Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-1

2 Program Alternatives

This chapter describes the No Build and Build Alternative Options considered in this Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR. The No Build and Build Alternative Options are described to a level of detail consistent with 

a Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR and sufficient to evaluate benefits and effects on both the built and natural 

environments. 

In accordance with NEPA (42 USC Section 4321 et seq.), CEQ regulations implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR Parts 1501-1508), FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR

28545, May 26, 1999) and CEQA, a reasonable range of alternatives were evaluated in this Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. 

Specifically, the alternatives include the No Build Alternative, which is used as a baseline for 

comparison purposes and describes the impacts if the Program is not implemented, and the Build 

Alternative, which is described with three implementation options (Section 2.3.2).

This chapter describes the alternatives selection process used to identify and evaluate the No Build 

Alternative and the Build Alternative Options for the Program for purposes of NEPA and CEQA. The 

2016 AA Report included an evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives for implementation of 

daily intercity passenger rail service in the Program Corridor. FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC used this 

process to identify a reasonable range of preliminary alternatives that could be evaluated in the SDP

and this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 

2.1 Alternatives Selection Process

2.1.1 2016 Alternatives Analysis Report Screening and Selection 

Process 

At the outset of the AA process, a comprehensive public outreach plan was developed to serve as 

the blueprint for community engagement and stakeholder input. Stakeholders included cities, 

transportation providers, and other local agencies and entities within the Program Corridor. 

Feedback from stakeholder input and community engagement efforts helped to inform key decisions,

including defining the Purpose and Need statement, Program termini, route alternatives, and 

potential station area locations. Figure 2-1 illustrates the AA process. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-2

Figure 2-1. Alternatives Analysis Process

Study Area and Route Alternatives Studied in the Alternatives Analysis Report

The study area used for the 2016 AA Report consists of two sections: the Western Section and 

Eastern Section (Figure 1-1 in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR). The 

2016 AA Report identified six potential route alternatives and service options for the Program 

Corridor based on the Purpose and Need statement, review of previous studies, and comments from

agencies and the public. In the Western Section of the Program Corridor, various combinations of 

four existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were evaluated. For the Eastern 

Section, all potential route alternatives utilized UP's Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio. 

The six route alternatives are shown on Figure 2-2 and in Table 2-1.

During preparation of the 2016 AA Report, the City of Indio was proposed to be the eastern terminus

of the Program Corridor. Therefore, the City of Coachella was not included in the 2016 AA Report. 

However, the City of Coachella is located within the 15-mile Indio station catchment area studied in 

the 2016 AA Report. Based on comments received during the formal scoping period, FRA, Caltrans, 

and RCTC extended the eastern terminus of the Program Corridor beyond Indio to include the 

adjoining City of Coachella. The extension of the eastern terminus of the Program Corridor would not 

affect the conclusions reached in the 2016 AA Report, as only one route alternative in the Eastern 

Section (between Colton and Indio) was evaluated in the 2016 AA Report: the existing UP rail line.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-3 

Figure 2-2. Program Corridor Route Alternatives Considered in the Alternatives Analysis

Source: RCTC 2016

Notes: 

Alternative 4 has two variations between Los Angeles and San Bernardino (Route Alternative 4-A and Route Alternative 4-B), resulting in a total of six route 

alternatives. During preparation of the 2016 AA Report, Indio was anticipated to be the eastern terminus of the Program Corridor. 

Notes:

AA=Alternatives Analysis
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-4

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-5

Table 2-1. Route Alternatives Studied in the 2016 Alternatives Analysis Report

Route 

Alternative Alignment Description

Eastern 

Terminusa

Western 

Terminus Mode Rail Lines

1 Los Angeles-Indio Rail 

Service via 

Fullerton/Riverside

Indio LAUS Intercity rail BNSF San Bernardino 

Subdivision + UP 

Yuma Subdivision

2 Los Angeles-Indio Rail 

Service via 

Pomona/Riverside

Indio LAUS Intercity rail UP Los Angeles 

Subdivision + UP 

Yuma Subdivision

3 Los Angeles-Indio Rail 

Service via 

Pomona/Ontario Airport

Indio LAUS Intercity rail UP Alhambra 

Subdivision + UP 

Yuma Subdivision

4-A Los Angeles-Indio Rail 

Service via 

Montclair/Rialto

Indio LAUS Intercity rail SCRRA San Gabriel 

Subdivision + UP 

Yuma Subdivision

4-B Los Angeles-Indio Rail 

Service via 

Montclair/San 

Bernardino

Indio LAUS Intercity rail SCRRA San Gabriel 

Subdivision + UP 

Yuma Subdivision

5 Los Angeles-Indio Rail 

Service via 

Montclair/San 

Bernardino

Indio LAUS Intercity rail UP Alhambra + 

SCRRA San Gabriel 

Subdivision + UP 

Yuma Subdivision

Source: RCTC 2016

Notes:

a During preparation of the 2016 AA Report, Indio was anticipated to be the eastern terminus of the Program 

Corridor.

AA=Alternatives Analysis; LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station; SCRRA=Southern California Regional Rail Authority; 

UP=Union Pacific Railroad

Route Alternatives 1 through 3 proposed the use of the existing UP Yuma Subdivision between 

Colton and Indio and existing rail lines west of Colton, as described below:

• Route Alternative 1 proposed the use of the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from LAUS 

through Fullerton and Riverside to reach Colton. 

• Route Alternative 2 proposed the use of the UP Los Angeles Subdivision from LAUS 

through Pomona and Riverside to reach Colton.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-6

• Route Alternative 3 proposed the use of the UP Alhambra Subdivision from LAUS through 

Pomona and Ontario to reach Colton.

Route Alternative 4 proposed the use of the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision (owned by Metro) and 

the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority1 (SBCTA) from LAUS to San Bernardino, the 

SCRRA Short Way Subdivision from San Bernardino to Colton, and the UP Yuma Subdivision from

Colton to Indio. Route Alternative 4 had two variations between Los Angeles and San Bernardino, as 

described below:

• Route Alternative 4-A proposed the use of the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision from LAUS, 

traveling eastward through Montclair and Rialto to reach a new eastward connection in San 

Bernardino with the Short Way Subdivision. This route alternative would not travel farther 

east along the San Gabriel Subdivision to serve the new San Bernardino Transit Center in 

downtown San Bernardino, making its length approximately 4 miles shorter than Route 

Alternative 4-B.

• Route Alternative 4-B also proposed the use of the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision from 

LAUS but continues east to serve the new San Bernardino Transit Center in San Bernardino. 

Once reaching San Bernardino, trains utilizing Route Alternative 4-B would reverse direction 

to reach the existing southward connection to the Short Way Subdivision. Route Alternative 

4-B is approximately 4 miles longer than Route Alternative 4-A.

Route Alternative 5 also proposed the use of the UP Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio

and a combination of rail lines west of Colton, as described below:

• Route Alternative 5 proposed the use of the UP Alhambra Subdivision between Los 

Angeles and El Monte, the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision between El Monte and San 

Bernardino, and the SCRRA Short Way Subdivision between San Bernardino and Colton. 

Similar to Route Alternative 4-B, Route Alternative 5 travels east to serve the new San 

Bernardino Transit Center in San Bernardino.

Existing and Potential Station Locations Considered

During preparation of the 2016 AA Report, the Program termini for proposed passenger rail service 

were Los Angeles and Indio in the west and east, respectively. As depicted on Figure 2-2, up to six 

station locations were planned within station catchment areas throughout the Program Corridor. 

Intermediate station stops were located on each route alternative at the largest intermediate cities, or 

1 The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) was formerly known as the San 

Bernardino Associated Governments. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-7

as close as possible to the largest intermediate cities2, to attract and serve the largest possible 

ridership. A station stop was assumed within each of the existing and potential station areas shown 

on Figure 2-2. Table 2-2 provides the existing and potential station areas considered for each route 

alternative considered in the 2016 AA Report.

The intermediate station stops were different for each route alternative, as the route alternatives 

were geographically separated in the areas between LAUS and Colton and only shared a common 

alignment east of Colton. The number of station stops was determined with recognition that too 

many stops would make the overall travel time unacceptably long and less competitive with 

automobile travel times, thus reducing ridership. Dwell times of 1 to 2 minutes at intermediate 

stations were also factored into trip time estimates, which align with scheduled dwell times on similar 

state-supported intercity passenger rail services (such as the Pacific Surfliner).

Table 2-2. Existing and Potential Station Areas Studied in the 2016 Alternatives Analysis

Report

Route 

Alternative Existing Stations Potential New Station Areas

1 LAUS, Fullerton, Riverside, Palm Springs Loma Linda, Rancho Mirage, Cabazon, and 

Indioa

2 LAUS, Pomona, Riverside, Palm Springs Loma Linda, Rancho Mirage, Cabazon, and 

Indioa

3 LAUS, Pomona, Palm Springs Ontario Airport, Loma Linda, Rancho Mirage, 

Cabazon, and Indioa

4-A LAUS, Montclair, Rialto, Palm Springs Loma Linda, Rancho Mirage, Cabazon, and 

Indioa

4-B LAUS, Montclair, San Bernardino, Palm Springs Loma Linda, Rancho Mirage, Cabazon, and 

Indioa

2 Intermediate cities are cities with a population between 50,000 and 1,000,000 people that generally play 

a primary role in connecting important rural and urban areas to basic facilities and services. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-8

Route 

Alternative Existing Stations Potential New Station Areas

5 LAUS, Montclair, San Bernardino, Palm Springs Loma Linda, Rancho Mirage, Cabazon, and 

Indioa

Source: RCTC 2016

Notes:

a During preparation of the 2016 AA Report, Indio was anticipated to be the eastern terminus of the Program 

Corridor.

AA=Alternatives Analysis; LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station

Screening Criteria

The following four screening criteria were relied on during the process of evaluating and selecting 

reasonable and feasible route alternatives to carry forward in the SDP and Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR:

• Achieving the Program’s Purpose and Need

• Environmental constraints

• Technical feasibility

• Economic feasibility

These screening criteria were used to compare each route alternative during a two-step screening 

process: an initial coarse-level screening and, in greater detail, a subsequent fine-level screening. 

The initial coarse-level screening identified whether any route alternative was hindered by major 

challenges (and would, thus, be eliminated from subsequent fine-level screening). The fine-level 

screening evaluated the remaining route alternatives in greater quantitative and qualitative detail.

The 2016 AA Report provides a detailed discussion of the screening criteria and how the screening 

criteria were applied to each route alternative.

Screening Process

Figure 2-3 illustrates the overall route alternative screening and selection process.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-9

Figure 2-3. Alternatives Selection Process Flow Chart

Coarse-Level Route Alternative Screening

For the Western Section of the Program Corridor, route alternatives that did not meet the Purpose 

and Need, had major environmental challenges, or were not technically or economically feasible 

were eliminated during the coarse-level screening process.

As a result of applying these criteria, the coarse-level screening concluded that Route Alternatives 

2 and 3 were eliminated from further study. Both route alternatives 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 passenger rail service and mitigate 

impacts on freight rail capacity and reliability.

Route Alternative 2 could require construction of up to 10 miles of additional second main line track, 

with potentially sections of third main line track to accommodate Metrolink commuter services. In 

addition, Route Alternative 2 could require construction of infrastructure in various locations to hold 

freight trains waiting for space to enter BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision or the Alameda corridor. 

Route Alternative 3 could require construction of up to 39 miles of additional second main line track. 

Both routes also experience freight-train congestion and serve freight terminals where trains enter 

and exit at low speeds, which have the potential to affect passenger-train travel reliability. Given the 

extensive sections of single main line track and presence of heavy unscheduled freight train traffic, 

the potential for introducing travel unreliability, slow projected running time, high technical 

complexity, and high cost for expanding capacity, Route Alternatives 2 and 3 were eliminated from 

further study.

The remaining four route alternatives for the Western Section of the Program Corridor were carried 

forward for more detailed consideration in the fine-level screening.

All route alternatives considered using existing freight-passenger routes rather than constructing a 

new rail right-of-way (ROW). Consequently, for the Eastern Section, the coarse-level screening was 

limited to the UP Yuma Subdivision. Based on the results of the coarse-level screening, the UP 

Yuma Subdivision was carried forward into the fine-level screening as the only reasonable and 

feasible route alternative for the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-10

In addition, non-rail alternatives were analyzed in the 2016 AA Report that included analysis of 

potential intercity bus service options. However, the analysis concluded that the bus service options 

would not be able to achieve the identified Purpose and Need and were removed from further 

consideration. 

Fine-Level Route Alternative Screening

Fine-level screening was conducted to further evaluate the reasonable and feasible route 

alternatives remaining after the coarse-level screening. The fine-level screening analyzed criteria 

such as environmental impacts, ROW availability, passenger and freight capacity, feasibility of the 

alignment, cost of structures, number of grade crossings, and economic feasibility in terms of capital 

and operations and maintenance costs. Four route alternatives were evaluated: Route Alternatives 

1, 4-A, 4-B, and 5. 

To determine ridership and revenue projections, a service plan consisting of two daily round trips 

between LAUS and Indio was presumed to operate for each of the four route alternatives screened, 

with identical arrival and departure times at LAUS for all route alternatives. As summarized in 

Table 2-3, the fine-level screening concluded that, of the remaining four route alternatives carried 

forward from the coarse-level alternative screening process, three route alternatives were not 

reasonable or feasible based on the technical or economic feasibility.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-11

Table 2-3. Route Alternative Reasonability and Feasibility Summary

Route 

Alternative 

Does the Route 

Alternative Achieve

Program Purpose and 

Need?

Does the Route Alternative 

Meet Technical Criteria?

Does the Route Alternative Meet 

Economic Criteria?

Is the Route Alternative 

Reasonable and Feasible?

Route Alternative 

1

Yes. Route Alternative 1 

fully achieves the

Program’s Purpose and 

Need by providing a 

competitive travel mode.

Yes. Route Alternative 1 meets 

technical criteria and does not 

require alignment change right of 

way issues. 

Yes. Although Route Alternative 1 

has higher operations and 

maintenance costs because of its 

longer mileage, Route 

Alternative 1 has the highest 

projected ridership and a 

substantially lower implementation 

cost than the other route 

alternatives. 

Yes. Route Alternative 1 meets the 

technical and economic criteria and 

was determined to be reasonable 

and feasible.

Route Alternative 

4-A

Partially. Route 

Alternative 4-A partially 

achieves the Program’s 

Purpose and Need by 

providing a competitive 

travel mode.

No. Route Alternative 4-A would 

require complex connecting 

tracks at San Bernardino and 

Colton, additional main line track, 

and a major new flyover across 

the BNSF San Bernardino 

Subdivision in San Bernardino. 

This flyover would be costly and 

impact adjacent urban areas.

No. Route Alternative 4-A does not 

meet the economic criterion 

because of the excessive capital 

cost requirements. In addition, 

while Route Alternative 4-A has the 

shortest projected travel time, it 

has lower ridership projections than 

Route Alternative 1.

No. Route Alternative 4-A does not 

meet the identified technical and 

economic criteria and only partially 

achieves the Program’s Purpose 

and Need. Route Alternative 4-A 

was determined to be neither 

reasonable nor feasible. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-12

Route 

Alternative 

Does the Route 

Alternative Achieve

Program Purpose and 

Need?

Does the Route Alternative 

Meet Technical Criteria?

Does the Route Alternative Meet 

Economic Criteria?

Is the Route Alternative 

Reasonable and Feasible?

Route Alternative 

4-B

No. Route Alternative 

4-B does not achieve the 

Program’s Purpose and 

Need because it would 

not offer a competitive 

travel time due to an 

additional 20 to 30 

minutes required for a 

mid-route station stop at 

San Bernardino.

No. Route Alternative 4-B does

not meet the technical criteria 

because it would require a 

complex connecting track at 

Colton, additional main line track, 

and a potential new flyover 

across the BNSF San Bernardino 

Subdivision in San Bernardino. 

This flyover would be costly and 

impact adjacent urban areas.

No. Route Alternative 4-B does not 

meet the economic criterion 

because of the excessive capital 

cost requirements. In addition, 

Route Alternative 4-B, along with 

Route Alternative 5, has the lowest 

projected ridership. 

No. Route Alternative 4-B does not 

meet the identified technical and 

economic criteria and does not 

achieve the Program’s Purpose 

and Need. Route Alternative 4-A 

was determined to be neither 

reasonable nor feasible.

Route Alternative 

5

No. Route Alternative 5

does not achieve the 

Program’s Purpose and 

because it would not 

offer a competitive travel 

time due to an additional 

20 to 30 minutes required 

for a mid-route station 

stop at San Bernardino 

and slower track speed 

at UP’s Alhambra 

Subdivision.

No. Route Alternative 5 would 

require a complex connecting 

track at Colton, including a 

potential new flyover across the 

BNSF San Bernardino 

Subdivision in San Bernardino. 

This flyover would be costly and 

impact adjacent urban areas.

No. Route Alternative 5 does not 

meet the economic criterion 

because of the excessive capital 

cost requirements. Route 

Alternative 5 would cost more than 

Alternative 4-B without providing 

additional ridership benefits. This 

alternative has the longest 

projected travel time of the route 

alternatives, and, along with Route 

Alternative 4-B, has the lowest 

projected ridership.

No. Route Alternative 5 does not 

meet the identified technical and 

economic criteria and does not 

achieve the Program’s Purpose 

and Need. Route Alternative 5 was 

determined to be neither 

reasonable nor feasible.

Source: RCTC 2016

Notes:

UP=Union Pacific Railroad
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-13

The fine-level screening process resulted in the recommendation that one of the four remaining 

route alternatives in the Western Section be carried forward (Route Alternative 1) in the SDP and the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Although one route alternative is carried forward, this Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR includes a reasonable range of alternatives for major Program elements (e.g., speed, 

station stop pattern/service options, and frequency) associated with the Build Alternative Options. 

In addition to meeting the criteria described above, Route Alternative 1 would also allow for the use 

of the existing shared use agreement and memorandum of understanding between RCTC and the 

railroad stakeholders, which provides for available passenger rail capacity along the Program 

Corridor. In the Western Section of the Program Corridor, RCTC has an existing shared use 

agreement with BNSF that pairs staged infrastructure improvement projects to available passenger 

train slots on the route (Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway Company and RCTC 1992). In 

addition, an memorandum of understanding between SBCTA, UP, and BNSF associated with the 

Colton Crossing Railroad Grade Separation Project provides for the conversion of four non-revenue 

passenger train movements to revenue train movements in the segment of the San Bernardino 

Subdivision between Riverside and San Bernardino (SBCTA, UP, and BNSF 2010). Under these 

existing agreements, RCTC has the ability to commit four available train slots between LAUS and 

Colton for the proposed passenger rail service without constructing additional rail capacity 

improvement projects in the Western Section. However, if the proposed passenger rail service does 

not occur, RCTC could commit these slots to other intercity passenger or commuter rail services in 

the Western Section of the Program Corridor.

Under the existing agreements, passenger/commuter rail frequencies in the busiest part of the 

Western Section of the Program Corridor, between Los Angeles and Fullerton, are currently at 

capacity. However, specific capacity improvement projects (Section 2.3.1) planned or in construction

along Route Alternative 1 in the Western Section of the Program Corridor would create additional 

passenger/train commuter train slots between Los Angeles and Fullerton by 2024 or sooner. RCTC 

has the ability to commit four of these additional slots to the proposed passenger rail service without 

the need to reduce existing passenger/commuter rail services by an equivalent number of 

frequencies between Los Angeles and Fullerton. The additional passenger/commuter slots 

associated with the near-term capacity improvement projects planned or in construction between

Los Angeles and Fullerton would also support other service increases in commuter and intercity 

passenger rail traffic that are anticipated to occur regardless of the proposed passenger rail service 

implementation. The capacity improvement projects that are planned or in construction are 

programmed for completion before the proposed passenger rail service would start. Therefore, 

infrastructure associated with the capacity improvement projects is considered part of baseline 

conditions in the Western Section of the Program Corridor between Los Angeles and Colton.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-14

2.1.2 Scoping Comments Received Regarding Alternatives

On October 11, 2016, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR NOI/NOP was issued. Agencies, stakeholders, 

and the public submitted comments on the scope and content of the Program, which were assessed 

and incorporated into the SDP and Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, including the consideration and 

evaluation of additional Build Alternatives Options. In total, 37 comment letters or submissions were 

received during the scoping period: 13 from federal, state, and local agencies; 23 from individuals

and other organizations; and 1 from a railroad stakeholder.

Of the 37 comment letters or submissions, 5 comment letters concerned route or alternative 

alignments; 4 of those comment letters expressed general support for the proposed route alternative 

or suggested route alternatives that were assessed during the AA and determined to be technically 

or economically infeasible.

The fifth comment letter requested that the City of Coachella be considered for a new station 

location. As previously mentioned, the City of Indio was identified as the eastern terminus of the 

Program Corridor in the 2016 AA Report. However, the City of Coachella is within the Indio station 

catchment area studied in the 2016 AA Report. Therefore, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC elected to 

carry two terminus service options for the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor for further study 

in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR: (1) the originally proposed eastern terminus at Indio, and (2) an 

extension 4 miles beyond Indio to Coachella with station stops in both cities.

2.2 CEQA Proposed Program

The CEQA lead agency, RCTC, identified Route Alternative 1 as the proposed CEQA Program (also 

known under CEQA as the proposed Project) in this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR to provide an accurate, 

stable, and finite description of the “development proposal for the purpose of environmental analysis” 

pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(d). Identification of the proposed CEQA Program is 

intended to facilitate public comment at the local and state level.

2.3 Alternatives Definition

The No Build Alternative is defined and evaluated in this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR as a comparison 

with the Build Alternative Options. For the purpose of comparison between the Build Alternative 

Options and No Build Alternative, three horizon years were analyzed:

• Existing Year (2018): This scenario includes Program-related transportation effects on the 

surrounding natural and built environment, including roadways and rail (passenger and 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-15

freight) systems under existing conditions. This scenario was analyzed to fulfill CEQA 

requirements for establishing a baseline environmental setting. 

• Opening Year (2024): This scenario includes Program-related transportation effects on the 

surrounding natural and built environment, including roadways and rail (passenger and 

freight) systems on the first day the Program is operational.

• Future Year (2044): This scenario includes Program-related transportation effects on the 

surrounding natural and built environment, including roadways and rail (passenger and 

freight) systems at the conclusion of a 20-year time horizon following the completion of the 

passenger project.

2.3.1 No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative assumes no new service is implemented in the Program Corridor except for 

existing and committed transportation improvements and represents the baseline condition. 

Western Section

Current Service Frequency 

Under the No Build Alternative, current daily intercity passenger rail service levels in the Western 

Section of the Program Corridor would remain unchanged, and no new infrastructure would be 

constructed. The Western Section of the Program Corridor is comprised primarily of BNSF’s San 

Bernardino Subdivision, a high-density freight train route that also hosts Amtrak passenger and 

Metrolink commuter rail traffic. In addition, UP freight trains operating to and from the UP Los 

Angeles Subdivision at Riverside have trackage rights at BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision 

between Riverside and San Bernardino. Detailed information about BNSF track speeds, gradients, 

terminal locations, mileages, and signaling in the Western Section of the Program Corridor is 

provided in the 2016 AA Report.

The Western Section of the Program Corridor plays a critical role in the movement of domestic and 

imported consumer goods carried in BNSF intermodal trains between Southern California ports and 

terminals throughout the U.S. Intermodal trains to and from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long 

Beach operate the entire length of the Western Section and use a connection at the Program 

Corridor’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 the Program 

Corridor at Commerce and Hobart Yards.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-16

The BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision has multiple main line tracks for its entire length, consisting 

of alternating sections of double track and triple track. The current service levels (2018) in the 

Western Section of the Program Corridor are described below:

• Current freight train traffic between Los Angeles and Colton averages 32 to 54 trains per day

for the lowest and highest density sections, respectively (Caltrans 2018). 

• Two daily Amtrak long-distance passenger trains operate the entire length of the Western 

Section, and 24 daily Amtrak Pacific Surfliner passenger trains use the portion of the 

Program Corridor between Los Angeles and Fullerton, as noted in Amtrak’s System 

Timetable (Amtrak 2018). Amtrak station stops in the Western Section are located at LAUS 

(all trains), Fullerton (all trains), and Riverside (long-distance trains only).

• Weekday Metrolink commuter rail traffic varies by segment. Metrolink’s All Lines Timetable 

(Metrolink 2018) indicates that it operates 28 trains per day on weekdays between Los 

Angeles and Fullerton; 9 trains per day between Fullerton and Atwood; 25 trains per day 

between Atwood and Riverside; 20 trains per day between Riverside and Highgrove; and 

8 trains per day from Highgrove to Colton. Weekend Metrolink commuter rail traffic also 

varies, with 12 trains per day between Los Angeles and Fullerton; 4 trains per day between 

Fullerton and Atwood; 8 trains per day between Atwood and Riverside; and 4 trains per day 

between Riverside and Colton.

Table 2-4 summarizes the Existing Year (2018) average daily train frequencies along the Western 

Section of the Program Corridor.

Table 2-4. Western Section Existing Year (2018) Daily Train Operations in the Program 

Corridor (Average One-Way Trips)

Endpoints

Existing 

Intercity 

Passenger 

One-way Train 

Trips

Existing 

Commuter 

One-way Train 

Trips

Existing Freight 

One-way Train 

Trips

Total Existing

2018 Average 

Daily Volume of 

Trains

Western Section (SCRRA – Host Railroad; Additional Operators – Amtrak, BNSF)

LAUS-Sotoa 26 28 1 55

Western Section (BNSF– Host Railroad; Additional Operators – Amtrak, SCRRA, UP)

Los Angeles (Sotoa)-Fullerton 26 28 32 86

Fullerton-Atwood 2 9 32 43
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-17

Endpoints

Existing 

Intercity 

Passenger 

One-way Train 

Trips

Existing 

Commuter 

One-way Train 

Trips

Existing Freight 

One-way Train 

Trips

Total Existing

2018 Average 

Daily Volume of 

Trains

Atwood-Riverside 2 25 34 61

Riverside-Highgrove 2 20 54 76

Highgrove-Colton 2 8 54 64

Notes:

Daily train counts represent revenue train movements on a weekday (Monday through Friday). Freight train counts 

are based on Base Year (2013) daily freight train totals for the line segments shown above, as published in the 

California State Rail Plan, Appendix A.4, Table 20 (Caltrans 2018). Passenger and commuter train counts are based 

on the following public timetables in effect in September 2018: Metrolink “All Lines” timetable effective May 14, 2018, 

the 2018 LOSSAN Southern California Passenger Rail System Map and Timetables effective April 1, 2018, the 

Amtrak Southwest Chief timetable effective July 31, 2018, and the Amtrak Sunset Limited timetable effective March 

11, 2018. 

a This is the Soto interlocking (Milepost 144.4) in Los Angeles.

Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station; LOSSAN=Los Angeles-San 

Diego-San Luis Obispo; SCRRA=Southern California Regional Rail Authority; UP=Union Pacific Railroad

Current Speed and Reliability

Maximum authorized passenger train speed in the Western Section of the Program Corridor is 

79 miles per hour west of Fullerton and 60 miles per hour east of Fullerton. The maximum 

authorized freight train speed is 50 miles per hour throughout the Western Section; however, grades 

of 1 percent 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 positive train control (PTC). At Colton, a low-speed (20 miles per hour) 

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.

Eastern Section

Current Service Frequency

Under the No Build Alternative, current daily intercity passenger rail service levels in the Eastern 

Section of the Program Corridor would remain unchanged, and no new infrastructure would be 

constructed. The Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, the UP Yuma Subdivision, is a 

high-density double-track freight train route. This subdivision carries UP’s long-haul intermodal, 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-18

automotive, bulk, and manifest freight traffic destined to and from major terminals in Southern 

California, including the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The UP Yuma Subdivision is part of 

UP’s Sunset Route between Los Angeles and El Paso, Texas, which links Southern California with 

major population and manufacturing centers in the Midwest, Southwest, and Gulf Coast, as well as 

gateways to the Eastern U.S. and Mexico. The current service levels in the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor are summarized below:

• Current traffic averages 42 freight trains per day (Caltrans 2018). However, freight train 

volumes have substantial variability associated with vessel calls at the ports, customer 

requirements, day of week, and import-export fluctuations.

• One Amtrak long-distance passenger train, the Sunset Limited, operates the entire length of 

the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor 3 days per week in each direction. This train, 

which runs between Los Angeles and New Orleans, makes one station stop within the 

Program Corridor at Palm Springs. 

Table 2-12 summarizes the Existing Year (2018) average daily train frequencies along the Eastern 

Section of the Program Corridor.

Table 2-5. Eastern Section Existing Year (2018) Daily Train Operations in the Program 

Corridor (Average One-Way Trips)

Endpoint

Existing 

Intercity 

Passenger 

One-way Train 

Trips

Existing 

Commuter 

One-way Train 

Trips

Existing Freight 

One-way Train 

Trips

Total Existing

2018 Average 

Daily Volume of 

Trains

Eastern Section (UP – Host Railroad; Additional Operator – Amtrak)

Colton-Coachella 1 0 42 43

Notes:

Daily train counts represent revenue train movements on a weekday (Monday through Friday). Freight train counts 

are based on Base Year (2013) daily freight train totals for the line segments shown above, as published in the 

California State Rail Plan, Appendix A.4, Table 20 (Caltrans 2018). Passenger and commuter train counts are based 

on the following public timetables in effect in September 2018: Metrolink “All Lines” timetable effective May 14, 2018, 

the 2018 LOSSAN Southern California Passenger Rail System Map and Timetables effective April 1, 2018, the 

Amtrak Southwest Chief timetable effective July 31, 2018, and the Amtrak Sunset Limited timetable effective March 

11, 2018. 

Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; LOSSAN=Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo; UP=Union 

Pacific Railroad
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-19

Current Speed and Reliability

In the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, passenger trains have maximum authorized speeds 

ranging between 30 and 70 miles per hour. The average maximum authorized speed is 59 miles per 

hour; however, in many sections, the operating speed that a passenger train could attain is less, 

attributable to the subdivision’s grades and curves, time required for acceleration and braking as 

speed limits change, and time allotted for the station stop at Palm Springs. The lower operating 

speeds primarily result from curves of 3 to 5 degrees and lengthy gradients of up to 2 percent in 

each direction of travel. Reduction of curvature or gradient on much of the subdivision would be 

costly, owing to the adjacent canyon terrain and surrounding urban development. The subdivision’s 

maximum authorized freight train speed is also 70 miles per hour, although most freight trains 

operate at much lower maximum speeds for similar reasons: the rail line’s steep grades and curves 

that limit freight train speeds. The Eastern Section of the Program Corridor is equipped with wayside 

signaling with a centralized traffic control overlay and with PTC. 

Freight trains on the UP Yuma Subdivision experience operating challenges as a result of the steep 

grades on either side of San Gorgonio Pass, the geographic formation through which the UP Yuma 

Subdivision passes between the San Bernardino Mountains to the north and the San Jacinto 

Mountains to the south. Eastbound trains from Colton have a 1.9 percent climb for more than 

20 miles to reach the summit, passing through San Timoteo Canyon. From an elevation of sea level 

near Indio, westbound trains face a 50-mile climb on a ruling grade that increases to 2.12 percent 

before cresting the summit of the pass at an elevation of 2,591 feet just east of Beaumont, 

California. The combination of steep grades on either side of the pass and the sustained upgrade 

climb for westbound trains and resulting lower operating speeds generates a substantial loss of 

capacity compared with a double-track main line without heavy grades.

Freight trains can also experience delays or congestion at Colton, where some trains are held to wait 

for permission to enter BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision. The West Colton Yard, just west of 

Colton on the Alhambra Subdivision, is UP’s principal classification yard for manifest trains in 

Southern California, as well as a crew change point for most freight trains that pass through. On 

days of heavy freight train traffic, one of the two main line tracks on the Yuma Subdivision is 

frequently occupied east of Colton by several parked freight trains waiting for an open track in West 

Colton Yard.

Current Passenger Rail/Transit Service for Western and Eastern Sections

The five intercity passenger rail and bus services that currently provide ground-based intercity (not 

local) public transportation services in the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor are summarized 

in Table 2-6, with descriptions of service frequencies in effect as of January 2018.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-20

Table 2-6. Current Passenger Rail and Transit Services

Service Service Description

Amtrak Sunset 

Limited

Amtrak Sunset Limited provides long-distance passenger rail service with three trips in each 

direction per week between Los Angeles and New Orleans and makes one intermediate 

station stop in the Program Corridor at Palm Springs, with all stops at this station scheduled 

between midnight and 3:00 a.m.

Amtrak Thruway Amtrak Thruway provides two bus trips each way daily between Fullerton and the Coachella 

Valley (one round trip to and from Palm Springs and one round trip to and from Indio) for 

passengers riding on the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner.

SunLine 

Commuter Link 

220

SunLine Commuter Link 220 provides three bus trips each way between the Riverside 

Metrolink station and Palm Desert on weekdays during commute hours.

Beaumont 

Commuter Link 

120

Beaumont Commuter Link 120 provides seven bus trips each way between the San 

Bernardino Metrolink station and Beaumont on weekdays and five bus trips each way on 

Saturday between the same locations.

Greyhound Greyhound provides private intercity bus service that connects various locations throughout 

the Los Angeles Basin with Banning, Palm Springs, and Indio.

Programmed and Planned Infrastructure

Western Section

As discussed above, track capacity in the Western Section of the Program Corridor currently exists 

to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. However, capacity improvement projects 

currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton will provide additional 

passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed Coachella Valley passenger 

trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. Additionally, the increase in 

passenger/commuter train slots realized by these projects will allow other planned 

passenger/commuter service improvements to advance. 

The No Build Alternative would consist of a continuation of existing and programmed passenger rail 

and transit services that currently connect the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area with the San 

Gorgonio Pass area and Coachella Valley. Table 2-7 provides a summary of capacity improvement 

projects that are currently in construction, programmed, or planned, and will occur regardless of 

proposed Program.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-21

Table 2-7. Programmed and Planned Capacity Improvement Projects Within the Western Section of the Program Corridor 

Project Description

Rosecrans/Marquardt 

Grade Separation 

Project 

In construction. This is a grade separation project located in City of Santa Fe Springs that will eliminate the existing at-grade crossing 

of BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision at the Rosecrans and Marquardt Avenues. CEQA clearance (Statutory Exemption) was 

obtained by Metro in February 2016, and NEPA clearance (Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact) was obtained 

by FRA in November 2018. The project is currently in construction with construction activities anticipated through 2023 (Metro 2020).

Third Main Line Track 

Project

Partially in construction. This project includes construction of 15 miles of a third main line track between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

within BNSF’s existing railroad ROW. Completion of the project will provide 32 additional passenger/commuter slots between Los 

Angeles and Fullerton, with 10 of the new slots allocated for Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner trains (increasing service availability from 

today’s 24 one-way trips to 34 trips) and 22 of the new slots allocated to Metrolink commuter or RCTC-sponsored passenger service 

(increasing the number of available Metrolink/RCTC frequencies from today’s 28 one-way trips to 50 trips). Metro is currently working 

with funding partners to execute full funding agreements for ROW acquisition and construction (Metro 2017). 

Fullerton Junction 

Interlocking and Third 

Main Track 

Improvements Project

Programmed. This project consists of multiple track and signal improvements, both east and west of the Fullerton train station, 

including constructing a 4.8-mile third main line track at the Fullerton Junction Interlocking and Third Main Track between Control Point

Atwood and Control Point Esperanza on the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision. Improvements will reduce cascading delays to 

Amtrak, Metrolink, and BNSF operations. Up to $30 million in grant funds under the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety 

Improvements Program were awarded to this project. 

Southern California 

Optimized Rail 

Expansion Program

Programmed. The Southern California Optimized Rail Expansion Program consists of a series of capacity improvement projects

aimed at improving safety and service and building infrastructure that would enable regional passenger rail service frequency to at 

least 30 minutes systemwide with better connections to other transit providers. Improvements include capacity improvements at LAUS 

and on tracks between Los Angeles and Fullerton. The program also includes infrastructure planning funding for projects in El Monte, 

Simi Valley, Burbank, Rancho Cucamonga, Chatsworth, and other areas throughout the region. The program includes up to $91.2 

million in California Transportation Commission funding and additional funding from a Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program grant. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-22

Project Description

Link Union Station 

Project

Programmed. The project entails the reconstruction of track and station infrastructure at LAUS to meet long-term rail travel needs and 

improve passenger comfort, safety, and ease of navigation through LAUS. The project will increase rail capacity at LAUS by replacing 

the current stub-end station track configuration with new run-through station tracks over U.S. 101 and reconfiguring the station’s throat 

(entry tracks) and rail yard (platform area). The increase in station capacity would allow for more trains to serve LAUS and open new 

opportunities for one-seat rides to more destinations in Southern California. CEQA clearance (EIR/notice of determination) was 

obtained by Metro in June 2019, and NEPA clearance (EIS) by California High-Speed Rail Authority is currently in process. 

City of Santa Fe 

Springs Grade 

Separation Projects

Planned. Three additional grade separation projects on BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision in the City of Santa Fe Springs are in the 

planning stages, but no funding has been committed or programmed; therefore, these projects would not be assumed as part of the 

No Build Alternative for the purposes of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. These include the Norwalk/Los Nietos Grade Separation Project, 

Lakeland Road Grade Separation Project, and the Pioneer Boulevard Grade Separation Project. 

Notes:

CEQA=California Environmental Quality Act; EIR=environmental impact report; EIS=environmental impact statement; FRA=Federal Railroad Administration; 

LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station; NEPA=National Environmental Policy Act; RCTC=Riverside County Transportation Commission; ROW=right-of-way
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-23

In addition, the No Build Alternative includes forecast growth in freight traffic on BNSF’s San 

Bernardino Subdivision. The California State Rail Plan (Caltrans 2018) anticipates rail intermodal 

traffic in California will increase at a compound annual growth rate of 2.9 percent through 2040, and 

rail carload traffic will increase at a compound annual growth rate of 1.7 percent through 2040, which 

could add approximately 40 additional freight trains to BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision west of 

Riverside and approximately 60 additional freight trains between Riverside and Colton.

Table 2-8 summarizes the Opening Year (2024) average daily train frequencies along the Western 

Section of the Program Corridor under the No Build Alternative.

Table 2-8. Western Section No Build Alternative Opening Year (2024) Daily Train 

Operations in the Program Corridor (Average One-Way Trips)

Endpoints

Intercity 

Passenger 

One-way 

Train Trips

Commuter 

One-way 

Train Trips

Freight 

One-way 

Train Trips

Total 2024 

Average Daily 

Volume of 

Trains

Western Section (SCRRA – Host Railroad; Additional Operators – Amtrak, BNSF)

LAUS-Sotoa 36 50 1 87

Western Section (BNSF– Host Railroad; Additional Operators – Amtrak, SCRRA, UP)

Los Angeles (Sotoa)-Fullerton 36 50 38 124

Fullerton-Atwood 2 23 38 63

Atwood-Riverside 2 39 40 81

Riverside-Highgrove 2 24 63 89

Highgrove-Colton 2 12 63 77

Notes: 

Daily train counts represent revenue train movements on a weekday (Monday through Friday). Freight train counts 

are 2.7% compound annual growth increases to 2024 from existing 2018 freight train average daily volumes that 

were based on Base Year (2013) daily freight train totals for the line segments shown above, as published in the

California State Rail Plan, Appendix A.4, Table 20 (Caltrans 2018). Passenger and commuter train counts are based 

on train frequency increases associated with completion of the Third Main Line Track Project on BNSF between Los 

Angeles and Fullerton, and existing (2018) or previously programmed frequencies on other line segments. 

a This is the Soto interlocking (Milepost 144.4) in Los Angeles.

Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station; SCRRA=Southern California 

Regional Rail Authority; UP=Union Pacific Railroad
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-24

Table 2-9 summarizes the Future Year (2044) average daily train frequencies along the Western 

Section of the Program Corridor under the No Build Alternative.

Table 2-9. Western Section No Build Alternative Future Year (2044) Daily Train Operations 

in the Program Corridor (Average One-Way Trips)

Endpoints

California 

High-Speed 

Rail Authority

One-way 

Train Trips

Intercity 

Passenger 

One-way 

Train Trips

Commuter 

One-way 

Train Trips

Freight 

One-way 

Train Trips

Total 

Average 

2044 Daily 

Volume of 

Trains

Western Section (SCRRA – Host Railroad; Additional Operators – Amtrak, BNSF)

LAUS-Sotoa 100 40 134 1 275

Western Section (BNSF– Host Railroad; Additional Operators – Amtrak, SCRRA, UP)

Los Angeles

(Sotoa)-Fullerton

100 40 134 74 348

Fullerton-Atwood 0 2 44 74 120

Atwood-Riverside 0 2 88 81 171

Riverside-Highgrove 0 2 124 118 244

Highgrove-Colton 0 2 44 118 164

Notes:

Daily train counts represent revenue train movements on a weekday (Monday through Friday). Freight train counts 

are averages between the minimum and maximum volumes of Proposed Future Year (2040) daily freight train totals 

for the line segments shown above, as published in the California State Rail Plan, Appendix A.4, Table 20 (Caltrans 

2018). Passenger and commuter train counts are preliminary estimates interpreted from Metrolink Southern California 

Optimized Rail Expansion Program projections for service frequencies on various routes and services in the Western 

Section of the Program Corridor. 

a This is the Soto interlocking (Milepost 144.4) in Los Angeles.

Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station; SCRRA=Southern California 

Regional Rail Authority; UP=Union Pacific Railroad

Eastern Section

UP continues to realize capacity benefits from projects it has undertaken in Southern California over 

the past 2 decades, including an initiative to construct a second main line track on 760 miles of its 

Sunset Route between Colton, California, and El Paso, Texas. UP also continues to benefit from the 

2013 completion of the Colton Crossing Railroad Grade Separation Project, which grade-separated 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-25

the crossing of UP’s Yuma Subdivision and BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision in Colton. UP has 

not provided information about any additional programmed or funded capacity expansion projects 

within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor.

The No Build Alternative includes forecast growth in freight traffic on UP’s Yuma Subdivision. The 

California State Rail Plan (Caltrans 2018) anticipates that rail intermodal traffic in California will 

increase at a compound annual growth rate of 2.9 percent through 2040 and that rail carload traffic 

will increase at a compound annual growth rate of 1.7 percent through 2040, which could add 

approximately 50 additional freight trains to UP’s Yuma Subdivision. This growth forecast is 

consistent with growth projections provided by UP for computerized rail operations modeling 

simulations undertaken by RCTC for the Program.

Table 2-10 summarizes the Opening Year (2024) average daily train frequencies along the Eastern 

Section of the Program Corridor under the No Build Alternative.

Table 2-10. Eastern Section No Build Alternative Opening Year (2024) Daily Train 

Operations in the Program Corridor (Average One-Way Trips)

Endpoints

Intercity 

Passenger 

One-way

Train Trips

Commuter 

One-way 

Train Trips

Freight 

One-way 

Train Trips

Total Average 

2024 Daily 

Volume of 

Trains

Eastern Section (UP – Host Railroad; Additional Operator – Amtrak)

Colton-Coachella 1 0 49 50

Notes: 

Daily train counts represent revenue train movements on a weekday (Monday through Friday). Freight train counts 

are 2.7% compound annual growth increases to Opening Year (2024) from Existing Year (2018) freight train average 

daily volumes that were based on Base Year (2013) daily freight train totals for the line segments shown above, as 

published in the California State Rail Plan, Appendix A.4, Table 20 (Caltrans 2018). Passenger and commuter train 

counts are based on train frequency increases associated with completion of the Third Main Line Track Project on 

BNSF between Los Angeles and Fullerton, and Existing Year (2018) or previously programmed frequencies on other 

line segments.

Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; UP=Union Pacific Railroad

Table 2-11 summarizes the Future Year (2044) average daily train frequencies along the Eastern 

Section of the Program Corridor under the No Build Alternative.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-26

Table 2-11. Eastern Section No Build Alternative Opening Year (2044) Daily Train 

Operations in the Program Corridor (Average One-Way Trips)

Endpoints

California 

High-Speed Rail 

Authority

One-way Train 

Trips

Intercity 

Passenger 

One-way 

Train Trips

Commuter 

One-way 

Train Trips

Freight 

One-way 

Train Trips

Total 

Average 

2044 Daily 

Volume of 

Trains

Eastern Section (UP – Host Railroad; Additional Operator – Amtrak)

Colton-Coachella 0 1 0 88 89

Notes: 

Daily train counts represent revenue train movements on a weekday (Monday through Friday). Freight train counts for 

Opening Year (2044) utilized averages between the minimum and maximum volumes of Horizon Year (2040) daily 

freight train totals for the line segments shown above, as published in the California State Rail Plan, Appendix A.4, 

Table 20 (Caltrans 2018).

Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; UP=Union Pacific Railroad

As described in detail above, under the No Build Alternative, no new growth in existing passenger 

services or new passenger services providing regional linkages in the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor are programmed or funded for implementation at this time.

2.3.2 Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3

As discussed above and summarized in Table 2-3, only Route Alternative 1 in the Western Section

of the Program Corridor was considered reasonable and feasible after evaluation under the 

two-stage alternatives screening process. Therefore, for purposes of analysis in this Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR, Route Alternative 1 in the Western Section of the Program Corridor is the route alignment

for all Build Alternative Options. This Western Section route alignment is summarized in 

Table 2-12 and shown on Figure 2-4.

For the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, three Build Alternative Options are being 

considered for analysis. Build Alternative Option 1 and Build Alternative Option 2 were developed 

based on the findings in the 2016 AA Report. Build Alternative Option 3 was recommended 

for inclusion by FRA during a review of a rail operations sensitivity test conducted in summer 

2019. These Eastern Section Build Alternative Options are summarized in Table 2-12 and shown on 

Figure 2-5 and Figure 2-6.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-27

Table 2-12. Summary of Build Alternative Options 

Build 

Alternative 

Option Western Section Eastern Section

Build Alternative 

Option 1 

(Coachella 

Terminus): 

144-mile 

Program Corridor

The Western Section consists of a 68-mile 

segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between 

LAUS and the City of Colton (Figure 2-4). 

BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision is 

between Colton and Control Point Soto (the 

interlocking Milepost 144.4 in Los Angeles), a 

distance of approximately 63 miles. Metro’s 

River Subdivision, operated by SCRRA, is 

between Control Point Soto and LAUS, a 

distance of approximately 5 miles.

The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile 

segment along the existing UP Yuma 

Subdivision corridor between the Cities of 

Colton and Coachella (Figure 2-5). Under 

Build Alternative Option 1, five new potential 

station areas are identified (to allow up to six 

stations), and a third track is proposed along 

the entire Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor. 

Build Alternative 

Option 2 (Indio 

Terminus): 

140.25-mile 

Program Corridor

The Western Section consists of a 68-mile 

segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between 

LAUS and the City of Colton (Figure 2-4). 

BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision is 

between Colton and Control Point Soto (the 

interlocking Milepost 144.4 in Los Angeles), a 

distance of approximately 63 miles. Metro’s 

River Subdivision, operated by SCRRA, is 

between Control Point Soto and LAUS, a 

distance of approximately 5 miles.

The Eastern Section consists of a 72.25-mile 

segment along the existing UP Yuma 

Subdivision corridor between the Cities of 

Colton and Indio (Figure 2-5). Under Build 

Alternative Option 2, four new potential 

station areas are identified (to allow up to five

stations), and a third track is proposed along 

the entire Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-28

Build 

Alternative 

Option Western Section Eastern Section

Build Alternative 

Option 3 (Indio 

Terminus with 

Limited Third 

Track): 

140.25-mile 

Program Corridor

The Western Section consists of a 68-mile 

segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between 

LAUS and the City of Colton (Figure 2-4). 

BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision is 

between Colton and Control Point Soto (the 

interlocking Milepost 144.4 in Los Angeles), a 

distance of approximately 63 miles. Metro’s 

River Subdivision, operated by SCRRA, is 

between Control Point Soto and LAUS, a 

distance of approximately 5 miles.

The Eastern Section consists of a 72.25-mile 

segment along the existing UP Yuma 

Subdivision corridor between the Cities of 

Colton and Indio (Figure 2-5). Under Build 

Alternative Option 3, four new potential 

station areas are identified (to allow up to five

stations), and a third track is proposed 

between the City of Colton and the northern 

boundary of the potential Mid-Valley Station 

Area.a

Notes: 

a The third track under Build Alternative Option 3 would stop at the northern boundaries of the potential Mid-Valley 

Station Area. Any improvements that may be required to transition from a third track to a second track would occur 

within the larger footprint of the potential Mid-Valley Station Area. 

LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station; Metro=Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority; 

SCRRA=Southern California Regional Rail Authority; UP=Union Pacific Railroad
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-29

Figure 2-4. Western Section of the Program Corridor (Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-30

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-31

Figure 2-5. Eastern Section of the Program Corridor (Build Alternative Option 1)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-32

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-33

Figure 2-6. Eastern Section of the Program Corridor (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-34

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-35

Under all Build Alternative Options, existing rail infrastructure would be used in the Western Section

of the Program Corridor, and no additional railroad infrastructure improvements would be required. 

LAUS would serve as the western terminus, while existing stations in the Cities of Fullerton and 

Riverside would be utilized to support the proposed service. No new stations or improvements to 

existing stations would be required to accommodate the proposed service within the Western 

Section of the Program Corridor. As shown on Figure 2-4, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

for the Western Section of the Program Corridor encompasses a 600-foot buffer from either side of 

the railroad centerline. 

As part of the SDP and Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, rail operations simulation modeling is being 

conducted to identify potential infrastructure needs within the Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor. Upon completion of the SDP and the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, the specific 

infrastructure improvements would be determined and refined through coordination and additional 

consultations with UP, RCTC, Caltrans, and FRA prior to Tier 2/Project-level analysis.3

All three Build Alternative Options propose the following potential new infrastructure improvements 

within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor:

• Station construction. The Build Alternative Options all propose either five or six station 

locations. The 1,500-foot Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area for potential station areas 

facilitates a comprehensive Tier 1/Program-level evaluation that can be utilized to inform the 

future siting of stations along the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. This could 

include, but is not limited to, identification of sensitive resources that should be avoided 

during Tier 2/Project-level environmental review (e.g., avoidance of 4(f) resources or 

wetlands). At the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR level, finalization of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

and lead agency approvals would not clear construction in the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor. Completion of Tier 2/Project-level environmental review would be required 

prior to implementation of site-specific infrastructure improvements, including station 

locations. 

3 The Tier 2 process does not automatically follow the Tier 1 process, rather a project would be defined 

based on the Tier 1/Program Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 

broad project scope and funded at that time. The Tier 2 process would be a separate environmental 

document and could be funded and led by an agency other than the Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA) and Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), depending upon the source of 

funding.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-36

• Station tracks: The station tracks improvements would consist of the construction of new 

controlled track sidings that augment operational flexibility by creating a location off of the 

existing main line tracks that would allow passenger trains to stop for the boarding and 

unloading of passengers at station platforms, thereby reducing rail traffic congestion on the 

main line tracks. Station tracks would be approximately 1 mile or less in length and located at 

or near proposed station locations. The station tracks could include, but not be limited to, the 

following components and/or construction requirements:

o Grading for the additional track, turnout construction pads, and signal berms 

o Drainage improvements that may include culvert extensions and new standalone bridge 

structures or modifications to existing bridges 

o Roadway overpass modifications or reconstruction, as well as pier protection for existing 

structures 

o Retaining walls at certain locations to contain the improvements within the UP ROW 

o Existing at-grade crossings modifications to allow for the placement of an additional 

crossing surface for the new tracks and relocation or replacement of automatic warning 

devices 

o UP-standard track sections, with track centers of 20 feet or more, using new continuously

welded rail, as well as signal and communication infrastructure upgraded and 

augmented, as required

• Third main track. The Build Alternative Options all propose a third main line track to 

augment the existing two-track main line along the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. 

The extent of the third main line track varies by Build Alternative Option described below. 

The third main line track would be constructed primarily within the existing UP ROW; 

however, possible slopes could extend outside the existing UP ROW in certain locations. 

Many of the features described above for the station track scenario would also be 

constructed under this scenario, but the construction activities would not be restricted to 

railroad segments near the proposed stations. To facilitate operations, additional universal 

crossovers would be constructed, and existing crossover locations may be relocated due to 

topographic constraints. As previously mentioned, rail operations simulation modeling is 

being conducted as part of the SDP and Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process to identify potential 

infrastructure improvement needs (including station tracks and third main line track 

scenarios, number of stations, and station locations). The third main line track scenario is 

consistent with the infrastructure improvements proposed through the rail operations 

modeling work to achieve 90 percent on-time performance of passenger rail service without 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-37

adding delay to freight rail service in the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. Upon 

completion of the SDP and the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, the specific infrastructure 

improvements would be determined and refined through coordination and additional 

consultations with UP, RCTC, Caltrans, and FRA prior to Tier 2/Project-level analysis.4

Potential infrastructure improvements could include the following:

o Various crossovers connecting the existing main line tracks to the new third main line 

track

o A new second Mt. Vernon connector track in Colton

o A new siding at Loma Linda to allow passenger trains to meet, thereby reducing delay

o A new railroad bridge across the Santa Ana River

o Additional infrastructure components throughout the Program Corridor including, but not 

limited to, wayside signals, drainage structures, and grade-separation structures

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

For purposes of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, Build Alternative Option 1 assumes the following 

infrastructure improvements within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor:

• Station construction. Build Alternative Option 1 identifies six potential station location areas 

in the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor where passenger rail stations could be 

located. Build Alternative Option 1 would use the existing station in the City of Palm Springs. 

Additionally, up to five new potential stations could be constructed in the following areas: 

1) Loma Linda/Redlands Area (serving the Cities of Loma Linda and Redlands), 2) the Pass 

Area (serving the communities of Beaumont, Banning, and Cabazon), 3) the Mid-Valley Area

(serving the communities of Cathedral City, Thousand Palms, the Agua Caliente Casino 

area, Rancho Mirage, and Palm Desert), 4) the City of Indio, and 5) Coachella as the eastern 

terminus of the Program Corridor. 

• Third main track: A third main line track would augment the existing two main tracks along 

the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor to Coachella. 

4 The Tier 2/Project-level process does not automatically follow the Tier 1/Program process, rather a 

project would be defined based on the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR broad project scope and funded at that 

time. The Tier 2/Project-level process would be a separate environmental document and could be 

funded and led by an agency other than FRA and RCTC, depending upon the source of funding.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-38

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

For purposes of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, Build Alternative Option 2 assumes the following

infrastructure improvements within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor:

• Station construction. Build Alternative Option 2 identifies five potential station location 

areas in the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor where passenger rail stations could be 

located. Build Alternative Option 2 would use the existing station in the City of Palm Springs. 

Additionally, up to four new potential stations could be constructed in the following areas: 

1) Loma Linda/Redlands Area (serving the Cities of Loma Linda and Redlands), 2) the Pass 

Area (serving the communities of Beaumont, Banning, and Cabazon), 3) the Mid-Valley Area 

(serving the communities of Cathedral City, Thousand Palms, the Agua Caliente Casino 

area, Rancho Mirage, and Palm Desert), and 4) the City of Indio as the eastern terminus of 

the Program Corridor. 

• Third main track: A third main line track would augment the existing two main tracks along 

the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor to Indio. 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track)

For purposes of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, Build Alternative Option 3 assumes the following 

infrastructure improvements within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor:

• Station construction. Build Alternative Option 3 identifies five potential station location 

areas in the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor where passenger rail stations could be 

located. Build Alternative Option 3 would use the existing station in the City of Palm Springs. 

Additionally, up to four new potential stations could be constructed in the following areas: 

1) Loma Linda/Redlands Area (serving the Cities of Loma Linda and Redlands), 2) the Pass 

Area (serving the communities of Beaumont, Banning, and Cabazon), 3) the Mid-Valley Area 

(serving the communities of Cathedral City, Thousand Palms, the Agua Caliente Casino 

area, Rancho Mirage, and Palm Desert), and 4) the City of Indio as the eastern terminus of 

the Program Corridor. 

• Third main track: A third main line track would augment the existing two main tracks along 

the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor to the proposed Mid-Valley Station Area. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-39

FRA recommended Build Alternative Option 3 after a review of a rail operations sensitivity test 

conducted in summer 2019 that suggested it might be possible, under an operational scenario where 

Indio was the eastern terminus and five station stops were made east of Colton, to achieve the 

Program’s performance thresholds without construction of a third main line track in a segment of the 

Eastern Section of the Program Corridor between the potential Mid-Valley and Indio Station Areas. 

For purposes of identifying the full range of the Program’s potential impacts in this Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR, these details have been incorporated as part of Build Alternative Option 3.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-40

This page is intentionally blank.