March 2011 Final EIS 

2-1 

2.0 Alternatives 

DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC (Applicant) proposes to construct and operate an 

interstate high-speed passenger train between southern California and Las Vegas, Nevada 

along an approximately 200 mile corridor. The Applicant proposes to construct nearly all 

of the fully grade-separated, dedicated double track, passenger-only railroad either in the 

median or immediately alongside Interstate 15 (I-15). Limited portions of the rail 

alignment alternatives considered would be located within existing railroad corridors or 

rights-of-way (ROW).1

Alternatives evaluated and analyzed in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

include action alternatives for construction of the proposed high-speed train, and a “No 

Action” alternative. 

2.1 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES 

2.1.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The No Action Alternative is being studied as the baseline for comparison with the 

proposed action alternatives. The high-speed train and associated facilities would not be 

constructed. Under the No Action Alternative, access to Las Vegas would be via existing 

access utilizing highway (I-15) and airport (McCarran International Airport [LAS]) access. 

The No Action Alternative is detailed in Section 2.3.1 below. 

2.1.2 ACTION ALTERNATIVES

The Action Alternatives considered in this EIS have been categorized into two primary 

sets: Action Alternative A and Action Alternative B. These are based on potential 

alignment routings for the 200-mile corridor. For analytical purposes in this Final EIS, 

each of the alignments is divided into segments. The Federal Railroad Administration’s 

(FRA) intent in organizing the document in this manner is to allow for Lead and 

Cooperating Agencies to “mix and match” various segments in composing a preferred 

alternative. 

 

1

 The use of any private railroad ROWs would be subject to approval by owner railroads. STB approval of the 

Project would not convey the authority to force any private railroad to sell, lease, or otherwise allow 

DesertXpress to use the ROW of an existing railroad. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-2 

 Alternative A consists primarily of rail alignment segments that would be within 

the median of the I-15 freeway. 

 Alternative B consists primarily of rail alignment segments that would be within 

the fenced area of the I-15 freeway, adjacent to automobile travel lanes. 

The remainder of this chapter is organized into the following sections: 

 Section 2.1 gives a brief summary of alternatives considered. 

 Section 2.2 describes the development of alternatives. 

 Section 2.3 describes the development of alternatives in detail. 

 Section 2.4 describes the selection of the Preferred Alternative.

 Section 2.5 describes the Environmentally Preferred Alternative.

Preliminary engineering drawings of these components are included within Appendix A 

of the Draft EIS. Appendix A of the Draft EIS includes the following: 

 Appendix A-1: Plan and profile drawings scale at 1 inch = 1,000 feet of the 

various rail alignment routings and ancillary facilities. 

 Appendix A-2: Seven large-scale maps (each 36 inches by 48 inches) depicting 

the proposed rail segments and ancillary facilities at a large scale on maps features 

Township, Range, and Section detail from the Public Lands Survey System (PLSS). 

 Appendices A-3 and A-4: Large sized site plans for proposed stations and 

maintenance facilities, identifying the proposed footprints of buildings, tail tracks, 

fuel storage facilities, radio signal towers, power substations, and other related 

features. 

 Appendix A-5: Plan drawings at 1 inch = 1,000 feet showing footprints of the 17 

proposed autotransformers sites and typical autotransformer layout. 

The Supplemental Draft EIS included the following additional illustrative appendices: 

 Appendix S-A-1: Plan and profile drawings at 1 inch = 1,000 feet of Segment 

2C – Side Running and Median Options. 

 Appendix S-A-2 : Plan and profile drawings at 1 inch = 1,000 feet of the 

Segment 4C Alignment. 

 Appendix S-A-3 : Plan drawings of the Relocated Sloan MSF Site. 

 Appendix S-A-4 : Plan drawings of the Wigwam Avenue MSF Modification. 

This Final EIS includes the following additional illustrative appendices: 

 Appendix F-B: Highway Interface Manual 

 Appendix F-C: Plan and profile drawings of the Preferred Alternative. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-3 

2.1.2.1 Alignment Options 

The Action Alternatives are subdivided into Action Alternative A alignments and Action 

Alternative B alignments for each of the seven segments comprising the entire project. 

Action Alternative A alignments are identified as the “Median Alternatives” in that 

from Yermo, California, northeasterly to Clark County/Las Vegas (Segments 3 through 7), 

the alignments would primarily be located within the median of the I-15 freeway. 

Action Alternative B alignments are identified as the “Right-of-Way Alternatives” in 

that for most of the distance between Victorville and Clark County/Las Vegas (Segments 1 

through 7); the tracks would be located within or immediately adjacent to the ROW of the 

I-15 freeway. 

Action Alternative A and B alignments would originate at one of the three Victorville 

Station alternatives and terminate at one of the four Las Vegas station alternatives. 

A third alignment option was considered for Segments 6 and 7, Option C. The Option C 

alignment would diverge from the I-15 corridor near the community of Sloan in 

unincorporated Clark County and generally follow, or be located within, the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) ROW.2

 Option C would terminate at one of three Las 

Vegas Station options, Central A, Central B or Downtown (one station option, the 

Southern Station, could not be utilized in conjunction with the Option C alignment).3

 

In addition, in response to public and agency comments, the Supplemental Draft EIS also 

included an evaluation of a third alignment option for Segments 2 and 4, Segment 2C and 

Segment 4C. Two routing options were considered for Segment 2C, the Segment 2C Side 

Running and Segment 2C Median alignment options. Both alignment options would 

follow the I-15 freeway corridor through Barstow, located on the western and northern 

side of the I-15 and within the median, respectively. Segment 4C would diverge from the 

I-15 freeway corridor in the same location as Segment 4B considered in the Draft EIS. 

Segment 4C would extend to the north of the Clark Mountains through undeveloped 

lands, just west of the proposed Segment 4B alignment option, and re-connect with the I15 freeway corridor in the vicinity of Primm. 

Table F-2-1 summarizes the alignment options for the Action Alternatives. Figures 

S-2-1 through S-2-5 of the Supplemental Draft EIS illustrate the alignment options for 

the Action Alternatives. 

Action Alternative A alignments would provide median crossings for the segments located 

within the median of I-15 (Segments 3 through 7). For these portions, specifically between 

Yermo, California and Clark County/Las Vegas, the barriers and fencing along Action 

 

2

 Option C would require approval by the UPRR. 

3

 Station options are discussed in further detail below in Section 2.4.9.3. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-4 

Alternative A Segments 3, 5, 6, and 7 would incorporate cross medians that would provide 

an opening for emergency access to the high-speed rail ROW. To provide access across 

the I-15 median for authorized emergency vehicles, such as police, fire, and paramedics, 

Action Alternative A rail alignments would provide culverts under the railroad ROW for 

the exclusive use of emergency vehicles. In addition to the existing accessible highway 

overpasses and underpasses, the cross medians would be located approximately every 10 

miles, or as required by the respective State Highway Patrols and state Departments of 

Transportation. Figure 2-2 of the Draft EIS shows the design concept of the cross 

median emergency access. Action Alternative B would not require the implementation of 

cross median emergency access, as these rail alignments would be located alongside the 

existing I-15 freeway, within the I-15 ROW. Emergency access across the I-15 median 

would thus be unaffected.

Table F-2-1 Summary of Action Alternatives 

Segment Action Alternative A Action Alternative B Option C Preferred 

Alternative

1: Victorville 

to Lenwood

From any VV station 

alternative, Segment 1

would run along west 

side of I-15 corridor for 

21 to 29 miles

From any VV station 

alternative, Segment 1

would run along west 

side of I-15 corridor for 

21 to 29 miles

NA Segment 1

2: Lenwood 

to Yermo

Segment 2 A/B, would 

cross the Mojave River 

and run through northern 

Barstow, then Segment 

2A would run about 1 

mile north of I-15 past 

Yermo

Segment 2 A/B, would 

cross the Mojave River 

and run through northern 

Barstow, then Segment 

2B would run less than 

0.5 mile north of I-15 

past Yermo

Segment 2C 

alignment within 

the I-15 corridor 

through Barstow

(side running and 

median options 

considered); then 

same as 2A from

Old Hwy 58 to 

Yermo. .

Segment 2C 

Side 

Running

3: Yermo to 

Mountain 

Pass

Segment 3A: Within I-15 

median

Segment 3B: West of I15, running alongside 

freeway, except for a 

modification to the East 

side near Halloran 

Springs RD

NA Segment 3B

(Modified)

4: Mountain 

Pass to 

Primm

Segment 4A: Includes 

approx. 2 mile portion of 

MNP, then east of I-15

Segment 4B: Through 

new tunnels in mountains 

northwest of I-15, then 

overland until rejoining I15 corridor at Primm

Segment 4C, 

similar to Segment 

4B, but avoids

planned solar 

energy projects

Segment 

4C, absent 

legislation 

action to 

allow 

Segment 4A
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-5 

Segment Action Alternative A Action Alternative B Option C Preferred 

Alternative

5: Primm to 

Sloan Road

Segment 5A: Within I-15 

median

Segment 5B: Along east 

side of I-15

NA Segment 5B

6: Sloan 

Road to Las 

Vegas 

(Southern or 

Central A/B 

Stations)4

Segment 6A: Within I-15 

median

Segment 6B: Varying 

from east to west side of 

I-15, except for 1.5 miles 

in an adjacent county 

transportation corridor

Segment 6C: 

UPRR Corridor

Segment 6B

7: West 

Twain 

Avenue to 

Downtown 

Station

Segment 7A: Within I-15 

median

Segment 7B: West side 

of I-15

Segment 7C: 

UPRR Corridor

NA

Source: CirclePoint, 2009-2011.

2.1.2.2 Facility Options 

The Action Alternatives would also include one of each of the following permanent 

physical facilities. This Final EIS examines multiple site options for these facilities. 

Similar to the consideration of rail segments noted above, FRA’s intent is to allow for the 

Lead and Cooperating Agencies to compose their preferred alternative by incorporating 

one each of the following permanent physical facilities. With very few exceptions, these 

physical facilities can connect to all rail alignment segments. 

 Victorville passenger station: Two site options, Victorville Station Sites 1 and 

2 (VV1 and VV2), immediately west of the I-15 freeway in the vicinity of Stoddard 

Wells Road and a third site option, Victorville Station Site 3 (VV3), at Dale Evans 

Parkway were considered. 

 Victorville Operations, Maintenance, and Storage Facility (OMSF): Two 

site options (OMSF Site Option 1(OMSF 1) and OMSF Site Option 2 (OMSF 2)) 

immediately west of the I-15 freeway were considered. 

 Maintenance of Way (MOW) facility: One site option adjacent to the I-15 

freeway near the community of Baker was considered. 

 Las Vegas area Maintenance and Storage Facility (MSF): Four site 

options (Sloan Road MSF, Relocated Sloan Road MSF, Wigwam Avenue MSF, and 

Robindale Avenue MSF) were considered. 

 

4 If Option C is selected for Segment 6, the terminus would be either Central Station A or B or the Downtown 

Station, via Segment 7A, 7B or Option C. Segment 6 Option C would not terminate at the Southern Station. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-6 

 Las Vegas area passenger station: Four site options in Clark County/City of 

Las Vegas (Southern Station, Central Station A, Central Station B, and Downtown 

Station) were considered. 

 Frias Substation: To provide electrical power in the Las Vegas area in the event 

the electric multiple unit (EMU) train technology is selected. 

2.1.2.3 Technology Options 

The Applicant proposed two possible train technologies (referred to as “technology 

options”), detailed in Section 2.3.2.4 of this Final EIS, which are each fully applicable to 

any set of the Action Alternatives. 

 Diesel-Electric Multiple Unit Train (DEMU) 

 Electric Multiple Unit Train (EMU) 

The two technology options would have similar ROW width requirements and largely the 

same construction footprint. However, the EMU option would also include overhead 

catenary wires and supports (located along the length of the rail alignment), three 

electrical substations (one at an OMSF, one at the MOW, and one at an MSF), and 

approximately 17 transformers (each located on 4,000 to 5,000 square foot parcels at 10 

mile intervals along the rail corridor). The EMU option would also require three electrical 

utility connections from the existing electrical grid: one in Victorville, one in Baker, and 

one near Sloan. Several train technologies for the DesertXpress project were considered 

but rejected from analysis in this Final EIS. Refer to Section 2.2.3.3 of this Final EIS for 

further discussion. 

2.1.3 APPLICANT’S PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE 

A significant portion of the DesertXpress project would lie within Federal lands managed 

by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Construction and operation of an Action 

Alternative would require a ROW permit from the BLM. BLM required the project 

applicant to submit a preliminary ROW permit application. While this application 

included all alternatives and options considered, BLM required the applicant to designate 

an “Applicant’s Proposed Alternative.” Section 2.1.2 of the Draft EIS identified the 

Applicant’s Proposed Alternative. 

The Applicant’s Proposed Alternative has been updated since the publication of the Draft 

and Supplement Draft EIS and is detailed below. 

Note that pursuant to 40 CFR 1502.14, this Final EIS identifies a distinct Preferred 

Alternative identified by FRA and the Cooperating Agencies (see Section 2.4, Preferred 

Alternative, below), which slightly varies from the Applicant’s Proposed Alternative, as 

described below. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-7 

The Applicant’s Proposed Alternative has been identified by DesertXpress Enterprises, 

LLC as follows: 

 Rail Alignments 

Segment 1 

Segment 2C Side Running 

Segment 3B (as originally proposed, not Modified) 

Segment 4C (absent legislation allowing implementation of Segment 4A)

Segment 5B 

Segment 6B 

 Victorville Station Site Option: Victorville Station Site 3, Parking Option B

(VV3B)

 Las Vegas Station Site Option: Las Vegas Central Station B or Las Vegas 

Southern Station 

 Victorville OMSF Site Option: OMSF 2 

 Las Vegas MSF Site Option: Wigwam Avenue MSF 

 Las Vegas MSF Substation: Frias Substation 

 Train Technology: Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) 

2.1.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

FRA, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), BLM, National Park Service (NPS), and 

the Surface Transportation Board’s (STB) Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) have 

considered analysis of the No Action Alternative, Action Alternatives, and project 

modifications and additions presented in the Supplemental Draft EIS, as well as all public 

and agency comments received during the review periods for both the Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS. Based on the foregoing, these bodies have identified a complete 

Preferred Alternative, composed of certain rail alignments, facilities, and a technology. 

Section 2.4, Preferred Alternative, of this Final EIS identifies all components of the 

Preferred Alternative. Figure F-1-1 shows an overview map of the Preferred Alternative, 

which includes: 

 Rail Alignments 

Segment 1 

Segment 2C Side Running 

Segment 3B (Modified) 

Segment 4C (absent legislation allowing implementation of Segment 4A)

Segment 5B 

Segment 6B 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-8 

 Victorville Station Site Option: VV3B 

 Las Vegas Station Site Option: Las Vegas Central Station B or Las Vegas 

Southern Station 

 Victorville OMSF Site Option: OMSF 2 

 Las Vegas MSF Site Option: Wigwam Avenue MSF 

 Las Vegas MSF Substation: Frias Substation 

 Train Technology: Electric (EMU) 

2.2 CONSIDERATIONS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES 

2.2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The No Action Alternative includes the system physical characteristics and capacity as 

they exist at the time of the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS (2006-2010) and, 

where possible, the planned and funded improvements that would be in place by the 

planning horizon year of 2030. Section 2.3.1 below describes these improvements in 

detail. 

A decision to select the No Action Alternative would mean that no high-speed passenger 

rail project would be constructed. As a private entity, the Applicant has neither an 

obligation nor authority to entertain alternative transportation investments other than its 

proposed action. 

2.2.2 ACTION ALTERNATIVES

A number of the alignment alternatives for the proposed project have been studied by the 

Applicant and FRA. Technical criteria were developed largely by the Applicant and agreed 

to by the FRA. Environmental criteria were developed by FRA. This section describes the 

process used by the Applicant to evaluate conceptual alignment alternatives and to make 

feasibility and practicability determinations in consultation with the FRA and Cooperating 

Agencies during the environmental review process. Table F-2-2 lists the key criteria 

used to distinguish among alignment alternatives. These criteria include technical and 

alignment factors, including connectivity, ROW constraints and compatibility, ridership 

potential, constructability, and environmental impacts. Agency criteria also included a 

review of project consistency with adopted plans and programs in effect in the project area 

and the minimization of any potential conflicts such as at-grade crossings of any roads, or 

conflicts with transportation purposes of the I-15 freeway corridor. Such criteria are used 

to screen the number of reasonable and practical potential alternatives, which are further 

reviewed against the technical criteria evaluated in the technical sections of this Final EIS. 

In addition, the FRA and Cooperating Agencies in this EIS process have developed criteria 

for consideration of alternatives. Table F-2-3 identifies the federal agency alternatives 

criteria. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-9 

In consultation with FRA and other Cooperating Agencies, the Applicant has removed 

some alternatives from further consideration based on technical and environmental 

criteria. See Section 2.2.3 below for further discussion of such alternatives removed 

from further consideration. 

Table F-2-2 Alternatives Criteria 

Technical and Alignment Criteria

Travel-time competitive with highway travel (1 hour and 45 minutes or less) 

Reliable and convenient mode of travel 

Proven steel wheel on steel track technology

Maximize return on investment for this privately sponsored project 

Minimize the need for private land acquisition

Limited restrictions on track geometry for reduced travel time and increased passenger comfort

Maximum vertical gradient of 4.5% and maximum 6.0-inch actual super elevation (Ea)

Capable of accommodating normal maintenance activities without disruption to daily operations of adjacent 

highway or rail operations

Tunnels less than one mile in length

Adequate space for emergency access and maintenance and inspection access to the trackway

Adequate trackbed drainage

Able to provide acceptable horizontal clearance from existing and proposed railroad tracks, and existing 

and proposed highway lanes

Environmental Criteria

Minimize impacts to parklands, including the Mojave National Preserve (Preserve)

Minimize impacts to known cultural resources, wetlands, habitat area for threatened and endangered 

species, nature preserves

Minimize the relocation of residences and commercial properties

Minimize noise to residential properties and sensitive receptors

Maximize connectivity with other transportation modes, including airports, monorail, and bus routes

Maximize ridership and mode shift from auto to improve air quality, energy use and safety along I-15 

corridor.

Source: FRA, 2009. 

Table F-2-3 Federal Agency Alternatives Criteria 

Alternatives Criteria

Consistent with goals and objectives of approved policies and plans

Minimize conflicts while preserving safety and efficiency of existing highways and railroads 

Minimize significant effects to environmental values

Minimize impacts to threatened and endangered species

Source: FRA, 2009. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-10

Projected ridership was another important consideration. The Applicant has prepared a 

ridership study5 which was independently reviewed by qualified specialists under the 

exclusive direction of the FRA.6 The Applicant’s ridership study and FRA’s ridership 

review are included as Appendix F-D to this Final EIS. 

The ridership projections with adjustments based on FRA’s review were used as the basis 

for analysis in several sections of the Draft EIS, Supplemental Draft EIS, and Final EIS, 

including Sections 3.2, Growth; 3.5, Traffic and Transportation; 3.11, Air 

Quality and Global Climate Change; 3.12, Noise and Vibration; 3.13, Energy;

and 3.16, Cumulative Effects. The ridership projections utilized in the Draft EIS, 

Supplemental Draft EIS, and Final EIS analysis are also shown in Table F-2-4 below. 

The FRA’s ridership review also included a recommended three-year ramp-up period, to 

account for the time anticipated necessary to reach a higher level of ridership. 

Table F-2-4 Ridership Projections Utilized in EIS Analyses 

Timeline Diesel-Electric Multiple Unit (DEMU) 

Ridership Estimate

Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) 

Ridership Estimate

Opening Year 

Friday 8,334 10,574

Average Daily 5,335 6,773

Annually 1,947,478 2,472,305

Year 3 (following ramp-up)

Friday 15,624 19,824

Average Daily 10,003 13,020

Annually 3,651,080 4,635,012

Buildout Year 

Friday Riders 21,925 27,818

Average Daily 14.037 17,820

Annual Riders 5,123,418 6,504,131

Source: Cambridge Systematics, 2008; URS, 2005 

2.2.2.1 Alignment 

At locations where the DesertXpress alignment would be within the I-15 corridor, it is 

assumed that continuous concrete vehicle barriers, as well as American Railway 

Engineering Maintenance of Way Association (AREMA) crash barriers, would be built at 

all supporting columns of bridges at freeway interchanges and overpasses. Tracks would 

be spaced 15 feet apart. Median alignments (Alternative A) would include drainage bunds, 

channels, and utilities. Final design for all segments of the project in the median or the 

 

5

 Desert Xpress Updated Ridership and Revenue Study, URS Corporation, December 2005. 

6 DesertXpress Ridership Forecast Review, Cambridge Systematics, January 2008. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-11

freeway ROW (Alternative B) would be reviewed and approved by the California 

Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), 

and FHWA. The project would also be consistent with FRA Safety regulations, as further 

discussed in Section 2.3.2.6, Safety and Security, of this Final EIS.

The system would use #20 high-speed switches to facilitate recovery and bypass 

strategies. The #20 switch utilizes two machines for switch point movement and permits 

a maximum tangent speed of 125 miles per hour (mph) and a maximum turnout speed of 

50 mph. Switches for the sidings would be #10. 

As a fully grade-separated passenger railway, structures and bridges would be constructed 

at major crossings of roads, rail tracks,7 and waterways or floodways. In addition, switch 

tracks may require additional crossings over I-15 or any of the noted major features. River 

crossings would require approval of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (404(b)1 

approval). 

2.2.2.2 Facilities 

In addition to the passenger stations, OMSF, MSF, and MOW, other facilities would be 

required by selection of the EMU technology option. Specifically, the EMU technology 

option would require additional facilities in order to deliver and regulate electric power. 

These additional facilities include utility corridors, substations, and autotransformers. 

There are three proposed utility corridors listed below and shown on Figures 2-1.1, 2-

1.4, and 2-1.6 of the Draft EIS. 

 Victorville OMSF: A utility corridor parallel to I-15 that would provide 

connection to either OMSF 1 or OMSF 2. 

 Baker MOW: A utility corridor from the Southern California Edison substation 

at Nickel Mountain Road following Silver Lane to Arnold Avenue to the Baker 

MOW Facility Site. 

 Relocated Sloan Road MSF: A utility corridor from the Nevada Power 

Transmission Line, served by the Nevada Power Big Horn Substation located north 

of Primm, to the Relocated Sloan Road MSF site adjacent to I-15. 

The utility corridor ROW would have a typical width of approximately 100 feet. The 

access road contained in the corridor would be approximately 10 feet wide. The tower 

height of the elevated utility lines would range from 95 feet to 135 feet, depending upon 

land mark clearance. Tower spacing would range from 440 feet to 940 feet depending on 

tower height and necessary clearance. Each tower footprint would be approximately 24 

 

7

 Once the STB has authorized a rail construction, no other rail carrier can block the construction by refusing 

to permit the carrier from crossing its property as long as the construction does not unreasonably interfere 

with the operation of the crossed line; the operation does not materially interfere with the operation of the 

crossed line; and the owner of the crossing line compensates the owner of the crossed line, 49 U.S.C. 

10901(d)(1). 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-12

square feet to 59 square feet in size, depending on the height of the tower. Typical tower 

configurations are shown in Draft EIS Appendix A. The utility towers would use a 

typical voltage of 230 kilovolt transmission, with 66 kilovolt for power distribution. 

There are two potential electricity source options for the utility corridor to the Victorville 

OMSF site options. One option would be to connect to the existing Southern California 

electric transmission “grid,” while the second option would connect to a proposed 

substation that is planned to be built by the Victorville Municipal Utilities District on the 

west side of the Mojave River. Both of these electricity source options would utilize the 

same utility corridor. 

Three substations would be needed along the entire route, one near each end of the rail 

line and one near the midpoint. The substations near the ends of the rail line would be 

located on the corresponding OMSF/MSF sites. The three electrical substations would be 

needed: 

1. South end: At the Victorville OMSF 

2. Midpoint: At the Baker MOW 

3. North end: At the Relocated Sloan Road MSF or the Frias Substation site, 

depending on the selection of the Las Vegas MSF.8 

Notably, the Frias Substation would not require the construction of a separate utility 

corridor, due to its location immediately adjacent to an existing Nevada Energy electrical 

transmission line (the Arden-Tolson Transmission line). 

Substation diagrams and layouts are as shown on the detailed site plan drawings for the 

referenced maintenance facilities within Draft EIS Appendix A. 

Preliminary engineering identified the need for a total of 17 autotransformers, spaced at 1o 

to 12 mile intervals along the alignment. These autotransformers help to maintain and 

regulate the voltage along the line. Each autotransformer would require a physical 

footprint of about one-tenth to one-fifth of an acre. Locations for these autotransformers 

are shown in Draft EIS Figures 2-1.1 through 2-1.7. Appendix A of the Draft EIS also 

provides detailed locations of the autotransformers, as seen in the Plan and Profile 

drawings and the large-scale maps. Figures F-2-3 through F-2-6 show locations of the 

autotransformers incorporated in the Preferred Alternative. 

2.2.2.3 Technology 

For the Action Alternatives, the Applicant has selected existing intercity high-speed trains, 

customized for the unique setting of the corridor. Both DEMU and EMU train sets are 

being considered as high-speed train technology options. The Applicant has identified two 

 

8 The Frias Substation was evaluated in the Supplemental Draft EIS. The Frias Substation would serve the 

Wigwam or Robindale MSF sites under the EMU option. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-13

Bombardier train sets, the Meridian and Regina, as representative examples of the 

respective DEMU and EMU technology options. Meridian DEMU trains are currently 

operating in the United Kingdom; various derivations of the Regina EMU trains are 

currently operating in Sweden and China. The DEMU train set is projected to operate at a 

maximum speed of 125 mph. The EMU train set could have a maximum speed of 125 mph 

or 150 mph. 

2.2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM FURTHER 

EVALUATION

2.2.3.1 Alignment 

Two existing transportation corridors exist between Victorville and Las Vegas: the I-15 

freeway and the UPRR railroad. An alternative alignment was investigated that would 

follow the existing mainline UPRR alignment across the Mojave National Preserve 

(Preserve) through Cima and Kelso. While a UPRR alternative would enable the trains to 

avoid the steep grades along I-15, it would be a much longer, less direct route that would 

require the construction of new tracks through the Preserve alongside the UPRR tracks. 

Based on discussions with the National Park Service (NPS), the Applicant determined that 

the alignment through the Preserve would increase the severity and potential for 

environmental impacts than following the median and/or north side of the I-15 alignment, 

which minimizes, to the greatest extent, any potential direct impacts to the l Preserve. The 

Applicant also found this alternative would be significantly longer, with many speedrestricting curves. Such a route would add substantial travel time and thus fail to attract 

sufficient ridership. 

Similarly, it was considered that any alignment alternative within the urbanized portions 

of the Las Vegas Valley that would not follow existing major transportation corridors (i.e., 

existing freeways and railroad ROWs) would have the potential to result in substantial 

adverse impacts to urban/suburban areas (such as displacement of residents and 

businesses, increased noise and visual impacts, and impacts to property access). Such 

impacts would result largely from the incompatibility of high-speed train operations 

within existing residential and/or commercial developments. This resulted in the 

elimination of routes that would divert from major transportation corridors and instead 

follow existing streets and boulevards. For non-urbanized areas, it was assumed that any 

alignment alternative substantially deviating from the I-15 freeway corridor would result 

in much more substantial adverse environmental effects to sensitive resources, including 

but not limited to threatened and endangered species (including habitat areas), cultural 

resource sites, hydrological features, and scenic vistas. 

Several other alternatives were eliminated for particular sections of the route, which are 

detailed in Table F-2-5, along with the rationale for their elimination. A subsequent key 

is provided to read Table F-2-5.
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-14

Table F-2-5 Reasons for Elimination of Potential Alignment Segments 

Segment/Description Length 

(Miles) Reasons for Elimination Concerns

C I ROW C/A R/R E

1-A Victorville to Lenwood (south of 

Barstow, California). This alignment 

would have been constructed west 

of the Mojave River, following the 

existing Burlington Northern Santa 

Fe (BNSF) railroad corridor and 

Route 66 to a point just south of 

Barstow. 

22 P The alignment would have directly converted 8 

acres Prime Farmland/Farmland of Statewide 

Importance and would indirectly affect more than 

600 acres of such farmland. This alignment would 

have also impacted biological resources, riparian 

habitat, and archeological resources along the 

Mojave River. The alignment would have also 

traversed a section of the Mojave Fishhook Cactus 

ACEC. In addition, the alignment would have 

traveled in close proximity to the Route 66-Mojave 

River Corridor Historic District, and would have 

resulted in the demolition or major alteration of 

approximately 20 historic architectural resources, 

including portions of Route 66. The communities of 

Oro Grande and Helendale would have also been 

affected in terms of environmental justice impacts.

1-J Victorville Station to Barstow via 

BNSF ROW. This alignment would 

have followed the BNSF ROW and 

would have placed an intermodal 

terminal station west of the Mojave 

River. 

29.6 P S This alternative location would have been too far 

from I-15, which reduces visibility and accessibility, 

hence negatively impacts ridership and financial 

viability. Adjacent uses would have been industrial. 

The alternative would have required a new access 

road from I-15 with new road bridge over Mojave 

River with impacts to wetlands, habitat, biological 

resources, and floodplains. This alternative would 

have also involved the grade separation of the 

highway crossings and relocation of a section of 

BNSF tracks.
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-15

Segment/Description Length 

(Miles) Reasons for Elimination Concerns

C I ROW C/A R/R E

2-J This alignment would have 

traversed private, generally open 

land through Barstow and Yermo. 

Portions of the route would have 

passed through the BNSF Barstow 

Yard and through residential 

neighborhoods.

24.6 P S P The alignment would have been incompatible with 

the future BNSF Barstow Yard expansion. The 

alignment would have caused noise and visual 

impacts to residential properties.

3-JA Yermo to Mountain Pass in I-15 

Freeway corridor. This alignment 

would have been constructed 

entirely along the south side of the I15 Freeway ROW along the 

Preserve

84.2 S P An alignment entirely on the south of the I-15 ROW 

would have been located in close proximity to the 

northern boundary of the Preserve for 

approximately 40 miles and would likely encroach 

into the Preserve at specific points, presenting 

permit constraints in this environmentally sensitive 

area; also, additional ROW (outside of existing I-15 

ROW) would be required. 

4-JA Mountain Pass to Primm via I-15 in 

the freeway median. This alignment 

would have been located within the 

I-15 median between Mountain 

Pass and Primm.

13.5 P S P The grades on I-15 in a 4-mile section approach 6 

percent. The maximum allowable grade for the 

project is 4.5 percent, and this alignment would 

have required a tunnel or very deep excavation 

with high retaining walls over a significant length to 

allow construction within the existing I-15 ROW. 

Because the grade would have been too steep for 

train operation, this alignment alternative was 

eliminated from further consideration. Potential 

adverse environmental impacts of this alternative 

and constructability constraints within the I-15 

median also eliminated this alternative from further 

consideration.
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-16

Segment/Description Length 

(Miles) Reasons for Elimination Concerns

C I ROW C/A R/R E

3/4-J Barstow to Primm via UPRR ROW. 

This alignment would have roughly 

paralleled Segments 3 and 4, but 

the alignment would have been 

solely in UPRR ROW or adjacent 

property.

120 S P P This alignment alternative would have been

approximately 23 miles longer than the I-15 

corridor and would add running time to the project. 

Longer, slower route would reduce ridership, 

revenue, and financial viability. This alignment 

alternative would have also involved relocation of 

existing UPRR tracks and major grading. With 

greater length and relocation of rail facilities and 

passing through the Preserve, this alternative 

would have resulted in noise, visual and biological 

impacts within the Preserve, a probable Section 

4(f) use of the Preserve, and impacts to UPRR 

operations during construction. 

5-JA Primm to Las Vegas via I-15 

Freeway. This alignment would 

have generally deviated from the I15 ROW and passed through areas 

with existing and planned residential 

or commercial development.

39.5 S P P An alignment that would not have followed existing 

transportation corridors would result in a need to 

acquire properties with existing residential or 

commercial development, which would be very 

costly and have noise and visual impacts 

incompatible with adjacent land uses.

5-JB Primm to Las Vegas via UPRR 

corridor. This alignment would have 

deviated from the UPRR ROW and 

passed through existing residential 

development areas.

40.1 S P P Acquiring properties that comprise existing 

residential or commercial development would have 

been very costly and would have been

incompatible with adjacent land uses from noise 

and visual disruption of passing trains.

Source: DesertXpress; CirclePoint, 2008-2011. 

Definitions: Reason for Elimination: (P) Primary and (S) Secondary 

C=Construction: Engineering and construction complexity; initial and/or recurring costs that would render the project impractical; logical constraints. 

I=Incompatibility: Conflicts with land use designations or has insurmountable long term impact to highway or railroad operation. 

ROW=Right-of-way: Significant land cost. 

C/A=Connectivity / Accessibility: Inhibits or precludes convenient transfer to other modes or access to terminal station facilities. 

 R/R=Revenue / Ridership: Severe long term operation or maintenance cost; significant increase in running time over a more direct alignment. 

E=Environment: High potential for significant impacts to natural resources, including streams and wetlands and habitat of threatened or endangered species. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-17

2.2.3.2 Facilities 

During review of the Draft EIS, the Clark County Department of Aviation (CCDOA) 

submitted comments indicating that the original Sloan Road MSF evaluated in the Draft 

EIS would be in direct conflict with the location of a proposed “super arterial” roadway 

that would provide future vehicle access to the planned Southern Nevada Supplemental 

Airport (SNSA) to be located north of Primm. As described in Section 2.2.5 of the 

Supplemental Draft EIS, the Applicant proposed a modified location for the Sloan Road 

MSF in response to comments on the Draft EIS. The Supplemental Draft EIS evaluated 

the “Relocated Sloan MSF,” located approximately two miles south of the Sloan Road MSF 

considered in the Draft EIS. The Relocated Sloan MSF site was developed to replace the 

Sloan Road MSF evaluated in the Draft EIS. 

2.2.3.3 Technology 

The Applicant considered various train technologies for the DesertXpress project, and 

sought to particularly identify a train with proven reliability that could be readily adapted 

to the unique desert environment of the Mojave/Las Vegas region and deliver reliable and 

rapid performance on the long and relatively steep grades along portions of the route. The 

Applicant found that steel-wheel train systems with distributed propulsion (with most of 

the passenger cars on the train being powered) the only viable technology and rejected 

other train technologies including magnetic levitation so as to allow for potential future 

system expansion without concerns regarding potentially proprietary technology, while 

ensuring the project’s economic viability. The Applicant also found magnetic levitation 

technology to be cost-prohibitive for a project implemented by a private entity. For a 

proposed route between Anaheim and Las Vegas that would use maglev technology (top 

speed 311 mph), the total estimated cost is $12 billion, or about $48 million per route 

mile.9

 In comparison, the Applicant has estimated the total capital cost of DesertXpress 

(Victorville to Las Vegas) at $6.0 to $6.5 billion (up to $33 million per route mile). 

A conventional locomotive-hauled train with non-motorized passenger cars was initially 

studied by the Applicant, but eliminated after train simulation models showed 

unsatisfactory results in performance and predicted reliability on the route’s long, steep 

grades. 

Discussion of the DEMU and EMU technologies can be found in Section 2.3.2.4 of this 

Final EIS. 

 

9 High Speed Rail (HSR) in the United States. Congressional Research Service, December 8, 2009. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-18

2.3 ALTERNATIVES IN DETAIL

2.3.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The No Action Alternative includes the system physical characteristics and capacity as 

they exist at the time of the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS (2006-2010) and where 

possible, the planned and funded improvements that would be in place by the planning 

horizon year of 2030. 

Other transportation improvements near Victorville and within Clark County are being 

studied and are not currently funded; as a result, these are not included in the baseline 

analysis for the No Action Alternative. These are instead considered in the cumulative 

analysis (see Section 3.16, Cumulative Impacts, of this Final EIS). 

As of January 2011, existing roadway conditions on I-15 from Victorville to Las Vegas are 

as follows: 

 Victorville to State Route 58 (SR 58) (Barstow): Three lanes each way with 

a 4th southbound truck lane coming out of Barstow up to the summit; 

 SR 58 to Interstate 40 (I-40) (Barstow): Three lanes each way plus some 

auxiliary lanes; 

 I-40 to Baker: Two lanes each way; 

 Baker to California/Nevada state line: Two lanes each way with a truck lane 

northbound approaching Halloran Summit ( about 17 miles north of Baker) and 

southbound at Mountain Pass (about 15 miles south of the state line); 

 California/Nevada state line to Interstate 215 (I-215): Three southbound 

lanes and two northbound lanes, with an additional northbound lane currently 

being constructed; 

 I-215 to Flamingo Road (Clark County): Three lanes each way plus auxiliary 

lanes; and 

 North of Flamingo Road (Clark County and City of Las Vegas): Four 

lanes each way. 

Between 1995 and 2006, annual average daily traffic (AADT) at the California/Nevada 

state line rose steadily. Over the twelve years measured, AADT increased by 27 percent, at

an average annual increase of about 2 percent. Over a typical year, travel demand is 

highest in the summer months of June, July, and August, and slightly above average in 

November and December. On a weekly basis, traffic volumes are heaviest on Sunday, 

followed by Friday and Saturday, with Monday through Thursday volumes markedly 

lower. The direction of traffic flow on I-15 is predominantly southbound on Sunday and 

Monday, relatively even on Tuesday through Thursday, and predominantly northbound on 

Friday and Saturday. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-19

Under free flow traffic conditions, the trip on I-15 from Victorville to Las Vegas takes 

about three hours to travel the 192 mile distance, if moving consistent at posted speed 

limits. Recent studies estimated that the delay related to peak-period congestion was 1.25 

hours in 2002, but will grow significantly, despite planned improvements. Delays 

associated with congestion are projected by Caltrans and the FHWA to increase to 3.19 

hours by 2012, 7.03 hours by 2022, and 5.78 hours by 2032, even with planned lane 

widening in place.10 With these projected travel delays, total trip times from Victorville to 

Las Vegas would increase substantially. 

2.3.1.1 Planned and Programmed Transportation Improvements 

Caltrans and the NDOT are planning for future highway improvements along I-15 between 

Victorville and Las Vegas. Certain transportation improvements have been programmed 

for funding in a State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) or Long Range 

Transportation Plan (LRTP) or are otherwise understood to be reasonably foreseeable. 

For the purposes of this Final EIS, these planned transportation improvements are 

assumed to occur under both the No Action Alternative and the Action Alternatives by 

2030. For a discussion of other planned projects that may occur in the project area but 

are not considered as part of the No Action Alternative nor the Action Alternatives, please 

refer to Section 1.6, Relationship to Other Transportation Projects and Plan in 

the Study Area, of this Final EIS. These other planned projects are also considered in 

the cumulative analysis contained in this Final EIS at Section 3.16, Cumulative 

Effects. 

As discussed in Section 2.0 of the Traffic Impact Analysis (see Appendix F-G of this 

Final EIS), I-15 will remain in its existing configuration for the vast majority of the 

distance between Victorville and Las Vegas, except for capacity improvements in the 

urban areas. All of the planned and programmed improvements are identified below, 

along with their status as of January 2011. The following improvements are anticipated to 

be operative within the No Action and Action Alternatives: 

Caltrans 

 Widen the bridge crossing over the Mojave River in Victorville: Construction 

completed. 

 Reconstruct the D Street, E Street, and South Stoddard Wells Road interchanges 

along I-15: Preliminary engineering and environmental review underway. 

 Near Barstow, widen a 1-mile segment of I-15 to 6 lanes and reconstruct an I-15 

interchange in Barstow. No start date for any project work at present. 

 

10 Initial Study/Environmental Assessment, Victorville to Barstow, Add Southbound Mixed Flow Lane. 

Caltrans, FHWA, County of San Bernardino, May 2001. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-20

 Add truck climbing lanes on I-15 in sections with steep grades. Construction 

completed. 

 High Desert Corridor roadway project, which would develop a new 

freeway/expressway from State Route 14 (SR 14) to I-15: Preliminary engineering 

and environmental review underway. 

 I-15 Joint Point of Entry: new commercial vehicle enforcement/agricultural 

inspection facility to be constructed between Nipton Road and Yates Well Road: 

Preliminary engineering and ROW acquisition underway. 

NDOT

 “NEON” project: Preliminary engineering and environmental review underway. 

Reconstruct the I-15/Charleston interchange 

Implement local access improvements 

Add a High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) direct connector lane from U.S. 

Route 95 (U.S. 95) to I-15. 

 The “I-15 South” project: (Sloan Road to Tropicana Avenue): Preliminary 

engineering, right of way acquisition, and construction underway from between 

Silverado Boulevard and Tropicana Avenue (first phase of design-build project); 11

New flyover at Blue Diamond Boulevard, new overpasses at Sunset Road, 

Warm Springs Road, and Pebble Road 

New interchanges on I-15 at: 

 Bermuda Road 

 Starr Avenue 

 Cactus Road 

Widening of: 

 I-15 mainline from Sloan Road to Blue Diamond Road (6 lanes to 10 

lanes) 

 Las Vegas Boulevard 

Reconstruct the Sloan Road and I-15 interchange 

New sound barriers and other improvements along I-15 corridor 

 Other New I-15 Interchanges: 

At Milepost 3 (new interchange to serve future airport): Funding for 

environmental review, preliminary engineering, and ROW acquisition. 

 

11 Project as a whole spans from Sloan Road in the south to Tropicana Avenue in the north. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-21

 Other Road Widening: 

I-15 between Russell Road and Sahara Avenue (widen from 8 to 10 lanes): 

preliminary engineering and ROW acquisition underway. 

I-15 between I-215 and Interstate 515 (I-515) (widen from 10 to 14 lanes): 

preliminary engineering underway. 

2.3.1.2 Planned but Unprogrammed Transportation Improvements 

Other transportation improvements near Victorville and within Clark County are 

anticipated but not currently funded, not found to be reasonably foreseeable, and thus not 

taken into account in the traffic impact study for the DesertXpress project. These projects 

are, however, considered in the cumulative analysis in Section 3.16, Cumulative 

Effects, of this Final EIS. 

These projects are typically included in long-range transportation planning documents, 

(such as a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) or similar document), but are not funded 

in the current year (through a Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) or 

similar). 

Victorville 

 Desert Gateway Specific Plan 

Clark County 

 Urban Resort Corridor Study (upgrades to I-15 and parallel roadways between I215 and U.S. 95) 

 Supplemental Commercial Airport in Ivanpah Valley – Southern Nevada 

Supplemental Airport (SNSA) 

 Southern Nevada Regional Heliport 

 New roads: 

Starr Avenue: Construction of a six lane roadway from I-15 to St. Rose 

Parkway 

I-15 at I-215: Construction of new direct connector high-occupancy vehicle 

ramps 

 Road widening: 

I-15 from California state line to Sloan Road: Widen from six to eight lanes 

Dean Martin Drive: Widen to four lanes for approximately one mile 

between Blue Diamond Road and Warm Springs Road 

Tropicana Boulevard: Add 4th westbound lane between Decatur Boulevard 

and Polaris Avenue 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-22

 Other projects: 

Intermodal Transport Terminal near Downtown Las Vegas 

Las Vegas Managed Lanes Demonstration Project (trial of high occupancy 

toll (HOT) lanes on I-15 from the intersection of I-215 in the south to north 

of Downtown Las Vegas, and beyond the proposed terminus of the 

DesertXpress project) 

NDOT Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Project: Various in-freeway 

improvements, including electronic message signs, ramp metering, and 

HOV lanes along I-15 in metropolitan Las Vegas area. Also includes off-site 

traffic management center. 

2.3.2 ACTION ALTERNATIVES

The project corridor between Victorville and Las Vegas has been divided into seven 

segments for analysis purposes. 

The proposed action would include the construction of one passenger station at each end 

of the rail corridor (Victorville plus one in Clark County or the City of Las Vegas). Stations 

would meet accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A 

major maintenance, storage, and operations facility would be located in Victorville, 

southeast of the Victorville station site options. A secondary maintenance and storage 

facility would be located in Clark County. These are discussed in detail in Section 

2.3.2.2 of this Final EIS. With the exception of Segment 7 and the associated Las Vegas 

Downtown Station, none of the station or maintenance facility options are attached to a 

single project alternative. Any of the proposed alignments would utilize the station and 

maintenance facility options. 

2.3.2.1 Alignment Options 

The following sections discuss in detail each rail alignment that was studied. 

Segment 1, Victorville to Lenwood 

Only one alignment is being evaluated in this Final EIS for Segment 1. 

Segment 1 would depart from three possible Victorville Station sites and head north 

generally following the west side of the I-15 corridor for a distance of about 21 to 29 miles, 

depending on whether the alignment starts at VV1, VV2, or VV3 (see Figure S-2-1 of the 

Supplemental Draft EIS). The Victorville Station site options are further discussed in 

Section 2.3.2.2 of this Final EIS. Selection of VV1 would result in the greatest length for 

Segment 1, while VV3 would result in the shortest length of the rail alignment. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-23

The length of Segment 1 would also depend on the rail alignment option selected for 

Segment 2, as described in Section 2.3.2.1 below. If the Segment 2A or Segment 2B rail 

alignment options are selected, the Segment 1 rail alignment would diverge from the I-15 

corridor near Hodge Road then head northerly toward Barstow, and continue in a path 

near (but not within) the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad corridor. 

If the Segment 2C rail alignment option is selected, the Segment 1 rail alignment would 

terminate near Hodge Road and connect with the Segment 2C rail alignment. The length 

of Segment 1 would thus be reduced by approximately 12 miles with the selection of 

Segment 2C. 

Segment 1 would include a new bridge over or under the Mojave Northern Railroad and a 

second bridge over the BNSF mainline tracks, as well as eight roadway overpasses (to 

provide a fully grade-separated alignment).12 Segment 1 would have a maximum grade of 

about 2.5 percent. Figure 2-3 of the Draft EIS shows a typical section alongside I-15 

where the DesertXpress tracks would fit within the existing I-15 right of way without 

requiring modification or reconstruction of the existing I-15 freeway. This typical cross 

section would also allow for potential future widening of the I-15 freeway. Figure 2-4 of 

the Draft EIS shows a typical section of the DesertXpress tracks situated on a retained 

embankment alongside I-15. Figure 2-5 of the Draft EIS shows a typical aerial structure 

design where the new tracks would need to be grade separated. Segment 1 would use the 

grade separated tracks where the alignment would cross the existing I-15 interchanges. 

Segment 2A/2B, Lenwood to Barstow 

From Lenwood to east of Barstow, Segments 2A and 2B would share the same alignment 

for 12 miles, then diverge for the next 9 miles (as further detailed below). Throughout the 

Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS, this portion of the alignment is referred to as 

Segment 2A/2B and the alternatives are combined for analysis. The remaining portion of 

Segment 2 where Action Alternative A and B alignments diverge is then referred to as 

Segment 2A and Segment 2B. Refer to Appendix A of the Draft EIS for the large-scale 

maps showing the detailed location of Segments 2A and 2B. Figure 2-1.2 of the Draft 

EIS also shows the location of Segments 2A and 2B. The first five miles of the combined 

alignment for Segment 2A/2B would be on newly created tracks for exclusive high-speed 

rail use and would cross the Mojave River and turn east through the City of Barstow. 

Through the City of Barstow, the alignment would utilize a former Atchison Topeka & 

 

12 Once the STB has authorized a rail construction, no other rail carrier can block the construction by refusing 

to permit the carrier from crossing its property as long as the construction does not unreasonably interfere 

with the operation of the crossed line; the operation does not materially interfere with the operation of the 

crossed line; and the owner of the crossing line compensates the owner of the crossed line, 49 U.S.C. 

10901(d)(1). 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-24

Santa Fe (AT&SF) railroad corridor along the north side of the Mojave River, for 

approximately three miles before reaching the vicinity of the I-15/Old Highway 58 

interchange on the east side of Barstow.13 

The combined Segment 2A/2B would require a bridge over the Mojave River, a bridge (or 

underpass) for roadways in the I-15/Old Highway 58 interchange area, and a bridge (or 

underpass) over or under the westbound lanes of I-15 near the agricultural inspection 

station, as well as seven grade-separated roadway overpasses. In this section, the design 

concept requires about 50 feet of width for the DEMU alternative and 60 feet for the EMU 

alternative and the cross streets in this segment would need to be grade separated using 

overpasses. Figures 2-3 and 2-4 of the Draft EIS represent typical sections of the atgrade and retained embankment DesertXpress tracks. While I-15 is shown in these 

figures, the typical track cross-sections also apply to portions of Segment 2A and 2B that 

would be created on the new ROW for high-speed rail outside of the I-15 ROW. Figure 

2-5 of the Draft EIS presents the typical design for the grade separated tracks used in 

Segments 2A and 2B as well. Additionally, Appendix F-B, the Highway Interface 

Manual developed for this project in coordination with FHWA, Caltrans, and NDOT 

includes additional design information regarding grade separated track and other project 

features. 

The Supplemental Draft EIS identified several Alignment Adjustment Areas (AAAs) 

applicable to Segment 2A/2B. The AAAs represent minor lateral shifts of the rail 

alignment intended to avoid or minimize impacts to identified resources or improve 

operating conditions. The Segment 2A/2B rail alignment includes two AAAs (AAA1 and 

AAA2), which would shift a portion of the rail alignment approximately 200 feet to the 

south. Table S-2-2 of the Supplemental Draft EIS summarizes the location and rationale 

for the two AAAs incorporated into the Segment 2A/2B rail alignment. Figure S-2-2 of 

the Supplemental Draft EIS also illustrates the location of the Segment 2A/2B AAAs. 

Segment 2A, Barstow to Yermo 

Segment 2A would follow a northerly course outside of the I-15 freeway corridor for 9.3 

miles upon emerging from the combined portion of Segment 2A/2B near the I-15/Old 

Highway 58 interchange on the east side of Barstow. See Draft EIS Figure 2-1.2 for the 

full extent of Segment 2A. 

 

13

 This portion of the former AT&SF right of way fell out of use when the railroad constructed a new line at the 

west end of their yard near Highway 58. Tracks were removed from this area at an unknown date. Because the 

tracks in question fell out of use due to realignment, no petition for formal abandonment was required to be 

filed with or approved by the Surface Transportation Board. Personal communication, Don Bratton (Staubach 

Company; acting property managers for BNSF Railroad, 1/19/07; Christine Glaab, Surface Transportation 

Board librarian 1/4/07. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-25

Segment 2B, Barstow to Yermo 

Upon emerging from Segment 2A/2B near the I-15/Old Highway 58 interchange on the 

east side of Barstow, Segment 2B would run along the north side of the I-15 corridor past 

the community of Yermo, to a point just east of the agricultural inspection station on I-15. 

Segment 2B is approximately 9.2 miles. See Draft EIS Figure 2-1.2 for the full extent of 

Segment 2B. 

Segment 2C, Lenwood to Yermo 

In response to comments by the City of Barstow, the Applicant proposed a new alignment 

following the I-15 freeway through Barstow, referred to as Segment 2C. The Segment 2C 

rail alignment was evaluated as part of the Supplemental Draft EIS. 

The Applicant has proposed two alignment options for Segment 2C, both of which would 

be located within the I-15 freeway corridor. 

 Side Running (2C Side Running): From the end of Segment 1 approximately 

7 miles southwest of Lenwood, the 2C Side Running alignment would run along 

the north and west side of the I-15 freeway through Lenwood, central Barstow, and 

eastward to Yermo, where it would join Segment 3. 

 Median Option (2C Median): From the end of Segment 1, this alignment 

would run along the north and west side of the I-15 freeway through Lenwood. As 

the alignment approaches Central Barstow it would transition into the I-15 freeway 

median for approximately 3 miles from H Street to East Main Street. At East Main 

Street, the alignment would transition back to the north and west side of the I-15 

freeway and then connect with Segment 3. 

Both Segment 2C options would follow the same alignment as Segment 2A in the vicinity 

of the I-15/SR 58 interchange just west of Yermo. This portion of the rail alignment would 

divert from the existing I-15 freeway corridor (outside of the existing ROW) and would 

follow a northerly course outside of the I-15 freeway corridor for approximately 9.3 miles. 

The Segment 2C rail alignment would reconnect with the I-15 freeway corridor near the I15/Yermo Road interchange, where the alignment would connect with the Segment 3B rail 

alignment.

Figure S-2-2 and S-2-7 of the Supplemental Draft EIS depicts the 2C Side Running and 

Median options. Appendix S-A-1 of the Supplemental EIS includes detailed plans of the 

Segment 2C alignment options. 

Within central Barstow, both alignment options would be constructed on elevated 

structures and would cross over local interchanges and overpasses. Implementation of 

either Segment 2C alignment would result in a 12-mile reduction in the length of Segment 

1 because the portion of Segment 1 that extends away from the I-15 corridor to travel 

around the west and northern edges of Barstow would not be required. Both Segment 2C 

alignments would follow a more direct route than Segment 2A/2B. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-26

Either alignment option for Segment 2C would also require one temporary construction 

area (TCA) along the proposed alignment for construction staging equipment. TCA 2C1 

would have a total area of one acre and would be located between the cities of Lenwood 

and Barstow. The Supplemental Draft EIS examines the potential effects of the TCA as 

part of the alignment options. 

Segment 3A, Yermo to Mountain Pass 

Segment 3A would be located entirely within the median of the I-15 freeway, running 84.9 

miles. Generally, the existing median is approximately 100 feet wide (between edge of 

traveled way to edge of traveled way). The exception is in the community of Baker where 

the median narrows considerably, here the I-15 freeway would need to be widened to the 

outside to provide room for the rail in the median, or alternatively, the alignment would 

need to diverge from the median or be placed on an aerial structure. The Plan and Profile 

Drawings in Appendix A of the Draft EIS show Action Alternative A diverging from the I15 freeway median west of Baker and re-entering the freeway median east of East Baker 

Boulevard. 

It is assumed that a continuous concrete vehicle barrier would be required on both sides of 

the tracks, as well as AREMA crash barriers at all supporting columns of bridges at 

freeway interchanges and overpasses. Bridges for tracks would also have to be 

constructed where significant waterways cross I-15. Drainage for the trackway would be 

designed to integrate with the existing I-15 drainage system. 

Draft EIS Figure 2-6 shows the proposed typical cross-section in the median of I-15, 

which includes full median shoulders, barriers, the two DesertXpress tracks, and a parallel 

inspection and maintenance access road. This cross-section would also allow future 

widening of the I-15 freeway. Grade-separated crossovers for California Highway Patrol 

and other authorized vehicles would be provided. Draft EIS Figure 2-7 shows the design 

concept of the grade separated DesertXpress tracks that would be used within the I-15 

median at interchanges and overpasses to avoid conflicts with the existing overpass 

columns. A typical section of the design of the retained embankment of the DesertXpress 

tracks within the I-15 median is also shown in Draft EIS Figure 2-8. Draft EIS Figure 

2-9 shows the typical median drainage treatment where the drainage from the median is 

tied into the existing I-15 drainage system. Also see the typical section diagrams provided 

within Appendix F-B, the Highway Interface Manual. 

Segment 3B (Modified), Yermo to Mountain Pass 

Segment 3B would be located along the north side of I-15 within the existing freeway ROW 

from Fort Irwin Road to Mountain Pass, running 84.8 miles. Draft EIS Figures 2-3 and 

2-4 show the typical design concept alongside I-15, which for the most part enables the 

DesertXpress tracks, drainage, parallel access road, and separation barrier to be 

constructed within the existing I-15 right of way, while still leaving sufficient space for 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-27

future I-15 widening. Draft EIS Figure 2-5 shows the typical design concept of the grade 

separated aerial structures for the DesertXpress tracks that would be used for crossing 

roadways and at the I-15 interchanges, from the on-off ramps. 

The Supplemental Draft EIS incorporated AAAs into Segment 3B. The AAAs represent 

minor lateral shifts of the rail alignment to avoid or minimize impacts to identified 

resources and/or to improve train operating conditions. The Segment 3B rail alignment 

includes four AAAs (AAA3 through AAA6), which would shift portions of the rail 

alignment by approximately 50 to 400 feet. Supplemental Draft EIS Table S-2-2

summarizes the location and rationale for the alignment modification for the four AAAs 

that were incorporated into the Segment 3B rail alignment. 

Based on additional consultation following publication of the Supplemental Draft EIS, an 

approximately 10 mile portion of Segment 3B would be further modified to reduce or 

avoid impacts to sensitive resources in the area. This portion of the Segment 3B rail 

alignment near the I-15/Halloran Springs Road interchange would shift to the south side 

of the I-15 freeway within the existing I-15 ROW. The Segment 3B rail alignment would 

then cross under the I-15 freeway in an open cut back to the north side of the freeway. 

This modification is reflected in the Segment 3B (Modified) alternative. This alternative 

differs from the Applicant’s Preferred Alternative, which identifies the Segment 3B 

alternative following the north side of the I-15 freeway within the existing I-15 ROW, as 

described in more detail in the Draft EIS Section 2.4.3. 

Segment 4A, Mountain Pass to Primm 

Segment 4A extends for 14 miles. Segment 4A would leave the I-15 freeway corridor at the 

point that the grade exceeds 4.5 percent, just east of Mountain Pass. Segment 4A would 

head south for approximately four miles before returning to the I-15 freeway corridor 

south of Primm. An approximately 1.55 mile portion of this alignment may encroach on 

the Mojave National Preserve near the intersection of Nipton Road and Ivanpah Road, all 

within about 0.5 miles of I-15. While portions of Segment 4A would not be adjacent to I15 or within the I-15 ROW, Draft EIS Figure 2-3 represents a typical section of the 

DesertXpress tracks in this segment. 

As with Segment 3, when in the median, a continuous concrete truck barrier would be 

required on either side of the tracks, as well as AREMA crash barriers at all supporting 

columns of bridges at freeway interchanges and overpasses (same as shown in Draft EIS 

Figure 2-6). Bridges for tracks would also be constructed over the northbound lanes of I15 at each end of the dogleg into and out of the median and over Nipton Road. Also, a 

portion of the alignment would follow (and bridge over where necessary) a significant 

drainage way running parallel to I-15 from Mountain Pass. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-28

Segment 4B, Mountain Pass to Primm 

Segment 4B would leave the I-15 freeway ROW and head northeast, passing through two 

new dual track tunnels (one approximately 5,000 feet long and the other approximately 

1,300 feet long), then descend along the eastern slope of the Clark Mountains on a 4.5 

percent grade, before returning to the I-15 corridor south of Primm where the tracks 

would pass over the southbound lanes of I-15 to enter the median. The proposed 

tunneling activities would be administered through monitored targeted blasts and 

charges. Spoil material that would result from tunneling would be used for fill material for 

other segments of track. At Primm, the track would cross over the northbound lanes of I15 and continue northward along the east side of the I-15 corridor. Figure 2-4 of the 

Draft EIS shows the typical design concept for a significant portion of this segment, where 

the alignment would be on a side slope and some use of retaining walls likely would be 

required both above the tracks and below them. The retained embankment in Segment 4 

would not, however, be located adjacent to the existing I-15 freeway, as shown in Figure 

2-4 of the Draft EIS. Segment 4B is approximately 12.9 miles in length. 

Segment 4C, Mountain Pass to Primm 

Segment 4C, as described in the Supplement Draft EIS, would be approximately 20.7 

miles long, or about 7 miles longer than Segment 4A and 8 miles longer than Segment 4B. 

The west end of Segment 4C would follow the same alignment as Segment 4B, as it moves 

away from the I-15 freeway corridor and through a series of three tunnels to be 

constructed through the Clark Mountains. 14

 Segment 4C would then travel north of the 

planned solar energy projects and the Ivanpah Dry Lake bed before connecting back to the 

I-15 freeway corridor in the vicinity of Primm. 

Segment 4C would connect with Segment 5 north of Primm, where the rail alignment 

would cross over from the west side of I-15 to the east side of I-15 on an aerial structure. 

Supplemental Draft EIS Figures S-2-10 and S-2-11 show the cross sections where 

Segment 4C would connect with Segment 5 and cross over the I-15 freeway corridor. 

Segment 4C would also require five additional TCAs for construction staging equipment. 

TCA 4C1 through TCA 4C5 would range in size from 1 to 9.7 acres. Supplemental Draft 

EIS Figure S-2-3 shows the locations of these new TCAs. 

Supplemental Draft EIS Appendix S-A-2 includes detailed plans of the Segment 4C 

alignment, including TCAs. 

Segment 5A, Primm to Sloan 

Segment 5A would be entirely within the median of I-15, running 24.6 miles. The design 

concept is similar to the median alternative in Segment 3 (see Draft EIS Figure 2-6). In 

sections where the median would be too narrow to achieve the required median cross 

 

14 The Applicant has estimated the tunneling volume for Segment 4C at about 282,000 cubic yards. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-29

section, the I-15 shoulders would be extended on both sides to create the required median 

width in accordance with NDOT and FHWA geometric design requirements or the train 

would be placed on an aerial structure. 

Segment 5B, Primm to Sloan 

Segment 5B would continue along the east side of the I-15 corridor between Primm and 

Jean within the existing freeway ROW for 24.6 miles. The design concept for this segment 

is essentially similar to that shown in Draft EIS Figure 2-3, except that the train would be 

on the east instead of west side of I-15. 

Segment 6A, Sloan to Las Vegas 

Segment 6A would continue in the median of I-15 into the Southern, Central A or Central 

B passenger stations, a distance of about 14 miles. 

After entering the urbanized area, a significant portion of this alternative would be located 

on an aerial structure, due to the large number of major interchanges and overpasses that 

would need to be traversed, as well as the proximity of urbanized development to the 

existing freeway right of way. Where the tracks are feasible in the median, a continuous 

concrete vehicle barrier would be provided on either side of the tracks, as well as AREMA 

crash barriers at all supporting columns of bridges at freeway interchanges. Draft EIS 

Figure 2-5 shows the typical elevated design concept that would be applied in the median 

within the urbanized areas of this segment. Specific locations within the alignment where 

elevated structures would be used can be seen in the plan and profile drawings included in 

Draft EIS Appendix A. 

Segment 6B, Sloan to Las Vegas 

Segment 6B would cross the I-15 corridor from the east side to the west side and continue 

along the west side of the I-15 corridor until the metropolitan Las Vegas area. Bridges for 

tracks would be constructed over the northbound lanes of I-15 just north of Sloan and over 

the UPRR. 15 Near the site of the Wigwam Avenue MSF, AAA8 would modify a 5 mile 

portion of Segment 6B (see Supplemental Draft EIS Table S-2-2). The modification 

would place portions of the alignment (approximately 1.5 miles) outside the I-15 right of 

way, and into the adjacent County transportation corridor, including Industrial 

Road/Dean Martin Drive. It is assumed that significant sections of this alignment could 

require placing the tracks on elevated structures to provide sufficient space for railroad 

operations and account for the proximity of adjacent urban development. Draft EIS 

Figure 2-5 shows the typical elevated design concept that would be applied on the side of 

 

15 Once the STB has authorized a rail construction, no other rail carrier can block the construction by refusing 

to permit the carrier from crossing its property as long as the construction does not unreasonably interfere 

with the operation of the crossed line; the operation does not materially interfere with the operation of the 

crossed line; and the owner of the crossing line compensates the owner of the crossed line, 49 U.S.C. 

10901(d)(1). 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-30

the freeway within the urbanized areas of this segment. Specific locations within the 

alignment where elevated structures would be used can be seen in the plan and profile 

drawings included in Appendix F-C of this Final EIS. 

The following portions of Segment 6B would be located outside the NDOT right-of-way: 

 Between West Sunset Road and West Patrick Lane 

 Between Hacienda Avenue and Tropicana Avenue 

Supplemental Draft EIS Table S-2-2 summarizes the location and rationale for the 

alignment modification for the two AAAs that were incorporated into the Segment 6B rail 

alignment. 

Segment 6C, Sloan to Las Vegas 

Option C would diverge from Segment 6A/6B near the community of Sloan and generally 

follow the existing UPRR corridor (primarily within the UPRR ROW) into either of the 

Central passenger station options, a distance of about 16 miles, depending on the 

terminus.16

 Option C would not connect to the Southern station option. 

In some sections of this segment, there appears to be sufficient width for the two new 

DesertXpress tracks to be constructed alongside the UPRR tracks, but with elevated or 

underground grade separations over or under all UPRR spur tracks.17

 DesertXpress tracks 

would be a minimum of 50 feet from the UPRR tracks, as there is a high-pressure gasoline 

pipeline in the UPRR ROW. In some sections of Option C, it would be necessary for the 

DesertXpress tracks to be placed on a new aerial structure. Draft EIS Figure 2-5 

represents the typical aerial structures used for the grade separated DesertXpress tracks in 

this segment. 

Segment 7A

The Segment 7 options would be necessary only if the Las Vegas Downtown Station is 

selected as the northern terminus of the project. The Segment 6 Action Alternatives would 

terminate at either the Las Vegas Southern, Central A, or Central B station options 

(excepting Option C, which would only serve the Central A or Central B station options). 

If the Segment 7 alignment option is utilized, Segment 6 would bypass the Las Vegas 

Southern Station option and terminate at West Twain Avenue. Segment 7 would then 

originate at West Twain Avenue and continue into the proposed Las Vegas Downtown 

Station. 

 

16 The use of any private railroad ROWs would be subject to approval by owner railroads. 

17 Once the STB has authorized a rail construction, no other rail carrier can block the construction by refusing 

to permit the carrier from crossing its property as long as the construction does not unreasonably interfere 

with the operation of the crossed line; the operation does not materially interfere with the operation of the 

crossed line; and the owner of the crossing line compensates the owner of the crossed line, 49 U.S.C. 

10901(d)(1). 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-31

From West Twain Avenue, Segment 7A would continue the pattern from Segment 6, with 

the alignment in the I-15 median. Segment 7A would bypass the Las Vegas Central A and 

Central B station sites, and continue in the I-15 median toward the Las Vegas Downtown 

Station, crossing under existing I-15 overpasses en route, a total distance of about 4.9 

miles. Portions of Segment 7A could be placed on aerial structures due to limited width of 

the I-15 median in this urbanized corridor. Draft EIS Figure 2-7 shows the typical 

elevated design concept within the median for this segment. 

Segment 7B 

From West Twain Avenue, Segment 7B would continue the pattern from Segment 6, with 

the alignment in the I-15 corridor. Segment 7B would bypass the Las Vegas Central A and 

Central B station sites, and would continue in the I-15 corridor toward the Las Vegas 

Downtown Station, crossing under existing I-15 overpasses en route, a total of about 5.0 

miles. Portions of Segment 7B would be placed on aerial structures due to limited width of 

the I-15 median in this urbanized corridor. Draft EIS Figure 2-5 represents the typical 

aerial structures used for the grade separated DesertXpress tracks in this segment. 

Segment 7C

Segment 7C would be utilized only if Segment 6C was also selected. Segment 7C would 

begin at West Twain Avenue within the UPRR corridor and would continue within the 

UPRR corridor to the Las Vegas Downtown Station.18 Portions of this option would be 

placed on aerial structures due to the urbanized nature of this corridor; the typical aerial 

structures used for the grade separated DesertXpress tracks are illustrated in Draft EIS 

Figure 2-5. Segment 7C would be about 4.5 miles in length. 

2.3.2.2 Facilities 

Stations have been laid out by the Applicant to initially develop and use two tracks and 

accommodate the addition of a third track in the future when peak operating frequencies 

greater than one train departing every 20 minutes may be required. The station footprints 

provide sufficient space for future expansion to include a third track and platform. 

Current travel forecasts indicate that peak period operating frequencies of 20 minutes 

could suffice for many years as peak pricing policies are adopted. 

The Applicant has not proposed any midpoint station or Barstow station. Accordingly, 

FRA has not included analysis of any such station. The applicant’s ridership projections 

indicated that the anticipated number of passengers boarding at a potential Barstow 

station would be insufficient to support a station. Moreover, VV1, VV2, and VV3 are all

located within 17 to 25 miles of Barstow, and thus in reasonable proximity to serve any 

 

18 The use of any private railroad ROWs would be subject to approval by owner railroads. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-32

demand originating from the Barstow area. There are no other logical midpoint areas 

with a substantial population base to justify the addition of a station anywhere else along 

the route. 

Victorville Station Options 

Segment 1 of the alignment would initiate from the selected Victorville Station site. The 

Victorville Station would offer train ticketing, baggage handling, and hotel room check-in 

for Las Vegas resorts. The train station would be compatible with land use plans already 

proposed by the City of Victorville for mixed-use development served by local transit, and 

with highway access. 

The three station site options are all north of central Victorville, immediately west of the I15 freeway. 

 VV1 would be located just north of the southern Stoddard Wells Road exit (Exit 

#154). 

 VV2 would be located to the northwest of the northern Stoddard Wells Road exit 

(Exit #157). 

 VV3 would be located near the I-15/Dale Evans Parkway interchange (Exit #161). 

VV1 and VV2 would be located approximately 1.5 miles apart from one another. VV3 

would be located 6 miles north of VV1 and 4.5 miles north of VV2. Draft EIS Figures 2-

10 through 2-13 and Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-2-6 show site plans and section 

views for the three Victorville Station site options. 

The facilities directly associated with VV1 or VV2 would occupy about 100 acres, inclusive 

of the tail tracks connection the station facility to Segment 1. VV1 and VV2 would each 

have a parking capacity for approximately 13,000 to 18,000 vehicles in self-parking lots, 

valet parking areas, and a proposed parking structure. The facilities associated with VV3 

would occupy up to 218 acres, inclusive of the tail tracks connecting VV3 to Segment 1. 

The VV3 site requires a larger footprint than VV1 and VV2 because VV3 emphasizes 

surface parking areas instead of structured/garage parking relative to plans for VV1 and 

VV2. As a result, the parking structure at VV3 would have a smaller capacity than the VV1 

and VV2 parking structures. A larger footprint is thus required to accommodate the 

surface parking area needed to meet anticipated parking demands. 

VV3 includes two options for surface parking. Option A (or VV3A) includes approximately 

16,000 surface parking spaces to the south and east of the station building, beneath 

electrical utility lines located in an easement owned by the Los Angeles Department of 

Water and Power (LADWP). This option would require an agreement between the 

Applicant and LADWP to allow parking within LADWP’s utility easement. Because such 

an agreement is not currently in place, the Applicant has also proposed a site plan with a 

different surface parking option. Option B (VV3B) would place approximately 12,700 

surface parking spaces in areas north and west of the station building. Both VV3A and 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-33

VV3B would include structure parking for approximately 1,650 vehicles in addition to the 

surface parking areas, representing a parking capacity of 16,650 with VV3A and 14,350 

under VV3B. Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-2-6 depicts the site plans for VV3A and 

VV3B. 

Victorville Operations, Maintenance, and Storage Facility Options 

Each of the Victorville station site options was paired with a particular site for an OMSF. 

Both OMSF site options fall within the vicinity of Segment 1 and could serve either Action 

Alternative A or Action Alternative B alignments. The facility would require 

approximately 50 acres19 and would include a train washing facility, repair shop, parts 

storage, operations control center, and a fueling station (for the DEMU option only). 

Within the OMSF, the Operations Control Center (OCC) would provide continuous 

monitoring of the train operations. Central control room personnel would have the ability 

to communicate directly with each train and with emergency response personnel 

throughout the route. Additionally, once inside the OMSF maintenance yard, the trains 

would be manually operated and moved with a tractor to minimize locomotive emissions 

within the yard. Approximately 400 employees would be based at the maintenance facility 

and operations center. 

 OMSF 1, which would function with VV1, would be located in the City of Victorville 

on a site that lies within the Desert Gateway Specific Plan to the southwest of 

proposed VV1. Draft EIS Figure 2-14 provides a plan view of OMSF 1. 

 OMSF 2, which would function with any of the Victorville station sites, would be 

located north of OMSF 2, near the intersection with Dale Evans Parkway. A 

portion of OMSF 2 would fall within the jurisdiction of the City of Victorville; the 

entire site is under the jurisdiction of San Bernardino County. 

The Draft EIS analyzed the impacts of an approximately 260 acre site envelope for the 

OMSF 2 facility. As part of the Supplemental Draft EIS, the Applicant conducted further 

engineering studies and proposed to reduce the footprint for OMSF 2 approximately 68 

acres. Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-2-1 depicts OMSF 2 at its reduced size. The 

proposed operations at the OMSF 2 site would not change as a result of the reduced site 

size. Refer to Draft EIS Appendix A-4 for a detailed layout of OMSF 2.

Las Vegas Area Station Options 

Four options were considered for the Las Vegas Station: 

 Southern Station, along Polaris Road, between West Russell Road and West 

Hacienda Drive, across I-15 from the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino (as shown 

in Draft EIS Figures 2-16 and 2-17), approximately 62 acres in area. 

 

19 Site envelopes for the OMSF range in size from about 95 acres to 260 acres. Entire sites were analyzed in 

this EIS, although the final footprint of the OMSF is expected to be notably smaller than the areas surveyed. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-34

 Central Station A, between West Flamingo Road and West Twain Avenue, adjacent 

to the Rio Suites Hotel property (as shown in Draft EIS Figures 2-18 and 2-19), 

approximately 33 acres in area. 

 Central Station B, south of West Flamingo Road, in an area along the UPRR right 

of way that is currently occupied industrial/light industrial uses. (Draft EIS 

Figures 2-20 and 2-21), approximately 37 acres in area. 

 Downtown Station, in the City of Las Vegas, along South Main Street between West 

Bonneville Avenue and Boulder Avenue (see Draft EIS Figures 2-22 and 2-23), 

approximately 23 acres in area. 

The Las Vegas Southern, Central A, or Central B stations would be utilized with Segments 

6A or 6B and serve as the terminus for those segments and the rail line as a whole. Only 

one station will be selected as the Preferred Alternative in the FRA Record of Decision. 

Segment 6C could extend only to the Las Vegas Central A and Central B station sites. 

Segments 7A, 7B, and 7C would be needed if, and only if, the Las Vegas Downtown Station 

is selected as the terminus for the preferred alternative. 

All potential Las Vegas Station options are in close proximity to the Las Vegas Strip and 

related attractions. Each station would include parking for approximately 2,000 vehicles 

and passenger pick-up/drop off areas. Transportation to and from each Las Vegas station 

would be via taxis, buses, and private automobile. In addition, while not proposed as part 

of this project, there is the potential for future extension(s) of the existing Las Vegas 

Monorail to serve any of the Las Vegas station sites. 

Las Vegas Area Maintenance and Storage Facility 

A light maintenance, storage, cleaning, and inspection facility would also be built near the 

northern terminus of the project. The facility would require approximately 7 to 10 acres. 

A total of four site options were under consideration for the Las Vegas area MSF. Draft 

EIS Figures 2-25 through 2-27 depict site plan options for the Las Vegas area MSF. 

Detailed facility footprints and elevation drawings are included in Draft EIS Appendix A. 

 Sloan Road: The Relocated Sloan Road MSF would be located approximately nine 

miles south of Sloan. The Relocated Sloan Road MSF was developed to replace the 

Sloan Road MSF identified in the Draft EIS. The location of the Sloan Road MSF 

would have conflicted with planned transportation infrastructure associated with 

the SNSA. The Relocated Sloan Road MSF would include a utility corridor that 

would connect an electrical substation (incorporated within the MSF site) to 

electrical transmission lines to the west under the EMU technology option. 

The Relocated Sloan Road MSF would be located on the east side of the I-15 freeway 

corridor. The associated proposed utility corridor would cross over the I-15 freeway and 

continue approximately 1 mile to the west in order to connect with an existing Nevada 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-35

Energy electric transmission line. Supplemental Draft EIS Appendix S-A-3 includes 

detailed drawings of the Relocated Sloan Road MSF site. During construction, this site 

would also serve as an additional TCA. 

 Wigwam Avenue and Robindale Avenue: These two sites are located in 

unincorporated Clark County, west of the I-15 freeway, and about one half mile 

south of Blue Diamond Boulevard (Nevada State Route 160 (SR 160)). 

As analyzed in the Draft EIS, neither the Wigwam Avenue nor Robindale Avenue options 

included electrical utility corridors that could serve any on-site substation that would be 

required under the EMU technology option. Accordingly, the Applicant identified a standalone substation site that could be utilized in the event that both the EMU technology 

option and the Wigwam Avenue or Robindale Avenue options were incorporated into the 

Preferred Alternative. The applicant duly identified the Frias Substation site, as shown in 

Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-2-5. The site is west of the I-15 freeway at the 

intersection of West Frias Avenue and South Dean Martin Drive in unincorporated Clark 

County. Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-2-8 shows a detailed site plan of the Frias 

Substation. 

The Frias Substation would be located immediately adjacent to an existing Nevada Energy 

electrical transmission line (the Arden-Tolson Transmission line) on undeveloped land in 

an area of sparse residential development and open lands. Plans for the Frias Substation 

thus include overhead electrical connections between the substation and the transmission 

line. The substation would be constructed on two separate sites: 1) a 3.2 acre substation 

on the west side of South Dean Martin Drive; and 2) a 1.4 acre substation to the east side 

of South Dean Martin Drive. Other components of the Frias Substation include 

undergrounded 25 kilovolt feeder lines, which would connect to a new autotransformer 

that would be located immediately adjacent to the I-15 freeway. The autotransformer at 

Frias would be in addition to the 17 autotransformers identified in Draft EIS Section 

2.4.9.4. 

Baker Maintenance of Way Facility 

The proposed action also includes the Baker MOW facility. The Baker MOW facility would 

be located on a 2.4 acre site containing a 5,200 square foot building, plus tail tracks, a 

radio signal tower, fuel storage, and other related facilities that would serve as a 

headquarters for DesertXpress employees charged with daily inspection of tracks and 

associated facilities to ensure ongoing safe operations. See Draft EIS Appendix A-4 of 

the for a detailed site plan diagram. 

With any Action Alternative, this facility would be located on the same land as is 

designated for TCA 9, near Baker, California. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-36

2.3.2.3 Components of Project Construction 

Table F-2-6 identifies the proposed TCAs and their locations, and the segments that each 

would serve. Several TCAs would be located in part or in whole on proposed sites for 

stations and/or maintenance facilities, or would otherwise be within an area the proposed 

alignment would permanently impact. Other TCAs are located outside any permanent 

impact area. Table F-2-6 distinguishes between these two types of TCAs. 

Table F-2-6 Temporary Construction Areas 

TCA

No.

Location

Within a 

Permanent 

Impact Area?

Size Segment(s) Served

1A At proposed site of Victorville OMSF 

Site 1 Partially 142.06 acres 1

1B At proposed site of Victorville OMSF 

Site 2 No 68 acres 1

2 At proposed Victorville station site #2 Partially 14.14 acres 1

2C1 Along I-15, near Lenwood Road No 1.01 acres 2C

3

Near Lenwood, on northern bank of 

Mojave River at proposed new bridge No 0.9 acre 2A/2B

4 Barstow, adjacent to BNSF spur line No 14.82 acres 2A/2B

5

Yermo, east of Yermo Road/I-15 

interchange

No 5.23 acres 2A/B

6

Along I-15, southwest of Field Road 

interchange No 5.82 acres 3A/3B

7

Along I-15, north of Basin Road 

interchange No 3.50 acres 3A/3B

8

West of Baker, between I-15 and 

Baker Blvd No 1.9 acres 3A/3B

9

East of Baker, between I-15 and Baker 

Blvd Yes 9.35 acres 3A/3B

10 North of I-15 at Cima Road No 5.67 acres 3A/3B

11 West of I-15 at Yates Well Road No 10.22 acres 4A

12 Northwest of I-15/Yates Well Road 

interchange No 10.42 acres 4B

4C1 Along I-15, near Mountain pass south 

of Clark Mountains No 5.2 acres 4C

4C2 North of Mountain Pass in Clark 

Mountains No 1 acre 4C

4C3 North of Mountain Pass in Clark 

Mountains No 1 acre 4C
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-37

TCA

No.

Location

Within a 

Permanent 

Impact Area?

Size Segment(s) Served

4C4 North of Clark Mountains, west of 

Ivanpah Dry Lake No 9.7 acres 4C

4C5 Along I-15, north of California-Nevada 

state line near Primm No 6.1 acres 4C

13 South of Sloan Road near UPRR 

undercrossing of I-15 No 9.1 acres 5A/5B

14

Along UPRR Corridor @ Le Baron 

Avenue in unincorporated Clark 

County

No 32.49 acres Segment 6, Option C

15

South of West Twain Avenue at West 

Flamingo Road; site of proposed 

Central Station A

Yes 10.32 acres 6A/6B, Option C

16 Between Russell Road and Hacienda; 

site of proposed Southern Station Yes 57.09 acres 6A, 6B

17

South of Bonneville Avenue in City of 

Las Vegas; site of proposed 

Downtown Station

Yes 24.08 acres 7A, 7B, Option C

18 + 19 At openings of proposed tunnel #1 

northeast of Mountain Pass No 2.15 acres 4B

20 + 21 At openings of proposed tunnel #2 

northeast of Mountain Pass No 2.22 acres 4B

22

West of I-15 between Polaris Street 

and Aldebaran Avenue at site of 

proposed Central Station B

Yes 10.0 6A, 6B 

Source: CirclePoint, 2010. 

Scaled drawings (1’ = 1000’) of the TCAs were provided within the Plan and Profile 

drawings included with the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS (see Appendices A-1, 

S-A-1, and S-A-2). Several other figures within the Draft and Supplemental EIS also 

depicted the TCAs, but at a smaller scale (1’’= 5 miles). Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S2-3 has been revised to show the correct location of TCA 7. The revised figure is included 

in this Final EIS as Figure F-2-1. 

Appendix F-C (Final EIS Plan and Profile Drawings) shows all TCAs included as part of 

the Preferred Alternative at a larger scale (1” = 200 feet). Figures F-2-3 through F-2-7 

also show TCAs associated with the Preferred Alternative. Acreages of certain TCAs have 

been updated since publication of the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS; the table 

reflects these updates. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-38

The Applicant has indicated that the contractor for project construction would develop a 

construction water program as part of the design-build process. The Applicant’s plans to 

date do not call for water wells, either on the TCAs or in any other locations. Where 

needed, water would be trucked in to the construction areas or supplied by adjacent 

existing pipelines. 

Several of the TCAs are directly associated with tunnels proposed as part of Segment 4B 

and Segment 4C. Depending upon the approved design-build method, the tunnels would 

be either bored using a tunnel boring machine (TBM) or excavated using a drill and blast 

method. If a TBM, they most likely will be twin bored tunnels, with roughly a 17-foot 

radius each; or if using drill and blast excavation, most likely with a single large excavated 

horseshoe shaped tunnel approximately 31 feet tall. 

The material removed from a mile of twin bored tunnel will be approximately 123,000 

cubic yards. The material will be removed by truck back along the trackway corridor to be 

crushed and processed in one of TCAs. The geology and geotechnical conditions of the 

area indicate that due to the relatively high quality of the material, most or all of it will be 

used for fill material and sub-ballast for the construction of the project, thereby reducing 

the imbalance between excavated and filled sections of the project alignment. The 

Applicant has estimated that the maximum amount of material that would be removed 

from the tunnels to be 282,000 cubic yards – representing all three tunnels associated 

with Segment 4C. Segment 4B, with one less tunnel, would result in a smaller volume of 

material. 

The Applicant has estimated total earthwork quantities as follows: excavation (exclusive 

of tunnels): 4.6 million cubic yards; tunnel excavation in Segment 4C: 282,000 cubic 

yards; embankments: 10.5 million cubic yards. 

2.3.2.4 Technology 

The Applicant has proposed using existing intercity high-speed train technology, 

customized for the unique setting of the corridor. Both DEMU and EMU train sets are 

being considered as high-speed train technology options. The Applicant has identified two 

Bombardier train sets, the Meridian and Regina, as representative examples of the 

respective DEMU and EMU technology options. Meridian DEMU trains are currently 

operating in the United Kingdom; various derivations of the Regina EMU trains are 

currently operating in Sweden and China. The DEMU train set is projected to operate at a 

maximum speed of 125 mph. The EMU train set could have a maximum speed of 150 

mph. 

Detailed train simulation studies for the alignment alternatives were conducted for 10-car 

trains under both train technology options. The 10-car train length was based on the peak 

travel demand forecast. Simulation results showed that seven to eight of the train cars 

would be powered, although all train cars could be self-propelled. This configuration 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-39

provides the high power-to-weight ratio and distributed traction needed to follow the I-15 

corridor and negotiate the steep grades through the two desert mountain passes (the 

Applicant’s design criteria limits slopes to a 4.5 percent maximum grade). 

The EMU trains are wider and longer than the DEMU trains, which enable each EMU 

train to carry approximately 41 percent more passengers than a DEMU train. As 

previously noted, the EMU option would require the addition of 17 autotransformers and 

three electrical substations along the route. The autotransformers would be located at 

approximately 10-mile intervals along the rail alignment. Locations for these 

autotransformers are shown in Supplemental Draft EIS Figures S-2-1 through S-2-5. 

Draft EIS Appendix A and Supplemental Draft EIS Appendix S-A-1 and S-A-2 also 

provides detailed locations of the autotransformers, as seen in the Plan and Profile 

drawings and the large-scale maps. The three electrical substations would be located on 

the sites of the Victorville OMSF, Baker MOW, and Relocated Sloan MSF facilities. The 

substation diagrams and layouts are as shown on the detailed site plan drawings for the 

referenced maintenance facilities within Draft EIS Appendix A and Supplemental Draft 

EIS Appendix S-A-3 and S-A-4. EMU and DEMU train lengths, platform width 

requirements, and other differing features of the train sets are identified in Table F-2-7

below. 

Table F-2-7 Summary of Key Operating Features, DEMU and EMU 

Criteria DEMU (Meridian) EMU (Regina)

Train Length 232 meters (±761.2 feet) 267 meters (±876.0 feet)

Platform Length Required 250 meters (±820.2 feet) 280 meters (±918.6 feet)

Passenger Capacity Per Ten-Car 

Train 478 675

Top Speed 125 miles per hour 150 miles per hour

Average Speed 100 mph 125 mph

Approximate One-Way Travel 

Time Between Victorville and Las 

Vegas

116 minutes

100 minutes at 125 mph top 

speed; 84 minutes at 150 mph top 

speed

Source: DesertXpress Enterprises, 2008.

As a standard gauge steel-wheel on steel-rail system, DesertXpress would be readily 

expandable and could accommodate other models of standard-gauge passenger trains. 

Trains would be operated under manual control and would be equipped with cab signaling 

that enables the train operator to receive speed commands for each section of the route, 

with an automatic train protection system that includes over-speed detection and 

automatic braking in the event a train operator were to exceed the allowable speed 

command. A central OCC, located within the Victorville OMSF, would control the routing 

of trains, cab signals and track switches. Each train would be equipped with state-of-the-
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-40

art safety features, including backup emergency communications in the event of a primary 

loss of power. By selecting a distributed power system rather than a locomotive-hauled 

train, the train technology would be inherently very reliable, such that loss of propulsion 

within any car would not materially affect the safe and reliable performance of the entire 

train. 

2.3.2.5 Operations 

Detailed train performance simulations have been completed to estimate travel time. The 

travel time results were incorporated into a preliminary operations plan, which was 

reviewed by FRA as part of this EIS. Draft EIS Appendix C contained the FRA review of 

the operations plan. 

The operations plan examined both technologies under consideration, the EMU option 

represented by the Regina trainset and the DEMU option represented by the Meridian 

trainset. 

The plan estimates that the peak operational fleet required to meet the peak daily demand 

would be range from 12 (EMU) to 16 (DEMU) trains of 10 cars each, plus spares, in the 

first full year of operation. 

The entire mainline section between Victorville and Las Vegas would incorporate dual 

tracks, one northbound and one southbound, to support the high ridership and frequency 

of train operation. The nominal direction of travel would follow the North-American 

practice of right-hand running. All tracks would be signaled for bi-directional operation 

should operating in reverse on a track be necessary. 

The preliminary Operations Plan assumes that trains would operate between 

approximately 0600 hours and 2200 hours (6 AM to 10 PM), 365 days per year. The 

hours of service could be extended if passenger demand should warrant additional 

operation. 

The initial train composition is a ten vehicle train. Passenger capacities for DEMU trains 

would be about 478; for EMU trains, which have slightly longer and wider cars, capacity 

would be about 675 passengers. On either train, one of the ten cars would be configured 

as an entertainment car. 

Supervision of train movements, station operation, and wayside equipment would be 

provided by authorized personnel in the OCC located at the Victorville facility in the 

administration building. The OCC staff would be responsible for all functions and 

procedures performed on the main line. Accordingly, the OCC staff would have the 

capability to monitor and govern various aspects of the system through dynamic displays, 

status reports, voice and visual communication, and through commands/instructions via 

their computer interfaces. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-41

At the maintenance facility and layover yards, speed commands and OCC supervision 

would extend into the entry point of the yard. From the entry of the yard to the storage 

tracks, the trains would be operated manually (15 mph maximum). The switches in yards 

would still be interlocked and controlled by the OCC. Switches at the direct leads to the 

maintenance building would not be under the supervision of the OCC and would be 

manually operated as trains are moved in and out of the maintenance building. 

Bombardier, as well as the Applicant’s independent technology consultants, Interfleet 

Technologies Ltd. from the United Kingdom, has performed a preliminary analysis and 

simulation of the DesertXpress High-Speed Rail System using the following maximum 

parameters applicable to the EMU operating system: 

 Maximum cruise speed of 125 mph (and, for the EMU option only, alternate top 

speed of 150 mph) 

 Maximum acceleration rate of 1.8 mph/second (mph/s) 

 Maximum deceleration rate of 2.5 mph/s; and 

 Maximum actual super elevation of 6.0 inches. 

Depending upon the direction of travel and the specific alignment and station locations, 

one-way travel times are in the range of 84 to 100 minutes for the EMU technology option, 

to 116 minutes for the DEMU technology option. DEMU average speeds would be 

approximately 100 mph while EMU average speeds would be approximately 112 mph with 

a 125 mph top speed. At a top speed of 150 mph the average speed would be 

approximately 130 mph. Shorter alignments would enable a shorter travel time. 

To meet the projected ridership, trains would depart from both ends of the line on 20 to 

30 minute frequencies during peak weekend hours and up to approximately once per hour 

during the week. 

FRA’s review of the operations plan (Draft EIS Appendix C) found that the operating 

proposals set forth by DesertXpress were reasonable and set forth suggestions for the 

Applicant to consider as operating plans continue to evolve. 

2.3.2.6 Safety and Security 

All alignment routings would include several cross-track switches at prescribed intervals 

to enable continuity of high-speed train service in the event of a track blockage. 

Equipment redundancy, high reliability, daily service and inspection in conjunction with 

preventive maintenance schedules, failure monitoring of vehicle and wayside equipment, 

and corrective responses would ensure a high level of DesertXpress service availability. In 

the event of minor failures, trains would continue to operate with little or no impact on 

service. In addition, a failure and emergency response system would be in place to govern 

response to partial or full system stoppages requiring immediate intervention by 

authorized personnel. Response personnel would be on call 24 hours a day to quickly 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-42

address such failures and emergencies. The DesertXpress failure management system 

would also rely on a variety of strategies to minimize the downtime and passenger 

inconvenience caused by vehicle and wayside failures. These would include: 

 Automatic responses at the subsystem and/or the system level; 

 Local (manual) reset of equipment; 

 Remote reset of equipment by the OCC; 

 Recovery/removal of a failed train with a revenue train or a recovery train; 

 Replacement of failed train with hot standby train; 

 Alternate routing using shuttles and bypass routes; and 

 Appropriate inspection checks on tracks before service is restored. 

If service must be suspended around a problem site for any extended period, the OCC 

would implement a shuttle, bypass or short turnback strategy to provide reduced service 

for the remainder of the system. 

Peak demand is met by providing the train length (number of cars per train) and 

frequency of service required to meet the projected demand. The preliminary ridership 

and revenue forecasts indicate that 10-car trains would be sufficient to carry the demand 

for the foreseeable future. Thus, the Applicant’s Operating Plan shows that each train 

would consist of ten cars with service operating at 20-minute frequencies during the 

highest demand periods. As ridership demand increases over time, peak period ticket 

pricing strategies would be used, such that 20-minute service frequency is anticipated by 

the Applicant to be sufficient for many years. If necessary at some point to meet 

additional demand, longer trains could be used, or additional 10-car trains would be put in 

service to provide higher capacity through more frequent scheduling. 

Any fault occurring on any vehicle unit would be regarded as a train fault. There are 

numerous types of faults that possibly could occur with varying degrees of (potential) 

impact to system availability or threat to passenger safety. For this reason, onboard faults 

are characterized by the responses they would invoke, both by the OCC and by the train 

crew. Responses to train faults would range from the fault being noted and fixed at the 

next scheduled maintenance period to the emergency braking of the train. In the event of 

a train obstructing the alignment for extended periods, a degraded service mode would be 

implemented and the hot standby train, a recovery train, or the nearest in-service train, 

would be sent to clear the track. In the very infrequent event of an emergency requiring 

immediate train evacuation, train passengers would be evacuated to the 10 foot wide 

minimum maintenance road area that would run adjacent to the trackway or other 

suitable location, following review and approval of the System Safety Plan by the 

appropriate emergency services organizations. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-43

The DesertXpress tracks in either the DEMU or EMU technology option would be fenced. 

To protect against guideway or ROW entry by unauthorized persons or objects, chain link 

fencing, at a minimum of six feet in height, would be provided between any barrier 

structure and the train tracks, at a distance of approximately 30 inches from the centerline 

of the barrier. In some segments, fencing may also be mounted on top of the barrier, with 

a combined minimum height of six feet. Fencing would not be required where any barrier 

or retaining wall would exceed six feet in height. Transformers placed at regular intervals 

along the route would be located within the median of the fenced alignment, preventing 

unauthorized access. If the EMU technology option is selected, additional safety features 

would be integrated into the project. For example, fencing would be provided to restrict 

access to electrical equipment. The three substations required in the EMU technology 

option would be separately fenced and secured. 

All fenced areas of the DesertXpress ROW that could be accessed on foot would 

incorporate an intrusion detection system. The intrusion detection system would include 

continuity wire loops that are capable of detecting large objects that may strike or rupture 

the chain link fence. The intrusion detection system would be tied into the train control 

system to allow either warning of train stop, as detailed in the Safety and Security Plan 

and Hazards Analysis being prepared by the Applicant. The Safety and Security Plan and 

detailed Hazards Analysis would be incorporated into the DesertXpress standard 

operating procedures. 

Intrusion detection systems would also be provided as part of the DesertXpress project as 

required by the FRA. To protect the DesertXpress tracks against intrusion by unguided 

automotive vehicles, including motorcycles, automobiles, and trucks, barriers would be 

placed near the edge of the highway shoulder lanes. For the at-grade DesertXpress tracks 

adjacent to or within the median of the I-15 freeway, permanent concrete barriers would 

be installed between the tracks and the roadway, per Caltrans’ and NDOT requirements. 

Where the DesertXpress tracks are located on an elevated structure more than 6 feet 

above grade, no barrier would be required. 

Overhead highway structures adjacent to or crossing the DesertXpress ROW would be 

protected by crash walls surrounding the base piers. The crash walls would be specifically 

designed to withstand the impact of a derailed train and to deflect a derailed train away 

from the supporting structure. At a minimum, these crash walls would be installed per the 

requirements of AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering. Curved overhead highway 

structures would also include highway barriers in compliance with Caltrans and NDOT 

standards. Additionally, any overpass crossing the DesertXpress tracks would require a 

minimum clearance of approximately 16 feet, 9 inches. Chain link fencing on the roadway 

overpasses would also be constructed to protect objects from falling onto the DesertXpress 

trackway. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-44

Under 49 U.S.C. 20101 et seq., the FRA has authority over the safety of railroads. The 

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

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

inconsistency with the FRA safety regulations would be made consistent through 

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

standards specifically for the project. As such, the Applicant shall ensure DesertXpress 

Project adheres to all applicable FRA Safety regulations. 

In addition, FHWA has authority to ensure the Project does not adversely affect the safety 

of the Interstate highway system in approving the project to occupy or use the I-15 rightsof-way. FHWA intends to execute a Memorandum of Agreement with the Applicant to 

retain any necessary stewardship and oversight of the project during the design process, as 

well as to address design issues that avoid, minimize, and mitigate any remaining 

potential adverse impacts to Interstate operations, maintenance, and safety. 

A design safety working group consisting of FRA, FHWA, Caltrans, NDOT and the 

Applicant developed the Highway Interface Manual, included as Appendix F-B of this 

Final EIS, to begin addressing safety and security issues for the proposed project. It is 

anticipated that the Manual will be further developed and refined during the design 

process to ensure consistency with FRA and FHWA safety obligations. In addition, the 

Applicant shall complete an Emergency Preparedness Plan for FRA Office of Safety review 

and approval as required under 49 CFR Part 239. 

2.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

FRA, FHWA, BLM, NPS and the STB’s OEA have considered analysis of the No Action 

Alternative, Action Alternatives, and project modifications and additions presented in the 

Draft EIS and the Supplemental Draft EIS, as well as all public and agency comments 

received during the review periods for both the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS, in 

defining the Preferred Alternative. The Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS provided a 

thorough comparative analysis of the various action alternatives and the no action 

alternative. After comparing the potential impacts of the alternatives, FRA and the 

Cooperating Agencies selected the Preferred Alternative as described below which the 

Agencies believe would fulfill their statutory missions and responsibilities, giving 

consideration to economic, environmental, technical and other factors. This Preferred 

Alternative differs from the Applicant’s Proposed Alternative (see Section 2.1.3 above) in 

the selection of Segment 3, which is described in more detail above in Section 2.3.2.1

and below in Section 2.4.1.

The Preferred Alternative consists of an approximately 200-mile rail corridor between 

Victorville and Las Vegas consisting of the following rail alignments and 

station/maintenance facilities: 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-45

 Victorville Station Site Option: VV3B 

 Victorville OMSF Site Option: OMSF 2 

 Segment 1 

 Segment 2C Side Running 

 Segment 3B20

 Segment 4C, absent legislation allowing implementation of Segment 4A 

 Segment 5B 

 Segment 6B21

 Las Vegas Station Site: Las Vegas Southern Station or Las Vegas Central Station B 

 Las Vegas MSF Site Option: Wigwam MSF 

 Las Vegas MSF Substation: Frias Substation 

 Train Technology: EMU 

As discussed in Section 1.5, Relationship to Other Federal Agency Policies, 

Plans, and Programs, of the Draft EIS, in addition to FRA as the lead federal agency, 

the Cooperating Agencies involved with the project and responsible for signing Records of 

Decision following publication of this Final EIS include the BLM, STB, FHWA, and the 

NPS. In addition, Caltrans and NDOT have participated in an EIS Working Group. 

The Preferred Alternative is the alternative which FRA, FHWA, BLM, NPS and OEA 

believe would most closely align with their statutory mission and responsibilities, giving 

consideration to economic, environmental, technical and other factors. FRA held regular 

meetings with the Cooperating Agencies and EIS Working Group throughout preparation 

of the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS (refer to Chapter 4.0, Comments and 

Coordination of this Final EIS) and during preparation of this Final EIS. 

FRA, FHWA, BLM, NPS and OEA recommended the alternative that would best meet the 

agency’s defined plans, policies, and regulations and also considered the environmental 

effects identified in the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS and other technical factors. 

As lead agency, FRA was responsible for considering the recommendations of FHWA, 

BLM, NPS and OEA in selecting the Preferred Alternative. 

 

20 The Segment 3B rail alignment as part of the Preferred Alternative incorporates the alignment adjustments 

per Alignment Adjustment Areas 3 through 6 in the Supplemental Draft EIS. 

21 The Segment 6B rail alignment as part of the Preferred Alternative incorporates the alignment adjustments 

per Alignment Adjustment Areas 7 and 8 in the Supplemental Draft EIS. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-46

2.4.1 ALIGNMENT

Segment 1 

Starting in Victorville, the rail alignment would follow Segment 1, heading north following 

the west side of the I-15 freeway corridor. No additional action alternatives were studied 

in depth for Segment 1, but as shown in Table F-2-5 above, other alignments were 

considered and ultimately rejected from further analysis based on feasibility constraints 

and possible substantially adverse environmental impacts. 

In Segment 1, the rail alignment would have a maximum grade of about 2.5 percent and 

would incorporate retained embankments alongside the I-15 freeway and aerial structures 

where the rail alignment would need to be grade separated (i.e., at I-15 interchanges). 

Segment 1 would connection with the Segment 2C Side Running rail alignment just south 

of the community of Lenwood. 

Segment 2C Side Running 

The Segment 2C Side Running rail alignment was selected as part of the Preferred 

Alternative as a result of reduced adverse environmental effects as compared to Segment 

2A/2B and as a result of public comment and agency coordination. As concluded in the 

Supplemental Draft EIS, the Segment 2C Side Running rail alignment would have fewer 

adverse land use effects; would avoid impacts to farmland and grazing lands; would affect 

fewer sensitive cultural resources; would affect fewer linear feet of surface water 

resources; and would result in fewer impacts to sensitive biological resources, including 

plant and wildlife species. 

During the Draft EIS public review period (March 18, 2009 – May 22, 2009), the City of 

Barstow submitted comments requesting that Segment 2 be relocated within the I-15 

freeway corridor to avoid potential impacts to a planned industrial park in the Lenwood 

area. The Segment 2C Side Running rail alignment would avoid such land use conflicts in 

Lenwood. 

In addition, Segment 2C would allow for a more direct route of travel relative to Segment 

2A and Segment 2B. The Segment 2C Side Running rail alignment would also better 

accommodate future I-15 widening or improvements by Caltrans relative to the Segment 

2C Median rail alignment. 

The Segment 2C Side Running rail alignment would commence from a point in Segment 1 

near Lenwood Road approximately 7 miles southwest of the community of Lenwood. The 

rail alignment would run along the north and west side of the I-15 freeway within the 

existing ROW through Lenwood, central Barstow, and eastward to Yermo. The rail 

alignment would change from an at-grade to an elevated configuration near Lenwood 

Road. Through central Barstow, the rail alignment would be on an elevated structure 

immediately north of the I-15 freeway and would cross over local interchanges and 

overpasses. The rail alignment would maintain a side-running configuration along the 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-47

west and north sides of the I-15 freeway through central Barstow and would cross over the 

Mojave River on a new bridge immediately adjacent to the existing southbound I-15 

bridge. 

The Segment 2C rail alignment would follow the same alignment as Segment 2A in the 

vicinity of the I-15/SR 58 interchange just west of Yermo. This portion of the rail 

alignment would divert from the existing I-15 freeway corridor (outside of the existing 

ROW) and would follow a northerly course outside of the I-15 freeway corridor for 

approximately 9.3 miles. The Segment 2C rail alignment would reconnect with the I-15 

freeway corridor near the I-15/Yermo Road interchange, where the alignment would 

connect with the Segment 3B rail alignment. 

Segment 3B (Modified) 

The Segment 3B rail alignment was selected as part of the Preferred Alternative because it 

would be located immediately adjacent to the I-15 freeway and would allow for possible 

future widening and improvement activities on I-15. 

Based on additional consultation following publication of the Supplemental Draft EIS, an 

approximately 10 mile portion of Segment 3B would be further modified to reduce impacts 

to sensitive resources in the area. This portion of the Segment 3B rail alignment near the 

I-15/Halloran Springs Road interchange would cross over the I-15 freeway from the north 

side to the south side, staying within the existing I-15 ROW. As the rail alignment heads 

east toward Halloran Summit, it would cross back under the I-15 freeway from the south 

to the north side in an open cut in the vicinity of the Halloran Summit interchange. 

With the exception of the Halloran Springs to Halloran Summit area, the Segment 3B rail 

alignment would run alongside the north side of the I-15 freeway within the existing 

freeway ROW from Fort Irwin Road to Mountain Pass. Grade-separated elevated 

structures would be incorporated for crossing roadways and at the I-15 interchanges, from 

the on-off ramps. The Segment 3B rail alignment would also incorporate the AAAs and 

profile modification as evaluated in the Supplemental Draft EIS. In the Mountain Pass 

area, the Segment 3B rail alignment would connect with the Segment 4C rail alignment. 

Notably, the Segment 3B (Modified) alignment alternative selected by the FRA and 

Cooperating Agencies is a variance between the Preferred Alternative and the Applicant’s 

Proposed Alternative, as described in Section 2.1.3 of this Final EIS. As explained 

above, the Agencies are requiring this modification to avoid sensitive resource areas. 

Segment 4C 

The Segment 4C rail alignment was selected as part of the Preferred Alternative because it 

would avoid land use conflicts associated with Segment 4A and Segment 4B. The Draft 

EIS identified that a 1.55 mile portion of Segment 4A would traverse the Mojave National 

Preserve near Nipton Road as well as a portion of the nearby Ivanpah Desert Wildlife 

Management Area (DWMA), an important resource area for the desert tortoise (see 

Figure 3-14.5 of the Draft EIS). The Draft EIS also identified that Segment 4B would 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-48

conflict with a planned solar power project located to the west of Ivanpah Dry Lake. With 

the selection of the Segment 4C rail alignment, no adverse effects to the Ivanpah DWMA 

or future development of the planned solar power energy project would occur. 

The Segment 4C rail alignment would be approximately 20.7 miles long. In Mountain 

Pass, the west end of the Segment 4C rail alignment would be located immediately north 

of I-15 within the freeway ROW. The rail alignment would then leave the I-15 freeway 

ROW and head northeast, passing through three new dual track tunnels through the Clark 

Mountain range. The Segment 4C rail alignment would travel northwardly from the Clark 

Mountains and would turn east to cross the California-Nevada state line and connect back 

to the I-15 freeway corridor in the vicinity of Primm. The Segment 4C rail alignment 

would be located on the western side of the I-15 freeway. The Segment 4C rail alignment 

would cross over the I-15 freeway on an elevated structure to the east side of the I-15 

freeway within the vicinity of Primm, where the Segment 4C rail alignment would connect 

with the Segment 5B rail alignment. 

The Segment 4A rail alignment would provide the most direct route of the Segment 4 rail 

alignment options. As stated in Section 2.3.2.1 above, Segment 4A extends for 14 miles, 

following the I-15 freeway corridor. While Segment 4A would encroach upon the Preserve 

for an approximately 1.55 mile portion, the Segment 4A rail alignment would be primarily 

located within the existing I-15 freeway ROW and would avoid effects to sensitive 

environmental resources associated with Segment 4C since the I-15 freeway ROW is 

already disturbed by the existing transportation corridor. However, legislative action is 

required to grant a ROW through the Mojave National Preserve to implement Segment 

4A. As of January 2011, no legislation is pending to facilitate any such grant. In a 

February 2011 letter to FRA, the NPS acknowledged the lack of legislative authority at 

present to grant such a ROW, but indicated a preference for Segment 4A over Segment 4C 

insofar as the vicinity of Segment 4A adheres more closely to the I-15 corridor and 

traverses lands that have been largely disturbed. 

As a result, Segment 4A was not selected over Segment 4C for the Preferred Alternative. 

However, should legislative action allow ROW access to the Preserve or modify the 

Preserve boundaries to enable implementation of Segment 4A, it is recognized that while 

not legally possible at this time, Segment 4A is the superior alignment alternative in 

consideration of the economic, environmental, technical factors used to select the 

Preferred Alternative. Please see Section 2.5, Environmentally Preferred 

Alternative, below for further discussion of Segment 4A and associated impacts. 

Segment 5B

The Segment 5B rail alignment was selected because it would be located immediately 

adjacent to the I-15 freeway and would allow for future widening and improvement 

activities on I-15. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-49

The Segment 5B rail alignment would start along the east side of I-15 within the freeway 

ROW between Primm and Jean. In this segment, the rail alignment would be largely atgrade and would cross back to the west side of I-15 at the northern portion of Segment 5B, 

crossing over I-15 and the existing UPRR tracks.22 Upon crossing over to the west side of 

I-15, the Segment 5B rail alignment would connect with the Segment 6B rail alignment. 

Segment 6B 

The Segment 6B rail alignment would run along the west side of the I-15 freeway primarily 

within the freeway ROW. Segment 6B was determined to be the most feasible option for 

allowing future NDOT widening and improvements to I-15 in the Las Vegas metropolitan 

area. Segment 6A was not considered compatible with planned future improvements on I15. As compared to Segment 6, Option C, Segment 6B would provide the most direct route 

between Las Vegas and Victorville. 

The Segment 6B rail alignment would be constructed at existing grade until reaching the 

I-15/Blue Diamond Road interchange in the Las Vegas metropolitan area. Here the rail 

alignment would transition to an elevated structure and would remain elevated until 

reaching the passenger station. 

The Segment 6B rail alignment incorporates AAAs 7 and 8 as detailed in the Supplemental 

Draft EIS. With AAA8, portions of the Segment 6B would be located outside of the I-15 

freeway ROW and into a ROW owned by Clark County in three areas – between I-15/State 

Route 215 interchange and West Russell Road, between West Russell Road and West 

Tropicana Avenue, and between West Tropicana Avenue and the Las Vegas Central 

Station B site. Between West Russell Road and West Tropicana Avenue, the elevated rail 

alignment would be located within the median of Dean Martin Drive/Industrial Road. 

2.4.2 FACILITIES

Victorville Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options - Victorville Station 

Site 3B and OMSF2 

VV3B was selected as part of the Preferred Alternative due to the reduced traffic impacts 

at local intersections and cumulative effects as compared to VV1 and VV2. Furthermore, 

VV3B was selected insofar as it avoids locating any parking areas or structures beneath the 

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) electric utility corridor that 

parallels I-15 in this area. LADWP regulations prohibit parking under its facilities for 

 

22 Once the STB has authorized a rail construction, no other rail carrier can block the construction by refusing 

to permit the carrier from crossing its property as long as the construction does not unreasonably interfere 

with the operation of the crossed line; the operation does not materially interfere with the operation of the 

crossed line; and the owner of the crossing line compensates the owner of the crossed line, 49 U.S.C. 

10901(d)(1). 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-50

extended periods (greater than 24 hours). As parking demands of the Victorville Station 

were assumed to require extended periods, VV3A, which included parking beneath the 

LADWP corridor, was not incorporated into the Preferred Alternative. 

The Draft EIS concluded that VV1 would result in adverse traffic impacts at local 

intersections and would significantly contribute to future adverse cumulative effects, even 

with the implementation of mitigation measures. The Draft EIS also concluded that VV2 

would result in potentially significant effects to existing intersections, but that mitigation 

measures (included in the Draft EIS) could reduce the significance of these impacts such 

that affected intersections would operate at acceptable service levels. VV3 would also 

result in a reduced travel time as compared to implementation of VV1 or VV2, since the 

rail alignment would be shortened by approximately 7 miles which FRA determined would 

not substantially affect ridership. The VV3 and OMSF 2 tail tracks would connect to the 

Segment 1 rail alignment. 

With the selection of VV3, OMSF 2 would be required since OMSF 1 would not function 

with VV3 due to distance between the two sites. OMSF 2 would be located immediately 

south of VV3. Based on further engineering studies following publication of the Draft EIS, 

OMSF 2 would utilize the reduced footprint as identified in the Supplemental Draft EIS. 

Las Vegas Station and Maintenance Facilities – Southern Station or Central 

Station B; Wigwam Avenue MSF, and Frias Substation 

Both the Las Vegas Southern Station as well as the Central Station B sites have been 

included in the Agency Preferred Alternative. This has been done to allow flexibility to 

further evaluate the cost/benefit of the two station sites before selecting one for 

construction and operation. Both station sites are in close proximity of major attractions 

in Las Vegas and both would have relatively similar environmental effects. 

Advantages of the Southern Station include its proximity to southern end of the Las Vegas 

Strip as well as McCarran International Airport. The Southern Station site is undeveloped 

and would not require displacement or demolition of any existing development. The 

Southern Station would also result in an overall shorter alignment length of about 2 to 6 

miles when compared to the Central or Downtown station sites. As most of Segment 6B 

through metropolitan Las Vegas would be placed on elevated structures within or 

immediately adjacent to the I-15 corridor, the Southern Station would avoid the need to 

construct a substantial amount of elevated trackway that would be needed to access the 

Central or Downtown station sites. 

Central Station B is located at about the middle of the Las Vegas Strip in close proximity to

many major attractions in Las Vegas. Central Station B site would result in reduced 

construction costs as the property owner has performed extensive site planning and 

entitlement work for use of the property. Similar to the Southern Station, the Central 

Station B site does not include any known biological or cultural resources, and both are 

located outside the 100-year floodplain. Both Central Station B and the Southern Station 

would result in reduced traffic impacts at local intersections relative to Central Station A. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-51

At 37 acres in area, Central Station B features a more compact footprint relative to the 

Southern Station (62 acres) but is larger than the Downtown (23 acres) and Central 

Station A (32 acres) options. 

The Wigwam Avenue MSF site option was selected as part of the Preferred Alternative 

because it would result in fewer impacts to sensitive biological resources as compared to 

the Relocated Sloan Road MSF and Robindale Avenue MSF site options. The Wigwam 

Avenue MSF would be located between to the west of the I-15 freeway at the Dean Martin 

Drive and Wigwam Avenue intersection. 

As the Wigwam Avenue MSF would not include a substation or utility corridor on site, the 

Frias Substation would be required in conjunction with this MSF to provide electricity to 

the rail alignment. The Frias Substation would be located west of the I-15 freeway at the 

intersection of West Frias Avenue and South Dean Martin Drive. 

2.4.3 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION AREAS

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would require the use of the TCAs. Table F-2-8

identifies the TCAs for the Preferred Alternative, their locations, and the segments each 

would serve. 

Table F-2-8 Temporary Construction Areas – Preferred Alternative 

TCA 

No. Location Within a Permanent Impact Area? Size Segment(s) Served

1B OMSF 2 Yes 68 acres 1

2C1 Along I-15, near Lenwood Road No 1 acre 2C

5 Yermo, east of Yermo Road/I-15 interchange No 5.23 acres 2C/2A

6

Along I-15, southwest of Field Road 

interchange No 5.82 acres 3B

7 Along I-15, north of Basin Road interchange No 3.5 acres 3A/3B

8 West of Baker, between I-15 and Baker Blvd No 1.9 acres 3B

9

East of Baker, between I-15 and Baker Blvd

(Baker MOW) Yes 9.63 acres 3B

10 North of I-15 at Cima Road No 5.67 acres 3B

4C1 Along I-15, near Mountain Pass south of 

Clark Mountains No 5.2 acres 4C

4C2 North of Mountain Pass in Clark Mountains No 1 acre 4C

4C3 North of Mountain Pass in Clark Mountains No 1 acre 4C

4C4 North of Clark Mountains, west of Ivanpah 

Dry Lake No 9.7 acres 4C

4C5 Along I-15, north of California-Nevada state 

line near Primm No 6.1 acres 4C
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-52

TCA 

No. Location Within a Permanent Impact Area? Size Segment(s) Served

13 South of Sloan Road near UPRR 

undercrossing of I-15 No 9.1 acres 5B

16 Between Russell Road and Hacienda; site of 

proposed Southern Station Yes 57.09 acres 6A, 6B

22 Site of Central Station B Yes 10.0 6B

Source: CirclePoint, 2010. 

2.4.4 TECHNOLOGY

The Preferred Alternative would utilize the EMU train technology option because it was 

determined to be the preferable technology with fewer resultant environmental effects as 

compared to the DEMU technology option. The EMU technology option would allow for 

faster train speeds, which would reduce the overall travel time and increase ridership. The 

EMU technology option also results in lesser effects relative to air quality and GHG 

emissions, would result in a greater reduction in energy consumption, and would result in 

fewer severe noise impacts relative to the DEMU technology option. 

2.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA require 

that “the alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally 

preferable” be identified23. Environmentally preferable is defined as “the alternative that 

will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in the NEPA, Section 101. 

Ordinarily this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and 

physical environment; it also means the alternative that best protects, preserves, and 

enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources.24

FRA, FHWA, BLM, NPS and OEA have identified an environmentally preferable 

alternative. This is the combination of rail alignments and project features that result in 

the fewest or least intensive adverse effects. Numerous economic, environmental, 

technical and other factors led the Lead Agency and Cooperating Agencies, to forego the 

environmentally preferred alternative in favor of the Preferred Alternative identified in 

detail in Section 2.4, Preferred Alternative, of this Final EIS. Components of the 

environmentally preferable alternative are identified below. 

Victorville Station Site Option: VV2. This site has a smaller footprint than VV3 and 

avoids potential conflicts with overhead electrical utility lines. The inclusion of VV2 would 

result in significant traffic impacts to the Stoddard Wells Road interchange, but these 

 

23 Council on Environmental Quality Regulations, Section 1505.2 

24 Council on Environmental Quality, 1981 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-53

impacts could be mitigated successfully. VV3 was identified as preferable insofar as 

Caltrans expressed concern about VV2 having potential conflicts with planned freeway 

improvements in the area. 

Victorville OMSF Site Option: OMSF 2 (Same as Preferred Alternative) 

Segment 1: (Same as Preferred Alternative) 

Segment 2: 2C, Median Option. Segment 2C would be side running until L Street in 

Barstow, where the median option would begin. The median option of Segment 2C 

reduces the degree of noise, vibration, and visual effects from the perspective of the 

northern side of the I-15 corridor through Barstow. However, in the median option, noise 

and vibration impacts would be on both sides of the I-15 corridor, not solely the north 

side. In addition, constructing the train in the median is more costly, is more difficult to 

construct and maintain, and poses more highway and rail operational and safety concerns 

than the side-running options in general. 

Segment 3: 3A, Median. Outside urbanized areas, the median option typically results in 

fewer impacts to biological and cultural resources, insofar as the median of the freeway is 

usually a highly disturbed area with relatively few resources. However, the median option 

is more costly and difficult to construct and maintain and poses more highway and rail 

operational and safety concerns than side-running options. 

Segment 4: 4A (Via Nipton Road). Segment 4A is the shortest of the three options for 

Segment 4, but would traverse a 1.55 mile portion of the Mojave National Preserve near 

Nipton Road. Segment 4A would avoid and/or minimize the impacts associated with 

Segment 4C, including fragmentation of wildlife/habitat areas, severance of grazing lands, 

and impacts to hydrological features. Segment 4C had been designed to go around the 

approved Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) solar energy project. 

Segment 4A was not identified as the Preferred Alternative, as at present there is no 

mechanism for the NPS to grant a ROW through the Mojave National Preserve and no 

legislation is pending as of January 2011 to facilitate any such grant. 

Segment 5: 5A Median. Outside urbanized areas, the median option typically results in 

fewer impacts to biological and cultural resources, insofar as the median of the freeway is 

usually a highly disturbed area with relatively few resources. However, the median option 

is more costly and difficult to construct and maintain and poses more highway and rail 

operational and safety concerns than side-running options. 

Segment 6: 6A Median. Segment 6 comprises an area that transitions from relatively 

undeveloped desert in the south to the heart of metropolitan Las Vegas in the north. 

However, the median option is more costly and difficult to construct and maintain and 

poses more highway and rail operational and safety concerns than side-running options. 
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-54

Las Vegas Station: Generally, the four Las Vegas Station Site options do not 

substantially differ in terms of potential environmental impacts. All Las Vegas Station 

options would be located within the existing urban context of the metropolitan Las Vegas 

area. However, the Las Vegas Central Station B and Las Vegas Downtown Station sites 

would result in the displacement of industrial uses, where as the Las Vegas Central Station 

A and Las Vegas Southern Station site options would be developed on either an existing 

surface parking area or undeveloped parcel with no business displacements. The 

Southern Station would allow for the shortest overall rail length while achieving 

reasonable proximity to the visitor-serving attractions of the Las Vegas Strip and also 

proximity to McCarran International Airport. 

Las Vegas Maintenance and Storage Facilities: Wigwam MSF and Frias Substation 

(Same as Preferred Alternative). Although the Wigwam MSF option requires the 

relocation of existing businesses, the Robindale MSF site is closer to residential 

development, posing a potential land use conflict. Moreover, the Relocated Sloan Road 

MSF site is outside the boundary of urban infrastructure districts, such as water and 

wastewater, thus requiring either connections to urban infrastructure or costly transport 

of water/sewage to and from the site. 

Technology Option: EMU (Same as Preferred Alternative). 

Temporary Construction Areas: (Same as Preferred Alternative). 
NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

Baker MOW

Baker

Halloran

Springs Segment 3A/3B

Segment 4B

Segment 4A

Segment 5A/5B

Segment 4C

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 3 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

TCA 7

er

15

Segment 3A/3B

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 3

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 4

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 5

Alignment 

Adjustment 

Area 6

Segment 3A/3B

TCA 19

TCA 20

TCA 21

TCA 18

Segment 4B

Segment 4A

TCA 4C3

Segment 4C

TCA 4C1

TCA 4C2

TCA 11

TCA 12

TCA 4C4

TCA 4C5

Geografika Consulting 01.25.11

Profile

Modification Area

15

4

5 Las Vegas

FIG

Revision of Supplemental Draft EIS Figure S-2-3:

Project Modifications and Additions (3) F-2-1

* This figure, originally in the Supplemental Draft EIS, has been revised to show the correct location of TCA 7.

Tunnels

Legend

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

1 inch equals 5 miles

NORTH

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

0 6 3

Kilometers

0 5 2.5

Miles
93

95

95

COLORADO R.

Lake

Mohave

LAKE

HAVASU

LAKE MEAD

Hoover Dam

 Joshua Tree NP

Mojave National

Preserve

 Lake Mead NRA

 Death Valley NP

KERN

LOS ANGELES

SAN BERNARDINO

INYO

MOHAVE

CLARK

NYE

Lancaster

Primm

Big Bear

Hesperia

Palmdale

Bullhead City

San Bernardino

Burbank

Paradise

Barstow

Baker

Yermo

15

40

15

215

395

395

Needles

DesertXpress

Final EIS Federal Railroad

Administration Project Location

Source: CirclePoint, 2011.

F-2-2

Legend

Preferred Alternative

Proposed Terminals

190

127

127

247

58

138

138

247 18

18

62

178

372 NEVADA

373 NEVADA

160

NEVADA

163

NEVADA

160

NEVADA

ARIZONA

68

Segment 1

Segment 2C

Segment 2A

Segment 3B

Segment 4C

Segment 5B

Segment 6B

Las Vegas

Victorville
Segment 2C

Victorville

Station (VV3)

Victorville

OMSF (OMSF 2)

TCA 1B

Barstow

Victorville Apple Valley

Oro

Grande

Lenwood

Segment 1

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 1 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

Segment 1

Victorville

OMSF (OMSF 2)

Victorville

Station (VV3)

TCA 1B

NOTE: TCA 1B is located

entirely within OMSF 2

Dale Evans Pky

Boulder Rd

15

Geografika Consulting 01.13.11

4

5

Preferred Alternative - Map 1 of 5

FIG

F-2-3

Source: DesertXpress 2008, ESRI 2005, 

CirclePoint 2008-2011, NAIP 2003-2006, 

1 inch equals 3 miles

0 4 2

Kilometers

0 3 1.5

Miles

NORTH

Legend

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facilities

Stations
Yermo

Barstow Lenwood

Segment 2A

Segment 3B

Segment 2C 

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 2 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

TCA 2C1

H Street

Mojave River

Segment 2C

North Main St.

Segment 2A

Geografika Consulting 01.11.11

4

5

Preferred Alternative - Map 2 of 5

FIG

F-2-4

Legend

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facilities

Stations

Source: DesertXpress 2008, ESRI 2005, 

CirclePoint 2008-2011, NAIP 2003-2006, 

1 inch equals 4 miles

0 1 5 0

Kilometers

0 8 4

Miles

NORTH
NEVADA

CALIFORN

15 IA

Baker

Halloran

Springs

t 3 B

Segment 3 A

Segment 3B

Segment 5B

Segment 4C

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 3 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

TCA 4C3

Segment 4C

TCA 4C1

TCA 4C2

TCA 4C4

TCA 4C5

Geografika Consulting 01.17.11

4

5

Baker Blvd.

TCA 9 15

Baker

Segment 3B

Baker

MOW

127

Preferred Alternative - Map 3 of 5

FIG

F-2-5

Legend

Tunnels

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA)

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facilities

Stations

1 inch equals 5 miles

NORTH

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

0 6 3

Kilometers

0 5 2.5

Miles

Primm
Primm

Jean

Segment 6B

Segment 5B

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 4 of 5

Geografika Consulting 01.17.11

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress 

Final EIS

TCA 13

Segment 5B

15

4

5

Nevada

California

Preferred Alternative - Map 4 of 5

FIG

F-2-6

Legend

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facilities

Stations

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 3 miles NORTH

0 6 3

Miles

0 5 2.5

Kilometers

Tunnels
Las Vegas

Central

Station B

Las Vegas

Southern

Station

Segment 6B

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 5 of 5

Geografika Consulting 02.28.11

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress

Final EIS

Segment 6 B

Frias

Substation

4

5

15

McCarran

International

Airport

E. Tropicana Ave

L

a

s

Ve

g

a

s

Blv

d

W. Russell Rd

Segment 6 B

Robindale Ave.

TCA 22

Wigwam

Avenue

MSF

Las Vegas

Central

Station B

160

Las Vegas

Southern

Station

TCA 16

Legend

DesertXpress Alignment

Preferred Alternative

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) 

Maintenance Facility Sites

Autotransformer 

Electric Utility Corridor

Ancillary Facilities

Stations

Source: CirclePoint 2008-2011, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 2 miles

NORTH

0 2 1.25 .5

Kilometers

0 2 1

Miles

Preferred Alternative - Map 5 of 5

FIG

F-2-7
DesertXpress 2.0 Alternatives 

March 2011 Final EIS 

2-62

This page intentionally left blank.