March 2009 Draft EIS 

1-1 

1.0 Purpose and Need 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

This environmental impact statement (EIS) addresses the proposal by DesertXpress 

Enterprises, LLC, (Applicant or DesertXpress) to construct and operate a high-speed 

passenger railroad between Victorville, California, and Las Vegas, Nevada (the proposed 

action). The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is the lead agency for the 

environmental review process for the DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train Project. 

The Applicant would finance and own the system and be responsible for the project’s 

development, construction, operation, and maintenance. Approvals by several federal 

agencies, including the FRA, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Surface Transportation 

Board (STB), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the National Parks Service 

(NPS) would be necessary to implement the project including the granting of permission 

to use public lands and/or highway rights-of-way. 

The FRA has authority to regulate the safety of railroads, including the proposed project 

under 49 U.S.C. 20101 et seq. FRA also manages financial assistance programs for rail 

capital investments, for which this project would be eligible. The BLM has approval 

authority over the use of public lands under their control under 43 U.S.C. 1761, the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). The STB has jurisdiction, pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. 10501(b), over the construction, acquisition, operation, and abandonment of rail 

lines, railroad rates and services, and rail carrier consolidations and mergers. The FHWA 

has jurisdiction over the use of and/or modification of Interstate highway right of way 

under 23 CFR 1.23. The NPS has authority over the management and use of the Mojave 

National Preserve under 16 U.S.C. 2. 

The construction and operation of the proposed project is subject to STB’s approval 

authority under 49 U.S.C. 10901. On June 25, 2007, the STB issued a declaratory order in 

Finance Docket No. 34914 (incorporated herein by reference) finding that the proposed 

construction and operation of the interstate high-speed passenger rail system is not 

subject to state and local environmental review and land use and other permitting 

requirements because of the Federal preemption authority in 49 U.S.C. 10501(b). 

Additional detail regarding STB’s application of Federal preemption authority in this case 
DesertXpress Purpose and Need 

Draft EIS 1.2 Purpose of the Proposed Project 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

1-2 

is discussed in Section 1.4 below.1 

This EIS has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508). This EIS is being prepared by the FRA in 

cooperation with STB, BLM, FHWA, and NPS. The California Department of 

Transportation (Caltrans) and the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) are also 

participating in evaluating the impacts of the DesertXpress proposal. 

This chapter of the EIS describes the purpose and need for high-speed interstate 

passenger rail transportation between Southern California and Las Vegas, Nevada. The 

purpose and need provides the basis for evaluating and comparing alternatives, and is one 

of the factors considered in selecting a preferred alternative. In addition to the purpose 

and need for the project, this chapter identifies major authorizing laws and regulations, 

discusses the relationship of the proposal to statutes, regulations, policies, programs and 

plans, and lists federal permits, licenses, and other requirements for project 

implementation. An overview map of the proposed project is shown in Figure 1.1, Project 

Location. 

1.2 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

The purpose of the privately financed project is to provide reliable and safe passenger rail 

transportation using proven high-speed rail technology between Southern California 

(Victorville) and Las Vegas that is a convenient alternative to automobile travel on the 

Interstate-15 freeway (I-15), or air travel to and from Las Vegas, and that adds 

transportation capacity in the I-15 corridor. 

1.2.1 RELIABLE, SAFE, CONVENIENT MODE OF TRAVEL USING PROVEN HIGH 

SPEED RAIL TECHNOLOGY

Depending on the selected alignment, DesertXpress would extend approximately 183 to 

200 miles on a new, high-speed double track with no at-grade crossings, providing trains 

departing both ends of the line at least hourly and as frequently as every 20 minutes on 

Fridays and Sundays. DesertXpress would travel at speeds up to 150 mph. The 183- to 

200-mile trip would take between 1 hour and 40 minutes and 2 hours depending on the 

selected technology, and would operate every day of the year. The trains would be based 

on high-speed trains used in Europe and customized for the unique setting of the high 

 

1 STB’s preemption authority precludes any requirement for an environmental review under the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, this document includes environmental analyses that would also 

satisfy CEQA requirements. Moreover, CEQA-related noticing procedures have been followed, including 

issuance of a Notice of Preparation to the California State Clearinghouse in July 2006. 
93

95

95

Hoover Dam

 Joshua Tree NP

Mojave National

Preserve

 Lake Mead NRA

 Death Valley NP

K E R N

L O S A N G E L E S

S A N B E R N A R D I N O

I N Y O M O H A V E

C L A R K

N Y E

Lancaster

Primm

Big Bear

Hesperia

Palmdale

Victorville

Bullhead City

San Bernardino

Burbank

Las Vegas

Paradise

P roposed Terminus

Segment 3 A & 3 B

Segment 4 A

Segment 4 B

Segment 5 A & 5 B

Segment 6 A & 6 B

Segment 7 A & 7 B

Option C

Barstow

Baker

Yermo

Segment 1

Segment 2 A

Segment 3 A & B

Segment 2 B

Segment 5 A & 5 B

Segment 6 A & 6 B

Segment 4 B

Option C

Segment 4 A

Segment 7 A & 7 B

15

15

40

15

373

190

127

178

160

160

127

163

68

18 247

58

215

18

247

372

62

138

138

395

Needles

Desert X pres s

P roject E IS Project Location 1-1

395

/2 B

Segment 1

Segment 2A

Segment 2A / 2B

Segment 2B

NOT TO SCALE

Segment 2 A
DesertXpress Purpose and Need 

Draft EIS 1.2 Purpose of the Proposed Project 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

1-4 

desert. Each car would be self-propelled to provide the high power-to-weight ratio needed 

to follow the alignment and negotiate its relatively steep grades as it travels through two 

desert mountain passes. 

1.2.2 INCREASING THE CAPACITY OF THE I-15 CORRIDOR

In its 2006 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), the Southern 

California Association of Governments (SCAG) has programmed funding for several 

projects within and/or near the study corridor that will increase capacity and improve 

operation of I-15.2 The construction and operation of DesertXpress trains would further 

increase capacity and improve operation of the I-15 corridor, potentially reducing the need 

for programmed and/or planned but unfunded improvements. 

The train tracks would utilize (to the extent feasible) existing highway and railroad rightsof-way along the corridor. The approximate 60-foot right-of-way width required for the 

project would be narrower than the width of additional highway lanes that would be 

needed to carry a comparable number of people in automobiles on the I-15 corridor. 

DesertXpress commissioned a ridership study in 2005, which was independently reviewed 

by qualified specialists under the exclusive direction of the FRA. The original study and 

FRA’s review are included in the EIS as Appendix B. Also refer to Section 2.2.1 of Chapter 

2.0, Alternatives, for a discussion of the DesertXpress ridership projections. 

The applicant’s study incorporated a comprehensive travel demand model that divided the 

Southern California area into zones (by postal zip codes), computed travel times and costs 

from those zones for the automobile and air travel modes, and then compared those 

modes to the time and cost of DesertXpress. The study also utilized an internet-based 

stated preference survey of selected Southern California residents (carried out in July 

2005) to estimate how many existing auto and air trips to Las Vegas could potentially be 

diverted to DesertXpress. According to the study, the projected travel demand from 

Southern California to Las Vegas in the year 2012 will be 18.2 million trips. 

The applicant’s study assessed the sensitivity of high-speed train ridership to various fare 

levels ($50 and $55 one-way fares), travel time (100- and 116-minute one-way trips), and 

service frequency. Ridership was also projected based on the use of proposed diesel and 

electric train technology options. The proposed electric train set would employ longer and 

wider trains with significantly greater passenger capacity. As shown in the ridership 

 

2 I-15 capacity and/or operational improvements programmed in SCAG’s 2006 RTIP are identified below: 

• Barstow: new interchange at I-15 at Old Route SR 58; 

• Near Baker, from 5.9 km north of Afton Road to 2.3 km south of Basin Road: add truck climbing lane 

For a comprehensive list of anticipated capacity improvements in the project area, see Section 2.0 of the 

Traffic Impact Study, included as Appendix E. 
DesertXpress Purpose and Need 

Draft EIS 1.3 Need for the Proposed Project 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

1-5 

review and original ridership study, DesertXpress could divert 20-25 percent of private 

automobile trips from I-15, and would have a passenger capacity at least equal to a full 

freeway lane. 

During a typical peak hour in its first full year of operation, DesertXpress would carry 

approximately 1,350 passengers. Over time, as passenger demand increases, 

DesertXpress would have the capacity to operate trains as frequently as every five minutes 

in each direction, thereby achieving a peak hour capacity of approximately 5,000 

passengers per hour per direction, which is roughly equivalent to two lanes of freeway 

traffic. With this capacity, the DesertXpress Project could potentially reduce the need to 

expand I-15, thus allowing Caltrans and NDOT to defer major expansion of I-15 and 

allocate future funding instead to other highway and transportation improvements in the 

two states. The DesertXpress Project would also maximize transit and ground 

transportation connections at the proposed station alternatives and would provide 

adequate parking facilities per the ridership projections. 

The applicant’s study also states that DesertXpress is expected to divert an estimated 3.04 

million annual auto trips from I-15, reducing auto emissions and saving fuel. Increased 

demand for DesertXpress would be accommodated by adding more trains as demand 

increases. DesertXpress would have the capacity to quadruple its projected initial 

ridership over roughly a 30-year period. 

The ridership review conducted for FRA examined and evaluated the methodologies 

employed in the applicant’s ridership study. The ridership review noted that numerous 

factors could alter the findings of the ridership study in both positive and negative 

directions. Following consideration of all of these factors and their relative potential to 

alter the findings, FRA’s ridership review adjusted downwards by a factor of 10 percent 

the passengers forecast in the applicant’s study. These adjusted numbers are utilized in 

this EIS. 

1.3 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

The need for a high-speed rail service stems from several factors: high and increasing 

travel demand amidst lagging capacity on the I-15 corridor and constraints to expansion of 

air travel, and frequent accidents in the I-15 corridor. 

1.3.1 TRAVEL DEMAND AND CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS

The rapid increase in travel demand between Southern California and Las Vegas, coupled 

with the growth in population in the areas surrounding Victorville, Barstow, and Las 

Vegas has placed increasing pressures on the highways and airports serving the region. 

For example, for the highway segment between Victorville and Barstow, the Average Daily 
DesertXpress Purpose and Need 

Draft EIS 1.3 Need for the Proposed Project 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

1-6 

Traffic (ADT) on I-15 grew from 50,000 to 60,000 between 1998 and 2005 and is 

estimated to increase to 75,000 by 2015 and to 100,000 by 2025.3 

The 2005 ridership study estimated that one-third of the 38 million annual Las Vegas 

visitors and business travelers come from Southern California, and an estimated 72 

percent of them drive to Las Vegas on I-15.4 In 2005, the total average person trips on a 

Friday to Las Vegas from California was 56,700 trips, which generates an estimated 

annual volume of 11.77 million passenger trips by automobile. In addition, the ridership 

study estimates that there are 1.57 million annual trips by air and 0.9 million by bus.5 

Travel delays on I-15 during peak days (Friday and Sunday) range from 35 to 75 minutes 

or more. As the only roadway directly linking metropolitan Southern California to Las 

Vegas, I-15 conditions are often congested. 

Typical lane capacity for home-to-work commuter traffic on a freeway is between 1,600 to 

2,000 cars per hour or higher under ideal conditions, which assumes 100 percent 

automobile traffic on flat terrain, with no trucks, buses, or slower recreational vehicles. 

However, I-15 is also a major truck route with steep grades (Caltrans reports 15 percent of 

the average daily traffic on I-15 between Victorville and Barstow as truck traffic) and is 

also a popular recreational vehicle route. This diversity of traffic and terrain leads to 

greater speed differentials, more space occupied per vehicle, and larger gaps between 

vehicles than normal commuter traffic. These factors lead to decreased lane capacity of 

below 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane. 

Under free flow travel conditions, the trip on I-15 from Victorville to Las Vegas is 192 

miles and takes about 3 hours to drive if driving at a constant, posted speed limit. Because 

of the estimated annual volume of passenger trips made by automobiles and the two-lanes 

per direction capacity of I-15 over the majority of its length, congestion is a growing and 

serious problem. 

The single worst hour to drive from Las Vegas to Southern California is Sunday at 2 p.m. 

Recently conducted traffic studies6 estimates the congestion delay on I-15 will grow from 

1.25 hours in the summer of 2002 to 3.19 hours in 2012, to 7.03 hours in 2022, and to 5.78 

hours in 2032 even with planned improvements in place.7 The study also assumes that 

drivers will not modify their travel pattern or departure time. The study further concludes 

 

3 Initial Study/Environmental Assessment, Victorville to Barstow-Add Southbound Mixed-Flow Lane, 

Caltrans, FHWA, County of San Bernardino, May 2001. 

4 URS Corporation, 2005. 

5 The 2004 air travel estimate is derived from commercial travel originating at one of the five major Los 

Angeles metropolitan area passenger airports: Los Angeles International (LAX), Bob Hope (BUR), John 

Wayne/Orange County (SNA), Ontario (ONT), and Long Beach (LGB). Air travel from San Diego 

International (SAN) is not included in the estimate. 

6 See Desert Xpress Updated Ridership and Revenue Study, URS 2005 and Appendix E, the Draft Final Report 

Traffic Impact Analysis, DesertXpress, DMJM Harris/AECOM, 2008. 

7 Ibid. 
DesertXpress Purpose and Need 

Draft EIS 1.3 Need for the Proposed Project 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

1-7 

that by the summer of 2022, 78 percent of the drivers will find the congestion delay 

intolerable on Sunday and will leave a day earlier (or not travel at all). With no funds 

currently programmed by Caltrans to widen this aging highway over the majority of its 

length (which has only two general traffic lanes in each direction in most places), the 

situation can be expected to worsen in the future. On the Nevada side, between Primm 

and Las Vegas, I-15 experienced a 31.5 percent increase in vehicle volumes in each 

direction for the ten year period between 1993 and 2003. Were there no capacity 

constraints, current estimates are that 52 million vehicle trips would be traversing this 

corridor annually by the year 2015; however, the highways serving this market have an 

estimated annual capacity of only 38 million. However, State transportation agencies 

have expressed concern that the DesertXpress project, if configured in a side-running 

location to I-15, would limit or alter the future expansion of the I-15 right-of-way. 

Air travel between Southern California and Las Vegas is also constrained, which causes 

travel delays and inconvenience to both business and leisure travelers. Major commercial 

Airports in the Los Angeles Metropolitan area, Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), 

John Wayne Airport (SNA), Long Beach Airport (LGB) and Bob Hope Airport (BUR), are 

located within densely populated urban areas, where the ability to expand runways and/or 

airport facilities has been severely limited for more than two decades. Los Angeles World 

Airports (LAWA), which operates both LAX and LA/Ontario International Airport (ONT), 

has focused recent expansion efforts on new facilities at the Palmdale Airport in northern 

Los Angeles County. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has 

proposed a rail link from LAX to Palmdale as a means of easing congestion at LAX. SNA 

will be adding six additional gates as part of an airport expansion project. However, SNA 

will continue to operate within a stringent aircraft noise abatement area, which strictly 

regulates take off and landing protocols, while also limiting airport hours of operation. 

The number of daily flights at LGB is fixed by the City of Long Beach’s noise ordinance. In 

2009, work is expected to begin on a new passenger terminal, but rather than increase the 

capacity of this airport, the work is proposed to relocate currently outdoor passenger gate 

areas to enclosed spaces. Potential expansions at BUR have been set aside in the face of 

strong local opposition and insufficient distance between runways and the present 

passenger terminal. 

In the Las Vegas area, McCarran International Airport (LAS) accommodated about 48 

million passengers in 2007. The Clark County Department of Aviation (CCDOA) has 

planned for the further expansion of LAS to accommodate increased demand, including 

the opening of additional gates in the D-Concourse and construction of Terminal 3. These 

improvements would increase the practical capacity of the airport to 53 million 

passengers, which is about 10 percent greater than actual capacity experienced in 2007. 

CCDOA anticipates that LAS will reach its practical capacity by 2017. While some general 

aviation flights are accommodated at nearby North Las Vegas Airport, LAS is the only 

large commercial airport that serves Las Vegas. LAS is surrounded on all sides by 

development, making significant expansion of the airfield much more difficult and 

impedes capacity expansion. CCDOA is thus proposing to construct the Ivanpah Valley 

Airport (also known as the Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport), as a supplemental 
DesertXpress Purpose and Need 

Draft EIS 1.3 Need for the Proposed Project 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

1-8 

commercial service airport. The airport is proposed to be built in the Ivanpah Valley, 

approximately 30 miles south of Las Vegas between Jean and Primm. CCDOA anticipates 

the airport to be operational by 2018. An EIS is being prepared for this project by the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the BLM, pursuant to the Ivanpah Valley 

Airport Lands Transfer Act of 2000. A subsequent act of Congress in 2002 established a 

2,640 foot wide corridor between the Las Vegas Valley and the proposed Ivanpah Airport, 

in which to-be-determined transportation and utility infrastructure could be located.8 

In addition to personal automobile and air travel between Southern California and Las 

Vegas, both public and private bus transportation is also available. In regards to public 

bus transportation, the Greyhound Bus Line serves areas throughout Southern California 

and provides both direct and stopover service between Southern California and Las Vegas, 

including stops in Victorville and Barstow. Private charter buses also provide 

transportation between Southern California and Las Vegas. While these charter buses are 

private rented, they provide service for groups of individuals traveling to and from 

Southern California and Las Vegas. These bus services would, however, experience 

similar traffic congestion as the private automobiles, as I-15 would remain the primary 

route for service. 

Additional surface passenger transportation capacity between Victorville and Las Vegas is 

needed and the project would provide capacity and would add connections between 

different transportation modes. 

The DesertXpress Project would pass by the site of the proposed new airport, allowing for 

a potential airport rail link to be constructed.9 To serve the proposed airport in the future, 

DesertXpress would need to construct a spur track off the mainline into the terminal area 

and operate trains dedicated to airport service directly from the new airport to Las Vegas 

over the mainline DesertXpress tracks. The Applicant, airport officials, and Clark County 

may consider this possibility.10 

The project would also be in close proximity to the Las Vegas Monorail, which could be 

extended by the Las Vegas Monorail Company to the proposed DesertXpress station to 

provide a direct connection to visitor attractions and destinations in Las Vegas. 

The project could also be extended in the future to Palmdale, California (about 50 miles 

west of Victorville) to connect to the planned state-wide California High Speed Train. 

Finally, the project could be connected to the Los Angeles Basin initially by extending 

 

8 Title V, Section 501(b), Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107-282, enacted November 6, 2002. 

9 Construction of a link to the proposed Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport is not part of the current 

DesertXpress proposal and is not evaluated in this EIS. Construction and operations of such a link would 

require separate environmental review. 

10 Studies of the economic viability of the DesertXpress Project do not incorporate or rely upon an airport 

shuttle and other forms of transportation linking to the proposed Ivanpah Valley Airport. 
DesertXpress Purpose and Need 

Draft EIS 1.3 Need for the Proposed Project 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

1-9 

Metrolink Commuter Rail service from its present terminus in the City of San Bernardino 

to Victorville, or alternatively, DesertXpress itself could be extended to Ontario 

International Airport, San Bernardino station, and/or other communities in the Los 

Angeles Basin. None of these possibilities, as outlined in the preceding paragraphs, are 

proposed as part of the project being evaluated in this EIS. 

1.3.2 SAFETY

Alternatives to automobile travel would likely provide improved safety conditions in the I15 corridor. 

On a national level, comparing miles traveled via commercial aircraft, train, and 

automobiles on highways, auto travel on highways has by far the highest rate of passenger 

fatalities per mile traveled. For the years 2000 through 2005, the average rate of 

passenger fatalities per 100 million miles traveled by highway was more than 25 times the 

comparable rate for travel by air and rail.11

Along the California portion of the I-15 corridor between 2003 and 2005, the fatal 

accident rate has exceeded statewide averages for highway facilities, particularly for the 

portion of I-15 between Barstow and the Nevada state line.12 Given the relatively low 

resident population in this portion of the corridor, the data suggest that a disproportionate 

number of fatalities are related to longer-distance travel between Southern California and 

the Las Vegas Area. 

In Nevada, traffic accident data gathered from 2003 through 2006 suggests that 

congestion is a key factor in the number and type of accidents. In the stretch of I-15 

between the Nevada state line and Spring Mountain Road, nearly 50 percent of the traffic 

accidents in between 2003 and 2006 were rear-end collisions. Congestion can be a key 

factor in increasing the rate of rear-end collisions. On a more lightly traveled freeway, a 

vehicle would more likely pass another rather than follow too closely.13 

 

11 Air: Internet site www.ntsb.gov/aviation (April 2007).Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Internet site 

http://www.bts.gov/xml/air_traffic/src/datadisp.xml (April 2007). 

Highway: Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), National Center for Statistics Analysis (April 2007). 

1975-2004: Ibid., Traffic Safety Facts 2004, DOT HS 809 775 (Washington, DC: 2005), table 4, Internet site 

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSFAnn/TSF2003F.pdf (February 16, 2006). 

Railroad: Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Safety Analysis, Internet site http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov 

(March 2007).

12 Korve Engineering, 2006. 

13 Ibid. 
DesertXpress Purpose and Need 

Draft EIS 1.4 Major Authorizing Laws and Regulations 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

1-10 

1.4 MAJOR AUTHORIZING LAWS AND REGULATIONS 

Several laws are pertinent to the proposed project. 

Under49 U.S.C. 20101 et seq., the FRA has authority over the safety of railroads. Under 

45 U.S.C. 821 et seq., the Secretary of Transportation has authority to provide direct loans 

and loan guarantees to State and local governments, government sponsored authorities 

and corporations, railroads, and joint ventures that include at least one railroad. The 

Secretary's authority has been delegated to the FRA. Additionally, under 49 U.S.C. 24402, 

the FRA has authority to administer grants for capital investment grants to support 

intercity passenger rail service. 

Under 43 U.S.C. 1761 (FLPMA), the BLM has approval authority over rights-of-way and 

use of public lands under their control, including for rail transportation purposes, as 

outlined under the right-of-way regulations at 43 CFR 2801.9 et seq. 

Under 49 U.S.C. 10501(b), the STB has jurisdiction over the construction, acquisition, 

operation, and abandonment of rail lines, railroad rates and services, and rail carrier 

consolidations and mergers. 

Under 23 U.S.C. 111, for the portions of the proposed rail line that would be within the 

existing highway right-of-way under the jurisdiction of FHWA, the implementing 

regulations in 23 CFR 1.23 provide FHWA authority over approval of temporary or 

permanent occupancy or use within the boundaries of federal-aid highways. 

1.4.1 PERMITS AND LICENSES

The federal agencies responsible for approval of the project may be responding to multiple 

needs based on their mandates, but the purpose is consistent across all federal agencies. 

Approvals by the FRA, BLM, STB, and FHWA would be necessary to implement the 

project. 

The proponents of the project, under the guidance of the FRA, will also be responsible for 

the following permits: 

 An encroachment permit from Caltrans to ensure minimal impacts to the 

operation of I-15; 

 A Section 404 permit from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to ensure 

compliance with the Clean Water Act; and 
DesertXpress Purpose and Need 

Draft EIS 1.4 Major Authorizing Laws and Regulations 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

1-11 

 Section 7 Consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife service to satisfy 

Endangered Species Act Requirements14. 

These permits will be obtained following the issuance Record of Decision in accordance 

with the procedures and policies of the issuing agencies. The ROD will select a preferred 

alternative and the location of associated facilities and structures. 

1.4.1.1 STB Preemption Authority 

In response to a declaratory order filed by DesertXpress, STB issued a decision in 

DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC-Petition for Declaratory Order, STB Finance Docket No. 

34914 (STB served June 27, 2007) (June 2007 Dec. Order) stating that the project is not 

subject to state and local land use and environmental review and permitting. 

In its June 2007 Dec. Order, STB confirmed that the Federal preemption provision 

contained in 49 U.S.C. 10501(b), as broadened by the ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. 

L. No. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803 (1995) (ICCTA), shields railroad operations that are subject 

to the STB’s jurisdiction from the application of most state and local laws.15 Section 

10501(b) expressly provides that the “jurisdiction of the STB over transportation by rail 

carriers” over any track that is part of the interstate rail network “is exclusive.” Section 

10501(b) also expressly provides that the remedies provided under 49 U.S.C. 10101-11908 

are exclusive and preempt the remedies provided under State law.16 STB also examined 

whether the particular activities contemplated by DesertXpress constitute transportation 

by a rail carrier under section 10501, and clarified the kinds of laws that are and are not 

preempted involving this project. 

 

14 The USFWS has received a draft Biological Assessment (BA) for the Project as part of the Section 7 

Consultation Process. 

15 STB explained in its June 2007 Declaratory Order that courts have found two broad categories of state and 

local actions to be preempted regardless of the context or rationale for the action: any form of state or local 

permitting or preclearance that, by its nature, could be used to deny the railroad the ability to conduct its 

operations or to proceed with activities that the Board has authorized, and state or local regulation of matters 

directly regulated by the Board (such as the construction, operation, and abandonment of rail lines). 

Otherwise the section 10501(b) preemption analysis requires a factual assessment of whether a particular 

action would have the effect of preventing or unreasonably interfering with railroad transportation. See, e.g., 

City of Auburn v. STB, 154 F.3d 1025, 1029-31 (9th Cir. 1998) (City of Auburn) (state and local environmental 

and land use permitting are preempted); Joint Petition for Declaratory Order—Boston and Maine Corporation 

and Town of Ayer, MA, STB Finance Docket No. 33971 (STB served May 1, 2001), aff’d, Boston & Maine Corp. 

v. Town of Ayer, 206 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D. Mass. 2002) (state and local permit requirements and environmental 

review of construction and operation of railroad intermodal facility preempted); N. San Diego County Transit 

Dev. Bd.—Pet. For Decl. Order, STB Finance Docket No. 34111 (STB served Nov. 9, 2001) (City cannot 

unilaterally prevent a railroad from reactivating and operating over a line that the Board has not authorized 

for abandonment). 

16 As the ICCTA legislative history makes clear, the states’ police powers are not entirely preempted by section 

10501(b). Thus, for example, railroads can be required to comply with some health and safety rules, such as 

fire and electric codes. Flynn v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Corp., 98 F. Supp. 2d 1186, 1189-90 (E.D. Wash. 

2000). 
DesertXpress Purpose and Need 

Draft EIS 1.4 Major Authorizing Laws and Regulations 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

1-12 

As noted, STB has jurisdiction over “transportation by rail carrier,” 49 U.S.C.10501(b). 

Accordingly, to be subject to STB’s jurisdiction and qualify for federal preemption under 

section 10501(b), there must be transportation, and that transportation must be provided 

by a rail carrier, which is defined as “a person providing common carrier railroad 

transportation for compensation,” 49 U.S.C. 10102(5).17 

In its June 2007 Dec. Order, STB concluded that the project is subject to its preemption 

authority because DesertXpress intends to carry passengers by rail in interstate 

transportation. STB also found that DesertXpress will be providing this transportation as 

a common carrier, offering service to the general public. Thus, STB found that the project 

clearly involves transportation by a rail carrier. See American Orient Express Railway 

Company v. STB, No. 06-1077, slip op. at 4, 6 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 20, 2007), aff’g American 

Orient Express Railway Company, LLC—Petition For Declaratory Order, STB Finance 

Docket No. 34502 (STB served Dec. 27, 2005) (rail carrier may provide railroad 

transportation by transporting passengers over its own tracks). Accordingly, STB 

determined that it has exclusive jurisdiction over the planned new track, facilities, and 

operations and that its Federal preemption authority under section 10501(b) applies. 

Therefore, state permitting and land use requirements such as the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), will be preempted.18

Federal environmental statutes, such as NEPA, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water 

Act, as well as the National Historic Preservation Act, and the regulation of railroad safety 

under the Federal Railroad Safety Act, will apply and are not subject to STB’s preemption 

authority. (See e.g., City of Auburn, 154 F.3d at 1031-33; Friends of the Aquifer, et al., STB 

Finance Docket No. 33966, slip op. at 4-6 (STB served Aug. 15, 2001). 

Required permits and approvals are listed in the following table. 

Table 1.4-1: Federal Permits or Approvals Anticipated for Action Alternatives 

Agency Permit/Approval 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Waiver or Rule of Particular 

Applicability 

 

17 See also 49 U.S.C. 10102(9) (“Transportation” defined expansively to embrace “a locomotive, car, vehicle, 

vessel, warehouse, wharf, pier, dock, yard, property, facility, instrumentality, or equipment of any kind related 

to the movement of passengers or property, or both, by rail . . .,”as well as “services related to that 

movement”). 

18 Although the DesertXpress Project does not require a CEQA discussion, the EIS includes the analysis that 

would have been conducted under the regulations and guidance of CEQA. See City of Auburn, 154 F.3d at 

1031. Moreover, state and local agencies and concerned citizens will have ample opportunity to participate in 

the ongoing EIS process under NEPA and related laws. A number of state agencies have been engaged in the 

ongoing EIS process, including Caltrans and NDOT. 
DesertXpress Purpose and Need 

Draft EIS 1.4 Major Authorizing Laws and Regulations 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

1-13 

Agency Permit/Approval 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Right-of-Way* (ROW) 

Surface Transportation Board (STB) Authority to Construct and 

Operate Railroad 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Letter of Concurrence for 

Highway ROW Encroachment 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Sec. 404 Permit (waters of the 

U.S.) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 Biological Opinion 

National Park Service Right-of-Way Easement if 

Segment 4a through Mojave 

National Preserve is selected 

*The BLM can only grant this right of way if it can conclude that the project would not 

interfere with highway operation purposes. 

In addition to these federal agencies, the FRA also consulted with the Native American 

Heritage Commission and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Separately, the 

FRA and BLM consulted with representatives of Native American tribes (sovereign 

nations) in the region of the project area. As noted, the project is exempt from state and 

local land use and environmental laws. However, the FRA and Cooperating Agencies 

consulted extensively with state and local entities in the project area during development 

of the Draft EIS. Table 1.4-2 below includes agencies consulted in the Draft EIS process. 

Table 1.4-2 State, Regional, and Local Agencies Consulted in EIS Process 

State Environmental Resource Agencies California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG); 

Nevada Department of Wildlife; California Air 

Resources Board (CARB); Southern California Air 

Quality Management District (AQMD); Nevada 

Department of Environmental Quality; California 

Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan 

Region 

Historic Resources Agencies State Historic Preservation Officers in California and 

Nevada 

Transportation Agencies California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); 

Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT); 

Regional Transportation Commission of Southern 

Nevada (RTC) 

Councils of Governments Southern California Association of Governments 

(SCAG); San Bernardino County Association of 

Governments (SANBAG) 

State and Local Governments City of Victorville, City of Barstow, City of Las Vegas, 

San Bernardino County, Clark County 

Portions of the project that propose to utilize rights-of-way owned by private railroads 

would require the applicant to obtain easements or agreements with the railroads to 

construct and operate the railroad in such rights-of-way. Portions of Segments 1A would 
DesertXpress Purpose and Need 

Draft EIS 1.5 Relationship to Other Federal Agency Policies, Plans, and Programs 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

1-14 

utilize a right-of-way owned by the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF); 

portions of Option C within Segments 6 and 7 would be constructed within a corridor 

owned by the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). STB’s preemption authority is not 

construed to force any private railroad to sell, lease, or otherwise allow DesertXpress to 

use the right-of-way of an existing railroad. 

1.5 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY POLICIES, 

PLANS, AND PROGRAMS 

1.5.1 FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 

The proposed project would use trains and other features that do not comply with current 

FRA safety regulations, including track and locomotive safety regulations. However, this 

inconsistency with the FRA safety regulations would be made consistent through 

promulgation of a rule of particular applicability or a waiver process that would set safety 

standards specifically for the project. As such, the DesertXpress Project would not 

establish an adverse safety condition. 

The FRA is lead Federal agency for the environmental review of other high-speed ground 

transportation proposals in the project area and in Southern California. While FRA has 

provided planning funds to other passenger rail projects in California and Nevada, no 

construction funding has been committed to any high-speed ground transportation 

project that could conflict with the project. While there is no Amtrak service that exists 

along the entire corridor, the Southwest Chief Amtrak route between Los Angeles and 

Chicago would partially serve the project corridor between Victorville and Barstow. While 

the DesertXpress proposal does not include plans to seek financing from the FRA, the 

project would be eligible for financial assistance through the Railroad Rehabilitation and 

Investment Financing Program (RRIF), which is administered by FRA and offers various 

loan enhancements, or through the capital investment grant program to support intercity 

passenger rail service. 

1.5.2 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

The FLPMA governs the way in which the public lands administered by the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) are managed. The FLPMA recognizes the value of the public 

lands, declaring that these lands would remain in public ownership. As stated in Title V, 

Section 501 of the FLPMA,19 “the Secretary, with respect to public lands...are authorized to 

grant, issue, or renew right-of-way over, upon, under, or though such lands for...roads, 

trails, highways, railroads...or other means of transportation, except where such facilities 

are constructed and maintained in connect with commercial recreation facilities on lands 

in the National Forest System, or such other necessary transportation or other systems or 

 

19 43 U.S.C. 1761 
DesertXpress Purpose and Need 

Draft EIS 1.5 Relationship to Other Federal Agency Policies, Plans, and Programs 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

1-15 

facilities which are in the public interest and which require rights-of-way over, upon, 

under, or through such lands.” 

The public lands identified for the proposed rail line in Nevada are covered in the Las 

Vegas Field Office Resource Management Plan (1998) and other resource management 

plans, such as the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan (1980), two CDCA 

Plan bioregional amendments including the West Mojave Plan (2006) and the Northern 

and Eastern Mojave Plan (2002), and the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area 

Resource Management Plan. Specifically, objective RW-1 of the Field Office Resource 

Management Plan Record of Decision is to "Meet public demand and reduce impacts to 

sensitive resources by providing an orderly system of development for transportation, 

including legal access to private in-holdings, communications, flood control, major utility 

transmission lines, and related facilities." Further, management direction at RW-1-h 

states that, "All public land within the planning area, except as stated in RW-1-c through 

RW-1-g, are available at the discretion of the agency for rights-of-way under the authority 

of the Federal Land Policy Management Act." The constraints at RW-1-c through RW-1-g 

do not affect the proposed project or any of the alternatives moved forward for 

consideration. 

Similarly, the California Desert Conservation Area Plan (CDCA Plan) provides a regulatory 

framework for public lands in southeastern California. The plan sets forth goals, specific 

actions, and management needs for each resource in the desert. The CDCA Plan mandates 

a high degree of protection and restricts access. Two bioregional management plans 

amend and implement the CDCA, including the West Mojave Plan and the Northern and 

Eastern Mojave Plan. Both plans are intended to manage land containing habitat for 

sensitive species. Pursuant to the CDCA Plan, the BLM establishes areas of critical 

environmental concern (ACEC) in order to protect areas with significant paleontological, 

archaeological, and biological resources. The project would not use any ACEC directly but 

five ACECs are located within one mile of the proposed alignments. Within each of these 

planning areas are desert wildlife management areas (DWMAs) which have been 

established to manage habitat conservation. The DWMAs, managed by the BLM, are also 

considered ACECs. Section 4.1, Land Use and Community Impacts, provides a detailed 

discussion of the DWMAs and Figure 3-1.2 shows BLM RMP areas and DWMAs relative to 

the study area. 

1.5.3 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 

As an economic regulatory agency, STB has jurisdiction over many railroad transactions, 

including line construction, operation, mergers, and rates. In addition, STB has the 

authority to declare that the construction and operation of an interstate rail project is 

exempted from most state and local laws, which it has done for this project through a 

declaratory order issued on June 25, 2007, in Finance Docket No. 34914. 
DesertXpress Purpose and Need 

Draft EIS 1.6 Relationship to Other Transportation Projects and Plans in the Study Area 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

1-16 

1.5.4 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION 

FHWA is charged by Congress with improving mobility and serving as a steward of 

national highways. FHWA approval is required for any project within the Interstate 

highway system right-of-way. FHWA’s formal role in project approval is to ensure that 

any use other than the Interstate highway use does not interfere with the free flow of 

traffic on the Interstate system.20 FHWA’s primary focus in the approval process is the 

evaluation of the proposed project’s impacts on the operation, maintenance, and safety of 

the Interstate highway system. 

1.5.5 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Several statutory authorities provide the regulatory framework for operations of the NPS. 

The NPS was established and its original mission was defined within the Organic Act of 

1916 (16 U.S.C. 1-4). Since that time, numerous other laws have been enacted that 

together comprise the agency’s regulatory framework. An optional alignment for the 

DesertXpress Project (Segment 4A) would traverse a 1.55 mile portion of the Mojave 

National Preserve, a unit of the NPS, south of the Clark Mountains and I-15, near 

Mountain Pass, California. As of January 2009, regulations specific to the Preserve do not 

include any ability for the NPS to grant a private transportation right-of-way through the 

Preserve. Nevertheless, this Segment is being carried through the environmental review 

process while various legislative/land exchange options are being considered by the NPS, 

BLM, and other key agencies. 

1.6 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS AND 

PLANS IN THE STUDY AREA 

This section discusses several transportation projects and plans in the study area. This 

section distinguishes between funded or otherwise reasonably foreseeable projects (such 

as are included in a state’s transportation improvement program (STIP)) and plans which 

comprises proposed transportation improvements that are not funded or otherwise not 

deemed reasonably foreseeable at this time. 

1.6.1 CALIFORNIA-NEVADA INTERSTATE MAGLEV TRAIN

Since its inception in 1987, the California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission has 

been pursuing development of the California-Nevada Interstate Maglev project, employing 

magnetic levitation train technology over a 268-mile alignment between Anaheim, 

California, and Las Vegas, Nevada. Proposed stops include Downtown Las Vegas and 

Primm in Nevada and Ontario, Victorville, Barstow, and Anaheim in southern California. 

 

20 23 U.S.C 111 and 23 CFR 1.23; personal communication, Edward Kussy, Deputy Chief Counsel FHWA and 

Harold Aiken, Assistant Chief Counsel FHWA, March 1, 2007. 
DesertXpress Purpose and Need 

Draft EIS 1.6 Relationship to Other Transportation Projects and Plans in the Study Area 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

1-17 

Express service from Anaheim to Las Vegas would have a travel time of approximately 87 

minutes. The proposed project could ultimately provide high-speed maglev service at 

speeds of up to 310 mph. For the portion between Ontario, California and Las Vegas, 

Nevada, the proposed maglev project is envisioned to operate in the I-15 corridor, similar 

to DesertXpress. From Ontario to Anaheim the project would continue through existing 

transportation corridors. Portions of the alignment would be elevated and gradients 

would reach up to 10 percent. Maintenance facilities would be located at either end of the 

alignment and in Barstow. Intermodal transportation features would be included at all 

proposed station locations. 

Most of the planning funds for the maglev project have been provided by congressional 

appropriations through the FRA and sponsors have sought to secure additional Federal 

funding for planning, permitting, design, and construction. At present, the CaliforniaNevada Super Speed Train Commission exists only as a Nevada state entity, thus limiting 

their implementation authority to Nevada. 

The maglev project is currently undergoing separate Federally funded environmental 

review under the direction of the FRA, NDOT, and Caltrans. On May 20, 2004, FRA 

published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register to prepare an EIS for the 

maglev project. Public and agency scoping for the maglev EIS was completed in 2005. As 

of the date of this publication, limited Federal funding and a lack of state or local funds 

have delayed progress on the maglev EIS. Recent allocation of approximately $1 million 

in Federal funds allowed for further studies of an initial Las Vegas to Primm phase of the 

maglev project. Implementation of the maglev project is speculative due to uncertainty in 

public financing sources. No private financing has been committed to the maglev project 

as of the date of this publication, although the financial plan for the first segment includes 

private sector bond financing. Section 102 of the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act 

of 2008 made $45 million available to the Nevada maglev project, which may be used to 

support further planning for this proposal. Allocation of the $45 million is subject to a 20 

percent local match which as of the date of this publication has not been committed. 

If Commission authority is extended into California in the future, the maglev project and 

DesertXpress Project could be considered competitive proposals in that they would both 

share right-of-way with I-15 and are proposed to serve a similar travel corridor. For the 

purposes of this EIS, the maglev project is not considered a foreseeable project; it is not 

included in the discussion of cumulative projects in Section 3.16, Cumulative Impacts. 

FRA is analyzing only the DesertXpress project in this EIS and only the California-Nevada 

Interstate Maglev project in the separate EIS pertaining to it because FRA believes there is 

no realistic scenario under which both proposed projects would be advanced and built. 

The two projects would serve similar markets and it is not reasonably foreseeable that the 

market would be large enough to support operations of both systems simultaneously. FRA 

also finds it appropriate to address each proposed project in a separate EIS because the 

projects are not interchangeable and are not two alternatives for the same Federal action. 

The DesertXpress project is a project sponsored by a private entity and the action required 
DesertXpress Purpose and Need 

Draft EIS 1.6 Relationship to Other Transportation Projects and Plans in the Study Area 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

1-18 

by the FRA is currently limited to safety regulations, while the California-Nevada 

Interstate Maglev project is a federally-funded project administered by the FRA. 

Similarly, because each project proposes a substantially different technology, the safety 

regime and project development time needed to implement each project is significantly 

different. This would involve unique federal actions over varying time periods. 

1.6.2 CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL

The California High-Speed Rail Authority, established in 1996, has studied and proposes 

to implement high-speed rail service that would run from the San Diego, Orange County, 

and Los Angeles metropolitan areas north through California’s Central Valley to the San 

Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento regions. Studies have been prepared with support 

from the FRA, the lead Federal agency for environmental review of the proposal. As the 

California High-Speed Train Project would serve only California cities, the DesertXpress 

Project would serve a different market and ridership. The easternmost proposed 

California High-Speed Rail station would be near the Ontario Airport (ONT), about 47 

miles southwest of the proposed DesertXpress terminus in Victorville. Another relatively 

close California High-Speed Rail proposed station is at Palmdale, some 49 miles west of 

Victorville. An extended DesertXpress could connect with the California High-Speed 

Train at either location; such an extension, however, would have utility independent of 

either project and is not part of either the DesertXpress Project or the California HighSpeed Rail project. 

1.6.3 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA RAIL 

CORRIDOR STUDY

The Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) of Southern Nevada, supported by 

Federal funding provided by the FRA, has prepared a study of potential rail corridor 

improvements between Las Vegas and Los Angeles to support conventional passenger rail 

service. This study has considered the existing rail lines between Victorville and Las Vegas 

(which do not follow the I-15 corridor but instead follow a southern route, through the 

Mojave National Preserve) and concluded that even with $1 to $3 billion of improvements, 

the conventional rail trip time between Las Vegas and Victorville would be approximately 

3 hours and 30 minutes, with an additional 2-hour ride to Union Station in Los Angeles. 

This type of service could not likely be privately financed and would probably require an 

operating subsidy. Many aspects of this study limit its comparability to the DesertXpress 

proposal. Most critically, the study examined potential shared use of the Union Pacific 

Railroad with freight trains; DesertXpress would use a new and exclusive double track 

system. These elements, in addition to the location of the DesertXpress alignment 

generally paralleling the existing I-15, would allow the DesertXpress Project to provide 

higher frequency service, shorter travel time, and a more reliable service in comparison to 

the service contemplated in the RTC study. 
DesertXpress Purpose and Need 

Draft EIS 1.6 Relationship to Other Transportation Projects and Plans in the Study Area 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

1-19 

1.6.4 VICTORVILLE I-15 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS

Caltrans and FHWA are planning a project that would add a third mixed-flow lane on 

southbound I-15 and construct interchange improvements at six interchanges in 

Victorville, including the Stoddard Wells interchanges and those at D Street and E 

Street/SR 18. The interchange improvements would restore standards and improve 

operation characteristics and safety. These improvements would be compatible with the 

proposed project, which would include a passenger station in the immediate vicinity. 

1.6.5 I-15 CORRIDOR PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS

In addition to the improvements at the Stoddard Wells Road interchanges discussed 

above, a number of other projects are under consideration to improve capacity and/or 

operations of the I-15 corridor. These include: 

 Reversible carpool lanes between I-210 (Ontario) and U.S. 395 (Victorville) 

 Northbound truck climbing lane between Bailey Road and Yates Road 

1.6.6 HIGH DESERT CORRIDOR PROJECT

The City of Victorville is the lead agency for this project, which is considering the 

construction and operation of a link between the Victor Valley and the Antelope Valley. 

The first phase of this project involves the realignment of State Route 18. The new 

alignment would stretch from Joshua Road in the Town of Apple Valley to U.S. 395 in the 

City of Adelanto. The new facility would be a four lane expressway between SR 18 and I-15 

and a six-lane freeway between I-15 and U.S. 395. 

1.6.7 US 395 REALIGNMENT AND WIDENING

A realignment and widening is under consideration for a portion of US 395 between I-15 

and Farmington Road, approximately 6 miles west of the proposed Victorville station 

sites. Local and state agencies are studying several alternatives; no preferred alternative 

has been selected as of January 2007. This project will be tracked as the DesertXpress 

Project DEIS moves forward. The DesertXpress Project would not conflict with this 

highway project that would increase local area highway capacity. 

1.6.8 SOUTHERN NEVADA SUPPLEMENTAL AIRPORT

The Clark County Department of Aviation (CCDOA) is proposing to construct a new 

supplemental commercial service airport in the Ivanpah Valley of southern Nevada. The 

new Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport would provide additional capacity to serve 

the residents of the Las Vegas area and Clark County, Nevada area. It would not replace 

McCarran International Airport. The airport, if approved, is anticipated to be constructed 
DesertXpress Purpose and Need 

Draft EIS 1.6 Relationship to Other Transportation Projects and Plans in the Study Area 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

1-20 

by 2018 or 2019.21 As noted in section 1.3.1 above, Congress has allowed for a 

transportation and utility corridor to be established between the Las Vegas Valley and the 

proposed Ivanpah Airport. The location of any roadway, utilities, or other related 

infrastructure within this corridor had not been established as of January 2009. 

The DesertXpress Project could potentially serve the proposed new airport. DesertXpress 

would pass by the site of the proposed new airport, allowing for a potential airport rail link 

to be constructed.22 To serve the proposed airport in the future, a spur track would need 

to be constructed off the mainline into the terminal area that would allow trains dedicated 

to airport service to be operated directly from the new airport to Las Vegas over the 

mainline DesertXpress tracks. DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC., airport officials, and Clark 

County may consider this possibility at some future date.23 

1.6.9 RESORT CORRIDOR FIXED GUIDEWAY MONORAIL EXTENSION

The Las Vegas Monorail Company (LVMC) is proposing an extension to the Resort 

Corridor Fixed Guideway Monorail System (Monorail), which is an automated (driverless) 

and elevated rail system, running along side streets east of the Las Vegas Strip (Las Vegas 

Boulevard). The 4-mile long route opened in 2004 and runs roughly north-south. The 

system has a total of 7 stations, associated with major hotels along the Las Vegas Strip.24 

The RTC included the extension of the monorail south to McCarran International Airport, 

in its Regional Transportation Plan 2009-2030, Draft for Consultation, September 2008 

(Project #4200). The DesertXpress Project has the potential to be complementary to the 

Monorail if Monorail service were extended to the selected Las Vegas area DesertXpress 

station. 

1.6.10 ACE RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM

In 2004, the RTC added the first Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) line to its transit 

system. Then in October 2005, the Deuce double-deck bus service began running on the 

Las Vegas Strip and in 2009 the RTC will launch the ACE Rapid Transit system starting 

with the ACE Downtown Connector. The ACE Downtown Connector project will provide a 

 

21 Deutsche Bank Industry Alert, May 2008. 

22 Construction of a link to the proposed Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport is not part of the current 

DesertXpress proposal and is not evaluated in this EIS. Construction and operations of such a link would 

require separate environmental review. 

23 The economic viability of the DesertXpress Project does not rely upon an airport shuttle or other forms of 

transportation linking to the proposed Supplemental Airport. 

24 Available at http://www.lvmonorail.com/. 
DesertXpress Purpose and Need 

Draft EIS 1.7 Issues Raised During Scoping 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

1-21 

high-grade rapid transit link between downtown Las Vegas and the southern resort 

corridor. Project components will include dedicated transit lanes along a portion of the 

alignment along with passenger stations with station canopies, lighting, ticket vending 

machines and displays announcing vehicle arrival times. The stations will have unique 

artistic displays created by local artists as well as refurbished historic neon signs. 

The city of Las Vegas in partnership with the RTC have begun work on the project, which 

includes roadway and station platform improvements along Grand Central Parkway, 

Casino Center Boulevard, 3rd Street, and Paradise Road. 25 

1.6.11 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA

The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) is the regional 

transportation planning agency for southern Nevada and functions as the Metropolitan 

Planning Organization (MPO) for the region. The RTC prepares the Regional 

Transportation Plan (RTP) which is a comprehensive and long-range plan for the 

transportation system in the Las Vegas metropolitan area. It details the transportation 

investment needed between now and the year 2030. The RTP is also the guiding 

document for making the best use of federal transportation funds. The transportation 

analysis conducted for this EIS (see Chapter 3.5 Traffic and Transportation) utilizes traffic 

projections and transportation system network assumptions from the 2030 RTP. The EIS 

also assumes that the proposed DesertXpress project would be constructed primarily on 

elevated structure within the existing I-15 freeway right of way within the Las Vegas 

metropolitan area. 

The RTC is working on an update to the RTP (the 2040 RTP), which includes further 

widening of the I-15 freeway in the metropolitan Las Vegas area to meet future travel 

demand. If the 2040 RTP is adopted, the DesertXpress project could be considered to be 

in conflict with current planned use of the I-15 freeway right of way. DesertXpress 

Enterprises has tried to minimize conflict with I-15 through the use of elevated structures 

and the DEIS includes alignment Option C that would avoid I-15 in the Las Vegas urban 

area. If, as a result of the NEPA process, the I-15 freeway alignment is selected as the 

agency preferred alternative, such potential conflict would need to be resolved. 

1.7 ISSUES RAISED DURING SCOPING 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) initiated the formal scoping process by 

publishing a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

in the Federal Register on July 14, 2006. 

Three public scoping meetings were held as part of the public scoping process: 

 

25 Available at :http://www.rtcsouthernnevada.com/mpo/downtownconnector/ 
DesertXpress Purpose and Need 

Draft EIS 1.7 Issues Raised During Scoping 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

1-22 

Las Vegas Barstow Victorville 

The White House Ramada Inn San Bernardino County Fair Grounds 

3260 Joe Brown Drive 1571 E Main Street 14800 Seventh Street, Building 3 

July 25, 2006 July 26, 2006 July 26, 2006 

5:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. 12:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m 5:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. 

These meetings provided an opportunity for the public and agencies to comment on the 

scope of environmental topics that will be analyzed in the EIS. Approximately 60 

members of the public attended the scoping meetings. The comments received during 

scoping are summarized along with the disposition of the comments are summarized in 

the Scoping Summary Report contained in Appendix P. 

1.7.1 PROVISION OF A BARSTOW PASSENGER STATION

The City of Barstow raised a concern during scoping that the project did not include a 

passenger station located in the City of Barstow. At the time of publication, this issue has 

not been fully resolved. 

Ridership studies conducted for the DesertXpress project by the applicant did not project 

significant ridership generation from the Barstow area that warranted construction of a 

separate station. The proposed station sites in Victorville are approximately 25 miles 

south of the City of Barstow, close enough to provide relatively convenient access for 

Barstow residents. Notwithstanding this, in response to a request from the City of 

Barstow, the applicant is studying the feasibility of constructing an alternative alignment 

that would follow the I-15 freeway through Barstow and include a passenger station 

located at the Barstow Outlet Mall located at the Lenwood Road/I-15 interchange. The 

alignment being studied would follow the I-15 median through Barstow, cross over the 

Mojave River and rejoin the current alignment being studied in the vicinity of the Highway 

58/I-15 Interchange. The alignment would be approximately 30 miles. The feasibility 

analysis and detailed plans for this alignment and station have not advanced far enough 

for inclusion in this Draft EIS and FRA did not want to delay issuance of the DEIS while 

this option is further analyzed, since its feasibility has yet to be determined. If the analysis 

determines that this alignment and station are feasible, the FRA will assess the 

environmental effects of this alignment and station and include the analysis in a 

supplemental document or in the Final EIS, depending upon the nature and extent of 

identified impacts. Because of the possibility that an alignment along the I-15 freeway 

through Barstow may be determined feasible in the future, FRA has notified property 

owners and residents along this corridor in an effort to seek comment and input about 

such an alternative if it is determined feasible. 

DesertXpress Purpose and Need 

Draft EIS 1.7 Issues Raised During Scoping 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

1-24 

This page intentionally left blank.