision UP Alhambra Subdivision SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision Alhambra + San Gabriel Subdivisions Colton to Indio UP Yuma Subdivision UP Yuma Subdivision UP Yuma Subdivision UP Yuma Subdivision UP Yuma Subdivision UP Yuma Subdivision Intermediate Stations (LA to Colton) Fullerton Riverside Pomona Riverside Pomona Ontario Montclair Rialto Montclair San Bernardino Montclair San Bernardino No additional service Corridor Population in 2008 10.73 million 9.38 million 9.28 million 8.75 million 8.72 million 8.72 million No additional service Purpose and Need: Travel Demand Highest ridership potential High ridership potential High ridership potential High ridership potential High ridership potential High ridership potential No additional service Est. Running Time: Westbound Eastbound 3:10 3:16 3:10 3:14 3:23 3:28 3:05 3:13 3:21 3:29 3:22 3:32 Not applicable Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes a High competitiveness High competitiveness High competitiveness High competitiveness High competitiveness High competitiveness No new travel mode Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges Low High: permitting and bio resource complexities Medium Medium Medium Medium No overall impacts Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Area Low High Medium Medium Medium Medium No overall impacts Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way Low High High High High High No overall impacts Technical Feasibility Low complexity High complexity High complexity Medium complexity Medium complexity Medium complexity Not applicable Economic Feasibility Low cost b High cost High cost Medium cost Low to medium cost Medium cost Not applicable Disposition of Alternative Retained for further analysis Eliminated from further analysis Eliminated from further analysis Retained for further analysis Retained for further analysis Retained for further analysis Retained for further analysis a In comparison to currently-available transportation services. b Additional infrastructure not needed because sufficient train slots are available under current operating agreements. c While the No-Build Alternative does not meet purpose and need, it was carried forward to the fine-level screening to provide a basis of comparison to the other alternatives (40 CFR 1502.14; 64 FR 28545)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 122
9 Fine-Level Screening
Following coarse-level screening, each route
alternative was evaluated against the fine-level
screening criteria. The screening criteria and
methodology for the alternatives analysis are
presented in Section 4. The screening criteria were
refined following coarse-level screening. Table 22
presents the refined fine-level screening criteria.
The results of the fine-level screening for each
route alternative carried forward from the coarse-
level screening are presented in Sections 9.1
through 9.4. Section 9.5 includes a fine-level screening of the No-Build Alternative. Although the
No-Build Alternative did not meet the purpose and need for the Project, it was carried forward
for evaluation based on the Council for Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) NEPA requirement to
evaluate impacts of no action and to serve as a baseline for comparison of the route
alternatives.
A summary of the screening results is provided in Section 9.6. As with coarse-level screening,
the fine-level screening effort addressed the route alternatives in the Western Section from
Colton to LAUS. The Eastern Section from Indio to Colton only one route alternative. The
Western Section was assessed in combination with each route alternative when evaluating
travel demand, competitive and alternative travel modes, implementation costs, and operating
and maintenance (O&M) costs. In addition, because all route alternatives require use of the
SCRRA River Subdivision to access LAUS, at distances ranging from 0.9 to 5.3 miles, it was not
included as a technical or economic criterion for comparison among the route alternatives,
except for distance, travel time, and O&M cost comparisons between the route alternatives and
alternate travel modes.
As discussed in Section 8.8, Route Alternatives 2 and 3 were deemed infeasible during coarse-
level screening and were eliminated from further study. Therefore, Route Alternatives 2 and 3
are not discussed below.
For the fine-level analysis, buffers were applied to estimated current ROW based on the number
of tracks currently present for a particular route alternative for potential impact assessment. The
buffers in the fine-level analysis represent additional ROW that would have to be acquired for
construction of additional track and improvements. Additional details on the buffers applied are
included in Appendix E.
For the fine-level analysis, ridership and revenue forecasts were developed by Caltrans for an
assumed initial operation year of 2022 and a future year of 2040.
As described below in more detail, all four route alternatives evaluated in the fine-level
screening host commuter rail, two host intercity and/or long-distance passenger rail, and all host
local freight trains and industrial switching. Route Alternatives 1 and 5 also host high-density
through freight train traffic. It was assumed that the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail
The fine-level screening
process evaluated the
remaining route alternatives
and identified a preferred
alternative to move forward
into environmental analysis.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 123
Corridor passenger trains would operate within the Corridor at the same speeds as present-day
passenger and commuter trains, enabling the Coachella Valley trains to be slotted into existing
commuter-train schedules and to avoid the necessity for construction of additional main tracks
that would permit operation of the Coachella Valley passenger trains at higher speeds.
Operation at higher speeds than existing passenger and commuter train services also has the
potential to require extensive reconstruction of the wayside signal system, and may not be
feasible within the technical limitations of grade-crossing signal systems. Consequently, this
would require extensive separation of grade crossings, which could also create substantial
impacts on the adjoining areas. Accordingly, it was assumed that the existing alignments of the
route alternatives were suitable for support of the Coachella Valley service’s proposed
frequency of two round-trips daily, by adjusting train schedules to slot passenger trains into
existing commuter train schedules without the need for increasing passenger train speeds
above the current allowable track speeds. This assumption would require confirmation in a Tier
2 study.
9.1 Route Alternative 1
Route Alternative 1 is BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision, and is the southernmost of the route
alternatives. This route alternative is 70 miles long between Colton and LAUS, and would form a
total Indio-Los Angeles corridor length of 141 miles. This route is used by Amtrak’s Southwest
Chief long-distance passenger train between Colton and Los Angeles, and Amtrak’s Pacific
Surfliner intercity passenger trains between Fullerton and Los Angeles. The route is also used
by three Metrolink commuter services: Inland Empire-Orange County Line trains between
Colton and Atwood; 91 Line trains between Riverside and Los Angeles; and Orange County
Line trains between Fullerton and Los Angeles.
9.1.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand
Route Alternative 1 would serve the intermediate major communities of Riverside and Fullerton,
California. As discussed in Section 8.1.1, the selection of this alternative would form an Indio-
Los Angeles corridor that would serve a total population of approximately 10.73 million, with a
projected increase in total population along the corridor by 2020 to 11.63 million, which is the
highest population reach among the four route alternatives. (SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS)
Annual ridership and revenue from tickets sold for an assumed initial operation year of 2022 and
a future year of 2040 were forecast as shown in Table 43.
Table 43. Alternative 1 Annual Ridership and Revenue Forecasts
Alternative 1 Ridership Revenue Passenger-miles
Year 2022 189,100 $3,245,000 16,230,000
Year 2040 272,300 $4,656,000 23,280,000
Source: Caltrans Ridership Forecasts, 2015
Ridership and revenue from tickets sold for Route Alternative 1 are the highest of the four route
alternatives. Access to downtown Riverside and access to connections at Fullerton with Pacific
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 124
Surfliner rail services helped Route Alternative 1 achieve its high ridership and revenue
estimates. Route Alternative 1 meets the purpose and need for travel demand.
9.1.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes
Route Alternative 1 is the longest of the route alternatives, but would have a travel time
comparable to the other alternatives with projected running times for Alternative 1 between Indio
and Los Angeles are 3 hours, 10 minutes westbound and 3 hours, 16 minutes eastbound.
Based on the information presented in Section 3, the projected travel time for Route Alternative
1 is comparable eastbound and faster westbound to the travel time of the existing Amtrak long-
distance passenger rail service, which operates only three days per week in each direction in
the middle of the night. The travel time is faster than existing scheduled bus services between
Indio and Los Angeles by 20 to 50 minutes, and does not have the unreliability associated with
highway travel on I-10. Travel times between Palm Springs and Los Angeles are approximately
1 hour faster than a SunLine-Metrolink bus/rail combination with a transfer at Riverside. Travel
by air between Palm Springs and Los Angeles is only 56 minutes, compared with Route
Alternative 1’s travel time of 2 hours, 45 minutes between those two cities. However, when
additional time factors associated with air travel are introduced, such as the time needed for
airport check-in and security before a flight (approximately 1 hour) and travel between Los
Angeles International Airport and the central business district (35-45 minutes by FlyAway bus
between the airport and LAUS), then the travel times between air and rail via Route Alternative
1 are nearly identical.
Opportunities for connectivity with other transit modes are better with Route Alternative 1 than
any other route alternative. Other route alternatives require most connections to be made at
LAUS, whereas Route Alternative 1 not only offers transit connections at LAUS, but also
provides opportunities for transit connections at Riverside and Fullerton. Passengers at
Riverside would be able to connect to Metrolink Perris Valley trains, Metrolink Inland Empire-
Orange County trains, and buses. Passengers at Fullerton would be able to connect with
Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner service to San Diego, Metrolink Orange County Line trains to
Oceanside, and buses.
Route Alternative 1 meets the purpose and need of providing a time-competitive and attractive
travel mode compared to other currently-available public transportation services.
9.1.3 Environmental Concerns: Environmental Impacts
Since sufficient passenger train slots are available under current operating agreements for this
route between Colton and Los Angeles (see Section 10.1.5), additional infrastructure will not be
needed if RCTC dedicates the needed slots to the Coachella Valley service, so this route would
not involve any direct environmental impacts associated with railroad improvements.
9.1.4 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way
Since sufficient passenger train slots are available under current operating agreements for this
route from Colton to Los Angeles (see Section 10.1.5), additional infrastructure will not be
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 125
needed if RCTC dedicates the needed slots to the Coachella Valley service, so this route would
not involve any right-of-way issues.
9.1.5 Technical Feasibility: Passenger and Freight Capacity
Route Alternative 1 is a high-density double- and triple-track commuter, passenger, and freight
rail line. Current train traffic exceeds 40 freight trains per day, on average, and the segment
between Colton and Riverside, where Union Pacific has trackage rights, exceeds 60 freight
trains per day, on average. Two daily Amtrak long-distance trains operate the entire length of
the route, and 22 daily Amtrak Pacific Surfliner trains use the portion of the route between
Fullerton and Los Angeles. Weekday Metrolink commuter rail traffic varies by segment, with 8
trains between Colton and Riverside; 25 trains between Riverside and Atwood; 9 trains between
Atwood and Fullerton; and 28 trains between Fullerton and Los Angeles. Weekend Metrolink
commuter rail traffic also varies, with 4 trains between Colton and Riverside; 8 trains between
Riverside and Atwood; 4 trains between Atwood and Fullerton; and 12 trains between Fullerton
and Los Angeles.
Route Alternative 1’s current track and train control infrastructure is matched to its freight
speeds and traffic density. Maximum allowable passenger train speed is 60 mph east of
Fullerton and 79 mph west of Fullerton; maximum allowable freight train speed is 50 mph
throughout. However, grades of 1% ascending eastward from Fullerton to Colton have the
potential to slow or prevent freight trains from reaching track speed. Topography and curvature
have resulted in permanent passenger-train speed restrictions of 30 mph to 55 mph in
segments totaling approximately 9.5 miles of the 42 miles of Route Alternative 1 between Colton
and Fullerton. The route is equipped with wayside signaling and Centralized Traffic Control, and
Metrolink launched a revenue service demonstration project of Positive Train Control on the
route in 2014. At Colton, a 20 mph connecting track is in operation that enables trains from Indio
operating westbound on UP’s Yuma Subdivision to directly access and operate westbound on
BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision. (Information about all SCRRA track speeds, gradients,
terminal locations, mileages, and signaling in this report have come from a SCRRA employee
timetable dated June 2, 2013.)
Route Alternative 1 is the only alternative that has multiple main tracks for its entire length,
consisting of alternating sections of double track and triple track. A Shared Use Agreement
signed in 1992 between BNSF Railway’s predecessor the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway
Company and RCTC provides for additional passenger-train slots between San Bernardino and
LAUS. The agreement identifies specific capacity improvement projects to accommodate
increases in RCTC-sponsored passenger rail traffic. Additionally, the Memorandum of
Understanding for the Colton Crossing Rail Grade-Separation Project includes a provision for
converting non-revenue train slots to revenue train slots between Riverside and San
Bernardino. Under these agreements, the additional passenger trains on the BNSF San
Bernardino Subdivision will not require additional infrastructure if RCTC dedicates to this service
some of the available passenger train slots.
Between Los Angeles and Fullerton, the near-term completion of the triple track project
will allow for 50 train movements, up from the current 28. If needed, RCTC can commit
four of those train slots to the Coachella Valley service.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 126
Between Fullerton and Riverside the agreement currently allows for 36 train movements,
and there are 25 daily train movements at present. If needed, RCTC can commit four of
those train slots to the Coachella Valley service.
For the segment between Riverside and Colton, the 2013 completion of the Colton
Crossing and some additional provisions allow for conversion of four non-revenue
movements to revenue movements between Riverside and San Bernardino. If needed,
RCTC can commit those four new revenue slots to the Coachella Valley service.
9.1.6 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Alignment
Since sufficient passenger train slots are available under current operating agreements for this
route (see Section 8.1.6), additional infrastructure will not be needed if RCTC dedicates the
needed slots to the Coachella Valley service, so this route would not involve any right-of-way
issues. Route Alternative 1 has the highest density of freight traffic among the route alternatives.
Addition of approximately 2.1 miles of third main track between West Colton and Highgrove,
which includes a new crossing of the Santa Ana River, presents ROW, grading, and grade-
crossing challenges. Between Riverside and LAUS, capacity improvements to Route Alternative
1 have already been conceptually designed and partial environmental analysis has been
conducted. Accordingly, the technical challenges on this route have been addressed, and
construction that has been planned for other projects would provide the necessary capacity for
the Coachella Valley service.
9.1.7 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Structures
Since sufficient passenger train slots are available under current operating agreements for this
route (see Section 8.1.6), additional infrastructure will not be needed if RCTC dedicates the
needed slots to the Coachella Valley service, so this route would not involve any right-of-way
issues. The only major structure required for Route Alternative 1 would be a new bridge for a
third main track across the Santa Ana River in Colton. BNSF’s existing double-track bridge is
approximately 600 feet long. A new rail bridge currently under construction where the BNSF
alignment crosses over I-215 in Highgrove will be built to accommodate a future third main
track.
9.1.8 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Grade Crossings
Since sufficient passenger train slots are available under current operating agreements for this
route (see Section 8.1.6), additional infrastructure will not be needed if RCTC dedicates the
needed slots to the Coachella Valley service, so this route would not involve any right-of-way
issues. Route Alternative 1 has 45 grade crossings between Colton and Los Angeles. However,
seven of those grade crossings will be replaced with roadway separations by 2018 as part of the
Orange County Transportation Authority’s (OCTA) $630 million O.C. Bridges program, reducing
the number of grade crossings to 38. Funding for the program is provided by state and federal
funds, as well as county funds received through Measure M, Orange County’s half-cent tax for
transportation improvements. (OCTA OC Bridges Program website, Accessed August 2015)
Projected infrastructure improvements between West Colton and Highgrove specific to the
implementation of Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass rail corridor passenger service would
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 127
not require any improvements or revisions to grade crossings. Infrastructure improvements
between Riverside and Fullerton shared between the Coachella Valley passenger service and
other planned commuter frequencies would require improvements or upgrades to 22 grade
crossings, which is about the same amount as Route Alternatives 4-A, 4-B, and 5.
9.1.9 Economic Feasibility
Route Alternative 1 is the only alternative with no infrastructure improvements needed between
Colton and Los Angeles, so it is the least expensive route alternative in terms of infrastructure
investment.
Route Alternative 1 has no outstanding operating, maintenance, or equipment cost
differentiators compared to Route Alternatives 4-A, 4-B, or 5. Annual O&M costs for Route
Alternative 1 are projected to be $15,080,000 in 2015 dollars, using the 2012 O&M cost per
train-mile for a Pacific Surfliner (Appendix C) and adjusting for inflation. This projected amount
is higher by about $750,000 to $1 million than Route Alternatives 4-A, 4-B, and 5, due to Route
Alternative 1’s longer mileage.
Trainset equipment turn analysis indicates that two trainsets are required for the proposed
service, with each trainset making one round trip per day. These trainset requirements are
identical to Route Alternatives 4-A, 4-B, and 5.
9.2 Route Alternative 4-A
The alignment of Route Alternative 4-A through San Bernardino has changed from the
description provided in the Coarse-Level Screening (Section 8) as a result of preliminary
Conceptual Engineering analysis. The change reflects an adjustment in routing via SCRRA’s
Short Way Subdivision to access the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision, rather than the
alignment presumed in coarse-level screening, which involved construction of a flyover over
BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision and use of BNSF tracks through its B Yard in San
Bernardino.
Route Alternative 4-A, the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision, is the northernmost of the
alternative alignments. This alternative uses a combination of BNSF’s San Bernardino
Subdivision in Colton, SCRRA’s Short Way Subdivision between Colton and San Bernardino,
and SCRRA’s San Gabriel Subdivision between San Bernardino and Los Angeles. The BNSF-
owned portion of this route is used by Amtrak’s Southwest Chief long-distance passenger train
and Metrolink’s Inland Empire-Orange County Line commuter trains. The SCRRA Short Way
Subdivision is used by Metrolink’s Inland Empire-Orange County Line commuter trains. The
SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision is used by Metrolink’s San Bernardino Line commuter trains.
Route Alternative 4-A uses BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton north to CP Rana,
then SCRRA’s Short Way Subdivision from CP Rana north to a new junction with SCRRA’s San
Gabriel Subdivision near CP Vernon in San Bernardino. From that point, Route Alternative 4-A
uses SCRRA’s San Gabriel Subdivision west to Los Angeles. The connection between
SCRRA’s Short Way Subdivision and San Gabriel Subdivision occurs west of CP Vernon in San
Bernardino and east of a flyover that carries the SCRRA trackage over BNSF’s San Bernardino
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 128
Subdivision. This route alternative saves considerable travel time by eliminating the need for
passenger trains to change their direction of operation at San Bernardino as would be required
under Route Alternatives 4-B and 5, but precludes service to the Metrolink/Amtrak Santa Fe
San Bernardino station or the Metrolink San Bernardino Transit Center. To serve customers in
the San Bernardino metropolitan area, trains using Route Alternative 4-A would stop at the
Metrolink Rialto station in San Bernardino County, which is the Metrolink station closest to
downtown San Bernardino. Trains would also stop at the Montclair station in western San
Bernardino County. This alternative is 60 miles long between Colton and Los Angeles Union
Station, and would form a total Indio-Los Angeles corridor length of 131 miles.
9.2.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand
Route Alternative 4-A connects Colton and Los Angeles and would serve the intermediate major
communities of San Bernardino and Montclair, California. The total population within a 15-mile
catchment area of these intermediate stops is approximately 3.15 million, and is projected to
grow to 3.46 million by 2020. The selection of Route Alternative 4-A would form an Indio-Los
Angeles corridor that would serve a total population of approximately 8.75 million, with a
projected increase in total population along the corridor by 2020 to 9.52 million. (SCAG 2012
RTP/SCS)
Annual ridership and revenue from tickets sold for an assumed initial operation year of 2022 and
a future year of 2040 were forecast as shown in Table 44.
Table 44. Alternative 4-A Annual Ridership and Revenue Forecasts
Alternative 1 Ridership Revenue Passenger-miles
Year 2022 161,600 $2,842,000 14,170,000
Year 2040 229,600 $4,035,000 20,120,000
Source: Caltrans, 2015
Ridership and revenue from tickets sold for Route Alternative 4-A are the second highest of the
four route alternatives. The lack of a downtown San Bernardino station stop did not negatively
impact the ridership estimates. In fact, the forecasts estimate that about 300 to 400 more people
per year would board and detrain at Rialto than in downtown San Bernardino, possibly as a
result of the longer travel time associated with operating into downtown San Bernardino, as
explained in Section 8.3. Route Alternative 4-A meets the purpose and need for travel demand.
9.2.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes
Route Alternative 4-A has the shortest distance and fastest projected running time among all
route alternatives. This can be attributed to the use of the SCRRA San Gabriel Line, a
commuter rail line that has no through freight traffic and serves no major freight terminals. The
line hosts Metrolink commuter trains and local freight trains. Based on conceptual TPC runs
developed for each route alternative, projected running times for Route Alternative 4-A between
Indio and Los Angeles are 3 hours, 06 minutes westbound and 3 hours, 14 minutes eastbound.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 129
Based on the information presented in Section 3, the projected travel time for Route Alternative
4-A is comparable eastbound and faster westbound to the travel time of the existing Amtrak
long-distance passenger rail service, which operates only three days per week in each direction
in the middle of the night. The travel time is faster than existing scheduled bus services between
Indio and Los Angeles by 20 to 50 minutes, and does not have the unreliability associated with
highway travel on I-10. Travel times between Palm Springs and Los Angeles are approximately
1 hour faster than a SunLine-Metrolink bus/rail combination with a transfer at Riverside. Travel
by air between Palm Springs and Los Angeles is only 56 minutes, compared with Route
Alternative 4-A’s travel time of between 2 hours, 35 minutes and 2 hours, 41 minutes between
the two cities. However, when additional time factors associated with air travel are introduced,
such as the time needed for airport check-in and security before a flight (approximately 1 hour)
and travel between Los Angeles International Airport and the central business district (35-45
minutes by FlyAway bus between the airport and LAUS), then the travel times between air and
rail via Route Alternative 4-A are nearly identical.
Route Alternative 4-A meets the purpose and need of providing a time-competitive and
attractive travel mode compared to other currently-available public transportation services.
9.2.3 Environmental Concerns: Environmental Impacts
The environmental resources present within the estimated existing ROW and buffer for Route
Alternative 4-A are identified in Table 45. Supporting documentation for information contained in
Table 45 is provided in Appendix E.
Table 45. Route Alternative 4-A Environmental Impacts within ROW and Buffer
Environmental Resource Resources within ROW and Buffer
Named Rivers/Creeks 3 Rivers
Los Angeles River
Rio Hondo
San Gabriel River
6 Creeks
Walnut Creek
Charter Oak Creek
San Antonio Creek Channel
Deer Creek
East Etiwanda Creek
Lytle Creek
5 Washes
Alhambra Wash
Rubio Wash
Eaton Wash
Big Dalton Wash
Live Oak Wash
Floodplain Approximately 36 acres within the 100 year storm event floodplain
Inventoried Wetlands Approximately 3 acres
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetlands
Riverine Wetlands
Farmland Approximately ½ acre
Grazing Land in Fontana (San Bernardino County)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 130
Table 45. Route Alternative 4-A Environmental Impacts within ROW and Buffer
Environmental Resource Resources within ROW and Buffer
Threatened and Endangered Species
Critical Habitat
None
Threatened and Endangered Species
With Potential to Occur
7 Federally Listed Species
Least Bells Vireo
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
Slender-Horned Spineflower
Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly
Salt Marsh Bird’s Beak
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
Santa Ana River Woollystar
1 State Listed Species
Bank Swallow
NRHP listed Properties 3 properties or resource groupings
Euclid Avenue in Upland (San Bernardino County)
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Station in Claremont
(Los Angeles County)
Ygnacio Palomares Adobe in Pomona (Los Angeles County)
Locally Designated Historic Districts,
Historic Preservation Overlay Zones
and Historic Specific Plan Areas;
properties in the CHRIS listed in or
eligible for listing in the CRHR or local
register; properties in CHRIS eligible for
listing in the NRHP
2 properties or resource groupings
Citrus Processing District in Colton (San Bernardino County)
Upland Historic Downtown Specific Plan Area in Upland (San
Bernardino County)
Archaeological Sensitivity Approximately 572 acres
511 acres of high general archaeological sensitivity
464 acres of high buried site sensitivity
Potential Section 4(f) (may also be
Section 6(f)) Properties)
21 properties
Ramona Gardens Recreation Center in Los Angeles (Los
Angeles County)
Pioneer Park in El Monte (Los Angeles County)
Rio Hondo Bike Path in El Monte (Los Angeles County)
Santa Fe Trail Historical Park in El Monte (Los Angeles
County)
San Gabriel River Trail in El Monte and Baldwin Park (Los
Angeles County)
Torch Middle School Play Areas in Industry (Los Angeles
County)
Foster Elementary School in Baldwin Park (Los Angeles
County)
Charles D. Jones Junior High School in Baldwin Park (Los
Angeles County)
Vineland Elementary School in Baldwin Park (Los Angeles
County)
Northview High School in Covina (Los Angeles County)
Edna Park in Covina (Los Angeles County)
Khaler Russell Park in Covina (Los Angeles County)
Charter Oak High School in Covina (Los Angeles County)
Lordburg Park in La Mirada (Los Angeles County)
Palomares Park in Pomona (Los Angeles County)
College Park in Claremont (Los Angeles County)
Fern Reservoir Park in Upland (San Bernardino County)
Wardens Field in Upland (San Bernardino County)
The aforementioned NRHP-listed sites
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 131
Table 45. Route Alternative 4-A Environmental Impacts within ROW and Buffer
Environmental Resource Resources within ROW and Buffer
Environmental Justice/Title VI
Populations
61 potential EJ populationsa
Potential environmental justice populations include
18.66% average rate of poverty
49% minority populations
46% of block group census tracts with more than 50% minority
population
Land Use and Planning Land use percentage that could be acquired within the rail corridor
include
15% single family residential
3% multi-family residential
2% other residential
1% educational
2% open space/recreation
5% commercial
> 1% mixed commercial and industrial
Potential Sensitive Receptors for Noise
and Air Quality
94 Existing Grade Crossings
Sensitive land uses include
5,226 Single Family Residences
1,081 Multi Family Residences
2 Hotels
3 Hospitals
61 Schools
1 Library
15 Places of Worship
27 Parks
Visual Resources (scenic routes, trails,
school recreation field, recreational
areas)b
19 Potential Resources/Sites Visible from Alignment
0 Eligible State Scenic Routes
0 County Scenic Routes
1 National Trail
Old Spanish National Historic Trail in Alhambra, Baldwin Park,
Covina, and La Verne (Los Angeles County)
Superfund NPL sites 4 Sites
San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site in Baldwin Park (Los
Angeles County)
San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site in El Monte (Los Angeles
County)
San Gabriel Groundwater Basin (1-4) in El Monte (Los
Angeles County)
Area 3 – San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site in Alhambra (Los
Angeles County)
Source: HDR 2015, ICF 2015 (Appendix E)
a Assumes that a block group within a census tract is a population.
b The criteria used in evaluating visual resources was to look at visual resources that could be seen from the ROW
and Buffer.
The area along Route Alternative 4-A crosses through Los Angeles and San Bernardino
Counties and is a mix of industrial, commercial, and moderately to densely developed
residential area.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 132
9.2.4 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way
As noted in Section 8.4, Route Alternative 4-A would require the construction of a new Gonzales
Connecting Track approximately 1.3 miles long between UP and BNSF at Colton. The
construction of this connecting track would likely require commercial property acquisition in the
vicinity of CP Gonzales. In addition, the connecting track may require routing through an
existing water treatment area and would require a new rail overpass over South La Cadena
Drive. This would result in more ROW acquisitions in the area. Route Alternative 4-A would also
require the construction of a new mainline track approximately 0.8 mile long between the
SCRRA Shortway Subdivision and the SCRAA San Gabriel Subdivision west of CP Vernon. The
construction of this track segment would require the construction of a new bridge over Lytle
Creek. The additional ROW that may be required for this new bridge may result in greater
impacts on the natural environmental in terms of waters and sensitive species impacted.
Construction of this track would also require the acquisition of commercial property – specifically
a trucking company. The construction of a new Shortway Flyover above BNSF’s San
Bernardino Subdivision as part of a new double-track section of the SCRRA San Gabriel
Subdivision would also have potential ROW environmental concerns. This improvement may
require relocating yard tracks within the existing BNSF intermodal terminal which would require
property acquisition. Adjacent land uses include commercial and residential property, parkland,
and Lytle Creek. The additional ROW that may be required could result in both human and
natural environmental impacts in the area. Route Alternative 4-A would also require the
construction of approximately 3.85 miles of second track between CP White in Pomona and the
South Lone Hill Avenue grade crossing in San Dimas. The ROW through this area is narrow
and additional ROW requiring commercial and industrial property acquisition may be required.
9.2.5 Technical Feasibility: Passenger and Freight Capacity
Route Alternative 4-A has three distinct sections:
A high-density double- and triple-track freight route on the 1-mile portion of BNSF
trackage used between Colton and CP Rana.
A moderate-density, single-track commuter route on the 2-mile portion of SCRRA’s
Short Way Subdivision between CP Rana in Colton and CP Vernon in San Bernardino.
A high-density single- and double-track commuter route on the 55-mile portion of
SCRRA’s San Gabriel Subdivision used between San Bernardino and Los Angeles.
Current train traffic on the BNSF portion of the route exceeds 60 freight trains per day on
average, and in addition has 8 Metrolink commuter trains and 2 Amtrak long-distance trains.
Current train traffic on the SCRRA Short Way Subdivision includes 8 revenue commuter trains
on weekdays and 4 revenue trains on weekends, plus numerous non-revenue moves to shuttle
equipment to and from the Metrolink Eastern Maintenance Facility in Colton. Current train traffic
on SCRRA’s San Gabriel Subdivision consists of 38 Metrolink commuter trains carrying more
than 10,000 passengers a day on weekdays (20 trains on Saturday and 14 trains on Sunday);
up to 12 freight trains per day between San Bernardino and Fontana; and between 2 and 4 local
freight trains per day between Fontana and Los Angeles.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 133
Route Alternative 4-A’s present-day track and train control infrastructure is matched to its
passenger and freight train speeds and traffic density. Both the BNSF and SCRRA lines are
equipped with wayside signaling and Centralized Traffic Control. Metrolink began a revenue
service demonstration of Positive Train Control on the San Gabriel Subdivision in 2015.
Because of the numerous yard operations on BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision, passenger
and freight trains alike are limited to 30 mph through Colton. The SCRRA Short Way
Subdivision has a maximum allowable speed of 30 mph for passenger and freight trains. On the
SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision, the maximum allowable speed is 79 mph for passenger trains
and 55 mph for freights. Route Alternative 4-A and Alternative 4-B are the only alternatives that
do not have mainline freight trains, thus minimizing the potential for passenger trains to be
delayed by freight train congestion. Because the majority of traffic on Route Alternative 4-A is
moving at a passenger train speed, Coachella Valley passenger trains could be scheduled to
operate in slots between scheduled Metrolink commuter trains with minimal potential for delay.
Of the 54 miles of SCRRA’s San Gabriel Subdivision that would be used for Alternative 4-A 80%
are single main track, with passing sidings that have a combined total length of 6.7 miles, while
the remaining 10 miles are double main track. Public timetables show that the San Gabriel
Subdivision is Metrolink’s busiest commuter line (SCRRA, 2015). (Information about all SCRRA
track speeds, gradients, terminal locations, mileages, and signaling in this report have come
from a SCRRA employee timetable dated June 2, 2013.) The San Gabriel Subdivision is
Metrolink’s busiest commuter line, and the lack of second main track introduces the potential to
create bottlenecks that can result in train delays. Rush hours are particularly high-volume, with
approximately 3 trains per hour operating west in the morning and east in the evening. The
current Metrolink service schedule maximizes the existing operating capacity of the San Gabriel
Subdivision during peak-hour service periods (weekdays from 4:45 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. and 3:30
p.m. to 6:30 p.m.). (SCRRA, 2015) Accommodating Coachella Valley passenger trains during
peak Metrolink periods is not feasible, and some segments of the San Gabriel Subdivision,
notably the western segment where the ROW is in the median of I-10, cannot be expanded.
Outside of peak-hour service periods, capacity may be available to support Coachella Valley
passenger trains operating in slots between scheduled Metrolink commuter trains, with minimal
potential for delay, but would likely require some additional infrastructure. However, those
available operating slots would need to be negotiated with SCRRA and its Member Agencies
and may not be preferable for ridership purposes and schedules for the Coachella Valley
passenger trains may have to be adjusted to better fit around the commuter schedules. Track
time for maintenance in the commuter train territory may be constrained by the addition of
Coachella Valley passenger trains, requiring nighttime track maintenance.
Route Alternative 4-A would require the construction of the Gonzales Connection Track at
Colton to enable westbound trains from Indio on UP’s Yuma Subdivision to curve and head
north (timetable east) on BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision, and eastbound trains to diverge
from the BNSF line to head east on UP’s Yuma Subdivision. This connection track would have
to be built north of the existing UP Yuma Subdivision’s Colton flyover, passing through a water
treatment area, and would require a new rail overpass over South La Cadena Drive. It appears
that sufficient space exists to construct the new track beneath the I-10 overpass where the
connecting track would curve to the north. The connecting track would be approximately 1.3
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 134
miles long and join the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision at CP Gonzales north of the H Street
grade crossing in Colton. Given the limited space in the area and tight curvature required, the
Gonzales Connecting Track would be low speed. Construction of this track would likely require
some commercial property acquisition in the vicinity of CP Gonzales.
Given the high volume of traffic on the BNSF line, Route Alternative 4-A would likely require a
continuation of the connecting track as a fourth mainline track from CP Gonzales east
approximately 0.5 mile to CP Rana in Colton, where SCRRA’s Short Way Subdivision diverges.
Route Alternative 4-A would also likely require construction of a second track on SCRRA’s Short
Way Subdivision between the north entrance lead track for Metrolink’s Eastern Maintenance
Facility at CP Mill north to a new CP Shortway interlocking, near CP Vernon in San Bernardino,
to connect with SCRRA’s San Gabriel Subdivision and allow northbound trains to operate
directly west toward Los Angeles on the San Gabriel Subdivision. This second track would
require a new bridge over Lytle Creek. This approximately 0.8 mile track would be built north
and west from CP Mill on an incline to join the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision on an elevated
fill just east of the BNSF flyover. Construction of this track would require commercial property
acquisition in San Bernardino currently utilized by a trucking company.
This new second track would continue as a second main track on the SCRRA San Gabriel
Subdivision, and would include construction of a new approximately 0.92 mile Shortway Flyover
above the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision main line parallel to the existing single-track
SCRRA flyover above the BNSF main line. The west end of the Shortway Flyover would be at
the CP Rancho interlocking on the San Gabriel Subdivision.
West of the BNSF flyover, the new second track would continue approximately 2.7 miles west
from CP Rancho through Rialto to CP Lilac, which is the west end of an existing 8,100-foot
siding. This is the first location west of San Bernardino where Metrolink San Bernardino line
trains have an opportunity to pass each other. Construction of a second main track would also
require construction of a second platform at the Rialto station, which is the proposed San
Bernardino-area stop for Coachella Valley passenger trains under Route Alternative 4-A.
Route Alternative 4-A would likely require construction of a second track in the 7-mile single-
track section between Pomona and Covina. The proposed second track would extend the
existing second track that currently ends at CP White in Pomona west approximately 3.85 miles
to the South Lone Hill Avenue grade crossing in San Dimas.
9.2.6 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Alignment
The addition of the Gonzales Connecting Track at Colton presents ROW, grading, and grade-
crossing challenges. The connecting track would require a new bridge over South La Cadena
Drive, would pass through a water treatment area north of UP’s Yuma Subdivision, and would
likely require commercial property acquisition where it connects to the BNSF main line at CP
Gonzales.
The addition of a mainline northwest connecting track between the SCRRA Short Way
Subdivision and SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision at San Bernardino presents extensive ROW,
grading, and grade-crossing challenges. The track will have to ascend on a curve from ground
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 135
level north of the Rialto Avenue grade crossing to meet the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision,
which is on an embankment, just prior to crossing over BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision.
Construction of this mainline track would require acquisition of commercial property used by a
trucking warehouse south of the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision.
Construction of a SCRRA Shortway Flyover above BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision and
second SCRRA main track from CP Rancho west to CP Lilac would present extensive ROW
and grading challenges, and would likely require property acquisition on the west side of the
proposed flyover. This property is currently part of a large BNSF Railway intermodal terminal.
Construction of a second flyover and main track in this area would cause significant disruption
to operations at the intermodal terminal, would likely require relocating yard tracks within the
terminal, and would likely require property acquisition to maintain the intermodal terminal’s
current acreage and mitigate the disruption caused during the construction phase. The terminal
is bordered by commercial and residential property, and parkland, and Lytle Creek flows
through the middle of the terminal.
West of the BNSF intermodal terminal, there appears to be sufficient width in the ROW to
accommodate a second main track. The Rialto station would require a second platform to serve
the second main track. At industrial spurs, where tracks leave the ROW to serve customers,
new connections would need to be established to account for the second main track.
Construction of approximately 3.85 miles of second track between CP White in Pomona and the
South Lone Hill Avenue grade crossing in San Dimas would likely require a realignment of
curves and industry tracks in Pomona where the ROW passes between two industrial buildings.
Between Pomona and San Dimas, the ROW is narrow in some locations, and property
acquisition may be required to accommodate a second track. The alignment passes through
suburban and light industrial locations. At industrial spurs, where tracks leave the ROW to serve
customers, new connections would need to be established to account for the second main track.
9.2.7 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Structures
Several major structures would be required for Route Alternative 4-A. The major structure
required would be a mainline connecting track at San Bernardino, rising in elevation from the
SCRRA Short Way Subdivision to the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision west of CP Vernon, and
a new Shortway Flyover across the BNSF Railway San Bernardino Subdivision parallel to the
existing SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision flyover. Work associated with this improvement would
require significant property acquisition in San Bernardino, as described in Section 9.2.6.
In San Bernardino, a new bridge for a second main track would be required across Lytle Creek.
The existing single-track SCRRA Short Way Subdivision bridge is approximately 150 feet long.
Locations where Route Alternative 4-A goes underneath other railroads or major highways
would require inspection to confirm that an additional main track can be accommodated include:
Rialto: UP’s Mojave Subdivision
San Dimas: Highway 57 (Orange Freeway)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 136
9.2.8 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Grade Crossings
Route Alternative 4-A has 94 grade crossings between Colton and Los Angeles. Projected
infrastructure improvements associated with the implementation of Coachella Valley-San
Gorgonio Pass rail corridor passenger service would require improving or revising up to 24
grade crossings depending on the extend of improvements required to accommodate the
construction of additional main track between Colton and Los Angeles. Grade crossing work
associated with Route Alternative 4-A would be about the same as Route Alternatives 1, 4-B,
and 5.
9.2.9 Economic Feasibility
Route Alternative 4-A presents many technical challenges and has an estimated cost that is
approximately $141 million higher in 2015 dollars than Route Alternative 1, the least expensive
route alternative. The major factors that contribute to this complexity and high cost are:
Construction of a new Gonzales Connecting Track approximately 1.3 miles long
between UP and BNSF at Colton
Construction of a new mainline track approximately 0.8 miles long between the SCRRA
Short Way Subdivision and the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision west of CP Vernon
Construction of a new Shortway Flyover above BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision in
San Bernardino parallel to the existing single-track flyover, as part of a new double-track
section of the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision
Construction of approximately 8.8 miles of second or fourth main track on segments of
BNSF and SCRRA trackage
Route Alternative 4-A has no outstanding operating, maintenance, or equipment cost
differentiators compared to Route Alternatives 1, 4-B, or 5. Annual O&M costs for Route
Alternative 4-A are projected to be $14,010,000 in 2015 dollars, using the 2012 O&M cost per
train-mile for a Pacific Surfliner (Appendix C) and adjusting for inflation.
Trainset equipment turn analysis indicates that two trainsets are required for the proposed
service, with each trainset making one round trip per day. These trainset requirements are
identical to Route Alternatives 1, 4-B, and 5.
9.3 Route Alternative 4-B
The alignment of Route Alternative 4-B through San Bernardino has changed from the
description provided in the Coarse-Level Screening (Section 8). The change reflects a planned
adjustment in Metrolink service and infrastructure at San Bernardino that will replace the
proposed station stop and change of direction at the San Bernardino Santa Fe Depot with a
proposed station stop and change of direction at the San Bernardino Transit Center (currently
under construction). The San Bernardino Transit Center is approximately 1.1 miles east of the
Santa Fe Depot, and resulting changes in mileage and forecasted travel times have been
updated to reflect this change.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 137
Route Alternative 4-B is the second of two route alternatives that would make use of SCRRA’s
San Gabriel Subdivision. To serve customers in the San Bernardino metropolitan area, this
alternative includes a stop at the downtown San Bernardino Transit Center (under construction
as of September 2015), whereas Alternative 4-A would bypass downtown San Bernardino and
stop in Rialto. This alternative uses a combination of BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision
between Colton, SCRRA’s Short Way Subdivision between Colton and San Bernardino, and
SCRRA’s San Gabriel Subdivision between San Bernardino and Los Angeles. The BNSF-
owned portion of this route is used by Amtrak’s Southwest Chief long-distance passenger train
and Metrolink’s Inland Empire-Orange County Line commuter trains. The SCRRA Short Way
Subdivision is used by Metrolink’s Inland Empire-Orange County Line commuter trains. The
SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision is used by Metrolink’s San Bernardino Line commuter trains.
Route Alternative 4-B diverges from BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision at CP Rana and
continues north on SCRRA’s Short Way Subdivision to reach the SCRRA San Gabriel
Subdivision at CP Vernon in San Bernardino. At CP Vernon, trains would head east for
approximately 1.3 miles on the San Gabriel Subdivision to serve the San Bernardino Transit
Center. A lengthy station stop would be required to allow trains to change their end of operation
in order to operate westbound to Los Angeles over the San Gabriel Subdivision. Indio-bound
trains would also be required to change ends of operation at the San Bernardino Transit Center
to negotiate the connection between the San Gabriel Subdivision and the Short Way
Subdivision. This alternative is 63 miles long between Colton and Los Angeles Union Station,
and would form a total Indio-Los Angeles corridor length of 134 miles.
9.3.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand
This alternative connects Colton and Los Angeles and would serve the intermediate major
communities of San Bernardino and Montclair, California. The total population within a 15-mile
catchment area of these intermediate stops is approximately 3.05 million, and is projected to
grow to 3.36 million by 2020. The selection of Alternative 4-B would form an Indio-Los Angeles
corridor that would serve a total population of approximately 8.72 million, with a projected
increase in total population along the corridor by 2020 to 9.49 million. (SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS)
Annual ridership and revenue from tickets sold for an assumed initial operation year of 2022 and
a future year of 2040 were forecast as shown in Table 46.
Table 46. Alternative 4-B Annual Ridership and Revenue Forecasts
Alternative 1 Ridership Revenue Passenger-miles
Year 2022 148,200 $2,549,000 13,160,000
Year 2040 210,600 $3,618,000 18,670,000
Source: Caltrans, 2015
Ridership and revenue from tickets sold for Route Alternative 4-B and similar to those for Route
Alternative 5 and are the lowest of the route alternatives. The additional travel time caused by
the need to stop in San Bernardino and change the train’s direction of travel decreases the
train’s attractiveness as a competitive travel mode, which is reflected in the ridership and
revenue forecasts. Despite the availability of rail and bus connections at the San Bernardino
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 138
Transit Center, overall San Bernardino ridership for Route Alternative 4-B is lower than Route
Alternative 4-A, which bypasses downtown; ticket revenue for Route Alternative 4-B is
approximately $300,000 to $400,000 less per year than Route Alternative 4-A. Nevertheless,
Route Alternative 4-B can still meets the purpose and need for travel demand.
9.3.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes
Route Alternative 4-B is longer than Route Alternative 4-A by 3 miles, but would have a
considerably longer travel time, caused primarily by the need to change ends of operation at the
San Bernardino Transit Center. This activity requires a projected 20-minute station dwell time at
San Bernardino, versus a projected dwell at all other intermediate stations of 1 or 2 minutes.
The projected 20-minute dwell time was based on similar Metrolink operations in effect during
the development of the projected Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass rail corridor train
schedules. However, revised Metrolink dwell times scheduled to go into effect in Fall 2015 will
require a 30-minute stop when changing a trainset’s direction of travel as a result of signaling
and communications requirements associated with the implementation of Positive Train Control.
Thus, Coachella Valley passenger trains would also likely require a 30-minute dwell time at San
Bernardino.
Based on conceptual TPC runs developed for each route alternative, projected running times for
Route Alternative 4-B between Indio and Los Angeles are 3 hours, 27 minutes westbound and 3
hours, 35 minutes eastbound.
Use of the San Bernardino Transit Center has the potential to introduce opportunities for
connections with the planned Redlands passenger rail service. According to the San Bernardino
Associated Governments, this $242 million project, currently scheduled for completion no earlier
than 2018, will create a passenger rail service between the cities of San Bernardino and
Redlands over a 9-mile route with up to 25 daily round trips (SANBAG website accessed August
2015). However, the benefit of this connection would not offset the erosion of ridership and
competitive travel time that would result from a 20- or 30-minute station stop in the middle of the
trip as discussed in Section 9.3.1.
Based on the information presented in Section 3, the projected travel time for Route Alternative
4-B is approximately 30 minutes slower eastbound and slightly faster westbound (due only to 50
minutes of recovery time arriving at LAUS) than the travel time of the existing Amtrak long-
distance passenger rail service, which operates three days per week in each direction in the
middle of the night. The travel time is comparable to existing Greyhound service between Indio
and Los Angeles and approximately 30 minutes faster than the existing Amtrak Thruway bus
service. Travel times between Palm Springs and Los Angeles are approximately 50 minutes
faster than a SunLine-Metrolink bus/rail combination with a transfer at Riverside. Travel by air
between Palm Springs and Los Angeles is only 56 minutes, compared with Route Alternative 4-
B’s travel time of approximately 3 hours between the two cities. Even when additional time
factors associated with air travel are introduced, such as the time needed for airport check-in
and security before a flight (approximately 1 hour) and travel between Los Angeles International
Airport and the central business district (35-45 minutes by FlyAway bus between the airport and
LAUS), air still has a travel time advantage over rail via Route Alternative 4-B by 15 to 30
minutes.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 139
The addition of a 20- or 30-minute stop in San Bernardino negatively impacts the attractiveness
of the passenger rail option when compared to other public transportation services. Therefore,
Route Alternative 4-B does not meet the purpose and need of providing a time-competitive and
attractive travel mode compared to other currently-available public transportation services.
9.3.3 Environmental Concerns: Environmental Impacts
The environmental resources present within the estimated existing ROW and buffer for Route
Alternative 4-B are identified in Table 47. Supporting documentation for information contained in
Table 47 is provided in Appendix E.
Table 47. Route Alternative 4-B Environmental Impacts within ROW and Buffer
Environmental Resource Resources within ROW and Buffer
Named Rivers/Creeks 3 Rivers
Los Angeles River
Rio Hondo
San Gabriel River
6 Creeks
Walnut Creek
Charter Oak Creek
San Antonio Creek Channel
Deer Creek
East Etiwanda Creek
Lytle Creek
5 Washes
Alhambra Wash
Rubio Wash
Eaton Wash
Big Dalton Wash
Live Oak Wash
Floodplain Approximately 36 acres within the 100 year storm event floodplain
Inventoried Wetlands Approximately 3 acres
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetlands
Riverine Wetlands
Farmland Approximately ½ acre
Grazing Land in Fontana (Riverside County)
Threatened and Endangered Species
Critical Habitat
None
Threatened and Endangered Species
With Potential to Occur
8 Federally Listed Species
Least Bells Vireo
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
Slender-Horned Spineflower
Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly
Salt Marsh Bird’s Beak
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
Santa Ana River Woollystar
Gambel’s water cress
2 State Listed Species
Bank Swallow
Swainson’s Hawk
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 140
Table 47. Route Alternative 4-B Environmental Impacts within ROW and Buffer
Environmental Resource Resources within ROW and Buffer
NRHP listed Properties 4 properties or resource groupings
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Passenger and
Freight Depot in San Bernardino (San Bernardino County)
Euclid Avenue in Upland (San Bernardino County)
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Station in Claremont
(Los Angeles County)
Ygnacio Palomares Adobe in Pomona (Los Angeles County)
Locally Designated Historic Districts,
Historic Preservation Overlay Zones
and Historic Specific Plan Areas;
properties in the CHRIS listed in or
eligible for listing in the CRHR or local
register; properties in CHRIS eligible for
listing in the NRHP
3 properties or resource groupings
Santa Fe Railroad Workers HPOZ in San Bernardino (San
Bernardino County)
Citrus Processing District in Colton (San Bernardino County)
Upland Historic Downtown Specific Plan Area in Upland (San
Bernardino County)
Archaeological Sensitivity Approximately 588 acres
527 acres of high general archaeological sensitivity
480 acres of high buried site sensitivity
Potential Section 4(f) (may also be
Section 6(f)) Properties)
22 properties
Ramona Gardens Recreation Center in Los Angeles (Los
Angeles County)
Pioneer Park in El Monte (Los Angeles County)
Rio Hondo Bike Path in El Monte (Los Angeles County)
Santa Fe Trail Historical Park in El Monte (Los Angeles
County)
San Gabriel River Trail in El Monte and Baldwin Park (Los
Angeles County)
Torch Middle School Play Areas in Industry (Los Angeles
County)
Foster Elementary School in Baldwin Park (Los Angeles
County)
Charles D. Jones Junior High School in Baldwin Park (Los
Angeles County)
Vineland Elementary School in Baldwin Park (Los Angeles
County)
Northview High School in Covina (Los Angeles County)
Edna Park in Covina (Los Angeles County)
Khaler Russell Park in Covina (Los Angeles County)
Charter Oak High School in Covina (Los Angeles County)
Lordburg Park in La Mirada (Los Angeles County)
Palomares Park in Pomona (Los Angeles County)
College Park in Claremont (Los Angeles County)
Fern Reservoir Park in Upland (San Bernardino County)
Wardens Field in Upland (San Bernardino County)
The aforementioned NRHP-listed sites
Environmental Justice/Title VI
Populations
62 potential EJ populationsa
Potential environmental justice populations include
19.12% average rate of poverty
49% minority populations
46% of block group census tracts with more than 50% minority
population
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 141
Table 47. Route Alternative 4-B Environmental Impacts within ROW and Buffer
Environmental Resource Resources within ROW and Buffer
Land Use and Planning Land use percentage that could be acquired within the rail corridor
include
15% single family residential
3% multi-family residential
2% other residential
1% educational
2% open space/recreation
5% commercial
> 1% mixed commercial and industrial
Potential Sensitive Receptors for Noise
and Air Quality
99 Existing Grade Crossings
Sensitive land uses include
5,301 Single Family Residences
1,081 Multi Family Residences
2 Hotels
3 Hospitals
61 Schools
1 Library
15 Places of Worship
27 Parks
Visual Resources (scenic routes, trails,
school recreation field, recreational
areas)b
20 Potential Resources/Sites Visible from Alignment
0 Eligible State Scenic Routes
0 County Scenic Routes
1 National Trail
Old Spanish National Historic Trail in Alhambra, Baldwin Park,
Covina, and La Verne (Los Angeles County)
Superfund NPL sites 4 Sites
San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site in Baldwin Park (Los
Angeles County)
San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site in El Monte (Los Angeles
County)
San Gabriel Groundwater Basin (1-4) in El Monte (Los
Angeles County)
Area 3 – San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site in Alhambra (Los
Angeles County)
Source: HDR 2015, ICF 2015 (Appendix E)
a Assumes that a block group within a census tract is a population.
b The criteria used in evaluating visual resources was to look at visual resources that could be seen from the ROW
and Buffer.
The area along Route Alternative 4-B crosses through Los Angeles and San Bernardino
Counties and is a mix of industrial, commercial, and moderately to densely developed
residential area.
9.3.4 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way
Route Alternative 4-B is anticipated to have similar ROW environmental concerns to Route
Alternative 4-A. See Section 9.2.4 for the description of ROW environmental concerns.
9.3.5 Technical Feasibility: Passenger and Freight Capacity
Route Alternative 4-B has three distinct sections:
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 142
A high-density double- and triple-track freight route on the 1-mile portion of BNSF
trackage used between Colton and CP Rana.
A moderate-density, single-track commuter route on the 2-mile portion of SCRRA’s
Short Way Subdivision between CP Rana in Colton and CP Vernon in San Bernardino.
A high-density single- and double-track commuter route on the 58 miles of SCRRA’s
San Gabriel Subdivision used between San Bernardino and Los Angeles.
Current train traffic on the BNSF portion of the route exceeds 60 freight trains per day on
average, and has eight Metrolink commuter trains and two Amtrak long-distance trains. Current
train traffic on the SCRRA Short Way Subdivision includes eight revenue commuter trains on
weekdays and four revenue trains on weekends, plus numerous non-revenue moves to shuttle
equipment to and from the Metrolink Eastern Maintenance Facility in Colton. Current train traffic
on SCRRA’s San Gabriel Subdivision consists of 38 Metrolink commuter trains carrying more
than 10,000 passengers a day on weekdays (20 trains on Saturday and 14 trains on Sunday);
up to 12 freight trains per day between San Bernardino and Fontana; and between two and four
local freight trains per day between Fontana and Los Angeles.
Route Alternative 4-B’s current track and train control infrastructure is matched to its passenger
and freight train speeds and traffic density. Both the BNSF and SCRRA lines are equipped with
wayside signaling and Centralized Traffic Control. Metrolink began a revenue service
demonstration of Positive Train Control on the San Gabriel Subdivision in 2015. Because of the
numerous yard operations on BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision, passenger and freight trains
are limited to 30 mph through Colton. The SCRRA Short Way Subdivision has a maximum
allowable speed of 30 mph for passenger and freight trains. On the SCRRA San Gabriel
Subdivision, the maximum allowable speed is 79 mph for passenger trains and 55 mph for
freights. Route Alternative 4-A and Route Alternative 4-B are the only alternatives that do not
have mainline freight trains, thus minimizing the potential for passenger trains to be delayed by
freight train congestion. Because the majority of traffic on Route Alternative 4-B is moving at a
passenger train speed, Coachella Valley passenger trains could be scheduled to operate in
slots between scheduled Metrolink commuter trains with minimal potential for delay.
(Information about all SCRRA track speeds, gradients, terminal locations, mileages, and
signaling in this report have come from a SCRRA employee timetable dated June 2, 2013.)
Of the 55 miles of SCRRA’s San Gabriel Subdivision that would be used for Route Alternative 4-
B more than 80% are single track, with passing sidings that have a combined total length of 6.7
miles, while the remaining 10 miles are double main track. Public timetables show that the San
Gabriel Subdivision is Metrolink’s busiest commuter line (SCRRA, 2015), and the lack of second
main track introduces the potential to create bottlenecks that can result in train delays. Peak
hours are particularly high-volume, with approximately 3 trains per hour operating west in the
morning and east in the evening. The current Metrolink service schedule maximizes the existing
operating capacity of the San Gabriel Subdivision during peak-hour service periods (weekdays
from 4:45 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.). Accommodating Coachella Valley
passenger trains during peak Metrolink periods is not feasible, and some segments of the San
Gabriel Subdivision, notably the western segment where the ROW is in the median of I-10,
cannot be expanded.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 143
Outside of peak-hour service periods, capacity may be available to support Coachella Valley
passenger trains operating in slots between scheduled Metrolink commuter trains, with minimal
potential for delay, but would likely require some additional infrastructure. However, those
available operating slots would need to be negotiated with SCRRA and its Member Agencies
and may not be preferable for ridership purposes and schedules for the Coachella Valley
passenger trains may have to be adjusted to better fit around the commuter schedules. Track
time for maintenance in the commuter train territory may be constrained by the addition of
Coachella Valley passenger trains and may require nighttime track maintenance.
Route Alternative 4-B would require the construction of the Gonzales Connection Track at
Colton to enable westbound trains from Indio on UP’s Yuma Subdivision to curve and head
north (timetable east) on BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision, and eastbound trains to diverge
from the BNSF line to head east on UP’s Yuma Subdivision. This connection track would have
to be built north of the existing UP Yuma Subdivision’s Colton flyover, passing through a water
treatment area, and would require a new rail overpass over South La Cadena Drive. It appears
that sufficient space exists to construct the new track beneath the I-10 overpass where the
connecting track would curve to the north. The connecting track would be approximately 1.3
miles long, and join the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision at CP Gonzales north of the H Street
grade crossing in Colton. Given the limited space in the area and tight curvature required, the
Gonzales Connecting Track would be low speed. Construction of this track would likely require
some commercial property acquisition in the vicinity of CP Gonzales.
Given the high volume of traffic on the BNSF line, Route Alternative 4-B would likely require an
approximately 0.5 mile continuation of the connecting track as a fourth mainline track from CP
Gonzales east to CP Rana in Colton, where SCRRA’s Short Way Subdivision diverges.
Route Alternative 4-B would also likely require construction of an approximately 0.8 mile second
track on SCRRA’s Short Way Subdivision between the north entrance lead track for Metrolink’s
Eastern Maintenance Facility at CP Mill north to the junction with the SCRRA San Gabriel
Subdivision at CP Vernon. This second track would require a new bridge over Lytle Creek.
To accommodate the projected 20- to 30-minute dwell time of Coachella Valley passenger
trains at the San Bernardino Transit Center, an additional station track may be needed.
Currently, four station tracks are planned for the transit center, two through tracks and two stub
tracks, which will accommodate service on the existing Metrolink San Bernardino and Inland
Empire lines, as well as future service on the proposed Redlands passenger rail line. Since all
Metrolink commuter trains would be changing their direction of operation at the transit center,
they would be operating under the 30-minute station dwell time that the commuter agency is
placing into effect Fall 2015. The additional dwell time could consume the transit center’s
available platform capacity allocated for San Bernardino Line, Inland Empire Line, and Redlands
operations. Construction of a fifth station track at the San Bernardino Transit Center could
require significant reconstruction of the facility and adjacent property acquisition.
Route Alternative 4-B would likely require construction of a second main track between the CP
Vernon interlocking in San Bernardino, west of the Santa Fe Depot, and CP Lilac in Rialto. The
approximately 3.9 miles of single-track at the western end of the San Gabriel Subdivision has
the potential to affect passenger-train reliability if service increases are implemented. Addition of
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 144
a second track in this section would include construction of a new flyover above the BNSF main
line parallel to the existing single-track SCRRA flyover above the BNSF San Bernardino
Subdivision main line. The flyover would extend approximately 1.2 miles from CP Vernon to the
CP Rancho interlocking on the San Gabriel Subdivision. West of the BNSF flyover, the new
second track would continue west from CP Rancho through Rialto to CP Lilac, which is the west
end of an existing 8,100-foot siding, and the first location west of San Bernardino where
Metrolink San Bernardino line trains have an opportunity to pass each other. Construction of a
second main track would also require construction of a second platform at the Rialto station.
The length of second main track required to connect CP Rancho and CP Lilac is approximately
2.7 miles. Although this second track is being proposed in fine-level screening as part of
conceptual engineering, further analysis incorporating operations modeling and different
scheduling scenarios may determine that an additional track and flyover are not required. Even
without the 2.7 miles of additional track and flyover other infrastructure requirements associated
with Route Alternative 4-B make it more expensive than the lowest cost option, Route
Alternative 1.
Route Alternative 4-B would likely require construction of a second track in the 7-mile single-
track section between Pomona and Covina. The proposed second track would extend the
existing second track that currently ends at CP White in Pomona westward to the South Lone
Hill Avenue grade crossing in San Dimas, a distance of approximately 3.85 miles.
9.3.6 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Alignment
The addition of the Gonzales Connecting Track at Colton presents ROW, grading, and grade-
crossing challenges. The connecting track would require a new bridge over South La Cadena
Drive, would pass through a water treatment area north of UP’s Yuma Subdivision, and would
likely require commercial property acquisition where it connects to the BNSF main line at CP
Gonzales.
Construction of a fifth station track at the San Bernardino Transit Center could require significant
reconstruction of the facility and adjacent property acquisition.
Construction of a second main track for approximately 3.9 miles from CP Vernon in San
Bernardino to CP Lilac in Rialto, including construction of a second rail flyover above BNSF
Railway’s San Bernardino Subdivision, presents extensive ROW and grading challenges in San
Bernardino, and would likely require property acquisition on the west side of the proposed
flyover. This property is currently part of a large BNSF Railway intermodal terminal.
Construction of a second flyover and main track in this area would cause significant disruption
to operations at the intermodal terminal, would likely require relocating yard tracks within the
terminal, and would likely require property acquisition to maintain the intermodal terminal’s
current acreage and mitigate the disruption caused during the construction phase. The terminal
is bordered by commercial and residential property, and parkland, and Lytle Creek flows
through the middle of the terminal.
West of the BNSF intermodal terminal, there appears to be sufficient width in the ROW to
accommodate a second main track. The Rialto station would require a second platform serving
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 145
the second main track. At industrial spurs, where tracks leave the ROW to serve customers,
new connections would need to be established to account for the second main track.
Construction of approximately 3.85 miles of second track between CP White in Pomona and the
South Lone Hill Avenue grade crossing in San Dimas would likely require a realignment of
curves and industry tracks in Pomona where the ROW passes between two industrial buildings.
Between Pomona and San Dimas, the ROW is narrow in some locations, and property
acquisition may be required to accommodate a second track. The alignment passes through
suburban and light industrial locations. At industrial spurs, where tracks leave the ROW to serve
customers, new connections would need to be established to account for the second main track.
9.3.7 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Structures
Several major structures would be required for Route Alternative 4-B. One major structure
required would be a new flyover across the BNSF Railway San Bernardino Subdivision parallel
to the existing SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision flyover to allow for a second main track between
CP Vernon in San Bernardino and CP Lilac in Rialto. Work associated with this improvement
would require significant property acquisition in San Bernardino, as described in Section 9.3.6.
Route Alternative 4-B would also require construction of a new bridge for a second track across
Lytle Creek in San Bernardino. The existing single-track SCRRA Short Way Subdivision bridge
is approximately 150 feet long.
Locations where Route Alternative 4-B goes underneath other railroads or major highways
would require inspection to confirm that an additional main track can be accommodated include:
Rialto: UP’s Mojave Subdivision
San Dimas: Highway 57 (Orange Freeway)
9.3.8 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Grade Crossings
Route Alternative 4-B has 99 grade crossings between Colton and Los Angeles, five of which
would be crossed twice in San Bernardino. Projected infrastructure improvements associated
with the implementation of Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass rail corridor passenger service
would require improving or revising up to 24 grade crossings depending on the extent of
improvements required to accommodate the construction of additional main track between
Colton and Los Angeles. Grade crossing work associated with Route Alternative 4-B would be
about the same as Route Alternatives 1, 4-A, and 5.
9.3.9 Economic Feasibility
Route Alternative 4-B presents many technical challenges and has an estimated cost that is
approximately $130 million higher in 2015 dollars than Route Alternative 1, the least expensive
route alternative. The major factors that contribute to this complexity are:
Construction of a new Gonzales Connecting Track approximately 1.3 miles long
between UP and BNSF at Colton
Potential construction of an additional station track at the San Bernardino Transit Center
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 146
Construction of a new San Bernardino Flyover above BNSF’s San Bernardino
Subdivision in San Bernardino parallel to the existing single-track flyover, as part of a
new double-track section of the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision
Construction of approximately 9.0 miles of second or fourth main track on segments of
BNSF and SCRRA trackage
Route Alternative 4-B has no outstanding operating, maintenance, or equipment cost
differentiators compared to Route Alternatives 1, 4-A, or 5. Annual O&M costs for Route
Alternative 4-B are projected to be $14,331,000 in 2015 dollars, using the 2012 O&M cost per
train-mile for a Pacific Surfliner (Appendix C) and adjusting for inflation.
Trainset equipment turn analysis indicates that two trainsets are required for the proposed
service, with each trainset making one round trip per day. These trainset requirements are
identical to Route Alternatives 1, 4-A, and 5.
9.4 Route Alternative 5
The alignment of Route Alternative 5 through San Bernardino has changed from the description
provided in the Coarse-Level Screening (Section 8). One change reflects a planned adjustment
in Metrolink service and infrastructure at San Bernardino that replaces the proposed station stop
and change of direction at the San Bernardino Santa Fe Depot with a proposed station stop and
change of direction at the San Bernardino Transit Center (under construction in September
2015). The San Bernardino Transit Center is approximately 1.1 miles east of the Santa Fe
Depot, and mileage and forecasted travel times have been updated to reflect this change. The
second change reflects an adjustment as a result of preliminary Conceptual Engineering
analysis in the location where Coachella Valley trains would switch from use of the SCRRA San
Gabriel Subdivision to the UP Alhambra Subdivision. In Coarse-Level Screening the switch of
subdivisions was proposed to occur at the CP Bassett crossover in Industry. However, in Fine-
Level Screening a new high-speed crossover is being proposed approximately 1.6 miles west of
CP Bassett in El Monte, west of the Cogswell Road grade crossing, which would serve as the
location where trains would switch subdivisions. This adjustment would allow for a longer use of
the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision and eliminate the potential need for an additional rail
bridge over the San Gabriel River, which might have been required for use of the UP Alhambra
Subdivision between CP Bassett and El Monte.
Route Alternative 5 is a combination of Route Alternatives 3 (eliminated in coarse-level
screening) and 4-B that would be used by Indio-Los Angeles trains operating during peak
commuter travel periods. Route Alternative 5 uses BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision in
Colton; SCRRA’s Short Way Subdivision between Colton and San Bernardino; SCRRA’s San
Gabriel Subdivision between San Bernardino and El Monte; and UP’s Alhambra Subdivision
between El Monte and Los Angeles.
Approximately 82 percent of SCRRA’s San Gabriel Subdivision between San Bernardino and
Los Angeles is single track, including a segment of approximately 11 miles between El Monte
and Los Angeles that runs in the median of I-10 with no room for construction of a second track.
In addition, the San Gabriel Subdivision has a heavy morning and evening peak travel
commuter operation. The line has a 2-hour window in the morning and a 2-hour window in the
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 147
evening that sees approximately three trains per hour operating in the direction of peak travel
(to LA in the morning, from LA in the evening). Metrolink trains traveling in the opposite direction
of peak travel flow are not granted priority on the single-track sections, and therefore have 15 to
35 minutes of running time added to their scheduled trips to accommodate waits in sidings or at
the ends of double-track sections.
Route Alternative 5 has been devised as a way of enabling Coachella Valley passenger trains to
use a significant portion of Metrolink’s San Gabriel Subdivision, yet still operate trains on the
San Gabriel Subdivision during peak service periods (an option not available under Alternatives
4-A or 4-B) by using UP’s Alhambra Subdivision between El Monte and Los Angeles. There are
no proposed station stops on either Route Alternative 4-B or 5 between El Monte and LAUS.
Trains using Route Alternative 5 would operate to the Metrolink San Bernardino Transit Center
and change their direction of operation, just as they would in Route Alternative 4-B. A lengthy
station stop would be required to allow trains to change their end of operation in order to
operate westbound to Los Angeles over the San Gabriel Subdivision. Indio-bound trains would
also be required to change ends of operation at the San Bernardino Transit Center to negotiate
the connection between the San Gabriel Subdivision and the Short Way Subdivision. Alternative
5 is 63 miles long between Colton and Los Angeles Union Station, and would form a total Indio-
Los Angeles corridor length of 134 miles.
9.4.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand
Between Colton and Los Angeles Route Alternative 5 would serve the intermediate major
communities of San Bernardino and Montclair, California. The total population within a 15-mile
catchment area of these intermediate stops is approximately 3.05 million, and is projected to
grow to 3.36 million by 2020. The selection of Route Alternative 5 would form an Indio-Los
Angeles corridor that would serve a total population of approximately 8.72 million, with a
projected increase in total population along the corridor by 2020 to 9.49 million. (SCAG 2012
RTP/SCS)
The station stops for Route Alternative 5 are identical to Route Alternative 4-B and the travel
time is similar, thus presuming the ridership and revenue forecasts to be identical. While the
route is slightly different (the western 13 miles of the alignment between El Monte and LAUS
vary), the mileage is quite similar between the two route alternatives. The annual ridership and
revenue from tickets sold for an assumed initial operation year of 2022 and a future year of
2040 were forecast as shown in Table 48.
Table 48. Alternative 5 Annual Ridership and Revenue Forecasts
Alternative 5 Ridership Revenue Passenger-miles
Year 2022 148,200 $2,549,000 13,160,000
Year 2040 210,600 $3,618,000 18,670,000
Source: Caltrans, 2015
Ridership and revenue from tickets sold for Route Alternative 5, as with Route Alternative 4-B,
are the lowest of the route alternatives. The additional travel time caused by the need to stop in
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 148
San Bernardino and change the train’s direction of travel decreases the train’s attractiveness as
a competitive travel mode, which is reflected in the ridership and revenue forecasts. Despite the
availability of rail and bus connections at the San Bernardino Transit Center, overall San
Bernardino ridership for Route Alternative 5 is lower than Route Alternative 4-A, which bypasses
downtown. Ticket revenue for Route Alternative 5 is approximately $300,000 to $400,000 less
per year than Route Alternative 4-A. Nevertheless, Route Alternative 5 meets the purpose and
need for travel demand.
9.4.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes
Route Alternative 5 would have the longest travel time of all alternatives, caused by the need to
change ends of operation at the San Bernardino Transit Center and the use of the UP Alhambra
Subdivision west of El Monte, which has a lower track speed.
Changing the trainset’s direction requires a projected 20-minute station dwell time at San
Bernardino, versus a projected dwell at all other intermediate stations of 1 or 2 minutes. The
projected 20-minute dwell time was based on similar Metrolink operations in effect during the
development of the projected Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass rail corridor train schedules.
However, revised Metrolink dwell times scheduled to go into effect in Fall 2015 will require a 30-
minute dwell time when changing a trainset’s direction of travel, as a result of signaling and
communications requirements associated with the implementation of Positive Train Control.
There is a likelihood that Coachella Valley passenger trains would also require a 30-minute
dwell time at San Bernardino.
Based on conceptual TPC runs developed for each route alternative, projected running times for
Route Alternative 5 between Indio and Los Angeles are 3 hours, 28 minutes westbound and 3
hours, 38 minutes eastbound. Running times on Route Alternative 5 are longer than Route
Alternative 4-B by 1 to 3 minutes to account for the high volume of freight traffic and slower
maximum allowable speed for passenger trains on UP’s Alhambra Subdivision.
Use of the San Bernardino Transit Center has the potential to introduce opportunities for
connections with the planned Redlands passenger rail service. According to the San Bernardino
Associated Governments, this $242 million project, currently scheduled for completion no earlier
than 2018, will create a passenger rail service between the cities of San Bernardino and
Redlands over a 9-mile route with up to 25 daily round trips. (SANBAG website, August 2015)
However, the benefit of this connection would not offset the erosion of ridership and competitive
travel time that would result from a 20- or 30-minute station stop in the middle of the trip.
Based on the information presented in Section 3, the projected travel time for Route Alternative
5 is approximately 30 minutes slower eastbound and slightly faster westbound (due only to 50
minutes of recovery time arriving at LAUS) than the travel time of the existing Amtrak long-
distance passenger rail service, which operates three days per week in each direction in the
middle of the night. The travel time is comparable to existing Greyhound service between Indio
and Los Angeles and approximately 30 minutes faster than the existing Amtrak Thruway bus
service. Travel times between Palm Springs and Los Angeles are approximately 50 minutes
faster than a SunLine-Metrolink bus/rail combination with a transfer at Riverside. Travel by air
between Palm Springs and Los Angeles is only 56 minutes, compared with Route Alternative
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 149
5’s travel time of approximately 3 hours between the two cities. Even when additional time
factors associated with air travel are introduced, such as the time needed for airport check-in
and security before a flight (approximately 1 hour) and travel between Los Angeles International
Airport and the central business district (35-45 minutes by FlyAway bus between the airport and
LAUS), air still has a travel time advantage over rail via Route Alternative 5 by 15 to 30 minutes.
The addition of a 20- or 30-minute stop in San Bernardino negatively impacts the attractiveness
of the passenger rail option when compared to other public transportation services. Therefore,
Route Alternative 5 does not meet the purpose and need of providing a time-competitive and
attractive travel mode compared to other currently-available public transportation services.
9.4.3 Environmental Concerns: Environmental Impacts
The environmental resources present within the estimated existing ROW and buffer for Route
Alternative 5 are identified in Table 49. Supporting documentation for information contained in
Table 49 is provided in Appendix E.
Table 49. Route Alternative 5 Environmental Impacts within ROW and Buffer
Environmental Resource Resources within ROW and Buffer
Named Rivers/Creeks 3 Rivers
Los Angeles River
Rio Hondo
San Gabriel River
6 Creeks
Walnut Creek
Charter Oak Creek
San Antonio Creek Channel
Deer Creek
East Etiwanda Creek
Lytle Creek
5 Washes
Alhambra Wash
Rubio Wash
Eaton Wash
Big Dalton Wash
Live Oak Wash
Floodplain Approximately 37 acres within the 100 year storm event floodplain
Inventoried Wetlands Approximately 3 acres
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetlands
Riverine Wetlands
Farmland Approximately ½ acre
Grazing Land in Fontana (Riverside County)
Threatened and Endangered Species
Critical Habitat
None
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 150
Table 49. Route Alternative 5 Environmental Impacts within ROW and Buffer
Environmental Resource Resources within ROW and Buffer
Threatened and Endangered Species
With Potential to Occur
8 Federally Listed Species
Least Bells Vireo
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
Slender-Horned Spineflower
Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly
Salt Marsh Bird’s Beak
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat
Santa Ana River Woollystar
Gambel’s water cress
2 State Listed Species
Bank Swallow
Swainson’s Hawk
NRHP listed Properties 4 properties or resource groupings
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Passenger and
Freight Depot in San Bernardino (San Bernardino County)
Euclid Avenue in Upland (San Bernardino County)
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Station in Claremont
(Los Angeles County)
Ygnacio Palomares Adobe in Pomona (Los Angeles County)
Locally Designated Historic Districts,
Historic Preservation Overlay Zones
and Historic Specific Plan Areas;
properties in the CHRIS listed in or
eligible for listing in the CRHR or local
register; properties in CHRIS eligible for
listing in the NRHP
4 properties or resource groupings
Santa Fe Railroad Workers HPOZ in San Bernardino (San
Bernardino County)
Citrus Processing District in Colton (San Bernardino County)
Upland Historic Downtown Specific Plan Area in Upland (San
Bernardino County)
Historic Mission District Specific Plan Area in San Gabriel (Los
Angeles County)
Archaeological Sensitivity Approximately 590 acres
515 acres of high general archaeological sensitivity
462 acres of high buried site sensitivity
Potential Section 4(f) (may also be
Section 6(f)) Properties)
19 properties
Lincoln Park in Los Angeles (Los Angeles County)
Alhambra Golf Course in Alhambra (Los Angeles County)
Torch Middle School Play Areas in Industry (Los Angeles
County)
Foster Elementary School in Baldwin Park (Los Angeles
County)
Charles D. Jones Junior High School in Baldwin Park (Los
Angeles County)
Vineland Elementary School in Baldwin Park (Los Angeles
County)
Northview High School in Covina (Los Angeles County)
Edna Park in Covina (Los Angeles County)
Khaler Russell Park in Covina (Los Angeles County)
Charter Oak High School in Covina (Los Angeles County)
Lordburg Park in La Mirada (Los Angeles County)
Palomares Park in Pomona (Los Angeles County)
College Park in Claremont (Los Angeles County)
Fern Reservoir Park in Upland (San Bernardino County)
Wardens Field in Upland (San Bernardino County)
The aforementioned NRHP-listed sites
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 151
Table 49. Route Alternative 5 Environmental Impacts within ROW and Buffer
Environmental Resource Resources within ROW and Buffer
Environmental Justice/Title VI
Populations
70 potential EJ populationsa
Potential environmental justice populations include
18.74% average rate of poverty
51% minority populations
50% of block group census tracts with more than 50% minority
population
Land Use and Planning Land use percentage that could be acquired within the rail corridor
include
15% single family residential
3% multi-family residential
1% other residential
2% educational
1% open space/recreation
6% commercial
> 1% mixed commercial and industrial
Potential Sensitive Receptors for Noise
and Air Quality
111 Existing Grade Crossings
Sensitive land uses include
5,252 Single Family Residences
1,111 Multi Family Residences
1 Hotel
5 Hospitals
54 Schools
1 Library
13 Places of Worship
28 Parks
Visual Resources (scenic routes, trails,
school recreation field, recreational
areas)a
23 Potential Resources/Sites Visible from Alignment
0 Eligible State Scenic Routes
0 County Scenic Routes
1 National Trail
Old Spanish National Historic Trail in El Monte, Baldwin Park,
Covina, and La Verne (Los Angeles County)
Superfund NPL sites 4 Sites
San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site in Baldwin Park (Los
Angeles County)
San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site in El Monte (Los Angeles
County)
San Gabriel Groundwater Basin (1-4) in El Monte (Los
Angeles County)
Area 3 – San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site in Alhambra (Los
Angeles County)
Source: HDR 2015, ICF 2015 (Appendix E)
a Assumes that a block group within a census tract is a population.
b The criteria used in evaluating visual resources was to look at visual resources that could be seen from the ROW
and Buffer.
The area along Route Alternative 5 crosses through Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties
and is a mix of industrial, commercial, and moderately to densely developed residential area.
9.4.4 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way
As noted in Section 8.6, Route Alternative 5 would require the construction of a new Gonzales
Connecting Track approximately 1.3 miles long between UP and BNSF at Colton. The
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 152
construction of this connecting track would likely require commercial property acquisition in the
vicinity of CP Gonzales. In addition, the connecting track may require the routing through an
existing water treatment area and would require a new rail overpass over South La Cadena
Drive. This would result in more ROW acquisitions in the area.
Route Alternative 5 would also require the construction of a new mainline track approximately
0.8 mile long between the SCRRA Shortway Subdivision and the SCRAA San Gabriel
Subdivision west of CP Vernon. The construction of this track segment would require the
construction of a new bridge over Lytle Creek. The additional ROW that may be required for this
new bridge may result in greater impacts on the natural environmental in terms of waters and
sensitive species impacted. Construction of this track would also require the acquisition of
commercial property – specifically a trucking company. The construction of a new Shortway
Flyover above BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision as part of a new double-track section of the
SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision would also have potential ROW environmental concerns. This
improvement may require relocating yard tracks within the existing BNSF intermodal terminal
which would require property acquisition. Adjacent land uses include commercial and residential
property, parkland, and Lytle Creek. The additional ROW that may be required could result in
both human and natural environmental impacts in the area. Route Alternative 5 would also
require the construction of approximately 3.85 miles of second track between CP White in
Pomona and the South Lone Hill Avenue grade crossing in San Dimas. The ROW through this
area is narrow and additional ROW requiring commercial and industrial property acquisition may
be required.
9.4.5 Technical Feasibility: Passenger and Freight Capacity
Route Alternative 5 has four distinct sections:
A high-density double- and triple-track freight route on the 1-mile portion of BNSF
trackage used between Colton and CP Rana.
A moderate-density, single-track commuter route on the 2-mile portion of SCRRA’s
Short Way Subdivision between CP Rana in Colton and CP Vernon in San Bernardino.
A high-density commuter route on the 45 miles of SCRRA’s San Gabriel Subdivision
used between San Bernardino and Los Angeles.
A high-density single-track freight route on the 13-mile portion of UP’s Alhambra
Subdivision.
Current train traffic on the BNSF portion of the route exceeds 60 freight trains per day on
average, and has eight Metrolink commuter trains and two Amtrak long-distance trains. Current
train traffic on the SCRRA Short Way Subdivision includes eight revenue commuter trains on
weekdays and four revenue trains on weekends, plus numerous non-revenue moves to shuttle
equipment to and from the Metrolink Eastern Maintenance Facility in Colton. Current train traffic
on SCRRA’s San Gabriel Subdivision consists of 38 Metrolink commuter trains carrying more
than 10,000 passengers a day on weekdays (20 trains on Saturday and 14 trains on Sunday);
up to 12 freight trains per day between San Bernardino and Fontana; and between two and four
local freight trains per day between Fontana and Los Angeles. Current train traffic on the UP
portion of the route averages approximately 15 to 25 freight trains per day, along with one
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 153
Amtrak long-distance train that operates three days per week in each direction. According to the
Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority, which is managing the construction of road-rail
grade separation projects on UP’s freight rail lines serving the Ports of Los Angeles and Long
Beach, freight traffic on UP’s Alhambra Subdivision is projected to double to 40-42 trains per
day by 2025, and could rise as high as 59 trains per day. (Alameda Corridor East Construction
Authority, 2015)
Route Alternative 5’s current track and train control infrastructure is matched to its passenger
and freight train speeds and traffic density. Both the BNSF, SCRRA, and UP lines are equipped
with wayside signaling and Centralized Traffic Control. Metrolink began a revenue service
demonstration of Positive Train Control on the San Gabriel Subdivision in 2015. Because of the
numerous yard operations on BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision, passenger and freight trains
are limited to 30 mph through Colton. The SCRRA Short Way Subdivision has a maximum
allowable speed of 30 mph for passenger and freight trains. On the SCRRA San Gabriel
Subdivision, the maximum allowable speed is 79 mph for passenger trains and 55 mph for
freights. UP’s Alhambra Subdivision has a maximum authorized speed of 65 mph for passenger
trains and 60 mph for freight trains, but the portion of the Alhambra Subdivision that would be
used for Route Alternative 5 has permanent speed restrictions for passenger trains of 20 mph to
50 mph over 8.5 miles of the 13-mile segment. (Information about all SCRRA track speeds,
gradients, terminal locations, mileages, and signaling in this report have come from a SCRRA
employee timetable dated June 2, 2013.)
Both the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision and the UP Alhambra Subdivision are primarily
single-track railroads, with minimal sections of second main track. UP’s Alhambra Subdivision is
a high-density, single-track freight main line. The SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision does not
have mainline freight traffic, but is Metrolink’s busiest commuter rail line (SCRRA, 2014). The
lack of second main track on the San Gabriel Subdivision introduces the potential to create
bottlenecks that can result in train delays. Peak hours on the San Gabriel Subdivision are
particularly high-volume, with approximately three trains per hour operating west in the morning
and east in the evening. The current Metrolink service schedule maximizes the existing
operating capacity of the San Gabriel Subdivision during peak-hour service periods (weekdays
from 4:45 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.).Trains operating during peak periods
against the prevailing flow of rush-hour commuter traffic require between 15 and 35 minutes of
additional running time, because of the limited number of locations where meet/pass events can
occur on the single-track line. Accommodating Coachella Valley passenger trains on the San
Gabriel Subdivision during peak Metrolink periods is not feasible, and some segments of the
San Gabriel Subdivision, notably the western segment where the ROW is in the median of I-10,
cannot be expanded.
Use of the UP Alhambra Subdivision west of El Monte would enable Coachella Valley
passenger trains to operate during peak commuter service periods by avoiding one of the most
capacity-constrained single-track segments of the San Gabriel Subdivision where it operates
within the median of I-10. However, use of the Alhambra Subdivision will also require additional
running time and could introduce the potential for delay from the UP subdivision’s slower
passenger train speeds, predominantly single-track infrastructure, and heavy freight train
volumes. The Alhambra Subdivision carries UP’s long-haul intermodal, automotive, and
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 154
manifest freight traffic destined to and from major terminals in Southern California, including the
LATC facility located at the west end of the Alhambra Subdivision in Los Angeles. This domestic
intermodal terminal handles UP’s premium, time-sensitive intermodal traffic. The Alhambra
Subdivision is currently operating at or near capacity.
The schedule of Amtrak’s Sunset Limited reflects the slow travel times associated with the use
of UP’s Alhambra Subdivision. Running times between Ontario and Los Angeles, a distance of
38 miles, are 54 minutes eastbound and 1 hour, 41 minutes westbound, with time allotted for an
intermediate stop at Pomona, and schedule recovery time added into the westbound trip. The
average speed for the Sunset Limited between Ontario and Los Angeles is 42 mph eastbound
and 29 mph westbound.
Route Alternative 5 would require the construction of the Gonzales Connection Track at Colton
to enable westbound trains from Indio on UP’s Yuma Subdivision to curve and head north
(timetable east) on BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision, and eastbound trains to diverge from
the BNSF line to head east on UP’s Yuma Subdivision. This connection track would have to be
built north of the existing UP Yuma Subdivision’s Colton flyover, passing through a water
treatment area, and would require a new rail overpass over South La Cadena Drive. It appears
that sufficient space exists to construct the new track beneath the I-10 overpass where the
connecting track would curve to the north. The connecting track would be approximately 1.3
miles long and join the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision at CP Gonzales north of the H Street
grade crossing in Colton. Given the limited space in the area and tight curvature required, the
Gonzales Connecting Track would be low speed. Construction of this track would likely require
some commercial property acquisition in the vicinity of CP Gonzales.
Given the high volume of traffic on the BNSF line, Route Alternative 5 would likely require an
approximately 0.5 mile continuation of the connecting track as a fourth mainline track from CP
Gonzales east to CP Rana in Colton, where SCRRA’s Short Way Subdivision diverges.
Route Alternative 5 would also likely require construction of an approximately 0.8 mile second
track on SCRRA’s Short Way Subdivision between the north entrance lead track for Metrolink’s
Eastern Maintenance Facility at CP Mill north to the junction with the SCRRA San Gabriel
Subdivision at CP Vernon. This second track would require a new bridge over Lytle Creek.
To accommodate the projected 20- to 30-minute dwell time of Coachella Valley passenger
trains at the San Bernardino Transit Center, an additional station track might be needed.
Currently, four station tracks are planned for the transit center, two through tracks and two stub
tracks, which will accommodate service on the existing Metrolink San Bernardino and Inland
Empire lines, as well as future service on the proposed Redlands passenger rail line. Since all
Metrolink commuter trains would be changing their direction of operation at the transit center,
they would be operating under the 30-minute station dwell time that the commuter agency is
placing into effect Fall 2015. The additional dwell time could consume the transit center’s
available platform capacity allocated for San Bernardino Line, Inland Empire Line, and Redlands
operations. Construction of a fifth station track at the San Bernardino Transit Center could
require significant reconstruction of the facility and adjacent property acquisition.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 155
Route Alternative 5 would likely require construction of a second main track between the CP
Vernon in interlocking in San Bernardino, west of the Santa Fe Depot, and CP Lilac in Rialto.
The approximately 3.9 mile single-track gap at the western end of the San Gabriel Subdivision
has the potential to affect passenger-train reliability if service increases are implemented.
Addition of a second track in this section would include construction of a new flyover above the
BNSF main line parallel to the existing single-track SCRRA flyover above the BNSF San
Bernardino Subdivision main line. The flyover would extend approximately 1.2 miles from CP
Vernon to the CP Rancho interlocking on the San Gabriel Subdivision. West of the BNSF
flyover, the new second track would continue west from CP Rancho through Rialto to CP Lilac,
which is the west end of an existing 8,100-foot siding, and the first location west of San
Bernardino where Metrolink San Bernardino line trains have an opportunity to pass each other.
Construction of a second main track would also require construction of a second platform at the
Rialto station. The length of second main track required to connect CP Rancho and CP Lilac is
approximately 2.7 miles. Although this second track is being proposed in fine-level screening as
part of conceptual engineering, further analysis incorporating operations modeling and different
scheduling scenarios may determine that an additional track and flyover are not required. Even
so, without the 2.7 miles of additional track and flyover other infrastructure requirements
associated with Route Alternative 5 make it more expensive than the lowest cost option, Route
Alternative 1.
Route Alternative 5 would likely require construction of a second track in the 7-mile single-track
section between Pomona and Covina. The proposed second track would extend the existing
second track that currently ends at CP White in Pomona westward to the South Lone Hill
Avenue grade crossing in San Dimas, a distance of approximately 3.85 miles.
Route Alternative 5 would likely require construction of a high speed passenger crossover just
west of the Cogswell Road grade crossing in El Monte to allow westbound trains to exit the
SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision and enter the UP Alhambra Subdivision.
Route Alternative 5 would also likely require construction of an approximately 0.8 miles second
main track beginning at the high speed crossover in El Monte proposed above west to El Monte
to the beginning of the existing El Monte siding, and conversion of the existing El Monte siding
to second main track. This would create a total of 2.3 miles of second track and would mitigate
conflicts between passenger and freight trains. Route Alternative 5 would also likely require
construction of a second track through the San Gabriel Trench currently being constructed in
San Gabriel to mitigate conflicts between passenger and freight trains. The second track for
Route Alternative 5 would be extended approximately 2.1 miles from the Walnut Grove Avenue
crossing in San Gabriel to a point just west of the bridge over the Alhambra Wash.
9.4.6 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Alignment
The addition of the Gonzales Connecting Track at Colton presents ROW, grading, and grade-
crossing challenges. The connecting track would require a new bridge over South La Cadena
Drive, would pass through a water treatment area north of UP’s Yuma Subdivision, and would
likely require commercial property acquisition where it connects to the BNSF main line at CP
Gonzales.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 156
Construction of a fifth station track at the San Bernardino Transit Center could require significant
reconstruction of the facility and adjacent property acquisition.
Construction of approximately 3.9 miles of second main track from CP Vernon in San
Bernardino to CP Lilac in Rialto, including construction of a second rail flyover above BNSF
Railway’s San Bernardino Subdivision, presents extensive ROW and grading challenges in San
Bernardino. It would likely require property acquisition on the west side of the proposed flyover.
This property is currently part of a large BNSF Railway intermodal terminal. Construction of a
second flyover and main track in this area would cause disruption of operations at the
intermodal terminal, would likely require relocating yard tracks within the terminal, and would
likely require property acquisition to maintain the intermodal terminal’s current acreage and
mitigate the disruption caused during the construction phase. The terminal is bordered by
commercial and residential property, and parkland, and Lytle Creek flows through the middle of
the terminal.
West of the BNSF intermodal terminal, there appears to be sufficient width in the ROW to
accommodate a second main track. The Rialto station would require a second platform serving
the second main track. At industrial spurs, where tracks leave the ROW to serve customers,
new connections would need to be established to account for the second main track.
Construction of approximately 3.85 miles of second track between CP White in Pomona and the
South Lone Hill Avenue grade crossing in San Dimas would likely require a realignment of
curves and industry tracks in Pomona where the ROW passes between two industrial buildings.
Between Pomona and San Dimas, the ROW is narrow in some locations, and property
acquisition may be required to accommodate a second track. The alignment passes through
suburban and light industrial locations. At industrial spurs, where tracks leave the ROW to serve
customers, new connections would need to be established to account for the second main track.
On UP’s Alhambra Subdivision, the extension of the El Monte siding and conversion of siding
track to double track would require the construction of a new bridge over Ramona Boulevard (a
divided highway) and perhaps track shifts with the parallel SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision.
The proposed 2.1 miles of second main track in San Gabriel would be located primarily within
the San Gabriel Trench, currently under construction. According to the Alameda Corridor-East
Construction Authority, the 2.2-mile San Gabriel Trench project will lower a 1.4-mile section of
UP’s Alhambra Subdivision inside a 30-foot-deep, 65-foot-wide, concrete-walled open trench
that will eliminate four surface grade crossings in the City of San Gabriel. The project also
includes construction of two new railroad bridges over the Alhambra Wash and the Rubio Wash.
The $337 million project, which is part of the Alameda Corridor-East grade-separation program,
is expected to be completed in winter 2017. Although only one main track currently exists
through this area, the trench’s 65-foot width would be able to accommodate a second main
track and service road. No industrial spurs exist in either proposed section of second track.
(Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority, 2015)
9.4.7 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Structures
Several major structures would be required for Route Alternative 5. One major structure
required would be a new flyover across the BNSF Railway San Bernardino Subdivision parallel
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 157
to the existing SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision flyover to allow for a second main track between
CP Vernon in San Bernardino and CP Lilac in Rialto. Work associated with this improvement
would require significant property acquisition in San Bernardino, as described in Section 9.4.6.
Route Alternative 5 would also require construction of a new bridge for a second track across
Lytle Creek in San Bernardino. The existing single-track SCRRA Short Way Subdivision bridge
is approximately 150 feet long.
Locations where Route Alternative 5 goes underneath other railroads or major highways would
require inspection to confirm that an additional main track can be accommodated include:
Rialto: UP’s Mojave Subdivision
San Dimas: Highway 57 (Orange Freeway)
El Monte: I-10
9.4.8 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Grade Crossings
Route Alternative 5 has 111 grade crossings between Colton and Los Angeles, five of which
would be crossed twice in San Bernardino. Four grade crossings will be eliminated with the
completion of the San Gabriel Trench on UP’s Alhambra Subdivision, bringing the number of
grade crossings to 107. Projected infrastructure improvements associated with the
implementation of Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass rail corridor passenger service would
require improving or revising up to 28 grade crossings depending on the extent of improvements
required to accommodate the construction of additional main track between Colton and Los
Angeles. Grade crossing work associated with Route Alternative 5 would be about the same as
Route Alternatives 1, 4-A and 4-B.
9.4.9 Economic Feasibility
Route Alternative 5 presents many technical challenges and has an estimated cost that is
approximately $162 million higher than Route Alternative 1, the least expensive route
alternative. The major factors that contribute to this complexity are:
Construction of a new Gonzales Connecting Track approximately 1.3 miles long
between UP and BNSF at Colton
Potential construction of an additional station track at the San Bernardino Transit Center
Construction of a new San Bernardino Flyover above BNSF’s San Bernardino
Subdivision in San Bernardino parallel to the existing single-track flyover, as part of a
new double-track section of the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision
Construction of a new high-speed connection at El Monte between the SCRRA San
Gabriel Subdivision and UP Alhambra Subdivision
Construction of approximately 13.4 miles of second or fourth main track on segments of
BNSF, SCRRA, and UP trackage
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 158
Route Alternative 5 has no outstanding operating, maintenance, or equipment cost
differentiators compared to Route Alternatives 1, 4-A, or 4-B. Annual O&M costs for Route
Alternative 5 are projected to be $14,331,000 in 2015 dollars, using the 2012 O&M cost per
train-mile for a Pacific Surfliner (Appendix C) and adjusting for inflation.
Trainset equipment turn analysis indicates that two trainsets are required for the proposed
service, with each trainset making 1 round trip per day. These trainset requirements are
identical to Route Alternatives 1, 4-A, and 4-B.
The 13.4 miles of additional main track likely required under this alternative includes two
sections of second track on UP’s Alhambra Subdivision totaling 4.4 miles that would not be
needed under Route Alternative 4-B. Under the current projected timetable, only one of the four
proposed daily Coachella Valley passenger trains would be operating during a peak commuter
period and thus require use of UP’s Alhambra Subdivision. The other three Coachella Valley
trains would be arriving and departing LAUS midday and would permit full use of Route
Alternative 4-B, the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision. Use of UP’s Alhambra Subdivision is also
predicated on the availability of freight capacity. These additional expenses make Route
Alternative 5 less economically feasible than Route Alternative 4-B.
9.5 No-Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative would continue the current situation with very limited bus, rail, and
airplane services as alternatives to the automobile for travel in the Corridor. Amtrak’s Sunset
Limited would continue to provide the only available passenger rail service, operating in the
corridor three days per week with stops in Palm Springs after midnight.
9.5.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand
The No-Build Alternative would not meet the purpose and need in terms of serving travel
demand in the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor because no alternative
transportation service would be provided.
9.5.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes
The No-Build Alternative would not meet the need for competitive and attractive travel modes
between Indio and Los Angeles because no new mode would be provided.
9.5.3 Environmental Concerns: Environmental Impacts
The Project would not be constructed under the No-Build Alternative, and therefore would not
present major environmental challenges or impact sensitive areas. Other modes of
transportation would continue to be used and would likely need to carry more people in the
absence of a new travel mode, so freeways in the corridor would be more congested in the
future as travel demand increases, with the result of more potential impacts to sensitive areas.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 159
9.5.4 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way
The Project would not be constructed under the No-Build Alternative, and therefore would not
require acquisition of ROW. However, as part of the No Build scenario other improvements for
passenger or commuter rail could be developed in parts of the Indio to Los Angeles corridor and
result in acquisition of ROW.
9.5.5 Technical Feasibility: Passenger and Freight Capacity
The No-Build Alternative cannot be evaluated for technical feasibility of passenger and freight
capacity because no Project would be constructed. As part of the No Build scenario other
improvements for passenger or commuter rail could be developed in parts of the Indio to Los
Angeles corridor and increase the capacity of for the passenger and freight rail system.
9.5.6 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Alignment
The No-Build Alternative cannot be evaluated for technical feasibility of alignment because no
Project would be constructed.
9.5.7 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Structures
The No-Build Alternative cannot be evaluated for technical feasibility of structures because no
Project would be constructed.
9.5.8 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Grade Crossings
The No-Build Alternative cannot be evaluated for technical feasibility of grade crossings
because no Project would be constructed.
9.5.9 Economic Feasibility
The No-Build Alternative would not involve any additional public investment in the corridor’s
transportation infrastructure, so from the standpoint of public investment it is feasible.
9.6 Summary
The Fine-Level Screening of the four route alternatives and the No-Build alternative based on
ability to meet purpose and need, environmental concerns, and technical and economic
feasibility is summarized below, followed by a comparison of route alternatives.
9.6.1 Purpose and Need
The No-Build alternative would not meet purpose and need, and would result in no ridership or
revenue from tickets sold outside of what could occur under independent passenger rail
initiatives. Tables 50 and 51 show the ridership and revenue from tickets forecast for the four
route alternatives carried forward into fine-level screening at the initial operation year of 2022
and a future year of 2040. Although all four alternatives meet the purpose and need for
attracting an adequate number of riders to make the service viable, Route Alternative 1 attracts
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 160
the most riders and is forecast to accrue revenue of $700,000 to $1,000,000 more than Route
Alternatives 4-B and 5.
Table 50. Initial Operation Year 2022 Forecast Results, All Alternatives
Initial Operation Year 2022 Alternative 1 Alternative 4-A Alternative 4-B Alternative 5
Ridership (thousands) 189.1 161.6 148.2 148.2
Revenue (millions, $2015) $3.25 $2.84 $2.55 $2.55
Note: Revenue forecast is for revenue from ticket sales only.
Table 51. Future Year 2040 Forecast Results, All Alternatives
Future Year 2040 Alternative 1 Alternative 4-A Alternative 4-B Alternative 5
Ridership (thousands) 272.3 229.6 210.6 210.6
Revenue (millions, $2015) $4.66 $4.04 $3.62 $3.62
Note: Revenue forecast is for revenue from ticket sales only.
The ridership and revenue forecasts are influenced by populations served at intermediate cities
that create ridership and revenue between pairs of intermediate cities, as well as between
endpoint and intermediate cities. Running times of trains on each route alternative also
influence ridership and revenue forecasts. Conceptual TPC runs were developed for each route
alternative. The TPC runs were calculated using an assumed trainset of one EMD F59PHI
locomotive and six bi-level Pacific Surfliner coaches, which is the standard trainset currently in
use on Amtrak’s state-supported Pacific Surfliner trains operating between San Diego, Los
Angeles, and San Luis Obispo. Preliminary running times are summarized in Table 52. Route
Alternatives 4-B and 5 do not meet the purpose and need for providing a competitive and
attractive travel mode because the running times are longer than other currently-available public
transportation services.
Table 52. Comparative Running Times, All Build Alternatives
Route Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 4-A Alternative 4-B Alternative 5
Miles 141 131 134 134
Westbound (hours:minutes) 03:10 03:06 03:27 03:28
Eastbound (hours:minutes) 03:16 03:14 03:35 03:38
Note: Running times include station dwell times but do not include recovery time. Running times are based on
common conceptual parameters for infrastructure among all route alternatives. Running times will require
validation upon development of preliminary infrastructure, and will be subject to the terms and conditions of
Service Outcome Agreements that would be agreed upon among host railroads and service operator(s).
9.6.2 Environmental Concerns
The environmental resources discussed below represent the resources within the estimated
existing ROW and an estimated buffer of additional ROW that may need to be acquired and
provide a conservative estimate of what the potential impacts would be. As the design process
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 161
proceeds for the one or more route alternatives carried forward for detailed evaluation in the
Tier 1 Service Level EIS and SDP, a refined assessment of ROW needs would be established
and potential impacts refined. Consequently, only environmental resources present in the
estimated ROW and buffer are identified during the fine-level screening process. There will be
opportunities for impact avoidance and minimization through an interactive design and impact
consideration process.
In addition to the general environmental conditions discussed in this analysis, each route
alternative would present various technical challenges, requiring construction that would result
in adverse environmental impacts along each route alternative. Given all of considerations
discussed in Section 9, Route Alternative 5 would require the most complex construction and
would likely have the most environmental impacts related to construction. Route Alternatives 4-
A and 4-B would be somewhat less complex than Route Alternative 5, while Route Alternative 1
does not have construction requirements since no infrastructure improvements would be
needed.
The fine-level screening indicates that since Route Alternative 1 would not involve infrastructure
improvements it would clearly have the least amount of environmental impact of all the
alternatives. Listed from least impacts to most impacts, Route Alternative 1 is followed by Route
Alternatives 4-A, 4-B, and 5. Table 53 illustrates a comparison of the route alternatives.
Table 53. Environmental Resources within ROW and Buffer for Route Alternatives
Criteria
Resources within ROW and Buffer
Alternative 4-A Alternative 4-B Alternative 5
Named Rivers/Streams Count 14 14 14
Floodplain Acres (approximate) 36 36 37
Wetland Acres (approximate) 3 3 3
Farmland Acres (approximate) ½ ½ ½
Threatened and Endangered
Species Critical Habitats None None None
Threatened and Endangered
Species with Potential to Occur 8 10 10
Cultural Resources (Historic Sites/
Districts) 5 7 8
Archaeological Sensitivity Acres
(approximate) 572 588 590
Potential Section 4(f) Resources 21 22 19
Potential Environmental
Justice/Title VI Populations
‐ Average Poverty Rate
‐ Minority Populations
‐ Block Group Census
Tracts with more than
50% minority population
61
18.66%
49%
46%
62
19.12%
49%
46%
70
18.74%
51%
50%
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 162
Table 53. Environmental Resources within ROW and Buffer for Route Alternatives
Criteria
Resources within ROW and Buffer
Alternative 4-A Alternative 4-B Alternative 5
Land Uses that could be acquired
within the rail corridor
‐ Residential
‐ Educational
‐ Open Space/Recreation
‐ Commercial
‐ Mixed
Commercial/Industrial
20%
1%
2%
5%
> 1%
20%
1%
2%
5%
>1%
19%
2%
1%
6%
>1%
Hazardous Materials 4 Superfund sites 4 Superfund sites 4 Superfund sites
Note: Alternative 1 not shown because it involves no infrastructure improvements that would result in direct
environmental impacts.
9.6.3 Technical Feasibility
The No-Build Alternative has no technical feasibility issues because no Project would be
constructed; however, any independent passenger rail initiatives or improvements of other
modes would be evaluated for technical feasibility on their own merits. The four route
alternatives evaluated in the fine-level screening are similar in some respects. All share a
common alignment between Indio and Colton that is a high-density double-track freight railroad
and all require new or upgraded connecting tracks at Colton between the UP Yuma Subdivision
and the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision. However, the route alternatives have widely
divergent technical feasibility. This divergence is driven primarily by three factors:
Length of route – greater length requires more infrastructure improvements for
passenger trains
Density of freight and commuter rail traffic – greater density requires more challenging
improvements to accommodate passenger trains, including impacts on bridges, grade
crossings, and conflicts with industrial spurs
Rail flyovers – at locations where two high-density lines cross, rail flyovers are proposed
to provide reliability of the proposed passenger service and mitigate conflicts between
passenger, freight, and commuter trains
A brief summary of each route alternative’s technical feasibility is provided below.
Route Alternative 1 would not require additional infrastructure because sufficient passenger
train slots are available under current operating agreements for this route if RCTC dedicates the
needed slots to the Coachella Valley service.
Route Alternative 4-A would likely require:
Construction of approximately 8.8 miles of additional main track on segments of BNSF
and SCRRA trackage;
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 163
A new Gonzales Connecting Track approximately 1.3 miles long between UP’s Yuma
Subdivision at Colton and BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision at CP Gonzales in
Colton;
Construction of a new mainline track approximately 0.8 miles long between the SCRRA
Short Way Subdivision and the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision west of CP Vernon;
Construction of a new Shortway Flyover above BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision in
San Bernardino parallel to the existing single-track flyover, as part of a new double-track
section of the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision.
Route Alternative 4-B would likely require:
Construction of approximately 9.0 miles of additional main track on segments of BNSF
and SCRRA trackage;
A new Gonzales Connecting Track approximately 1.3 miles long between UP’s Yuma
Subdivision at Colton and BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision at CP Gonzales in
Colton;
Potential construction of an additional station track at the San Bernardino Transit Center;
Construction of a new San Bernardino Flyover above BNSF’s San Bernardino
Subdivision in San Bernardino parallel to the existing single-track flyover, as part of a
new double-track section of the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision.
Route Alternative 5 would likely require:
Construction of approximately 13.4 miles of additional main track on segments of BNSF,
SCRRA, and UP trackage;
A new Gonzales Connecting Track approximately 1.3 miles long between UP’s Yuma
Subdivision at Colton and BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision at CP Gonzales in
Colton;
Potential construction of an additional station track at the San Bernardino Transit Center;
Construction of a new San Bernardino Flyover above BNSF’s San Bernardino
Subdivision in San Bernardino parallel to the existing single-track flyover, as part of a
new double-track section of the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision;
Construction of a new high-speed connection at El Monte between the SCRRA San
Gabriel Subdivision and UP Alhambra Subdivision.
Route Alternative 1 is the most technically feasible route because it has:
No requirement for construction of rail flyovers;
The least amount of additional main track.
9.6.4 Economic Feasibility
The No-Build Alternative has no economic feasibility issues because no Project would be
constructed; however, any independent passenger rail initiatives or improvements of other
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 164
modes would be evaluated for economic feasibility on their own merits. The four route
alternatives evaluated in the fine-level screening have widely divergent economic feasibility,
driven by their technical feasibility and the resulting associated costs. Table 11 summarizes the
economic feasibility of the route alternatives by comparing their additive cost differences for
implementation to Route Alternative 1 (which has the lowest cost because available train slots
preclude the need for infrastructure improvements), along with their forecast revenue
differences and annual O&M costs.
Route Alternative 5 has the highest implementation cost among all of the alternatives, because
of the use of UP’s Alhambra Subdivision to avoid use of the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision
during peak commuter periods. However, only one of the four proposed Coachella Valley
passenger trips would operate during a peak commuter period; a change in schedule to allow
for the use of Route Alternative 4-B may be more economically feasible than expending the
additional construction costs associated with Route Alternative 5. Route Alternatives 4-A, 4-B,
and 5 each require the construction of a complex rail flyover in San Bernardino that significantly
increases the implementation cost.
As shown in Table 54, Route Alternative 1 has the lowest relative implementation cost, and also
generates the highest revenue. Therefore, Route Alternative 1 is the most economically
feasible.
Table 54. Economic Feasibility Comparison, All Build Alternatives
Route Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 4-A Alternative 4-B Alternative 5
Implementation Cost ($ millions) Base Base plus $141
million
Base plus $130
million
Base plus $162
million
Forecasted Year 2022 Revenue ($
millions) $3.3 $2.8 $2.6 $2.6
Forecasted O&M Costs ($ millions) $15.1 $14.0 $14.3 $14.3
Source: Appendix C
Note: Revenue forecast is for revenue from ticket sales only
9.6.5 Summary
Of the remaining four alternatives carried forward to fine-level screening, only one, Route
Alternative 1, can be determined to be reasonable and feasible and will be carried into the Tier 1
EIS and SDP. The information and reasoning supporting this conclusion is presented in Section
10, which describes the evaluation process and results that led to this determination.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 165
10 Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
Carried Forward
This report evaluates and screens the range of route
alternatives that could potentially meet the proposed
development of an intercity passenger rail service in the
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor in
order to identify the reasonable and feasible route
alternatives to be carried forward for detailed
consideration in the Tier 1 EIS and SDP.
As described in Section 2, the proposed service is
intended to meet the following objectives:
1) Provides travelers between the Coachella Valley and the Los Angeles Basin with a
public transportation service that offers more convenient and competitive trip times,
better station access, and more frequency, than currently-available public transportation
services;
2) Provides travelers between the Coachella Valley and the Los Angeles Basin with an
alternative to driving that offers reliable travel schedules;
3) Provides travelers between the Coachella Valley and the Los Angeles Basin with a
transportation service that is affordable;
4) Serves a range of trip purposes traveling between the Coachella Valley and the Los
Angeles Basin, particularly including business, social, medical, leisure, and recreational
trips;
5) Improves regional travel opportunities between the Coachella Valley and the Los
Angeles Basin for transit dependent people;
6) Is planned to serve the expected population growth in the Coachella Valley and the Los
Angeles Basin;
7) Does not preclude, by choice of alignment or technology, a possible future corridor
expansion between the Coachella Valley and Phoenix.
As described in Section 6, a total of six route alternatives made up the universe of potential
route alternatives that were evaluated and screened in this Alternatives Analysis. The six route
alternatives share a common alignment between Indio and Colton, then divide among four
existing rail corridors (Route Alternatives 1 through 4-B) and one combination (Route
Alternative 5). The screening process (described in Section 4) for evaluating, and ultimately
selecting, one or more route alternatives to carry forward for detailed consideration relied on the
following four broad screening criteria:
Section 10summarizes
the results of the
analysis and the
reasonable and
feasible alternatives
carried forward.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 166
Meeting the purpose and need for passenger rail service in the Coachella Valley-San
Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor between Indio and Los Angeles
Environmental concerns
Technical feasibility
Economic feasibility
The screening was conducted in two steps. The first step, described in Section 8, was a coarse-
level screening to identify if any of the route alternatives had major flaws or challenges that
would render the particular route alternative infeasible. The second step, described in Section 9,
was a fine-level screening, during which more detailed engineering, cost information, ridership
and revenue information, and environmental information were developed and evaluated for
each of the route alternatives carried forward from the coarse-level screening.
10.1 Results from the Coarse-Level Screening
The coarse-level screening concluded that two of the six route alternatives, Route Alternatives 2
and 3, were not reasonable or feasible. Both are high-density freight lines, with substantial
sections of single track that would require costly expansion projects to create the additional
capacity needed to reliably operate the proposed Coachella Valley passenger rail service. Both
routes also experience freight-train congestion and serve freight terminals where trains enter
and exit at low speeds. The remaining four route alternatives were carried forward for more
detailed consideration in the fine-level screening.
10.2 Results from the Fine-Level Screening
The fine-level screening concluded that of the remaining four alternatives carried forward from
the coarse-level screening, three are not reasonable or feasible. Each of the route alternatives
is discussed below. Table 55 provides a side-by-side comparison of each alternative.
Table 55. Route Alternative Comparison
Route Alternative
Route Description 1 4-A 4-B 5 No-Build
LA to Colton
Colton to Indio
BNSF San
Bernardino
Subdivision
UP Yuma
Subdivision
Metrolink San
Gabriel
Subdivision
UP Yuma Sub
Metrolink San
Gabriel
Subdivision
UP Yuma Sub
Alhambra
Subdivision +
San Gabriel
Subdivision
UP Yuma Sub
None
None
Intermediate
Stations (LA to
Colton)
Fullerton,
Riverside
Montclair,
Rialto
Montclair,
San
Bernardino
Montclair,
San
Bernardino
None
Purpose and Need:
Travel Demand
10.73 million
total corridor
population in
2008
8.75 million
total corridor
population in
2008
8.72 million
total corridor
population in
2008
8.72 million
total corridor
population in
2008
No additional service
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 167
Table 55. Route Alternative Comparison
Route Alternative
Route Description 1 4-A 4-B 5 No-Build
LA to Colton
Colton to Indio
BNSF San
Bernardino
Subdivision
UP Yuma
Subdivision
Metrolink San
Gabriel
Subdivision
UP Yuma Sub
Metrolink San
Gabriel
Subdivision
UP Yuma Sub
Alhambra
Subdivision +
San Gabriel
Subdivision
UP Yuma Sub
None
None
Ridership Forecast
(2022 to 2040)
189,100 to
272,300
161,600 to
229,600
148,200 to
210,600
148,200 to
210,600 None
Revenue Forecast
(2022 to 2040)
$3.25 million to
$4.66 million
$2.84 million to
$4.04 million
$2.55 million
to $3.62
million
$2.55 million
to $3.62
million
None
Est. Running Time
Westbound
Eastbound
3:10
3:16
3:06
3:14
3:27
3:35
3:28
3:38
Not Applicable
Purpose and Need:
Competitive and
Attractive Travel
Modes*
141 miles
Competitive
travel time
131 miles
Competitive
travel time
134 miles
Excessive
travel time
134 miles
Excessive
travel time
No new travel mode
Environmental
Concerns:
Environmental
Impacts
No
unreasonabl
e
environment
al resource
issues
identified
Potentially
impacted by
4 Superfund
sites
21 Section
4(f)
resources
5 identified
Historic
Sites/
Districts
Potentially
impacted by
4 Superfund
sites
21 Section
4(f)
resources
7 identified
Historic
Sites/
Districts
Potentially
impacted by
4 Superfund
sites
21 Section
4(f)
resources
8 identified
Historic
sites/
Districts
No unreasonable
environmental
resource issues
identified
Environmental
Concerns: Right-of-
Way
None
High
percentage of
residential and
commercial
uses that
would need to
be acquired
and relocated
High
percentage of
residential and
commercial
uses that
would need to
be acquired
and relocated
High
percentage of
residential and
commercial
uses that
would need to
be acquired
and relocated
None
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 168
Table 55. Route Alternative Comparison
Route Alternative
Route Description 1 4-A 4-B 5 No-Build
LA to Colton
Colton to Indio
BNSF San
Bernardino
Subdivision
UP Yuma
Subdivision
Metrolink San
Gabriel
Subdivision
UP Yuma Sub
Metrolink San
Gabriel
Subdivision
UP Yuma Sub
Alhambra
Subdivision +
San Gabriel
Subdivision
UP Yuma Sub
None
None
Technical
Feasibility:
Passenger and
Freight Capacity
No change
to existing
capacity
Partial
second main
track
New
Gonzales
Connection
at Colton
New CP-
Vernon
connection
New
Shortway
Flyover at
San
Bernardino
Partial
second
main track
New
Gonzales
Connection
at Colton
Potential
new San
Bernardino
station track
Potential
new San
Bernardino
Flyover
Partial
second
main track
New
Gonzales
Connection
at Colton
Potential
new San
Bernardino
station track
Potential
new San
Bernardino
Flyover
Freight
congestion
No change to existing
capacity
Technical/Economic
Feasibility:
Alignment
No change to
existing
alignments
Heavy
earthwork
requirements
and property
acquisition to
build Shortway
Flyover
Heavy
earthwork
requirements
and property
acquisition to
build San
Bernardino
Flyover
Heavy
earthwork
requirements
and property
acquisition to
build San
Bernardino
Flyover
No change to existing
alignments
Technical/Economic
Feasibility:
Structures
No changes to
structures
New San
Bernardino
flyover
New San
Bernardino
flyover
New San
Bernardino
flyover
No changes to
structures
Technical/Economic
Feasibility: Grade
Crossings
No changes to
grade
crossings
Moderate
number of
grade
crossings, but
not technically
complicated
Moderate
number of
grade
crossings, but
not technically
complicated
Moderate
number of
grade
crossings, but
not technically
complicated
No changes to grade
crossings
Economic
Feasibility Base Base plus
$141 million
Base plus
$130 million
Base plus
$162 million Not applicable
Meets Purpose
and Need Yes No No No No
Carried Forward Yes No No No Yes**
Source: HDR, 2015 (Appendix E)
*In comparison to currently-available transportation services.
**While the No-Build Alternative does not meet purpose and need, it is carried forward to provide a basis of
comparison to any route alternative (40 CFR 1502.14; 64 FR 28545).
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 169
10.2.1 Route Alternative 1
Route Alternative 1 fully meets the purpose and need for the Project. In consideration of
meeting the purpose and need and other criteria, Route Alternative 1 was determined to be
reasonable and feasible. Route Alternative 1 has the highest projected ridership and revenue,
and a significantly lower implementation cost than all other alternatives. Route Alternative 1 has
somewhat higher operations and maintenance costs, because of its longer mileage.
Nevertheless, Route Alternative 1 was determined to meet the technical and economic criteria,
and was determined to be reasonable and feasible. Route Alternative 1 will be carried forward
for evaluation in the Tier 1 EIS and SDP.
10.2.2 Route Alternative 2
Alternative 2 was eliminated during the coarse-level screening because it had high
environmental concerns, technical complexities, and economic infeasibility.
10.2.3 Route Alternative 3
Alternative 3 was eliminated during the coarse-level screening because it had high technical
complexity and economic infeasibility.
10.2.4 Route Alternative 4-A
Route Alternative 4-A has the shortest projected travel time, but has ridership and revenue
projections lower than Route Alternative 1. Route Alternative 4-A would meet the purpose and
need of providing a competitive and attractive travel mode. Route Alternative 4-A did not meet
the technical/economic criteria. It would require complex connecting tracks at Colton and San
Bernardino, additional main track, and a major new flyover across the BNSF San Bernardino
Subdivision in San Bernardino. This flyover would be costly, have impacts on adjacent urban
areas, and is not practical. Route Alternative 4-A did not meet the economic criterion because of
the excessive capital cost requirements. Route Alternative 4-A was determined to be neither
reasonable nor feasible.
10.2.5 Route Alternative 4-B
Route Alternative 4-B did not meet the purpose and need for the Project because it (along with
Route Alternative 5) would attract the lowest ridership and generate the least revenue. The
route alternative would not offer a competitive travel time because of the need for a mid-route
station stop at San Bernardino with a dwell time of 20 to 30 minutes. Route Alternative 4-B also
did not meet the technical/economic criteria. It would require a complex connecting track at
Colton, additional main track, and a potential new flyover across the BNSF San Bernardino
Subdivision in San Bernardino. This flyover would be costly, have impacts on adjacent urban
areas, and is not practical. Route Alternative 4-B did not meet the economic criterion because of
the excessive capital cost requirements. Route Alternative 4-B was determined to be neither
reasonable nor feasible.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 170
10.2.6 Route Alternative 5
Route Alternative 5 did not meet the purpose and need for the Project because it (along with
Route Alternative 4-B) would attract the lowest ridership and generate the least revenue. This
alternative is the slowest of the route alternatives. It would not offer a competitive travel time
because of the need for a mid-route station stop at San Bernardino with a dwell time of 20 to 30
minutes and the slower track speed on UP’s Alhambra Subdivision. Route Alternative 5 also did
not meet the technical/economic criteria. It would require a complex connecting track at Colton,
additional main track, use of a UP freight line that is at or near capacity for which creating new
capacity would be costly, and a potential new flyover across the BNSF San Bernardino
Subdivision in San Bernardino. This flyover would be costly, have impacts on adjacent urban
areas, and is not practical. Route Alternative 5 did not meet the economic criterion because
of the excessive capital cost requirements. Route Alternative 5 would cost more than
Alternative 4-B without providing any additional ridership benefits. Route Alternative 5 was
determined to be neither reasonable nor feasible.
10.2.7 No-Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative did not meet purpose and need for the Project because it would not
provide any additional service or a new travel mode. There would be no change to existing
capacity, alignment, structures, or grade crossings. However, to meet NEPA requirements for
evaluating No Action and to serve as a baseline for comparing impacts of a route alternative,
this alternative will be carried forward for evaluation in the Tier 1 EIS.
10.3 Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
Route Alternative 1 will be carried forward for analysis in the Tier 1 EIS and SDP because,
when compared to other route alternatives considered, it:
Meets Project purpose and need (purpose and need)
Has low construction complexity and low construction costs (technical and economic
feasibility)
Does not require a flyover above an active rail line (technical and economic feasibility)
Has a competitive passenger-train travel time (purpose and need)
Serves the largest population (purpose and need)
Has the highest ridership and revenue forecast (purpose and need, and economic
feasibility)
Has no unreasonable environmental resource issues (environmental concerns)
The No-Build Alternative will also be carried forward for analysis in the Tier 1 EIS because
evaluation of No Action is required by NEPA, and the alternative serves as a basis of
comparison for likely impacts of constructing and operating the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio
Pass Rail Corridor service. The Tier 1 EIS analysis will provide a basis for selecting the service
level (station stops and frequency) that will best meet the purpose and need for the new
passenger rail service.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 171
11 References
AirSage. Cell Phone Data, April 29, 2014 through May 14,
2014.
Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority, Accessed
August 2015.
http://www.theaceproject.org/san_gabriel_trench.php
Amtrak California. Summer 2013 Pacific Surfliner Ridership
Profile Survey Results Board Presentation, January 2014. (Confidential)
Amtrak. FY13 Bus and Rail Ridership Data, September 2014. (Confidential)
Amtrak. Bus and Rail Schedules, Accessed online June 2014. www.amtrak.com
Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway Company and RCTC, Shared Use Agreement (San
Bernardino Subdivision), October 1992.
BNSF Railway. California Division Timetable No. 2. June 25, 2014
California Travel and Tourism Commission. California Travel Impacts by County, 1992-2011,
and 2012 Preliminary State and Regional Estimates, May 2013. Prepared by Dean Runyan
Associates.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2010-2012 California Household Travel
Survey Final Report, June 2013. Prepared by NuStats, LLC with Geo Stats, Franklin Hill Group,
and Mark Bradley Research and Consultancy.
Caltrans. California State Rail Plan, February 2013. Prepared by AECOM.
Caltrans. Coachella Valley Intercity Rail Corridor Planning Study, May 2013. Prepared by
AECOM with Cambridge Systematics and Arellano Associates.
Caltrans. I-5 Freeway Commute Study Volumes 1 and 2, November 2012. Prepared by Redhill
Group Inc.
Caltrans. Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP) San Bernardino County I-10 Final Report,
June 2011. Prepared by System Metrics Group, Inc.
Caltrans. CSMP San Bernardino County I-15 Final Report, October 2011.
Caltrans. CSMP San Bernardino County I-215 Final Report, June 2011. Prepared by DKS
Associates in association with Kimley-Horn Associates.
Caltrans. CSMP Riverside County SR-91 Final Report, June 2011. Prepared by System Metrics
Group, Inc.
Caltrans. Performance Measurement System (PeMS) Data, Accessed December 2014.
The alternatives
analysis process
utilized information
from diverse sources.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 172
Caltrans. Press Release, August 31, 2011, Accessed June 2015.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/news/pressrel/11pr77.htm.
Caltrans, Division of Rail. Travel Forecasting, 2015.
Caltrans. Route Concept Fact Sheet, District 8, Interstate Route 15, March 1999.
Caltrans. Route Concept Fact Sheet, District 8, Interstate Route 10, March 2000.
Caltrans. Route Concept Fact Sheet, District 8, Interstate Route 215, August 1999.
Caltrans. Route Concept Fact Sheet, District 8, State Route 60, August 1999.
Caltrans. Route Concept Fact Sheet, District 8, State Route 91, October 1989.
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). Disadvantaged communities data –
CalEnviroScreen 2.0. Accessed June 2015.
Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). Coachella Valley Passenger Rail
Feasibility Study, February 1999. Prepared by Schiermeyer Consulting Services.
CVAG. 2004 Origin and Destination Survey, September 2004. Prepared by ETC Institute in
association with Kimley-Horn Associates.
Google Maps. Routes and Travel Times, accessed online August 2015.
Greater Palm Springs Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2013 Annual Report, December 2013.
Greater Palm Springs Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2013 Economic Impact Report,
December 2013.
Greater Palm Springs Convention and Visitors Bureau. The Economic Impact of Tourism in
Greater Palm Springs, November 2012. Prepared by Tourism Economics – an Oxford
Economics Company.
Greyhound. Route Map, accessed online June 2014. www.greyhound.com
Iowa DOT. Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study,
October 2012.
National Park Service. Visitor information accessed online August 2015.
http://www.nps.gov/jotr/planyourvisit/things2know.htm
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Multi-County Goods Movement Action Plan:
Orange County Action Plan, April 30, 2008. Prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates.
OCTA. OC Bridges Program, Accessed August 2015. https://www.octa.net/Freeways-and-
Streets/Streets/OC-Bridges/Project-Overview/
Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). 2010 Coachella Valley Rail Study
Update, April 2010. Prepared by SCS Consulting Services.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 173
RCTC. Los Angeles-Coachella Valley-Imperial County Intercity Rail Feasibility Study, Executive
Summary, 1991. Prepared by Schiermeyer Consulting Services and Wilbur Smith Associates.
RCTC. RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study, November 2005. Prepared by R.L. Banks &
Associates Inc., in association with Wilbur Smith Associates.
RCTC. Resolution of Support to Establish Daily Intercity Rail Service from Los Angeles to the
Coachella Valley via the Pass Area, October 2013.
Riverside Transit Agency. System Map, January 2014.
San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG). Redlands Passenger Rail Project
website, accessed August 2015. http://www.sanbag.ca.gov/projects/redlands-transit.html
San Bernardino Associated Governments, Union Pacific Railroad Company, and BNSF
Railway, Memorandum of Understanding Colton Crossing Rail Grade-Separation Project, April
2010.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Regional Transportation Plan /
Sustainable Communities Strategy: 2012-2035, April 2012.
SCAG. Comprehensive Regional Goods Movement Plan and Implementation Strategy,
February 2011
SCAG. Regional Travel Model Production-Attraction Data for 2008, accessed December 2014.
Southern California Public Radio. News article accessed August 2015.
http://www.scpr.org/programs/take-two/2013/04/11/31290/coachella-2013-cash-strapped-indio-
wants-to-share/.
Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA). Capital Planning Budget FY 14-15, 2014.
SCRRA. Metrolink Timetable No. 9., June 2, 2013.
SCRRA. Perris Valley Line, accessed June 2015. http://www.perrisvalleyline.info/
SCRRA and Orange County Transportation Authority. Multi-County Goods Movement Action
Plan, April 2008.
SunLine Transit Agency. Draft Short Range Transit Plan, FY 2013/14 – FY 2015/16, May 2013.
SunLine Transit Agency. SunBus System Map, May 2014.
TNS Travels America. 2012 Domestic Travel to California: Trip and Travel Behavior and
Statistics, May 2015.
TomTom Data, Accessed June 2015.
Tourism Economics – An Oxford Economics Company. California Travel and Tourism Outlook,
October 2013.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Rail Service Study
Draft Alternatives Analysis
Riverside County Transportation Commission October 2015 | 174
Union Pacific Railroad. Los Angeles Area Timetable No. 5. October 28, 2013
United Airlines. Schedules, Fares, and Route Maps, accessed online August 2015.
US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau.
2010 Journey to Work database.
US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau.
American Community Survey: County-to-County Commuting Flows: 2006-2010, January 2013.
Prepared by Brian McKenzie.
US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau.
American Community Survey: Modes Less Traveled – Bicycling and Walking to Work in the
United States: 2008-2012, May 2014. Prepared by Brian McKenzie.
US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau.
American Community Survey: Commuting in the United States: 2009, September 2011.
Prepared by Brian McKenzie.
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service
Riverside County Transportation Commission Meeting
November 12, 2015
Rail Route Alternatives Studied
Recommendation
Route Alternative 1 will be carried forward into the Tier 1 EIS and
SDP for the following reasons:
•Meets project purpose and need.
•Has relatively low construction complexity and low
construction costs.
•May not require a flyover above an active rail line.
•Has a competitive passenger-train travel time.
•Serves the largest population.
•Has the highest ridership and revenue forecast.
•Has no unreasonable environmental resource issues.
The No-Build Alternative will also be carried forward.
Route Alternative 1
No Build Alternative: Existing Rail and Bus