Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study 

September 2014

Technical Background Report 
ii | Technical Background Report

Table of Contents

Chapter 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 7

1.1 Overview.................................................................................................................................................... 7

1.2 What is a Multi-State Rail Plan? ................................................................................................................ 7

1.3 Why the Southwest?.................................................................................................................................. 8

1.4 Geographic Scope of Study........................................................................................................................ 9

1.5 Study Stakeholders.................................................................................................................................. 10

1.6 Guiding Principles for Southwest Multi-State Rail Network Planning..................................................... 11

Chapter 2. Planning Context................................................................................................................................. 12

2.1 Overview of the Study Area..................................................................................................................... 12

2.2 Population and Travel Demand ............................................................................................................... 15

2.3 Economic Activity..................................................................................................................................... 18

Chapter 3. The Multi-State Transportation System.............................................................................................. 21

3.1 Rail Network ............................................................................................................................................ 21

3.2 Air Network.............................................................................................................................................. 34

3.3 Highway Network .................................................................................................................................... 41

3.4 Intercity Bus............................................................................................................................................. 47

3.5 Local Transit Systems............................................................................................................................... 48

3.6 Ports......................................................................................................................................................... 50

Chapter 4. Corridor Profiles.................................................................................................................................. 53

4.1 Corridor Identification Process................................................................................................................ 53

4.2 Corridors Analyzed................................................................................................................................... 53

Chapter 5. The Multi-State Preliminary Network Vision ...................................................................................... 76

5.1 Analysis Methods and the Network Planning Tool.................................................................................. 76

5.2 Preliminary Multi-State Network............................................................................................................. 80

5.3 Preliminary Multi-State Network Performance....................................................................................... 84

Chapter 6. Governance......................................................................................................................................... 86

6.1 Study Approach to Governance and Institutional Considerations.......................................................... 86

6.2 Areas of Need for Multi-State Coordination ........................................................................................... 87

6.3 Challenges to Multi-State Coordination .................................................................................................. 87

6.4 Alternative Governance Structures Considered...................................................................................... 88

6.5 Governance Findings and Recommendations......................................................................................... 92

Chapter 7. Next Steps........................................................................................................................................... 95
Technical Background Report | iii

Appendices

Appendix A. List of MSAs in the Extended SW Study Area

Appendix B. SW Study Area Population

Appendix C. Rail and Highway Projects List

Appendix D. Economic Characteristics of Major MSAs in the Study Region

Appendix E. Summary of Transit Services in Selected MSAs

Appendix F. Corridor Projected Growth Trends and Network Analysis Assumptions

Appendix G. CONNECT SW Global Variable Inputs

Appendix H. Corridor Performance

Appendix I. Multi-State Governance Models

Figures

Figure 1 Southwest Study Area and Extended Study Area..................................................................................... 9

Figure 2 Stakeholder involvement milestones..................................................................................................... 11

Figure 3 Significant land uses in the SW Study Area ............................................................................................ 14

Figure 4 Forecast population growth between 2010 and 2050 in the SW Study Area ........................................ 15

Figure 5 Population distribution in the SW Study Area........................................................................................ 15

Figure 6 Population density.................................................................................................................................. 16

Figure 7 Current (2010) intercity mode shares between MSAs in the Southwest Network................................ 17

Figure 8 Total trips between selected MSAs........................................................................................................ 18

Figure 9 Rail network............................................................................................................................................ 22

Figure 10 Freight density map.............................................................................................................................. 24

Figure 11 Planned rail improvement projects...................................................................................................... 29

Figure 12 Annual enplanements........................................................................................................................... 35

Figure 13 Top 10 air travel markets less than 600 miles...................................................................................... 36

Figure 14 Top 10 air/rail travel markets less than 600 miles............................................................................... 36

Figure 15 Percent of flights delayed at 29 major airports.................................................................................... 37

Figure 16 FACT 2 airport capacity needs.............................................................................................................. 39

Figure 17 Highway network.................................................................................................................................. 43

Figure 18 Planned highway capacity projects...................................................................................................... 46

Figure 19 Amtrak Thruway service in the Southwest........................................................................................... 47

Figure 20 Transbay Transit Center rendering....................................................................................................... 49

Figure 21 ARTIC Intermodal Center rendering ..................................................................................................... 50

Figure 22 Top ten ports in the SW Study Area by import/export value............................................................... 51

Figure 23 San Diego–S.F./Oakland existing mode share and travel times........................................................... 54

Figure 24 San Diego–S.F./Oakland corridor characteristics................................................................................. 55

Figure 25 Greater Los Angeles–Las Vegas existing mode share and travel times................................................ 56

Figure 26 Greater Los Angeles–Las Vegas corridor characteristics...................................................................... 57

Figure 27 Greater Los Angeles-Phoenix existing modes share and travel times ................................................. 58

Figure 28 Greater Los Angeles-Phoenix corridor characteristics......................................................................... 59

Figure 29 San Diego–Phoenix existing mode share and travel times................................................................... 60

Figure 30 San Diego–Phoenix corridor characteristics......................................................................................... 61

Figure 31 Las Vegas–Tucson via Phoenix existing mode share and travel times................................................. 62

Figure 32 Las Vegas–Tucson via Phoenix corridor characteristics ....................................................................... 63

Figure 33 S.F./Oakland–Reno existing mode share and travel times................................................................... 64

Figure 34 S.F./Oakland–Reno corridor characteristics......................................................................................... 65

Figure 35 Las Vegas–Salt Lake City existing mode share and travel times........................................................... 66
iv | Technical Background Report

Figure 36 Las Vegas–Salt Lake City corridor characteristics................................................................................. 67

Figure 37 Phoenix–Tucson existing mode share and travel times ....................................................................... 68

Figure 38 Phoenix–Tucson corridor characteristics.............................................................................................. 69

Figure 39 Las Vegas–Reno existing mode share and travel times........................................................................ 70

Figure 40 Las Vegas–Reno corridor characteristics.............................................................................................. 71

Figure 41 Phoenix–Albuquerque existing mode share and travel times.............................................................. 72

Figure 42 Phoenix–Albuquerque corridor characteristics.................................................................................... 73

Figure 43 Reno–Salt Lake City existing mode share and travel times.................................................................. 74

Figure 44 Reno–Salt Lake City corridor characteristics ........................................................................................ 75

Figure 45 CONNECT structure............................................................................................................................... 77

Figure 46 Candidate corridors for potential SW HPR network*........................................................................... 81

Figure 47 Southwest network results: benefits of connectivity........................................................................... 83

Figure 48 Governance process.............................................................................................................................. 86

Figure 49 Needs for multi-state coordination ...................................................................................................... 87

Tables

Table 1 Definitions of high-performance rail (HPR) service tiers........................................................................... 8

Table 2 Stakeholder organizations ....................................................................................................................... 10

Table 3 Freight rail Class I miles and number of shortlines.................................................................................. 23

Table 4 Amtrak long-distance routes.................................................................................................................... 25

Table 5 Amtrak state-supported corridor routes................................................................................................. 26

Table 6 California commuter rail services ............................................................................................................ 26

Table 7 Planned rail improvement projects ......................................................................................................... 30

Table 8 Planned highway capacity projects.......................................................................................................... 45

Table 9 Transit ridership per capita in selected metropolitan areas.................................................................... 48

Table 10 Key assumptions for the Southwest HPR network analysis................................................................... 78

Table 11 Operating recovery ratio performance.................................................................................................. 82
Technical Background Report | v

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACE Altamont Commuter Express

ADHS Appalachian Development Highway System

ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

ARTIC Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center

BART Bay Area Rapid Transit

BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway

BUR Bob Hope Airport

CHSR California High-Speed Rail

CHSRA California High-Speed Rail Authority

ConnDOT Connecticut Department of Transportation

CONNECT CONceptual NEtwork Connections Tool

CRT commuter rail transit

DOT department of transportation

EIS environmental impact statement

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FACT 2 Future Airport Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System 2007-2025

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GDP gross domestic product

HOT high-occupancy toll

HOV

HPR

high-occupancy vehicle

high-performance rail

HRT heavy rail transit

HSR high speed rail

I-## Interstate Route ##

IOS initial operating segment

IWA Williams Gateway Airport

LAS McCarran International Airport

LAX Los Angeles International Airport

LGB Long Beach-Daugherty Field Airport

LRT light rail transit

LRTP long range transportation plan

maglev magnetically levitated

MOU

mph

memorandum of understanding

miles per hour

MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area

MSRP multi-state rail plan

NDOT Nevada Department of Transportation
vi | Technical Background Report

NEPA National Environmental Protection Act

NHS National Highway System

NNEPRA Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority

NTAD National Transportation Atlas Database

O&M operating and maintenance

OAK Metropolitan Oakland International Airport

OIA Oakland International Airport

ONT Ontario International Airport

PHX Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport

PSP Palm Springs International Airport

PTC Positive Train Control

RITC Regional Intermodal Transportation Center

RRIF Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing

RTC Regional Transportation Commission

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

SAN San Diego International Airport

SCRRA Southern California Regional Rail Authority

SDNR San Diego Northern Railroad

SDP service development plan

SFO San Francisco International Airport

SJC

SJRRC

SCRIP

Mineta San Jose International Airport

San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission

Southern California Regional Interconnector Project

SNA John Wayne-Orange County Airport

SR ## State Route ##

SW Study Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study

TBIT Tom Bradley International Terminal

TIFIA Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act

TJPA

TOD

Transbay Joint Powers Authority

transit-oriented development

TTC/DTX Transbay Transit Center/Caltrain Downtown Extension

TUS Tucson International Airport

UP Union Pacific Railroad

US ## U.S. Highway ##

USRA United States Railway Association

VMT vehicle miles traveled

YOE $ year of expenditure dollars
Technical Background Report | 7

Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1 Overview

The Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study (SW 

Study) is the first high-performance rail (HPR)

network planning study led by the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA).

1 FRA initiated the SW Study 

concurrent with its national rail planning effort to 

develop a national toolkit for the conceptual 

planning of HPR networks at the multi-state and 

mega-regional level. The national toolkit includes a

newly developed CONceptual NEtwork Connections 

Tool (CONNECT), which can help analyze the 

performance of HPR corridors and networks. 

The SW Study is a test case for the guidelines, tools, 

and performance standards developed in the 

national planning effort. Representatives from key transportation organizations worked through challenges of 

developing multi-state rail plans and outlined a common preliminary vision for HPR in the Southwest.

1.2 What is a Multi-State Rail Plan?

A multi-state rail plan (MSRP) is a visioning plan—it presents a long-term (30- to 40-year planning horizon) 

concept for an HPR network. It also summarizes information that would be helpful for identifying corridors in 

the vision and moving towards implementation. Sample information includes:

• Demographic trends

• Travel patterns and market analysis

• Transportation network conditions and connectivity

• Conceptual estimates of HPR costs, ridership, and financial performance

• Potential opportunities for shared improvements with commuter and freight railroads

• Institutional and governance issues

Public and private sector entities that currently are, and in the future could be, involved in the provision of 

passenger and freight rail investments should be involved in the development of a multi-state rail plan.

Additional stakeholders, including the public, elected officials, and business leaders, should also be engaged in 

planning; this might occur at the multi-state network planning level and in subsequent phases of corridor 

planning.

An MSRP is complementary to individual state rail plans. Additionally, an MSRP does not reach the depth and 

breadth of analysis contained in a Tier 1 environmental impact statement (EIS) or service development plan 

(SDP), but can help prioritize corridors for these types of studies.

 1 While this is the FRA’s first multi-state rail planning study, it is not the first FRA study to analyze network effects in passenger rail 

planning. For example, FRA’s 1997 document, High Speed Ground Transportation in America, examines the economics of bringing highspeed ground transportation to well-populated groups of cities throughout the U.S. The report can be found at

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L02519 (last accessed 04 Aug 2014).

FRA NATIONAL PLANNING EFFORT

FRA’s national planning effort is developing a toolkit to assist 

states with evaluating the potential of HPR corridors and 

networks. This national toolkit can help states identify the 

potential for HPR service between metropolitan areas.

The national planning effort has two components: 

(1) development of CONNECT, which is a CONceptual NEtwork 

Connections Tool to aid in development of conceptual cost, 

ridership, and performance information for HPR corridors and 

networks, and (2) development of an example approach for a 

multi-state (i.e., regional) rail planning study. The study will 

support FRA’s efforts to assist states with corridor and HPR 

network planning.
8 | Technical Background Report

In 2009, FRA established classifications of the services contemplated in a multi-state rail plan.

2 This framework 

describes the varying stages of development of HPR corridors across the country and provides clear and 

consistent definitions of HPR service levels. The framework classifies HPR corridors into three distinct service 

tiers—Core Express, Regional, and Emerging/Feeder. The three HPR service tiers encompass regular intercity 

passenger rail services as well as higher speed services. Defining features of the tiers include corridor length, 

top speeds, presence of dedicated track, population served, service frequency, and minimum reliability 

targets. FRA definitions of HPR service tiers are provided in Table 1. The long-term HPR network vision 

presented in a multi-state plan defines each corridor within the overarching network in terms of the service 

tiers.

Table 1 Definitions of high-performance rail (HPR) service tiers

Top 

Speeds

(mph)

Other Common 

Characteristics Primary Markets Served

Minimum Reliability 

Target (On-time 

Performance)

Core Express 

corridors

over 125 Frequent service; dedicated 

tracks, except in terminal 

areas; electric-powered

Serving major metropolitan 

centers

99%

Regional 

corridors

90–125 Frequent service; dedicated 

and shared tracks; electricand diesel-powered

Connecting mid-sized urban 

areas with each other or 

with larger metropolitan 

areas

95%

Emerging/ 

Feeder

corridors

Up to 90 Shared tracks Connecting mid-sized and 

smaller urban areas with 

each other or with larger 

metropolitan areas

85%*

*On-time performance target might increase in the future.

1.2.1 The Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study

The SW Study is the first MSRP effort developed within FRA’s conceptual HPR framework. Key tasks conducted 

to develop the plan included:

• Synthesizing existing state, local, and private plans and proposals and then identifying issues as 

related to multi-state rail network planning

• Generating conceptual planning information for intercity corridors that have not yet been studied or

have not been studied recently

• Convening stakeholders to work through challenges related to an MSRP and move towards a 

common preliminary vision for HPR in the Southwest

This document summarizes the analysis and findings from the SW Study. Close to eighty percent of 

stakeholders provided feedback on the draft Technical Background Report. Comments included requests for 

clarification, updates on projects and references, and general expressions of support for the SW Study. In 

addition, there was great interest in advancing next steps to sustain the momentum for rail planning in the 

Southwest region. 

1.3 Why the Southwest?

The Southwest region is an ideal place to have undertaken the first MSRP study. The region has collectively 

shown significant interest in the development of HPR services. The States of California, Arizona, and Nevada 

 2 Federal Railroad Administration, High-Speed Rail in America, High-Speed Rail Strategic Plan, April 2009, http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02833
Technical Background Report | 9

have existing passenger rail services, and there are advanced plans for investment in discrete corridors in 

California and Nevada. This study built upon these endeavors and explored the performance of a multi-state 

network. Within these three states, extensive efforts are underway to advance passenger rail options,

including the development of enhanced intercity passenger rail, commuter rail, and dedicated high-speed rail 

services. Studies range from corridor studies to FRA service development plans, long-range transportation 

plans, environmental documentation (including issued Records of Decision), and state rail plans. 

The region also has demonstrated a willingness to collaborate on projects that cross state lines. Ongoing multistate planning efforts for the highway and rail transportation corridors include mobility improvements to the 

I-15 corridor that spans California, Nevada, and Arizona, as well as Utah, Idaho, and Montana, and a proposed 

interstate connecting Phoenix and Las Vegas. The private sector is leading an effort to implement high-speed 

rail service connecting Southern California and Las Vegas. In addition to the array of projects, the passenger 

rail operating environment in this region contains a large number of existing and proposed services with a 

variety of operating speeds, technologies, and operating environments. Thus, with plans in a variety of 

development stages for HPR funding and financing, the amalgamation of projects from these states represents 

a good cross-section of projects in planning and design.

Geographically and demographically, the three states contain several fast growing megaregions—large 

networks of metropolitan areas linked by overlapping commuting patterns and business travel, economic 

activity, urbanization, and cultural resources. The Southwest also has unique geographic features and land 

ownership that have shaped development patterns and a constrained transportation system. With a diverse 

group of stakeholders involved in these plans and projects, innovative policies and bold initiatives have been 

introduced, and the Southwest presents opportunities for enhanced coordination through an MSRP.

1.4 Geographic Scope of Study

In this Study, the SW Study Area is defined as 

Arizona, California, and Nevada. The Extended SW 

Study Area includes the three-state area as well as 

Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico (Figure 1). It is 

acknowledged that the Study’s designation of the 

Southwestern U.S. differs from more widely 

understood definitions of the region.

To perform a network planning study at this large 

of a scale, the study focused on analyzing 

conceptual connections between metropolitan 

statistical areas (MSA) within the Extended SW 

Study Area.

3 Defined by the Office of 

Management and Budget and used by the U.S. 

Census Bureau and other federal agencies, MSAs 

are populated areas identified by commuting 

patterns and economic linkages across county boundaries. The SW Study accounted for all MSAs in the study 

area, including all census-designated metropolitan and micropolitan areas. 

• MSAs have at least one urbanized area of 50,000 or more population, plus adjacent territory that has 

a high degree of social and economic integration with the core as measured by commuting ties.

 3 Specific stations and alignments were not identified. The data limitations associated with the analytic tool used for this study, CONNECT Beta, do not 

provide the level of granularity desired for planning and decision-making on specific alignments and station locations.

Figure 1 Southwest Study Area and Extended Study Area
10 | Technical Background Report

• Micropolitan statistical areas have at least one urban cluster of at least 10,000 but less than 50,000 

population, plus adjacent territory that has a high degree of social and economic integration with 

the core as measured by commuting ties.

This classification includes about 94 percent of the U.S. population—84 percent in MSAs and ten percent in 

micropolitan statistical areas.4

Because the official names of MSAs are often quite long, this study has adopted a shorthand name for each 

MSA that is generally the name of the largest city in the MSA (e.g., “Reno” for the Reno—Sparks, Nevada,

MSA). Deviations from this approach were used for Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, California; San 

Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, California; and Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, California, MSAs, which this 

study refers to as “Greater Los Angeles,”“S.F./Oakland,” and “Inland Empire.” A complete list of all MSAs in the 

Extended SW Study Area and this study’s shorthand name for them is included in Appendix A.

1.5 Study Stakeholders

The SW Study was molded by comprehensive 

stakeholder engagement. Participants 

represented the diverse array of entities with an 

interest in HPR services in the Southwest, 

including state departments of transportation, 

metropolitan planning organizations, councils of 

government, transit agencies, Amtrak, freight 

railroads, and private rail developers (Table 2). 

Their primary charge was to begin developing a 

long-range preliminary vision for an HPR network

and identifying the needs for governance and 

multi-state coordination in the Southwest.

An important aim of the stakeholder engagement

was to capture the information generated by 

recent and ongoing efforts. Early and active 

engagement of the study stakeholders was 

essential for the SW Study to reflect the lessons 

learned and information from these efforts.

 4 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin No. 10-02 announcing updates to metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas as of December 

2009, based on the Census Bureau's July 1, 2007 and July 1, 2008 population estimates for cities and towns, and in specified circumstances, local

opinion. Data can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/bulletins/b10-02.pdf (last accessed 04 Aug 2014).

Table 2 Stakeholder organizations

Stakeholder Organizations

Amtrak

Arizona Department of Transportation 

BNSF Railway Company 

California High-Speed Rail Authority 

Caltrain 

Caltrans 

Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority 

Denver Regional Council of Governments 

Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization 

DesertXpress (a.k.a., XpressWest)

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 

Maricopa Association of Governments 

Mid Region Council of Governments 

Nevada Department of Transportation

Orange County Transportation Authority 

Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada 

San Diego Association of Governments 

Southern California Association of Governments 

Union Pacific Railroad 

Utah Transit Authority 

Washoe County Regional Transportation Commission
Technical Background Report | 11

1.5.1 Stakeholder engagement process

The formal stakeholder engagement program commenced with a conference call, and stakeholders 

subsequently participated in five workshops. A summary of the major milestones is provided in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Stakeholder involvement milestones

Stakeholders provided input across three primary topic areas, each of which is described below. 

• Transportation network connectivity—Stakeholders provided input on potential MSA connections 

and service plans, as well as appropriate assumptions to use in the CONNECT Beta analyses. 

Stakeholders also identified the Candidate Corridors for the Southwest HPR Preliminary Network 

Vision presented in Chapter 5 of this study.

• Transportation capacity—Stakeholders helped identify capacity bottlenecks and current plans to 

address them as well as corridors where right-of-way expansion opportunities should be explored. 

The input received informed the content of Chapter 3 of this Study.

• Institutional and governance—Stakeholders identified current challenges to and opportunities for 

multi-state coordination and potential alternative governance options to advance a multi-state 

vision and to ensure the success of HPR projects that cross state lines. They also outlined nearterm action items that could promote multi-state coordination at the conclusion of the study 

effort. Institutional and governance efforts are summarized in Chapter 6 of this study.

1.6 Guiding Principles for Southwest Multi-State Rail Network Planning

A set of guiding principles for SW HPR network planning emerged through a series of stakeholder discussions. 

The first three principles represent the stakeholders’ desired outcomes of the SW HPR network. The fourth 

principle emphasizes the need for stakeholders to collaborate on addressing challenging issues. Stakeholders 

should consider the principles outlined below when developing a mission statement and formal goals and 

objectives in a future phase of network planning.

• Guiding Principle 1—Support development of safe, reliable, efficient, and inter-connected multimodal travel options.

• Guiding Principle 2—Balance providing a premier transportation system with the duty to be 

responsible stewards of public dollars. Consider factors such as return on investment, cost 

effectiveness, and modal alternatives when developing the network.

• Guiding Principle 3—Envision a multi-state rail network that supports environmental, social, and 

economic sustainability. 

• Guiding Principle 4—Encourage cross-state coordination to achieve the most optimal outcomes in 

network planning.
12 | Technical Background Report

Chapter 2. Planning Context

Population, travel demand, and economic activity all influence the success of HPR. Unlike airports that are 

often located at the fringe of metropolitan areas, rail has the ability to reach the city center and support 

activities in a dense central core. Land use policies of local municipalities, as well as local and regional transit 

systems, can also be a critical factor in a community’s ability to attract density and leverage the investments in 

intercity rail.

This chapter explores the three key areas of population, travel demand, and economic activity for the 

Extended SW Study Area and focuses on data relevant to assessing the suitability of the SW Study Area for 

HPR. The information contained in this chapter is presented at a high level and helps to inform the 

identification of corridors that could be included in a multi-state network.

2.1 Overview of the Study Area

The SW Study Area—Arizona, California, and Nevada—encompasses over 379,000 square miles. The

geographic landscape varies dramatically, from vast stretches of undeveloped desert, to major mountain 

ranges, to heavily-developed urban areas flanked by growing suburbs. The region’s extreme climates have 

contributed to great diversity in land settlement patterns; the area contains vast swaths of uninhabited land 

and other areas of extremely large, dense population concentrations. Key features of the SW Study Area to be 

considered in identifying HPR corridors include varying topography as well as a high number of public lands,

including 50 national parks, 80 American Indian reservations (reservations, colonies, and rancherias), some 

with multiple land holdings and some crossing state boundaries, and several military bases. The existing 

transportation system—highway, air, and rail—is well developed but facing capacity constraints and aging 

facilities (discussed in Chapter 3).

The SW Study Area also includes three of the nation’s 11 megaregions—Northern California, Southern 

California, and the Arizona Sun Corridor. Megaregions are large networks of metropolitan areas linked by 

overlapping commuting patterns and business travel, economic activity, urbanization, and cultural resources. 

As defined by America 2050, a megaregion can stretch over hundreds of miles with populations of greater than 

ten million people.5 With a concentration of multiple metropolitan areas and their central business districts 

within corridors or networks of 100 to 600 miles, these megaregions are representative of areas where HPR

networks could be successful. Figure 3 depicts the 3 megaregions in the SW Study Area as well as the other 8 in 

the U.S.

Due to the very hot and dry climate, the history of development in the Arizona Sun Corridor is tied closely to 

major water infrastructure projects that provided a steady supply of water to the arid region, the advent of air 

conditioning that made it possible for people to live in the desert, and commercial air travel that enabled large 

numbers of people to more easily travel to Arizona. Between 1940 and 1960, development in the Arizona Sun 

Corridor began to boom in the areas surrounding Phoenix, Tucson, and Prescott. The opening of I-10 and I-17 

was also a major impetus to the formation of the Arizona Sun Corridor. Most cities in the megaregion are 

located along these highways and they remain the strongest transportation connection between the cities 

today, allowing the people and economies of the megaregion to continue to grow more inter-connected.

In the Northern California megaregion, the mild climate, available water supply, and long growing season 

quickly made the Central Valley one of the most agriculturally productive regions in the world and have 

contributed to the development of the megaregion. Sacramento served as a key port for the Central Valley, 

enabling produce from the northern and middle portions of the Central Valley to ship to the San Francisco Bay 

 5

America 2050, 2008
Technical Background Report | 13

area. Railroads further served to tie the region closer together, including Reno and Carson City, Nevada, where 

produce shipped to the east coast via rail. 

Over time, the economy of the region has diversified. San Jose became the center of Silicon Valley, home to 

many of the leading computer and technology companies in the world, and experienced explosive growth 

during the rapid suburbanization of the U.S. during the 1960s through the 2000s. Although geographically 

constrained by mountains and bodies of water, the development of much of the Bay area converted 

agricultural land and other developable land, creating a pattern of suburban sprawl during and after the 1950s. 

This has resulted in longer commutes and the growth of communities in traditionally agriculturally productive 

regions, such as the Central Valley, Napa Valley, and Sonoma. Transportation was a key factor in the formation 

of the Northern California megaregion and continues to enhance connectivity among its cities. The ties to the 

ports of the San Francisco Bay area, Richmond, Oakland, and Redwood City to the Central Valley are still vital 

connections that fuel the economy of the region. The public transportation rail systems of Bay Area Rapid 

Transit (BART), Caltrain, and Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) as well as the Capitol Corridor and the San 

Joaquin Amtrak services connect many residents to the core areas of the San Francisco Bay area, and I-80 

provides a direct connection to Reno from Sacramento.

Similar to the Arizona Sun Corridor, major water infrastructure projects enabled population growth and 

agriculture across the very dry lands of the Southern California megaregion. In Los Angeles, the ability to film 

year-round in the mild climate spurred the growth of the film industry. For Las Vegas, Nevada’s laws allowing 

gambling and related entertainment prohibited in other states led to the development of casinos and hotels 

that attracted workers and visitors. The region today is tied to the entertainment and film industries; Southern 

California and Las Vegas are popular tourist attractions, and tourism, entertainment, and the film industry 

continue to serve as critical economic drivers for the region. 

Much of the region is connected by Metrolink, Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner and Thruway Bus routes, and direct 

highway connections to Los Angeles, Long Beach, and San Diego, including Bakersfield at the southern end of 

the Central Valley, which is connected to Los Angeles on an Amtrak Thruway Bus route. I-15 connects Las 

Vegas to Southern California. The proximity and existing tourism and travel connections between Los Angeles 

and Las Vegas have fueled the desire for a faster rail connection even before Amtrak’s Desert Wind ceased 

operations between Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles in 1997. Las Vegas-Los Angeles HPR train 

proposals would further tie Las Vegas to the Southern California megaregion.

The Southern California megaregion also contains some of the busiest ports in North America, where the 

majority of U.S. goods from Asia enter the continent. This is critically important for the U.S. freight network, 

and some of the highest volume freight corridors emanate from Southern California for this reason. 

Key factors that influence the formation of the megaregions include environmental characteristics and 

topography, infrastructure, economic linkages, settlement patterns and land use, and shared culture and 

history. HPR could strengthen connectivity within the megaregions, and a dramatic reduction in travel times 

could help improve the economies of each megaregion and foster linkages for one supermegaregion. The 

analysis presented in the remainder of this chapter focuses on identifying key trends for the U.S. as a whole, 

the SW Study and Extended SW Study Areas, and the three Southwest megaregions. 

2.1.1 Geographic features

Geographic features play a prominent role in the SW Study Area. In addition to topography such as mountain 

ranges, Figure 3 shows the water bodies, national and other parks, military bases, and American Indian 

reservations that comprise immense portions of these three states. These geographic features and land use 

designations represent potential constraints that can dictate the placement of transportation and other 

infrastructure investments.
14 | Technical Background Report

Figure 3 Significant land uses in the SW Study Area

Source: Map prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff. Data obtained from National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD) 2010, 

NTAD, 2011; ESRI 2012; and the U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management, 2014.
Technical Background Report | 15

2.2 Population and Travel Demand

2.2.1 Population

The SW Study Area contains some of the highest 

growth areas in the U.S.; Nevada and Arizona were 

the two fastest-growing states in the country 

between 2000 and 2010, with populations 

increasing 35.1 and 24.6 percent, respectively. Also 

of note, Utah was the third fastest-growing state, 

adding 23.8 percent more people between 2000 

and 2010. These are significantly higher than the 

national growth rate of 9.7 percent during the 

same period.6

California remained the most populous state in the 

country and, while its total growth rate of 

10.0 percent between 2000 and 2010 was on par 

with the U.S. as a whole, the total number of new 

residents in California (3.4 million) comprised 

12.4 percent of the 27.3 million residents added to 

the U.S.7

As shown in Figure 4, significant growth is expected 

in the SW Study area by 2050.8 Arizona and Nevada 

are each forecast to grow by 76 percent, nearly 

twice as fast as the national rate of 43 percent. In 

total, the SW Study Area is predicted to add 18 

million people and expand from 15 percent to 

16 percent of the U.S. population. Additional 

details on population growth can be found in 

Appendix B. Most of the Southwest’s population 

lies within the three megaregions. As shown in 

Figure 5, the three megaregions contain roughly 

95 percent of the population in the SW Study Area.

 6 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Distribution and Change: 2000 to 

2010, March 2011 7 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Distribution and Change: 2000 to 

2010, March 2011 8 2040 is the latest year for which forecasts for all indicators in this 

chapter are available, thus data points were extrapolated to 2050 to 

reflect the planning horizon for the SW Study. 

Figure 4 Forecast population growth between 

2010 and 2050 in the SW Study Area

Source: 2010 data from 2010 Census, U.S. Census 

Bureau; 2050 figures extrapolated from 2040 

population forecasts by Woods & Poole Economics, 

Inc., Washington, D.C., copyright 2010

Figure 5 Population distribution in the SW Study 

Area

Source: 2010 Census data, U.S. Census Bureau

The Southwest contains the 

most populous state and 

the two fastest growing 

states over the last decade.
16 | Technical Background Report

Population is distributed over a relatively small percentage of the land area in the Southwest. In 2010, roughly 

94 percent of the SW Study Area’s population was located in urban areas, as defined by the U.S. Census 

Bureau.9 Urban areas account for just three percent of the total land area in the three states.10 Population 

density is important, as rail is often most competitive when it is serving dense concentrations of population 

and economic activity. Figure 6 illustrates the relative concentration of population within the SW Study Area.

Figure 6 Population density

 9 For the 2010 Census, the Census Bureau defines urban areas as all urbanized areas and urban clusters. These are densely developed territory and 

encompass residential, commercial, and other nonresidential urban land uses. Urbanized areas have 50,000 or more people and urban clusters have at 

least 2,500 but less than 50,000 people.

10 U.S. Census Bureau, Lists of Population, Land Area, and Percent Urban and Rural in 2010, Percent Urban and Rural in 2010 by State, 

www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/2010urbanruralclass.html (last accessed 04 Aug 2014)

Source: Map prepared 

by Parsons 

Brinckerhoff. Data 

obtained from 2010 

Census, U.S. Census 

Bureau and ESRI, 

2012.

In many instances 

dots overlap in this 

map, which may give 

the appearance of a 

smaller than actual 

population.
Technical Background Report | 17

2.2.2 Travel patterns

Auto is the predominant mode for intercity travel in the Southwest, as shown in Figure 7. Due to faster growth 

expected for air, air travel is expected to gain a larger share of the intercity market in the absence of new rail 

investments. Intercity travel within the region is forecast to increase nearly 70 percent between 2010 and 

2050, from 162 million to 273 million trips per year. Annual trips via air are expected to increase more than 

300 percent from 27 million in 2010 to 84 million by 2050. Trips via auto are projected to rise 42 percent.11

Absent any new investment, annual trips by rail are anticipated to continue to comprise a relatively small share 

of intercity travel overall. 

In addition to regular intercity travel, there is one additional type 

of trip considered in this study—connect air trips. These are air 

trips between an MSA in the Extended SW Study Area and a 

location outside the Southwest, but where one leg of the trip 

could be replaced by a rail trip within the Southwest (which would 

then connect to a flight for travel to/from outside the Southwest).

An example of a connect air trip is a passenger traveling from Las 

Vegas who may catch a regional jet to Salt Lake City, and then 

continue from Salt Lake City to his or her final destination in 

Washington, DC. In 2010, total connect air trips were estimated at 

12.3 million, and by 2050 they are expected to more than double, 

reaching 35 million.

12

Considering intercity trips of 50 to 800 miles between MSAs in the 

Extended SW Study Area, trips between just six MSAs represent 

44 percent of all intercity travel between MSAs considered in this 

Study.

13 Figure 8 illustrates the scale of travel between these large 

MSAs. Of note, travel to/from Greater Los Angeles is the largest 

intercity travel market for each MSA identified in this figure, even 

though Los Angeles is not always the closest MSA. The travel 

market data emphasizes the importance of markets to/from 

Greater Los Angeles.

 11 All travel demand figures presented in this report are for intercity trips between 50 and 800 miles. Trips less than 50 miles generally are not 

considered intercity travel and rail is typically not time-competitive with air on distances greater than 800 miles. 12 CONNECT Beta Version, 2012 13 CONNECT Beta Version, 2012

Figure 7 Current (2010) intercity mode 

shares between MSAs in the Southwest 

Network

Source: CONNECT Beta Version, 2012
18 | Technical Background Report

Figure 8 Total trips between selected MSAs

Source: CONNECT Beta Version, 2012

Only a small number of MSAs are presented in this graphic to enhance visual clarity. Other MSAs, such as the Inland 

Empire and Sacramento, also generate a large number of trips to other MSAs.

2.3 Economic Activity

With a combined gross domestic product (GDP) of $2.3 trillion, the 

economies of the SW Study Area represent 15.7 percent of the total U.S.

economy.14 If these three states were a country, they would be the sixth 

largest economy in the world, on par with the United Kingdom and 

40 percent larger than Canada.15 Viewed this way, the Southwest is the 

largest economy in the world that does not currently have dedicated highspeed rail.

2.3.1 HPR and Economic Growth

There is growing consensus among academic researchers—in fields such as economics, geography, business,

and management—that high speed rail fosters increased economic productivity and contributes strongly to a 

region’s competitive advantage. High speed rail uniquely facilitates increased face-to-face interactions for high 

value activities—for example, among scientific and technical research and universities, corporate 

headquarters, global finance and business services, and media and cultural centers.

The economic benefits of high speed rail and other major transportation improvements have been captured by 

recent research. Researchers, such as Daniel Graham at the University of London, a major contributor to new 

methods of economic evaluation of transportation investments in the United Kingdom, have documented the 

 14 U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2010 Gross Domestic Product 15 Analysis based on 2010 GDP by country data from The World Bank, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD/countries (last accessed 04 

Aug 2014)

The Southwest is the world’s 

largest economy without 

high-speed rail.
Technical Background Report | 19

impact of high speed rail in achieving “agglomeration economies,” which arise because of the advantages that 

result to firms from the spatial concentration of economic activities.16

A growing body of literature suggests that agglomeration benefits are significant; one researcher found that 

traditional economic models underestimate the economic impact of high speed rail investment associated 

with agglomeration benefits by 10 to 80 percent.

17 Other studies from Europe, using sophisticated economic 

models, suggest that agglomeration-related economic benefits will account for up to 40 percent of total 

benefits, with most high speed rail investments falling between 10 and 20 percent of total benefits.

18 Studies 

of Japanese cities with high speed rail stations showed areas achieved average population growth rates of 

1.6 percent while bypassed cities grew at 1 percent. Similarly, intermediate German cities connected via high 

speed rail to Frankfurt and Cologne experienced a 2.7 percent increase in GDP due to the increase in market 

accessibility to the larger cities.

19

2.3.2 Business clusters, megaregions, and HPR

A key to understanding the benefits of HPR relates to how modern knowledge-based economies compete and 

grow: instead of individual industries, economic growth increasingly depends on the development of business 

clusters. These are characterized by complex networks and synergies among industries and institutions, 

involving a range of interrelated activities extending from research and innovation, financing, production, 

management, public policy, and infrastructure. Harvard Business School’s Michael Porter, a leading global 

academic expert in economic clusters, has consistently noted the importance of transportation linkage as one 

of the contributors to cluster growth and competitive advantage.20

While better accessibility contributes to an area’s productivity and to the strengthening of business clusters in 

general, HPR is uniquely suited to linking areas into megaregions and to strengthening the major economic 

clusters. Clusters are stronger, more productive, and more competitive when the density of interactions 

increases. Megaregions, anchored by one or more Global Cities,21 provide the basis for competing at a global 

scale. U.S. megaregions, such as the Southwest, need to compete against existing as well as many more 

emerging global cities in Europe, Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere. The competition from these, many of 

which have or are developing advanced high speed rail networks, will be fierce.

There is a growing body of theory related to the economic and social interactions that characterize 

megaregions and the benefits of intercity passenger rail in strengthening them. The University of Chicago’s 

Saskia Sassen, a leading expert on global cities, has characterized the potential for competitive advantage 

arising from increased diversity of economic and social interactions: 

“a megaregion can incorporate diversity into a single economic megazone. Indeed, in principle, it 

could create conditions for the return of particular (not all) activities now outsourced to other 

regions or to foreign locations. This would expand the project of optimizing growth beyond the 

usual preference for state of the art sectors (such as office and science parks) and include a 

greater diversity of economic sectors.”22

 16 Graham, D.J., “Agglomeration Economies and Transport Investment,” Discussion Paper No. 2007-11, International Transport Forum, Joint Transport 

Research Centre, OECD, December 2007

17 Preston, J., A. Larbie, G. Wall, “The Impact of High Speed Trains on Socio-Economic Activity: The Case of Ashford (Kent),”4th Annual Conference on 

Railroad Industry Structure, Competition and Investment, Universidad Carlos III, Madrid, 2006 18 de Rus, G. (ed.), Economic Analysis of High Speed Rail in Europe, Fundacion BBVA, Bilbao, Spain 2009

19 Ahlfeldt, G.M. and A. Feddersen, From Periphery to Core: Economic Adjustments to High Speed Rail LSE, University of Hamburg, 2010 20 Porter, M., “Location, Competition, and Economic Development: Local Clusters in a Global Economy,” Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 14. No 1, 

February 2000

21 Sassen, S., The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. 2000. Princeton; Sassen, Cities in a World Economy, Thousand Oaks California, 2000 22 Sassen, S., “Megaregions: Benefits Beyond Sharing Trains and Parking Lots?,” in The Economic Geography of Megaregions, published jointly by the 

Policy Research Institute for the Region, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton and the Regional Plan Association as part of America 2050, 2007 
20 | Technical Background Report

Other researchers have focused also on megaregion growth and global city competitiveness: Peter Taylor’s 

Globalization and World Cities Project has noted, among other things, the importance of expanded and more 

efficient international air service connections, something which the Southwest HPR network could greatly 

enhance if it provided fast, reliable, and direct connections to international airports. Presently, the 

Globalization and World Cities Project ranks Los Angeles as an alpha world city, with San Francisco a beta

world city along with several up-and-coming locations, such as Sao Paolo, Madrid, Moscow, and Seoul.23

Case studies of specific industries confirm the potential for increased economic integration among areas 

served by high speed rail. For example, a study conducted on behalf of the orthopedics industry in Warsaw, 

Indiana (the largest concentration of orthopedics developers and manufacturers in the U.S.) found significant 

productivity benefits, as well as substantial potential for increasing critical face-to-face interactions among 

researchers, teaching hospitals, national surgeon leaders, equipment vendors and sales representatives, etc. In 

addition, the connectivity provided to Chicago and the rest of the Midwest high speed rail network was 

considered by industry executives to be critical to future recruitment and retention.24

In a global age, with an extensive communications and data processing infrastructure, seamless, reliable, low 

cost and safe travel are the new standards necessary for coordinating movements across the global network.

An efficient HPR network in the study area would not only strengthen existing megaregion connections, but 

could help integrate the three megaregions to function as a single economically competitive unit. National 

benefits would also be created by strengthening the performance of this important region in the U.S.

2.3.3 SW Study Area economic interdependencies and the multi-state rail network

The southwest region includes three of the 11 emerging megaregions in the U.S.25 One need only look at the 

economies of the metropolitan areas of the Southwest to see the potential for growth from linking the region 

together more closely. Cities of the Southwest and West have been particularly successful already in exploiting 

interdependencies—Silicon Valley, for example, would not exist as it does today without the historic and 

continuing relationships with Stanford University. These types of synergies have room to more completely 

expand beyond their respective metropolitan areas.

To help assess potential economic interdependencies within the SW Study Area, an analysis was conducted of 

selected economic characteristics of five major MSAs within the region—Greater Los Angeles, S.F./Oakland, 

San Diego, Phoenix, and Las Vegas. That analysis examined several knowledge-based economic clusters across 

the five MSAs and noted potential interdependencies. After identifying concentrations of knowledge, arts, 

financing, and technology manufacturing clusters, the density of potential synergies across MSAs was 

evaluated. That analysis indicated very strong economic potential for interdependencies among the region’s 

metropolitan areas. Appendix D presents the analysis of the economic clusters along with the intensity and 

frequency of potential spatial interdependencies.

Taken together, these considerations suggest HPR could make an important contribution towards providing 

better connections among the three SW Study Area megaregions. This multi-state HPR network could help the 

SW be more productive, varied, efficient, and competitive on the national and global stage. The benefits for 

the region’s citizens could include more employment, higher incomes, and increased consumer choice. The 

key findings outlined in Section 5.3.1 underscore these interdependencies and further demonstrate the 

benefits of market connections and network connectivity through HPR.

 23 Globalization and World Cities Project; for list of Alpha and Beta cities, see www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citilist.html (last accessed 04 Aug 2014) 24 Parsons Brinckerhoff, for Orthoworx, Economic Impacts of Midwest High Speed Rail on the Orthopedics Industry in Warsaw, Indiana, January 2011, 

http://orthoworxindiana.com/newsletters/Passenger-Rail-Study-1_11_2011.pdf (last accessed 04 Aug 2014) 25Regional Plan Association, America 2050: A Prospectus, New York, 2006
Technical Background Report | 21

Chapter 3. The Multi-State Transportation System

The transportation system of the SW Study Area is diverse, in terms of the modes represented and the markets 

served. Increases in population and travel demand discussed in Chapter 2 have shaped the development of the 

transportation system, yet capacity constraints continue to be experienced on the region’s rail, highway, and 

air networks. Increased congestion in the transportation network leads to a less reliable, more costly, and less 

safe transportation system that can threaten the economy, environment and social conditions. Particularly, as 

auto and air travel is projected to grow, the need for alternative mobility solutions for people and goods 

becomes more evident.

The long range transportation plan (LRTP) of each state reflects a long-term vision for a multimodal 

transportation system that provides a variety of modes as warranted, including highways, HPR, urban and rural 

transit (commuter rail, bus rapid transit, light rail, and buses), the air passenger system, and freight. In 

addition, with limited state funding, each state’s LRTP is primarily focused on system preservation along with 

limited system expansion to accommodate growth in the movement of people and goods as population, 

employment, and economic activity increase. Common objectives include supporting mobility and economic 

development.

This chapter summarizes the SW Study Area’s existing transportation system, including rail, highway, air, 

intercity bus, local transit service, and ports. It also provides an overview of the planned improvements that 

could affect the capacity of each mode and influence the viability of a multi-state HPR network.

3.1 Rail Network

The passenger rail network in the SW Study Area is deeply integrated with the Class I freight carriers. The 

region’s two Class I railroads, Union Pacific (UP) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), host the majority of 

passenger rail service on their trackage, with some commuter operators owning their respective rights-of-way 

in California. Commuter rail serves metropolitan areas in several California cities, and Amtrak provides intercity 

rail service in all three states but with varying frequencies. Shortline railroads are located in all three states, 

providing connections to the Class I carriers, linking industries requiring rail freight, or operating as a tourist 

passenger train service. Figure 9 presents the SW Study Area’s current passenger and freight rail network, 

along with Amtrak stations and abandoned or inactive rail lines
22 | Technical Background Report

Figure 9 Rail network

 Source: Map prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff. Data obtained from Federal Railroad Administration, 2009 and ESRI, 2014.
Technical Background Report | 23

3.1.1 Existing multi-state rail network

This section describes the freight, Amtrak, and commuter rail services that encompass the rail network in the 

SW Study Area.

Freight

The SW Study Area encompasses critical elements of the intercontinental freight network, including the 

CANAMEX trade corridor that traverses Arizona and Nevada and major corridors that connect west coast ports 

with the eastern U.S. Goods movement requires much of the region’s rail network capacity and, consequently,

there are limited opportunities to add passenger service on the existing freight rail network. Table 3

summarizes the freight network in the SW Study Area. In total, across the three states, there are 8,533 miles of 

Class I trackage, along with 31 distinct shortline carriers. 

California’s freight network is large (Figure 10), 

with 5,305 miles of track originating or 

terminating approximately 140 million tons in 

2009.26 Four major “port-to-border”

transportation corridors have been established

and serve as the state’s goods movement 

backbone, built up over decades to encompass 

large complexes that facilitate ship-to-rail, railto-truck, and truck-to-rail exchanges to move 

containers to their ultimate destinations. These 

corridors are: Los Angeles-Long Beach/Inland 

Empire, San Diego/Border, San Francisco Bay 

Area, and Central Valley.27 Maintaining and 

increasing capacity along these transportation 

arteries provides not only a basis for economic 

growth in the State, but also allows them to 

serve as an increasingly important network for freight throughout the entire U.S.

28

All of Nevada’s Class I track miles are owned by UP. BNSF has track usage rights to 805 of those miles. In 2009, 

the freight network in Nevada moved 191 million net tons and 96 percent of this was through traffic.29

The situation is similar in Arizona, which also serves primarily through traffic. Slightly more than 100 million 

tons are through traffic, compared to 28 million inbound tons and three million outbound tons.

30

 26 Association of American Railroads, Freight Railroads in California, 2009 27 State of California Phase I Goods Movement Action Plan, September, 2005 28 California Department of Transportation, California State Rail Plan, March 2008 29 Nevada Department of Transportation, Nevada State Rail Plan, Draft, March 2012 30 Arizona Department of Transportation, Arizona State Rail Plan, Draft, March 2011

Table 3 Freight rail Class I miles and number of 

shortlines

Class I 

Railroads

Class I 

Track Miles Shortlines

Arizona BNSF 595 7 

UP 1,237

California BNSF 2,125 23 

UP 3,384

Nevada UP 1,192 1 

Source: Association of American Railroads, Freight Railroads in 

Arizona, Freight Railroads in California, Freight Railroads in 

Nevada, 2009
24| Technical Background Report

Figure 10 Freight density map

Source: Map prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff. Data obtained from Federal Railroad Administration, 2009 and ESRI, 

2014.
Technical Background Report | 25

Intercity passenger rail

Amtrak operates long-distance routes across the SW Study Area and state-supported corridor routes in 

California. While there has been relative success and growth in California’s corridor services, the states of 

Arizona and Nevada have not seen similar ridership growth due to the locations of some of the stations and 

reliance on the relatively infrequent Amtrak long-distance service in their metropolitan areas.31 For example, 

Amtrak’s intercity service in Arizona primarily serves long-distance overnight markets and does not serve the 

state during optimal times of the day. Similarly, the Amtrak station within close proximity of Phoenix is actually 

located in Maricopa—approximately 35 miles south of downtown Phoenix and without public transit access—

likely limiting the attractiveness of the service to people who live in Phoenix. 

Table 4 summarizes the four long-distance routes that Amtrak operates across the SW Study Area. The Sunset 

Limited is a good example of the challenges any new service between Los Angeles and Phoenix will face as a 

result of operating over an important freight corridor. Initially the Sunset Limited operated three times per 

week to directly serve Phoenix, but in 1996, due to UP’s desire to downgrade its Phoenix to Yuma (Wellton 

Branch) line, the Sunset Limited was rerouted to a more southerly route bypassing Phoenix. Additionally, the 

Sunset Limited has operated only three days per week in both directions since 1971. This is a primary factor 

limiting its ridership and success as a route. Ultimately, a significant investment in infrastructure will be 

required for any new service between Los Angeles and Phoenix. As such, any vision for new service must also 

identify and address UP’s capital needs.

Table 4 Amtrak long-distance routes

Termini

Extended SW 

Study Area 

States Served

Selected MSAs 

Served

FY 2011 

Ridership1,3

Host Railroads 

in SW Study 

Area States

Southwest Chief Los Angeles, CA

and Chicago, IL

AZ, CA, NM Greater Los 

Angeles

354,912 BNSF

Sunset Limited Los Angeles, CA

and New 

Orleans, LA

AZ, CA, NM Greater Los 

Angeles; Tucson

99,714 UP

California Zephyr Emeryville, CA 

(San Francisco)

and Chicago, IL

CA, NV, CO, UT Sacramento; 

Reno

355,324 UP

Coast Starlight Seattle, WA and 

Los Angeles, CA

CA Sacramento;

S.F./Oakland; 

Greater; Greater 

Los Angeles

426,584 UP, Metrolink/

SCRRA2

1

Source: Monthly Performance Report for September 2011, Amtrak, November 2011 2

SCRRA is the Southern California Regional Rail Authority with its member agencies as the railroad owners. 3

The Amtrak Sunset Limited has operated only thrice weekly service since 1971.

Amtrak also operates state-supported corridor service within California, including the Pacific Surfliner, the 

Capitol Corridor, and the San Joaquin. These three routes are the second, third, and fifth busiest corridors in 

the country, respectively, and combined accounted for nearly 19 percent of Amtrak’s total ridership in fiscal 

year 2011.32 They are also among the fastest growing corridors, with Los Angeles to San Diego as the highest 

volume MSA-MSA pair in the Amtrak network outside of the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak previously operated a 

corridor route across southern Nevada, the Desert Wind, which served Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Salt Lake 

 31 U.S. High-Speed Rail System Summary: Arizona/Southwest, HIGHSPEEDRAIL TEXASHSR.ORG: 

www.bqaz.gov/PDF/Rail_Framework_Final_Report_031610.pdf (last accessed 04 Aug 2014) 32 Monthly Performance Report for September 2011, Amtrak, November 2011
26| Technical Background Report

City. The route operated three days per week (thrice weekly) in both directions and was discontinued in 

1997.

33

The State of California has heavily invested in intercity passenger rail, contributing to the overall success of 

these state-supported routes. Since Caltrans began funding the Pacific Surfliner service in 1976, nearly $1 

billion in capital improvements has been made. Similarly, $460 million has been invested by the State in the 

San Joaquin corridor. The Amtrak state-supported routes in California are summarized in Table 5.

Combined, the seven Amtrak lines traversing the Southwest states, including the long distance routes and the 

California state-supported routes, carried 23 percent of Amtrak’s total ridership in 2011. 

Table 5 Amtrak state-supported corridor routes

Termini

FY 2011

Ridership1 Host Railroads

Capitol Corridor San Jose—Oakland—Sacramento—Auburn 1,708,618 UP, Caltrain 

Pacific Surfliner* San Luis Obispo—Santa Barbara—Los Angeles—San Diego 2,786,972 BNSF, Metrolink/

SCRRA, SDNR, UP2

San Joaquin* Oakland or Sacramento—Bakersfield 1,067,441 BNSF, UP

1

Source: Monthly Performance Report for September 2011, Amtrak, November 2011

2

SCRRA is the Southern California Regional Rail Authority; SDNR is the San Diego Northern Railroad.

*Newly-created JPAs are currently negotiating with CALTRANS and the California Transportation Agency to assume 

responsibility for operations.

Commuter rail service

California is the only state in the three-state SW Study Area with existing commuter rail service. Existing 

commuter rail services in California are summarized in Table 6. 

Table 6 California commuter rail services

Service Area

Current 

Operator

Average Weekday 

Ridership (000s)1 Host Railroads

San Diego Coast Express 

Rail—COASTER (Owner: 

North County Transit 

District)

San Diego to 

Oceanside

Transit America

Services (Herzog 

Subsidiary)

5.0 San Diego 

Northern Railroad2

Metrolink (Southern 

California Regional Rail 

Authority)

Ventura, Los Angeles, 

Riverside, San 

Bernardino, Orange 

and San Diego

Counties

Amtrak 39.6 Southern California 

Regional Rail 

Authority2

Caltrain (Peninsula Corridor 

Joint Powers Board)

San Francisco to 

Gilroy

Transit America

Services (Herzog 

Subsidiary)

41.1 UP, Peninsula 

Corridor Joint 

Powers Board

Altamont Commuter 

Express (San Joaquin 

Regional Rail Commission)

Stockton to San Jose Herzog Transit 

Services

3.0 UP

1 Public Transportation Ridership Report, Fourth Quarter 2011, American Public Transportation Association, February 

2012

2

With freight trackage rights.

 33Las Vegas to Los Angeles Rail Corridor Improvement Feasibility Study, 2007
Technical Background Report | 27

3.1.2 Rail network constraints

Many of the rail capacity constraints in the SW Study Area are due to single track operations and competing 

demands for track between passenger and freight rail. Before a freight railroad grants a passenger operator 

use of its facilities, railroads generally require various capacity improvements to ensure the reliability of both 

freight and passenger services over time. It is also recognized that the topography in the Study Area presents 

serious constraints on the rail network. This section describes rail network constraints identified by the 

stakeholders within the SW Study Area.

California

Given its extensive intermodal network, California is facing significant capacity constraints that could 

potentially impact passenger service. The Class I railroads serve high levels of freight traffic along their

corridors and are approaching maximum capacity. BNSF and UP have identified several chokepoints on their 

systems including:

• UP’s Martinez Subdivision between Oakland and Martinez is also used by Amtrak and BNSF, provides 

connection to UP’s Central Corridor and Feather River Canyon routes, and provides access to the 

Midwest and east along I-80.

• UP’s Tehachapi Pass line between Bakersfield and Mojave, heavily used by BNSF, is a shared, single 

track route that connects Southern California to Northern California and the Northwest.

• BNSF’s mainline through the Cajon Pass between the San Bernardino Mountains and the San Gabriel 

Mountains is a two to three track route. UP has rights to operate on a portion of this route 

segment between Daggett and West Riverside. UP also has its own single-tracked route with 

sidings parallel to BNSF’s right of way through the Cajon Pass and has granted BNSF limited rights 

to operate on their tracks.

• Various places where the increase in intermodal freight traffic at the major California ports is placing 

heavy demands on existing railroad capacity, such as at the Port of Long Beach where rail capacity 

is reduced from three tracks to two at the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and I-710 on the 

existing mainline track.

34

As ridership and train service have increased on commuter and intercity rail lines in California, in some cases 

capacity has proven insufficient to handle freight and passenger demands reliably. This is particularly common 

in metropolitan areas with substantial freight and passenger traffic. For example, freight interference causes 

major operating challenges for Metrolink, especially on UP’s Los Angeles Subdivision between Riverside and

Los Angeles. Heavy UP port rail traffic results in Metrolink trains operating behind schedule on nearly a daily 

basis.35 Under development at the Los Angeles Union Station is the Southern California Regional 

lnterconnector Project (SCRIP). This project will extend at least four of the existing platform tracks to form a 

"run through" track configuration. This will expand the capacity of Union Station by 50% and reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions from idling trains by 44%. This project will change the railroad operations in the 

southern California region and support the development of the California high speed rail project as well as any 

future HPR that could emerge from the SW Study.

36

 34 California Department of Transportation, California State Rail Plan, March 2008; The Port of Long Beach began construction March 26, 2013 on the 

Green Port Gateway project to add a third rail line, helping to remove bottlenecks on the existing mainline track 

(http://www.polb.com/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1142 - last accessed 04 Aug 2014) 35 The Southern California Regional Interconnector Project, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), retrieved from 

http://www.metro.net/projects/regionalrail/scrip (last accessed 04 Aug 2014) 36 The Southern California Regional Interconnection Project, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), retrieved from 

http://www.metro.net/projects/regionalrail/scrip
28| Technical Background Report

Arizona

Arizona is facing similar constraints on its freight network. Needs for Arizona’s Class I railroads include the 

following:

• BNSF completed a triple double-tracking project through central New Mexico and will pursue tripletracking through Northern Arizona as the economy recovers.37 Additionally, facility access, 

elimination of grade crossings, and realignments of the rail bed were cited as potential needs for 

Flagstaff in the 2009 Multimodal Freight Analysis Study. These improvements would improve the 

operational efficiency and safety of rail operations. 

• UP’s primary asset in Arizona is its east-west Sunset Route. UP is planning to improve the Sunset 

Route into a high-capacity, double-tracked route throughout Arizona. The improvements are 

planned to serve increasing freight traffic, and double tracking the line could potentially triple its 

capacity, although it should be noted that these improvements are not guaranteed to support 

additional passenger service.

38

Nevada

The ownership of the rail network in Nevada is concentrated with just one Class I carrier and one active 

shortline owner. The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) does not own or control any rail lines. 

Grade crossing safety is a priority for the state, with projects in both the southern and northern portions of the 

state working to eliminate the grade crossings through the Las Vegas Valley and downtown Fernley.39 An 

example of this, the ReTRAC project completed in 2005, eliminated two miles of at-grade freight track through 

Reno. Although through-rail tonnage has declined over the past four years, the volume of goods expected to 

originate in Nevada is expected to grow through 2040.40 Recent legislation permitting design-build contract 

delivery and establishment of a pilot program for the use of the construction-management-at-risk model 

demonstrates the state’s willingness to adopt new project delivery methods and practices.

41

3.1.3 Planned rail improvements

Study stakeholders identified planned and potential improvements to alleviate these challenges or provide 

additional services in the SW Study Area. A number of these projects have capacity-improving elements within 

them but may not actually enhance capacity. These projects are also in various stages of development, with 

some programmed and others in the conceptual planning stages. These rail projects are shown in Figure 11

and Table 7; additional detail on these projects is provided in Appendix C.

 37Arizona Department of Transportation Long-Range Transportation Plan, What Moves You Arizona, November 2011 38Arizona Department of Transportation, Arizona State Rail Plan, Draft, March 2011 39Nevada Department of Transportation, Nevada State Rail Plan, Draft, March 2012 40 Nevada Department of Transportation, Nevada State Rail Plan, Draft, March 2012 41Nevada Department of Transportation, Nevada State Rail Plan, Draft, March 2012
Technical Background Report | 29

Figure 11 Planned rail improvement projects

Source: Map prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff. Data from Federal Railroad Administration, 2009, and ESRI, 2014.
30| Technical Background Report

Table 7 Planned rail improvement projects

Project Name Location(s)

1 Amtrak Coast Daylight Project Between San Luis Obispo, San Jose, and San Francisco

2 Anaheim Regional Transportation 

Intermodal Center (ARTIC) Project

Anaheim

3 Arizona Spine Corridor Project

(new rail service study)

Grand Canyon (north) to Nogales (south) using branches of BNSF 

Phoenix Subdivision, UP Phoenix Subdivision, UP Nogales 

Subdivision, Arizona Central Railroad, Grand Canyon Railway, 

Verde Canyon Railway, and Copper Basin Railway

4 California High-Speed Rail System 

(multiple project sections)

Between San Francisco, San Jose, and Sacramento in the North 

to Anaheim, Los Angeles, and San Diego in the South, via 

Merced, Fresno, Bakersfield and Palmdale.

5 California-Nevada Super Speed Train Between Las Vegas and Anaheim following I-15 Corridor

6 CANAMEX Corridor Project

(new service study)

State Portion: Las Vegas (north) to Nogales (south) using 

branches of BNSF Phoenix Subdivision, UP Phoenix Subdivision, 

UP Nogales Subdivision, and Arizona and California Railroad

7 Capacity, Bridge Replacements, and 

Other Rail Improvements

San Diego Subdivision, LOSSAN Rail Corridor, San Diego County

8 XpressWest (a.k.a., DesertXpress) 

Project

Between Victorville and Las Vegas following I-15 corridor

9 Los Angeles/Las Vegas Rail Study Between Los Angeles and Las Vegas using one of a number of 

existing rail alternatives including Metrolink Subdivisions, UP

Subdivisions, and BNSF Subdivisions

10 Los Angeles Port to Colton to Cajon 

Pass Rail Expansion Project

Los Angeles County

11 Los Angeles Union Station Rail 

Improvements

Los Angeles

12 LOSSAN Rail Corridor Rail 

Improvement Package

San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San

Luis Obispo Counties

13 Phoenix–Tucson Intercity Rail Phoenix to Tucson Rail Corridor

14 Route 66 Corridor Project 

(passenger rail service improvement 

study) 

East-west corridor between Lupton/New Mexico border (east) and 

Bullhead City/Lake Havasu City/California border (west) using 

branches of BNSF Transcon, Apache Railway, Grand Canyon 

Railway, and Black Mesa and Lake Powell Railroad

15 Sunset Route Corridor Project

(passenger rail service improvement 

study)

East-west corridor between Willcox/New Mexico border (east) and 

Yuma/California border (west) using UP rail corridor

16 The X Train Project Between Los Angeles Union Station and Las Vegas utilizing 

existing BNSF/ UP rail corridor

17 UP Sunset Route Double Track Project Southern Arizona

18 Peninsula Corridor Electrification 

Project

San Francisco to San Jose

Source: Projects identified by Southwest MSRP Study stakeholders

Multi-state projects

Several multi-state HPR planning projects are currently being or have been studied between California and 

Nevada—all are described in this section.
Technical Background Report | 31

XpressWest(a.k.a., DesertXpress)

The XpressWest project, formerly known as DesertXpress,

42 is a proposed new high-speed, steel wheel on rail 

double track interstate passenger rail line running 185 miles between Victorville (California) and Las Vegas. It

would follow the I-15 freeway alignment. XpressWest is planned to utilize fully electric, next-generation trains 

that would operate at speeds of up to 160 miles per hour (mph) and can deliver passengers between 

Victorville and Las Vegas in under 80 minutes with non-stop service every 20 minutes during peak times and up 

to every 12 minutes based on demand. With an average round trip fare of $89 (in 2017 dollars), DesertXpress

Enterprises, LLC (a private, for-profit corporation) anticipates it will generate enough revenue to pay for its 

own operating and capital costs.43 Much of the route would use property along the I-15 alignment that is 

owned by the federal government and administered by the Bureau of Land Management. FRA issued a 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Record of Decision for the DesertXpress project in November 2011, 

and other federal agency approvals have also been granted. The estimated capital cost is $6.5 billion (year of 

expenditure dollars, or YOE $) and, at the time of this study, XpressWest was refining its financial plan.

California-Nevada Super Speed Train Project

Since 1988, the California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission has been seeking support for magnetically 

levitated (maglev) ground transportation to connect Las Vegas to Anaheim via Primm, Barstow, Victorville, and 

Ontario. This project would follow the I-15 right-of-way and be separated completely from other traffic either

at-grade or elevated. The project is envisioned to reach speeds over 300 mph, completing the 269-mile trip 

between Las Vegas and Anaheim in 86 minutes.44 The priority is to build “The First Forty Miles®” in Nevada 

(between Las Vegas and the California state line at Primm/Ivanpah International Airport).45

The project was largely excluded from SCAG’s 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable 

Communities Strategy, precluding the full project from receiving certain federal funds for additional study. In 

summer 2014, Congress repurposed SAFETEA-LU funds for the Nevada Maglev project and made them 

available for other railroad development programs administered by FRA.

X Train/Las Vegas Railway Express Train Project

The X Train/Las Vegas Railway Express (X Train) project was a proposed rail service that would connect Los 

Angeles Union Station and Las Vegas via the existing BNSF and UP rail corridors at speeds of up to 79 mph.

In its second quarter report for 2013, the Las Vegas Railway Express, the company developing the project, 

announced that it would no longer pursue approximately $100 million in new financing needed to launch the 

new service.46 Since then, the company has been exploring opportunities to utilize the rail cars procured for 

the service on existing Amtrak routes.

Arizona

Both of Arizona’s Class I railroads, BNSF and UP, have plans to expand their transcontinental routes to achieve 

greater freight capacity. Expanding these corridors will accommodate increased freight volumes and provide 

capacity for improved efficiency. While additional intercity passenger routes between Arizona and other states 

might be more easily implemented along transcontinental corridors once additional capacity is available, such 

investments are not guaranteed to support additional passenger service.

For passenger rail, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) LRTP identifies needs for Amtrak, 

interregional commuter rail, and regional commuter rail, including opportunities for partnerships between the 

State and the Class I railroads for freight line improvements that would benefit passenger service:

 42 DesertXpress changed its name to XpressWest in 2012, in part to emphasize the role of the project in the Southwest HPR network. 43 XpressWest, www.xpresswest.com/project.html (last accessed 04 Aug 2014) 44 California-Nevada Super Speed Train Project, www.canv-maglev.com/pid10route.html (last accessed 04 Aug 2014) 45 California-Nevada Super Speed Train Project, http://www.canv-maglev.com/pid7financing.html (last accessed 04 Aug 2014) 46 Las Vegas Railway Express, Inc., Form 10-Q (Quarterly Report), filed 11/12/13 for the Period Ending 09/30/13
32| Technical Background Report

• The need for improved interregional rail service between Phoenix and Tucson has been documented 

by the 2008 High Speed Passenger Rail Strategic Plan and the 2010 Statewide Rail Framework 

Study. ADOT is currently performing the Arizona Passenger Rail Corridor Study: a Tier 1 EIS and 

Service Development Plan for the Phoenix—Tucson corridor. The benefits of the service would be 

increased mobility and travel options for Sun Corridor residents. 

• Regional commuter rail options are under study in Arizona. The Maricopa Association of 

Governments’ 2008 Commuter Rail Strategic Plan investigated the feasibility of and recommended 

the operation of commuter rail on the BNSF Peavine Line, on UP’s Phoenix Subdivision from Queen 

Creek to Buckeye, and on UP’s West Chandler-Tempe Industrial Lea branch line. The services 

would connect riders on a 110-mile network from suburban residential areas to downtown 

Phoenix and—in the case of the UP lines—to Mesa and Tempe work centers as well.47

ADOT’s State Rail Plan includes a potential Arizona High-Speed Rail Corridor—an opportunity corridor for the 

Intermountain West advocated by the Western High Speed Rail Alliance. The conceptual HPR lines include 

service to New Mexico, Nevada, and California.

48

California

In terms of freight improvements, the State Rail Plan identifies several planned and programmed freight rail 

projects throughout the state totaling nearly $8.4 billion that could help overcome the challenges facing 

California’s goods movement system, accommodate international trade, and also benefit other areas of the 

U.S.49 These projects include near dock facilities, port improvements, grade separations, intermodal terminals, 

double-tracking, and tunnel modifications. Since the 2008 plan, freight rail capacity constraints in the LA Basin 

have been alleviated primarily by triple-tracking in some sections, which benefits passenger train movements 

as well.

Additional projects identified in the State Rail Plan include an extension of the Capitol Corridor from 

Sacramento to Reno with up to two daily roundtrips. A coastal route (Coast Daylight) from San Francisco to Los 

Angeles via San Luis Obispo with one round trip train is proposed to start in 2020, however this project has not 

yet been studied or confirmed by Caltrain.50 Potential intercity rail routes in planning include Los Angeles to 

Indio (Coachella Valley), San Francisco to Monterey, and Los Angeles to Las Vegas. 

• Metrolink is currently in the process of upgrading its system to be Positive Train Control (PTC) 

compliant. This program was expected to cost the agency $230 million.

51

• Caltrain has a list of capital projects that includes maintenance and safety work for track, stations, 

and rail cars.52 The 2014 Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project aims to increase service from 92 

to 114 trains per day, add one peak train in each direction, with the potential to increase service 

during off-peak hours.53 The plan stresses state-of-good-repair upgrades but also includes PTC, 

electrification, and California High Speed Rail-Caltrain integration preparedness. 

 47 Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), Commuter Rail Strategic Plan Overview, Executive Summary, 2008, Retrieved from 

http://www.azmag.gov/Documents/pdf/cms.resource/CRSG_2008_Draft-Commuter-Rail-Executive-Summary96339.pdf (last accessed 04 Aug 2014) 48 Arizona Department of Transportation, Arizona State Rail Plan, March 2011, http://www.azdot.gov/docs/planning/state-rail-plan.pdf?sfvrsn=0 (last 

accessed 04 Aug 2014)

49 California Department of Transportation, California State Rail Plan, 2013, Retrieved from 

http://californiastaterailplan.dot.ca.gov/docs/Final_Copy_2013_CSRP.pdf (last accessed 04 Aug 2014) 50 California Department of Transportation, California State Rail Plan, 2013, Retrieved from 

http://californiastaterailplan.dot.ca.gov/docs/Final_Copy_2013_CSRP.pdf (last accessed 04 Aug 2014) 51 Metrolink Quarterly Report, September 2011 52 Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011,

December 2011

53 Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project: Draft Environmental Impact Report, Caltrain, February 2014
Technical Background Report | 33

• The SJRRC is currently working with the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) and 12 other 

transportation-related entities, including the FRA and Caltrain, on the Altamont Corridor Express 

(ACE) project to develop a rail extension from the San Francisco Bay area into the Central Valley to 

connect with the proposed CHSR route. The goals for the project are to implement ACE service 

through the Altamont Pass on a dedicated passenger track, with the potential for the service to be 

fully grade-separated, electrified, and compatible with future CHSR.54 The SJRRC is serving as the 

lead for the project under a 2013 amended MOU and will focus its resources to deliver near-term 

incremental improvements to the existing ACE service that can be achieved by 2018 when the IOS 

construction segment for CHSR is completed and by 2022 when the CHSR IOS is planned to be 

operational. In 2012, the California State Legislature appropriated $36.4 million for the project.55

California High-Speed Rail

California has been planning for high-speed rail since the 1990s, with the California High-Speed Rail Act

established by the CHSRA to direct the development and implementation of intercity high-speed rail service in 

1996. The April 2014 Business Plan calls out a phased implementation of three sections:

• Initial Operating Section (IOS) of 300 miles from Merced to San Fernando Valley

• Bay to Basin segment of 410 miles from San Jose and Merced to San Fernando Valle

• Phase One of 520 miles from San Francisco to Los Angeles/Anaheim

In addition, in 2012, the California State Legislature approved nearly $8 billion in federal and state funds for 

the construction of the first high-speed rail investment in the Central Valley and 15 bookend and connectivity 

projects throughout the State.56 These early projects will have benefits as stand-alone projects and will help 

develop and mature regional HPR (less than 125 mph) culture and ridership that will be prepared to feed into 

core express service when it arrives.57 This new plan estimates that the IOS will cost $31 billion (YOE $).

58 In 

the High, Medium, and Low ridership estimate scenarios, the revenue of this segment is enough to cover 

operating and maintenance costs. Both the High and Medium scenarios are projected to have a positive cash 

flow beginning in the first year of operations, and the Low scenario is projected to reach a positive cash flow by 

year two.59

Construction on the first portion of the Central Valley CHSR line began in 2012 and is planned to be completed 

by 2022. Closing the Bakersfield–Los Angeles Basin gap will help tie the Northern and Southern California 

megaregions together with rail service and allow those economic connections to begin to flourish. Future 

projects will focus on the remaining pieces—Los Angeles to San Diego, Fresno to San Francisco, Fresno to 

Sacramento, and improved ACE and high-speed rail service from San Jose into the northern Central Valley. 

Nevada

With business growth in the Reno and Las Vegas MSAs, UP’s intermodal business has grown considerably in 

Nevada, along with the development of super distribution warehouses. For example, the Tahoe Reno Industrial 

Center, located in Storey County approximately seven miles east of Reno-Sparks on the I-80 freeway, is 

proposed at build out to be the largest industrial park in the world. Rail services run through the middle of the 

park so businesses can utilize UP or BNSF or choose a private carrier. The City of Fernley, located on I-80 

 54 Altamont Commuter Express, www.Acerail.com (last accessed 04 Aug 2014); HPR Track 2 Corridor Programs” CA-Altamont Corridor Rail—NEPA/CEQA 

10/01/09

55 Altamont Commuter Express, http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/Altamont_Corridor.aspx (last accessed 04 Aug 2014); 

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/brdmeetings/2013/060613/AI_3_Proposal_Amend_MOU.pdf (last accessed 04 Aug 2014) 56 CHSRA, 2012 Business Plan, April 2012 57 CHSRA, 2014 Business Plan, April 2014 58 CHSRA, 2014 Business Plan, April 2014 59 CHSRA, 2014 Business Plan, April 2014
34| Technical Background Report

approximately 32 miles east of Reno-Sparks at the intersection of U.S. Highways 50A and 95A, also established

a business park with rail freight access.

Several proposals have been prepared to establish or upgrade rail lines in the State to haul garbage from the 

San Francisco Bay Area to White Pine County, as well as transport power generating products, and as a 

possible route to Yucca Mountain. Approximately 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Yucca Mountain has been 

identified as a primary depository for U.S. nuclear waste. Rail transportation would be used throughout the 

U.S. to ship 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, though the stated policy of Nevada and 

the federal government at this time is opposed to transporting high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel to a 

geological repository at Yucca Mountain.

60

Recent focus has been on project development for the XpressWest Project, which would connect Las Vegas to 

California (discussed previously). The draft 2012 Nevada State Rail Plan notes the importance of the return of 

Amtrak’s Desert Wind service, which formerly served the cities of Caliente and Las Vegas.61 The plan also 

references the potential for high speed rail in the Southwest rail Golden Triangle, which includes Phoenix, Las 

Vegas, and Los Angeles.62

3.2 Air Network

While auto trips dominate travel within the three megaregions in the SW Study Area—between large 

neighboring MSAs, such as Los Angeles, Inland Empire, and San Diego in Southern California; San Francisco, 

San Jose, and Sacramento in Northern California; and Phoenix and Tucson in Arizona—air travel is the 

predominant mode of intercity passenger transportation between the three Megaregions.

More than 26 million origin-destination air trips were taken within the SW Study Area in 2010.63An additional 

12 million air passengers flew between MSAs in the region to connect to another flight destined for a location 

outside the region.64These 38 million combined regional air trips accounted for 36 percent of all departures at 

the region’s airports.65 This volume includes many of the nation’s top short-haul air markets.66 In the study 

area there are four airports that rank in the top ten for overall enplanements for FY 2013: Los Angeles (2), San 

Francisco (7), Las Vegas (9), and Phoenix (10).

67

Driven by strong underlying population and economic growth, this air 

volume is projected to grow by nearly 100 percent by 2050 to 52 million

origin-destination trips and 75 million total trips include connecting 

passengers. These projections, however, are unconstrained. The region’s 

airports may be unable to accommodate this growth as many of the 

airports in the SW Study Area already experience congestion and capacity 

constraints. Many will continue to experience capacity constraints by 

2025 even with planned improvements.68

 60 Nevada Department of Transportation, Nevada State Rail Plan, Draft, March 2012 61 Nevada Department of Transportation, Nevada State Rail Plan, Draft, March 2012 62 Nevada Department of Transportation, Nevada State Rail Plan, Draft, March 2012 63 “Origin-Destination air trips” are counted when origin and final destination are both within the study area. 64 BTS T-100 Market Data; BTS Office of Airline Information, Airline Origin and Destination Survey (DB1B), 2010 65 RITA, BTS Airport Snapshots, 2010 66 Short-haul air market defined as market of less than 600 miles. 67 Federal Aviation Administration, Preliminary CY 2013 Passenger Boarding and All-Cargo Data: Enplanements at All Commercial Service Airports (by 

Rank) Preliminary

68 FAA, FACT 2 Report, 2007

The Southwest contains the 

top seven short-haul air 

markets in the country.
Technical Background Report | 35

3.2.1 Existing multi-state air network

There are a number of 

commercial airports in the 

Southwest associated with the 

major metropolitan areas as 

shown in Figure 12. In 2010, total 

annual enplanements exceeded 

15 million at five airports in the 

Extended SW Study Area: San 

Francisco International, McCarran 

International (Las Vegas), Los 

Angeles International, Phoenix 

Sky Harbor International, and 

Denver International.

As shown in Figure 13, the top 

seven short-haul air markets in 

the country exist between MSAs 

in the SW Study Area.

69 These 

markets connect the major MSAs 

of San Francisco, Los Angeles, Las 

Vegas, Phoenix, and San Diego. 

With the exception of Los 

Angeles–Las Vegas, which is less 

than 300 miles, the other MSAs in 

the top seven are separated by 

300 to 500 miles. The long distances between major markets and lack of competitive service for this distance 

offered by the existing rail network have led to a disproportionate reliance on short-haul flights for travel 

within the region. While the population of the SW Study Area represents 15 percent of the nation’s 

population, it accounts for 24 percent of the short-haul air 

volume.

When considering the top ten air and/or rail travel markets less 

than 600 miles, the Southwest again ranks high. Seven of the

country’s top 10 air and/or rail travel markets less than 600 

miles are within California, Arizona, and Nevada, as shown in 

Figure 14.

 69 BTS Office of Airline Information, Airline Origin and Destination Survey (DB1B), 2010

Figure 12 Annual enplanements

Source: Calendar Year 2010 Revenue Passenger Enplanements at Primary 

Commercial Service Airports, Federal Aviation Administration, October 2011

The Southwest has 15 percent of the 

nation’s population yet accounts for 

24 percent of the short-haul air 
36| Technical Background Report

Figure 13 Top 10 air travel markets less than 600 miles

Source: Airline Origin and Destination Survey (DB1B), USDOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics Office of Airline 

Information, 2010

Figure 14 Top 10 air/rail travel markets less than 600 miles

Source: Airline Origin and Destination Survey (DB1B), USDOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics Office of Airline 

Information, 2010; Fiscal Year 2010 Market Pair Ridership, Amtrak, 2010
Technical Background Report | 37

3.2.2 Air network constraints

Constraints are prevalent and growing at airports in the SW Study Area. One indicator of the challenges faced 

by airports is on-time arrival performance. In this category, five major airports located in the SW Study Area 

(San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Vegas, and Phoenix) are plagued by delayed arrivals ranging from 

18 percent in Phoenix to more than 30 percent in San Francisco.70 Figure 15 shows how these five airports 

(represented by orange bars) compare with other major airports in the U.S. Although issues relating to delay 

are more severe at many of the major airports on the east coast, the physical constraints of the region’s 

airports combined with the projected growth in air travel in the Southwest make this a notably acute issue in 

the study area. Additionally, the growing security demands of air travel may affect modal choice.

Figure 15 Percent of flights delayed at 29 major airports

Source: Ranking of Major Airport On-Time Arrival Performance Year-to-Date through July 2011, Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics, http://www.bts.gov/

programs/airline_information/airline_ontime_tables/2011_07/html/table_04.html (data retrieved October 2011)

 70 The three primary causes of late arrivals at the five largest airports in the Southwest (LAS, LAX, PHX, SAN, and SFO) are late arriving aircraft, national 

aviation system delays, and air carrier delays. These three causes combined account for 90-93 percent of all delays at these five airports.
38| Technical Background Report

3.2.3 Currently planned air improvements

The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Future Airport Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System 

2007-2025 (FACT 2) report assessed the future capacity of 56 airports in the U.S., with a goal to determine 

which airports have the greatest need for additional capacity.71 Within the SW Study Area, airports in the 

following metropolitan areas were included in the evaluation: 

• Los Angeles—Bob Hope Airport (BUR), Long Beach-Daugherty Field Airport (LGB), Los Angeles 

International Airport (LAX), Ontario International Airport (ONT), Palm Springs International Airport

(PSP), John Wayne-Orange County Airport (SNA)

• San Diego—San Diego International Airport (SAN)

• San Francisco—Metropolitan Oakland International (OAK), San Francisco International Airport (SFO), 

and Mineta San Jose International Airport (SJC)

• Las Vegas—McCarran International Airport (LAS)

• Phoenix—Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX)

• Tucson—Tucson International Airport (TUS)

The FACT 2 analysis considered planned improvements affecting runway capacity for 2015 and 2025. The 

planned improvements include new or extended runways, new or revised air traffic control procedures, 

airspace redesign, and other assumptions. 

Based on the capacity improvement assumptions, the FACT 2 analysis identifies airports that will need 

additional capacity in three broad groupings: (1) airports that would need additional capacity in 2015 after 

planned improvements; (2) airports that would need additional capacity in 2015 if planned improvements do 

not occur; and (3) airports that would need additional capacity in 2025 after planned improvements. The 

results of the FACT 2 analysis for the states in the SW Study Area included in the analysis are shown in Figure 

16.

The FACT 2 analysis indicates that airports in San Francisco and Los Angeles would need additional capacity by 

2015 even after planned improvements are in place. In the San Francisco Bay Area, specifically OAK, the 

geography, terrain, and airspace issues will continue to constrain this airport. These issues limit the airport’s 

ability to add runway capacity, and the FACT 2 analysis suggests that a regional solution in conjunction with 

other airports in the Bay Area may be needed. In Los Angeles, LGB and SNA both have operational and noise 

restrictions that limit the number of operations at these facilities. If these restrictions remain in place, the 

operational levels forecasted for these airports in 2015 will likely not be reached. Thus, the actual future delays 

will likely be less than the criteria established for the FACT 2 analysis. However, this may mean that significant 

demand will go unsatisfied. 

If planned improvements in all three states do not occur by 2015, airports in Tucson and Las Vegas will 

similarly be in need of additional capacity. By 2025, San Diego and Phoenix airports will also need additional 

capacity. While geography, terrain, airfield, and airspace issues will continue to constrain airports like SAN and 

SFO, SAN is continuing to investigate capacity enhancements and estimates the airport will exceed its 

operational capacity before the 2025 planning period. SFO has similar constraints and is participating in a 

regional planning effort to address capacity needs within the Bay Area. In 2013, SAN also completed an 

expansion of Terminal 2 to include more gates and passenger facilities. 

 71 FAA, Future Airport Capacity Task (FACT 2) Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System 2007-2025, May 2007
Technical Background Report | 39

Figure 16 FACT 2 airport capacity needs

Source: Future Airport Capacity Task (FACT 2) Capacity Needs in the National Airspace System 2007-2025, Federal Aviation Administration, May 2007
40| Technical Background Report

In Phoenix, additional runway capacity will be needed if demand continues to grow as forecasted. The City of 

Phoenix Aviation Department is working with Williams Gateway Airport (IWA) in nearby Mesa to increase the 

use of this airport for scheduled commercial service. Local plans indicate that LAS will exceed its operational 

capacity before the 2025 planning period. However, plans are progressing for a new secondary commercial 

airport for the Las Vegas metropolitan area to supplement LAS. The new airport was not included in the FACT 2

analysis as many of the details are still being assessed in an ongoing EIS.

Since the FACT 2 report was published, several airports in the region have completed or initiated projects to 

address capacity constraints. Projects include both landside and airside improvements. A sample of the 

landside improvements in the region includes:

• SFO: Renovation of Terminal 2—The 640,000-square-foot Terminal 2 reopened to the public in April 

2011 after a two-year, $383 million renovation designed to improve efficiency and customer 

experience.72

• PHX: Airport people mover— Stage 1 of PHX Sky Train opened in April of 2013. It connects the 

airport’s Terminal 4 to parking and Metro light rail. The line carries approximately 70,000 riders 

per week. Stage 1A, an extension to Terminal 3, is due to open in 2015, with Stage 2, another 

further extension to the PHX Rental Car Center, by 2020. The total estimated project cost of $1.58 

billion is paid for with airport revenues and passenger fees; $644 million for Stage 1, $240 million 

for Stage 1A, and remaining funds for Stage 2.

73

• LAX: New Bradley Terminal—A $1.7-billion addition to the Tom Bradley International Terminal 

(TBIT) will provide 18 new gates. This is in addition to the $737-million renovation of the existing 

TBIT.74

• BUR: Regional Intermodal Transportation Center (RITC)—RITC will be a consolidated facility housing 

rental cars and a bus station and connecting to the airport passenger terminal via elevated moving 

walkway.75 A second Metrolink commuter and Amtrak intercity passenger rail station is under 

development that will serve the airport with Metrolink service from another line.76 In addition, the 

terminus of the Initial Operating Segment of the California High Speed Rail Project will be in the 

vicinity of the airport.

• SAN: Master Plan implementation—Projects recently completed include a ten-gate addition to 

Terminal 2 and an elevated dual level roadway to improve curbside check-in.

77 Advanced planning 

for the San Diego Airport Intermodal Transportation Center is underway by the San Diego 

Association of Governments (SANDAG).

• LAS: Terminal 3—Opened in 2012, Terminal 3 includes 14 gates.78

• Salt Lake City International Airport—Project to rebuild the Airport Terminal is currently in final 

design with construction slated to begin in the near future.

 72 SFO’s Community Newsletter, Winter 2012, http://www.flysfo.com/newsletter/sfo-community-newsletter-winter-2012 (last accessed 04 Aug 2014) 73 http://skyharbor.com/PHXSkyTrain/QuickFacts.html (last accessed 7/30/2014) 74 LAnext, Facts About Modernizing LAX, www.lawa.org/uploadedFiles/LAXDev/News_for_LAXDev/LAX%20Modernization.pdf (last accessed 04 Aug 

2014)

75 www.burbankairport.com/home/news/initiatives.html (last accessed 04 Aug 2014) 76 The Burbank Leader, Grand opening held for new transportation center at Bob hope Airport, http://www.burbankleader.com/news/tn-gnp-grandopening-held-for-new-transportation-center-at-bob-hope-airport-20140627,0,4592612.story (last accessed 04 Aug 2014) 77 http://www.san.org/sdcraa/airport_initiatives/green_build/Default.aspx (last accessed 04 Aug 2014) 78 “Pardon Our Dust: McCarran International Airport’s Construction Update, Winter 2011-12 Edition” http://cms.mccarran.com/dsweb/View/Document300211/PardonOurDust.pdf (last accessed 04 Aug 2014)
Technical Background Report | 41

A sample of the airside capacity in the region includes:

• LAX: Airfield improvements to include new taxiways, aprons, and runway improvements—These 

include the Taxilane S project ($175 million) that reduces congestion and delays that occur at 

existing taxiways during peak periods, Taxiway R project ($138 million) to improve the safety and 

efficiency of the terminal, and the South Airfield Improvement Project ($333 million) that 

relocated a runway to improve safety and efficiency.79

• SAN: Master Plan implementation—Air side projects moving forward include new aircraft parking 

for overnight storage and new apron and taxilane.80

3.3 Highway Network

While there are several interstate highways that traverse the SW Study Area, only one (I-15) traverses all three 

states in the SW Study Area. Figure 17 shows the interstates as well as the other major roadways that provide 

connections between major MSAs in the Extended SW Study Area.

The U.S. Congress has designated 80 corridors nationally as high-priority corridors on the National Highway 

System (NHS). This designation indicates that the corridor is part of the 163,000-mile approved NHS and 

affords it federal funding through multi-year surface transportation authorizations (e.g., Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA-LU]). High-priority corridors crossing 

at least two states in the SW Study Area include:81

• Economic Lifeline Corridor—running through California, Arizona, and Nevada along I-15 and I-40. 

This also includes I-215 South from near San Bernardino to Riverside and SR 91 from Riverside to 

the intersection with I-15 near Corona.

• US 395 Corridor—running from the U.S.-Canadian border in Washington through Oregon and 

California to Reno. 

• CANAMEX Corridor—running north-south through Las Vegas to Salt Lake City to Idaho Falls to 

Montana to the Canadian Border. In Arizona, this corridor includes I-19 from Nogales to Tucson, 

I-10 from Tucson to Phoenix, and US 93 in the vicinity of Phoenix to the Nevada border. In Nevada, 

it follows US 93 from the Arizona border to Las Vegas and I-15 from Las Vegas to the Utah border. 

• East-West Transamerica Corridor—running through the States of Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, 

Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, 

Nevada, and California. In California, this corridor includes I-15 from San Diego to Barstow, joining 

I-40 through Arizona (and much of New Mexico).

• High-Desert Corridor/E220—from Los Angeles to Las Vegas via Palmdale and Victorville.

Two of these corridors—Economic Lifeline Corridor and CANAMEX Corridor—are truly multimodal, having both 

interstate highways and transcontinental rail routes. The Washoe County Corridor connecting Reno and Las 

Vegas is a high-priority corridor solely contained in Nevada. There are no high-priority corridors that exist 

solely within Arizona. Additional corridors designated as high-priority corridors within California include:

• Alameda Transportation Corridor—along Alameda Street from the entrance to the ports of Los 

Angeles and Long Beach to I-10, Los Angeles.

 79 LAnext, Facts About Modernizing LAX, http://www.lawa.org/uploadedFiles/LAXDev/News_for_LAXDev/LAX%20Modernization.pdf (last accessed 04 

Aug 2014)

80 http://www.san.org/sdcraa/airport_initiatives/green_build/Default.aspx (last accessed 04 Aug 2014) 81 www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/nhs/hipricorridors/hpcorqk.html (last accessed 04 Aug 2014)
42| Technical Background Report

• I-5—in California, Oregon, and Washington, including California SR 905 between I-5 and the Otay 

Mesa Port of Entry.

• Alameda Corridor East and Southwest Passage—generally described as the corridor from East Los 

Angeles (terminus of Alameda Corridor) through Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and 

Riverside Counties to termini at Barstow in San Bernardino County and Coachella in Riverside 

County. The Southwest Passage shall follow I-10 from San Bernardino to the Arizona state line.

• I-710—in California between the terminus at Long Beach to California SR 60.

• California Farm-to-Market Corridor—California SR 99 from south of Bakersfield to Sacramento.

• Cross Valley Connector—connecting I-5 and SR 14, Santa Clarita Valley.

• High Desert Corridor/E-220—from Los Angeles to Las Vegas via Palmdale and Victorville.

3.3.1 Highway network constraints

Highway network constraints are prevalent throughout the major metropolitan areas of the Southwest and 

can be attributed to a lack of capacity due to growing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and increased goods 

movement by truck. From 1970 to 2007, VMT grew by 168 percent while population only grew by 

48 percent.

82 The volume of truck transport in the SW Study Area is large and continued growth is expected. 

For example, in California, approximately 64 percent of freight moved across or within the state uses trucking 

as the principal mode of transportation.83 Still, accommodating increased trucking goes beyond addressing 

highway congestion. 

For drivers, non-work trips are increasing, leading to greater congestion during off-peak periods and more 

demand on local road networks. In Arizona, I-10 between SR 85 and US 191 is an example of a corridor where 

population growth in Phoenix, Tucson, and Pinal County has consumed much of the highway capacity between 

these two cities.

As one of the busiest truck-freight corridors in the nation, I-15 through California and Nevada and into Utah is 

also facing capacity constraints due to growing demand in freight and passenger traffic and the geography 

which dictated the original design of the road. Almost all segments of I-15 are at or approaching capacity with 

congestion delays projected at 3.2 hours per vehicle per day between Nevada and California.84 Related, a lack 

of adequate ramp capacity connecting to the main highway, including connections to high occupancy vehicle 

(HOV)/high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, restricts operations in places such as the I-15/SR 78 Interchange near 

San Diego. A multimodal transportation master plan is being developed by the I-15 Mobility Alliance, which is a 

collaborative effort of the Departments of Transportation (DOTs) from California, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah.

This plan is aimed at addressing current and future mobility needs along the I -15 corridor.85

Border crossing congestion due to population growth and freight movement is also a concern, with additional 

ports of entry needed to address this lack of capacity. An example of these types of improvements is the new 

SR 11 and Port of Entry at Otay Mesa East south of San Diego, scheduled to open in 2015.86 In Southern 

California, the increase in demand due to freight movement causes backups at the border crossings, with an 

average processing time of two hours per truck.87

 82 APTA, Changing the Way America Moves: Creating a More Robust Economy, a Smaller Carbon Footprint, and Energy Independence, 2009 83 FHWA FAF3 Summary Statistics by State for 2010, http://faf.ornl.gov/fafweb/FUT.aspx (last accessed 04 Aug 2014) 84 I-15 Corridor System Master Plan, Corridor System Characteristics: Highways, I-15 Mobility Alliance, June 2011 85 I-15 Mobility Alliance, http://www.i15alliance.org/ (last accessed 04 Aug 2014) 86 http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?projectid=56&fuseaction=projects.detail (last accessed 04 Aug 2014) 87 San Diego Association of Governments, Economic Impacts of Border Wait Times at the San Diego-Baja California Border Region, January 2006. 
Technical Background Report | 43

Figure 17 Highway network

Source: Map prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff. Base map data from NTAD, 2010 and ESRI, 2014.
44| Technical Background Report

3.3.2 Currently planned highway improvements

The majority of highway expenditures are allocated to maintaining, rehabilitating, operating, and improving 

the highway system in each state. For example, in Arizona, highway preservation and modernization account 

for 63 percent of the total transportation funding under the State’s Recommended Investment Choice, with 

highway expansion at 27 percent and the remaining ten percent dedicated to non-highway needs.88 While 

planned improvements are in place for many of the region’s highways, there is not always sufficient funding 

available to implement these improvements. There are also opportunities to move truck traffic to rail, e.g., I-15 

between Los Angeles and Salt Lake City. Transporting freight by rail can mitigate highway congestion and may 

decrease the need for major new highway investments. A single intermodal train can take up to 280 trucks 

(equivalent to more than 1,100 automobiles) off a highway. However, for this to occur, continued 

development of inland container yards and intermodal facilities will be needed.89

Dedicated lanes with separate truck and bus facilities are being proposed in several locations to help reduce 

safety and operational conflicts. For example, in California, the Southern California Association of 

Governments is proposing a regional system of truck-only lanes along I-710, SR 60, and I-15 for a total of 

142 miles.

Study stakeholders identified transportation projects that are planned or underway and could affect capacity. 

Of particular note to multi-state corridor planning, Arizona and Nevada are seeking to upgrade the highway 

linking Phoenix and Las Vegas and designate it as Interstate-11. If advanced, some of these projects may 

impact the need for rail investments in the corridor by increasing the competitiveness of highway travel 

alternatives. These projects are summarized in Table 8 and shown on Figure 18; additional detail on these

projects is provided in Appendix C. 

 88 Arizona Department of Transportation, Long Range Transportation Plan, 2011 89 California Department of Transportation, California Transportation Plan 2025, April 2006, 

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/osp/ctp2025_files/CTP_2006.pdf (last accessed 04 Aug 2014)
Technical Background Report | 45

Table 8 Planned highway capacity projects

Project Name Location(s)

1 High Desert Corridor (SR 138) Project Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties

2 Interstate-11 and Intermountain West 

Corridor

Numerous corridors to improve linkages between Mexico 

and the Intermountain West, including mobility 

improvements around the Tucson and Phoenix Metro 

areas and the first segment of I-11 to be constructed 

north of the State Line in Nevada.

3 I-15/French Valley Parkway Interchange I-15/French Valley Parkway Interchange, Temecula

4 I-15 from Speedway Boulevard to US 93 

Widening and Interchange NEPA

I-15 between Speedway Boulevard and US 93, Las 

Vegas

5 I-15 HOV/HOT Lanes Interstate-215 to 

Riverdale Phase 1

I-15 to I-215 Interchange to Riverdale, Salt Lake County

6 I-15 HOV/HOT Lanes San Bernardino/

Riverside County

I-15 San Bernardino/Riverside County Line South to 

I-15/I-215 Interchange, Riverside County

7 I-15 Managed Lanes: I-8 to SR163 I-15 between I-8 to SR163, San Diego

8 I-15 Virgin River Gorge Bridges Virgin River Gorge area bridges, Arizona

9 I-15/I-215 (Devore) Interchange 

Reconstruction

Devore Interchange, San Bernardino County

10 I-15/SR76 East I-15/SR76 Interchange, San Diego

11 I-15/SR78 HOV/HOT Connectors I-15/SR78 Interchange, San Diego

12 I-15: Lehi Main Street to 12300 South, Salt 

Lake County, UT Phase 1 

SR92 to 12300 South, Salt Lake County

13 Port of San Diego Freeway Access 

Improvements—I

Civic Center Drive and I-5, 10th Avenue at Harbor Drive, 

San Diego

14 Port of San Diego Freeway Access 

Improvements—II

Bay Marina Drive at I-15, 32nd Street at Harbor Drive, 

San Diego

15 Project NEON, Phase 1 I-15, from Sahara Avenue to I-515/US95 Interchange

(Spaghetti Bowl), Las Vegas

16 SR 11/Otay Mesa East Port of Entry Project SR905 south to Otay Mesa East Port, San Diego

17 US 93 (Future I-11) Improvements Wickenburg, Arizona to the Nevada State Line

Source: Projects identified by Southwest MSRP Study stakeholders
46| Technical Background Report

Figure 18 Planned highway capacity projects

Source: Map prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff based on project list identified by Southwest Study stakeholders. Base 

map data obtained from NTAD, 2010 and ESRI, 2014.
Technical Background Report | 47

3.4 Intercity Bus

Much of the intercity bus service in the Southwest connects major cities and Amtrak rail services. The region is 

served by a number of intercity bus carriers, some of which serve seasonal interests. Greyhound serves 125 

cities in California, 21 in Arizona, and ten in Nevada.90 Amtrak’s Thruway Connecting Service reaches 107 cities 

in California, seven in Arizona, and eight in Nevada.91 There are approximately 120 other companies in 

California, 20 in Arizona, and ten in Nevada that offer routes for commuters, travelers, and visitors.92

In California, Caltrans funds the Amtrak Thruway services, which provide direct/train bus transfers at train 

stations serving the Pacific Surfliner, Capitol Corridor, and San Joaquin routes. Under California state law, 

Thruway bus travel is permitted only in conjunction with a rail ticket. Figure 19 shows the existing Amtrak and 

other rail services as well as the Amtrak Thruway services in the Extended SW Study Area.

Figure 19 Amtrak Thruway service in the Southwest

Map provided courtesy of Amtrak®, 2012

 90 https://www.greyhound.com/ (data retrieved May 22, 2012) 91 http://www.amtrak.com/train-routes (data retrieved May 22, 2012) 92 www.business.highbeam.com (data retrieved May 22, 2012)
48| Technical Background Report

3.5 Local Transit Systems

The SW Study Area contains a large number of transit providers, with services ranging from extensive subway 

systems in large metropolitan areas to buses serving smaller communities. Because riders need good access to

and from HPR stations in order to reach their final destinations, transit service can plan an important rail in the 

attractiveness of HPR with many cities developing local circulation systems to support HPR investments. To 

illustrate the extent to which current transit systems are relied upon as a means of travel within urban areas,

Table 9 presents transit ridership per capita for selected 

metropolitan areas in the Extended SW Study Area. Further 

details on the transit systems, including the total number of 

riders by mode for each of these MSAs, can be found in 

Appendix E.

3.5.1 Local transit connections to airports

The majority of the transit systems in the SW Study Area 

provide service to the region’s airports, and several rail transit 

connections are in place or under construction. Some of the 

key transit connections to airports in the SW Study Area 

include:

• SFO is served directly by BART with connections to 

downtown San Francisco and various destinations 

in the metropolitan area. The Caltrain commuter 

rail service offers a transfer to BART for airport 

passengers. The airport is also served directly by 

SamTrans buses with service throughout the 

region.93

• At Oakland International Airport (OIA), BART 

provides a shuttle bus connecting to its rail system 

with connections to downtown San Francisco and 

the region.94 A rail connection to BART is under 

construction. AC Transit serves OIA via frequent 

bus service.95

• SJC has a shuttle bus connection to the Metro Light Rail Station and the Santa Clara Caltrain 

Station.96

• LAX is served by shuttles that provide connections to area public transportation or park-and-ride 

lots. A shuttle connects riders from the Metro Green Line Aviation Station to terminals.97 Shuttles 

also connect passengers to parking lot C, where transfers can be made to the bus service to Los 

Angeles and three other local bus services.98 Four Flyaway shuttle routes operate daily and offer 

connections to Los Angeles Union Station or park-and-ride locations around the region.99

 93 www.flysfo.com (data retrieved May 22, 2012) 94 www.flyoakland.com (data retrieved May 22, 2012) 95 www.flyoakland.com (data retrieved May 22, 2012) 96 www.flysanjose.com (data retrieved May 22, 2012) 97 www.lawa.org (data retrieved May 22, 2012) 98 www.lawa.org (data retrieved May 22, 2012) 99 www.lawa.org (data retrieved May 22, 2012)

Table 9 Transit ridership per capita in 

selected metropolitan areas

Annual Ridership 

per Capita (2011)

Albuquerque 15.4

Denver 38.1

Greater Los Angeles 50.9

Las Vegas 29.6

Phoenix 16.7

Reno 18.5

Sacramento 14.3

Salt Lake City 35.2

San Diego 31.9

San Francisco/Oakland 98.0

Tucson 20.4

Sources: Public Transportation Ridership 

Report, Fourth Quarter 2011, APTA, February 

2012; 2010 Census data, U.S. Census Bureau.

Excludes demand response (paratransit) 

ridership
Technical Background Report | 49

• SAN is served directly by the Metropolitan Transit System.100 The Route 992 bus makes trips every 

15 minutes and connects to Amtrak, COASTER commuter rail, and the light rail system.101

• Stage 1 of the PHX Sky Train opened in April of 2013. The automated train connects the airport’s 

Terminal 4 to parking and Metro light rail. The line carries approximately 70,000 riders per week.

Stage 1A, an extension to Terminal 3, is due to open in 2015, with Stage 2, another further 

extension to the PHX Rental Car Center, by 2020. The total estimated project cost of $1.58 Billion is 

paid for with airport revenues and passenger fees (no local tax dollars); $644 million for Stage 1, 

$240 million for Stage 1A, and remaining funds for Stage 2.102

• LAS is served directly by the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) through multiple bus 

routes.103 Nine private bus and shuttle companies also serve the airport.104

• TUS is served by Sun Tran City Bus Service with service to and from Tucson every 30 minutes.105

Other airports in the SW Study Area, including SNA, SAC, and Reno-Tahoe International, provide local transit 

bus service connections as well as multiple private shuttle services.

3.5.2 Planned intermodal passenger facility projects

In California, there are three major multimodal transit facility projects in planning or under construction:

• In Southern California, Union Station in Los Angeles is undertaking development of a master plan to 

prepare for future high speed rail as well as commuter rail improvements to further enhance the 

multimodal transportation center. Union Station is the transportation hub for the region, providing 

connectivity between Metrolink, 

Amtrak, and local transit. Along with 

increased frequencies of Metro 

service, additional buses are 

anticipated to serve the station, and 

passenger circulation at the station will 

be critical.

106 The Southern California 

Regional Interconnection Project 

(SCRIP) involves the reconfiguration of 

the tracks at Union Station and will 

increase capacity by 40% to 50% as 

well as improve operational 

flexibility.107

• The Transbay Transit Center/Caltrain 

Downtown Extension (TTC/DTX) 

project is replacing San Francisco’s 

Transbay Terminal. The project, which

is under construction and led by the 

 100 www.san.org (data retrieved May 22, 2012). 101 www.san.org (data retrieved May 22, 2012) 102 http://skyharbor.com/PHXSkyTrain/QuickFacts.html (last accessed 04 Aug 2014) 103 www.rtcsnv.com (data retrieved May 22, 2012) 104 www.rtcsnv.com (data retrieved May 22, 2012) 105 www.flytucsonairport.com (data retrieved May 22, 2012) 106 www.metro.net/projects_studies/union_station/images/Union_Station_July_2011_Master_Plan_Presentation.pdf (last accessed 04 Aug 2012) 107 http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/connector/images/regional_rail_scrip_fact_sheet.pdf (last accessed 04 Aug 2012)

Figure 20 Transbay Transit Center rendering

Source: Transbay Transit Center Image Gallery, Cross Section 

View of the New Transbay Transit Center, 

http://transbaycenter.org/media-gallery/imagegallery/transit-center-architecture, retrieved June 5, 2012
50| Technical Background Report

Transbay Joint Powers Authority, will link 11 transportation systems in the downtown and 

construct a large transit oriented development at the new transit center (Figure 20).

108 This will 

involve a 1.3-mile extension of Caltrain to Mission Street to meet the new TTC and connect riders 

with AC Transit, BART, Golden Gate Transit, Greyhound, Muni, SamTrans, WestCAT Lynx, Amtrak

Thruway service, paratransit, and the proposed CHSR line. The combined cost of the TTC/DTX is 

estimated at $4.2 billion (YOE $); the first phase includes construction of the TTC, the second 

includes the extension of the rail line on the infrastructure that was readied in Phase I.109 As of 

2012, $2.2 billion in funding has been identified for Phases I and II.

110

• The ARTIC Intermodal Center in Anaheim is another Southern California project located in Orange 

County. Serving as a multimodal 

transit hub, the TOD site is poised to 

accommodate development of an HPR

station, implementation of the 

Anaheim Rapid Connection (providing 

a fixed-guideway transit connection to 

the resorts and convention center), 

and the planned California-Nevada 

Super-Speed Maglev train as well as 

hotel and office development 

adjacent to the station. Construction 

began in 2012 and is expected to be 

completed in 2014 (Figure 21).

3.6 Ports

All the ports in the SW Study Area are located within California. There are 12 ports in California, including five 

in the San Francisco Bay area. Ten of these ports are coastal, and the remaining two are located inland. The 

Port of West Sacramento is located 79 nautical miles up the Sacramento River and deep water channel from 

San Francisco Bay, and the Port of Stockton is located on the San Joaquin River 80 miles inland. Approximately 

45 percent of intermodal traffic entering or leaving the U.S. passes through California ports, principally the 

port complexes of Los Angeles/Long Beach in the Los Angeles area and Oakland in Northern California. When 

considering the container volume, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are the two busiest container ports 

in North America; on a global level, their combined container volume would rank sixth in the world.111 In terms 

of overall tonnage, the Port of Long Beach is the fifth largest in the country, with a cargo volume (2010) of over 

75 million tons; the Port of Los Angeles ranked ninth in the country with 62 million tons. Combined, this port 

complex ranks fourth in the country on a tonnage basis.

112

The top ten ports based on import/export value are shown in Figure 22. Together, the nine major coastal ports 

of California exchanged nearly 187 million tons of goods in 2010.

113 The recession hit the ports of California 

hard, causing a decrease in trade volume. Collectively, the California coastal ports have recovered to their 

2006 high, though among international ports, the rankings of the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles have 

slipped from 10th and 12th to 16th and 18th.

114

 108 www.Transbaycenter.org (last accessed 04 Aug 2012) 109 Transbaycenter.org (last accessed 04 Aug 2012) 110 Transbaycenter.org (last accessed 04 Aug 2012) 111 American Association of Port Authorities, World Port Rankings, 2010 112 American Association of Port Authorities, U.S. Port Rankings by Cargo Tonnage, 2010 113 American Association of Port Authorities, U.S. Port Rankings by Cargo Tonnage, 2010 114 American Association of Port Authorities, World Port Rankings, 2010

Figure 21 ARTIC Intermodal Center rendering

Source: ARTIC Image & Video Gallery, 

http://www.articinfo.com/Default.aspx (retrieved June 5, 2012)
Technical Background Report | 51

Figure 22 Top ten ports in the SW Study Area by import/export value

Source: Map prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff. Data obtained from U.S. Import and Export Merchandise Trade 

Statistics, U.S. Census Bureau Foreign Trade Division, 2011 and ESRI, 2012.
52| Technical Background Report

Expansion of the Panama Canal has potential to divert some traffic bound for the U.S. interior from West Coast 

to East Coast ports. This could relieve pressure on rail capacity as cargo volumes continue to recover or allow it 

to be managed by railroad pricing, but it is less likely to create underutilized capacity of the transcontinental 

freight rail lines.

One of the principal constraints at any port is the movement of goods on land to and from the piers. Major 

freight corridors extend by rail and road both east-west and north-south from California through the SW Study 

Area for the movement of both imports and exports serving local, regional, and national needs. The system of 

service is complex, involving interrelated distribution, staging, transfer, and consolidation facilities and 

interdependent movements by truck and rail. Port-based rail service can run from locations on or near the 

docks or further inland from points like San Bernardino. The capacity and reliability of this system is vital to the 

ports, their states, and the nation, but it is the product of many components. Its sensitivity is evidenced by the 

shift to East Coast ports that began in the middle of the last decade, when West Coast capacity questions and 

other risks became apparent to supply chain managers. Its importance to private railroads is evidenced by the 

ongoing and huge capital investments they have made, partly in response—one example of which is the 

double-tracking of the UP Sunset Corridor that parallels I-10.

Nevada does not currently have any inland ports, but the Inland Port Authority Act, which took effect July 1, 

2011, allowed for the creation of inland ports and authorities.115 The state is considering opening inland ports 

in Northern and Southern Nevada.116 There are no ports in Arizona. 

 115 Nevada Department of Transportation, Nevada State Rail Plan, March 2012, 

https://www.nevadadot.com/uploadedFiles/NDOT/About_NDOT/NDOT_Divisions/Planning/Rail/2012_09_10_NVStateRailPlan.pdf (last accessed 04 Aug 

2012)

116 Nevada Department of Transportation, Nevada State Rail Plan, March 2012, 

https://www.nevadadot.com/uploadedFiles/NDOT/About_NDOT/NDOT_Divisions/Planning/Rail/2012_09_10_NVStateRailPlan.pdf (last accessed 04 Aug 

2012)
Technical Background Report | 53

Chapter 4. Corridor Profiles

4.1 Corridor Identification Process

The identification of potential corridors for a long-term SW preliminary HPR vision was a multi-step process, 

informed by travel demand trends and economic activity (described in Chapter 2). The first stakeholder 

workshop, held in November 2011, began the process with the initial identification of potential HPR market 

connections. In addition to the initial corridors identified by the study stakeholders, promising corridors 

identified in other previous studies were also considered in the SW Study. Subsequently, a secondary 

stakeholder workshop in January 2012 focused on identifying the corridor alternatives to be tested with

CONNECT, the network planning tool developed for this project and described in more detail in Chapter 5. 

Initial results of the CONNECT corridor analyses were presented at the March workshop and the analyses were 

then refined based on one-on-one stakeholder discussions. In April 2012, the refined network analysis results 

were presented to the study stakeholders to inform a discussion on the SW HPR network performance and 

vision, leading to the final workshop in May. A schedule of stakeholder involvement milestones is illustrated in 

Figure 2.

4.2 Corridors Analyzed

Based on the corridor identification process described above, the following corridors were identified for 

analysis within the Southwest multi-state network: 

• San Diego–S.F./Oakland117

• Greater Los Angeles–Las Vegas

• Greater Los Angeles–Phoenix

• San Diego–Phoenix

• Las Vegas–Tucson via Phoenix

• S.F./Oakland–Reno

• Las Vegas–Salt Lake City

• Phoenix–Tucson

• Las Vegas–Reno

• Phoenix–Albuquerque

• Reno–Salt Lake City

Brief descriptions of each corridor are provided in this section, including growth trends and current 

infrastructure characteristics.

 117 This corridor is a subset of the larger CHSR project (i.e., this corridor does not include the Merced-Sacramento extension). For this reason and others, 

the numbers presented in this report are not directly comparable with CHSR plans.
54| Technical Background Report

4.2.1 San Diego–S.F./Oakland Corridor

The San Diego to S.F./Oakland Corridor (via Los Angeles) spans almost 575 miles and includes the intermediate 

MSAs of the Inland Empire, Greater Los Angeles, Bakersfield, Visalia, Fresno, Madera-Chowchilla, Merced, and 

San Jose.118 Some of its distinguishing characteristics include:

• Demographics—Population levels along the corridor are projected to grow in line with the national 

average of 43 percent between 2010 and 2050.119

• Mode share—Due to the long distances, air is currently the primary modal choice for end-to-end corridor 

travel.

120

• Capacity-constrained airports—San Diego International Airport (SAN), Long Beach Airport (LGB), John 

Wayne Airport (SNA), San Francisco International Airport (SFO), and Oakland International Airport (OAK) 

will all require additional capacity by 2025 after planned runway capacity improvements.121

• Annual trips—Annual trips within the San Diego-S.F./Oakland corridor are high and are projected to grow 

between 2010 and 2050 from 84 million to 119 million trips, respectively.122,123

• Existing rail service—Two of Amtrak’s current routes, Pacific Surfliner and San Joaquin, connect cities 

between these markets and are Amtrak’s second and fifth busiest routes in terms of 2011 ridership.124

The Coast Starlight operates long distance train service between Los Angeles and the Bay area. While 

there are currently multiple Amtrak services in California, there is no existing corridor passenger rail 

service connecting these Northern and Southern California markets with direct service. Scheduled Amtrak 

travel time from S.F./Oakland to San Diego (including connecting Amtrak Thruway service) is over 11

hours.

 118 The corridor length presented here is the straight-line distance between MSAs as 

estimated by CONNECT. The actual driving or rail distance would be higher. 119 2050 data extrapolated from 2040 population forecasts by 

Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., Washington, D.C., copyright 2010; 

2010 Population Data, US Census, 2010.

120 CONNECT Beta Version, 2012. 121 FAA Future Airport Capacity Task (FACT 2) Capacity Needs in the 

National Airspace System 2007-2025, May 2007. 122 CONNECT Beta Version, 2012. 123 The number of trips estimated here may differ from project-specific forecasts for this corridor. These figures only consider intercity trips longer than 

50 miles, do not include trips that have an origin or destination outside the corridor, only consider trips between MSAs, and are based on national-level 

data rather than data collected within the specific corridor.

124 Monthly Performance Report for September 2011, Amtrak, November 2011

Figure 23 San Diego–S.F./Oakland existing mode share and travel times
Technical Background Report | 55

Figure 24 San Diego–S.F./Oakland corridor characteristics

Corridor Summary

Corridor Length------------------------------------------573 miles

Major Highways ---------------------------I-5, I-10, I-15, CA-99

2010 (2050) Corridor Population ------------ 29 (41) million

2010 (2050) Corridor Annual Trips* ------ 84 (119) million

*Sums trips across all modes on all segments between San 

Diego and San Francisco/Oakland
56| Technical Background Report

4.2.2 Greater Los Angeles–Las Vegas Corridor

The Greater Los Angeles to Las Vegas Corridor spans almost 275 miles and includes the intermediate MSA of 

the Inland Empire.

125 Some of its distinguishing characteristics include:

• Demographics—Population levels along the corridor are projected to grow 47 percent between 2010 and 

2050, compared to a projected 43 percent growth for the entire U.S.

126

• Mode share—The primary modal choice along the corridor is the automobile, representing 73 percent of 

travel. Air travel also represents a sizeable share, 27 percent, of current (2010) travel.127

• Capacity-constrained airports—Long Beach Airport (LGB), John Wayne Airport (SNA), and McCarran 

International Airport (LAS) will require additional capacity in 2025 after planned runway capacity 

improvements.128 A new Metrolink station is in development, connecting an additional line to the Bob 

Hope Airport.129

• Annual trips—Annual trips within the Greater Los Angeles – Las Vegas corridor are projected to grow 

between 2010 and 2050 from 45 million to 60 million trips, respectively.130

• Existing rail service—Currently, no rail options exist between Greater Los Angeles and Las Vegas. The 

XpressWest project has federal authority granted by the Surface Transportation Board to construct and 

operate high-speed rail service from Victorville (part of the Inland Empire) to Las Vegas.

 125 The corridor length presented here is the straight-line distance between MSAs as 

estimated by CONNECT. The actual driving or rail distance would be higher. 126 2050 data extrapolated from 2040 population forecasts by 

Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., Washington, D.C., copyright 2010; 

2010 Population Data, US Census, 2010.

127 CONNECT Beta Version, 2012. 128 FAA Future Airport Capacity Task (FACT 2) Capacity Needs in the 

National Airspace System 2007-2025, May 2007. 129 The Burbank Leader, Grand opening held for new transportation center at Bob hope Airport, http://www.burbankleader.com/news/tn-gnp-grandopening-held-for-new-transportation-center-at-bob-hope-airport-20140627,0,4592612.story (last accessed 04 Aug 2014) 130 CONNECT Beta Version, 2012.

Figure 25 Greater Los Angeles–Las Vegas existing mode share and travel times
Technical Background Report | 57

Figure 26 Greater Los Angeles–Las Vegas corridor characteristics

Corridor Summary

Corridor Length------------------------------------------272 miles

Major Highways------------------------------------------I-10, I-15

2010 (2050) Corridor Population ------------ 19 (28) million

2010 (2050) Corridor Annual Trips* -------- 45 (60) million

*Sums trips across all modes on all segments between 

Greater Los Angeles and Las Vegas.
58| Technical Background Report

4.2.3 Greater Los Angeles–Phoenix Corridor

The Greater Los Angeles to Phoenix Corridor spans almost 400 miles and includes the intermediate MSA of the 

Inland Empire.

131 Some of its distinguishing characteristics include:

• Demographics—Population levels along the corridor are projected to grow 52 percent between 2010 and 

2050, compared to a projected 43 percent growth for the entire U.S.

132

• Mode share—Modal share on the corridor is roughly split between auto and air travel with auto mode 

share representing 51% and air mode share representing 48% of corridor travel.133

• Capacity-constrained airports—Long Beach Airport (LGB), John Wayne Airport (SNA), and Phoenix Sky 

Harbor International Airport (PHX) will all require additional capacity in 2025 after planned runway 

capacity improvements.134

• Annual trips—Annual trips within the Greater Los Angeles – Phoenix corridor are high, and are projected 

to grow between 2010 and 2050 from 38 million to 48 million trips, respectively.

135

• Existing Rail Service —Amtrak’s Sunset Limited operates three days per week in both directions between 

Maricopa and Tucson. Maricopa is located 35 miles south of Phoenix.

Figure 27 Greater Los Angeles-Phoenix existing modes share and travel times

 131 The corridor length presented here is the straight-line distance between MSAs as 

estimated by CONNECT. The actual driving or rail distance would be higher. 132 2050 data extrapolated from 2040 population forecasts by 

Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., Washington, D.C., copyright 2010; 

2010 Population Data, US Census, 2010.

133 CONNECT Beta Version, 2012. 134 FAA Future Airport Capacity Task (FACT 2) Capacity Needs in the 

National Airspace System 2007-2025, May 2007. 135 CONNECT Beta Version, 2012.
Technical Background Report | 59

Figure 28 Greater Los Angeles-Phoenix corridor characteristics

Corridor Summary

Corridor Length----------------------------------------- 398 miles

Major Highways ---------------------------------------------- I-10

2010 (2050) Corridor Population ------------21 (32) million

2010 (2050) Corridor Annual Trips* --------38 (48) million

*Sums trips across all modes on all segments between 

Greater Los Angeles and Phoenix
60| Technical Background Report

4.2.4 San Diego–Phoenix Corridor

The San Diego to Phoenix Corridor spans 440 miles and includes the intermediate MSA of the Inland Empire.

136

Some of its distinguishing characteristics include:

• Demographics—Population levels along the corridor are projected to grow dramatically by 84 percent 

between 2010 and 2050, significantly higher than the projected nationwide growth of 43 percent.137

• Mode share—Modal share for 2010 indicates air as the primary mode of travel, while auto mode share 

represents roughly 44% of corridor travel.138

• Capacity-constrained airports—San Diego International Airport (SAN), John Wayne Airport (SNA), and 

Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) will require additional capacity in 2025 after planned 

runway capacity improvements.139

• Annual trips—Annual trips within the San Diego – Phoenix corridor are projected to double between 

2010 and 2050 from 6 million to 12 million trips, respectively.140

• No existing rail service.

 136 The corridor length presented here is the straight-line distance between MSAs as 

estimated by CONNECT. The actual driving or rail distance would be higher. 137 2050 data extrapolated from 2040 population forecasts by 

Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., Washington, D.C., copyright 2010; 

2010 Population Data, US Census, 2010.

138 CONNECT Beta Version, 2012. 139 FAA Future Airport Capacity Task (FACT 2) Capacity Needs in the 

National Airspace System 2007-2025, May 2007. 140 CONNECT Beta Version, 2012.

Figure 29 San Diego–Phoenix existing mode share and travel times
Technical Background Report | 61

Corridor Summary

Corridor Length ----------------------------------------- 440 miles

Major Highways---------------------------------------I-5, I-8, I-10

2010 (2050) Corridor Population-------------12 (21) million

2010 (2050) Corridor Annual Trips*---------- 6 (12) million

*Sums trips across all modes on all segments between 

San Diego and Phoenix

Figure 30 San Diego–Phoenix corridor characteristics
62| Technical Background Report

4.2.5 Las Vegas–Tucson via Phoenix Corridor

The Las Vegas to Tucson Corridor spans 400 miles and includes the intermediate MSAs of Kingman and 

Phoenix.

141 Some of its distinguishing characteristics include:

• Demographics—Population levels along the corridor are projected to grow dramatically by 85 percent 

between 2010 and 2050, significantly higher than the projected nationwide growth of 43 percent.142

• Mode share—Auto is the primary modal choice for travel between Phoenix and Tucson, due to the 

relatively short distance between these markets. Mode share for travel between Las Vegas and Tucson 

and Las Vegas and Phoenix is roughly split between auto and air.

143

• Capacity-constrained airports—McCarran International Airport (LAS) and Phoenix Sky Harbor 

International Airport (PHX) will require additional capacity in 2025 after planned runway capacity 

improvements.144

• Annual trips—Annual trips within the Las Vegas – Tucson corridor are projected to more than double 

between 2010 and 2050 from 4 million to 11 million trips, respectively.145

 141 The corridor length presented here is the straight-line distance between MSAs as 

estimated by CONNECT. The actual driving or rail distance would be higher. 142 2050 data extrapolated from 2040 population forecasts by 

Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., Washington, D.C., copyright 2010; 

2010 Population Data, US Census, 2010.

143 CONNECT Beta Version, 2012. 144 FAA Future Airport Capacity Task (FACT 2) Capacity Needs in the 

National Airspace System 2007-2025, May 2007. 145 CONNECT Beta Version, 2012.

Figure 31 Las Vegas–Tucson via Phoenix existing mode share and travel times
Technical Background Report | 63

Figure 32 Las Vegas–Tucson via Phoenix corridor characteristics

Corridor Summary

Corridor Length------------------------------------------400 miles

Major Highways ---------------------------------------I-10, US-93

2010 (2050) Corridor Population --------------7 (14) million

2010 (2050) Corridor Annual Trips* ----------4 (11) million

*Sums trips across all modes on all segments between 

Las Vegas and Tucson via Phoenix
64| Technical Background Report

4.2.6 S.F./Oakland–Reno Corridor 

The S.F./Oakland to Reno Corridor spans 180 miles and includes the intermediate MSAs of Vallejo, 

Sacramento, and Truckee.146 Some of its distinguishing characteristics include:

• Demographics—Population levels along the corridor are projected to grow 46 percent between 2010 and 

2050, compared to a projected 43 percent growth for the entire U.S.

147

• Mode share—The automobile is the primary mode choice for travel between the markets along the 

corridor, attributable to the short distances between the market pairs. For travel between S.F./Oakland 

and Reno, air travel represents a sizeable 22 percent of mode share. Rail ridership is significant between 

S.F./Oakland and Sacramento, representing 13 percent of mode share.148

• Capacity-constrained airports—San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and Oakland International 

Airport (OAK) will require additional capacity in 2025 after planned runway capacity improvements.

149

• Annual trips—Annual trips within the S.F./Oakland – Reno corridor are projected to almost double 

between 2010 and 2050 from 8 million to 16 million trips, respectively.150

• Existing rail service—Amtrak’s Capitol Corridor, which already provides service between Oakland and 

Sacramento, is Amtrak’s third busiest route in terms of 2011 ridership.151 The California Zephyr also 

serves San Francisco and Reno running to and from Chicago daily.

 146 The corridor length presented here is the straight-line distance between MSAs as 

estimated by CONNECT. The actual driving or rail distance would be higher. 147 2050 data extrapolated from 2040 population forecasts by 

Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., Washington, D.C., copyright 2010; 

2010 Population Data, US Census, 2010.

148 CONNECT Beta Version, 2012. 149 FAA Future Airport Capacity Task (FACT 2) Capacity Needs in the 

National Airspace System 2007-2025, May 2007. 150 CONNECT Beta Version, 2012. 151 Monthly Performance Report for September 2011, Amtrak, November 2011.

Figure 33 S.F./Oakland–Reno existing mode share and travel times
Technical Background Report | 65

Corridor Summary

Corridor Length----------------------------------------- 180 miles

Major Highways ------------------------------------------------ I-80

2010 (2050) Corridor Population --------------7 (11) million

2010 (2050) Corridor Annual Trips* ----------8 (16) million

*Sums trips across all modes on all segments between 

San Francisco/Oakland and Reno

Figure 34 S.F./Oakland–Reno corridor characteristics
66| Technical Background Report

4.2.7 Las Vegas–Salt Lake City Corridor

The Las Vegas to Salt Lake City Corridor spans over 460 miles and includes the intermediate MSAs of Cedar City 

and Provo.

152 Some of its distinguishing characteristics include:

• Demographics—Population levels along the corridor are projected to grow dramatically at 84 percent 

between 2010 and 2050, significantly higher than the projected nationwide growth of 43 percent. Provo 

is projected to more than double its population from 2010 to 2050.153

• Mode share—Air is the primary modal choice, approaching almost 65 percent of the share, partly 

attributable to the long distance of the corridor.154

• Capacity-constrained airports—McCarran International Airport (LAS) will require additional capacity in 

2025 after planned runway capacity improvements.155

• Annual trips—Annual trips within the Las Vegas – Salt Lake City corridor are projected to more than 

double between 2010 and 2050 from 0.7 million to 2 million trips, respectively.156

• No existing rail service.

 152 The corridor length presented here is the straight-line distance between MSAs as 

estimated by CONNECT. The actual driving or rail distance would be higher. 153 2050 data extrapolated from 2040 population forecasts by 

Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., Washington, D.C., copyright 2010; 

2010 Population Data, US Census, 2010.

154 CONNECT Beta Version, 2012. 155 FAA Future Airport Capacity Task (FACT 2) Capacity Needs in the 

National Airspace System 2007-2025, May 2007. 156 CONNECT Beta Version, 2012.

Figure 35 Las Vegas–Salt Lake City existing mode share and travel times
Technical Background Report | 67

Corridor Summary

Corridor Length------------------------------------------463 miles

Major Highways ------------------------------------------------ I-15

2010 (2050) Corridor Population --------------- 4 (7) million

2010 (2050) Corridor Annual Trips* ---------0.7 (2) million

*Sums trips across all modes on all segments between Las 

Vegas and Salt Lake City

Figure 36 Las Vegas–Salt Lake City corridor characteristics
68| Technical Background Report

4.2.8 Phoenix–Tucson Corridor

The Phoenix to Tucson Corridor spans less than 100 miles and is the shortest corridor in the SW Study Area.

157

Some of its distinguishing characteristics include:

• Demographics—Population levels along the corridor are projected to grow dramatically by 86 percent 

between 2010 and 2050, significantly higher than the projected nationwide growth of 43 percent.158

Much of this growth is projected in Pinal County, located between Phoenix and Tucson.

• Mode share—The automobile is the primary mode of travel within the corridor, attributable to the short 

distance between the two markets. Negligible rail share is attributable to a lack of exisiting rail options.159

• Capacity-constrained airports—Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) will require additional 

capacity in 2025 after planned runway capacity improvements.160

• Annual trips—Annual trips within the Phoenix – Tucson corridor are projected to double between 2010 

and 2050 from two million to four million trips, respectively.161

• Existing Rail Service —Amtrak’s Sunset Limited operates three days per week in both directions between 

Maricopa and Tucson. Maricopa is located 35 miles south of Phoenix.

 157 The corridor length presented here is the straight-line distance between MSAs as 

estimated by CONNECT. The actual driving or rail distance would be higher. 158 2050 data extrapolated from 2040 population forecasts by 

Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., Washington, D.C., copyright 2010; 

2010 Population Data, US Census, 2010.

159 CONNECT Beta Version, 2012. 160 FAA Future Airport Capacity Task (FACT 2) Capacity Needs in the 

National Airspace System 2007-2025, May 2007. 161 CONNECT Beta Version, 2012.

Figure 37 Phoenix–Tucson existing mode share and travel times
Technical Background Report | 69

Figure 38 Phoenix–Tucson corridor characteristics

Corridor Summary

Corridor Length -------------------------------------------94 miles

Major Highways-------------------------------------------------I-10

2010 (2050) Corridor Population-------------- 5 (10) million

2010 (2050) Corridor Annual Trips* ------------2 (4) million

*Sums trips across all modes on all segments between 

Phoenix and Tucson
70| Technical Background Report

4.2.9 Las Vegas–Reno Corridor

The Las Vegas to Reno Corridor spans almost 390 miles and includes the intermediate MSA of Carson City.

162

Some of its distinguishing characteristics include:

• Demographics—Population levels along the corridor are projected to grow 79 percent between 2010 and 

2050, significantly higher than the projected nationwide growth of 43 percent.163

• Mode share—Air is the primary mode choice for travel along the corridor, at 85%, with auto travel 

representing 15% of corridor mode share.164

• Capacity-constrained airports—McCarran International Airport (LAS) will require additional capacity in 

2025 after planned runway capacity improvements.165

• Annual trips—Annual trips within the Las Vegas – Reno corridor are projected to see considerable growth 

between 2010 and 2050 from 0.5 million to 1 million trips, respectively.166

• No existing rail service.

 162The corridor length presented here is the straight-line distance between MSAs as 

estimated by CONNECT. The actual driving or rail distance would be higher. 163 2050 data extrapolated from 2040 population forecasts by 

Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., Washington, D.C., copyright 2010; 

2010 Population Data, US Census, 2010.

164 CONNECT Beta Version, 2012. 165 FAA Future Airport Capacity Task (FACT 2) Capacity Needs in the 

National Airspace System 2007-2025, May 2007. 166 CONNECT Beta Version, 2012.

Figure 39 Las Vegas–Reno existing mode share and travel times
Technical Background Report | 71

Figure 40 Las Vegas–Reno corridor characteristics

Corridor Summary

Corridor Length------------------------------------------387 miles

Major Highways--------------------------------------------- US-95

2010 (2050) Corridor Population --------------- 2 (4) million

2010 (2050) Corridor Annual Trips* ---------0.5 (1) million

*Sums trips across all modes on all segments between Las 

Vegas and Reno
72| Technical Background Report

4.2.10 Phoenix–Albuquerque Corridor

The Phoenix to Albuquerque Corridor spans 460 miles and includes the intermediate MSAs of Prescott, 

Flagstaff, Gallup, and Grants.

167 Some of its distinguishing characteristics include:

• Demographics—Population levels along the corridor are projected to grow dramatically by 87 percent 

between 2010 and 2050, significantly higher than the projected nationwide growth of 43 percent. Grants 

is expected to see its population grow nearly ten-fold from 27,000 in 2010 to over 200,000 in 2050.168

• Mode share—Air is the primary modal choice along the corridor, approaching almost 75 percent of the 

share, while auto represents just over 25% of mode share.169

• Capacity-constrained airports—Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) will require additional 

capacity in 2025 after planned runway capacity improvements.170

• Annual trips—Annual trips within the Phoenix – Albuquerque corridor are projected to grow significantly

between 2010 and 2050 from 1 million to 3 million trips, respectively.171

• No existing rail service.

 167 The corridor length presented here is the straight-line distance between MSAs as 

estimated by CONNECT. The actual driving or rail distance would be higher. 168 2050 data extrapolated from 2040 population forecasts by 

Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., Washington, D.C., copyright 2010; 

2010 Population Data, US Census, 2010.

169 CONNECT Beta Version, 2012. 170 FAA Future Airport Capacity Task (FACT 2) Capacity Needs in the 

National Airspace System 2007-2025, May 2007. 171 CONNECT Beta Version, 2012.

Figure 41 Phoenix–Albuquerque existing mode share and travel times
Technical Background Report | 73

Figure 42 Phoenix–Albuquerque corridor characteristics

Corridor Summary

Corridor Length------------------------------------------460 miles

Major Highways ------------------------------------------------ I-40

2010 (2050) Corridor Population --------------6 (10) million

2010 (2050) Corridor Annual Trips* ----------- 1 (3) million

*Sums trips across all modes on all segments between 

Phoenix and Albuquerque
74| Technical Background Report

4.2.11 Reno–Salt Lake City Corridor

The Reno to Salt Lake City Corridor spans almost 500 miles and includes the intermediate MSA of Elko.

172 Some 

of its distinguishing characteristics include:

• Demographics—Population levels along the corridor are projected to grow by 62 percent between 2010 

and 2050, compared to the projected nationwide growth of 43 percent.173

• Mode share—Air is currently the primary mode of travel (79 percent of mode share in 2010). Auto mode 

share is equal to 18 percent and rail mode share, with rail service available on the California Zephyr, only 

represents about three percent of the overall mode share.174

• Annual trips—Annual trips within the Reno – Salt Lake City corridor are projected to grow significantly 

between 2010 and 2050 from 0.1 million to 0.3 million trips, respectively.175

• Existing rail service—Amtrak’s California Zephyr, which provides service from Chicago to Emeryville with 

stops in Salt Lake City and Reno, is Amtrak’s sixth busiest national (long distance) route in terms of 2011 

ridership.176

 172The corridor length presented here is the straight-line distance between MSAs as 

estimated by CONNECT. The actual driving or rail distance would be higher. 173 2050 data extrapolated from 2040 population forecasts by 

Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., Washington, D.C., copyright 2010; 

2010 Population Data, US Census, 2010.

174 CONNECT Beta Version, 2012. 175 CONNECT Beta Version, 2012. 176 Monthly Performance Report for September 2011, Amtrak, November 2011.

Figure 43 Reno–Salt Lake City existing mode share and travel times
Technical Background Report | 75

Figure 44 Reno–Salt Lake City corridor characteristics

Corridor Summary

Corridor Length ----------------------------------------- 496 miles

Major Highways-------------------------------------------------I-80

2010 (2050) Corridor Population---------------- 2 (3) million

2010 (2050) Corridor Annual Trips*-------0.1 (0.3) million

*Sums trips across all modes on all segments between 

Reno and Salt Lake City 
76| Technical Background Report

Chapter 5. The Multi-State Preliminary Network Vision

The preliminary network vision for HPR in the Southwest was developed 

through a comprehensive stakeholder engagement process and a 

performance analysis informed by outputs from CONNECT. As discussed in 

Sections 1.5 and 4.1, FRA convened representatives from a diverse range 

of entities in the Southwest with an interest in HPR to develop the

preliminary vision. Over the course of multiple workshops, stakeholders collaborated to identify potential 

network connections through an analysis of the existing and forecast demographic trends and travel patterns, 

economic activity, and noted capacity constraints in the current and planned transportation network largely 

presented in Chapters 2 and 3 of this report. CONNECT facilitated the analysis of potential performance of 

candidate corridors and the potential network vision. This chapter provides an overview of CONNECT, the 

metrics considered in the analysis, and the final network vision that emerged from the analysis and 

stakeholder engagement process.

5.1 Analysis Methods and the Network Planning Tool

5.1.1 Introduction to the network planning tool

Developed as part of the FRA’s national planning effort, CONNECT is designed to help analyze the performance 

of HPR corridors in the context of an HPR network. Specifically, the outputs of the tool provide a comparison of 

the relative differences on ridership, revenue, and costs for various network configurations, allowing the user 

to assess the tradeoffs of higher or lower investment levels. The tool is intended for use at the very outset of 

the planning process before decisions on alignments, service plans, and exact station locations are made. In 

this way, the tool can be used to narrow down a wide range of potential network configurations to a smaller 

subset of configurations for more advanced stages of planning. As an early stage planning tool, CONNECT does 

not replace detailed corridor planning nor is it intended to provide results necessary for investment decisions.

Its usefulness is primarily in making high-level order-of-magnitude comparisons and in seeing the relative 

impact of broad scenarios.

CONNECT consists of several interrelated modules that build networks and service plans and estimate the 

ridership, revenue, capital, and operating and maintenance costs as well as the financial performance of the 

network. Figure 45 illustrates the tool’s structure. The travel demand, operating expenditure, capital 

expenditure, and financial performance modules are fully automated but rely upon certain assumptions and 

information provided on the network to be tested. Outputs generated by the tool include summary level 

statistics on capital costs, O&M costs, ridership, and revenue for the individual corridor and the full network.

The tool’s outputs also provide a series of charts developed from the summary level data that can be used for 

performance analysis and the evaluation of alternatives.

CONNECT is intended to be an intercity rail planning tool that estimates intercity ridership for markets 

separated by at least 50 miles.177 It does not attempt to capture commuter markets that may exist between 

neighboring MSAs, even if those MSAs are more than 50 miles apart. In markets less than 50 miles where 

ridership is not estimated, there is potential to utilize infrastructure to serve a primarily 

commuter/intraregional market. For markets in the 50- to 100-mile range, full potential of the rail market may 

be under-represented as the tool only estimates the intercity portion of the combined intercity and commuter 

markets. 

 177 CONNECT estimates distance between MSAs based on the straight line distance between primary rail stations in the largest city within each MSA. In 

MSAs where no major rail station exists, distance is measured from a central point within the central business district of the largest city within the MSA.
Technical Background Report | 77

Figure 45 CONNECT structure

5.1.2 CONNECT inputs

Two general sets of inputs are associated with CONNECT. The first is the assumed physical and operational 

characteristics for each corridor of the network. These characteristics include:

• Service tier assumed (Core Express, Regional, or Emerging/Feeder)

• Frequency of service

• Markets served

• Number of stations per segment

• Whether or not there are airport connections

• Percentage of existing versus new alignment

For corridor segments on new alignment, the general level of investment that can be expected in the corridor, 

ranging from low to high for rural and urban locations, must be assumed. For corridor segments on existing 

alignment, the defined freight density and existing track quality (Class 0 to 2, Class 3, or Class 4) inputs will 

drive the requirements for capacity and speed upgrades implied by the new service. 

Significant input from stakeholders was provided for this set of inputs including the assumed infrastructure, 

development types, and appropriate service tiers. These corridor-specific inputs used in the Southwest multistate network analysis are detailed for each corridor in Appendix F.178

The second set of inputs required to run CONNECT includes the other drivers of ridership and cost that are not 

unique to the specific corridors in the network, such as operational assumptions, unit costs, access times, and 

exogenous factors (e.g. auto congestion, value of time, and population growth projections). Values for these 

global network variables were developed for the SW HPR network analysis through research of domestic and 

international rail systems and with input from the stakeholders involved in the process. Table 10 provides an 

overview of the key input assumptions used in the development of the Southwest HPR network analysis. Refer 

to Appendix G for a comprehensive list of the global variables and values assumed for the network.

It should be noted that performance presented in this report is based on many assumptions, and the results 

implied by this set of assumptions used in this analysis only represent one potential scenario. Some project 

sponsors might decide to focus on maximizing financial performance, in which case they might make a 

different fare policy assumption and yield a higher operating recovery ratio, while others might choose fare 

 178 For a thorough discussion of all inputs and assumptions incorporated into the network planning tool, refer to the CONNECT User Manual.
78| Technical Background Report

policies that yield lower operating recovery ratios yet attract more riders and maximize public benefits. In 

addition, CONNECT’s cost estimates are only intended to represent a potential range. Other studies might 

validly take other factors into consideration and make different assumptions, yielding different estimates of 

costs, ridership, and financial performance.

Table 10 Key assumptions for the Southwest HPR network analysis

Train speeds CONNECT uses two inputs to derive average speeds between markets—Average 

Operating Speed and Station Penalty. For Emerging/Feeder, Regional, and Core 

Express, the Southwest network uses 60, 90, and 186 mph, respectively, for Average

Operating Speed. These average operating speeds do not indicate maximum authorized 

speeds, but rather speeds at the high end of the estimated operating speeds that 

account for curves and other speed restrictions. 

For the Station Penalty input, 5 minutes was used per station. The five minutes account 

for the additional time it takes on average to decelerate, stop at a station to load and 

unload passengers, and accelerate back to top speed above the time it would take to 

cover that same distance at top speed. These settings yield trip times between markets 

in the Southwest generally in line with those on existing California corridor service and 

the planned CHSR system.

Transfer times Two inputs are used to drive total transfer time for origin and destination pairs on the 

network that require a transfer—Transfer Time and Transfer Penalty. Transfer Time is 

the scheduled time it takes to transfer between trains. Transfer Penalty is an additional 

allowance above the transfer time added to the scheduled run time to account for the 

inconvenience and schedule uncertainty associated with transfers. For the Southwest 

network these are set at 15 and 30 minutes, respectively.

Auto travel times Estimated auto travel time has two components—Base Travel Time and Congested 

Travel Time. These two components are added together to yield a total auto travel time 

between any two MSAs on the network. The base travel time is 95 percent of the 

Google Maps travel time. For the base year, the congested travel time is 5 percent of 

the Google maps travel time plus five minutes per one million of population at each end 

of the trip up to a cap of 30 minutes per MSA. For future years, the base travel time is 

held constant; the congested travel time is grown at 2 percent per year.

Rail access and 

terminal times

Access times to rail stations, the time it takes on average to travel between an origin 

point within an MSA to a rail station, vary by size of metropolitan area with longer 

access times in larger MSAs. For the Southwest network, access times were set at 10 

minutes for MSAs with a population fewer than 1 million, 20 minutes for MSAs 1 million 

to 3 million, 30 minutes for MSAs 3 million to 6 million, and 40 minutes for MSAs with a 

population greater than 6 million. Rail terminal times, the time on average a passenger 

spends in the train station prior to boarding a train, was set at 25 minutes. For each 

origin and destination pair, an access time on each end of the trip and a single terminal 

time was added to the estimated run time of the train to arrive at total trip time.

Air access and 

terminal times

Access times to airports, the time it takes on average to travel between an origin point 

within an MSA to an airport, vary by size of metropolitan area, with longer access times 

in larger MSAs. Access times were set at 15 minutes for MSAs with population fewer 

than 1 million, 30 minutes for MSAs 1 million to 3 million, 45 minutes for MSAs 3 

million to 6 million, and 60 minutes for MSAs with population greater than 6 million. Air 

terminal times, the time on average a passenger spends in the airport prior to boarding 

a flight, was set at 75 minutes. For each origin and destination pair, access time on 

each end of the trip and a single terminal time was added to the in-flight time to arrive 

at total trip time.

Rail on-time 

performance

In accordance with published FRA goals, minimum on-time performance for the 

Southwest network was set at 85 percent for Emerging/Feeder, 95 percent for 

Regional, and 99 percent for Core Express.

Rail fare Rail fare assumptions are based on existing Amtrak business fares. Business Fares are 

a function of service tier and distance with Core Express fares based on existing Acela 

service, Regional fares based on existing Northeast Regional service, and Emerging 

fares based on existing state-supported and long distance service. Non-business fares 

were set at 65 percent of business fares.
Technical Background Report | 79

5.1.3 Performance metrics

The network planning tool provides an array of 

metrics that help to describe the performance of 

any particular corridor. The following five key 

performance metrics were considered in the SW 

Study decision making process:

• Ridership 

• O&M recovery ratio

• Initial capital investment

• O&M profit/(subsidy)

• Rail share of total intercity travel market

The SW Study corridor performance analysis did not define discrete thresholds for each of the key 

performance metrics. Instead, it is acknowledged that the stakeholders must decide what is most appropriate 

in their region, taking into consideration the costs and benefits of other available alternatives for providing 

intercity passenger transportation. In addition, full benefit-cost analysis relies on more detailed modeling and 

data than is available at this early stage of planning. As a result, it is not a primary performance metric 

recommended for high-level network analysis.

For the purposes of assisting the stakeholders in defining the appropriate service goals for corridors in the 

network, a set of four criteria were used to help classify the performance of a corridor.

CONNECT only considers intercity markets and 

passenger rail corridors. The potential utility of all 

of these corridors is enhanced by integrated 

commuter and intercity rail services. Additionally, 

connections to other modes, e.g., transit, walking,

and biking can have positive effects on rail 

ridership. 

The first criterion, stand-alone performance, 

evaluates the performance of the corridor without 

consideration of other service on the network. In 

general, corridors with an operating recovery ratio 

greater than 1.0 were ranked top performing 

stand-alone corridors, corridors with operating 

recovery ratios between 0.5 and 1.0 were ranked 

strong performing stand-alone corridors, and 

corridors with operating recovery ratios well below 0.5 were ranked low performing corridors. The specific 

breakpoints between performance categories are open to revision in the context of future planning efforts.

The second criterion, network performance, evaluates the performance of the corridor within the context of 

the entire network. Corridors were ranked as either top performing corridors in the network context, showing 

improved performance in the network context, or showing little to no performance improvement in the 

network context. 

To further distinguish performance levels on the corridor, the third criterion, enabling corridor, identifies the 

extent to which each corridor enhances the performance of other corridors or the network as a whole. 

RECOVERY RATIO

Recovery Ratio is the fraction of expenses met by revenues. The 

O&M Recovery Ratio and Total Cost Recovery Ratio performance 

metrics are calculated as follows:

O&M Recovery Ratio = Annual Fare Revenue

Annual O&M Cost

CORRIDOR PERFORMANCE 

ANALYSIS CRITERIA

Stand-alone performance—Performance of the corridor without 

consideration of other service in the network

Network performance—Performance of the corridor considering 

other service in the network

Enabling corridor—Extent to which the corridor enables 

improved performance on other corridors*

Dependent corridor—Extent to which the corridor is dependent 

on other corridors for improved performance
80| Technical Background Report

Corridors were ranked from best to worst in enabling significant improvement in the performance of other 

corridors, enabling some improvement in the performance of other corridors, or not enabling performance 

improvements in other corridors.

The fourth criterion, dependent corridor, identifies the extent to which a corridor relies on other corridors for 

improved performance. Corridors were assigned a three-tier rank of not dependent, somewhat dependent, or 

very dependent on other corridors for improved performance. 

5.2 Preliminary Multi-State Network

This section describes the resulting long-term preliminary vision for a multi-state HPR network of corridors 

identified by the Southwest stakeholders. The stakeholders identified the long-term preliminary vision based 

on the conceptual performance estimated by CONNECT for the year 2050. It also provides a summary of 

potential network-level performance for the year 2050. The three rail service tiers of Core Express, Regional, 

and Emerging/Feeder Corridors (Table 1) reflect the long-term HPR overarching network and the varying 

stages of progression that could be expected for HPR corridors across the country. 

Each of the individual corridors introduced in Chapter 4 have distinguishing characteristics associated with 

their advancement as part of a multi-state network, and the needs, attributes, opportunities, and challenges of 

each played a part in the development of the long-term preliminary vision for HPR in the Southwest. The

development of the preliminary vision for the multi-state rail network also takes into account the performance 

analysis informed by outputs from CONNECT. CONNECT considered both the stand-alone investment of an 

individual corridor as well as the performance of the full series of corridors and resulting benefits from linkages 

across multiple states. 

5.2.1 Identification of corridor type/service tier

The result of this network planning analysis is the stakeholders’ identification of candidate corridors that might 

be included in a Southwest HPR network vision. All 11 of these corridors and their potential long-term planning 

service tiers are listed below and shown in Figure 46:

• Potential Core Express candidate corridors 

 San Diego–S.F./Oakland

 Greater Los Angeles–Las Vegas

 Las Vegas–Salt Lake City

 Las Vegas–Reno

 Las Vegas–Tucson via Phoenix

 Greater Los Angeles–Phoenix

 San Diego–Phoenix

• Potential Regional candidate corridors

 S.F./Oakland–Reno

 Phoenix–Tucson

• Potential Emerging/Feeder candidate 

corridors

 Phoenix–Albuquerque

 Reno–Salt Lake City
Technical Background Report | 81

Figure 46 Candidate corridors for potential SW HPR network*

Source: CONNECT Beta Version, 2012

*Figure identifies desired connections between metropolitan areas. It does not identify alignment or station locations

and does not preclude multiple alignments within a corridor segment.

The solid red line represents Core Express service in the CHSR network and the key connections from Southern 

California to Las Vegas and Phoenix. The S.F./Oakland to Reno corridor in blue is shown as Regional service, 

representing an upgrade and extension of the Capitol Corridor as well as plans for the existing Pacific Surfliner 

corridor. The corridors shown with a dashed red line represent corridors that might be considered for Core 

Express service over the long-term once the core network was developed.

Several corridors are depicted as Regional with a red dashed line, indicating that these might start as regional 

corridors and could potentially grow into Core Express based on other investments in the network. 

Alternatively, these could exist as hybrid corridors with Core Express equipment operating through service at 

reduced speeds mixed with commuter or traditional intercity service (some might classify this approach as 

‘blended service’). Emerging/Feeder services are shown in purple.

One of the key metrics estimated by CONNECT is the operating recovery ratio. This metric is calculated for 

each corridor in isolation, with no connections to other corridors on the network (defined as the “stand-alone” 

context), as well as in the network context. The network context accounts for connections to other corridors as 
82| Technical Background Report

well as potential shared infrastructure with overlapping services. While operating recovery ratio is certainly 

not the only metric to be considered when judging the value of a corridor, and there are numerous other 

metrics coming out of CONNECT that help evaluate the performance and value of any particular corridor, it can 

be used to help compare the relative performance of the corridors. 

Table 11 shows the operating performance level as a stand-alone corridor and as part of a network. A green 

dot indicates an operating recovery ratio of greater than 2; a yellow dot indicates an operating recovery ratio 

greater than 1 but less than 2; and a gray dot indicates an operating recovery ratio of less than 1. For all the 

key metrics, CONNECT calculates low, medium, and high values. For the sake of simplicity, the values 

presented here represent the medium values in this range. These values represent scenarios tested with 

CONNECT based on stakeholder input and generalized estimates of unit costs and construction methods. 

These results do not reflect detailed planning or cost estimating based on specific rights of way, alignment, 

station, technology, or phasing decisions; rather, they are conceptual in nature and are most useful for 

identifying whether additional study of a corridor may be warranted, the relative impacts of alternatives, and 

the relative importance of the network context. Different policy assumptions would yield different results.

As stand-alone corridors, only the San Diego to San Francisco, Las Vegas to Los Angeles, Los Angeles to 

Phoenix, and San Diego to Phoenix corridors had operating recovery ratios greater than one with the 

assumptions used in this analysis. In the network context, however, nearly every corridor in the network 

showed potential for the ticket revenue to exceed operating costs; however the private sector could have a 

role in the development of a HPR system. From a multi-state planning perspective, it should be noted that 

eight of these 11 corridors are interstate markets.

Table 11 Operating recovery ratio performance

Stand-alone1 Network1

Multi-state 

Corridor

San Diego–San Francisco (C.E.)

Las Vegas–Los Angeles (C.E.) 

Los Angeles–Phoenix (C.E.) 

San Diego–Phoenix (C.E.) 

Las Vegas–Phoenix–Tucson (C.E.) 

San Francisco–Reno (Regional) 

Las Vegas–Salt Lake City (C.E.) 

Phoenix–Tucson (Regional)

Las Vegas–Reno (C.E.)

Phoenix–Albuquerque 

(Emerging/Feeder)



Reno–Salt Lake City 

(Emerging/Feeder)



1

Operating recovery ratio: X = <1; 1 < X < 2; X > 2;

It is not suggested that operating recovery ratio is the only metric that should be considered when judging the 

value of a corridor. Rather, there are many benefits that may accrue to the larger network and to the public 

that this single metric does not account for. For example, while existing services that have O&M recovery 

ratios greater than 1.0, such as Amtrak’s Acela, are considered successful by many, there are other corridors 

with recovery ratios in the 0.35 to 0.45 range that many consider fill a critical need in the transportation 
Technical Background Report | 83

network, such as the Pacific Surfliner, Capitol Corridor, and San Joaquin in California.179 These corridors can 

also generate positive externalities, such as congestion relief, environmental benefits, safety benefits, etc. The 

operating recovery ratios also reflect many states choosing to pursue ticket pricing policies that place more 

emphasis on generating public benefits and ridership than maximizing operating recovery ratios. For this 

reason, it is important to consider alternative policy assumptions, other performance metrics, the local 

context, and the availability of other intercity travel alternatives when assessing the value of investing in 

passenger rail to serve a corridor. 

5.2.2 Benefits of connectivity

The impacts of connectivity can also be assessed on a network-wide basis. Figure 47 compares the

performance of all 11 corridors as stand-alone corridors and as a full network.

180 It shows that the connectivity 

associated with the full network yields higher ridership and revenues and with lower capital and O&M costs.

These network benefits are a result of two primary factors. First, by allowing transfers between the corridors 

the number of market pairs connected by the rail network increases substantially. Allowing a single transfer 

between corridors more than doubles the market pairs served by the rail network.181 This increases the 

ridership and revenue on every corridor in the network. For the full network, these connections increase

ridership by 30 to 38 percent and revenue by 42-55 percent.

The other primary factor driving the benefits of connectivity is the more efficient use of infrastructure. 

Multiple services on the network are able to take advantage of shared stations and track segments increasing 

the infrastructure utilization and driving down costs.

Additional benefits of connectivity through the region are demonstrated from the efficiencies of multi-state 

rail network performance, presented as key findings in Section 5.3.1.

Figure 47 Southwest network results: benefits of connectivity

 179 The O&M recovery ratio performance as described in this report is defined as the net ticket revenues divided by the sum of direct and shared O&M 

costs (excluding OPEBs, capital charges, and other costs as defined by Amtrak). This approach differs from the performance reported by Amtrak. 180 The role of long-distance Amtrak service has not been considered in this analysis. 181It is important to note that the number of unique markets served, representing number of origin and destination pairs, also more than doubles with 

the full network. With no transfers between corridors, 87 unique markets are served by this collection of corridors. In contrast, when the corridors are 

connected, and one transfer is allowed, the number of markets served increases to 197. Because CONNECT currently only allows for one transfer, this 

scenario likely understates the actual number of markets served and underscores the importance of accounting for network impacts from the very 

outset of the planning process.
84| Technical Background Report

5.3 Preliminary Multi-State Network Performance

5.3.1 Key findings

The CONNECT tool clearly illustrates the benefits and 

efficiencies of network connectivity. More specific findings 

from the analysis include identification of key market 

connections, strengths of alternative configurations, and 

potential to alleviate future demand on the regional aviation 

and highway system.

More specifically, the key findings are as follows:

182

• Finding #1—The Southwest network would provide 

rail access183 to more than 92 percent of all 

Californians, Nevadans, and Arizonans. Existing

long-distance trains provide service to additional 

markets.

• Finding #2—Connections to Los Angeles enable 

significantly improved performance for many 

corridors. The Southwest network would allow 

more than 85 percent of Californians, Nevadans, 

and Arizonans to reach Los Angeles in less than 

four hours on rail.

• Finding #3—More than 60 percent of the travel 

markets within 800 miles would use CHSR or Los 

Angeles–Las Vegas infrastructure.

• Finding #4—The performance of every corridor 

included in the Southwest network improves in 

the network context.184

• Finding #5—The Southwest network is far greater 

than the sum of its parts. Connections open up 

new markets, resulting in up to 50 percent higher 

network ridership. Efficiencies also lead to capital 

and O&M cost savings.

• Finding #6—The Inland Empire is potentially a large 

interstate rail hub, connecting the major markets

of Phoenix, Las Vegas, San Diego, Los Angeles, the 

Central Valley, and Northern California.

• Finding #7—There is a strong case to connect 

Phoenix with Los Angeles and San Diego via the 

Inland Empire. There are economies of scale to be 

 182 The role of long-distance Amtrak service has not been considered in this analysis. 183 Rail access is defined as people living within an MSA with at least one station stop. 184 This statement does not imply every potential corridor would always improve in the network context, but rather that the performance improved for 

each of the SW corridors tested. 
Technical Background Report | 85

gained by a unified connection between Phoenix and these two major markets in Southern 

California.

• Finding #8—The case for the San Diego–Inland Empire segment is considerably strengthened in the 

context of the multi-state network. Planning for this segment should account for future service to 

Las Vegas and Phoenix in addition to California destinations. Connections to Las Vegas may also 

provide the opportunity for direct service to Las Vegas and Northern California without the added 

distance of traveling through downtown Los Angeles.

• Finding #9—Most of the Phoenix–Las Vegas market could be captured with air competitive travel 

time (3 1⁄2 hours on Core Express) and more frequent service on a route through the Inland Empire.

• Finding #10—Las Vegas–Reno and Las Vegas–Salt Lake City have potential to develop into Core 

Express corridors after other key parts of the Southwest network are in place. A direct Core 

Express link between Las Vegas–Phoenix might also be considered in the future if there is a 

compelling capacity or market justification in the context of the full Southwest network.

• Finding #11—The SW network could alleviate future demand for the air system by 2050, equivalent 

to the amount of traffic currently served by two LAX airports, 10 John Wayne airports, or 20 

Ontario airports.185

• Finding #12—While demand for the air system is expected to grow 74 percent by 2050 even with the 

SW HPR network, future air demand is estimated to grow 111 percent by 2050 without the SW 

HPR network.186

• Finding #13—The SW network could alleviate demand for the highway system, avoiding up to 6 

billion vehicle miles traveled per year by 2050. This amount of traffic, spread across the Southwest, 

might equate to two lanes on I-5 from Los Angeles to San Francisco.187

 185 Based on CONNECT Beta estimate that 38 to 48 million passengers per year would choose rail instead of air in 2050 if the rail network were 

implemented, equating to approximately 1,200 flights/day assuming 100 passengers/fight. 186 Based on analysis of current and future demand for the total number of departures at the largest 15 airports in the Southwest (LAX, PHX, LAS, SFO, 

SLC, SAN, OAK, SMF, SNA, SJC, ONT, BUR, RNO, TUS, LGB). 187 Based on CONNECT Beta estimate that 29 to 33 million auto passengers per year would choose rail instead of auto in 2050 if the rail network were 

implemented. Assumes average vehicle occupancy of 1.25 for auto passengers diverted to rail, a 10% peak hour factor, and 2,400 vehicles per hour per 

lane. This estimate should not be compared to project-specific estimates of highway congestion relief. The figures presented here only consider intercity 

trips longer than 50 miles that are between MSAs on the HPR network, and the methodology used here for estimating highway demand relief here is 

based on crude sketch-planning factors rather than corridor-specific analysis.
86| Technical Background Report

Chapter 6. Governance

Institutional constraints—often more than technical issues—are frequently a major impediment to the 

implementation of transportation projects. Rail projects in particular are complicated by the unique mix of 

private and public owners and operators of infrastructure and rolling stock and the legacy of federal law. For 

the SW Study Area, the need to identify a mechanism for coordinating across state lines adds complexity to an 

already challenging concept. This chapter summarizes the study approach to working through the governance 

and institutional issues, input received from stakeholders, alternative governance models considered for the 

Southwest, and governance findings and recommendations.

6.1 Study Approach to Governance and Institutional Considerations

The objective of the governance and institutional portion of the Study was to identify the key issues and 

potential governance structures needed for advancing a broad, multi-state vision and ensuring the success of 

HPR projects that cross state lines. These objectives reflect two foundational principles: (1) no single, perfect 

governance model exists and (2) it is not critical to settle every detail regarding future stages of vision 

development at this early stage of planning, but rather to lay out a flexible framework for making these 

decisions as projects are further developed.

The study process engaged stakeholders in a series of governance-related roundtable exercises and large 

group discussions (Section 1.5). A summary of the process is shown on Figure 48.

Figure 48 Governance process

Develop recommendations for addressing 

longer-term governance and institutional issues

Identify actions to improve coordination in the 

short term

Select governance 

model(s) appropriate for advancing 

regional vision

Select model(s) 

appropriate for

advancing development of corridors

Identify and evaluate alternative governance 

model options—consider which are most 

appropriate for addressing challenges and 

opportunities for multi-state coordination

Identify challenges to multi-state coordination

Identify the need for multi-state coordination
Technical Background Report | 87

6.2 Areas of Need for Multi-State Coordination

Stakeholders identified several areas of need for multi-state coordination in HPR planning and development. 

These areas address a range of financial, legal, business, project development, and operational issues. Multistate coordination is necessary in these areas because without it there are likely to be sub-optimal outcomes in 

customer service, the seamlessness of the system, or the efficient use of scarce financial resources. The areas 

collectively represent the need for stakeholders to establish a multi-state governance framework. 

The areas identified by stakeholders were categorized into three stages of transportation project 

development: planning, design and construction, and operations. Those areas that cross multiple stages of 

project development were organized into a fourth, multi-phase, category. Figure 49 shows the areas where 

stakeholders identified a compelling need for multi-state coordination.

Figure 49 Needs for multi-state coordination

6.3 Challenges to Multi-State Coordination

Stakeholders also considered challenges to coordinating across the network or on an individual corridor that 

crosses state lines. Identified challenges covered eight categories: funding, travel, regulatory/legal requirements, developing buy-in to the common vision, different goals, role of cities in the decision-making process, 

overlap in responsibility among different agencies, and powers of stakeholders:

• Funding—Study stakeholders cited funding issues as the primary impediment to coordinating across 

state lines. Specific concerns included cost sharing and individual state restrictions on spending 

money in other states. In addition, the role of the federal government in providing HPR funding 

was also raised, in particular the potential for a dedicated, long-term funding source.

• Travel—Stakeholders noted that out-of-state agency travel and budget restrictions make it difficult 

to work with other states.

• Regulatory/legal requirements—The stakeholders acknowledged that each state is subject to 

distinct, and sometimes conflicting, regulatory and legal requirements that could present a 

Planning

Multi-State Vision

Data for Project 

Evaluation

Grant Applications

Operating Standards

Safety Standards

Design and 

Construction

Interoperability standards

Operations

Marketing and customer 

service

Service standards

Cost and revenue sharing

Multi-phase

Ownership

Knowledge sharing
88| Technical Background Report

challenge to multi-state transportation project planning and implementation. Examples of where 

requirements might differ include procurement, contracting, permitted uses for state funds, 

jurisdiction, and environmental reviews and permitting. Stakeholders discussed the need to 

address differing legal requirements and seek regulatory consistency in areas most critical for 

delivering projects.

• Developing buy-in to common vision that lasts—Stakeholders asserted that building and sustaining 

support for a common vision across the study area states is critical. Stakeholders acknowledged 

the need to garner support from elected officials and find champions who will buy into the vision 

and support it for the entire life of the project. They also cited the need for a strong public 

outreach program to build the initial vision. 

• Different goals—Stakeholders identified sometimes conflicting goals between the private railroads 

and states as another challenge. States noted that improving existing rail facilities to support 

passenger rail service can also enhance freight services, while freight railroads noted they must 

preserve capacity to accommodate their future long-term growth. Finding synergies and 

opportunities for win-wins could help to facilitate shared use of freight right-of-way for long-term 

passenger rail initiatives.

• Role of cities in decision-making process—Stakeholders noted the importance of including cities in 

the decision-making process but also noted the challenge of balancing local politics in a multi-state 

context. If cities are involved appropriately early in the planning process, and their issues are 

addressed, then subsequent phases of project design and construction may proceed more 

successfully. Stakeholders agreed that implementing a vision will require local political support, 

but determining the appropriate timing and role is critical for ensuring that multi-state projects 

reflect a constructive and balanced level of local political concerns. 

• Overlap in responsibilities among different agencies—Stakeholders noted that several agencies 

have overlapping responsibilities in the region, and that new entities are often created to respond 

to local needs rather than addressing the needs within existing frameworks. As a result, 

stakeholders noted that it can be difficult to determine which agencies to consult during visioning 

and project development and also noted the importance of creating multi-state frameworks that 

limit the potential for establishing entities with duplicative responsibilities. 

• Powers of stakeholders—Stakeholders noted that identifying decision-makers and allocating 

authority among them in a multi-state context is a key challenge to multi-state coordination. 

Specific roles and responsibilities to be considered include adopting a vision for the plan, setting 

policy direction, engaging local levels of government, finding champions, and creating 

partnerships/coalitions for advancing projects. At a fundamental level, answering questions of 

“who to work with” and “who has authority” within the states often must be addressed before 

stakeholders can begin to consider “who is in charge” for a multi-state effort. 

6.4 Alternative Governance Structures Considered

Stakeholders considered seven alternative governance models to address the needs for multi-state 

coordination. This section presents a brief description of each model and then notes potential roles for some 

of the models in multi-state HPR network and corridor governance in the Southwest. 
Technical Background Report | 89

6.4.1 Description of governance 

structures

The general types of governance models 

considered by the stakeholders are described 

below. Additional detail on each model, as well as 

the referenced example entities, is provided in 

Appendix I.

• Single state agency contracting with and 

on behalf of other states—This 

governance model features an existing 

or newly created state agency that

addresses multi-state interests through 

agreements with the other state(s).

Powers can vary depending on the type 

of entity established (i.e., authority, 

agency, corporation) and the degree to 

which other states can enter into 

contracts. Oversight generally includes 

multi-state participation, but ultimate 

accountability rests with the single 

state agency. Examples include MTA 

Metro-North Services in Connecticut 

and New Jersey Transit, the New 

Woodrow Wilson Bridge construction

approach, and the Northern New 

England Passenger Rail Authority.

• Voluntary coalition/partnership—Under this model, stakeholders convene in a forum for a common 

interest on a voluntary basis. A voluntary coalition can be established without any formal 

agreement or mechanism, but in some instances may use a multi-state agreement. The voluntary 

coalition generally makes decisions based on consensus of member agency representatives with 

rotating leadership and generally does not possess legal powers. This entity can also work with or 

through a non-profit corporation that is often tax-exempt and eligible to receive government funds 

and private contributions. Examples include the Midwest High Speed Rail Steering Group, the NEC 

Master Plan Working Group, the I-95 Corridor Coalition, and the Coalition of Northeastern 

Governors (CONEG).

• Special authority—A special authority is an independent entity, often a distinct governmental body,

that delivers a limited number of public services within defined boundaries and can exercise a 

broad range of typical governmental powers. Following limits set in state legislation or an 

interstate compact, some can also exercise specified fiscal powers, such as issuance of bonds, 

imposition of special taxes, levying benefit assessments, and charging service fees. Special 

authorities are often governed by a board of directors appointed by elected officials. Examples of 

special authorities include the Louisville and Southern Indiana Bridges Authority (and Bi-State 

Management Team), the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the Transbay Joint Powers 

Authority, and the California High-Speed Rail Authority.

Lessons Learned from Other Regions:

The Northeast Corridor (NEC)

• There is merit in establishing a working group to advance 

rail planning at a regional level. A working group developed 

the NEC Infrastructure Master Plan, which—for the first 

time—identified a comprehensive set of needs from all 

states and Amtrak in a single, unified plan for the corridor.

• There is a need for a more formal governance model—

beyond a voluntary partnership/coalition—to address the 

most challenging multi-state issues, such as cost allocation. 

PRIIA created the NEC Infrastructure and Operations 

Advisory Commission and made it responsible for 

facilitating cooperation and planning amongst states as 

well as establishing a standardized cost allocation method 

for the corridor. 

The Midwest

• Input from both elected officials and technical staff is 

needed to gain buy-in for a single vision of the network.

• Midwest stakeholders believe there is a need for a formal 

governance mechanism to ensure continuity and 

compliance with the single, unified vision of the network.

• With the lack of a formal governance mechanism in the 

Midwest, each state tends to focus on investments that 

primarily benefit the home state; corridors with benefits 

more broadly dispersed have been slower to develop. 
90| Technical Background Report

• For-profit corporation—In this model, a privately held company develops infrastructure or operates 

services on a for-profit, limited liability basis. The corporation is formed and managed by for-profit 

investors and is generally only limited by contracts, laws, and regulations. The corporation may be 

a recipient of a franchise or concession from government to allow it to operate under certain 

constraints. This entity is generally governed through a board of directors that represents 

shareholders and is accountable for proper oversight and compliance with laws and regulations.

Examples of for-profit corporations in transportation include London-Paris-Brussels High Speed 

Rail Network (Eurostar and Eurotunnel) and DesertXpress.

• Federally chartered corporation—A federally charted corporation is a corporation established by 

Congress to provide a public service. These entities are similar to for-profit corporations and their 

missions and constraints are specified in federal legislation. Federally chartered corporations are 

generally established with federal subsidies at the outset but are often intended to become 

financially self-sustaining over time. They are typically governed through a federally structured 

board of directors whose members are often appointed by the President. Oversight is provided by 

Congress with limited opportunity for state participation. Examples include the Tennessee Valley 

Authority, Amtrak, the U.S. Railway Association (1973-1982), and Conrail (1976-1987).

• Federal-state commission—A federal-state commission is a body of federal, state, and, sometimes, 

local leaders organized to address a critical need, which often includes the distribution of federal 

funds among multiple states or coordination of multi-state investments. They are generally 

authorized through federal legislation and can carry a broad range of governmental powers. The 

commission can often issue funds in the form of grants to participating states. The commission is 

the governing body, with members appointed by state governors and at least one member 

appointed by the President. Oversight is provided by Congress, and the entity is often structured 

with veto power for the federal member. Examples include the Appalachian Regional Commission 

and the Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Operations and Advisory Commission.

• Federal government project office—A federal government project office is created within an 

existing federal agency to carry out a specific purpose. Authorized through federal legislation, this 

entity generally has a limited range of powers related to the purpose the office was established to 

address and within the scope of the federal agency’s powers. It can be governed by the federal 

agency in which the entity is housed; if the office is designed to support a federal/state/local 

partnership, decision-making might also include state and local stakeholders. Oversight is provided 

by Congress within the context of overall agency oversight. An example is the Chesapeake Bay 

Program Office within the Environmental Protection Agency.

6.4.2 Potential models for the Southwest

While some governance models are more appropriate than others for different purposes, stakeholders found 

that there could be a role in the Southwest for all of the governance models considered. Below are some of 

the reasons why the stakeholders thought different models might be a good choice for different 

circumstances. In addition to the options below, stakeholders also noted that hybrids might also be used for 

governance of network- and corridor-level efforts.

Voluntary coalition/partnership

A key advantage of this model, relative to the other governance structures considered, is that it is easy to 

create. It can be established without any formal agreement mechanism and thus more easily engages a broad 

range of stakeholders, including local entities that may not be represented in other decision-making bodies. 

The model might also serve as a stepping point for establishing a model with more formal powers. It is a 
Technical Background Report | 91

structure that is relatively common in the Southwest and has demonstrated success as a cross-state model for 

transportation planning. A noteworthy example is the I-15 Mobility Alliance, a voluntary partnership led by the 

leadership of Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah Departments of Transportation to provide direction for the 

I-15 Corridor System Master Plan and lead implementation of the corridor planning efforts.

Stakeholders determined that this highly flexible governance structure might be appropriate for addressing the 

needs for multi-state coordination identified during planning, as shown in Figure 49. It was deemed generally 

not the most appropriate governance model for subsequent phases of project development (design, 

construction, and operations) because its effectiveness is generally limited to planning and policy issues that 

can reach consensus. In addition, the absence of a formal agreement makes it difficult to ensure plans or 

policies are enacted, and it also has relatively limited leverage with state and federal decision-makers. 

Stakeholders noted that this model can be appropriate for network planning as well as corridor planning. 

Special authority

One of the most attractive attributes of special authorities is that they can have a clearly defined purpose, 

designed to address a common interest among different stakeholders. Depending on what authorities are 

granted in their charter, they can also have decision-making authority, the ability to implement projects, and 

the responsibility for operating services. This model has been applied within single states in the Southwest, 

particularly in California with examples such as the Transbay Joint Powers Authority and the California HighSpeed Rail Authority in California. No bi-state special authorities exist in the Southwest today for addressing 

transportation corridors, but the stakeholders identified special authorities as a governance model that may be 

needed and might be effective for advancing a multi-state corridor project through planning and the project 

development process.

Although they have some attractive elements, multi-state special authorities are challenging to establish; 

legislation in each state and an interstate compact would likely be needed. In addition, this model can be 

viewed as too autonomous with insufficient accountability to stakeholders. Stakeholders noted this model 

should be particularly applicable to network planning or planning and operating a multi-state corridor. 

Federal-state commission

Due in part to the unique role of the federal government in the Southwest, stakeholders identified federal 

involvement as a desirable characteristic of governance models in the Southwest. A federal-state commission 

is one model that could facilitate this involvement, and it could be one of the more effective models for 

performing multi-state network planning. Other benefits of this model are that it might help the Southwest 

develop a stronger partnership with the federal government. Federal-state commissions can also be easier to 

establish than special authorities; while they still require federal legislation, they do not necessarily require the 

extra step of an interstate compact. 

While this model has demonstrated success in other regions of the U.S., such as in Appalachia, there are no 

examples of federal-state commissions being used for similar purposes yet in the Southwest. While an 

attractive aspect of federal-state commissions is that they enhance the chances of receiving federal financial 

support for multi-state planning and coordination efforts, federal funding traditionally relies on the annual 

appropriations process and is therefore not guaranteed.

Federal government project office

Building on the desire for federal partnership, stakeholders also identified a federal project office as an 

attractive option for the Southwest. This model has direct access to the federal government and can be a 

strong candidate for attracting federal financial support. Relative to the Federal-State Commission, this model 

is potentially easier to establish, as it uses an existing overhead agency and established management 

processes; it does not require an interstate compact or creation of a new agency. 
92| Technical Background Report

While there are no existing examples in the Southwest of federal project offices being used for a network 

development, federal project offices have been used in other regions for different yet similar purposes (e.g., 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Program Office). In practice, this model has 

generally been limited to planning and knowledge-sharing functions, and the stakeholders identified these 

areas as the most likely application if a federal project office were implemented. There are less attractive 

aspects of this option, however, such as it could be challenging to implement if there is tension about the 

perception of expanding the federal government. Another drawback is potential for less state and local 

engagement than other models. 

Federally chartered corporation

This model might be considered for a range of needs. Similar to the federal-state commission and the federal 

government project office, federally-chartered corporations can be a strong candidate for attracting federal 

funds because of the direct relationship with the federal government. The corporation can also undertake a 

broad range of functions across all phases of project development. There are currently no examples of a 

similar federally-chartered corporation operating exclusively in the Southwest, but Amtrak and the Tennessee 

Valley Authority are examples of this model.

Stakeholders determined that this model might be considered for addressing multi-state coordination needs in 

the design and operations phases of project development (as identified Figure 49). Similar to the federal 

government project office, a challenge to establishing a new corporation in the Southwest might be 

overcoming potential concerns about expanding the federal government and creating an entity that might be 

viewed as too autonomous (i.e., lacking sufficient accountability and responsiveness to state and local 

concerns). 

For-profit corporation

Stakeholders identified a role for for-profit corporations in the design, construction, and operations of corridor 

projects. The use of corporations can provides financial incentives for cost effective investment decisions, as 

well as leverage of limited taxpayer dollars. DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC is an example of this model being 

applied in the Southwest for rail development.

A for-profit corporation was not recommended as model for leading multi-state network planning, as it is more 

appropriate to have public agencies promote public goals and lead planning if public funds will be used to 

support the implementation of corridors. Stakeholders also noted that it can be difficult for a for-profit 

corporation to foster a collective vision or overarching planning for a multi-state network. 

6.5 Governance Findings and Recommendations

6.5.1 Governance findings

The SW Study developed eight key findings related to institutional and governance issues. Those findings are

as follows:

• Finding #1—To achieve optimal outcomes, multi-state coordination and network planning is 

necessary during HPR network development. A common Southwest network vision and a unified 

strategic plan, built on coordination and planning for an integrated system, will lead to better 

network performance, a more efficient use of scarce financial resources, and improved outcomes 

for customers.

• Finding #2—During planning, multi-state coordination is needed on the following areas: corridor 

connectivity, multi-modal connections, capacity planning, grant applications, data used for project 

evaluation, operating standards, safety standards, regulatory/legal/statutory issues, and 

knowledge sharing. In the design and construction phases, coordination is also needed to address
Technical Background Report | 93

interoperability, branding, procurement, and project delivery. When planning for operations 

occurs, coordination is needed to address service delivery, service standards, marketing and

customer service, and cost and revenue sharing.

• Finding #3—The desirable characteristics of governance models include provisions for changing 

structures at different phases while maintaining continuity in the vision, roles for elected officials, 

a role for the federal government, potential for expanding beyond a focus on rail, and goodwill 

among participants.

• Finding #4—To facilitate network planning, multi-state coordination, and advancing a common 

vision, the Southwest needs a voluntary policy forum, a federal project office, a federal-state 

commission, a special authority (e.g., a regional rail development authority), or a hybrid of these.

• Finding #5—Federal leadership and partnership is helpful to assist with Southwest network planning.

With limited resources and many demands, states are often pressured to focus on planning and 

developing corridors within their state boundaries. Federal technical assistance, such as 

performing multi-state network analysis and convening stakeholders, could help the Southwest 

identify key issues and advance a more coordinated network of corridors.

• Finding #6—Continued funding for passenger rail network planning and coordination is needed.

Multi-state coordination and network planning is essential, yet it is challenging for states to fund 

planning activities for investments that might significantly benefit another state.

• Finding #7—Challenges and constraints to multi-state coordination include funding and cost sharing, 

out-of-state travel restrictions, different regulatory and legal requirements, different goals, 

overlapping responsibilities, the allocation of decision-making authority, the development of a 

common vision that lasts, and the appropriate role of cities, counties, and regional entities in the 

decision-making process.

• Finding #8—Numerous governance structures, including some already established in the Southwest, 

represent potential models for developing a multi-state corridor. During planning, these might 

include a voluntary partnership, a special authority, a federal-state commission, or hybrids of 

these. For-profit corporations or federally chartered corporations might also be needed during 

development and operations.

6.5.2 Governance recommendations

Two key governance recommendations emerged from the SW MSRP Study. These recommendations, which 

are focused on the relatively near term, are as follows:

Stakeholder Recommendation #1

Stakeholders proposed, for the most immediate future, convening a voluntary California-Arizona-Nevada 

Passenger Rail Policy and Planning Group. Initial membership of the Policy and Planning Group might include 

stakeholders who participated in the SW Study. The group would be responsible for:

• Implementing next steps emerging out of the SW Study

• Developing, and potentially implementing, a broader strategy to engage elected officials, the 

business community, and the public in refining the vision

• Coordinating among corridor planning efforts in the Southwest until a different governance model is 

needed
94| Technical Background Report

• Recommending a long-term governance model to facilitate Southwest network planning, multi-state 

coordination, and advancing the common vision

• Establishing a charter (focusing on mission, roles, authorities, and membership) and identifying a 

reliable funding source for network planning and coordination

Stakeholder Recommendation #2

Stakeholders also supported formation of a Blue Ribbon Commission to guide a Phoenix–Southern California 

Corridor study over an 18-month schedule. The Blue Ribbon Commission might include leaders such as local 

elected officials and gubernatorial appointees and be supported by a planning/technical committee including 

MPO and state department of transportation (DOT) staff for evaluation and analysis. The Blue Ribbon 

Commission should seek input from railroads, the California High-Speed Rail Authority, FRA, transportation 

agencies, local jurisdictions, business groups, and the general public as an integrated element of its work plan.

The Blue Ribbon Commission would be responsible for the following actions:

• Reviewing the SW Study findings that pertain to the Phoenix–Southern California corridor

• Developing a scope of work and budget needed to analyze multi-modal alternatives and produce a 

service development plan.

• Identifying and securing funding for the study

• Facilitating participation and input from stakeholders in the corridor

• Identifying what governance may be needed to develop the corridor successfully
Technical Background Report | 95

Chapter 7. Next Steps

The SW Study identified the importance of conducting long-range planning for high performance passenger rail 

corridors within the context of an integrated multi-state network. Strong growth in population, travel demand, 

and economic activity through 2050 will place additional pressure on an increasingly congested transportation 

network, and conceptual planning analysis performed in this study indicates there are several multi-state 

corridors in the Southwest that warrant further study in advance of possible new rail investments.

Chapters 5 and 6 of this report presented long-term recommendations for coordinating transportation issues 

across state lines. Following are possible strategies sustaining momentum in Southwest regional rail planning.

Recommendation #1

Integrate the Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study into Existing and Ongoing Transportation Planning 

Efforts. In the near term, findings and recommendations from this study could be considered in individual 

State Rail Plans as well as other ongoing state and regional planning efforts. In addition, while this study 

performed an initial assessment of rail corridor potential against a set of performance metrics, further study is 

needed to analyze whether other modes could present more cost-effective investment solutions, as well as the 

implications of not making new infrastructure investments. While this is a recommendation for subsequent 

phases of planning, it may also be incorporated into ongoing corridor planning studies.

Recommendation #2

Establish A Southwest Rail Working Group to Initiate Implementation of the Study’s Governance 

Recommendations. This working group’s charge might include:

• Developing a strategic implementation plan for advancing the study recommendations. This would 

include laying the groundwork for the California-Arizona-Nevada Passenger Rail Policy & Planning 

Group, identifying participants, determining the need for a formal agreement mechanism (e.g., 

MOU), and refining roles and responsibilities;

• Crafting a mission statement and distinct goals & objectives for the Southwest rail network;

• Initiating development of a compelling business case for the Southwest rail network. This should 

include near-term “wins” that demonstrate the benefits of multi-state coordination; 

• Exploring potential state and local funding sources to fund future multi-state planning efforts; and

• Initiating a broad-based outreach program that engages stakeholders such as elected officials, the 

private sector, and the public in future rail network development efforts. Aspects of the 

stakeholder engagement program could be reserved for the California-Arizona-Nevada Passenger 

Rail Policy & Planning Group.

• Championing the creation of the Blue Ribbon Commission for the Phoenix-Southern California 

corridor study. 

Technical Background Report | Appendix—1

Appendix A. List of MSAs in the Extended SW Study Area

MSA Full Name1

SW Study 

Shorthand Name

Arizona

Flagstaff Flagstaff

Lake Havasu City–Kingman Kingman

Nogales Nogales

Payson Payson

Phoenix–Mesa–Glendale Phoenix

Prescott Prescott

Safford Safford

Show Low Show Low

Sierra Vista–Douglas Sierra Vista

Tucson Tucson

Yuma Yuma

California

Bakersfield–Delano Bakersfield

Bishop Bishop

Chico Chico

Clearlake Clearlake

Crescent City Crescent City

El Centro El Centro

Eureka–Arcata–Fortuna Eureka

Fresno Fresno

Hanford–Corcoran Hanford

Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana Greater Los Angeles

Madera–Chowchilla Madera

Merced Merced

Modesto Modesto

Napa Napa

Oxnard–Thousand Oaks–Ventura Oxnard

Phoenix Lake–Cedar Ridge Phoenix Lake

Red Bluff Red Bluff

Redding Redding

Riverside–San Bernardino–Ontario Inland Empire

Sacramento–Arden–Arcade–Roseville Sacramento

Salinas Salinas

San Diego–Carlsbad–San Marcos San Diego

San Francisco–Oakland–Fremont S.F./Oakland

San Jose–Sunnyvale–Santa Clara San Jose

San Luis Obispo–Paso Robles San Luis Obispo

Santa Barbara–Santa Maria–Goleta Santa Barbara

Santa Cruz–Watsonville Santa Cruz
Appendix—2| Technical Background Report

MSA Full Name1

SW Study 

Shorthand Name

Santa Rosa–Petaluma Santa Rosa

Stockton Stockton

Susanville Susanville

Truckee–Grass Valley Truckee

Ukiah Ukiah

Vallejo–Fairfield Vallejo

Visalia–Porterville Visalia

Yuba City Yuba City

Colorado

Boulder Boulder

Cañon City Cañon City

Colorado Springs Colorado Springs

Denver–Aurora–Broomfield Denver

Durango Durango

Edwards Edwards

Fort Collins–Loveland Fort Collins

Fort Morgan Fort Morgan

Grand Junction Grand Junction

Greeley Greeley

Montrose Montrose

Pueblo Pueblo

Silverthorne Silverthorne

Sterling Sterling

Nevada

Carson City Carson City

Elko Elko

Fallon Fallon

Fernley Fernley

Gardnerville Ranchos Gardnerville Ranchos

Las Vegas–Paradise Las Vegas

Pahrump Pahrump

Reno–Sparks Reno

New Mexico

Alamogordo Alamogordo

Albuquerque Albuquerque

Carlsbad–Artesia Carlsbad

Clovis Clovis

Deming Deming

Espanola Espanola

Farmington Farmington

Gallup Gallup

Grants Grants
Technical Background Report | Appendix—3

MSA Full Name1

SW Study 

Shorthand Name

Hobbs Hobbs

Las Cruces Las Cruces

Las Vegas Las Vegas, NM

Los Alamos Los Alamos

Portales Portales

Roswell Roswell

Ruidoso Ruidoso

Santa Fe Santa Fe

Silver City Silver City

Taos Taos

Utah

Brigham City Brigham City

Cedar City Cedar City

Heber Heber

Logan Logan

Ogden–Clearfield Ogden

Price Price

Provo–Orem Provo

Salt Lake City Salt Lake City

St. George St. George

Vernal Vernal

1 Includes Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Micropolitan Statistical Areas as 

defined by the Office of Management and Budget, December 2009

Technical Background Report | Appendix—5

Appendix B. SW Study Area Population

2010 

(thousands)

2050 

(thousands)

% Change 

2010–2050

State of Arizona 6,392 11,815 76.0%

State of California 37,254 54,143 45.0%

State of Nevada 2,701 4,755 76.7%

SW MSRP Primary Study Area (AZ, CA, NV) 46,347 70,713 52.6%

United States 308,746 442,214 42.7%

Arizona Sun Corridor Megaregion 5,654 10,437 84.6%

Northern California Megaregion 14,038 20,135 43.4%

Southern California Megaregion 24,362 36,212 48.6%

Three Megaregions 44,054 66,784 51.6%

Source: 2010 Census, U.S. Census Bureau; 2050 data extrapolated from 2040 population forecasts by Woods & Poole 

Economics, Inc., Washington, D.C., copyright 2010

Technical Background Report | Appendix—7

Appendix C. Rail and Highway Projects List

Table C-1 Planned rail improvement projects

Project Name Project Sponsor Location(s) Project Description

1 Amtrak Coast 

Daylight 

(Extension) 

Project

Amtrak, California 

DOT

Between San Luis Obispo, San 

Jose, and San Francisco

Extension of Amtrak’s Pacific 

Surfliner Line to northern 

California from San Luis 

Obispo

2 Anaheim Regional 

Transportation 

Intermodal Center 

(ARTIC) Project

Southern 

California 

Association of 

Governments

Anaheim New multi-modal station for 

Anaheim and Orange County 

to include services provided by 

new CHSR, Amtrak, and 

Metrolink.

Would assume service from 

current Amtrak/Anaheim 

station

3 Arizona Spine 

Corridor (New Rail 

Service Study) 

Project

Arizona DOT Grand Canyon (north) to 

Nogales (south) using 

branches of BNSF Phoenix 

Subdivision, UP Phoenix 

Subdivision, UP Nogales 

Subdivision, Arizona Central 

Railroad, Grand Canyon 

Railway, Verde Canyon 

Railway, and Copper Basin 

Railway

Include a north-south spine of 

intercity rail serving the 

emerging Sun Corridor 

megaregion, coupled with a 

regional HPR network

Plan for an efficient rail 

connection between Northern 

Arizona, the Sun Corridor, and 

Mexico while supporting 

commuter rail within the urban 

cores of Phoenix and Tucson

4 California High 

Speed Rail 

Corridor Projects

CHSRA Phase 1: Between Anaheim, 

Los Angeles, and Merced/San 

Francisco following San 

Joaquin Amtrak line in the 

Central Valley; Phase 

2:Between Irvine and 

Anaheim, Los Angeles, San 

Diego via San Bernardino 

following portions of Sunset 

Limited Line; Phase 3: 

Between Stockton and San 

Jose

First phase of CHSR with 

connections to Metrolink and 

Amtrak services

Second phase of CHSR with 

connections to Metrolink and 

Amtrak services

Third phase of CHSR with 

connections to Amtrak services

5 California-Nevada 

Super Speed Train 

(New Service 

Project)

California-Nevada 

Super Speed Train 

Commission

Between Las Vegas and 

Anaheim following I-15 

Corridor

Concept to connect Las Vegas 

with Anaheim through the 

following cities: Primm, 

Barstow, Victorville, and 

Ontario
Appendix—8| Technical Background Report

Project Name Project Sponsor Location(s) Project Description

6 CANAMEX 

Corridor (New 

Service Study) 

Project

Arizona DOT State Portion: Las Vegas 

(north) to Nogales (south) 

using branches of BNSF 

Phoenix Subdivision, UP

Phoenix Subdivision, UP

Nogales Subdivision, and 

Arizona and California Railroad

Include a north-south spine of 

intercity rail serving the 

emerging Sun Corridor 

megaregion, coupled with a 

regional HPR network

Plan for an efficient rail 

connection between Arizona 

and Las Vegas while 

supporting implementation of 

intercity and commuter rail 

within the Sun Corridor

Includes plan for intercity rail 

connecting Phoenix and 

Tucson

Part of larger plan to connect 

Mexico and Canada via the 

western U.S. by rail

7 Del Mar Tunnel San Diego

Association of 

Governments

LOSSAN Rail Corridor, Del Mar, 

San Diego County

Construction of tunnel along 

LOSSAN corridor running 

through Del Mar to improve 

capacity

8 XpressWest(a.k.a. 

DesertXpress) 

Project

DesertXpress 

Enterprises, LLC.

Between Victorville and Las 

Vegas following I-15 corridor

Final Environmental Impact 

Statement completed March 

2011

Records of Decision issued by 

the lead and cooperating 

federal agencies in 2011. 

Certificate of Public 

Convenience and Necessity 

issued by the Surface 

Transportation Board in 

October, 2011. 200-mile 

corridor to connect Las Vegas 

and Victorville.

9 Los Angeles/Las 

Vegas (New 

Service) Rail 

Study

Regional 

Transportation 

Commission of 

Southern Nevada

Between Los Angeles and Las 

Vegas using one of a number 

of existing rail alternatives 

including Metrolink Subdivisions, UP Subdivisions, and 

BNSF Subdivisions

Study to determine feasibility 

of rail link between Southern 

California and Las Vegas using 

existing rail lines

Provides a number of 

alternative alignments along 

with infrastructure 

improvements, costs, and 

ridership figures

10 Los Angeles Port 

to Colton to Cajon 

Pass Rail 

Expansion Project

Southern 

California 

Association of 

Governments

Los Angeles County Construction of additional rail 

track to increase capacity 

along this corridor

11 Los Angeles Union 

Station Rail 

Improvements

Southern 

California 

Association of 

Governments

Los Angeles Construction of through tracks 

for trains scheduled to bypass 

Union Station

12 LOSSAN Rail 

Corridor Rail 

Improvement 

Package

LOSSAN Joint 

Powers Authority

Los Angeles County Multiple projects including 

technology improvements, 

additional trackage, station 

improvements, and grade 

separations
Technical Background Report | Appendix—9

Project Name Project Sponsor Location(s) Project Description

13 Phoenix–Tucson 

Intercity Rail 

(New Service 

Project)

Federal Rail 

Administration, 

Federal Transit 

Administration, 

Arizona 

Department of 

Transportation

Phoenix to Tucson Rail 

Corridor

Construction of intercity 

passenger rail between 

metropolitan areas of Phoenix 

and Tucson

14 Route 66 Corridor 

(Passenger Rail 

Service 

Improvement 

Study) Project

Arizona DOT East-west corridor between 

Lupton/New Mexico border 

(east) and Bullhead City/Lake 

Havasu City/California border 

(west) using branches of BNSF 

Transcon, Apache Railway, 

Grand Canyon Railway, and

Black Mesa and Lake Powell 

Railroad

Enhance intercity passenger 

service which supports tourism 

industry and plan for seamless 

connection to future intercity 

service that would serve the 

emerging Sun Corridor and 

improved connections with 

Amtrak service

Planning for this corridor 

should be coordinated with 

planning of ICR within Sun 

Corridor

15 Sunset Route 

Corridor 

(Passenger Rail 

Service 

Improvement 

Study) Project

Arizona DOT East-west corridor between 

Willcox/New Mexico border 

(east) and Yuma/California

border (west) using Union 

Pacific Railroad

Enhance intercity passenger 

service which can be 

incremental step to intercity 

service that would serve the 

emerging Sun Corridor and a 

southwestern HPR network

Passenger service within this 

corridor should be coordinated 

with ICR service within the 

Sun Corridor

16 The X Train 

Project

Las Vegas Railway 

Express, Inc.

Between Los Angeles Union 

Station and Las Vegas utilizing 

existing BNSF/UP rail corridor

High-speed rail scheduled to 

run between Los Angeles and 

Las Vegas four days a week

Still in planning stages

17 UP Sunset Route 

Double Track (Rail 

Expansion) 

Project

Union Pacific 

Railroad

Southern Arizona Double-tracking of Sunset 

Route along entire length of 

route in Arizona

18 Peninsula Corridor 

Electrification 

Project

Caltrain San Francisco to San Jose Electrify the Caltrain Corridor 

from San Francisco’s 4th and 

King Caltrain Station to 

approximately the Tamien 

Caltrain Station, convert 

diesel-hauled to Electric 

Multiple Unit (EMU) trains
Appendix—10| Technical Background Report

Table C-2 Planned highway capacity projects

Project Name Project Sponsor Location(s) Project Description

1 High Desert 

Corridor Project

High Desert 

Corridor Joint 

Powers Authority

Los Angeles and San 

Bernardino Counties

Construction of new state 

highway to provide additional 

access and capacity to I-15 

from Los Angeles County. EIS 

alternatives include high speed 

rail connectivity Victorville and 

Palmdale.

2 I-10 Phoenix/

Tucson Bypass 

West Segment 

(New Highway 

Project)

Arizona DOT Numerous corridors using 

bisecting highways away and 

towards I-10 to avoid metropolitan areas of Phoenix and 

Tucson

Bypasses studied in order to 

improve congestion on I-10 in 

and around metro areas of 

Phoenix and Tucson

Additional corridors in addition 

to I-10 due to large increase in 

population along emerging Sun 

Corridor

3 I-15 /French 

Valley Parkway 

Interchange

City of Temecula, 

California 

Transportation 

Commission

I-15/French Valley Parkway 

Interchange, Temecula

Provide new interchange 

between I-15 and French 

Valley Parkway and I-15 and 

Winchester Road in Temecula

4 I-15 from 

Speedway 

Boulevard to 

US 93 Widening 

and Interchange 

NEPA

Nevada DOT I-15 between Speedway 

Boulevard and US 93, Las 

Vegas

Proposed widening of I-15 to 

six lanes and reconstruction of 

I-15/US 94 interchange

Relieve significant congestion 

impacting the movement of 

goods through southern 

Nevada

5 I-15 HOV/HOT 

Lanes

I-215 to Riverdale 

Phase 1

Utah DOT I-15 to I-215 Interchange to

Riverdale, Salt Lake County

Construction of HOV/HOT 

lanes would alleviate 

congestion and better serve 

existing and future travel 

demand along this section of 

I-15

6 I-15 HOV/HOT 

Lanes San 

Bernardino/ 

Riverside County

California 

Transportation 

Commission

I-15 San Bernardino/Riverside 

County Line South to 

I-15/I-215 Interchange, 

Riverside County

Construction of HOV/HOT 

lanes to add additional 

capacity to efficiently move 

goods and people

Construction of two HOT lanes 

from San Bernardino County 

line to Hidden Valley Parkway 

and from Cajalco Road to 

SR74; construction of one 

multifunction lane between 

San Bernardino County line to 

SR74; construction of one HOT 

lane between Hidden Valley 

Parkway to Cajalco Road; 

construction of one HOV lane 

between SR74 and I-15/I-215 

Junction
Technical Background Report | Appendix—11

Project Name Project Sponsor Location(s) Project Description

7 I-15 Managed 

Lanes: I-8 to 

SR 163

Caltrans I-15 between I-8 to SR 163, 

San Diego

Project would add four 

managed lanes along I-15, 

improving freeway capacity for 

HOV and transit in peak 

direction

Result in improved utilization

of roadway and reduced 

congestion and travel delays, 

and improved travel time 

reliability

8 I-15 Virgin River 

Gorge Bridges 

(Rehabilitation 

Project)

Arizona DOT Virgin River Gorge area 

bridges

Rehabilitate or replace the 

decks of seven bridges to 

prevent interruption to the 

movement of people and 

goods

Highest maintenance priority 

for ADOT

9 I-15/I-215 

(Devore) 

Interchange 

Reconstruction

San Bernardino 

Associated 

Governments, 

Caltrans, 

Southern 

California 

Association of 

Governments

Devore Interchange, San 

Bernardino County

Reconstruct interchange to 

allow I-15 to be the main 

movement for vehicles 

between Las Vegas, Laughlin 

and Southern California

Truck bypass lanes being 

considered to improve traffic 

flow

10 I-15/SR76 East 

(Interchange 

Improvement 

Project)

Caltrans I-15/SR 76 Interchange, San 

Diego

Bring SR 76 to minimum 

design standards of 2006 

Highway Design Manual

Capacity improvements on 

interchange to accommodate 

increased traffic demand and 

alleviate congestion

11 I-15/SR 78 

HOV/HOT 

Connectors 

Caltrans I-15/SR 78 Interchange, San 

Diego

Project to connect existing/

future HOV/HOT lanes on 

mainline roadways and 

interchange

Project will reduce congestion 

and travel time and improve 

safety and operations by 

reducing weaving movements

12 I-15: Lehi Main 

Street to 12300 

South, Salt Lake 

County, UT 

Phase 1

Utah DOT SR 92 to 12300 South, Salt 

Lake County

Add two travel lanes to I-15 in 

each direction and reconstruct 

three interchanges to meet 

existing and projected 2030 

travel demand

Project would improve traffic 

operation, alleviate congestion, and improve safety

13 Port of San Diego 

Freeway Access 

Improvements—I

Port of San Diego Civic Center Drive and I-5, 

10th Avenue at Harbor Drive, 

San Diego, CA

Project would separate Port 

truck traffic from local 

communities, improving goods 

movement and local traffic 

circulation and reducing travel 

time for freight accessing I-15
Appendix—12| Technical Background Report

Project Name Project Sponsor Location(s) Project Description

14 Port of San Diego 

Freeway Access 

Improvements—II

Port of San Diego Bay Marina Drive at I-15, 32nd 

Street at Harbor Drive, San 

Diego

Project would separate port 

truck traffic from local 

communities, improving goods 

movement and local traffic 

circulation and reducing travel 

time for freight accessing I-15

15 Project NEON, 

Phase 1

Nevada DOT I-15, from Sahara Avenue to 

I-515/US 95 Interchange

(Spaghetti Bowl), Las Vegas

Improve traffic operations, 

improve safety by addressing 

congestion-related incidents, 

provide better access to area 

neighborhoods and businesses, 

and provide connection 

between proposed HOV lanes 

on I-15 and HOV lanes on 

US 95

Phase 1 would widen I-15 to 

ten lanes and include HOV 

lanes

16 SR 11/Otay Mesa 

East Port of Entry 

Project

San Diego 

Association of 

Governments, 

California DOT

SR 905 south to Otay Mesa 

East Port, San Diego

Construction of new SR 11 

(four lane freeway) and new 

US CBP Port of Entry in East 

Otay Mesa

SR 11 will extend 2 miles 

south of SR 905 to Otay Mesa 

East Port and improve traffic 

congestion and border wait 

times for commercial vehicles

17 US 93 (Future I11) 

Improvements

Arizona DOT Wickenburg, Arizona to the 

Nevada State Line

Designation of I-11 Corridor in 

the US 93 alignment from Las

Vegas to metropolitan 

Phoenix. 
Technical Background Report | Appendix—13

Appendix D. Economic Characteristics of Major MSAs in the Study Region

Table D-1 Major economic cluster concentrations—five major SW MSAs (2010)

Greater Los Angeles S.F./Oakland San Diego Phoenix Las Vegas

Emp. (000s) 

(% of MSA)

Location 

Quotient

Emp. (000s) 

(% of MSA)

Location 

Quotient

Emp. (000s) 

(% of MSA)

Location 

Quotient

Emp. (000s) 

(% of MSA)

Location 

Quotient

Emp. (000s) 

(% of MSA)

Location 

Quotient

Investment Banking 4.2 

(0.1%) 0.65 4.1 (0.3%) 1.76 1.1 (0.1%) 0.76 ND ND 0.1 (0%) 0.1

Computer and 

Electronics 

Manufacturing

82.7 

(1.8%) 1.78 24.9 (1.5%) 1.49 26.2 (2.6%) 2.51 ND 4.31 0.5 (0.1%) 0.07

Telecommunications 36.3 

(0.8%) 0.95 15.8 (1.0%) 1.14 8.3 (0.8%) 0.96 11.7 (0.8%) 0.97 3.3 (0.5%) 0.55

Scientific Research 23.6 

(0.5%) 0.90 30.6 (1.9%) 3.23 30.6 (3.0%) 5.18 1.7 (0.1%) 0.21 1.6 (0.2%) 0.39

Hospitals 133.5(3.0

%) 0.73 ND ND 20.9 (2.1%) 0.51 ND ND 13.6 (1.9%) 0.47

Colleges and Universities 49.6 

(1.1%) 1.04 ND ND 11.2 (1.1%) 1.04 17.4 (1.2%) 1.14 1.0 (0.1%) 0.13

Amusement and 

Recreation

66.0 

(1.5%) 1.13 20.7 (1.3%) 0.98 16.2 (1.6%) 1.23 16.6 (1.2%) 0.89 11.4 (1.6%) 1.25

Motion Picture, Recording, 

and Broadcasting

141.7 

(3.1%) 7.60 14.5 (0.9%) 1.45 6.4 (0.6%) 1.05 ND ND 3.2 (0.9%) 0.75

Retailing 527.4 

(11.7%) 0.86 186.6 (11.5%) 0.84 130.6 (12.9%) 0.95 205.7 (14.4%) 1.06 92.4 (13.1%) 0.96

1. Numbers in parenthesis are percentages of MSA employment for that sector.

2. Numbers in blue indicate that the industry is highly concentrated in the MSA.

3. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis does not report total employment in the Phoenix MSA for Computer and Electronic Manufacturing (NAICS 334) but does 

report 21,400 employees in semiconductor and electronic component manufacturing (NAICS 3344). The location quotient reported for Phoenix is NAICS 3344.

4. Amusement and Recreation (NAICS 713) includes gambling/gaming. Las Vegas’s location quotient just for gambling/gaming (NAICS was 5.86 in 2010; this is down 

from 7.41 in 2001). Gaming employment in Las Vegas has been relatively constant, but other amusement and recreation activity employment has declined. 
Appendix—14| Technical Background Report

5. Retailing included, as a control, to indicate range of location quotients about 1.0, for a primarily non-basic sector.

Table D-2 Cluster interdependenciesInvestment 

BankingComputer and Electronics ManufacturingTelecommunicationsScientific ResearchHospitalsColleges and UniversitiesAmusement and RecreationMotion Picture, Recording, and Broadcasting

Investment Banking Moderate Strong Moderate Weak Weak Weak Moderate Strong

Computer and Electronics 

Manufacturing Moderate Strong Strong Weak Strong Weak Moderate

Telecommunications Weak Strong Weak Moderate Weak Strong

Scientific Research Strong Strong Strong Weak Weak

Hospitals Strong Strong Weak Weak

Colleges and Universities Strong Weak Weak

Amusement and 

Recreation Moderate Moderate

Motion Picture, Recording, 

and Broadcasting Strong
Technical Background Report | Appendix—15

Table D-3 Frequency of potential spatial interdependencies—within sector network effects Greater Los Angeles S.F./ Oakland San Diego Phoenix Las Vegas

Total

Greater Los Angeles 2 3 1 1 7

San Francisco/Oakland 3 1 0 6

San Diego 1 1 8

Phoenix 0 3

Las Vegas 2

The column “Total” equals the total number of interdependencies for the row MSA. 

Table D-4 Frequency of potential spatial interdependencies—between sector network effects Greater Los Angeles S.F./ Oakland San Diego Phoenix Las Vegas

Total

Greater Los Angeles 9 2 0 0 11

San Francisco/Oakland 8 5 1 23

San Diego 0 0 10

Phoenix 0 5

Las Vegas 1

The column “Total” equals the total number of interdependencies for the row MSA. 

Technical Background Report | Appendix—17

Appendix E. Summary of Transit Services in Selected MSAs

Mode* Agency

2011 Ridership 

(thousands)

Albuquerque CRT Rio Metro Regional Transit District 1,242

Bus City of Albuquerque Transit Department, Rio Metro Regional 

Transit District

12,375

Denver LRT Denver Regional Transportation District 20,694

Bus Denver Regional Transportation District 76,129

Las Vegas Bus Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada 57,777

Los Angeles CRT Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) 11,745

HRT Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 46,964

LRT Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 50,798

Bus 15+ operators 543,800

Phoenix LRT Valley Metro Rail, Inc. 13,162

Bus 5 operators 56,654

Reno Bus Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County 7,876

Sacramento LRT Sacramento Regional Transit District 12,816

Bus 5 operators 17,913

Salt Lake City CRT Utah Transit Authority 1,641

LRT Utah Transit Authority 15,298

Bus Utah Transit Authority 22,611

San Diego CRT North County Transit District 1,547

LRT North County Transit District, San Diego Metropolitan Transit 

System

35,147

Bus 3 operators 62,056

San Francisco Cable Car San Francisco Municipal Railway 7,684.40

CRT Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) 12,324

Ferryboat City of Alameda Ferry Services, Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and 

Transportation District

2,554

HRT San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District 114,325

LRT San Francisco Municipal Railway 50,794

Bus 8 operators 170,212

Trolleybus San Francisco Municipal Railway 67,153

Tucson Bus City of Tucson 20,036

Streetcar City of Tucson Opening 

Summer of 

2014

Source: Public Transportation Ridership Report, Fourth Quarter 2011, American Public Transportation Association, 

February 2012

*CRT = Commuter Rail Transit; LRT = Light Rail Transit; HRT = Heavy Rail Transit

Technical Background Report | Appendix—19

Appendix F. Corridor Projected Growth Trends and Network Analysis Assumptions

Table F-1 San Diego–S.F./Oakland corridor: MSA projected growth trends

Population

2010 2050

Percent Change 

(2010 to 2050)

San Diego 3,095,000 4,923,000 59%

Inland Empire 4,225,000 8,495,000 101%

Greater Los Angeles 12,829,000 16,011,000 25%

Bakersfield 840,000 1,306,000 55%

Visalia 442,000 620,000 40%

Fresno 930,000 1,312,000 41%

Madera-Chowchilla 150,865 295,064 96%

Merced 256,000 389,000 52%

San Jose 1,837,000 2,526,000 38%

S.F./Oakland 4,335,000 5,643,000 30%

Total 28,789,000 41,225,000 43%

Source: 2050 data extrapolated from 2040 population forecasts by Woods & Poole 

Economics, Inc., Washington, D.C., copyright 2010; 2010 Population Data, US Census, 

2010.
Appendix—20| Technical Background Report

Table F-2 San Diego–S.F./Oakland corridor: network analysis assumptions Number of Stations

Alignment 

Type

Right of Way 

Availability for New 

Alignment

Development Type by Investment Level for 

New Alignment

Freight Density for 

Existing Alignment Existing Track Quality

NewExistingPublic ROWNew Acquisition

—

UrbanNewAcquisition

—

RuralRural

—Low

Rural

—Medium

Rural

—high

Urban

—Low

Urban

—Medium

Urban

—High

HighMediumLowClass 0-21Class 32Class 43

Core Express Service

San Diego–Inland 

Empire

5 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 0% 10% 30% 25% 20% 15% — — — — — —

Inland Empire–Greater 

Los Angeles

5 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 80% 15% — — — — — —

Greater Los Angeles–

Bakersfield

4 100% 0% 0% 30% 70% 15% 30% 20% 10% 15% 10% — — — — — —

Bakersfield–Visalia 2 100% 0% 0% 12% 88% 40% 35% 0% 15% 10% 0% — — — — — —

Visalia–Fresno 2 100% 0% 0% 21% 79% 30% 45% 0% 10% 15% 0% — — — — — —

Fresno–Merced 2 100% 0% 0% 30% 70% 65% 5% 15% 0% 15% 0% — — — — — —

Merced–San Jose 3 100% 0% 0% 17% 83% 45% 0% 20% 10% 20% 5% — — — — — —

San Jose–S.F./Oakland 4 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 90% 5% 5% — — — — — —

1 Maximum passenger operating speed of 0-30 mph 2

Maximum passenger operating speed of 30-60 mph 3

Maximum passenger operating speed of 60-80 mph
Technical Background Report | Appendix—21

Table F-3 Greater Los Angeles–Las Vegas Corridor: MSA projected growth trends

Population

2010 2050

Percent Change 

(2010 to 2050)

Greater Los Angeles 12,829,000 16,011,000 25%

Inland Empire 4,225,000 8,495,000 101%

Las Vegas 1,951,000 3,525,000 81%

Total 19,005,000 28,031,000 47%

Source: 2050 data extrapolated from 2040 population forecasts by Woods & Poole 

Economics, Inc., Washington, D.C., copyright 2010; 2010 Population Data, US Census, 

2010. 

Table F-4 Greater Los Angeles–Las Vegas Corridor: network analysis assumptions Number of Stations

Alignment 

Type

Right of Way 

Availability for New 

Alignment

Development Type by Investment Level for 

New Alignment

Freight Density for 

Existing Alignment Existing Track Quality

NewExistingPublic ROWNew Acquisition

—

UrbanNew Acquisition

—

RuralRural

—Low

Rural

—Medium

Rural

—high

Urban

—Low

Urban

—Medium

Urban

—High

HighMediumLowClass 0-21Class 32Class 43

Core Express Service

Greater Los Angeles–

Inland Empire

5 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 80% 15% — — — — — —

Inland Empire–Las 

Vegas

2 100% 0% 80% 15% 5% 60% 30% 0% 0% 5% 5% — — — — — —

1 Maximum passenger operating speed of 0-30 mph 2

Maximum passenger operating speed of 30-60 mph 3

Maximum passenger operating speed of 60-80 mph
Appendix—22| Technical Background Report

Table F-5 Greater Los Angeles–Phoenix Corridor: MSA projected growth trends

Population

2010 2050

Percent Change 

(2010 to 2050)

Greater Los Angeles 12,829,000 16,011,000 25%

Inland Empire 4,225,000 8,495,000 101%

Phoenix 4,193,000 7,786,000 86%

Total 21,247,000 32,292,000 52%

Source: 2050 data extrapolated from 2040 population forecasts by Woods & Poole 

Economics, Inc., Washington, D.C., copyright 2010; 2010 Population Data, US Census, 

2010.

Table F-6 Greater Los Angeles–Phoenix Corridor: network analysis assumptions Number of Stations

Alignment 

Type

Right of Way 

Availability for New 

Alignment

Development Type by Investment Level for 

New Alignment

Freight Density for 

Existing Alignment Existing Track Quality

NewExistingPublic ROWNew Acquisition

—

UrbanNew Acquisition

—

RuralRural

—Low

Rural

—Medium

Rural

—high

Urban

—Low

Urban

—Medium

Urban

—High

HighMediumLowClass 0-21Class 32Class 43

Core Express Service

Greater Los Angeles–

Inland Empire

5 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 80% 15% — — — — — —

Inland Empire–Phoenix 4 100% 0% 0% 15% 85% 35% 30% 20% 10% 5% 0% 0% 0% 100% — — —

1 Maximum passenger operating speed of 0-30 mph 2

Maximum passenger operating speed of 30-60 mph 3

Maximum passenger operating speed of 60-80 mph
Technical Background Report | Appendix—23

Table F-7 San Diego–Phoenix Corridor: MSA projected growth trends

Population

2010 2050

Percent Change 

(2010 to 2050)

San Diego 3,095,000 4,923,000 59%

Inland Empire 4,225,000 8,495,000 101%

Phoenix 4,193,000 7,786,000 86%

Total 11,513,000 21,204,000 84%

Source: 2050 data extrapolated from 2040 population forecasts by Woods & Poole 

Economics, Inc., Washington, D.C., copyright 2010; 2010 Population Data, US Census, 

2010. 

Table F-8 San Diego–Phoenix Corridor: network analysis assumptions Number of Stations

Alignment 

Type

Right of Way 

Availability for New 

Alignment

Development Type by Investment Level for 

New Alignment

Freight Density for 

Existing Alignment Existing Track Quality

NewExistingPublic ROWNew Acquisition

—

UrbanNew Acquisition

—

RuralRural

—Low

Rural

—Medium

Rural

—high

Urban

—Low

Urban

—Medium

Urban

—High

HighMediumLowClass 0-21Class 32Class 43

Core Express Service

San Diego–Inland 

Empire

5 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 0% 10% 30% 25% 20% 15% — — — — — —

Inland Empire–Phoenix 4 100% 0% 0% 15% 85% 35% 30% 20% 10% 5% 0% 0% 0% 100% — — —

Regional Service

Inland Empire–Phoenix 4 90% 10% 0% 15% 85% 35% 30% 20% 10% 5% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%

1 Maximum passenger operating speed of 0-30 mph 2

Maximum passenger operating speed of 30-60 mph 3

Maximum passenger operating speed of 60-80 mph
Appendix—24| Technical Background Report

Table F-9 Las Vegas–Tucson Corridor: MSA projected growth trends

Population

2010 2050

Percent Change 

(2010 to 2050)

Las Vegas 1,951,000 3,525,000 81%

Kingman 200,000 405,000 103%

Phoenix 4,193,000 7,786,000 86%

Tucson 980,000 1,821,000 86%

Total 7,324,000 13,537,000 85%

Source: 2050 data extrapolated from 2040 population forecasts by Woods & Poole 

Economics, Inc., Washington, D.C., copyright 2010; 2010 Population Data, US Census, 

2010. 

Table F-10 Las Vegas–Tucson Corridor: network analysis assumptions Number of Stations

Alignment 

Type

Right of Way 

Availability for New 

Alignment

Development Type by Investment Level for 

New Alignment

Freight Density for 

Existing Alignment Existing Track Quality

NewExistingPublic ROWNew Acquisition

—

UrbanNew Acquisition

—

RuralRural

—Low

Rural

—Medium

Rural

—high

Urban

—Low

Urban

—Medium

Urban

—High

HighMediumLowClass 0-21Class 32Class 43

Regional Service

Las Vegas–Kingman 2 85% 15% 0% 10% 90% 0% 20% 70% 10% 0% 0% 15% 0% 85% 0% 100% 0%

Kingman–Phoenix 3 67% 33% 0% 5% 95% 25% 10% 60% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100%

Phoenix–Tucson 6 40% 60% 0% 35% 65% 50% 15% 0% 20% 10% 5% 80% 20% 0% 80% 20% 0%

1 Maximum passenger operating speed of 0-30 mph 2

Maximum passenger operating speed of 30-60 mph 3

Maximum passenger operating speed of 60-80 mph
Technical Background Report | Appendix—25

Table F-11 S.F./Oakland–Reno Corridor: MSA projected growth trends

Population

2010 2050

Percent Change 

(2010 to 2050)

S.F./Oakland 4,335,000 5,643,000 30%

Vallejo 413,000 621,000 50%

Sacramento 2,149,000 3,656,000 70%

Truckee 99,000 171,000 73%

Reno 425,000 749,000 76%

Total 7,421,000 10,840,000 46%

Source: 2050 data extrapolated from 2040 population forecasts by Woods & Poole 

Economics, Inc., Washington, D.C., copyright 2010; 2010 Population Data, US Census, 2010. 
Appendix—26| Technical Background Report

Table F-12 S.F./Oakland–Reno Corridor: network analysis assumptions Number of Stations

Alignment 

Type

Right of Way 

Availability for New 

Alignment

Development Type by Investment Level for 

New Alignment

Freight Density for 

Existing Alignment Existing Track Quality

NewExistingPublic ROWNew Acquisition

—

UrbanNew Acquisition

—

RuralRural

—Low

Rural

—Medium

Rural

—high

Urban

—Low

Urban

—Medium

Urban

—High

HighMediumLowClass 0-21Class 32Class 43

Core Express Service

S.F./Oakland–Vallejo 3 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 50% 40% 0% 50% 50% 100% 0% 0%

Vallejo–Sacramento 2 100% 0% 0% 75% 25% 10% 15% 0% 40% 25% 10% 0% 50% 50% 100% 0% 0%

Sacramento–Truckee 2 100% 0% 0% 45% 55% 0% 25% 30% 0% 25% 20% 0% 100% 0% 50% 50% 0%

Truckee–Reno 2 100% 0% 50% 0% 50% 0% 20% 80% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 50% 50% 0%

Regional Service

S.F./Oakland–Vallejo 3 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 100% 0% 0%

Vallejo–Sacramento 2 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 100% 0% 0%

Sacramento–Truckee 2 20% 80% 0% 45% 55% 0% 25% 30% 0% 25% 20% 50% 50% 0% 50% 50% 0%

Truckee–Reno 2 20% 80% 50% 0% 50% 0% 20% 80% 0% 0% 0% 80% 20% 0% 50% 50% 0%

Emerging/Feeder Service

S.F./Oakland–Vallejo 3 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 100% 0% 0%

Vallejo–Sacramento 2 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 100% 0% 0%

Sacramento–Truckee 2 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 50% 50% 0%

Truckee–Reno 2 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 80% 20% 0% 50% 50% 0%

1 Maximum passenger operating speed of 0-30 mph 2

Maximum passenger operating speed of 30-60 mph 3

Maximum passenger operating speed of 60-80 mph
Technical Background Report | Appendix—27

Table F-13 Las Vegas–Salt Lake City Corridor: MSA projected growth trends

Population

2010 2050

Percent Change 

(2010 to 2050)

Las Vegas 1,951,000 3,525,000 81%

Cedar City 46,000 78,000 70%

Provo 527,000 1,333,000 153%

Salt Lake City 1,124,000 1,775,000 58%

Total 3,648,000 6,711,000 84%

Source: 2050 data extrapolated from 2040 population forecasts by Woods & Poole 

Economics, Inc., Washington, D.C., copyright 2010; 2010 Population Data, US 

Census, 2010. 

Table F-14 Las Vegas–Salt Lake City Corridor: network analysis assumptions Number of Stations

Alignment 

Type

Right of Way 

Availability for New 

Alignment

Development Type by Investment Level for 

New Alignment

Freight Density for 

Existing Alignment Existing Track Quality

NewExistingPublic ROWNew Acquisition

—

UrbanNew Acquisition

—

RuralRural

—Low

Rural

—Medium

Rural

—high

Urban

—Low

Urban

—Medium

Urban

—High

HighMediumLowClass 0-21Class 32Class 43

Core Express Service

Las Vegas–Cedar City 4 100% 0% 70% 15% 15% 45% 25% 15% 5% 5% 5% — — — — — —

Cedar City–Provo 2 100% 0% — — — 55% 30% 10% 5% 0% 0% — — — — — —

Provo–Salt Lake City 3 100% 0% — — — 0% 5% 10% 55% 25% 5% — — — — — —

1 Maximum passenger operating speed of 0-30 mph 2

Maximum passenger operating speed of 30-60 mph 3

Maximum passenger operating speed of 60-80 mph
Appendix—28| Technical Background Report

Table F-15 Phoenix–Tucson Corridor: MSA projected growth trends

Population

2010 2050

Percent Change 

(2010 to 2050)

Phoenix 4,193,000 7,786,000 86%

Tucson 980,000 1,821,000 86%

Total 5,173,000 9,607,000 86%

Source: 2050 data extrapolated from 2040 population forecasts by Woods & Poole 

Economics, Inc., Washington, D.C., copyright 2010; 2010 Population Data, US 

Census, 2010. 

Table F-16 Phoenix–Tucson Corridor: network analysis assumptions Number of Stations

Alignment 

Type

Right of Way 

Availability for New 

Alignment

Development Type by Investment Level for 

New Alignment

Freight Density for 

Existing Alignment Existing Track Quality

NewExistingPublic ROWNew Acquisition

—

UrbanNew Acquisition

—

RuralRural

—Low

Rural

—Medium

Rural

—high

Urban

—Low

Urban

—Medium

Urban

—High

HighMediumLowClass 0-21Class 32Class 43

Core Express Service

Phoenix–Tucson 6 100% 0% 50% 20% 30% 50% 15% 0% 20% 10% 5% — — — — — —

Regional Service

Phoenix–Tucson 6 40% 60% 0% 35% 65% 50% 15% 0% 20% 10% 5% 80% 20% 0% 80% 20% 0%

Emerging/Feeder Service

Phoenix–Tucson 6 40% 60% 0% 35% 65% 50% 15% 0% 20% 10% 5% 80% 20% 0% 80% 20% 0%

1 Maximum passenger operating speed of 0-30 mph 2

Maximum passenger operating speed of 30-60 mph 3

Maximum passenger operating speed of 60-80 mph
Technical Background Report | Appendix—29

Table F-17 Las Vegas–Reno Corridor: MSA projected growth trends

Population

2010 2050

Percent Change 

(2010 to 2050)

Las Vegas 1,951,000 3,525,000 81%

Carson City 55,000 69,000 25%

Reno 425,000 749,000 76%

Total 2,431,000 4,343,000 79%

Source: 2050 data extrapolated from 2040 population forecasts by Woods & 

Poole Economics, Inc., Washington, D.C., copyright 2010; 2010 Population Data, 

US Census, 2010. 

Table F-18 Las Vegas–Reno Corridor: network analysis assumptions Number of Stations

Alignment 

Type

Right of Way 

Availability for New 

Alignment

Development Type by Investment Level for 

New Alignment

Freight Density for 

Existing Alignment Existing Track Quality

NewExistingPublic ROWNew Acquisition

—

UrbanNew Acquisition

—

RuralRural

—Low

Rural

—Medium

Rural

—high

Urban

—Low

Urban

—Medium

Urban

—High

HighMediumLowClass 0-21Class 32Class 43

Core Express Service

Las Vegas–Carson City 4 100% 0% 0% 22% 78% 30% 35% 20% 5% 5% 5% — — — — — —

Carson City–Reno 2 100% 0% 25% 20% 55% 15% 30% 25% 15% 15% 0% — — — — — —

1 Maximum passenger operating speed of 0-30 mph 2

Maximum passenger operating speed of 30-60 mph 3

Maximum passenger operating speed of 60-80 mph
Appendix—30| Technical Background Report

Table F-19 Phoenix–Albuquerque Corridor: MSA projected growth trends

Population

2010 2050

Percent Change 

(2010 to 2050)

Phoenix 4,193,000 7,786,000 86%

Prescott 211,000 403,000 91%

Flagstaff 134,000 239,000 78%

Gallup 71,000 97,000 37%

Grants 27,000 209,000 674%

Albuquerque 887,000 1,606,000 81%

Total 5,523,000 10,340,000 87%

Source: 2050 data extrapolated from 2040 population forecasts by Woods & 

Poole Economics, Inc., Washington, D.C., copyright 2010; 2010 Population Data, 

US Census, 2010. 
Technical Background Report | Appendix—31

Table F-20 Phoenix–Albuquerque Corridor: network analysis assumptions Number of Stations

Alignment 

Type

Right of Way 

Availability for New 

Alignment

Development Type by Investment Level for 

New Alignment

Freight Density for 

Existing Alignment Existing Track Quality

NewExistingPublic ROWNew Acquisition

—

UrbanNew Acquisition

—

RuralRural

—Low

Rural

—Medium

Rural

—high

Urban

—Low

Urban

—Medium

Urban

—High

HighMediumLowClass 0-21Class 32Class 43

Core Express Service

Phoenix–Prescott 3 100% 0% 0% 25% 75% 40% 25% 10% 10% 10% 5% — — — — — —

Prescott–Flagstaff 2 100% 0% 0% 5% 95% 35% 35% 25% 0% 5% 0% — — — — — —

Flagstaff–Gallup 2 100% 0% 0% 5% 95% 45% 35% 15% 0% 5% 0% — — — — — —

Gallup–Grants 2 100% 0% 0% 5% 95% 45% 35% 15% 5% 0% 0% — — — — — —

Grants–Albuquerque 3 100% 0% 0% 15% 85% 45% 25% 15% 5% 5% 5% — — — — — —

Regional Service

Phoenix–Prescott 3 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0%

Prescott–Flagstaff 2 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%

Flagstaff–Gallup 2 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%

Gallup–Grants 2 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%

Grants–Albuquerque 3 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%

Emerging/Feeder Service

Phoenix–Prescott 3 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0%

Prescott–Flagstaff 2 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%

Flagstaff–Gallup 2 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%

Gallup–Grants 2 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%

Grants–Albuquerque 3 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%

1 Maximum passenger operating speed of 0-30 mph 2

Maximum passenger operating speed of 30-60 mph 3

Maximum passenger operating speed of 60-80 mph
Appendix—32| Technical Background Report

Table F-21 Reno–Salt Lake City Corridor: MSA projected growth trends

Population

2010 2050

Percent Change 

(2010 to 2050)

Reno 425,000 749,000 76%

Elko 51,000 75,000 47%

Salt Lake City 1,124,000 1,775,000 58%

Total 1,600,000 2,599,000 62%

Source: 2050 data extrapolated from 2040 population forecasts by Woods & 

Poole Economics, Inc., Washington, D.C., copyright 2010; 2010 Population Data, 

US Census, 2010. 

Table F-22 Reno–Salt Lake City Corridor: network analysis assumptions Number of Stations

Alignment 

Type

Right of Way 

Availability for New 

Alignment

Development Type by Investment Level for 

New Alignment

Freight Density for 

Existing Alignment Existing Track Quality

NewExistingPublic ROWNew Acquisition

—

UrbanNew Acquisition

—

RuralRural

—Low

Rural

—

MediumRural

—high

Urban

—Low

Urban

—

MediumUrban

—High

HighMediumLowClass 0-21Class 32Class 43

Core Express Service

Reno–Elko 2 100% 0% 75% 20% 5% 25% 30% 25% 5% 10% 5% 0% 100% 0% 50% 50% 0%

Elko–Salt Lake City 2 100% 0% 0% 30% 70% 25% 20% 25% 10% 15% 5% 0% 0% 100% 50% 50% 0%

Regional Service

Reno–Elko 2 20% 80% 75% 20% 5% 25% 30% 25% 5% 10% 5% 50% 50% 0% 50% 50% 0%

Elko–Salt Lake City 2 20% 80% 0% 30% 70% 25% 20% 25% 10% 15% 5% 0% 0% 100% 50% 50% 0%

Emerging/Feeder Service

Reno–Elko 2 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 50% 50% 0%

Elko–Salt Lake City 2 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 50% 50% 0%

1 Maximum passenger operating speed of 0-30 mph 2

Maximum passenger operating speed of 30-60 mph 3

Maximum passenger operating speed of 60-80 mph
Technical Background Report | Appendix—33

Appendix G. CONNECT SW Global Variable Inputs

Operating Characteristics

Circuitry Factor

Emerging/Feeder 1.2

Regional 1.15

Core Express 1.1

Operating Speed before Station Penalty (mph)

Emerging/Feeder 60

Regional 90

Core Express 186

Station Penalty 5

Transfer (minutes)

Transfer Time 15

Transfer Penalty 30

Miscellaneous Operating Characteristics (minutes)

Daily Operating Time 16

Layover Time 40

Physical Network/Fleet Characteristics

Network Data

Network Wide Maintenance Facility Y

Corridor Data

Electrification—Emerging/Feeder N

Electrification—Regional Y

Electrification—Core Express Y

Number of terminal layover yards 2

Number of intermediate maintenance facilities 2

Fleet Characteristics

Consist size 8

Seats—Emerging/Feeder 300

Seats—Regional 400

Seats—Core Express 600

Fleet spare ratio 20%

Max Network Load Factor 70%

Factors on Ridership

Forecast Year 2050
Appendix—34| Technical Background Report

Global Adjustment Factors

Value of Time 1

Auto Congestion 1

Population 1

Rail Speed 1

Rail Fare 1

Air Travel Time 1

Air Fare 1

Auto Cost 1

Auto Travel Time 1

Transit Ridership 1

Air Effective Daily Service Hours 16

Induced Trips (as a % of Diverted Trips)

Emerging/Feeder—Minimum 0%

Emerging/Feeder—Maximum 6%

Regional—Minimum 0%

Regional—Maximum 12%

Core Express—Minimum 0%

Core Express—Maximum 18%

Air Business Share 25%

Connect Air Business Captive Share 75%

Connect Air Non-business Captive Share 75%

Auto Business Share 12%

Auto Business Captive Share 35%

Auto Non-business Captive Share 40%

Auto Business Chooser Share (non-choosers are less likely to divert) 5%

Auto Non-business Chooser Share (non-choosers are less likely to divert) 10%

Existing Rail Business Share 50%

Rail Non-business/Business Fare Ratio 65%

Air/Rail Access Cost (dollars per minute) 0.2

Average Access Speed (mph) 30

Rail Access Time by MSA Population (minutes)

< 1,000,000 10

1,000,000—2,999,999 20

3,000,000—5,999,999 30

> 6,000,000 40

Air Terminal Time 75

Rail Terminal Time 25

Air Connect Time 60

Elasticity of Air Trips With Respect to Population Growth 30%

Elasticity of Auto Trips With Respect to Population Growth 30%

Elasticity of Rail Trips With Respect to Population Growth 30%
Technical Background Report | Appendix—35

Rail On-time Performance

Emerging/Feeder 85%

Regional 95%

Core Express 99%

Population Growth Factor Values

Low 80%

Medium 100%

High 120%

Auto Congestion Factor Values

Low 80%

Medium 100%

High 120%

Rail Speed Factor Values

Low 80%

Medium 100%

High 120%

Auto Cost Factor Values

Low 80%

Medium 100%

High 120%

Rail Fare Sensitivity Factors

Low 80%

High 120%

Range Boundary Percentiles

Low Percentile 25%

Medium Percentile 50%

High Percentile 75%

Emerging/Feeder / Regional Average Speed Threshold (mph) 60

Regional/Core Express Average Speed Threshold (mph) 90

Capital Cost Inputs

Unit Costs (2010 $)

New Construction

Average Cost per Acre—Urban $-

Average Cost per Acre—Rural $-

Cost per route Mile—At Grade (low) $15,000,000

Cost per route Mile—At Grade (high) $35,000,000

Cost per route Mile —Tunnel (220mph) $325,000,000

Cost per route Mile—Tunnel (180mph) $275,000,000

Cost per route Mile—Tunnel (150mph) $250,000,000

Cost per route Mile—Tunnel (120mph) $200,000,000

Cost per route Mile—Tunnel (90mph) $150,000,000

Cost per route Mile—Tunnel (60mph) $125,000,000

Cost per route Mile—Aerial (low) $60,000,000
Appendix—36| Technical Background Report

Cost per route Mile—Aerial (high) $100,000,000

Major Station—Core $200,000,000

Major Station—Regional $100,000,000

Major Station—Emerging/Feeder $50,000,000

Minor Station—Core $40,000,000

Minor Station—Regional $20,000,000

Minor Station—Emerging/Feeder $10,000,000

Train set $35,000,000

Emerging/Feeder Adjustment from Core for new track 60%

Regional Adjustment from Core for new track 80%

For All Corridors

Heavy Maintenance Facility $225,000,000

Intermediate Maintenance Facility $100,000,000

Storage Yard $30,000,000

Extraordinary Items

Miscellaneous

Contingency 20%

Operating and Maintenance Costs

Unit Costs (2010 $)

Fixed Costs $5,000,000

Major Stations—Core (cost per station) $10,000,000

Minor Station—Core (cost per station) $2,500,000

Major Stations—Regional (cost per station) $4,000,000

Minor Station—Regional (cost per station) $1,000,000

Major Stations—Emerging/Feeder (cost per station) $1,000,000

Minor Station—Emerging/Feeder (cost per station) $500,000

Annual Seat Miles—Low (cost per seat mile) $0.040

Annual Seat Miles—High (cost per seat mile) $0.060

Route Miles—Low (cost per route mile) $200,000

Route Miles—High (cost per route mile) $300,000
Technical Background Report | Appendix—37

Appendix H. Corridor Performance

Performance characteristics and definitions

Four corridor performance analysis criteria (introduced in Section 5.1.3) were used to classify the general 

performance levels of the corridors in the network in the year 2050. The first two criteria assess the 

performance of a corridor in isolation (i.e., on a stand-alone basis, with no connections to other corridors on 

the network), and in the network context. The network context accounts for connections to other corridors as 

well as potential shared infrastructure with overlapping services. The second two criteria are relative measures 

that assess the extent to which a corridor affects and is affected by other corridors in the network. Figure H-1

provides definitions of the four corridor performance analysis criteria and presents a guide for the icons used 

to indicate the meanings of each. 

Figure H-1 Corridor performance definitions

A solid black circle indicates that a corridor is a top performing corridor for stand-alone and network 

performance categories. A solid black circle also indicates that the corridor enables significant improvement in 

the performance of other corridors, and it is not dependent on other corridors for its best performance. 

A half-filled circle indicates the next group of corridors. These are still strong performing corridors, enabling 

some improvement in other corridors but are somewhat dependent on other corridors for improved 

performance. 

A hollow circle indicates the lowest performing corridors tested, as well as corridors that do not enable better 

performance in other corridors. These corridors are very dependent on other corridors for improved 

performance. 

It should be noted that although these criteria focus on operating performance for the purpose of this 

classification, the stakeholders also considered capital investment requirements in their assessment. Also
Appendix—38| Technical Background Report

important, the operating recovery ratios presented here only represent one potential scenario. Some project 

sponsors might decide to focus on maximizing financial performance, in which case they might set higher ticket 

fares than assumed in this analysis and yield a higher operating recovery ratio, while others might choose fare 

policies that yield lower operating recovery ratios yet attract more riders and maximize public benefits.

When interpreting the analysis, readers should be careful not treat the results as a definitive screen, or as “the 

number” associated with a corridor. The performance presented in this report is based on a wide range of 

assumptions, limited in part by the constraints of the conceptual analysis tool, and other studies might validly 

take other factors into consideration. To highlight one example, the analysis did not consider short trips (those 

less than 50 miles) or commuter trips, yet these might be key markets for some corridors. Another caveat is 

that the presented costs are based on a potential range of unit costs, developed with limited data;

188projectspecific cost estimates might be valid yet outside this range due to project-specific conditions.

Given the limitations of the analysis, it was developed for the purposes of assisting the stakeholders with 

setting appropriate long-term service goals for corridors in the network. Many of the corridors were tested 

with multiple service tiers. The results presented in this chapter reflect a single service tier for each corridor 

based on CONNECT analysis for the year 2050 and stakeholder input. Table H-1 below presents the long-range 

service tier target for each corridor identified by the stakeholders.

Table H-1 Candidate corridor service tier targets 

Corridor Service Tier

San Diego–S.F./Oakland Core Express

Las Vegas–Greater Los Angeles Core Express

Greater Los Angeles–Phoenix Core Express

San Diego–Phoenix Core Express

S.F./Oakland–Reno Regional

Las Vegas–Phoenix Core Express

Las Vegas–Salt Lake City Core Express

Las Vegas–Reno Core Express

Phoenix–Tucson Regional

Phoenix–Albuquerque Emerging/Feeder

Reno–Salt Lake City Emerging/Feeder

There are several segments in the SW network map presented in Chapter 5 that are depicted with a red 

dashed line, indicating potential core express or blended service. These include:

• S.F./Oakland–San Jose

• Phoenix–Tucson

• San Jose–Stockton

• Provo–Ogden

 188 There are many limitations to the use of unit costs. One example is that the range used in this analysis will likely underestimate capital costs for 

creating new access to the core of some highly developed urban areas that present particularly challenging construction conditions. Another example is 

that, due to limited experience in the United States, much of the data considered in developing the O&M unit costs used in this analysis is based on 

planned or international systems, which have lower O&M unit costs than realized in many U.S. corridors today because of generally better operating 

conditions. Accordingly, all costs presented in this report should be considered conceptual, and more detailed analysis of corridor-specific conditions is 

needed to develop cost estimates appropriate for making investment decisions.
Technical Background Report | Appendix—39

The San Jose–S.F./Oakland segment is included in the San Diego–S.F./Oakland corridor for which Core Express 

results are presented. Regional service is presented for the Phoenix–Tucson corridor, however, multiple 

scenarios were tested in which this segment was included in the larger Greater Los Angeles–Phoenix–Tucson 

and Las Vegas–Phoenix–Tucson corridors. The remaining two segments indicated with a dashed red line on the 

map (San Jose–Stockton and Provo–Ogden) were not explicitly tested with CONNECT, but rather reflect either 

current plans in the region or stakeholder input on the potential future plans. The southern half of the ProvoOgden corridor (Provo–Salt Lake City) is included in the Las Vegas-Salt Lake City corridor.

Identification of corridor type/service tier

The 11 corridors in the network that were tested are listed in Table H-2, generally listed by performance level. 

The prevalence of solid and half-filled circles among the first half of corridors indicates that the San Diego to 

San Francisco as well as the Los Angeles to Las Vegas Corridors serve not only as top performing corridors as 

stand-alone and in the network context, but also strong enabling corridors. In addition, all corridors tested 

show at least marginally improved performance in the context of a multi-state network. 

Table H-2 Candidate corridor performance summary

Stand-alone

Performance

Network 

Performance

Enabling 

Corridor

Dependent 

Corridor

San Diego–S.F./Oakland

(Core Express)

Las Vegas–Greater Los Angeles 

(Core Express)

Greater Los Angeles–Phoenix 

(Core Express)

San Diego–Phoenix 

(Core Express)

S.F./Oakland–Reno 

(Regional)

Las Vegas–Phoenix–Tucson

(Core Express)

Las Vegas–Salt Lake City 

(Core Express)

Las Vegas–Reno 

(Core Express)

Phoenix–Tucson 

(Regional)

Phoenix–Albuquerque 

(Emerging/Feeder)

Reno–Salt Lake City 

(Emerging/Feeder)

For the year 2050.
Appendix—40| Technical Background Report

Top Performing Corridors

The top performing corridors in the network show the strongest demand as stand-alone corridors and enable 

significant increases in ridership on the other corridors in the network. These three Core Express corridors 

form the backbone of the Southwest network analyzed. The three top performing corridors are:

• San Diego–S.F./Oakland

• Las Vegas-Greater Los Angeles

• Greater Los Angeles–Phoenix 

Core Express service on these three corridors allow for competitive trip times to the primary population 

centers throughout the entire Southwest network including San Francisco, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Phoenix, the 

Inland Empire, and San Diego. They show strong demand as stand-alone corridors with O&M recovery ratios

greater than 1.0 even under conservative scenarios and provide large network impacts with connecting 

corridors throughout the Southwest region.

Second Tier Corridors

Second tier corridors perform well in a stand-alone context however their performance is greatly improved in 

the network context with connections to the three top performing corridors. Second tier corridors do not 

enable other network effects to the same extent as the three primary corridors do. 

The three second tier corridors are:

• San Diego–Phoenix

• Las Vegas–Phoenix–Tucson 

• S.F./Oakland–Reno

Service between these markets is more likely to be affected than the top performers by other investment 

decisions elsewhere on the network. For example, the benefits of the San Diego-Phoenix Core Express Corridor 

are maximized under network conditions with the Greater Los Angeles–Phoenix Core Express line via the 

Inland Empire also in operation. A potentially cheaper Regional alternative to the corridor via El Centro and 

Yuma may be possible but attracts fewer passengers and does not take advantage of the greater network.

Similarly, Core Express service in the Las Vegas-Tucson via Phoenix corridor may be negated with investments 

in Core Express service between Los Angeles and Phoenix with good connections in the Inland Empire to Core 

Express Service to Las Vegas.

The S.F./Oakland-Reno Regional Corridor allows competitive trip times for destinations throughout the entire 

Southwest network, including Los Angeles, San Diego, and Las Vegas. The recovery ratio exceeds 1.0 when the 

corridor is part of the greater network.

Third Tier Corridors

The third tier corridors in the network rely heavily on network connections to drive ridership, serve smaller 

markets on the periphery of the network, and are generally more appropriately served with Regional or 

Emerging/Feeder service. The five third tier corridors are:

• Las Vegas–Salt Lake City 

• Las Vegas–Reno

• Phoenix–Tucson 

• Phoenix–Albuquerque

• Reno–Salt Lake City
Technical Background Report | Appendix—41

The Las Vegas–Salt Lake City and the Las Vegas–Reno corridors were modeled with Core Exress service. Lack of 

existing infrastructure on the route between Las Vegas and Reno results in marginal difference between 

Emerging/Feeder / Regional and Core Express service investment. In addition, the long distances between the 

cities on this corridor make Core Express service the most competitive option. Neither corridor generates 

sufficient ridership to achieve high cost recovery ratios between these markets, but both see some network 

benefits when modelled with the three top perfroming corridors in the network. Ridership on the Las Vegas–

Salt Lake City corridor was three times greater than the ridership on this corridor without network 

connections. For the Las Vegas-Reno corridor, benefits were maximized under network conditions with the 

S.F./Oakland – Reno Regional line also in operation.

The Phoenix-Tucson Regional Corridor results in a marginal decrease in rail modal share (16 percent vs. 

17 percent) versus Core Express service. The corridor sees significant increase in ridership when connected to 

the larger network via a Core Express line between Phoenix and Tucson. Core Express service may be viable in 

this corridor when the entire proposed network is in operation. It should be noted that CONNECT only 

accounts for a portion of the potential ridership on this corridor; it does not account for daily commuter or 

short intercity trips. Including these trips in the analysis could boost the corridor’s performance and make it a 

more viable connection.

The Phoenix–Albuquerque Emerging/Feeder Corridor attracts a marginal increase in rail modal share 

(0 percent vs. 3 to 4 percent) compared to 2010 share. The corridor can be built in phases with an extension 

towards Albuquerque as ridership and the network grows. Approximately one-third of the ridership on this 

corridor is between Phoenix, Flagstaff, and Prescott, suggesting this portion of the corridor might have 

stronger performance than the corridor’s average performance.

The Reno to Salt Lake City Emerging/Feeder Corridor attracts a marginal increase in ridership compared to 

California Zephyr statistics. Operation on this corridor is highly dependent on subsidies. Service other than 

Emerging/Feeder rail would require heavy investment in infrastructure due to topographical challenges along 

the corridor.
Appendix—42| Technical Background Report

Appendix I. Multi-State Governance Models

Table I-1Multi-state governance model definitions

Governance Models Definition

Mechanism for 

Implementation Powers

Single state agency 

contracting with and 

on behalf of other 

states

Where an existing or newly created state 

agency addresses multi-state interests 

through agreements with the other 

state(s).

Multi-state agreements Range of powers can vary depending on type of entity 

established within state (i.e., authority, agency, corporation) 

and the degree to which other states can enter into contracts.

Voluntary coalition/

partnership 

Voluntary coalition/

partnership with nonprofit entity

Where stakeholders convene in a forum to 

collaborate for a common interest on a 

voluntary basis. 

Can work with/through establishment of a 

non-profit corporation, often tax exempt 

and eligible to receive government funds 

and private contributions.

Can be established without 

any formal agreement or 

mechanism but in some 

instances may use a multistate Memorandum of 

Understanding or other 

type of agreement

Generally has no legal standing and possesses no powers. 

Largely advocacy or advisory body.

With Non-Profit Entity: Generally organized as a distinct 

corporation; often tax-exempt and can often be a direct 

recipient of certain government grants and tax-deductible 

contributions from private sector. 

Special authority Where an independent entity, often a 

distinct governmental body, delivers a 

limited number of public services within 

defined boundaries. Services are generally 

provided within a single state or two to 

three states.

State legislation

Interstate compact 

Can carry a broad range of typical governmental powers, 

including entering into contracts and employing workers, 

acquiring real property through purchase or eminent domain, 

and suing or being sued. Following limits set in state legislation 

or an interstate compact, some can also exercise specified fiscal 

powers such as issuance of bonds, imposition of special taxes, 

levying benefit assessments, and charging service fees.

For-profit 

corporations 

Where a privately held company develops 

infrastructure or operates services on a forprofit, limited liability basis.

Formed and managed by 

for-profit investors

Generally only limited by contracts, laws, and regulations. May 

be recipients of a franchise from government to allow them to 

operate under certain constraints.

Federally chartered 

corporations

Where a corporation is established by 

Congress to provide a public service. 

Generally set-up with federal subsidies at 

the outset but often intended to become 

financially self-sustaining over time.

Federal legislation Similar to for-profit corporations but the mission and constraints 

of the organization are specified in the federal legislation.

Federal-state 

commission 

Body of federal, state, and, sometimes, 

local leaders organized to address a critical 

need, which often includes the distribution 

of federal funds among multiple states or 

coordination of multi-state investments. 

Federal legislation Can carry a broad range of powers, including entering contracts 

and employing workers. Typically does not have authority to 

issue debt. Can issue funds in the form of grants to participating 

states.

Federal government 

project office 

Where an office is created within an 

existing federal agency to carry out a 

specific purpose. 

Federal legislation Generally has a limited range of powers related to the purpose 

the office was established to address and within the scope of the 

federal agency’s powers.
Technical Background Report | Appendix—43

Table I-1Multi-state governance model definitions (continued)

Governance Models Governance Approach Examples

Single state agency 

contracting with and 

on behalf of other 

states

Governance body can vary depending on type of entity established. 

Oversight generally includes multi-state participation but ultimate 

accountability rests with single state agency.

MTA Metro-North Services in CT and by NJT 

New Woodrow Wilson Bridge Construction

Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority

Voluntary coalition/

partnership 

Voluntary coalition/

partnership with nonprofit entity

Rarely establishes a chartered board of directors. Generally makes 

decisions based on consensus of member agency representatives with 

rotating leadership. 

With Non-Profit Entity: Generally organized as corporation and governed 

by a board of directors. Board of directors may be appointed by members 

of the voluntary coalition/partnership.

Midwest High Speed Rail Steering Group

Northeast Corridor Master Plan Working Group

I-95 Corridor Coalition

Coalition of Northeastern Governors(CONEG Policy Research 

Center, Inc., is non-profit arm)

Special authority Generally governed by a board of directors appointed by elected officials. 

Executive Director appointed by board of directors and other staff carry 

out day-to-day operations.

Precedent exists for designation of federal members on such agencies.

Louisville and Southern Indiana Bridges Authority (and Bi-State 

Management Team)

Port Authority of NY &NJ 

Transbay Joint Powers Authority (single-state)

California High Speed Rail Authority (single-state)

For-profit 

corporations 

Governed through a board of directors that represents shareholders and is 

accountable for proper oversight and compliance with laws and 

regulations.

London-Paris-Brussels High-Speed Rail Network (Eurostar and 

Eurotunnel)

DesertXpress

Federally chartered 

corporations

Governed through a federally structured board of directors whose 

members are generally appointed by the President. Oversight provided by 

Congress. Limited opportunity for state participation.

Tennessee Valley Authority

Amtrak

United States Railway Association (1973-1982)

Conrail (1976-1987)

Federal-state 

commission 

Governance model established in federal legislation. The commission is the 

governing body, with members appointed by state governors and at least 

one member appointed by the President. Oversight provided by Congress. 

Often structured with veto power for the federal member.

Appalachian Regional Commission

Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Operations and Advisory 

Commission

Federal government 

project office 

Can be governed by the federal agency in which the entity is housed; if 

the office is designed to support a federal/state/local partnership, 

decision-making might also include state and local stakeholders. Oversight 

provided by Congress within context of overall agency oversight.

EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office 
Appendix—44| Technical Background Report

Multi-State Governance Model Case Study Summaries

Single state agency contracting with and on behalf of other states

MTA Metro-North Railroad

Metro-North Commuter Railroad operates commuter rail service in the New York metropolitan area as a 

subsidiary of New York State’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority, a public benefit corporation responsible 

for public transportation in the New York metropolitan area. Metro-North serves 120 stations distributed in 

seven counties in New York State as well as two counties in the state of Connecticut. Service to New Haven, CT 

and points west of the Hudson River are provided through agreements with Connecticut DOT (ConnDOT) and 

New Jersey Transit, the public transportation provider for the State of New Jersey, respectively.

The New Haven Line is operated through a partnership between Metro-North and the State of Connecticut. 

Under the arrangement, ConnDOT owns the tracks and stations within Connecticut. ConnDOT also finances 

and performs capital improvements within Connecticut. Metro-North owns the tracks and stations, and 

handles capital improvements for such within New York State. Metro-North also performs routine 

maintenance and provides police services for the entire New Haven Line, its branches and stations. New cars 

and locomotives are typically purchased in a joint agreement between Metro-North and ConnDOT, with the 

agencies paying for 33.3% and 66.7% of costs, respectively. The contract between ConnDOT and Metro-North 

self-renews every five years.

As part of the creation of Metro-North upon the divestiture of passenger rail service by Conrail after 1981,

Metro-North assumed responsibility for operating the former Erie Lackawanna services west of the Hudson 

and north of the New Jersey state line. However, since those lines are physically connected to New Jersey 

Transit lines, their operations were contracted to NJ Transit, with Metro-North subsidizing the service and 

supplying equipment. Two lines west of the Hudson River - the Port Jervis and the Pascack Valley - operate out 

of NJ Transit's terminal in Hoboken, N.J., and connect with service out of Penn Station, NY via the Secaucus 

Transfer.

New Woodrow Wilson Bridge Construction

The Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge is part of the I-95/I-495 Capital Beltway that connects Maryland and 

Virginia over the Potomac River; it also crosses the southern tip of the District of Columbia. In 1988 the FHWA 

initiated a cooperative study with several agencies to address the operational and structural deficiencies of the 

original six-lane Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge. A new alternative was chosen to replace the original 

bridge, which consists of a new Potomac River crossing and complete reconstruction and reconfiguration of 

the four interchanges on the Capital Beltway (I-95/I-495), two each in Maryland and Virginia.

In September 2001 the four partners – the FHWA, Maryland, Virginia, and DC—signed an agreement that 

assigned roles and responsibilities for the ownership, operation, inspection, maintenance, and rehabilitation of 

the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge. The agreement stipulated that, while the FHWA owned the original 

Bridge, Maryland and Virginia would accept joint ownership and title to the completed work upon completion

and final acceptance for maintenance of each bridge construction contract.

According to the Agreement, Maryland is responsible for the design, engineering, and preparations of plans, 

specifications, and estimates for the Bridge, as well as the supervision of its construction. But the operations 

and maintenance of the bridge will be split between Virginia and Maryland. A standing committee consisting of 

the chief bridge engineers in Maryland and Virginia (or their designees) will meet annually to evaluate the 

needs for periodic inspections and determine what work is necessary to maintain and rehabilitate the bridge. 

This committee must agree to all work performed on the bridge, whether it is entirely within one jurisdiction 

or in multiple jurisdictions. All costs for the work to operate, maintain, inspect, repair, and rehabilitate the 

bridge will be split equally between Maryland and Virginia.
Technical Background Report | Appendix—45

Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority

Maine’s State Legislature established the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority (NNEPRA) in 1995 to 

oversee the operation of passenger rail service in Maine. After an almost 30-year hiatus, passenger rail service 

restarted in Maine in December 2001 following the completion of a $60 million track rehabilitation project.

Since that time, NNEPRA has managed the budget, contracts, promotion, and customer services associated 

with the Downeaster passenger rail service, the Amtrak line which operates five round-trips daily between 

Portland and Boston, linking ten communities in three states. While both Massachusetts and New Hampshire 

contribute to station development within their respective jurisdictions, they do not contribute to the 

Downeaster’s operational budget. NNEPRA is governed by a seven-member Board of Directors; all members 

are appointed by the Governor of Maine.

NNEPRA, Amtrak, MBTA, and Pan Am Railways have entered into cooperative agreements relative to the 

execution of specific work orders (such as track improvements in Massachusetts and signal work in New 

Hampshire). The agreements vary depending on the type of project (operating or construction) since there is 

no formal Memorandum of Understanding in place among the states.

As outlined in a 1996 service agreement between Amtrak and NNEPRA, Amtrak is responsible for providing 

and maintaining equipment for, and operating, five daily round trips between Portland and Boston. The 

Service Agreement also requires that NNEPRA pay Amtrak an annual service fee for the operation of the 

Downeaster and reimburses Amtrak for fuel costs and for payments made to host railroads. Downeaster ticket 

revenues are retained by Amtrak and are credited against amounts NNEPRA owes Amtrak. In instances where 

the state or a local municipality owns part or all of the land around stations, the states/municipality maintains 

agreements with Amtrak that permits the construction, operation, and maintenance of the stations. In some 

instances, NNEPRA and Amtrak have entered into three-way agreements with municipalities where the 

municipalities themselves have paid to develop and build stations.

Voluntary coalition/partnership

Midwest High Speed Rail Steering Group

In 2009, the Governors of eight Midwestern states-- Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Ohio and Wisconsin—and the City of Chicago signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to work 

cooperatively to secure a portion of the $8 billion included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

(ARRA) for development of HPR. The MOU supported implementation of the region’s vision of a Chicago Hub 

that would connect trains traveling up to 110 miles per hour serving cities across the region, along with 

connections to adjoining regional corridors. The MOU also created the Midwest High-Speed Rail Steering 

Group, to which each MOU signatory appointed one senior-level official as a voting representative to the 

group. The Steering Group coordinates and advocates on behalf of the region’s collective HPR interests and 

serves as the single point of contact for the region. Priorities of the Steering Group include: promoting regional 

coordination in individual applications for ARRA funding and other federal funding opportunities; 

communicating a Midwest strategy to the federal government; and creating economic development in the 

Midwest region. The Steering Group submitted a coordinated application for ARRA funds in 2009 and was 

awarded $2.6 billion of the $8 billion available to states across the country. 

NEC Master Plan Working Group

In 2010 Amtrak published an Infrastructure Master Plan for the Northeast Corridor (NEC) that, for the first 

time, brought individual state plans together in a collaborative way. The plan identifies an initial baseline of 

infrastructure investment needed to maintain the current NEC system in a state of good repair; integrate 

intercity, commuter and freight service plans; and move the NEC forward to meet the expanded service, 

reliability, frequency, and trip-time improvements envisioned by the NEC states.
Appendix—46| Technical Background Report

The Master Plan Working Group that authored the document consisted of representatives from 28 entities: 

Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Delaware, 

Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and District of Columbia DOTs, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation 

Authority, the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority, the New York Metropolitan Transportation 

Authority (including Metro-North Railroad and LIRR), NJ TRANSIT, the Southeastern Pennsylvania 

Transportation Authority, the Maryland Transit Administration, Virginia Railway Express, the Coalition of 

Northeastern Governors (CONEG), FRA, Norfolk Southern, Providence and Worcester Railroad, CSXT, the Port 

Authority of New York & New Jersey, and Amtrak.

The Working Group was not governed by any formal processes; rather, the states, stakeholders, and agencies 

were invited to contribute their own priorities and projects. Discussions of routes and operations eventually 

led to the final plan. The ability to address mobility needs through such a planning process underscores the 

importance of partnership among the states, Amtrak, and other stakeholders.

I-95 Corridor Coalition

The I-95 Corridor Coalition is a volunteer partnership of transportation agencies, toll authorities, and related 

organizations, established in 1993. The Coalition provides a forum for key decision and policy makers to 

address programmatic transportation improvement across multiple jurisdictions and all modes, including 

travel information, coordinated incident management, commercial vehicle operation, electronic payment 

services, and the efficient transfer of people and goods between modes. No formal agreement exists among 

Coalition members and, similar to other voluntary coalitions, it has no legal status. An Executive Board, 

Steering Committee, and Program Track Committees, in addition to full-time professional staff, carry out 

Coalition objectives. Each year, a program of projects is developed by the Coalition, with a project budget, 

responsibility, and accountability assigned to the committees within the defined program areas. With its 

Priority Corridor designation by the USDOT, the Coalition receives federal funding (through its state 

department of transportation members) for support of its projects and programs, with local match provided by 

the member agencies. 

Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG)

CONEG is a non-partisan regional intergovernmental organization established in 1976 by the Governors of 

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont to address 

regional issues and provide a forum for inter-governmental cooperation. CONEG programs, policies, and 

initiatives address regional issues in transportation, energy, environment, and economic development. 

Through CONEG programs, member states cooperate on issues of shared concern to monitor regional 

developments, assess the regional implication of national policies, identify opportunities for action by member 

states, adopt policy positions, and advocate the region’s interests. Policies adopted by CONEG are issued as 

public statements and communications to policy-relevant members of congress.

CONEG’s governing body is responsible for its strategic direction. The governing body is composed of seven

member state Governors who serve throughout their gubernatorial term. CONEG management is directed by 

the Advisory Committee who acts on behalf of member Governors. Each Governor names a representative to 

serve on the Advisory Committee. Specific programs are administered by CONEG program committees headed 

by Program Directors. Program committee members are selected by the state Governors as needed. Program 

coordination is administered by the CONEG Policy Research Center, Inc, the non-profit staff arm of CONEG.

Program activities are conducted by the CONEG Policy Research Center, Inc, a non-profit organization which 

functions as the staffing arm for CONEG. The center’s fiscal and management affairs are directed by a Board of 

Governors. 
Technical Background Report | Appendix—47

Special authority

Louisville and Southern Indiana Bridges Authority (and Bi-State Management Team)

The Louisville and Southern Indiana Bridges Authority is a bi-state governmental agency organized by the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky and the State of Indiana for the purpose of financing and constructing the Ohio 

River Bridges Project. Kentucky adopted legislation authorizing the creation of the Authority and the Governor 

of Indiana issued an Executive Order that authorized Indiana’s participation. The Authority’s primary task has 

been to develop a financial plan for the project. The authority operates in consultation with, but separately 

from, the project’s bi-state management team, under the direction of the Indiana and Kentucky departments 

of transportation, which has managed the environmental and engineering aspects of the project.

The Bi-State Management Team has recently explored cost-saving ideas in the face of decreasing federal 

transportation dollars and increasing construction costs, and is developing a Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement to examine the proposed changes.

In December 2011 the Authority reached a consensus on a plan to finance and build the project. Under this 

agreement, which is supported by both state governors, Kentucky will be responsible for financing and 

constructing the downtown portion of the project - a new I-65 bridge, a re-decked Kennedy Bridge, 

modernization of the Kennedy Interchange, and expansion of the I-65 approach in Indiana. Indiana will be 

responsible for financing and constructing the East End portion of the project - a new bridge near Utica, IN and 

Prospect, KY; a new highway linking the Lee Hamilton Expressway and Gene Snyder Freeway, and a tunnel in 

Eastern Jefferson County. The role of the Authority is to help coordinate, monitor and ensure an interface 

between the two procurements, which would continue to be carried out as one project under a single financial 

plan.

Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

The Port Authority was established in 1921 through an interstate compact between the states of New York and 

New Jersey. The Port Authority’s initial task was to overcome the high costs of having most of the port’s 

docking facilities in New York with most of the rail terminals in New Jersey and to thereby increase the port’s 

competitive position among East Coast ports. Later, the Authority’s scope was expanded to include the 

planning, design, construction, and operation of bridges and tunnels, two bus terminals in Manhattan, a 

containerized marine terminal, arterial highways, rail transit, the region’s airports, and the World Trade 

Center. The Port Authority is governed by a six-member Board of Commissioners. It is a self-supporting entity, 

funded primarily by tolls, fees, rent, and investment income. It does not receive tax revenues from any state or 

local jurisdiction and issues bonds for capital projects.

Transbay Joint Powers Authority

The Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA) was created in 2001 through a joint powers agreement among its 

three member entities: the City and County of San Francisco, Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC 

District) and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board. The primary responsibility of the TJPA is to design, 

build, operate and maintain the Transbay Transit Center (TTC) project serving multiple bus and train operators, 

and including the extension of the Caltrain commuter rail 1.3 miles into the new TTC and accommodation for 

future California High Speed Rail. The TJPA is governed by a Board of Directors appointed by the three 

members of the Authority, with the City and County of San Francisco having the authority to appoint more 

members than the other entities. Staff to the TJPA manages the project as well as the Caltrain extension. The 

TJPA currently is a direct recipient of federal funding, with local match requirements covered by contributions 

from member entities through land sales, a local sales tax, regional bridge tolls, and state investment. All funds 

received have been used to cover project costs and the cost of contracting staff services. It is anticipated that 

all or a significant portion of the costs will be recovered through income from sale and development of 

adjacent land and air rights and, later, through user fees and charges.
Appendix—48| Technical Background Report

California High Speed Rail Authority

The California High-Speed Rail Authority is an example of a state-legislated authority. It was established in 

1996 to plan, construct, and operate high-speed passenger rail service connecting all the state’s major 

metropolitan areas. It has a nine-member policy board (five appointed by the governor, two by the State 

Senate Rules Committee, and two by the Speaker of the State Assembly). The state’s voters approved a 2008 

ballot proposal that provides $9 billion in bond funding to get the system started, and the system will also 

receive federal aid. Once in full operation, the Authority expects the system to require no operating subsidies.

For-profit corporations

London-Paris-Brussels HSR Network—Eurostar and Eurotunnel

The London-Paris-Brussels high-speed rail network spans three countries in Western Europe. The

infrastructure consists of four distinct geographic segments, the ownership and operation of which are specific 

to each segment and include a variety of public and private entities. The Channel Tunnel, the 31.4-mile 

undersea rail tunnel linking the United Kingdom (UK) and France beneath the English Channel, is essential to 

the existence of the network and was created through a multi-national public-private partnership 

infrastructure project between France and the UK. The tunnel hosts passenger and freight services between 

the countries, and is currently operated and maintained by the private Eurotunnel Corporation under a 99-year 

concession agreement. 

Initially conceived as a joint operation among French (SNCF), British (LCR), and Belgian (SNCB) rail service 

providers, high-speed rail passenger service is now provided by the private Eurostar operator through the 

tunnel and over the rail infrastructure of the three-country high-speed rail network. Two of these companies 

are Eurostar, a corporate international entity that operates high-speed rail service, and Groupe Eurotunnel 

S.A., a Franco-British publicly-traded joint venture that manages and operates the Tunnel infrastructure.

Eurostar International Limited Eurostar owns and operates high-speed rail service through the Channel Tunnel 

and on the London-Paris-Brussels high-speed rail network. It was until 2009 operated jointly by the national 

railway companies of France and Belgium, SNCF and SNCB, and Eurostar (UK) Ltd (EUKL), a subsidiary of 

London and Continental Railways (LCR), which also owns the high-speed infrastructure and stations on the 

British side. In 2010, Eurostar was incorporated as a single corporate entity called Eurostar International, a 

single, stand-alone business owned by three shareholders: SNCF (55%), LCR (40%) and SNCB (5%). Eurostar is 

governed by a board of directors.

Groupe Eurotunnel S.A. Groupe Eurotunnel S.A. (Eurotunnel), a French public limited company listed in Paris 

and in London, operates and maintains the Channel Tunnel under a 99-year concession with France and Great 

Britain. Eurotunnel also operates and directly markets a Shuttle Service through the Tunnel. Eurotunnel’s 

concession to maintain the tunnel requires it to pay dividends to its shareholders and repay loans that 

financed the tunnel construction. Eurotunnel is governed by its shareholder-elected, 11-member Board of 

Directors. Eurotunnel is self-sustaining, funded primarily through revenues from fees charged for Eurostar, 

freight service providers who use the tunnel, and Eurotunnel truck and passenger vehicle shuttle services.

DesertXpress

DesertXpress is an interstate high-speed rail project planned to provide non-stop service for the approximate 

190 miles between Victorville, California and Las Vegas, Nevada. The project is proposed to be wholly 

constructed, owned, operated, and maintained by a private entity, DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC. DesertXpress 

was required to obtain environmental clearance under NEPA and obtain requisite approval and permits from 

the FRA, the Bureau of Land Management, Surface Transportation Board, Federal Highway Administration, and 

the National Park Service (NPS).The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Nevada DOT 

participated in reviewing the environmental documentation. Desert Xpress has applied for a $6 billion loan 

through the federal Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing Program.
Technical Background Report | Appendix—49

Federally chartered corporations

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

TVA is a government-owned corporation created by a congressional charter in May 1933 to plan, construct and 

operate navigation, flood control, and electricity generation infrastructure, and promote economic 

development in the Tennessee Valley, a region particularly affected by the Great Depression. Today, the TVA is 

the nation’s largest public power company and provides electricity for 9 million people in parts of seven 

southeastern states (Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia) at prices 

below the national average.TVA is governed by a nine-member Board of Directors appointed by the President 

and subject to Senate confirmation. At its inception, TVA received direct congressional appropriations to fund 

its activities in navigation, flood control, and land management. Since 1999, TVA has funded all of its 

operations almost entirely from the sale of electricity.

Amtrak

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) was created in 1971 as a for-profit corporate entity to 

respond to the sustained decline of private passenger rail in the U.S. from 1920 through 1971. Amtrak 

operates passenger service on 21,200 miles of track connecting 500 destinations in 46 contiguous U.S. states 

and three Canadian provinces, and has succeeded in branding US passenger rail service nationally, with 

specialized premium service brands in the Northeast corridor. While much of the trackage on which it operates 

is owned by private freight rail companies, Amtrak owns and maintains its own rail infrastructure in some 

corridors. Amtrak also serves as a contractor in various capacities for several commuter rail agencies. Amtrak is 

governed by a Board of Directors, appointed for five-year terms by the U.S. President and subject to Senate 

confirmation. Amtrak receives annual federal subsidies requested by the FRA through the annual USDOT

budget request and directly by Amtrak through its federal grant and legislative request to Congress. In

conjunction with operating revenues and funds from state and local governments, which are used to subsidize 

state-supported routes and contracted commuter rail services, Amtrak uses federal appropriations to cover its 

operating expenses and to maintain and improve capital assets.

United States Railway Association (1973-1987)

Congress created the United States Railway Association (USRA), a government-owned non-profit corporation 

in 1973, to reorganize the railroads in the Northeast and Midwest into an economically viable system. USRA 

was tasked with settling suits involving seven bankrupt rail carriers that were to be consolidated into the 

Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail). USRA also created the Final System Plan for Conrail that encompassed 

the consolidation of the seven bankrupt railroads. USRA was governed by a Board of Directors comprised of 

five members appointed by the President, and the federal government maintained oversight and involvement 

throughout USRA’s existence. During the reorganization, USRA controlled the flow of federal rail 

appropriations, as well as USRA bond issues and loans. USRA received appropriations from the federal 

government to cover administrative expenses and operational activities. Revenues generated through 

operation were appropriated to Conrail and to implement the Final System Plan. Upon completion of USRA’s 

objectives, the corporation was dismantled by Congress and all powers, duties, rights, and obligations 

transferred to the Secretary of Transportation on January 1, 1987.

Conrail (1973-1998)

Congress created Conrail in 1973, with amendments in 1976, to reorganize the railroads in the Northeast and 

Midwest into an economically viable system. The governance model of Conrail from 1976 to 1987 was that of a 

private corporation with heavy oversight from the federal government. In return for the federal subsidies that 

would be required, federal taxpayers acquired near complete ownership of the company. The original model 

gave the federal government an 85 percent stake in the company, with employees holding the remainder.

Conrail’s Board of Directors included 11 members selected by stockholders, in addition to the chief executive 

officer and the chief operating officer. In its early years the company received heavy federal subsidies to 
Appendix—50| Technical Background Report

compensate the estates of the bankrupt rail operators, rehabilitate rail infrastructure that had deteriorated 

under the bankrupt operators, and cover operating losses during the rebuilding period. To increase the general 

economic viability of railroads, and to improve the long term prospects for Conrail, Congress passed legislation, 

including the 1976 4R Act, Staggers Rail Act of 1980 and the Northeast Rail Service Act of 1981 (NERSA), that 

relieved many of the constraints that precluded Conrail and its predecessor private operators from being 

profitable. Conrail subsequently became a profitable corporation, and in 1986, the Conrail Privatization Act 

was signed, authorizing a public stock offering to return Conrail to the private sector. In 1987 the federal 

government sold all of its shares, with an initial public offering of $1.6 billion. With the $300 million in funds 

that Conrail had already returned to the government, the sale generated nearly $1.9 billion. Subsequently, 

Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) and CSX Transportation (CSX) jointly purchased Conrail in 1998 and 

restructured the corporation.

Federal-state commission

Appalachian Regional Commission

ARC is a regional economic development agency established by Congress as a partnership of federal, state, and 

local governments to address the poverty and economic and social distress of Appalachia, the primarily rural 

areas linked by the Appalachian Mountains, including all of West Virginia and parts Alabama, Georgia, 

Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, 

and Virginia. The largest ARC program is the planning and construction of the Appalachian Development 

Highway System (ADHS), a network of highways and access roads to generate economic development in 

previously isolated areas of Appalachia and to supplement the interstate system. The Commission itself is 

comprised of 14 members: the Governor of each of the 13 Appalachian states (one of whom is elected as a

State Co-chairman by the governors for a term of at least one year) and one Federal Co-chairman, appointed 

by the President and subject to Senate confirmation. Funding for the ADHS is apportioned to states annually 

based on each state’s proportional share of the cost to complete the ADHS. States are required to contribute 

the requisite 20 percent local match, and highways require approval by ARC prior to the states receiving 

federal funds.

NEC Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission

Among its many other provisions, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008created the NEC 

Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission. The Commission consists of 18 representatives from the

USDOT, Amtrak, the District of Columbia and the eight states served by Amtrak along the NEC spine. Another 

five states, four freight railroads, and one commuter agency are represented on the Commission as non-voting 

representatives.

The primary role of the Commission is to facilitate cooperation and planning among NEC stakeholders for 

intercity, passenger, and freight rail. The Commission has extensive responsibilities to set corridor-wide policy 

goals and recommendations that encompass passenger rail mobility, intermodal connections to highways and 

airports, energy consumption, air quality improvements, and local and regional economic development of the 

entire Northeast region. The Commission is required to create a statement of goals concerning the future of 

NEC rail infrastructure and operations; develop recommendations for the NEC for short-term and long-term 

capital investment needs; and develop and implement standardized formula for determining and allocating 

costs across states. 

The Commission is still in its infancy and is in the process of internally organizing to begin working on these 

directives. In its early months, the Commission has provided a forum for state members, most of whom are 

state DOT directors or deputy directors, to understand the dynamics of the corridor so that states will able to 

adopt greater ownership over the corridor’s future.
Technical Background Report | Appendix—51

Federal government project office

EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office

EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO) was established by Congress in 1987 under the Clean Water Act. 

The CBPO is located in Annapolis, Maryland and serves as the staff of the Chesapeake Executive Council, a 

collaborative body established by an agreement between the partners of the Chesapeake Bay Program: the 

states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the District of Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay Commission (a tristate legislative body with representatives from Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania), and the U.S. EPA. The 

CBPO is made up of approximately 120 staff members from various federal, state, non-profit, and academic 

entities (with Executive Leadership consisting of EPA members). The CBPO conducts the day-to-day operations 

of the Chesapeake Bay Program by implementing and coordinating science, research, modeling, support 

services, monitoring, data collections and other activities. It also administers EPA grants/cooperative 

agreements to state agencies, interstate agencies, other public and or non-profit agencies, institutions, 

organizations, and individuals to achieve the goals of the program. Since the early 1980s, the EPA has provided 

approximately $20 million in annual funding to the CBPO through an annual Congressional appropriation to 

support the partnership and its programs. Approximately $3 million of these funds go towards running the 

Office, including staff salaries and other administrative expenses.