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

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-1

3.3 Transportation

3.3.1 Introduction

This section provides an evaluation of traffic and transportation-related effects associated with

implementing the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternative Options. Information contained in 

this section is summarized from the Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum (Appendix C of 

this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR).

3.3.2 Regulatory Framework

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

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

28545, May 26, 1999), and CEQA, FRA identified transportation resources within the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR Study Area and evaluated the potential impacts on those resources from implementation of 

the Build Alternative Options. 

Federal

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.” 

State

California Department of Transportation

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

California’s air quality by reducing highway congestion and fuel consumption. Caltrans contracts with 

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

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

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-2

Senate Bill 743

California’s SB 743, approved in 2013, changes the evaluation of traffic impacts under CEQA. The 

bill required the Office of Planning and Research 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. These 

metrics will no longer be requirements to determine traffic impacts under CEQA. Rather, SB 743 

requires Office of Planning and Research to establish criteria for determining the significance of 

transportation impacts that promote the reduction of GHG emissions, the development of multimodal 

transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. In December 2018, the California Natural 

Resources Agency finalized updates to the CEQA Guidelines, including the incorporation of SB 743

modifications.

SB 743 preserves local government authority to make planning decisions. Therefore, level of service

and congestion can still be measured for planning purposes; however, automobile delay may no 

longer constitute a significant impact under CEQA. 

Regional

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

regulations applicable to the planning of transportation infrastructure. Regional agencies include 

Metro, Orange County Transportation Authority, SBCTA, and RCTC. Regulations from regional 

agencies would be identified in the Tier 2/Project-level analysis once site-specific potential effects 

resulting from construction and operation of infrastructure improvements are known.

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 organizations (MPO) 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 RTP/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.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-3

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 rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities are 

known.

3.3.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects

The methodology for this Tier 1/Program service-level evaluation identifies the approach and 

assumptions for the transportation assessment with regard to analyzing environmental 

consequences of the Build Alternative Options related to transportation effects. The methodology 

considers the change in travel conditions for the proposed transportation improvements by 

comparing the Build Alternative Options to the No Build Alternative.

Travel conditions included service frequency, travel time, connectivity between modes (type or form 

of transportation), 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 3.3-1 presents the transportation assessment criteria and metrics for quantifying

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

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-4

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

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-5

Table 3.3-1. Transportation Impact Methodology Framework

Level of 

Analysis Mode Unit of Analysis Metric

Travel 

Condition 

Factor

Regional Highways and roadways Travel along proposed Program Corridor Vehicle trip reduction Ridership

Regional Highways and roadways Travel along proposed Program Corridor VMT reduction Ridership

Regional Highways and roadways Travel along proposed Program Corridor Highway safety enhancement 

(accident reduction)

Safety

Regional Passenger rail Travel along proposed Program Corridor Off-highway person-capacity Frequency

Regional Passenger rail Travel along proposed Program Corridor Annual passengers Ridership

Regional Passenger rail Travel along proposed Program Corridor Passenger miles traveled Ridership

Regional Passenger rail Travel along proposed Program Corridor Travel time via public transportation Travel time

Regional Passenger rail Travel along proposed 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 proposed Program 

Corridor

Hours of service and frequency of 

possible connecting mode 

(commuter rail/public transit)

Connectivity

Regional Passenger rail Representative station areas along proposed Program 

Corridor

Number of trains per day Frequency

Regional Passenger rail Representative station areas along proposed Program 

Corridor

Number of boardings/alightings for 

each station area

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

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-6

Level of 

Analysis Mode Unit of Analysis Metric

Travel 

Condition 

Factor

Regional Passenger rail Representative station areas along proposed Program 

Corridor

Transit accessibility to other parts of 

the region

Regional 

accessibility

Regional Passenger rail Representative station areas along proposed Program 

Corridor

Ease of station access (multimodal 

access, frequency of access)

Local 

accessibility

Notes:

VMT=vehicle miles traveled
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-7

Horizon Years

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

horizon years were analyzed:

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

analyzed for the surrounding roadways and rail (passenger and freight) systems 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 were

analyzed for on the surrounding roadways and rail (passenger and freight) systems on the 

first day the Program is operational.

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

analyzed for on the surrounding roadways and rail (passenger and freight) systems under full 

build-out conditions. 

Service goals, which include frequency and targeted trip times of trains, for the Build Alternative

Options were developed to meet the service objectives, as described in Chapter 1, Purpose and 

Need, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The frequency of the proposed passenger rail service would 

be two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains based on a ridership forecasting model service 

optimization analysis conducted during preparation of the Final Alternative Analysis, Coachella 

Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Study (summarized in Chapter 2, Program 

Alternatives, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR). The details of the train schedule are presented in 

Appendix C of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR.

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

The study area used to quantify transportation impacts is different based on whether the assessment 

is conducted at the regional level or the local level. For regional transportation effects, the 

four-county 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. A detailed 

description of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area is provided in Section 3.1, Introduction to 

Environmental Analysis, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-8

Data Sources

Annual Ridership estimates were derived from a mode-share model for intercity rail modeling for 

Caltrans and Amtrak. The mode-share model forecasted ridership on the Amtrak California rail 

network, evaluated the service attributes of each travel mode, and predicted the share of trips made 

by each mode. 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, personal, etc.) and time of day when the trip began (morning, midday, afternoon/evening, 

and nighttime). The mode-share model accounted for an intercity rail’s potential weekday/weekend 

schedules and patron travel patterns, which in turn influences how a traveler makes choices about

travel modes based on trip purpose. An overview of the mode-share model is included in Appendix 

C of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR.

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). Details of this survey results are 

included in Appendix C of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR.

Related Resources

This evaluation incorporates data and analysis from related resources to contribute to the 

assessment of transportation effects. These related resources are identified in Table 3.3-2.

Table 3.3-2. Related Resource Inputs for Transportation

Resource Input for Transportation Assessment

Air Quality and Greenhouse 

Gases 

(Section 3.5)

Potential air quality benefits resulting from enhanced passenger service were 

considered.

Noise and Vibration 

(Section 3.6)

Location of areas where noise and vibration thresholds may be exceeded by the 

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

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-9

3.3.4 Affected Environment

Transportation Networks and Services

The Program Corridor crosses a large geographic area within Southern California, spanning 

approximately 144 miles from its western terminus in Los Angeles to its eastern terminus in 

Coachella. Within the Program Corridor, there exists multiple modes of transportation and 

transportation networks including aviation (plane service), highway/roadway (for passenger vehicles 

and buses), and rail service (for passenger and freight service). 

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Table 3.3-3 summarizes the existing transportation networks and services within the Program 

Corridor under Build Alternative Option 1. Key regional highways serving the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Study Area are shown on Figure 3.3-1, while Figure 3.3-2 depicts intercity rail and regional bus 

service between Los Angeles and Coachella Valley. Additional details on existing transportation and 

services within the Program Corridor are provided in Appendix C of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-10

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

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-11

Table 3.3-3. Summary of Transportation Networks and Services (Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3)

Transportation Mode Description Summary

Aviation Non-stop flights between Palm Springs and Los Angeles are operated twice a day between Palm Springs International Airport and 

Los Angeles International Airport.

Regional Highways The Western Section of the Program Corridor is served by I-10, SR 60, and SR 91. The Eastern Section of the Program Corridor is 

served by I-10, SR 60, and SR 111. SR 111 serves as the main arterial highway between almost all Coachella Valley cities.

Bus Transit – Sunline 

Commuter Link 220

This commuter bus service operates a 73-mile route between the Coachella Valley and Western Riverside County. Three round-trips 

are operated on weekdays, with two morning and one afternoon westbound departures from Palm Desert, and one morning and two 

afternoon/evening eastbound departures from the Riverside Metrolink station. Trip time between Palm Desert and the Riverside 

Metrolink station is approximately 2 hours and 15 minutes (SunLine Transit Agency 2017). 

Bus Transit – Sunline 

Commuter Link 120

This express bus service operates between Beaumont and the San Bernardino Metrolink station, with stops in Calimesa and at the 

Loma Linda Veterans Administration Hospital. Seven round-trips are operated throughout the day each weekday and five round-trips 

on Saturdays. In San Bernardino, riders can catch Metrolink trains to travel to 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. Trip 

time from Beaumont to San Bernardino Metrolink ranges between 40 and 55 minutes.

Bus Transit – Amtrak 

Thruway

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). Twelve daily Amtrak Thruway buses 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. The 

trip time for the Thruway bus and Pacific Surfliner rail service between Indio and Los Angeles with transfer at Fullerton varies 

between 3 hours, 42 minutes and 4 hours, 35 minutes, depending on direction of travel.

Bus Transit –

Greyhound

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 (Indio, Thousand Palms, and Banning) in 

eastern Riverside County are served by this Greyhound route. Trip time for daytime service ranges from 3 to 4 hours, with late-night 

non-stop service making the trip in 2.5 hours. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-12

Transportation Mode Description Summary

Passenger 

Rail - Amtrak

In the Western Section of the Program Corridor, Amtrak provides Pacific Surfliner intercity passenger service from San Luis Obispo 

to San Diego through Santa Barbara and Los Angeles. Twenty-six Amtrak Pacific Surfliner trains operate daily between Fullerton 

and Los Angeles. In the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, Amtrak One Amtrak currently operates the Sunset Limited

passenger service. The Sunset Limited is a long-distance train that travels between Los Angeles and New Orleans with three 

round-trips 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 Los Angeles. 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. 

Passenger 

Rail - Metrolink

Within the Western Section of the Program Corridor, Metrolink provides multiple commuter rail services in Orange County, 

Riverside, or San Bernardino that connect to LAUS, Fullerton, and Riverside. 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). Metrolink averages 26 to 28 

passenger and commuter trains daily throughout its rail network during the week, weekend, and holidays. Metrolink commuter rail 

service currently does not operate within the Coachella Valley. 

Freight Rail The Program Corridor is part of a key segment 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 U.S., Midwest, the Gulf Coast, and the Southeast. As a result, 

freight train volumes in each section have substantial variability associated with vessel calls at the ports, customer requirements, 

day of week, and import-export fluctuations

Notes:

LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station; SR=State Route; U.S.=United States
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-13

Figure 3.3-1. Existing Key Corridor Highways within the Program Corridor
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-14

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

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-15

Figure 3.3-2. Existing Intercity Rail and Regional Bus Service within the Program Corridor
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-16

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

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-17

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Existing transportation networks and services within Build Alternative Option 2 are the same as Build 

Alternative Option 1. 

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

Existing transportation networks and services within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build 

Alternative Option 1. 

Rail Volume and Rail Corridor Ownership

Unlike roadways, U.S. freight railroads are owned by private organizations who are responsible for 

their own maintenance and improvement projects. 

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Table 3.3-4 and Figure 3.3-3 summarize and show the existing host railroads within the Program 

Corridor under Build Alternative Option 1. Within the Western Section of the Program Corridor, the 

host railroads are BNSF and SCRRA (aka Metrolink). Rail operators within the Western Section of 

the Program Corridor include BNSF, SCRRA, UP, and Amtrak. The Western Section has more 

variability in volume because of the passenger and commuter train services that use portions of this 

section. BNSF-hosted 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 per day that use 

part or all of the Program Corridor. The SCRRA-hosted section averages 26 and 28 passenger and 

commuter trains, respectively, per day to and from LAUS and also has one limited local freight 

service.

Within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, the host railroad is UP. Rail operators within the 

Eastern Section of the Program Corridor include UP and Amtrak. In the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor, UP’s Yuma Subdivision, averages approximately 42 freight trains per day. 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.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-18

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

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-19

Figure 3.3-3. Host Railroads and Additional Operators within the Program Corridor
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-20

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

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-21

Table 3.3-4. Existing Year (2018) Daily Train Operations in the Coachella Valley Rail 

Corridor (Average One-Way Trips)

Segments

Existing Year 

(2018) Intercity 

Passenger 

One-way Train 

Trips

Existing Year 

(2018) 

Commuter 

One-way Train 

Trips

Existing Year 

(2018) Freight 

One-way Train 

Trips

Total Existing

Year (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)

Los Angeles (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

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Existing rail volume and rail owners/operators within Build Alternative Option 2 are the same as Build 

Alternative Option 1. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-22

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

Existing rail volume and rail owners/operators within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build 

Alternative Option 1. 

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. 

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Within the Western Section, Build Alternative Option 1 crosses multiple highway/rail crossings. 

There are 129 existing highway/rail crossings including the following types:

• Public at-grade crossings: 36

• Private at-grade crossings: 4

• Overpass, public roadway: 42

• Underpass, public roadway: 45

• Underpass, private crossing: 2

Within the Eastern Section, Build Alternative Option 1 crosses multiple highway/rail crossings. There 

are 51 existing highway/rail crossings, 2 of which are at-grade crossings within an existing quiet 

zone in the City of Loma Linda. The existing highway/rail crossings are of the following types:

• Public at-grade crossings: 15

• Private at-grade crossings: 8

• Overpass, public roadway: 23

• Underpass, public roadway: 3

• Underpass, pedestrian, public: 1

• Underpass, private crossing: 1
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-23

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Railroad/roadway crossings within Build Alternative Option 2 are the same as Build Alternative 

Option 1. 

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

Railroad/roadway crossings within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build Alternative 

Option 1. 

Station Amenities 

One of the main infrastructure features in a rail passenger system is the rail station. A station 

provides a means for passengers to purchase tickets and board trains. The capacity of a station is 

the ability of the station and its associated spaces to create safety and comfort for the number of 

passengers expected to use the station. This feeds into the performance of the entire passenger rail 

system. 

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

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

anticipated to be used for the proposed passenger rail service. Table 3.3-5 summarizes local access 

to each of the existing stations in addition to existing amenities at each of the existing stations within 

the Program Corridor under Build Alternative Option 1.

Table 3.3-5. Existing Station Access and Amenities within the Program Corridor

Station Station Summary

Western Section

LAUS

(City of Los 

Angeles, Los 

Angeles County)

LAUS is a regional transportation hub providing multimodal access, including pedestrian and 

bicycle access. The station provides bicycle 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 and include long-haul, express, and 

local municipal buses provided by the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation,

Metro, Los Angeles World Airports, Orange County Transportation Authority, Foothill Transit, 

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

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-24

Station Station Summary

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 highway access to the station is provided via 

US-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.). 

Fullerton Station

(City of Fullerton, 

Orange County)

The Fullerton Station serves as a multimodal transportation center and provides bicycle and 

pedestrian access. The station provides bicycle racks and lockers. The station is served by 

two Metrolink lines (91/Perris Valley Line and Orange County Line) and two Amtrak services 

(Pacific Surfliner and Southwest Chief).

Bus service is provided by Orange County Transportation Authority and Amtrak Thruway. 

Roadway access to the station 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 

highway access to the station is provided via SR 91. The Fullerton station provides free 

parking and has 1,321 parking spaces of which 9 parking spaces are reserved for 

handicapped drivers. An additional parking structure west of Harbor Boulevard offers 814 

spaces (SCRRA 2018). 

Riverside Station

(City of 

Riverside, 

Riverside 

County)

The Riverside station serves as a multimodal transportation center and provides bicycle and 

pedestrian access. Bicycle lockers or racks are not available at this station. The 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. 

Roadway access to the station is provided via Vine Street on the north, 14th Street on the 

west, and Commerce Street on the south. Regional highway access to the station is provided 

via SR 91 and SR 60. The Riverside station provides free parking and has 1,115 parking 

spaces of which 25 parking spaces 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) (SCRRA 2018).

Eastern Section

Palm Springs 

Station (City of 

Palm Springs, 

Riverside 

County) 

The Palm Springs Station is served by Amtrak long distance service (Sunset Limited and 

Texas Eagle). Greyhound bus lines has a stop at the station, however, no ticketing services 

are available. SunLine provides bus connection along Indian Canyon Drive but does not 

provide direct access to the station. No other connecting transportation services are available 

except for taxi cabs and app-based ride sharing services. This station is not a full-service 

station with station amenities comprising of a single platform and an open-air shelter with a 

roof.

Roadway access to the station is provided via Indian Canyon Drive and Palm Springs Station 

Drive on the east. Regional highway access to the station is provided via I-10. The Palm 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-25

Station Station Summary

Springs station has 40 parking spaces available of which 4 parking spaces are reserved for 

handicapped drivers. In addition, six drop-off/pick-up spaces and 10 bus bays are provided. 

Notes:

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

SCRRA=Southern California Regional Rail Authority; SR=State Route

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Existing stations within Build Alternative Option 2 are the same as Build Alternative Option 1. 

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

Existing stations within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build Alternative Option 1. 

3.3.5 Environmental Consequences

Overview

Effects as a result of implementing the Build Alternative Options 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 vehicle miles traveled (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, 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-26

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.

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 ROW 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. 

No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2, Program Alternatives, of this Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR, is used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the 

Program associated with this service-level evaluation.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-27

Transportation effects due to increased rail operations under the No Build Alternative are 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). 

• Metro’s Link Union Station Project would 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

(LOSSAN) rail corridor to connect Los Angeles to Anaheim.

In the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, the No Build Alternative would be similar to existing 

conditions for passenger rail and transit services that connect Coachella Valley with the greater Los 

Angeles metropolitan area, as well as forecasted increases in freight traffic. No known existing or 

committed transportation improvement projects are planned 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 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; are 

programmed; or are included in the fiscally constrained RTP. An increase in traffic and VMT is 

anticipated 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 effects and potential additional noise effects on the surrounding land uses, which 

could affect sensitive receptors adjacent to existing transportation corridors. However, disruption of 

established communities related to construction and operation of the Program would be avoided.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-28

Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3

Rail Operational Effects

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. The Build Alternative Options would not require construction of additional rail 

infrastructure or stations in the Western Section of the Program Corridor because the existing rail 

infrastructure and stations from LAUS to Colton would be used. When compared with the No Build 

Alternative, short-term/temporary effects construction would be negligible because no additional 

construction activities are planned within the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, 

and 3. 

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 train 

operations through a work zone during scheduled periods of construction, such as when new 

turnouts are being installed for sidings, station tracks, or interlockings. Track outages and 

construction-related speed restrictions could occur when adding new siding tracks, double-tracking, 

upgrading signals, constructing stations and station tracks, or modifying grade crossings. During 

construction, temporary shoo-fly1 trackage may need to be installed for longer disruptions, and 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.

When compared with the No Build Alternative, short-term/temporary 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 Option 2 would have slightly reduced effects due to 

a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, the magnitude of effects would be 

similar for Build Alternative Option 2 and would be considered moderate when compared with the No 

Build Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 

may have slightly reduced effects due to a 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 Build Alternative Option 3 and would be considered 

moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative. 

1 Temporary shoo-fly trackage is temporary routing of track around a construction site or other obstruction.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-29

OPERATION

Western Section. Infrastructure estimates and rail operations impact assessments are not required 

for the Western Section of the Build Alternative Options between Soto interlocking (Milepost 1444.4) 

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 AA 

Report (summarized in Chapter 2, Program Alternatives, of this 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 Option 1. When compared with No Build 

Alternative and Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have the same 

magnitude of effects and effects would be considered negligible.

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 Tier 2/Project-level analysis. When compared with the No Build 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 Option 2 would have 

slightly reduced effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, the 

magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 2 and Build Alternative Option 

3 and would be considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-30

Roadway and Vehicular Traffic 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 roadway and vehicular traffic would be negligible because no 

additional 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. 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 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 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. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for 

Build Alternative Option 2 and would be considered moderate when compared with the No Build 

Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may 

have slightly reduced effects due to a 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 Build Alternative Option 3 and would be considered moderate when 

compared with the No Build Alternative.

OPERATION

Western Section. During operation of the Program within the Western Section of 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 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-31

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.

Table 3.3-6 presents departure times of each train at each station location to indicate the time of day 

when activity would most likely occur at each station. Table 3.3-6 also provides an average estimate 

of passengers per train per ‘typical’ day and vehicle traffic generation per train and for a ‘typical’ day.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-32

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

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-33

Table 3.3-6. Train Schedule and Estimate of Vehicle Traffic Generation for each Station for Future Year (2044)

Station

Westbound AM Train 

Schedule - Coachella to 

LAUS (read up)

Eastbound AM Train 

Schedule – LAUS to 

Coachella (read down)

Westbound PM 

Train Schedule –

Coachella to LAUS

(read up)

Eastbound PM 

Train Schedule –

LAUS to 

Coachella (read 

down)

Estimated 

Passenger 

Ons/Offs per 

Traina

Cars to be 

parkedb

Kiss and 

Rideb

Transportation Network 

Company/ Taxib Busb,c

Estimate of 

Vehicle Traffic 

generated by 

each Traind

Estimate of 

Daily Vehicle 

Traffice

LAUS 12:40 p.m. 10:20 a.m. 6:40 p.m. 3:20 p.m. 194 13 46 42 0 189 756

Fullerton 12:06 p.m. 10:55 a.m. 6:06 p.m. 3:55 p.m. 36 6 14 8 0 50 200

Riverside 11:22 a.m. 11:39 a.m. 5:22 p.m. 4:39 p.m. 52 8 23 11 0 76 304

Loma Linda 10:59 a.m. 11:59 a.m. 4:59 p.m. 4:59 p.m. 52 8 20 11 1 70 280

Pass Area 10:20 a.m. 12:38 p.m. 4:20 p.m. 5:38 p.m. 13 2 6 3 1 20 80

Palm Springs 9:59 a.m. 1:02 p.m. 3:59 p.m. 6:02 p.m. 119 18 57 32 1 196 784

Mid-Valley 9:45 a.m. 1:14 p.m. 3:45 p.m. 6:14 p.m. 41 6 18 11 1 64 256

Indio 9:32 a.m. 1:30 p.m. 3:32 p.m. 6:30 p.m. 31 5 14 7 1 47 188

Coachella 9:25 a.m. 1:38 p.m. 3:25 p.m. 6:38 p.m. 27 4 12 6 1 40 160

Notes:

a Calculated based on boardings/alightings for each station; typical day ridership estimated by dividing annual ridership by 300

b Estimated vehicular activity per train is based on 2017 Amtrak onboard survey on station access mode choice for passengers using the Pacific Surfliner and the San Joaquin corridor services (San Francisco State University 2017)

c Additional bus trips (not existing services)

d Vehicular traffic generation at each station was calculated based on 1 trip for each car parked and 2 trips (in and out) for each pick up and drop off 

e Daily estimate obtained by multiplying estimates for each train by 4

LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-34

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

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-35

Table 3.3-7 provides a summary of the potential roadways at each of the stations that could be 

affected during operation of the Program.

Table 3.3-7. Potential Roadway Impacts by Stations 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

As summarized in Table 3.3-7, 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. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-36

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 3.3-8 and Table 3.3-9 present the anticipated annual and daily reduction of auto trips and VMT 

for each horizon year for the Build Alternative Options. 

Table 3.3-8. 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 3.3-9. 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

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 reduction. The average trip length was 

calculated based on approximate distance between station pairs and their annual ridership. Based 

on the data presented in Table 3.3-8 and Table 3.3-9, auto trip reductions and VMT reductions are 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-37

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

Eastern Section. As summarized in Table 3.3-7, 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 3.3-8 and Table 3.3-9, 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 – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-38

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. 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 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 

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

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-39

options. However, the 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 – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-40

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 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 metrics identified in Table 3.3-10 and Table 3.3-11 present 

the potential estimated demand of the proposed service by Build Alternative Option. Passenger 

ridership is expected to increase annually from 3 percent to 4 percent based on the data presented 

in Table 3.3-10 and Table 3.3-11, 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 LOSSAN Rail Corridor.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-41

Table 3.3-10. 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
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-42

Table 3.3-11. 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
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-43

As summarized in Table 3.3-12 and Table 3.3-13, 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.

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 3.3-10 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 3.3-10 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).

Table 3.3-12. 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 – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-44

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 3.3-13. 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

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 – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-45

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 3.3-14 and 

Table 3.3-15 summarize travel time for the different travel modes envisioned under the Build 

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

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-46

Table 3.3-14. 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 3.3-15. 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

Opening Year (2024) Passenger Rail 3:09 At least 1:32
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-47

Horizon Year Mode of Travel

Average 

Travel Time

(hour: 

minutes)

Average Travel 

Time Savingd

(compared with

Intercity Bus 

travel)

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 3.3-14 and Table 3.3-15, 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.

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 

construction activities are planned within the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 

1, 2, and 3.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-48

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 3.3-16 and 

Table 3.3-17. 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 – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-49

Table 3.3-16. 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 3.3-17. 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

Number of rail passenger accidents associated with the Program 2.30 2.68 4.45
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-50

Accident Type

Existing 

Year 

(2018)

Opening 

Year

(2024)

Future 

Year 

(2044)

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 3.3-16, 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 3.3-17, 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.

3.3.6 NEPA Summary of Potential Effects

Table 3.3-18 through Table 3.3-22 summarize the qualitative assessment of potential effects 

(negligible, moderate, or substantial) under NEPA for each of the Build Alternative Options and 

presents a comparative overview of key metrics and how they measure against the No Build 

Alternative and each of the Build Alternative Options. For the purpose of this comparison, Future 

Year (2044) statistics are presented. While ridership, accident reduction, and VMT savings increase 

proportionally when the Program serves more communities (through more intermediate stations), 

travel time between the end points of the Program Corridor can increase to up to 13 minutes based 

on the number of stations east of Colton. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-51

Table 3.3-18. NEPA Summary of Effects on Rail Operation

Alternative Options

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea Construction: None 

Operation: None

Construction: None

Operation: Substantial

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible 

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio 

Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible 

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio 

Terminus with Limited Third 

Track)

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible 

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate 

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air travel 

facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels 

of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis.

Table 3.3-19. NEPA Summary of Effects on Roadways/Vehicular Traffic

Alternative Options

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea Construction: None 

Operation: None

Construction: None

Operation: Substantial

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Moderate

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Substantial

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio 

Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Moderate

Construction: Moderate

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

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-52

Alternative Options

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Eastern Section

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio 

Terminus with Limited Third 

Track)

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Moderate

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Substantial

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air travel 

facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels 

of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on Tier 2/Project-level

analysis.

Table 3.3-20. NEPA Summary of Effects on Railroad/Roadway Crossings

Alternative Options

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea Construction: None 

Operation: None

Construction: None

Operation: None

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Negligible 

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio 

Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Negligible 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio 

Terminus with Limited Third 

Track)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Negligible 

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air travel 

facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels 

of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on Tier 2/Project-level

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

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-53

Table 3.3-21. NEPA Summary of Effects on Traveler Safety 

Alternative Options

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea Construction: None 

Operation: None

Construction: None

Operation: None

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Moderate

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate 

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio 

Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Moderate

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio 

Terminus with Limited Third 

Track)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Moderate

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate 

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air travel 

facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels 

of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on Tier 2/Project-level 

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

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-54

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

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-55

Table 3.3-22. NEPA Summary of Effects on Ridership Forecast and Travel Time

Alternative Options

Annual 

Ridership 

(one-way 

trips)

Travel Time 

between 

LAUS and 

Eastern 

Terminus 

(hour:minute)

Annual 

Reduction of 

Accidents

Annual 

VMT 

Savings 

(million 

miles)

Annual 

Reduction 

of Auto 

Trips

Potential Intensity of 

Effect:

Western Section

Potential Intensity of 

Effect:

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea None — None None None Construction: None

Operation: Substantial 

Construction: None

Operation: Substantial

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

338,540 3:16 0.08 – Fatal

4.72 - Injury

17.4 178,045 Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Moderate 

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Moderate

Build Alternative Option 2 

(Indio Terminus)

312,306 3:09 0.07 – Fatal

4.35 - Injury

16.1 164,248 Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Moderate

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Moderate

Build Alternative Option 3 

(Indio Terminus with 

Limited Third Track)

312,306 3:09 0.07 – Fatal

4.35 - Injury

16.1 164,248 Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Moderate

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Moderate

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air travel facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study 

Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on

Tier 2/Project-level specific analysis.

LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station; VMT=vehicle miles traveled
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-56

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

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-57

3.3.7 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts

Based on the information provided in Section 3.3.4 and 3.3.5, and considering the CEQA Guidelines 

Appendix G Checklist questions for transportation, the Build Alternative Options are considered to 

have a potentially significant impact on transportation when reviewed on a Program-wide basis. 

Placing the infrastructure improvements and new stations largely within or along the existing ROW 

reduces the potential for significant impacts on transportation resources. However, because the sites 

have not been selected, some resources may be significantly impacted. At the Program analysis 

level, it is not possible to know the location, extent, and particular characteristics of impacts on these 

resources. Proposed programmatic mitigation strategies discussed in Section 3.3.8 would be applied 

to reduce potential impacts.

Table 3.3-23 describes the CEQA significance conclusions for the Build Alternative Options; the 

proposed programmatic mitigation strategies that would be applied to minimize, reduce, or avoid the 

potential impacts; and the significance determination after mitigation strategies are applied. The 

identification and implementation of additional site-specific mitigation measures necessary for 

Project implementation would occur as part of the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-58

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

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-59

Table 3.3-23. CEQA Summary of Impacts for Transportation

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the 

circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?

Construction 

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are proposed or required in the 

Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potentially significant impacts under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level.

Potential impacts are dependent on the location of new stations and rail infrastructure 

improvements, which are currently unknown. During construction, vehicular, pedestrian, and 

bicycle traffic may be affected due to temporary road closures and detours during 

construction-related activities. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would further identify and 

evaluate impacts related to conflict with applicable plans, ordinances, or policies for the 

applicable circulation system.

TR-1

LU-2

Potentially Significant. TR-1 and LU-2 

would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts resulting from conflicts with 

Program plans, ordinances or policies 

through design and further analysis. 

However, impacts may remain significant 

and unavoidable, as further analysis may 

determine that there is a conflict that 

cannot be mitigated between land uses. 

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The change in train service (two additional round-trip daily 

trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land use and would not conflict 

with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing circulation. No impacts under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are anticipated to occur at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation 

level.

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-60

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potentially significant impacts under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level.

Potential impacts are dependent on the location of new stations and rail infrastructure 

improvements, which are currently unknown. Vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic may be 

affected due to permanent road closures during operation. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis 

would further identify and evaluate impacts related to conflict with applicable plans, 

ordinances, or policies for the applicable circulation system.

TR-1

LU-2

Potentially Significant. TR-1 and LU-2 

would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts resulting from conflicts with 

Program plans, ordinances or policies 

through design and further analysis. 

However, impacts may remain significant 

and unavoidable, as further analysis may 

determine that there is a conflict that 

cannot be mitigated between land uses. 

Would the Program conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are proposed or required in the 

Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potentially significant impacts under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. 

Potential impacts associated with construction VMTs depend of the location of new stations 

and other rail infrastructure improvements, which are currently unknown. Construction of these 

improvements could require large scale construction activities over an extended period of time. 

A detailed construction VMT analysis cannot be considered at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

level because such an analysis at this stage would be too speculative, given the exact location 

and duration of construction associated with station facilities and other rail infrastructure 

improvements is unknown at this time. Therefore, potentially significant impacts under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. 

Site-specific impacts would be identified and evaluated during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 

TR-1 Less Than Significant. TR-1 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts through design and further 

analysis during the Tier 2/Project-level 

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

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-61

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Operation

Western Section – Less Than Significant. The change in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land use and is 

anticipated to result in a decrease in regional and local VMTs. Operation of the Program within 

the Western Corridor would enhance passenger rail services within an existing high-quality 

transit corridor. These factors are consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 (b).

Therefore, a less than significant impact under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 is anticipated 

to occur at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Less Than Significant. Operation of two additional round-trip daily trains 

within the Eastern Section of the Program is anticipated to result in a decrease in regional and 

local VMTs. Operation of the Program within the Eastern Corridor would enhance passenger 

rail services within an existing high-quality transit corridor. These factors are consistent with 

CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 (b). Therefore, a less than significant impact under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 is anticipated to occur at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation 

level.

Not applicable Not applicable

Would the Program substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or 

incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

Construction 

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated during at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are proposed or 

required in the Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-62

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potentially significant impacts under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level.

Construction of the rail infrastructure improvements or station facilities have the potential to 

result in hazards from geometric design features or incompatible land uses Therefore, 

potentially significant impacts under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are anticipated at the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Site-specific impacts would be determined during the 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

TR-1

LU-2

SS-1

Less than Significant. TR-1, LU-2, and 

SS-1 would minimize, reduce, or avoid

potential impacts resulting from design 

hazards by requiring coordination with 

emergency providers and railroad during 

construction and the preparation of a 

construction management plan. In 

addition, SS-1 would require station 

facilities to provide adequate safety 

features through design and further 

analysis prior to operation of the facility.

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The change in train service (two additional round-trip daily 

trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land use and would not increase 

hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. No impacts under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are anticipated to occur at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation 

level.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – No Impact. Once construction is complete, operation of Build Alternative 

Option 1, 2, or 3 would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible 

uses. Therefore, no impacts under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are anticipated to occur at 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level.

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-63

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program result in inadequate emergency access?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are proposed or required in the 

Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potentially significant impacts under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. 

Potential impacts are dependent on the location of new stations and infrastructure 

improvements, which are currently unknown. Construction of the rail infrastructure 

improvements or station facilities have the potential to result in inadequate emergency access 

if road closures or detours are proposed or if adequate access to new stations is not provided. 

Therefore, potentially significant impacts under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are 

anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Site-specific impacts would be 

determined during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 

TR-1

LU-2

SS-1

Less than Significant. TR-1, LU-2, and 

SS-1 minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts resulting from inadequate 

emergency access by requiring 

coordination with emergency providers and 

railroad during construction. In addition, 

SS-1 would require station facilities to 

provide adequate emergency access 

through design and further analysis prior to 

operation of the facility.

Operation

Western Section – Less Than Significant. The change in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land use. During 

operations, in the event that there is a derailment or situation at a station facility, the accident 

or incident would be communicated to all rail operators in the area and any safety measures, 

cleanup, and emergency access would be under the control of local jurisdiction emergency 

responders with assistance from rail operators. Therefore, a less than significant impact under 

Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 is anticipated to occur at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

evaluation level.

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-64

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Less Than Significant. During operations, in the event that there is a 

derailment or situation at a station facility, the accident or incident would be communicated to 

all rail operators in the area and any safety measures, cleanup, and emergency access would 

be under the control of local jurisdiction emergency responders with assistance from rail 

operators. Therefore, a less than significant impact under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 is 

anticipated to occur at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level.

Not applicable Not applicable

Notes:

CEQA=California Environmental Quality Act; EIS/EIR=environmental impact statement/environmental impact report; VMT=vehicle miles traveled
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-65

3.3.8 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies

Identified below are proposed programmatic mitigation strategies for further consideration in the 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis. Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified 

and discussed during Tier 2/Project-level analysis after design details are known and specific 

impacts are identified. Proposed programmatic mitigation strategies, consistent with state and 

federal regulations, could include, but are not limited to, the following:

Mitigation Strategy TR-1: 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: 

• Analysis of construction related traffic impacts including identification and analysis of:

o Transportation management plans to mitigate construction-related traffic, including 

coordination with emergency providers

o Alternative work windows or temporary construction features (e.g., shoo-fly) to minimize 

disruption to rail operations during construction

o Coordination with railroad host, operators and the jurisdiction within which construction 

will occur

o Identification of haul routes for construction trucks, construction traffic management 

strategies, and any re-routing of vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle routes 

• Analysis of operational-related traffic impacts including identification and analysis of:

o Roadway network impacts and fair-share mitigation to mitigate impacts

o Transportation system management/signal optimization, including retiming, rephrasing, 

and signal optimization; turn prohibitions; use of one-way street; and traffic diversion to 

alternative routes

• For station facilities, identification and analysis of:

o Roadway network impacts associated with trips resulting from travel activity at stations

o Station amenities (e.g., parking, alternative modes of transit features, ticketing, 

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

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-66

Mitigation Strategy LU-2: Based on the results of a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis and 

recommendations, the identified lead agency or agencies shall determine if a construction 

management plan is required for construction activities of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being 

proposed. If required, a construction management plan shall be developed by the contractor and 

reviewed by the lead agency or agencies prior to construction and implemented during construction 

activities. The construction management plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 

• Measures that minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project 

Study Area

• Measures pertaining to visual protection, air quality, safety controls, noise controls, and 

traffic controls to minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project 

Study Area

• Measures to ensure property access is maintained for local businesses, residences, and 

community and emergency services

• Measures to consult with local transit providers to minimize effects on local and regional bus 

routes in affected communities

• Measures to consult with local jurisdictions and utility providers to minimize effects on utilities 

in affected communities

Mitigation Strategy SS-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a Project-specific collision hazard 

analysis shall be required and would be prepared in coordination local jurisdictions in which the 

specific rail infrastructure or station facility is located. The collision hazard analysis shall be prepared 

in compliance with the Federal Railroad Administration’s Collision Hazard Analysis Guide: 

Commuter and Intercity Passenger Service (Federal Railroad Administration 2007), which provides a 

step-by-step procedure on how to perform a hazard analysis, and how to develop effective mitigation 

strategies that would improve passenger rail safety.