Summary - DRAFT Alternatives Analysis

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

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

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.

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

In comparison to currently-available transportation services.

Additional infrastructure not needed because sufficient train slots are available under current operating agreements.

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

The fine-level screening process evaluated the remaining route alternatives and identified a preferred alternative to move forward into environmental analysis.

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

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.

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.

 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

In document DRAFT Alternatives Analysis (Page 135-144)