Transportation Impact 

Technical Memorandum

Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail 

Corridor Service Program

May 2021
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program 

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum 

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program 

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum 

May 2021 | i

Contents

1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Study Approach...................................................................................................................... 1-1

2 Program Location and Description .............................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Program Location................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Program Description............................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)...................................................... 2-1

2.2.2 Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus) .............................................................. 2-2

2.2.3 Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track)....................... 2-2

2.3 Construction ........................................................................................................................... 2-3

2.3.1 Western Section........................................................................................................ 2-3

2.3.2 Eastern Section......................................................................................................... 2-3

2.4 Operation................................................................................................................................ 2-4

2.4.1 Station Options........................................................................................................ 2-11

3 Regulatory Framework .................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Federal ................................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Federal Railroad Administration................................................................................ 3-1

3.2 State ....................................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2.1 California Department of Transportation................................................................... 3-1

3.2.2 Senate Bill 743 .......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Regional ................................................................................................................................. 3-2

3.3.1 Southern California Association of Governments ..................................................... 3-2

3.4 Local and Tribal Governments ............................................................................................... 3-2

4 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Definitions............................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Horizon Years......................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.3 Approach ................................................................................................................................ 4-3

4.4 Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area....................................................................................... 4-4

5 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................................ 5-1

5.1 Aviation Service...................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Highways and Roadways....................................................................................................... 5-1
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program 

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum 

May 2021 | ii

5.2.1 Regional Road Network ............................................................................................ 5-1

5.3 Bus and Rail Service.............................................................................................................. 5-5

5.3.1 Bus Transit Service ................................................................................................... 5-5

5.3.2 Passenger Rail Service........................................................................................... 5-11

5.3.3 Freight Rail Service................................................................................................. 5-12

5.3.4 Rail Volume and Rail Corridor Ownership .............................................................. 5-13

5.3.5 Railroad/Roadway Crossings.................................................................................. 5-17

5.3.6 Regional Accessibility.............................................................................................. 5-17

5.3.7 Station Access and Parking .................................................................................... 5-18

6 Environmental Consequences...................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................ 6-1

6.2 No Build Alternative................................................................................................................ 6-2

6.3 Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3...................................................................................... 6-3

6.3.1 Rail Operational Effects ............................................................................................ 6-3

6.3.2 Roadway and Vehicular Traffic Effects ..................................................................... 6-6

6.3.3 Railroad/Roadway Crossing Modification Effects ................................................... 6-20

6.3.4 Ridership Forecast Effects ...................................................................................... 6-22

6.3.5 Travel Time Effects ................................................................................................. 6-29

6.3.6 Traveler Safety Effects............................................................................................ 6-31

7 Tier 2 Environmental Review Considerations............................................................................. 7-1

8 References ...................................................................................................................................... 8-1

Tables

Table 2-1. Coachella Valley Station Options ........................................................................................... 2-12

Table 4-1. Regional Transportation Methodology Framework................................................................... 4-3

Table 5-1. Amtrak Thruway Service within the Program Corridor (Build Alternative Options 1, 2, 

and 3)............................................................................................................................................ 5-9

Table 5-2. Existing Daily Train Operations in the Coachella Valley Rail Program Corridor 

(Average One-Way Trips), 2018................................................................................................. 5-14

Table 5-3. Existing Regional Accessibility via Public Transportation within the Program Corridor ......... 5-18

Table 6-1. Amtrak On-Board Survey Mode Choice Results (Pacific Surfliner).......................................... 6-8

Table 6-2. Amtrak On-Board Survey Mode Choice Results (San Joaquin)............................................... 6-8

Table 6-3. Rail Passenger Access Mode by Station (Percent of Train Passengers) .............................. 6-11
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program 

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum 

May 2021 | iii

Table 6-4. Rail Passenger Access Mode by Station (Number of Passengers per Train)........................ 6-13

Table 6-5. Potential Roadway Impacts by Station within the Program Corridor for Future Year 

(2044).......................................................................................................................................... 6-17

Table 6-6. Auto Trip and Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction by Horizon Year (Build Alternative 

Option 1) ..................................................................................................................................... 6-18

Table 6-7. Auto Trip and Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction by Horizon Year (Build Alternative 

Options 2 and 3).......................................................................................................................... 6-18

Table 6-8. Proposed Ridership Metrics by Horizon Year (Build Alternative Option 1) ............................ 6-23

Table 6-9. Proposed Ridership Metrics by Horizon Year (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3) ................ 6-23

Table 6-10. Annual Boardings and Alightings at Proposed Station Options by Horizon Year (Build 

Alternative Option 1) ................................................................................................................... 6-24

Table 6-11. Annual Boardings and Alightings at Proposed Station Options by Horizon Year (Build 

Alternative Options 2 and 3) ....................................................................................................... 6-25

Table 6-12. Rail/Bus Travel Time by Horizon Year (Build Alternative Option 1) ..................................... 6-30

Table 6-13. Rail/Bus Travel Time by Horizon Year (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3) ......................... 6-30

Table 6-14. Annual Number of Accidents Eliminated by Horizon Year (Build Alternative Option 1)....... 6-33

Table 6-15. Annual Number of Accidents Eliminated by Horizon Year (Build Alternative Options 2 

and 3).......................................................................................................................................... 6-33

Figures

Figure 2-1. Western Section of the Program Corridor (Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3).................. 2-5

Figure 2-2. Eastern Section of the Program Corridor (Build Alternative Option 1).................................... 2-7

Figure 2-3. Eastern Section of the Program Corridor (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3)........................ 2-9

Figure 5-1. Key Corridor Highways within the Program Corridor (All Build Alternative Options) .............. 5-3

Figure 5-2. Intercity Rail and Regional Bus Service within the Program Corridor (Build Alternative 

Options 1, 2, and 3)....................................................................................................................... 5-7

Figure 5-3. Host Railroads and Additional Operators within the Program Corridor................................. 5-15

Figure 6-1. Representative Station Area Locations within the Program Corridor.................................... 6-27
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program 

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum 

May 2021 | iv

Appendices

Appendix A. Existing Passenger Bus and Rail Services

Appendix B. Conceptual Train Schedules

Appendix C. Overview of Caltrans Mode-Share Model

Appendix D. Amtrak Onboard Passenger Survey, Travel Mode Choice Data, June 2017
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program 

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum 

May 2021 | v

Abbreviations/Acronyms

BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe

Caltrans California Department of Transportation

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CPUC California Public Utilities Commission

EIR environmental impact report 

EIS environmental impact statement

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

LAUS Los Angeles Union Station

I Interstate

LOS level of service 

MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

OPR Office of Planning and Research

Program Coachella Valley-San-Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Program Corridor Coachella Valley-San-Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor

RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission

RTP Regional Transportation Plan

SB Senate Bill

SCAG Southern California Association of Governments

SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy

SDP Service Development Plan

SR State Route

TNC transportation network company

UP Union Pacific Railroad

VMT vehicle miles traveled 

U.S. United States
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program 

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum 

May 2021 | vi

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 1-1

1 Introduction

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 

Division of Rail and Mass Transportation, and Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) 

are proposing the Coachella Valley San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program (Program) to 

establish daily intercity passenger rail service between Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS) in Los 

Angeles County, California and the City of Coachella in Riverside County, California. This 

transportation impact technical memorandum evaluates potential transportation impacts along the 

144-mile Coachella Valley San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (Program Corridor) in support of a 

programmatic Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The 

evaluation of potential transportation effects resulting from the Program includes:

• Service concept and forecast ridership

• Travel time

• Rail operations 

• Regional and local roadways

• Safety

• Comparison of effects by station options

1.1 Study Approach

This evaluation was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and will be incorporated into the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation.

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered NEPA/CEQA process (e.g., Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to 

complete the environmental review of the Program, under 40 Code of Federal Regulations

1508.28 (titled “Tiering”), CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”), and 

Section 15170 (titled “Joint EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process often 

applied to environmental review for complex transportation projects.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 1-2

The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the Service Development Plan 

(SDP), are the first steps in the tiered environmental review process. Based on the decisions made 

in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR and SDP, future site-specific proposals of infrastructure improvements 

will be evaluated through one or more Tier 2/Project-level environmental clearance processes. A 

description of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, SDP, and Tier 2/Project-level analysis processes are 

further discussed below:

• Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR: The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluates potential environmental 

impacts of the No Build Alternative and three Build Alternative Options broadly within the 

Program Corridor. The Program Corridor provides a flexible regional context for the best 

location of an enhanced passenger rail system while providing opportunities for the Build 

Alternative Options to account for engineering and environmental constraints. The Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects 

within the Tier 1/Program Study Area for specific environmental resources. The 

resource-specific study areas generally represent the potential area where rail infrastructure 

improvements and station facilities could be implemented and constructed but does not 

represent the precise location or footprint of the improvement or facility.

• SDP: The SDP defines the Program’s service mode, estimated ridership to include demand 

and revenue forecasts, operational strategy, station and access analysis, operating and 

maintenance costs, required infrastructure improvements and capital programming, and 

public benefits analysis necessary to implement the proposed intercity passenger rail 

service. As part of the SDP process, the site-specific infrastructure improvement 

requirements are being identified, including the number of stations and the general 

areas/communities in which stations might be located. The SDP infrastructure analysis is 

being informed by rail operations simulation modeling and would occur parallel to the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation process. 

• Tier 2 Project-Level Analysis: Based on the environmental evaluation conducted in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR and the site-specific infrastructure improvements identified in the SDP, a 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis would be required. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would be a 

separate environmental review potentially led and funded by an agency other than FRA. In 

addition, the Tier 2/Project-level analysis process would not automatically follow the Tier 1 

process, rather the potential Tier 2 Projects would need to be defined based on the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR’s broad scope and funding. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would 

closely align with the future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific 

direct and indirect Project-level effects, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or 

approvals needed for construction.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 2-1

2 Program Location and Description 

2.1 Program Location

The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR analyzes the No Build Alternative and three Build Alternative Options in 

two geographic sections—a Western Section and an Eastern Section—occurring within existing 

railroad rights-of-way, as shown on Figure 2-1 through Figure 2-3. The Program Corridor runs 

west-to-east, extending up to 144 linear miles from a western terminus at LAUS to an eastern 

terminus in either the City of Indio or City of Coachella (depending on the Build Alternative Option). 

From west to east, the cities traversed by the Build Alternative Options include Los Angeles, Vernon, 

Bell, Commerce, Montebello, Pico Rivera, Santa Fe Springs, Norwalk, La Mirada, Buena Park, 

Fullerton, Anaheim, Placentia, Yorba Linda, Chino Hills, Corona, Riverside, Grand Terrace, Colton, 

San Bernardino, Loma Linda, Redlands, Calimesa, Beaumont, Banning, Cabazon, Palm Springs, 

Cathedral City, Thousand Palms, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indio (under all Build Alternative 

Options), and/or Coachella (under Build Alternative Option 1 only). The boundary between Western 

and Eastern Sections is in the City of Colton, at the intersection of existing railroad lines owned by 

Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and BNSF. 

2.2 Program Description

2.2.1 Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Build Alternative Option 1 includes a total Program Corridor distance of 144 miles and consists of a 

Western Section, terminating at LAUS, and an Eastern Section, terminating in the City of Coachella. 

Western Section. Under Build Alternative Option 1, 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 passenger rail 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.

Eastern Section. Under Build Alternative Option 1, potential new infrastructure improvements on the 

Eastern Section of the Program Corridor could include sidings, additional main line track, wayside 

signals, drainage, grade separation structures, and up to five new stations constructed in the 

following areas: 1) Loma Linda/Redlands Area (serving the Cities of Loma Linda and Redlands), 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 2-2

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

(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) the City of Coachella as the eastern 

terminus of the Program Corridor.

2.2.2 Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Build Alternative Option 2 includes a total Program Corridor distance of 140.25 miles and consists of 

a Western Section, terminating at LAUS, and an Eastern Section, terminating at the City of Indio.

Western Section. The Western Section under Build Alternative Option 2 would be the same as that 

described above under Build Alternative Option 1.

Eastern Section. Under Build Alternative Option 2, potential new infrastructure improvements on the 

Eastern Section of the Program Corridor could include sidings, additional main line track, wayside 

signals, drainage, grade separation structures, and 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 (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.

2.2.3 Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third 

Track)

Build Alternative Option 3 includes a total Program Corridor distance of 140.25 miles and consists of 

a Western Section, terminating at LAUS, and an Eastern Section, terminating at the City of Indio.

Western Section. The Western Section under Build Alternative Option 3 would be the same as that 

described above under Build Alternative Options 1 and 2.

Eastern Section. The Eastern Section under Build Alternative Option 3 would be the same as that 

described above under Build Alternative Option 2, except for the following changes:

As part of Build Alternative Option 3, additional infrastructure improvements for the Eastern Section 

of the Program Corridor have been considered. These potential infrastructure improvements include 

the addition of station tracks and a third main line track. The addition of station tracks would be the 

same as described under Build Alternative Options 1 and 2; however, the addition of the third main 

track would be limited under Build Alternative Option 3 when compared with Build Alternative 

Options 1 and 2. The limited third track under Build Alternative Option 3 would augment the existing 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 2-3

two main tracks along the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor to the proposed Mid Valley 

Station Area.

2.3 Construction

2.3.1 Western Section

In the Western Section, existing rail infrastructure would be used to accommodate the proposed 

service, and no additional track improvements would be required to accommodate the proposed 

service under all Build Alternative Options. LAUS would serve as the western terminus, and existing 

stations in the Cities of Fullerton and Riverside would be used, as depicted on Figure 2-1. No new 

stations or additions to existing stations would be required to accommodate the proposed service

under all Build Alternative Options. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area for potential 

construction-related impacts on transportation within the Western Section is up to 600 feet from 

either side of the existing railroad centerline.

2.3.2 Eastern Section

In the Eastern Section, proposed new infrastructure improvements under all Build Alternative 

Options could include sidings, additional main line track, wayside signals, drainage, 

grade-separation structures, and stations to accommodate the proposed service. The Eastern 

Section would use the existing station in the City of Palm Springs, which is the only existing station 

in the Eastern Section. Additionally, as depicted on Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3, 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 (serving the communities of Cathedral City, Thousand 

Palms, the Agua Caliente Casino area, Rancho Mirage, and Palm Desert), 4) the City of Indio (under 

all Build Alternative Options), and/or 5) the City of Coachella (under Build Alternative Option 1 only).

The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area for potential construction-related impacts on transportation 

within the Eastern Section is up to 1,000 feet from either side of the centerline, plus a 500-foot buffer 

for the assessment of indirect impacts, for a total Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area of 1,500 feet 

from either side of the centerline at each of the individual station location areas. The remaining 

portion of the Eastern Section Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area encompasses up to 300 feet from 

the railroad centerline to include non-station-related infrastructure improvements, plus a 500-foot 

buffer for the assessment of indirect impacts, for a total Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area of 

800 feet from the railroad centerline.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 2-4

2.4 Operation

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the Program would consist of the addition of two 

daily round-trip intercity diesel-powered passenger trains operating the entire length of the Program 

Corridor between Los Angeles and Indio and/or Coachella, with one morning departure and one 

afternoon departure from each end of the Program Corridor.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 2-5

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

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 2-6

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 2-7

Figure 2-2. Eastern Section of the Program Corridor (Build Alternative Option 1)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 2-8

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 2-9

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

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 2-10

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 2-11

2.4.1 Station Options

To assist the ridership forecasting, four station options were developed as part of the SDP process 

to test the representative station areas and eastern terminus options, depicted in Table 2-1. The 

potential station locations were identified from the market analysis, input from some communities’ 

stated desire to have a station nearby, and public scoping meetings. The stations’ combined 

catchment areas serve most of the communities in the Eastern Section. Three, four, five, and six 

station options within the Eastern Section were developed to study a range of service options to 

understand the trade-offs between ridership, travel time, and cost associated with new stations.

• The minimum-stations scenario (the low end of the range) needed to include: (1) an eastern 

terminus station in Indio; (2) a station in the western end of the Coachella Valley (the existing 

station in Palm Springs), and (3) a station in the San Gorgonio Pass Area. This is the 

three-station scenario.

• The maximum-stations scenario (the high end of the range) should have its eastern terminus 

in Coachella and should also include intermediate stations in both the Mid-Valley area 

(Rancho Mirage/Palm Desert) and the Loma Linda/Redlands area. This is the six-station 

scenario.

• The four-station scenario adds on to the three-station scenario with Coachella as the eastern 

terminus. Comparison of the four-station and three-station scenarios thus provides 

understanding of the effects of having Coachella as the eastern terminus. Comparison of the 

four-station and six-station scenarios provides understanding of the effects of adding stations 

in Mid-Valley and Loma Linda/Redlands.

• The five-station scenario removes Coachella from the six-station scenario, leaving Indio as 

the eastern terminus. Comparison of the five-station and six-station scenarios thus provides 

understanding of the effects of having Coachella as the eastern terminus. Comparison of the 

five-station and three-station scenarios provides understanding of the effects of adding 

stations in Mid-Valley and Loma Linda/Redlands.

The comparisons of ridership, travel time, and cost conducted for the SDP concluded that having the 

greater number of station locations would substantially increase ridership potential for a relatively 

modest increase in overall travel time and operating cost. Only the five-station and six-station 

scenarios east of Colton would be considered as long-term service options in the EIS/EIR analysis. 

The three-station and four-station scenarios will continue to be included in the SDP analysis but are 

considered part of the construction phasing process rather than long-term service options. Actual 

locations of new stations would be evaluated during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 2-12

Table 2-1. Coachella Valley Station Options

Station Options

Eastern 

Terminus

Existing and Proposed 

New Stations: Western 

Section

Existing and Proposed New 

Stations: Eastern Section

Los Angeles-Indio: 

Three stations east of Colton**

Indio LAUS, Fullerton, Riverside Pass Area*, Palm Springs, 

Indio*

Los Angeles-Coachella:

Four stations east of Colton**

Coachella LAUS, Fullerton, Riverside Pass Area*, Palm Springs, 

Indio*, Coachella*

Los Angeles-Indio: 

Five stations east of Colton***

Indio LAUS, Fullerton, Riverside Loma Linda/Redlands*, Pass 

Area*, Palm Springs, 

Mid-Valley*, Indio*

Los Angeles-Coachella: 

Six stations east of Colton***

Coachella LAUS, Fullerton, Riverside Loma Linda/Redlands*, Pass 

Area*, Palm Springs, 

Mid-Valley*, Indio*, Coachella*

Notes:

* indicates proposed new stations

** Construction phasing scenario

*** Long-term service option

LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 3-1

3 Regulatory Framework

3.1 Federal

3.1.1 Federal Railroad Administration

According to the FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545, May 26, 

1999) Section 14(n)(13) (FRA 1999), an “EIS should assess the impacts on both passenger and 

freight transportation, by all modes, from local, regional, national, and international perspectives. The 

EIS should include a discussion of both construction period and long-term impacts on vehicular 

traffic congestion.”

3.2 State

3.2.1 California Department of Transportation

Caltrans manages and coordinates statewide intercity passenger rail service that helps to improve 

the state’s air quality and reduce highway congestion and fuel consumption. Caltrans contracts with 

the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) to provide daily operation and maintenance of 

Amtrak California service.

3.2.2 Senate Bill 743

California’s Senate Bill (SB) 743, approved in 2013, changes the evaluation of traffic impacts under 

CEQA. The bill requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to modify the CEQA Guidelines 

to replace existing approaches for studying transportation impacts under CEQA. These previously 

existing approaches focused on auto delay and congestion, which are typically measured using level 

of service (LOS). These metrics will no longer be requirements to determine traffic impacts under 

CEQA. Rather, SB 743 requires OPR to establish criteria for determining the significance of 

transportation impacts that promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of 

multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. In response, OPR published a 

document titled Updating Transportation Impacts Analysis in the CEQA Guidelines: Preliminary 

Discussion Draft of Updates to the CEQA Guidelines Implementing Senate Bill 743 (State of 

California OPR 2013). These preliminary updates identified vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the 

primary metric for evaluating transportation impacts. OPR published a revised Technical Advisory in 

April 2018. The revised Technical Advisory identified VMT (per capita, per employee, or other 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 3-2

appropriate efficiency measure) as new metrics for evaluating transportation impacts. In December 

2018, the California Natural Resources Agency finalized updates to the CEQA Guidelines, including 

the incorporation of SB 743 modifications; the statewide application of VMT as the primary metric for 

evaluating transportation impacts was initiated in July 2020.

SB 743 preserves local government authority to make planning decisions. Therefore, LOS and 

congestion can still be measured for planning purposes; however, studies based on these metrics 

will no longer be required as part of the CEQA process.

3.3 Regional

Consideration of regional rail and roadway operations would include regional agency plans and 

regulations applicable to the planning of transportation infrastructure. The Southern California 

Association of Governments (SCAG) is the regional planning agency for the entire Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR Study Area for transportation.

3.3.1 Southern California Association of Governments

SCAG is a Joint Powers Authority under California state law, established as an association of local 

governments and agencies that voluntarily convene as a forum to address regional issues. Under 

federal law, SCAG is designated as a Metropolitan Planning Organization and under state law as a 

Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Council of Governments. The SCAG region 

encompasses six counties: Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. 

On April 7, 2016, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan 

(RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). The RTP/SCS is a long-range visioning plan that 

balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. 

The RTP/SCS charts a course for closely integrating land use and transportation, so that the region 

can grow smartly and sustainably.

3.4 Local and Tribal Governments

Regulations from cities, local agencies, and tribal governments would be identified in the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis once site-specific effects resulting from construction and operation of 

infrastructure improvements are known. Tier 2/Project-level environmental review considerations are 

discussed further in Section 7.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 4-1

4 Methodology 

The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR methodology identifies the approach and assumptions for the 

transportation assessment in regard to analyzing environmental consequences of the No Build 

Alternative and the three Build Alternative Options related to transportation impacts. The

transportation impact assessment considers the general change in travel conditions from a user’s 

perspective for the proposed transportation improvements by comparing the Build Alternative 

Options to the No Build Alternative.

4.1 Definitions

The following travel condition factors were used to report the performance of the Program:

Transportation Connectivity: Transportation connectivity measures both quality and extent to 

which transfers between transit and intercity or commuter rail are available at stations, since the 

number of connections and quality of transfers between these modes have implications for 

accessibility of the overall transportation network. The quality of transfer would include the amount of 

wait time at stations to connect to another mode of transportation to reach the final destination. 

Connectivity measures the LOS for intercity and commuter rail and public transit services at intercity 

rail stations using the metrics such as hours of service and frequency of each connecting mode (i.e., 

intercity passenger rail, commuter passenger rail, and public transit), consistent with information 

presented in the Transportation Research Board’s Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 

2nd Edition (2003). 

Service Frequency: Service frequency is a measure of how often passenger rail service is provided 

(i.e., the number of trains, trains per hour, peak service vs. off-peak service, weekday vs. 

weekend/holiday service, event service) at stations or between station stops. Service frequency, 

combined with train capacity, drives the person-carrying capacity of the service.

Accessibility: At a regional level, accessibility measures the traveler’s ability to travel to different 

parts of the region. At a local level, accessibility measures the ease with which passengers can 

access rail stations from the existing transportation network, including pedestrian and bicycle 

networks and public transportation modes. 

Corridor Travel Time: Corridor travel time is the time required to travel through part or all of the 

Program Corridor. Travel time for this analysis represents an average travel time (on any mode or as 

a combination of modes) under normal operating conditions. For the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, the 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 4-2

Service Development Plan will identify rail infrastructure needed so the service can achieve an 

on-time performance level of 90 percent.

Ridership: Ridership is a measure of the number of passenger trips traveling through the Program 

Corridor, as well as station-level boardings/alightings. In addition, the rail ridership drives the 

reduction of vehicle trips and vehicle miles of travel on the regional highway system. This measure is 

also relevant to connectivity as the increased use of the existing rail stations are expected to result in 

increased demand for service on connecting and proximate public transportation operations,

including bus, light rail, and commuter rail.

Safety: Safety benefits are measured in terms of reduced transportation related incidents, especially 

those involving fatalities and serious injuries. Vehicular trips are anticipated to be shifted to the 

passenger rail service, thereby reducing the potential of auto-related accidents, but increasing the 

potential of rail-related accidents. However, even if rail-related accidents may occur, statistically rail 

travel is safer per passenger mile than automobile travel. 

4.2 Horizon Years

For the purpose of comparison between the Build Alternative Options and No Build Alternative, 

3 horizon years were analyzed:

• Existing Year (2018): Under this scenario, Program-related transportation impacts on the 

surrounding roadways and railroads (passenger and freight) were evaluated to determine 

traffic under existing conditions. This scenario was analyzed to fulfill CEQA requirements for 

establishing a baseline environmental setting. 

• Opening Year (2024): Under this scenario, Program-related transportation impacts on the 

surrounding roadways and railroads (passenger and freight) system were evaluated on the 

first day the Program is operational. Any proposed infrastructure improvements (analyzed 

under the Tier 2/Project-level analysis) are expected to be complete by Opening Year 

(2024). No additional Program-related infrastructure changes would occur between Opening 

Year and Future Year (2044).

• Future Year (2044): Under this scenario, Program-related transportation impacts on the 

surrounding roadways and railroads (passenger and freight) system were evaluated under 

full build-out conditions, when ridership is expected to reach its highest potential. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 4-3

4.3 Approach

Travel conditions include service frequency, travel time, connectivity between modes, improved 

access to existing destinations, new means of access to locations presently unserved by passenger 

rail, expanded modal options, customer convenience, and safety enhancement. Together, these 

travel conditions describe the overall service quality. Table 4-1 depicts the transportation 

assessment criteria and metrics for quantifying Program-related effects. 

Table 4-1. Regional Transportation Methodology Framework

Level of 

Analysis Mode Unit of Analysis Metric

Travel 

Condition 

Factor

Regional Highways and 

roadways

Travel along 

Program Corridor

Vehicle trip reduction Ridership

Regional Highways and 

roadways

Travel along 

Program Corridor

VMT reduction Ridership

Regional Highways and 

roadways

Travel along 

Program Corridor

Highway safety enhancement 

(accident reduction)

Safety

Regional Passenger rail Travel along 

Program Corridor

Off-highway person-capacity Frequency

Regional Passenger rail Travel along 

Program Corridor

Annual passengers Ridership 

Regional Passenger rail Travel along 

Program Corridor

Passenger miles traveled Ridership

Regional Passenger rail Travel along 

Program Corridor

Travel time via public transportation Travel time

Regional Passenger rail Travel along 

Program Corridor

Reliability of service/on-time 

performance

Travel time

Regional Freight rail Shared rail corridor 

with proposed 

passenger rail 

service 

Reliability of freight travel / Delay to 

freight rail traffic

Travel time

Regional Passenger rail Representative 

station areas along 

Program Corridor

Hours of service and frequency of 

possible connecting mode 

(commuter rail/public transit)

Connectivity
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 4-4

Level of 

Analysis Mode Unit of Analysis Metric

Travel 

Condition 

Factor

Regional Passenger rail Representative 

station areas along 

Program Corridor

Number of trains per day Frequency

Regional Passenger rail Representative 

station areas along 

Program Corridor

Number of boardings/alightings for 

each station area

Ridership

Regional Passenger rail Representative 

station areas along 

Program Corridor

Transit accessibility to other parts of 

the region

Regional 

Accessibility

Regional Passenger rail Representative 

station areas along 

Program Corridor

Ease and quality of transfers Local 

Accessibility

Regional Passenger rail Representative 

station areas along 

Program Corridor

Ease of station access (multimodal 

access, frequency of access) 

Local 

Accessibility

Notes:

VMT=vehicle miles traveled

4.4 Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area for this Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum is 

based on the regional and local impact assessment. For the regional impacts, the four-county Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area is loosely defined around the Program Corridor, encompassing the 

regional freeways between Los Angeles and Coachella Valley. At the local level, the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR Study Area includes the catchment areas within which existing and potential new stations 

may be located along the Build Alternative Options between Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella. The 

specific extent of localized impact areas around stations will be determined in Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis, when specific locations for each proposed station will be identified. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 4-5

The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area is divided into Western and Eastern Sections. For the 

Western Section, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area for potential transportation-related impacts 

extends up to 600 feet out from either side of the existing railroad centerline. For the Eastern 

Section, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area for station related infrastructure improvements 

extends up to 1,000 feet out from either side of the centerline, plus a 500-foot buffer for the 

assessment of indirect impacts, for a total Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area of 1,500 feet out from 

either side of the centerline at each of the individual station location areas. The remaining portion of 

the Eastern Section Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area for potential transportation-related impacts 

encompasses up to 300 feet from the railroad centerline to include non-station related infrastructure 

improvements, plus a 500-foot buffer for the assessment of indirect impacts, for a total Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area of 800 feet from the railroad centerline.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 4-6

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-1

5 Existing Conditions

The description of existing conditions characterizes the aviation service and highway/roadway 

network (for passenger vehicles and buses), as well as the existing rail service (passenger and 

freight) within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. 

5.1 Aviation Service

The only scheduled air passenger service in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area operates 

between Palm Springs Airport and Los Angeles International Airport. The average number of daily 

flights between Los Angeles International Airport and Palm Springs Airport (all operated by United

Airlines) varies seasonally. The advance round-trip fare is between $300.00 to over $500.00.

5.2 Highways and Roadways

5.2.1 Regional Road Network

The key regional highways serving the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area are presented on

Figure 5-1. In the Western Section under all Build Alternative Options, the three most important west 

to east regional highways include Interstate (I) 10, State Route (SR) 60, and SR 91. In the Eastern 

Section, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area is served by I-10, SR 60, and SR 111. Within the 

Coachella Valley, the main roadways that carry vehicles to the San Gorgonio Pass are I-10 and 

SR 111. I-10 runs along the northeastern rim of the Coachella Valley, while SR 111 runs 

approximately 30 miles along the southwestern rim of the Coachella Valley and serves as the main 

arterial highway between almost all Coachella Valley cities. The regional road network for Build 

Alternative Options 2 and 3 are the same when compared with Build Alternative Option 1. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-2

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-3

Figure 5-1. Key Corridor Highways within the Program Corridor (All Build Alternative Options)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-4

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-5

5.3 Bus and Rail Service

This section describes existing regional bus and rail transit services operating within the Program 

Corridor, as depicted on Figure 5-2.

5.3.1 Bus Transit Service

Public transportation in different parts of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area is provided by the 

SunLine Transit Agency and Pass Transit. In addition, Amtrak Thruway bus service is provided to 

connect rail passengers to Amtrak trains in Fullerton and Bakersfield, and privately operated intercity 

bus service is provided by Greyhound. In this section, these bus services are briefly described. 

SunLine’s Commuter Link 220

Introduced in September 2012, SunLine’s commuter bus service operates between the Coachella 

Valley and Western Riverside County. The route is 73 miles long with stops in the Coachella Valley

(Palm Desert and Thousand Palms), the San Gorgonio Pass Area (Morongo Casino/Cabazon, 

Banning, and Beaumont), Moreno Valley, the University of California Riverside, and the downtown 

Riverside Metrolink train and bus stations, where riders can transfer to travel to other parts of the 

Los Angeles Basin. Three round-trips are operated on weekdays. Westbound trips include two 

morning and one afternoon departure from Palm Desert, while eastbound trips include one morning 

and two afternoon/evening departures from the Riverside Metrolink station. Details of service and 

route for SunLine’s Commuter Link 220 are presented in Appendix A. 

The one-way fare for this service is $6.00, while a 30-day general pass is $150.00. Trip time 

between Palm Desert and the Riverside Metrolink station is approximately 2 hours 15 minutes

(SunLine Transit Agency 2017).
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-6

Pass Transit’s Commuter Link 120 

Provided by Pass Transit, the Commuter Link 120 is an express bus service between Beaumont and 

the San Bernardino Metrolink station, with stops in Calimesa and at the Loma Linda Veterans 

Administration Hospital. The service makes seven round-trips throughout the day each weekday and 

includes five round-trips on Saturdays. In San Bernardino, riders can catch Metrolink trains to travel 

to other parts of the Los Angeles Basin. This service originates in the western part of the San 

Gorgonio Pass Area, so it does not directly serve Banning, Cabazon, or the Coachella Valley. 

Details of service and route for Pass Transit’s Commuter Link 120 is presented in Appendix A.

The one-way fare is $3.00, while a 30-day general pass is $75.00 (City of Beaumont 2016). Trip time 

from Beaumont to San Bernardino Metrolink ranges between 40 and 55 minutes.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-7

Figure 5-2. Intercity Rail and Regional Bus Service within the Program Corridor (Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-8

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-9

Amtrak Thruway

Amtrak Thruway motorcoaches use Amtrak-owned, but locally contracted, intercity transit buses to 

provide connecting services between Amtrak train stations and areas that are not directly served by 

its passenger trains. Travelers may use Amtrak Thruway buses only in conjunction with trips made 

aboard Amtrak passenger trains. The buses cannot be used for standalone intercity bus travel. A 

typical one-way fare of Thruway bus and Pacific Surfliner rail service between Indio and Los Angeles 

with transfer at Fullerton is $21.00, and the trip time varies between 3 hours 42 minutes and 4 hours

35 minutes depending on direction of travel and the timing of the connection in Fullerton.

Twelve daily Amtrak Thruway buses, presented in Table 5-1, combine to provide two daily 

round-trips between the Coachella Valley and Fullerton by way of Riverside, two daily round-trips 

between the Coachella Valley and Bakersfield by way of San Bernardino, Ontario, and Pasadena, as 

well as four daily roundtrips between Bakersfield and Riverside/San Bernardino. Detailed schedule 

information on each service is presented in Appendix A.

Table 5-1. Amtrak Thruway Service within the Program Corridor (Build Alternative 

Options 1, 2, and 3)

Bus 

Number

Direction 

of Travel Service Area Stops

Connecting 

Trains Frequency

Amtrak Thruway Buses Connecting with Amtrak Pacific Surfliner Trains

4968 Eastbound Fullerton to 

Palm Springs 

Fullerton, Riverside, Cabazon, Palm 

Springs Downtown, Palm Springs 

Airport

Pacific 

Surfliner Trains 

768, 769, and 

572

One one-way 

trip per day

4984 Eastbound Fullerton to 

Indio

Fullerton, Riverside, Cabazon, Palm 

Springs Downtown, Palm Springs 

Airport, Palm Desert, La Quinta, 

Indio

Pacific 

Surfliner Trains 

782, 584, and 

583

One one-way 

trip per day

4969 Westbound Indio to 

Fullerton

Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm 

Springs Airport, Palm Springs 

Downtown, Cabazon, Riverside, 

Fullerton

Pacific 

Surfliner Trains 

769, and 572

One one-way 

trip per day

4985 Westbound Palm Springs 

to Fullerton

Palm Springs Airport, Palm Springs 

Downtown, Cabazon, Riverside, 

Fullerton

Pacific 

Surfliner Trains 

785 and 584

One one-way 

trip per day
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-10

Bus 

Number

Direction 

of Travel Service Area Stops

Connecting 

Trains Frequency

Amtrak Thruway Buses Connecting with Amtrak San Joaquin Trains

5402 Eastbound Bakersfield to 

Indio

Bakersfield, La Crescenta, 

Pasadena, Claremont, Ontario, 

Riverside, San Bernardino, 

Cabazon, Palm Springs Downtown, 

Palm Springs Airport, Palm Desert, 

La Quinta, Indio

San Joaquin 

Train 702

One one-way 

trip per day

5412 Eastbound Bakersfield to 

Indio

Bakersfield, La Crescenta, 

Pasadena, Claremont, Ontario, 

Riverside, San Bernardino, 

Cabazon, Palm Springs Downtown, 

Palm Springs Airport, Palm Desert, 

La Quinta, Indio

San Joaquin 

Train 712

One one-way 

trip per day

5410 Eastbound Bakersfield to 

San 

Bernardino

Bakersfield, La Crescenta, 

Pasadena, Claremont, Ontario, 

Riverside, San Bernardino

San Joaquin 

Train 710

One one-way 

trip per day

5414 Eastbound Bakersfield to 

San 

Bernardino

Bakersfield, La Crescenta, 

Pasadena, Claremont, Ontario, 

Riverside, San Bernardino

San Joaquin 

Train 714

One one-way 

trip per day

5415 Westbound San 

Bernardino to 

Bakersfield

San Bernardino, Riverside, Ontario, 

Claremont, Pasadena, La 

Crescenta, Bakersfield

San Joaquin 

Train 715

One one-way 

trip Monday 

to Friday

5465 Westbound San 

Bernardino to 

Bakersfield

San Bernardino, Riverside, Ontario, 

Claremont, Pasadena, La 

Crescenta, Bakersfield

San Joaquin 

Train 717

One one-way 

trip Saturday 

and Sunday

5417 Westbound Indio to 

Bakersfield

Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm 

Springs Airport, Palm Springs 

Downtown, Cabazon, San 

Bernardino, Riverside, Ontario, 

Claremont, Pasadena, La 

Crescenta, Bakersfield

San Joaquin 

Train 717

One one-way 

trip per day

5403 Westbound Indio to 

Bakersfield

Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm 

Springs Airport, Palm Springs 

Downtown, Cabazon, San 

Bernardino, Riverside, Ontario, 

Claremont, Pasadena, La 

Crescenta, Bakersfield

San Joaquin 

Train 703

One one-way 

trip per day

Source: Amtrak 2018 (Pacific Surfliner Schedule, effective 04.01.18, San Joaquin Schedule, effective 05.07.18)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-11

Greyhound Bus

Greyhound operates intercity bus service between Los Angeles and Indio, with eight weekday trips 

from Los Angeles to Indio and seven from Indio to Los Angeles. Depending on the schedule, one to 

three communities in eastern Riverside County are served by this Greyhound route. These 

communities include Indio, Thousand Palms, and Banning. An average ‘economy’ one-way fare from 

Indio to Los Angeles varies between $20.00 and $38.00, depending on the day, time, and direction 

of travel. Trip time for daytime service ranges from 3 to 4 hours (late-night non-stop service makes 

the trip in 2.5 hours). 

5.3.2 Passenger Rail Service

Amtrak Rail

In Southern California, Amtrak uses railroad lines operated by freight railroads and Metrolink 

commuter rail. Currently, there is one Amtrak service to the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor

and three to the Western Section of the Program Corridor.

Only one Amtrak train currently serves the Coachella Valley: the Sunset Limited, a long-distance 

train that travels between Los Angeles and New Orleans with three roundtrips per week. The 

westbound train has a scheduled stop in Palm Springs at 2:02 a.m. on Monday, Wednesday, and 

Friday en route to a 5:35 a.m. arrival in LAUS. The eastbound Sunset Limited is scheduled to depart 

Los Angeles at 10:00 p.m. and makes a scheduled stop at Palm Springs at 12:36 a.m. on Monday, 

Thursday, and Saturday en route to New Orleans. The Palm Springs station is currently unstaffed 

and located in a fairly isolated location with no local transit access. A one-way fare between Palm 

Springs and Los Angeles is $22.00. 

Amtrak Pacific Surfliner provides 12 daily roundtrips, per week, between Los Angeles and San 

Diego. The trains have scheduled stops at Fullerton and LAUS in the Western Section of the 

Program Corridor. Pacific Surfliner frequency is approximately one train every hour to hour and half 

in each direction. Eastbound train service run from approximately between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., 

while westbound train service is approximately between 6:00 a.m. and mid-night. One-way fare 

between Fullerton and Los Angeles is $13.95. 

Amtrak Southwest Chief provides daily long-distance service between Los Angeles and Chicago. 

The trains have scheduled stops at Los Angeles, Fullerton, and Riverside stations in the Western 

Section of the Program Corridor. The westbound Southwest Chief has a scheduled stop in Riverside 

and Fullerton at 6:03 a.m. and 6:54 a.m., en route to an 8:00 a.m. arrival in Los Angeles. The

eastbound train is scheduled to depart Los Angeles at 6:00 p.m. and makes a scheduled stop at 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-12

Fullerton and Riverside at 6:35 p.m. and 7:18 p.m. en route to Chicago. A one-way fare between Los 

Angeles and Riverside is $13.00. 

Details of all Amtrak service on the Program Corridor is presented in Appendix A.

Metrolink Rail

Metrolink commuter rail service currently does not operate within the Coachella Valley. However, 

four Metrolink services that operate in Orange County, Riverside, or San Bernardino connect to 

LAUS. These include the Orange County Line (Oceanside/Laguna Niguel/Irvine to LAUS), San 

Bernardino Line (San Bernardino to LAUS), the Riverside Line (Riverside to LAUS via Ontario), and 

the 91/Perris Valley Line (Perris and Riverside to LAUS, via Orange County). 

The Orange County Line operates 10 eastbound trains and 9 westbound trains between LAUS and 

east of Fullerton. Headways vary between approximately 30 minutes to 1 hour, during the peak 

direction of travel. During weekends and holidays, there are four round-trains between LAUS and 

Oceanside. One way fare between Fullerton and LAUS is $8.50 per person. 

The San Bernardino Line operates 19 round-trips on weekdays, with departures scheduled 

throughout the day on headways ranging from 10 to 95 minutes. On Saturdays, 10 round-trip trains 

run on approximately 90-minute headways, to and from LAUS, and on Sundays, seven round-trip 

trains are operated on approximately 2- to 3-hour headways. An average one-way fare from San 

Bernardino to Los Angeles is $13.25, and the trip takes about 1 hour and 35 minutes. 

The Riverside Line operates with six round-trip trains on weekdays only between Downtown 

Riverside and LAUS. Most trains operate to LAUS in the morning and to Riverside in the evening. 

Headways vary from approximately 30 minutes to 2 hours. An average one-way fare from Riverside 

to Los Angeles is $13.00 with a typical scheduled travel time of 1 hour 25 minutes. 

The 91/Perris Valley Line operates four trains in the westbound direction and five trains in the 

eastbound direction between Downtown Riverside and LAUS on weekdays. Headways vary 

between approximately 30 minutes to 1 hour, during the peak direction of travel. During weekends, 

there are two round-trip trains between Downtown Riverside and LAUS. An average one-way fare 

from Downtown Riverside to Los Angeles is $13.00 with a travel time of 1 hour 35 minutes.

5.3.3 Freight Rail Service

Both the Western and Eastern Sections of the Program Corridor are key segments of high density 

freight train routes that link Southern California, including the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, 

with major population centers in the United States (U.S.) , Midwest, the Gulf Coast, and the 

Southeast. As a result, freight train volumes in each section have substantial variability associated 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-13

with vessel calls at the ports, customer requirements, day of week, and import-export fluctuations, 

and unlike passenger rail service, do not have a set schedule.

5.3.4 Rail Volume and Rail Corridor Ownership

As shown in Table 5-2 and Figure 5-3, the Western Section operation is divided among BNSF and 

SCRRA (or Metrolink). BNSF-operated sections vary from 32 to 54 average freight trains per day, 

along with 2 to 26 average intercity passenger trains per day, and 8 to 28 average commuter trains 

that use part or all of the Program Corridor. The SCRRA operated section averages 26 and 

28 passenger and commuter trains, respectively per day to and from LAUS and also has one limited 

local freight service. 

The Western Section has more variability in volume because of the additional passenger and 

commuter train services that use this section. Three different Metrolink commuter rail lines use part 

of the Western Section: (1) the Inland Empire-Orange County Line, linking San Bernardino and 

Oceanside, uses the Program Corridor between Colton and Atwood; (2) the 91/Perris Valley Line, 

linking Perris and Los Angeles, uses the Program Corridor between Riverside and LAUS; and (3) the 

Orange County Line, linking Oceanside and Los Angeles, uses the Program Corridor between 

Fullerton and LAUS. In addition, Amtrak operates two different intercity passenger services in the 

Western Section: (1) Pacific Surfliner intercity passenger trains, linking San Diego with Los Angeles 

and San Luis Obispo, use the Program Corridor between Fullerton and LAUS; and (2) Amtrak’s long 

distance Southwest Chief, linking Chicago and Los Angeles, uses the full length of the Western 

Section between Colton and LAUS.

In the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, UP’s Yuma Subdivision, averages approximately

trains per day and is predominately freight trains. In addition, Amtrak’s long-distance passenger 

train, the Sunset Limited, operates six one-way trips per week (3 days per week in each direction) 

along the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. Existing rail volume and rail corridor ownership 

within the Program Corridor are the same under all Build Alternative Options.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-14

Table 5-2. Existing Daily Train Operations in the Coachella Valley Rail Program Corridor 

(Average One-Way Trips), 2018

Segments

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)

Los Angeles Union Station-Soto* 26 28 1 55

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

Soto*-Fullerton 26 28 32 86

Fullerton-Atwood 2 9 32 43

Atwood-Riverside 2 25 34 61

Riverside-Highgrove 2 20 54 76

Highgrove-Colton 2 8 54 64

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

Colton-Coachella 1 0 42 43

Notes:

Daily train counts represent revenue train movements on a weekday (Monday-Friday). Freight train counts are based 

on Base Year (2013) daily freight train totals for the line segments shown above, as published in the 2018 California 

State Rail Plan, Appendix A.4, Table 20. 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. 

* Soto interlocking (Milepost 144.4) in Los Angeles

LOSSAN=Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo; SCRRA=Southern California Regional Rail Authority; UP=Union 

Pacific Railroad

Figure 5-3 presents the existing freight routes along the Program Corridor and outlines the segment 

endpoints, host railroads, and additional operators used in Table 5-2 to show 2018 train operations 

and access rights.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-15

Figure 5-3. Host Railroads and Additional Operators within the Program Corridor

Note: Train operations and access rights on the rail segments in this map are reported in Table 5-2.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-16

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-17

5.3.5 Railroad/Roadway Crossings

Railroad/roadway crossings are subject to a number of existing laws, regulations, and policies 

related to sight distance for drivers and highway and rail system operational requirements. At grade 

railroad/roadway crossings also present a risk of collisions between trains and other travel modes, 

as well as a risk of collisions between vehicles, particularly rear end type crashes when vehicles stop 

at a crossing.

The Program Corridor crosses 180 (129 in the Western Section and 51 in the Eastern Section) 

existing highway/rail crossings, including the following types:

• Public at grade crossings: 51

• Private at grade crossings: 12

• Overpass, public roadway: 65

• Underpass, public roadway: 48

• Underpass, private crossing: 3

• Underpass, pedestrian, public: 1

Railroad/roadway crossings within the Program Corridor are the same under all Build Alternative 

Options.

5.3.6 Regional Accessibility

For public transportation users, regional accessibility between the Coachella Valley/San Gorgonio 

Pass area and the greater Los Angeles area is limited to the areas served by the Amtrak Thruway 

Service, the SunLine Commuter Link 220, the Beaumont Commuter Link 120, and the rail and transit 

services they connect to. Table 5-3 summarizes the existing regional accessibility that is available 

through the Program Corridor using these services.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-18

Table 5-3. Existing Regional Accessibility via Public Transportation within the Program 

Corridor

City Pass Area Palm Springs Mid-Valley Indio/Coachella

Los Angeles • via Amtrak 

Thruway/Pacific 

Surfliner

• via Sunline 

Commuter Link 

220 / Metrolink 

91-Perris Valley 

Line

• via Amtrak 

Thruway/Pacific 

Surfliner

• via Amtrak 

Thruway/Pacific 

Surfliner

• via Sunline Commuter 

Link 220 / Metrolink 

91-Perris Valley Line

• via Beaumont 

Commuter Link 120 / 

Metrolink San 

Bernardino Line

• via Amtrak 

Thruway/Pacific 

Surfliner

Fullerton • via Sunline 

Commuter Link 

220 / Metrolink 

91-Perris Valley 

Line

— • via Sunline Commuter 

Link 220 / Metrolink 

91-Perris Valley Line

—

Riverside • via Sunline 

Commuter Link 

220 / Metrolink 

91-Perris Valley 

Line

— • via Sunline Commuter 

Link 220 / Metrolink 

91-Perris Valley Line

—

Loma Linda/ 

Redlands

• via Beaumont 

Commuter Link 

120 / Metrolink 

San Bernardino 

Line

— — —

5.3.7 Station Access and Parking

Four existing stations along the Program Corridor have existing platforms and facilities that are 

anticipated to be used for the proposed passenger rail service. Local access to each of the existing 

stations is presented in this section.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-19

Los Angeles Union Station, Los Angeles

LAUS, located at 800 Alameda Street in the City of Los Angeles, is a regional transportation hub 

providing multimodal access, including pedestrian and bike access. The station provides bike racks 

and lockers. The station is currently served by an extensive transit system including bus, rail, and 

high-occupancy vehicle facilities. Numerous bus routes start, stop, or terminate at LAUS. These 

include long-haul, express, and local municipal buses provided by the City of Los Angeles 

Department of Transportation and Metro. Buses include the Los Angeles International Airport 

FlyAway, provided by Los Angeles World Airports, with scheduled ground transportation between 

Los Angeles International Airport and LAUS. Express buses are provided by OCTA, Foothill Transit, 

and the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation, as well as Amtrak Thruway. Local buses 

include the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation Downtown Area Short Hop and other 

local service providers. Along with bus routes, the station also provides connection to Metro Red and 

Purple Lines, Gold Line, six Metrolink lines (91/Perris Valley Line, Antelope Valley Line, Orange 

County Line, Riverside Line, San Bernardino Line and the Ventura County Line), and four Amtrak 

services (Pacific Surfliner, Coast Starlight, Southwest Chief, and Sunset Limited). Roadway access 

to the station is from Alameda Street on the west, Vignes Street on the east, and Cesar Chavez 

Avenue on the north. From the south, indirect access is provided from the El Monte Busway and 

Arcadia Street. Regional roadway access to LAUS is provided via U.S. Highway 101 and I-110. 

Parking structures at both the east and the west end of the station provide paid parking spaces 

(approximately 3,000 spaces) (Union Station Los Angeles n.d.). The LAUS east garage is accessible 

24 hours, 7 days a week, and is the only garage available for overnight parking. Parking on the west 

side of the station is usually valet parking or short term for a maximum of 24 hours (Union Station 

Los Angeles 2018). 

Fullerton Station, Orange County

The Fullerton Station, located at 120 Santa Fe Avenue in Fullerton, also serves as a multimodal 

transportation center and provides bike and pedestrian access. The station provides bike racks and 

lockers. The station is served by two Metrolink lines (91/Perris Valley Line and Orange County Line) 

and by two Amtrak services (Pacific Surfliner and Southwest Chief). Local bus service is provided by 

OCTA. The Amtrak Thruway buses also makes stops at this station. Access to the Fullerton station, 

located in Orange County, is provided via Harbor Boulevard on the west, Santa Fe Avenue on the 

north, Walnut Avenue on the south, and Lemon Street on the east. Regional access to the Fullerton 

station is provided via SR 91. The Fullerton station provides free parking and has 1,321 parking 

spaces of which 9 are reserved for handicapped drivers. The parking structure west of Harbor 

Boulevard offers 814 spaces (Southern California Regional Rail Authority 2018). Overnight parking 

for 72 hours is available at the Fullerton station.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-20

Riverside Station, Riverside County 

Located at 4066 Vine Street, the Riverside station is served by both Metrolink commuter service 

(91/Perris Valley Line, Inland Empire-Orange County Line and Riverside Line) and Amtrak long 

distance service (Southwest Chief). Bus service to this station is provided by Riverside Transit 

Agency and SunLine. Riverside Transit Agency also operates a free shuttle connecting the station 

with the downtown offices and businesses. The station has sidewalks to provide pedestrian access 

and is accessible by bikes, even though there are no demarcated bike accesses. Bike lockers or 

racks are not available at this station. 

Access to the Riverside station, located in Riverside County, is provided via Vine Street on the north, 

14th Street on the west, and Commerce Street on the south. Regional access to the Riverside 

station is provided via SR 91 and SR 60. The Riverside station provides free parking and has 

1,115 parking spaces of which 25 are reserved for handicapped drivers. In addition, 325 parking 

spaces are provided on the east parking lot, located off Commerce Street (off the south-side 

platform) (Southern California Regional Rail Authority 2018).

Palm Springs Station, Riverside County

Located on Palm Springs Station Road, access to the Palm Springs station, located in Riverside 

County, is provided via Indian Canyon Drive and Palm Springs Station Drive on the east. Regional 

access to the Palm Springs station is provided via I-10. A total of 40 parking spaces are available at 

the Palm Springs station. Of these, four are designated as handicapped spaces. In addition, 6 drop 

off/pick up spaces and 10 bus bays are provided1. SunLine provides bus connection along Indian 

Canyon Drive but does not provide direct access to the station. Currently, the station does not 

provide any bike or pedestrian access. 

1 Based off Google aerial imagery of Palm Springs station.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-1

6 Environmental Consequences

This section identifies potential transportation impacts resulting from the implementation of the Build 

Alternative Options. Transportation-related effects are evaluated qualitatively in this technical 

memorandum consistent with a Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Future ridership projections for passenger 

rail service are presented for each station option. In addition to passenger rail service 

characteristics, impacts on freight rail service, grade crossings, and vehicular traffic are discussed in 

the following sections.

6.1 Overview

Effects from the Program can be broadly classified into construction and operational effects. 

Long-term or permanent effects and short-term or temporary effects on transportation would be 

anticipated as a result of constructing any of the Build Alternative Options. This section compares 

the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternative Options on their ability to meet the projected 

intercity travel demand and documents the anticipated changes to traffic patterns by Build 

Alternative Option, including changes in mode share, travel time, travel time reliability (for passenger 

rail and autos), and VMT. A qualitative discussion of potential effects on air carriers, intercity transit 

service providers, and freight operations is also provided. 

With all of the Build Alternative Options, highway, bus, and air travel could decrease as users shift 

from these modes to the new rail service. Based on the broad assessment conducted, increases in 

mode share to rail could provide both negative and beneficial effects across all mode choices. For 

highway travel, the decrease in mode share would be a beneficial effect, based on users being 

encouraged to use transit and reduce congestion on highways, which could also provide a 

secondary benefit to bus service providers. Likewise, the increase in mode share for passenger rail 

is considered a beneficial effect of the Program. 

The shift of intercity bus and air travelers to the rail system may yield additional benefits by providing 

a mode choice for travelers, travel time savings, and increased schedule reliability. For air carriers, 

the potential benefits may include the opportunity to shift from short-haul to longer-haul flight 

operations, which may include more reliable scheduling and increased revenue. 

There are also negative effects for bus and air travel carriers, since a reduction in their mode share 

would affect intercity bus service providers and air carrier operations (e.g., existing demand, 

schedule adjustments/reductions, and revenue). The shift in mode share and the corresponding 

effects are discussed further throughout the section.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-2

For example, automobile drivers do not typically switch to transit without significant gains in travel 

time or reductions in cost. Compared with the No Build Alternative, the Build Alternative Options 

save travelers time compared with highway travel in most cases, with time savings generally 

increasing as the trip length increases or for urban areas where congestion levels are forecast to 

increase and highway travel time increases. 

Travel time reliability is another beneficial effect of the Program. Trains operate on a scheduled 

service within a dedicated right-of-way and are not subject to fluctuations in traffic congestion. 

Highway travel time reliability varies from location to location, depending on future traffic conditions 

in the area. In general, the Build Alternative Options provide travel time reliability for train travelers, 

compared with expected increases in highway drive times. A reduction in VMT is also a beneficial 

effect of the Program. 

Construction and operation of the Build Alternative Options would result in transportation impacts, as 

discussed below. In general, when compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative 

Option 2 would have slightly reduced effects on transportation due to a shorter route alignment and 

reduced station options. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1 or 2, Build Alternative 

Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects due to a slightly smaller footprint associated with a 

shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and reduced third rail track infrastructure. However, 

the magnitude of effects would be similar for all Build Alternative Options when compared with the 

No Build Alternative.

6.2 No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, a new passenger rail system would not be built, and, hence, 

transportation impacts are not anticipated, beyond those that would occur as a result of other 

approved rail and road projects. 

Transportation impacts because of increased rail operations under the No Build Alternative is 

anticipated in the Western Section due to the following planned/programmed and/or funded projects:

• Capacity improvement between Los Angeles and Fullerton is forecast to 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).
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-3

• Metro’s Link Union Station Project will reconstruct the track and station infrastructure at 

LAUS to meet long-term rail travel needs and improve passenger comfort, safety, and ease 

of navigation through the facility. 

• Los Angeles to Anaheim Project Section of the California High-Speed Rail Authority program 

proposes to utilize portions of the existing Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo rail 

corridor to connect Los Angeles to Anaheim.

In the Eastern Section, the No Build Alternative would be similar to existing conditions for passenger 

rail and transit services that connect the Coachella Valley and San Gorgonio Pass area with the 

greater Los Angeles metropolitan area, as well as forecasted increases in freight traffic. There are 

no known existing or committed transportation improvement projects in the Eastern Section. The five 

intercity passenger rail and bus services that currently provide these connections are anticipated to 

remain unchanged from the existing conditions. No new growth providing regional linkages in the 

Eastern Section are programmed or funded for implementation at this time.

The counties and cities in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area would continue to grow, which 

would increase regional transportation demand. Under the No Build Alternative, accommodation of 

this additional transportation demand would be limited by the existing transportation infrastructure’s 

capacity and capacity increases resulting from other approved transportation projects in the region. 

The No Build Alternative, therefore, assumes completion of those reasonably foreseeable 

transportation, development, and infrastructure projects that are already in progress, programmed, 

or included in the fiscally constrained RTP. An increase in traffic and VMT is expected under the No 

Build Alternative because more cars would be on the roadways compared with what would occur 

with implementation of the Program. Therefore, the No Build Alternative could result in air quality 

impacts and potential additional noise impacts on the surrounding land uses, which could disrupt 

established communities adjacent to existing transportation corridors. However, disruption of 

established communities related to construction and operation of the Program would be avoided.

6.3 Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3

6.3.1 Rail Operational Effects

Construction

Western Section. The Western Section would utilize existing rail infrastructure, and no additional 

track improvements would be required to accommodate the proposed service. No new stations or 

construction to existing stations would be required to accommodate the proposed service. As such, 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-4

transportation impacts as a result of construction are not anticipated under Build Alternative Options 

1, 2, and 3 when compared with the No Build Alternative.

Eastern Section. Construction activities associated with any of the Build Alternative Options would 

affect rail traffic by reducing train operating speeds through construction zones, causing delays to 

freight and passenger service. In addition, there could be the temporary suspension of all train 

operations through a work zone or the suspension of operations on specific tracks within a work 

zone during scheduled periods of construction, such as when new turnouts are being installed for 

sidings, station tracks, or interlockings. This condition also would cause delays to freight and 

passenger service on the line. Track outages and construction-related speed restrictions would 

occur when adding new siding tracks, double-tracking, upgrading signals, constructing stations and 

station tracks, or modifying grade crossings. During construction of any of the Build Alternative 

Options, temporary shoo-fly trackage2 may need to be installed for longer disruptions; brief track 

outages, which would interrupt freight service temporarily, may be necessary. Once site specifics 

associated with the rail infrastructure improvement or station facility are known, the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis would identify and evaluate where and when temporary impacts on rail 

operations would occur.

The duration and frequency of work windows/curfews allowed by UP depends on existing and 

projected train volumes, UP maintenance activities and other corridor-specific variables. The 

variability of conditions would make it difficult for UP to establish a policy regarding acceptable track 

outages for construction. UP released a white paper titled “Best Practices: Coordinating with Union 

Pacific in Alternative Delivery Projects” dated April 23, 2018. This white paper provides insights on 

the limitations that UP places on work windows. In the context of best management practices, the 

white paper states that “A unique characteristic of rail related work is that trains cannot simply be 

re-routed to deal with unexpected project delays or changes. In general, getting curfews of more 

than a few hours per day or week is difficult on most of UP’s network.” Given the foregoing 

statement, an extensive planning effort would precede any railroad construction project.

Operation

Western Section. Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the Program would consist of 

adding four daily one-way trips (two daily round-trips) operating the entire length of the Program 

Corridor between Los Angeles and Indio and/or Coachella. Current (2018) daily rail traffic volumes 

on the Western Section (as shown in Chapter 2 of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) vary by segment

(RCTC and FRA 2021). The highest density segment is between Los Angeles and Fullerton and has 

2 Temporary shoo-fly trackage is a temporary routing of track around a construction site or other obstruction.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-5

an average of 86 daily trains, while the lowest density segment is between Fullerton and Atwood and 

has an average of 43 daily trains. An additional two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains, even 

when compared with the lowest density segment, would represent a 9-percent increase in train 

activity compared with current (2018) traffic volume along the existing railroad right-of-way. In 

2024 and 2044, the Program would add the same number of rail operations to opening and future 

year conditions. Therefore, the Program’s effects in 2024 (as shown in Chapter 2 of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR) and 2044 (as shown in Chapter 2 of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) would be 

lower than those evaluated under existing conditions for the lowest density segment.

Additionally, infrastructure estimates and rail operations impact assessments are not required for the 

Western Section of the Build Alternative Options between Soto interlocking (Milepost 144.4) in Los 

Angeles (Soto) and Colton. Under an existing Shared Use Agreement between RCTC and BNSF,

the timetable slots for the Program within the Western Section are already in place. Rights to 

operate the Program within the Western Section are contractually obligated by BNSF to RCTC, and 

infrastructure sufficient to support the proposed service within the Western Section has been

planned for or constructed to allow for implementation of the service, as documented in the 

2016 Alternatives Analysis (summarized in Chapter 2 of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR). Similarly, 

effects on rail operations and improvements to accommodate the Program between Soto and LAUS 

are not analyzed because these improvements are being accommodated within the capacity 

improvements currently planned in the Link Union Station Project. The Link Union Station Project 

would also identify infrastructure improvements required to support planned regional rail growth and 

future accommodation of California high-speed rail services at LAUS.

When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects related to rail operations would be negligible 

within the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. For the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, the SDP identifies additional 

infrastructure and track capacity required to accommodate the Build Alternative Options and enable 

operation to achieve the on-time performance threshold of 90 percent for intercity passenger trains 

without degrading future freight and other passenger rail services in the Program Corridor.

While the modeling shows improvements to freight service over the No Build Alternative, the 

purpose of the Build Alternative Options is to provide and enhance passenger rail service in the 

Program Corridor. Potential rail infrastructure improvements in the Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor could include sidings, additional main line track, wayside signals, drainage, and grade 

separation structures, as well as station facilities to facilitate implementation of the proposed 

passenger rail service. Site specific rail infrastructure improvements to accommodate the selected 

Build Alternative Option would be identified in coordination with RCTC and the host railroads and 

operators during subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis. When compared with the No Build 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-6

Alternative, effects related to rail operations would be moderate within the Eastern Section under 

Build Alternative Option 1. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 

2 and 3 would have slightly reduced effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station 

options. However, the same magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 2 and 

3 and would be considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative.

6.3.2 Roadway and Vehicular Traffic Effects

Construction

Western Section. The Western Section would utilize existing rail infrastructure, and no additional 

track improvements would be required to accommodate the proposed service. No new stations or 

construction to existing stations would be required to accommodate the proposed service. As such, 

transportation impacts as a result of construction are not anticipated under Build Alternative Options 

1, 2, and 3 when compared with the No Build Alternative.

Eastern Section. While the exact construction zones cannot be determined at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR level, temporary lane closures or roadway closures and additional traffic impacts would 

likely be involved in construction of track and station improvements under Build Alternative Options 

1, 2, and 3. All construction activities affecting roadways, bicycle paths, and pedestrian paths would 

be required to meet the requirements of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 

(MUTCD) (Caltrans 2021). Once site specifics associated with the rail infrastructure improvement or 

station facility are known, the Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify and evaluate where 

temporary road closures and traffic detours would be needed. Mitigation strategies that require the 

preparation and implementation of a site-specific transportation management plan would help 

minimize, avoid, or reduce potential safety effects during construction activities. 

When compared with the No Build Alternative, short-term/temporary effects related to roadways and 

vehicular traffic would be moderate within the Eastern Section under Build Alternative Option 1. 

When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have slightly 

reduced effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduce station options. When compared with

Build Alternative Option 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects due to a 

slightly smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and 

reduced third rail track infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for all Build 

Alternative Options when compared with the No Build Alternative. Specific mitigation measures will 

need to be identified in the Tier 2/Project-level analysis; however, programmatic mitigation measures 

are outlined in Section 7.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-7

Operation

Western and Eastern Section. During operation of the Program within the Program Corridor, access 

streets around each existing station would likely be affected because of additional auto traffic 

generated by patrons accessing and departing from each station. Based on the ridership forecasts 

and estimates of mode choice for station access, an estimate of vehicle traffic generation was 

developed for each station under the Build Alternative Options. It was assumed that patrons for this 

new rail passenger service would access the stations in a combination of modes – drove alone or 

carpooled and parked, got dropped and/or picked up by friend/family, used taxis/Uber/Lyft, and used 

future bus transit. Half the daily vehicle traffic would be generated during mid-morning/afternoon off 

peak and the other half during the afternoon peak period.

Local Roadways

Of the potential station stops in the Program Corridor, four stations exist today, and the remaining 

five stations are potential new stations. The existing stations include LAUS, Fullerton, Riverside, and 

Palm Springs. Up to five new stations are proposed to serve market areas around Loma 

Linda/Redlands, Pass Area, Mid Valley, Indio, and Coachella. The effects of the Build Alternative 

Options on local roadways are presented in terms of local access, parking needs, and new auto trips 

to and from the stations. Effects are presented for Future Year (2044), when the ridership is 

expected to reach its maximum potential, and for the station option that provides six stations east of 

Colton to determine a conservative order of magnitude of effects.

MODE CHOICE FOR FORECAST PASSENGERS TO ACCESS REPRESENTATIVE STATIONS

Access streets around each station (existing and proposed) are likely to be affected because of 

additional auto traffic generated by patrons accessing and departing from each station along the 

Program Corridor. Since the Program is an intercity passenger rail service project, the station access 

mode choice for arriving and departing passengers at stations was estimated based on a recent 

Amtrak onboard survey of its state-supported Pacific Surfliner and San Joaquin corridor services in 

California (San Francisco State University 2017). The mode choice results from the survey are 

summarized in Table 6-1 and Table 6-3, and details of the survey results are presented in Appendix 

D.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-8

Table 6-1. Amtrak On-Board Survey Mode Choice Results (Pacific Surfliner)

Station Access Mode of Transportation

Mode to Boarding 

Station (%)

Mode from Alighting 

Station

(%)

Average

(%)

Drive alone and park 19.6 5.7 12.7

Carpool and park 7.3 3.2 5.2

Dropped off/picked up 39.1 38.6 38.9

Walk 5.9 11.5 8.7

Bicycle 0.9 0.7 0.8

Bus/rail transit 7.7 12.1 9.9

Connecting rail 1.6 2.8 2.2

Taxi/TNC* 13.1 18.9 16.0

Other 4.8 6.5 5.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Notes:

* TNC=transportation network company (such as Uber, Lyft)

Table 6-2. Amtrak On-Board Survey Mode Choice Results (San Joaquin)

Station Access Mode of Transportation

Mode to Boarding 

Station

(%)

Mode from Alighting 

Station

(%)

Average

(%)

Drive alone and park 10.8 2.4 6.6

Carpool and park 4.4 2.5 3.5

Dropped off/picked up 51.8 56.6 54.2

Walk 5.9 10.1 8.0

Bicycle 0.6 1.0 0.8

Bus/rail transit 12.9 11.6 12.2

Connecting rail 2.0 2.8 2.4
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-9

Station Access Mode of Transportation

Mode to Boarding 

Station

(%)

Mode from Alighting 

Station

(%)

Average

(%)

Taxi/TNC* 8.9 8.7 8.8

Other 2.7 4.3 3.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Notes:

* TNC=transportation network company (such as Uber, Lyft)

The access mode percentages from the Pacific Surfliner survey results were used as the basis to 

estimate passenger access mode to stations because the data for the Southern California rail 

corridor are more applicable for the Program Corridor. The average mode choice percentages from 

the Pacific Surfliner survey were adjusted to better reflect the access and surrounding land use 

characteristics of each station:

• For LAUS, because of the very high level of transit accessibility combined with the relative 

difficulty of accessing LAUS by auto and lack of passenger-generating land uses within 

walkable distance, the percentage of passengers accessing the service by bus and rail 

transit increased, while the percentages accessing by car, pick-up/drop-off, and walking 

reduced.

• For the Riverside station, because of the lack of passenger-generating land uses within 

walkable distance combined with the station’s accessibility by auto, the percentage of 

passengers accessing the service by pick-up/drop-off increased, while the percentage 

accessing by walking reduced.

• For the Pass Area, Palm Springs, and Mid-Valley stations, because of the generally low 

levels of transit accessibility and lack of passenger-generating land uses within walkable 

distance of the rail line combined with those areas’ accessibility by auto, the percentages of 

passengers accessing the service by pick-up/drop-off and by taxi/transportation network 

company (TNC)/shuttle increased, while the percentages accessing by walking and transit 

reduced.

• For the Indio and Coachella stations, because of the lack of passenger-generating land uses 

within walkable distance of the rail line combined with the areas’ accessibility by auto, the 

percentage of passengers accessing the service by pick-up/drop-off increased, while the 

percentage accessing by walking reduced.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-10

To account for these factors, adjustments to the passenger access mode percentages were made in 

increments of 5 percent (in the case of the Palm Springs station walking was reduced by the full 8.7 

percent because there are no nearby passenger-generating land uses existing or planned). The 

resulting mode split percentages and estimates of passenger access mode for each station are 

summarized in Table 6-3 and Table 6-4.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-11

Table 6-3. Rail Passenger Access Mode by Station (Percent of Train Passengers)

Percent of Train Passengers

LAUS

(%)

Fullerton

(%)

Riverside

(%)

Loma 

Linda/ 

Redlands

(%)

Pass 

Area

(%)

Palm 

Springs

(%)

Mid-Valley

(%)

Indio

(%)

Coachella

(%)

In cars being parked 7.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9 17.9

Dropped off/picked up 23.9 38.9 43.9 38.9 43.9 47.6 43.9 43.9 43.9

Walk 3.7 8.7 3.7 8.7 3.7 0.0 3.7 3.7 3.7

Bicycle 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

Bus/rail transit 42.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 12.1 12.1

Taxi/TNC/shuttle 21.6 21.6 21.6 21.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 21.6 21.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Typical number of ons/offs per train 194 36 52 52 13 119 41 31 27

Notes:

The numbers in this row are not included in the count of total passengers at the bottom of the table. This row shows the number of vehicles being parked at the 

station that provide station access for the passengers who arrive “in cars being parked” (the row above). 

LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station; TNC=transportation network company
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-12

This page is intentionally blank. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-13

Table 6-4. Rail Passenger Access Mode by Station (Number of Passengers per Train)

Number of Passengers per 

Train LAUS Fullerton Riverside

Loma Linda/ 

Redlands

Pass 

Area

Palm 

Springs Mid-Valley Indio Coachella

In cars being parked 15 7 9 9 2 21 7 6 5

Number Of cars being parked* 13 6 8 8 2 18 6 5 4

Dropped off/picked up 46 14 23 20 6 57 18 13 12

Walk 7 3 2 5 1 0 2 1 1

Bicycle 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0

Bus/rail transit 82 4 6 6 1 8 3 4 3

Taxi/TNC/shuttle 42 8 11 11 3 32 11 7 6

Total passengers 194 36 52 52 13 119 41 31 27

Notes:

The numbers in this row are not included in the count of total passengers at the bottom of the table. This row shows the number of vehicles being parked at the 

station that provide station access for the passengers who arrive “in cars being parked” (the row above). 

LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station; TNC=transportation network company
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-14

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-15

LOS ANGELES UNION STATION

As discussed in Section 5.3.5, access to LAUS is via Alameda Street, Vignes Street, and Cesar 

Chavez Avenue. The existing daily traffic volume is 27,950, 23,170, and 30,360, respectively (Los 

Angeles Department of Transportation 2016). Proposed passenger activity at LAUS would occur 

during both peak (3:20 p.m., 6:40 p.m.) and off-peak (10:20 a.m., 12:40 p.m.) periods. In 2044, for 

the station option with six stations east of Colton, the Build Alternative Options are estimated to add 

up to 189 vehicle trips per train to the surrounding street system and 756 vehicle trips daily. 

FULLERTON 

Access to Fullerton station is provided via Harbor Boulevard, Santa Fe Avenue, Walnut Avenue, and 

Lemon Street. The existing daily traffic volume is 44,300 and 25,000 for Harbor Boulevard and 

Lemon Street, respectively (City of Fullerton 2015). Proposed passenger activity at Fullerton station 

would occur during both peak (3:55 p.m., 6:06 p.m.) and off-peak (10:55 a.m., 12:06 p.m.) periods. 

In 2044, for the station option with six stations east of Colton, the Build Alternative Options are 

estimated to add up to 50 vehicle trips to the surrounding street system, for each train that 

arrives/departs and 200 vehicle trips daily.

RIVERSIDE

Access to Riverside station is provided via Vine Street, 14th Street, and Commerce Street. The 

existing daily traffic volume for Vine Street and 14th Street is approximately 4,000 and 

25,880, respectively (City of Riverside 2017). Proposed passenger activity at Riverside station would 

occur during both peak (4:39 p.m., 5:22 p.m.) and off-peak (11:22 a.m., 11:39 a.m.) periods. In 

2044, for the station option with six stations east of Colton, the Build Alternative Options are 

estimated to add up to 76 vehicle trips to the surrounding street system, for each train that 

arrives/departs and a daily traffic volume of 304 vehicle trips. 

LOMA LINDA/REDLANDS

The station at Loma Linda/Redlands is one of the five representative station locations in the Program 

Corridor for which specific location has not been identified during the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

evaluation. Proposed passenger activity at Loma Linda/Redlands station would occur during both 

peak (4:59 p.m.) and off-peak (10:59 a.m., 11:59 a.m.) periods. In 2044, for the station option with 

six stations east of Colton, the Build Alternative Options are estimated to add up to 70 vehicle trips to 

the surrounding street system, for each train that arrives/departs, and 280 vehicle trips daily.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-16

PASS AREA

The station in the Pass Area is one of the five representative station locations in the Program 

Corridor for which specific location has not been identified during the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

evaluation. Proposed passenger activity at the Pass Area station would occur during both peak 

(4:20 p.m., 5:38 p.m.) and off-peak (10:20 a.m., 12:38 p.m.) periods. In 2044, for the station option 

with six stations east of Colton, the Build Alternative Options are anticipated to add up to 20 vehicle 

trips to the surrounding street system, for each train that arrives/departs, and 80 daily vehicle trips. 

PALM SPRINGS

Access to Palm Springs station is provided through Indian Canyon Drive and Palm Springs Station 

Drive. The existing daily traffic volume is 15,470 for Indian Canyon Drive (City of Palm 

Springs 2017). Proposed passenger activity at Palm Springs station would occur during both peak 

(3:59 p.m., 6:02 p.m.) and off-peak (9:59 a.m., 1:02 p.m.) periods. In 2044, for the station option with 

six stations east of Colton, the Build Alternative Options are estimated to add up to 194 vehicle trips 

to these streets, for each train that arrives/departs, and 776 vehicle trips daily. 

MID VALLEY

The station in the Mid Valley area is one of the five representative station locations in the Program 

Corridor for which specific location has not been identified during the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

evaluation. Proposed passenger activity at the Mid Valley station would occur during both peak 

(3:45 p.m., 6:14 p.m.) and off-peak (9:45 a.m., 1:14 p.m.) periods. In 2044, for the station option with 

six stations east of Colton, the Build Alternative Options are estimated to add up to 64 vehicle trips to 

the surrounding street system, for each train that arrives/departs, and 256 vehicle trips daily.

INDIO

The station in Indio is one of the five representative station locations in the Program Corridor. This 

station is proposed to be integrated with the existing Indio Transportation Center, which is accessed 

via Indio Boulevard. Daily traffic on Indio Boulevard is approximately 18,100 (County of Riverside 

Transportation Department 2014). Proposed passenger activity at the Indio station would occur 

during both peak (3:32 p.m., 6:30 p.m.) and off-peak (9:32 a.m., 1:30 p.m.) periods. In 2044, for the 

station option with six stations east of Colton, the Build Alternative Options are anticipated to add up 

to 47 vehicle trips to the surrounding street system, for each train that arrives/departs, and 

188 vehicle trips daily. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-17

COACHELLA

The station in Coachella is one of the five representative station locations in the Program Corridor for 

which specific location has not been identified during the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation. 

Proposed passenger activity at the Coachella station would occur during both peak (3:25 p.m., 

6:38 p.m.) and off-peak (9:25 a.m., 1:38 p.m.) periods. In 2044, for the station option with six stations 

east of Colton, the Build Alternative Options are estimated to add up to 40 vehicle trips to the 

surrounding street system, for each train that arrives/departs, and 160 daily vehicle trips. 

Table 6-5 provides a summary of the potential roadways at each of the stations that could be 

affected during operation of the Program.

Table 6-5. Potential Roadway Impacts by Station within the Program Corridor for Future 

Year (2044) 

Station 

Local roadway access to 

station

Potential train arrivals/ 

departures during AM 

peak hour periodsa

Potential train arrivals/ 

departures during PM 

peak hour periodsa

LAUS Alameda Street, Vignes Street, 

and Cesar Chavez Avenue

None 3:20 p.m., 6:40 p.m.

Fullerton Harbor Boulevard, Santa Fe 

Avenue, Walnut Avenue, and 

Lemon Street

None 3:55 p.m., 6:06 p.m.

Riverside Vine Street, 14th Street, and 

Commerce Street

None 4:39 p.m., 5:22 p.m.

Loma Linda To be determined None 4:59 p.m.

Pass Area To be determined None 4:20 p.m., 5:38 p.m.

Palm Springs Indian Canyon Drive and Palm 

Springs Station Drive

9:59 a.m. 3:59 p.m., 6:02 p.m.

Mid-Valley To be determined 9:45 a.m. 3:45 p.m., 6:14 p.m.

Indio To be determined 9:32 a.m. 3:32 p.m., 6:30 p.m.

Coachella To be determined 9:25 a.m. 3:35 p.m., 6:38 p.m.

Notes: 

a Peak hours for traffic are generally considered as occurring from 6:00 a.m. through 10:00 a.m. and from 3:00 p.m. 

through 7:00 p.m. However, peak traffic hours vary from city to city, from region to region, and seasonally. 

LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-18

As summarized in Table 6-5, some of the proposed passenger activity (e.g., boarding and alighting 

trains) at all existing stations within the Western Section of the Program Corridor would occur during 

the PM peak hour for traffic. Based on the anticipated train timetable, none of the existing stations 

within the Western Section of the Program Corridor would have proposed passenger activity that 

would during the AM peak hour for traffic. 

While operation of the Program within the Western Section would add auto trips to local street 

network for the existing stations, the Build Alternative Options are anticipated to shift auto trips to 

intercity rail passenger trips, thereby reducing vehicle trips and VMT on the regional highways. 

Table 6-6 and Table 6-7 present the anticipated annual and daily reduction of auto trips and VMT for 

each horizon year for the Build Alternative Options. 

Table 6-6. Auto Trip and Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction by Horizon Year (Build 

Alternative Option 1)

Timeframe

Existing 

Year 

(2018)

Auto Trip 

Reduction

Existing 

Year 

(2018)

VMT 

Reduction

Opening 

Year

(2024)

Auto Trip 

Reduction

Opening 

Year

(2024)

VMT 

Reduction

Future Year 

(2044)

Auto Trip 

Reduction

Future Year 

(2044)

VMT 

Reduction

Annual 92,299 9,026,844 107,344 10,498,246 178,045 17,412,809

Daily 308 30,089 358 34,994 593 58,043

Notes: 

For calculating a typical day for the daily quantities, the annual ridership was divided by 300.

VMT=vehicle miles traveled

Table 6-7. Auto Trip and Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction by Horizon Year (Build 

Alternative Options 2 and 3)

Timeframe

Existing 

Year 

(2018)

Auto Trip 

Reduction

Existing 

Year 

(2018)

VMT 

Reduction

Opening 

Year

(2024)

Auto Trip 

Reduction

Opening 

Year

(2024)

VMT 

Reduction

Future Year 

(2044)

Auto Trip 

Reduction

Future Year 

(2044)

VMT 

Reduction

Annual 85,147 8,325,625 99,026 9,682,718 164,248 16,060,152

Daily 284 27,752 330 32,276 547 53,534

Notes: 

For calculating a typical day for the daily quantities, the annual ridership was divided by 300.

VMT=vehicle miles traveled
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-19

Auto and VMT reduction was calculated based off two-way auto trips that would be shifted to rail 

trips. VMT reduction was calculated based on multiplying average trip length for the Build Alternative 

Options by the corresponding number of two-way auto trip reductions. The average trip length was 

calculated based on approximate distance between station pairs and their annual ridership. Based 

on the data presented in Table 6-6 and Table 6-7, auto trip reductions and VMT reductions are 

forecast to grow as the ridership increases. The annual reduction rate for both auto trips and VMT is 

forecast to be between 3 percent and 4 percent over time within the Program Corridor.

When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects related to roadways and vehicular traffic would 

be moderate within the Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1. When compared with 

Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have the same magnitude of 

effect when compared with the No Build Alternative.

As summarized in Table 6-5, proposed passenger activity (boarding and alighting trains) at the 

existing station (Palm Springs station) within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor would 

occur during the AM and PM peak hours for traffic. Two of the proposed stations (Loma Linda station 

and Pass Area station) would have proposed passenger activity occurring during the PM peak hour 

for traffic. The other three proposed stations (Mid-Valley station, Indio station, and Coachella station) 

would have proposed passenger activity occurring during both the AM and PM peak hours for traffic. 

For the proposed stations within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, catchment areas have 

been identified, but no specific sites have been selected. Therefore, it is not known at the Tier 

1/Program evaluation phase which local streets may be impacted by operation of station facilities. It 

is possible that the addition of auto trips to the existing roadway network could result in effects on 

local roadways that would require mitigation. A detailed assessment of operational traffic impacts 

would be conducted during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis once site-specific rail infrastructure or 

station facility details are known. 

While operation of the Program within the Eastern Section would add auto trips to local street 

network, the Build Alternative Options are anticipated to shift auto trips to intercity rail passenger 

trips, thereby reducing vehicle trips and VMT on the regional highways. As summarized in Table 6-6

and Table 6-7, auto trip reductions and VMT reductions are forecast to grow as the ridership 

increases. The annual reduction rate for both auto trips and VMT is forecast to be between 3 percent

and 4 percent over time within the Program Corridor. When compared with the No Build Alternative, 

effects related to roadways and vehicular traffic would be substantial within the Eastern Section 

under Build Alternative Option 1. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative 

Options 2 and 3 would have the same magnitude of effect and would be considered substantial 

when compared with the No Build Alternative. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-20

6.3.3 Railroad/Roadway Crossing Modification Effects

Construction

Western Section. The Build Alternative Options would not require construction of additional rail or 

station infrastructure in the Western Section because the existing railroad infrastructure and stations 

from LAUS to Colton would be used. When compared with the No Build Alternative, 

short-term/temporary effects related to railroad/roadway crossings would be negligible because no 

additional construction activities are planned within the Western Section under Build Alternative 

Options 1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. In the Eastern Section, the Program Corridor between Colton and Coachella has 

51 existing highway/rail crossings of which 2 at-grade crossings are within an existing quiet zone in 

the City of Loma Linda (see Section 5.3.5). Construction of rail infrastructure improvements, such as 

sidings, additional main line track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation structures, and 

stations in the Eastern Section could require potential modifications to the existing at-grade and 

grade-separated crossings. For example, for an existing overpass, the placement of a new track 

would need to meet UP requirements for horizontal and vertical clearances and pier protection, 

requirements as stipulated in the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way 

Association Manual for Railway Engineering. If the existing overpass did not already meet all 

necessary requirements, it would either have to be modified or replaced to allow for the construction 

and operation of the additional track identified for the site-specific rail infrastructure or station facility 

proposed. 

Modifications to public at-grade crossings would be determined by a crossing diagnostic team 

evaluation, as per the requirements of the MUTCD, while modifications to private crossings would be 

determined by UP, as needed. In addition, modifications to public at-grade crossings are subject to 

approval by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Crossings within the existing Loma 

Linda quiet zone would require coordination with the FRA to determine the effect, if any, on the 

current quiet zone risk indices. The rough magnitude of track infrastructure improvements would be 

determined from rail operations modeling paired with input from the host railroads. 

Depending on the site-specific constraints of the potential stations within the Eastern Section, the 

addition of station tracks may necessitate modifications to existing crossings, including the addition 

of pedestrian overcrossings and elevators. 

A detailed assessment of effects on existing and proposed railroad/roadway crossings would be 

prepared during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis once site-specific rail infrastructure improvements 

or station facility details are known. When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects related to 

railroad/roadway crossing modifications would be moderate within the Eastern Section under Build 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-21

Alternative Option 1. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 

2 and 3 would have slightly reduced effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station 

options. However, the same magnitude of effects would be similar and would be considered 

moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative.

Operation

Western Section. Under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3, passenger train frequencies proposed 

as part of the Program would consist of the addition of two daily round-trip intercity diesel-powered 

passenger trains operating the entire length of the Program Corridor between Los Angeles and the 

Coachella Valley. The number of trains traveling through the existing grade crossings between 

LAUS and Colton would increase with implementation of the Program. However, the traffic control 

devices at these existing crossings provide the level of advanced warning and protection from an 

oncoming train required by the CPUC and the California MUTCD (Caltrans 2020). These existing 

grade crossings currently meet the requirements of the CPUC and the California MUTCD. Operation 

of the Program in the Western Section would not modify the existing grade crossing devices and 

would not require the approval of the CPUC. It is anticipated that gate operation at these existing 

grade crossings would be optimized to accommodate the increased number of activities. Effects 

associated with the Western Section of the Program Corridor under Build Alternative Options 1, 2,

and 3 would be negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative.

Eastern Section. Similar to the Western Section, under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3, 

passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the Program would consist of the addition of two 

daily round-trip intercity diesel-powered passenger trains operating the entire length of the Program 

Corridor between Los Angeles and the Coachella Valley. The number of trains traveling through the 

existing grade crossings between Colton and eastern terminus (Coachella for Build Alternative 

Option 1, Indio for Build Alternative Options 2 and 3), would increase with implementation of the 

Program. It is anticipated that the need for additional railroad/roadway crossings would be identified 

and implemented as part of the construction of rail improvements and station facilities in the Eastern 

Section. Therefore, once construction has concluded, operation of the Program in the Eastern 

Section would not modify the existing railroad/highway crossing devices. Effects associated with the 

Eastern Section of the Program Corridor under Build Alternative Option 1 would be negligible when 

compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build 

Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have slightly reduced effects due to a shorter route alignment and 

reduced station options. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar and would be 

considered negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-22

6.3.4 Ridership Forecast Effects

Construction

Western and Eastern Section. Ridership forecast effects are only associated with operation of the 

Program. When compared with the No Build Alternative, short-term/temporary construction effects 

related to ridership forecast would be negligible within the Western and Eastern Sections under Build 

Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Operation

Western and Eastern Section. Ridership estimates were derived from a mode-share model 

developed by Caltrans and Amtrak for intercity rail modeling in California (and applied to the Rail 

Corridor, as described in the SDP (Chapter 5, Ridership and Revenue Forecasts). The model’s 

forecasting approach was applied separately for the average weekday and weekend across 

12 travel markets based on a combination of trip purposes (business, commute, leisure, etc.) and 

time of day when the trip began (morning, midday, afternoon/evening, and night time). The 

mode-share model accounted for an intercity rail’s potential different weekday/weekend schedule

and patron travel patterns, which in turn influences how a traveler makes choices on their travel 

modes based on the trip purpose. The mode-share model also evaluated the service attributes of 

each travel mode; in this case, auto or rail (including Amtrak Thruway bus) predicted the share of 

trips made by each mode. The trip volumes were then calculated by multiplying the predicted shares 

for each mode by the number of existing travelers between each origin and destination zone. The 

trip matrices of existing travelers between each origin and destination zone were obtained from 

AirSage3 data. An overview of the mode-share model is included in Appendix C.

Ridership metrics depicted in Table 6-8 present the potential estimated demand of the proposed 

service for Build Alternative Option 1. Ridership metrics depicted in Table 6-9 present the potential 

estimated demand of the proposed service for Build Alternative Options 2 and 3. Passenger 

ridership is expected to increase annually from 3 percent to 4 percent based on the data presented 

in Table 6-8 and Table 6-9, along with corresponding increase in estimated passenger miles 

traveled. 

A hypothetical 2018 annual revenue from ticket sales is presented for study purposes. The annual 

estimated revenue is calculated using an estimated average ticket price based on the current fare 

structure on the Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor.

3 AirSage is a data provider that collects and analyzes individual cell phone location data and provides aggregated 

volumes of people traveling between two locations.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-23

Table 6-8. Proposed Ridership Metrics by Horizon Year (Build Alternative Option 1)

Ridership Metrics

Existing Year 

(2018)

Opening Year 

(2024)

Future Year

(2044)

Annual Ridership (one-way trips) 175,500 204,107 338,540

Average Ridership per Traina 146 170 282

Annual Passenger Miles Traveled (in millions) 17.2 20.0 33.1

Source: Steer 2018

Notes:

Build Alternative Option 1 assumes service to three existing Western Section station locations (LAUS, Fullerton, and 

Riverside), one existing Eastern Section station location (Palm Springs), and up to five potential Eastern Section 

station areas (Loma Linda, Pass Area, Mid-Valley, Indio, and Coachella). Coachella is considered the eastern 

terminus of the Program Corridor under Build Alternative Option 1.

a Average ridership per train for a typical day was calculated by dividing the annual ridership (one-way trips) by 

300 days and four trains per day

LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station; M=million

Table 6-9. Proposed Ridership Metrics by Horizon Year (Build Alternative Options 2 and 

3)

Ridership Metrics

Existing Year 

(2018)

Opening Year 

(2024)

Future Year

(2044)

Annual Ridership (one-way trips) 161,900 188,290 312,306

Average Ridership per Traina 135 157 260

Annual Passenger Miles Traveled (in millions) 15.8 18.4 30.5

Source: Steer 2018

Notes:

Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 assume service to three existing Western Section station locations (LAUS, 

Fullerton, and Riverside), one existing Eastern Section station location (Palm Springs), and up to four potential 

Eastern Section station areas (Loma Linda, Pass Area, Mid-Valley, and Indio). Indio is considered the eastern 

terminus of the Program Corridor under Build Alternative Options 2 and 3.

a Average ridership per train for a typical day was calculated by dividing the annual ridership (one-way trips) by 

300 days and four trains per day

LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station; M=million
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-24

In general, the Build Alternative Options would create a new rail alternative for travelers between the 

Los Angeles basin and the Coachella Valley with opportunities to connect communities along the 

Program Corridor that are not currently accessible by rail. In addition, the rail passenger service 

could also provide for a limited same day round-trip. 

For Build Alternative Option 1, the increase in passenger ridership presented in Table 6-8 translates 

to almost doubling of ridership by Future Year (2044), from the estimated ridership in Existing Year 

(2018) (175,500 one-way trips in 2018 and 338,540 one-way trips in 2044). Between the Opening 

Year (2024) and the Future Year (2044), ridership is expected to increase by 66 percent 

(204,107 one-way trips in 2024 and 338,540 one-way trips in 2044).

For Build Alternative Options 2 and 3, the increase in passenger ridership presented in 

Table 6-9 translates to almost doubling of ridership by Future Year (2044), from the estimated 

ridership in Existing Year (2018) (161,900 one-way trips in 2018 and 312,306 one-way trips in 2044). 

Between the Opening Year (2024) and the Future Year (2044), ridership is expected to increase by 

66 percent (188,290 one-way trips in 2024 and 312,306 one-way trips in 2044). 

As summarized in Table 6-10 and Table 6-11 below, on a station-by-station basis, the Palm Springs 

station is forecast to have the most ridership across all Build Alternative Options (not including 

LAUS), followed by Loma Linda, Riverside, and Mid-Valley stations. Figure 6-1 shows the 

representative station area location within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area.

Table 6-10. Annual Boardings and Alightings at Proposed Station Options by Horizon 

Year (Build Alternative Option 1)

Proposed Station 

Options Existing Year (2018) Opening Year (2024) Future Year (2044)

LAUS 120,500 140,142 232,445 

Fullerton 22,600 26,284 43,595 

Riverside 32,100 37,332 61,921 

Loma Linda/ Redlands 32,300 37,565 62,307 

Pass Area 8,300 9,653 16,011 

Palm Springs 73,900 85,946 142,553 

Mid-Valley 25,300 29,424 48,804 

Indio 19,400 22,562 37,423 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-25

Proposed Station 

Options Existing Year (2018) Opening Year (2024) Future Year (2044)

Coachella 16,600 19,306 32,021 

Total 351,000 408,214 677,080 

Source: Steer 2018

Notes:

LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station

Table 6-11. Annual Boardings and Alightings at Proposed Station Options by Horizon 

Year (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3)

Proposed Station Options Existing Year (2018) Opening Year (2024) Future Year (2044)

LAUS 114,100 132,698 220,099 

Fullerton 23,200 26,982 44,753 

Riverside 28,600 33,262 55,169 

Loma Linda/ Redlands 29,500 34,309 56,906 

Pass Area 8,100 9,420 15,625 

Palm Springs 72,600 84,434 140,045 

Mid-Valley 25,300 29,424 48,804 

Indio 22,400 26,051 43,210 

Total 323,800 376,580 624,611 

Source: Steer 2018

Notes:

LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-26

When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects related to ridership forecasts would be 

moderately beneficial within the Western and Eastern Sections under Build Alternative Option 1. 

When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have 

slightly reduced beneficial effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. 

However, the magnitude of effects would be similar and would be considered moderately beneficial

when compared with the No Build Alternative.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-27

Figure 6-1. Representative Station Area Locations within the Program Corridor
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-28

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-29

6.3.5 Travel Time Effects

Construction

Western Section. The Build Alternative Options would not require construction of additional rail or 

station infrastructure in the Western Section because the existing railroad infrastructure and stations 

from LAUS to Colton would be used. When compared with the No Build Alternative, 

short-term/temporary effects related to travel time would be negligible because no additional 

construction activities are planned within the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, 

and 3.

Eastern Section. When compared with the No Build Alternative, short-term/temporary effects related 

to travel time would be negligible within the Eastern Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, 

and 3.

Operation

Western and Eastern Section. Between Existing Year (2018), Opening Year (2024) and Future Year 

(2044) of operation of the Build Alternative Options, regional population and employment growth is 

anticipated to occur within the Program Corridor. This population and employment growth would 

result in additional demands on the existing roadway and highway networks which could contribute 

to congestion and impact both regional and local mobility. 

According to the 2016 SCAG RTP/SCS, population in the SCAG region would increase by 

approximately 4 percent between Existing Year (2018) and the Opening Year (2024) and 18 percent 

between Existing Year (2018) and Future Year (2044). Population growth between Opening Year 

(2024) and Future Year (2044) is anticipated to be 14 percent in the SCAG region. In comparison, 

Riverside County is expected to double this growth. Between Existing Year (2018) and Opening 

Year (2024), Riverside County is forecast to experience a 9 percent population growth, and between 

Existing Year (2018) and Future Year (2044), a 36 percent population growth. Corresponding growth 

between Opening Year (2024) and Future Year (2044) is anticipated at 25 percent in Riverside 

County (SCAG 2016). Based on these projections, roadway congestion would likely increase 

substantially between Existing Year (2018) and both Opening Year (2024) and Future Year (2044), 

contributing to longer auto travel times along the Program Corridor. Table 6-12 and 

Table 6-13 summarize travel time for the different travel modes envisioned under the Build 

Alternative Options. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-30

Table 6-12. Rail/Bus Travel Time by Horizon Year (Build Alternative Option 1)

Horizon Year Mode of Travel

Average 

Travel Time

(hour: 

minutes)

Average Travel 

Time Savingd

(compared with

Intercity Bus 

travel)

Existing Year (2018) Intercity Bus (Existing Conditions)a 3:07 —

Existing Year (2018) Intercity Bus/Rail (Scenario 1)b 4:08 —

Existing Year (2018) Intercity Bus/Rail (Scenario 2)c 4:41 —

Existing Year (2018) Passenger Rail 3:16 1:25

Opening Year (2024) Passenger Rail 3:16 At least 1:25

Future Year (2044) Passenger Rail 3:16 At least 1:25

Notes:

a Intercity Bus travel under existing conditions assumes use of Greyhound service from Los Angeles to Indio

b Intercity bus/rail travel (Scenario 1) assumes travel on Amtrak Thruway service from Indio to Fullerton and 

connection to Amtrak Pacific Surfliner from Fullerton to Los Angeles

c Intercity bus/rail travel (Scenario 2) assumes travel on SunLine Commuter Link 220 from Palm Desert to Downtown 

Riverside Metrolink Station and connection to Metrolink Riverside Line to Los Angeles

d Highway traffic congestion in 2024 and 2044 is expected to increase from 2018, thereby adding to travel time 

saving for train travel compared with the bus portion of the trip that uses congested freeways

Table 6-13. Rail/Bus Travel Time by Horizon Year (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3)

Horizon Year Mode of Travel

Average 

Travel Time

(hour: 

minutes)

Average Travel 

Time Savingd

(compared with

Intercity Bus 

travel)

Existing Year (2018) Intercity Bus (Existing Conditions)a 3:07 —

Existing Year (2018) Intercity Bus/Rail (Scenario 1)b 4:08 —

Existing Year (2018) Intercity Bus/Rail (Scenario 2)c 4:41 —

Existing Year (2018) Passenger Rail 3:09 1:32
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-31

Horizon Year Mode of Travel

Average 

Travel Time

(hour: 

minutes)

Average Travel 

Time Savingd

(compared with

Intercity Bus 

travel)

Opening Year (2024) Passenger Rail 3:09 At least 1:32

Future Year (2044) Passenger Rail 3:09 At least 1:32

Notes:

a Intercity Bus travel under existing conditions assumes use of Greyhound service from Los Angeles to Indio

b Intercity bus/rail travel (Scenario 1) assumes travel on Amtrak Thruway service from Indio to Fullerton and 

connection to Amtrak Pacific Surfliner from Fullerton to Los Angeles

c Intercity bus/rail travel (Scenario 2) assumes travel on SunLine Commuter Link 220 from Palm Desert to Downtown 

Riverside Metrolink Station and connection to Metrolink Riverside Line to Los Angeles d Highway traffic congestion 

in 2024 and 2044 is expected to increase from 2018, thereby adding to travel time saving for train travel compared 

with the bus portion of the trip that uses congested freeways

As summarized in Table 6-12 and Table 6-13, if the Program were to be built under Existing Year 

(2018) conditions, travel time savings could range between 1 hour 25 minutes for Build Alternative 

Option 1 and 1 hour 38 minutes for Build Alternative Options 2 and 3. With congestion likely to 

increase in the future, the Program would likely save more travel time in Opening Year (2024) Future 

Year (2044) conditions as traffic congestion in the Program Corridor increases and slows down 

travel speeds on the highway system. Specific travel time savings would be analyzed in more detail 

during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects related to travel time would be moderately 

beneficial within the Western and Eastern Sections under Build Alternative Option 1. When 

compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have slightly 

reduced effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, the 

magnitude of effects would be similar and would be considered moderately beneficial when 

compared with the No Build Alternative.

6.3.6 Traveler Safety Effects

Construction

Western Section. The Build Alternative Options would not require construction of additional rail or 

station infrastructure in the Western Section because the existing railroad infrastructure and stations 

from LAUS to Colton would be used. When compared with the No Build Alternative, 

short-term/temporary effects related to traveler safety would be negligible because no additional 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-32

construction activities are planned within the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, 

and 3.

Eastern Section. Construction of rail infrastructure improvements, such as sidings, additional main 

line track, wayside signals, drainage, grade separation structures, and stations could require 

temporary closure of lanes, sidewalks, bicycle lanes and routes, driveways, streets, and freeway 

lanes, which could affect traveler safety within an area. All construction activities affecting roadways, 

bicycle paths, and pedestrian paths would be required to meet the requirements of the MUTCD

(Caltrans 2020). Once site specifics associated with the rail infrastructure improvement or station 

facility are known, the Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify and evaluate where temporary road 

closures and traffic detours would be needed. Mitigation strategies that require the preparation and 

implementation of a site-specific transportation management plan would help avoid, minimize, or 

reduce potential traveler safety effects during construction activities. When compared with the No 

Build Alternative, short-term/temporary effects related to traveler safety would be moderate within 

the Eastern Section under Build Alternative Option 1. When compared with Build Alternative Option 

1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have slightly reduced effects due to a shorter route 

alignment and reduced station options. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar and 

would be considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative.

Operation

Western and Eastern Section. Overall, traveler safety within any of the Build Alternative Options 

would improve because a passenger rail service would divert some automobile trips to an alternate 

mode of travel such as passenger rail. The safety risk to travelers would decrease, as rail travel is 

statistically safer per passenger mile than automobile travel. The potential decrease in automobile 

VMT that could be realized with implementation of the Build Alternative Options would be anticipated

to result in a corresponding reduction of potential automobile injuries and fatalities within the 

Program Corridor. The potential annual reduction in fatalities and injuries on the highway system as 

a result of implementing the Build Alternative Options for each of horizon year (Existing Year 

[2018], Opening Year [2024], and Future Year [2044]) is presented in Table 6-14 and 

Table 6-15. Calculations were based on the following accident rates obtained from Caltrans and 

Amtrak’s operating experience in 2017:

• Highway fatality rate: 0.005 per million vehicle miles

• Highway injury rate: 0.548 per million vehicle miles

• Passenger rail fatality rate: 0.046 per 100 million passenger miles

• Passenger rail injury rate: 14.78 per 100 million passenger miles
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-33

Table 6-14. Annual Number of Accidents Eliminated by Horizon Year (Build Alternative 

Option 1)

Accident Type

Existing 

Year 

(2018)

Opening 

Year

(2024)

Future 

Year 

(2044)

Fatal Accidents

Roadway accidents eliminated due to Program 0.05 0.05 0.09

Number of rail passenger accidents associated with the Program 0.01 0.01 0.01

Net number of accidents eliminated due to Programa 0.04 0.04 0.08

Injury Accidents

Roadway accidents eliminated due to Program 4.95 5.75 9.54

Number of rail passenger accidents associated with the Program 2.50 2.90 4.82

Net number of accidents eliminated due to Programa 2.45 2.85 4.72

Notes:

a Difference between roadway accidents eliminated and rail passenger accidents associated with the Program.

Rates for fatal and injury accidents on roadways obtained from Caltrans, Table B - Selective Accident Rate 

Calculation, I-10 Los Angeles, San Bernardino, 36-month historical rates (2014).

Rates for rail-related accidents/incidents obtained from FRA Office of Safety Analysis (2019).

Caltrans=California Department of Transportation

Table 6-15. Annual Number of Accidents Eliminated by Horizon Year (Build Alternative 

Options 2 and 3)

Accident Type

Existing 

Year 

(2018)

Opening 

Year

(2024)

Future 

Year 

(2044)

Fatal Accidents

Roadway accidents eliminated due to Program 0.04 0.05 0.08

Number of rail passenger accidents associated with the Program 0.01 0.01 0.01

Net number of accidents eliminated due to Programa 0.03 0.04 0.07

Injury Accidents

Roadway accidents eliminated due to Program 4.56 5.31 8.80
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-34

Accident Type

Existing 

Year 

(2018)

Opening 

Year

(2024)

Future 

Year 

(2044)

Number of rail passenger accidents associated with the Program 2.30 2.68 4.45

Net number of accidents eliminated due to Programa 2.26 2.63 4.35

Notes:

a Difference between roadway accidents eliminated and rail passenger accidents associated with the Program.

Rates for fatal and injury accidents on roadways obtained from Caltrans, Table B - Selective Accident Rate 

Calculation, I-10 Los Angeles, San Bernardino, 36-month historical rates (2014).

Rates for rail-related accidents/incidents obtained from FRA Office of Safety Analysis (2019).

Caltrans=California Department of Transportation

As summarized in Table 6-14, the estimated net change in accidents with implementation of Build 

Alternative Option 1 is a reduction in fatalities by up to 0.08 per year (1 fatality eliminated every 

12 years) and 4.72 injuries per year in 2044. As summarized in Table 6-15, the estimated net 

change in accidents with implementation of Build Alternative Option 2 or 3 is a reduction in fatalities 

by up to 0.07 per year (1 fatality eliminated every 12 years) and 4.35 injuries per year in 2044.

When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects related to traveler safety would be moderate 

within the Western and Eastern Section under Build Alternative Option 1. When compared with Build 

Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have slightly reduced beneficial effects 

due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, the magnitude of effects 

would be similar and would be considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 7-1

7 Tier 2 Environmental Review 

Considerations

The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation provides an overview of potential impacts resulting from 

development of the Build Alternative Options. Specific station locations, Project design, and 

construction methods have not been determined. 

Tier 2/Project‐level analysis would address site-specific potential effects resulting from construction 

and operation of infrastructure improvements (such as sidings, additional main line track, wayside 

signals, drainage, grade-separation structures, and stations) when the site-specific locations and 

design requirements are known. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would consider site-specific

mitigation strategies that are acceptable to the communities that are impacted and are in sync with 

the circulation plans of the jurisdictions. Impacts of constructing track infrastructure and stations in 

the Eastern Section would also need to be evaluated in a Tier 2/Project-level analysis. Detailed 

analysis in a Tier 2/Project-level analysis would be required to determine the extent of impact and 

specific mitigation measures. For the Tier 2/Project-level analysis, the following 

guidelines/thresholds would be used to identify significant impacts:

• Regional highways: For impacts on regional highways CEQA Guidelines would be used to

determine transportation impacts consistent with the implementation of SB 743.

• Local roadways: LOS/delay analysis at the intersection level consistent with each 

jurisdictions’ traffic impact analysis guidelines would be used for impacts on local roadways.

• Rail operations: The Project SDP would identify Project-level infrastructure needs that will 

enable the service to achieve on-time performance of 90 percent for intercity passenger rail 

service without degrading future freight rail operations in the Program Corridor.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 7-2

Based on findings presented in Section 6, proposed programmatic mitigation strategies, consistent 

with state and federal regulations, could include, but are not limited to, the following:

• During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a Project-specific traffic impact analysis shall be required 

for the sites identified for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The traffic 

impact analysis shall be prepared using the standards and procedures of the applicable local 

jurisdiction(s) in which the Project is located. The traffic impact analysis may include, but will 

not be limited to, the following: 

o Analysis of construction related traffic impacts including identification and analysis of:

 Transportation management plans to mitigate construction-related traffic, including 

coordination with emergency providers

 Alternative work windows or temporary construction features (e.g., shoo-fly) to 

minimize disruption to rail operations during construction

 Coordination with railroad host, operators and the jurisdiction within which 

construction will occur

 Identification of haul routes for construction trucks, construction traffic management 

strategies, and any re-routing of vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle routes 

o Analysis of operational-related traffic impacts including identification and analysis of:

 Roadway network impacts and fair-share mitigation to mitigate impacts

 Transportation system management/signal optimization, including retiming, 

rephrasing, and signal optimization; turn prohibitions; use of one-way street; and 

traffic diversion to alternative routes

o For station facilities, identification, and analysis of:

 Roadway network impacts associated with trips resulting from travel activity at 

stations

 Station amenities (e.g., parking, alternative modes of transit features, ticketing, 

emergency access)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 8-1

8 References

Amtrak. 2017. Amtrak Sustainability Report FY2016-FY2017. Accessed July 2018. 

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/environment

al1/2016-2017-Amtrak-Sustainability-Report.pdf.

——— 2018. Amtrak System Timetable. Accessed July 2018. 

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/timetables/A

mtrak-System-Timetable-060118.pdf.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2021. California Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices. Accessed May 7, 2021. 

https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/ca-mutcd/rev6/ca

mutcd2014-rev6.pdf.

City of Beaumont. 2016. Staff Report: Addition of Fare Options for Commuter Link 120. Accessed 

July 2018. http://beaumontca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/28250.

City of Fullerton. 2015. Traffic Volumes. Accessed July 2018. 

https://www.cityoffullerton.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=23230.

City of Palm Springs. 2017. 24 Hour Volumes. Accessed July 2018. 

http://www.palmsprings-ca.gov/home/showdocument?id=53068.

City of Riverside. 2017. 24 Hour Volume Counts. Counts collected between 2007 and 2015. 

Accessed July 2018. 

https://www.cityoffullerton.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=23230.

County of Riverside Transportation Department. 2014. Traffic Counts – 2014. Accessed July 2018. 

http://rctlma.org/Portals/7/documents/WEB%20COUNTS.pdf.

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 1999. Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. 

Section 14(n)(13). Accessed July 2018.

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/FRAEnvProcedures_FED_REG_Notic

e.pdf. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 8-2

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Office of Safety Analysis. 2019. Table 1.11 Grade Crossing 

Inventory and General Trespassing Statistics. Last updated March 31, 2019. Accessed June 

2019. 

https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/Query/AccidentByRegionStateCounty.

aspx. 

Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 

2021. Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program Environmental 

Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Draft). Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. 

Los Angeles Department of Transportation. 2016. Traffic Counts. Counts collected in 2010-2012. 

http://ladot.lacity.org/node/576.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016. The 2016-2040 Regional 

Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies. Accessed July 2018. 

http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS_03_ChallengesInAChangingRegi

on.pdf.

Southern California Regional Rail Authority. 2018. “Find the Nearest Station.” Accessed July 2018.

https://www.metrolinktrains.com/rider-info/general-info/stations/.

San Francisco State University. 2017. Amtrak California Survey Development, Onboard Passenger 

Rail Survey: Longitudinal Comparison of Four Rounds of Data. Prepared for California 

Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

State of California Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2013. Updating Transportation Impacts 

Analysis in the CEQA Guidelines: Preliminary Discussion Draft of Updates to the CEQA 

Guidelines Implementing Senate Bill 743. 

http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Final_Preliminary_Discussion_Draft_of_Updates_Implementing_SB_7

43_080614.pdf.

——— 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. 

http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf.

Steer. 2018. Overview of the Caltrans Mode Share Model Memo. Caltrans Mode Share Model 

Project. Prepared for California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 

SunLine Transit Agency. 2017. ”Commuter Link 220 FAQ.” Accessed July 2018. 

https://www.sunline.org/commuter-link-220-faq.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 8-3

Transportation Research Board. 2003. Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition. 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp100/part%200.pdf.

Union Station Los Angeles. n.d. Union Station Fact Sheet. 

http://www.unionstationla.com/user/pages/10.press-room/Union-Station-Los-Angeles-Fact-S

heet.pdf.

——— 2018. Union Station website. Accessed July 2018. http://www.unionstationla.com/visit.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 8-4

This page is intentionally blank.

.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

Appendix A. Existing Passenger Bus and Rail

Services
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

This page is intentionally blank.
Figure A-1 Sunline Commuter Link 220

Source: SunLine Transit Agency 2017

Table A-1 Sunline commuter link 220 schedule

Eastbound Departure Time Station Westbound Departure Time

8:15 a.m. 5:55 p.m. 7:15 p.m. Riverside Metrolink Station 8:00 a.m. 10:15 a.m. 5:45 p.m.

8:29 a.m. 6:09 p.m. 7:29 p.m. UCR Lot 30 7:50 a.m. 10:06 a.m. 5:35 p.m.

8:47 a.m. 6:27 p.m. 7:47 p.m. Moreno Valley Mall 7:28 a.m. 9:50 a.m. 5:19 p.m.

9:01 a.m. 6:41 p.m. 8:01 p.m. Moreno Valley Stonebridge 

Town Center 7:12 a.m. 9:36 a.m. 5:05 p.m.

9:24 a.m. 7:04 p.m. 8:24 p.m. Beaumont 6:50 a.m. 9:11 a.m. 4:38 p.m.

9:41 a.m. 7:21 p.m. 8:41 p.m. Cabazon/Morongo Casino 6:36 a.m. 8:53 a.m. 4:19 p.m.

10:15 a.m. 7:55 p.m. 9:15 p.m. Thousand Palms 6:03 a.m. 8:17 a.m. 3:43 p.m.

10:31 a.m. 8:11 p.m. 9:31 p.m. Palm Desert 5:50 a.m. 8:00 a.m. 3:25 p.m.

Source: SunLine Transit Agency 2017
Figure A-2 Pass Transit Commuter Link 120 

Source: City of Beaumont 2016
Figure A-3 Pass Transit Commuter Link 120 

Source: City of Beaumont 2016
Figure A-4 San Joaquin Thruway Route Schedule 

Source: Amtrak 2018

Figure A-5 Pacific Surfliner Thruway Route Schedule

Source: Amtrak 2018
Figure A-6 Amtrak Sunset Limited Map 

Source: Amtrak 2018
Figure A-7 Amtrak Sunset Limited Schedule 

Source: Amtrak 2018
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

Appendix B. Conceptual Train Schedules
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

This page is intentionally blank.
Table B-1 Los Angeles – Indio: Three Stops East of Colton

Eastbound: Read Down Miles Station Miles Westbound: Read Up

750 752 Tran No. 751 753

10:20 a.m. 3:20 p.m. 0 Los Angeles 141 12:40 p.m. 6:40 p.m.

10:55 a.m. 3:55 p.m. 26 Fullerton 115 12:06 p.m. 6:06 p.m.

11:39 a.m. 4:39 p.m. 62 Riverside 79 11:22 a.m. 5:22 p.m.

12:37 p.m. 5:37 p.m. 103 Pass Area* 38 10:20 a.m. 4:20 p.m.

12:58 p.m.-L 5:58 p.m.-L 118 Palm Springs 23 10:00 a.m. 4:00 p.m.

1:23 p.m. 6:23 p.m. 141 Indio* 0 9:38 a.m. 3:38 p.m.

3:03 3:03 Travel Time 3:02 3:02

L = Train may leave in advance of time shown

* Proposed New Stations

Table B-2 Los Angeles – Coachella: Four Stops East of Colton

Eastbound: Read Down Miles Station Miles Westbound: Read Up

750 752 Tran No. 751 753

10:20 a.m. 3:20 p.m. 0 Los Angeles 144 12:40 p.m. 6:40 p.m.

10:55 a.m. 3:55 p.m. 26 Fullerton 118 12:06 p.m. 6:06 p.m.

11:39 a.m. 4:39 p.m. 62 Riverside 82 11:22 a.m. 5:22 p.m.

12:37 a.m. 5:37 p.m. 103 Pass Area* 41 10:20 a.m. 4:20 p.m.

12:58 p.m.-L 5:58 p.m.-L 118 Palm Springs 26 10:00 a.m. 4:00 p.m.

1:23 p.m.-L 6:23 p.m.-L 141 Indio* 3 9:38 a.m. 3:38 p.m.

1:28 p.m. 6:28 p.m. 144 Coachella* 0 9:33 a.m. 3:33 p.m.

3:08 3:08 Travel Time 3:07 3:07

L = Train may leave in advance of time shown

*Proposed New Stations
Table B-3 Los Angeles – Indio: Five Stops East of Colton

Eastbound: Read Down Miles Station Miles Westbound: Read Up

750 752 Tran No. 751 753

10:20 a.m. 3:20 p.m. 0 Los Angeles 141 12:40 p.m. 6:40 p.m.

10:55 a.m. 3:55 p.m. 26 Fullerton 115 12:06 p.m. 6:06 p.m.

11:39 a.m. 4:39 p.m. 62 Riverside 79 11:22 a.m. 5:22 p.m.

11:59 a.m. 5:04 p.m. 72 Loma Linda* 69 10:58 a.m. 4:58 p.m.

12:39 p.m. 5:44 p.m. 103 Pass Area* 38 10:18 a.m. 4:18 p.m.

1:01 p.m. 6:06 p.m. 118 Palm Springs 23 9:58 a.m. 3:58 p.m.

1:13 p.m.-L 6:18 p.m.-L 128 Mid Valley* 13 9:45 a.m. 3:45 p.m.

1:29 p.m. 6:34 p.m. 141 Indio* 0 9:32 a.m. 3:32 p.m.

3:09 3:14 Travel Time 3:08 3:08

L = Train may leave in advance of time shown

*Proposed New Stations

Table B-4 Los Angeles – Coachella: Six Stops East of Colton 

Eastbound: Read Down Miles Station Miles Westbound: Read Up

750 752 Tran No. 751 753

10:20 a.m. 3:20 p.m. 0 Los Angeles 144 12:40 p.m. 6:40 p.m.

10:55 a.m. 3:55 p.m. 26 Fullerton 118 12:06 p.m. 6:06 p.m.

11:39 a.m. 4:39 p.m. 62 Riverside 82 11:22 a.m. 5:22 p.m.

11:59 a.m. 5:04 p.m. 72 Loma Linda* 72 10:58 a.m. 4:58 p.m.

12:39 p.m. 5:44 p.m. 103 Pass Area* 41 10:18 a.m. 4:18 p.m.

1:01 p.m. 6:06 p.m. 118 Palm Springs 26 9:58 a.m. 3:58 p.m.

1:13 p.m.-L 6:18 p.m.-L 128 Mid Valley* 16 9:44 a.m. 3:44 p.m.

1:29 p.m.-L 6:34 p.m.-L 141 Indio* 3 9:31 a.m. 3:31 p.m.

1:35 p.m. 6:40 p.m. 144 Coachella* 0 9:26 a.m. 3:26 p.m.

3:15 3:20 Travel Time 3:14 3:14

L = Train may leave in advance of time shown

*Proposed New Stations
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

Appendix C. Overview of Caltrans Mode-Share 

Model
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

This page is intentionally blank.
Overview of the Caltrans Mode Share Model

Source: Steer 2018

The mode share model forecasts ridership on the Amtrak California rail network at the zone pair level, 

using a system of 337 zones across the state. The geographical breakdown of the study area is travel 

analysis zones (referred to as “zones”) that cover the entire State of California and are aggregated 

from Census tract boundaries. As shown in Figure 1, the study are zones are smaller in denser, more 

populated areas and larger in sparsely populated areas.

The forecasting approach 

is applied separately for the 

average weekday and 

weekend across 12 travel 

market segments—based 

on a combination of trip 

purpose (business, 

commute, and leisure) and 

time of day the trip begins 

(morning, midday,

afternoon/evening, and 

night time). The model is 

segmented by these 

factors because: 1) the 

Amtrak schedule is 

different during the 

weekday and weekend for 

some routes; 2) travel 

patterns (e.g. congestion) 

are different by time of day; 

and 3) how people make 

travel choices is very much 

influenced by their trip 

purpose.

The mode share model is 

appropriate for testing the 

impact of service changes, 

including those that are 

transformational in nature 

and capture new travel 

market segments not 

currently served (e.g. 

dramatic changes in train 

frequency, service in times of day which previously had no train service, introduction of service to 

completely new geographies).

The mode share model evaluates the service attributes of each travel mode, in this case, auto or rail 

(including Thruway bus) and predicts the share of trips made by each mode. The trip volumes are then 

calculated by multiplying the predicted shares for each mode by the number of existing travelers 

Figure 1: Study Area Zones 
between each origin and destination zone. The trip matrices of existing travelers between each origin 

and destination zone were obtained from AirSage1. 

As shown in Figure 2, for a given origin-destination (OD) zone pair, the model considers the auto 

mode and calculates level of service characteristics such as drive time including highway congestion, 

operating cost of the car and parking costs at the destination. Similarly, for the available rail and 

Thruway bus options, the model considers drive, walk and transit access time and costs from the origin 

zone to the nearest rail stations. It also considers in-vehicle time and rail fares from the origin to 

destination station, as well as frequency of the rail service; in the case of Thruway buses, the number 

of transfers involved in traveling from the origin station to the destination station. On the destination 

end, the model considers drive, walk and transit egress time and costs from the destination station to 

the final destination zone. As shown in the example in Figure 2, the model uses the various service 

attributes to predict that 90 percent of trips between this given zone pair would be made by auto and 

10 percent by rail and Thruway bus22. The rail ridership is then calculated by multiplying the rail share 

by the volume of eligible people traveling between the OD pair.

Figure 2: Mode-Share Model Representation

Most of the Amtrak rail services that are evaluated in the mode share model have been in operation 

for some time. A model even at its best can never replicate existing ridership levels at individual station 

pairs. Thus, consistent with established/accepted practice in demand modeling, the final station 

pair-level rail ridership numbers are obtained by incrementally applying the mode share model 

changes between the baseline service and the proposed service to the Amtrak rail ridership for the 

most recent fiscal year. 

1 AirSage is a data provider that collects and analyzes individual cell phone location data and provides aggregated 

volumes of people traveling between two locations.

2 Model behavioral parameters (e.g., value of time) were asserted based on existing literature and professional 

judgement.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

Appendix D. Amtrak Onboard Passenger Survey, 

Travel Mode Choice Data, June 2017
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

This page is intentionally blank.
Figure D-1 Pacific Surfliner – Travel Mode Choice to Origin Station

Source: San Francisco State University 2017
Figure D-2 Pacific Surfliner – Travel Mode Choice from Destination Station 

Source: San Francisco State University 2017
Figure D-3 San Joaquin – Travel Mode Choice to Origin Station

Source: San Francisco State University 2017
Figure D-4 San Joaquin – Travel Mode Choice to Destination Station

Source: San Francisco State University 2017