APPENDIX E 

TRAFFIC IMPACTS ANALYSIS 

DRAFT FINAL REPORT

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

Prepared by 

 

February 2009 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Table of Contents

ii September 2008

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1

1.1 Project Description................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1.1 Overview..................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1.2 Operations, Maintenance, and Storage Facility Alternatives......................................... 1-2

1.2 Relationship of Traffic Analysis Report to EIS........................................................................... 1-3

1.3 Overview of Traffic Analysis Methodology ................................................................................ 1-3

2.0 TRANSPORTATION SETTING ...................................................................................................... 2-1

3.0 BASELINE TRAFFIC FORECASTS................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 I-15 Mainline .......................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Victorville Area .......................................................................................................3-1

3.3 Las Vegas Area .......................................................................................................3-2

4.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC FORECASTS ................................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Ridership Studies..................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Rail Operating Plan.................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.3 Rail Ridership Forecasts .......................................................................................................... 4-2

4.4 Mainline Traffic Reduction........................................................................................................ 4-2

4.5 Station Mode Share and Trip Generation.................................................................................. 4-3

4.6 Operation and Maintenance Service Facilities .......................................................................... 4-5

5.0 I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS.......................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Roadway Network.................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Freeway Section and Ramp Junction Analysis Methodology..................................................... 5-1

5.3 Existing Freeway Section Analysis ........................................................................................... 5-2

5.4 Existing Ramp Junction Analysis.............................................................................................. 5-5

5.5 Impact Analysis 5-6

5.6 2013 Opening Year Conditions................................................................................................. 5-6

5.6.1 Freeway Analysis ........................................................................................................ 5-6

1. 2013 Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................. 5-6

2. 2013 Baseline plus DMU Alternative Conditions................................................................. 5-8

3. 2013 Baseline plus EMU Alternative Conditions............................................................... 5-10

5.6.2 Ramp Junction Analysis ............................................................................................ 5-12

1. 2013 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................ 5-12

2. 2013 Baseline plus DMU Alternative Conditions............................................................... 5-13

3. 2013 Baseline plus EMU Alternative Conditions............................................................... 5-13

5.7 2030 Cumulative Conditions................................................................................................... 5-14

5.7.1 Freeway Analysis ...................................................................................................... 5-14

1. 2030 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................ 5-14

2. 2030 Baseline plus DMU Alternative Conditions............................................................... 5-17

3. 2030 Baseline plus EMU Alternative Conditions............................................................... 5-20

5.7.2 Ramp Junction Analysis ............................................................................................ 5-22

1. 2030 Baseline Conditions ................................................................................................ 5-22

2. 2030 Baseline plus DMU Alternative Conditions............................................................... 5-23

3. 2030 Baseline plus EMU Alternative Conditions............................................................... 5-23

6.0 VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATION........................................................................................... 6-25

6.1 Victorville Station Location Option 1 ....................................................................................... 6-25
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Table of Contents 

 iii September 2008 

6.1.1 Existing Conditions.........................................................................................................6-25

6.1.2 Impact Analysis..............................................................................................................6-27

6.1.3 Existing plus Project Conditions.....................................................................................6-29

6.1.4 2013 Baseline Conditions (Opening Year Analysis)......................................................6-33

6.1.5 2030 Cumulative Conditions ..........................................................................................6-35

6.1.6 Mitigation Measures.......................................................................................................6-38

6.1.7 Queuing Analysis ...........................................................................................................6-42

6.2 Victorville Station Location Option 2 ...........................................................................................6-43

6.2.1 Existing Conditions.........................................................................................................6-44

6.2.2 Impact Analysis..............................................................................................................6-47

6.2.3 2013 Opening Year Conditions......................................................................................6-50

6.2.4 2030 Cumulative Conditions ..........................................................................................6-53

6.2.5 Mitigation Measures.......................................................................................................6-56

6.2.6 Queuing Analysis ...........................................................................................................6-59

7.0 LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS...........................................................................................................7-1

7.1 Downtown Station Location Alternative ........................................................................................7-1

7.1.1 Existing Conditions...........................................................................................................7-1

7.1.2 Impact Analysis................................................................................................................7-3

7.1.3 2013 Conditions (Opening Year Analysis).......................................................................7-6

7.1.4 2030 Cumulative Conditions ............................................................................................7-9

7.1.5 Mitigation Measures.......................................................................................................7-13

7.2 Central Station Location “A” Alternative......................................................................................7-19

7.2.1 Existing Conditions.........................................................................................................7-20

7.2.2 Impact Analysis..............................................................................................................7-23

7.2.3 2013 Conditions (Opening Year Analysis).....................................................................7-23

7.2.4 2030 Cumulative Conditions ..........................................................................................7-27

7.2.5 Mitigation Measures.......................................................................................................7-30

7.3 South Station Location Alternative..............................................................................................7-36

7.3.1 Existing Conditions.........................................................................................................7-36

7.3.2 Impact Analysis..............................................................................................................7-39

7.3.3 2013 Conditions (Opening Year Analysis).....................................................................7-40

7.3.4 2030 Cumulative Conditions ..........................................................................................7-44

7.3.5 Mitigation Measures.......................................................................................................7-47

7.4 Central Station Location “B” Alternative......................................................................................7-55

7.4.1 Existing Conditions.........................................................................................................7-56

7.4.2 Impact Analysis..............................................................................................................7-58

2013 Conditions (Opening Year Analysis)..................................................................................7-60

7.4.3 2030 Cumulative Conditions ..........................................................................................7-61

7.4.4 Mitigation Measures.......................................................................................................7-64

8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................8-1

Appendix 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Table of Contents

iv September 2008

List of Figures

Figure 4-1 Proposed Maintenance Facility at Victorville (2 Alternatives) ........................................................4-6

Figure 4-2 Proposed Maintenance Facility at Las Vegas (3 Alternatives).......................................................4-7

Figure 5-1 Analysis Freeway Sections..........................................................................................................5-3

Figure 5-2 I-15 Mainline Existing Peak Hour Volumes...................................................................................5-4

Figure 5-3 I-15 Mainline 2013 plus DMU Peak Hour Volumes.......................................................................5-9

Figure 5-4 I-15 Mainline 2013 plus EMU Alternative Peak Hour Volumes .................................................... 5-11

Figure 5-5 I-15 Mainline Future Year 2030 Geometry .................................................................................5-15

Figure 5-6 I-15 Mainline 2030 No Build Peak Hour Volumes ....................................................................... 5-16

Figure 5-7 I-15 Mainline 2030 plus DMU Alternative Peak Hour Volumes.................................................... 5-18

Figure 5-8 I-15 Mainline 2030 plus EMU Alternative Volumes ..................................................................... 5-21

Figure 6-1 Existing Intersection Lane Geometry – Victorville Station Location Alternative 1.......................... 6-26

Figure 6-2 Existing Intersection Traffic Volumes – Victorville Station Location Alternative 1 ......................... 6-28

Figure 6-3 Trip Distribution - Victorville Station Location Alternative 1.......................................................... 6-30

Figure 6-4 Future Year 2030 Intersection Geometry - Victorville Station Location Alternative 1 .................... 6-32

Figure 6-5 Existing Intersection Lane Geometry - Victorville Station Location Alternative 2 .......................... 6-45

Figure 6-6 Existing Intersection Traffic Volumes - Victorville Station Location Alternative 2 .......................... 6-46

Figure 6-7 Trip Distribution – Victorville Station Location Alternative 2......................................................... 6-49

Figure 6-8 Future Year 2030 Intersection Lane Geometry – Victorville Station Location Alternative 2........... 6-54

Figure 7-1 Downtown Existing Geometry......................................................................................................7-4

Figure 7-2 Downtown Trip Distribution..........................................................................................................7-7

Figure 7-3 Central “A” Existing Intersection Geometry ................................................................................7-22

Figure 7-4 Central Station “A” Trip Distribution ...........................................................................................7-24

Figure 7-5 South Station Existing Intersection Geometry ............................................................................ 7-38

Figure 7-6 South Station Trip Distribution...................................................................................................7-41

Figure 7-7 Central Station “B” Existing Geometry .......................................................................................7-57

Figure 7-8 Central Station “B” Trip Distribution ...........................................................................................7-59
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Table of Contents 

 v September 2008 

List of Tables 

Table 3-1 Future Forecast of California Section of I-15.............................................................................................. 3-1

Table 3-2 Future Forecast of Nevada Section of I-15 ................................................................................................ 3-1

Table 4-1 Rail Ridership Ramp-Up Adjustments Annual Round Trips ....................................................................... 4-2

Table 4-2 Expected Number of Vehicle Reduction on I-15 ........................................................................................ 4-3

Table 4-3 Mode Share at Victorville Station ............................................................................................................... 4-3

Table 4-4 Mode Share at Las Vegas Station ............................................................................................................. 4-4

Table 4-5 Peak Hour Trips Generated for Victorville Station...................................................................................... 4-4

Table 4-6 Peak Hour Trips Generated for Las Vegas Station .................................................................................... 4-5

Table 4-7 O & M Trip Generation in 2013 .................................................................................................................. 4-5

Table 4-8 O & M Trip Generation in 2030 for EMU .................................................................................................... 4-8

Table 4-9 O & M Trip Generation in 2030 for DMU.................................................................................................... 4-8

Table 5-1 Freeway Mainline and Ramp Junction Level of Service Thresholds ......................................................... 5-2

Table 5-2 HCM Analysis Assumptions – Existing Conditions..................................................................................... 5-2

Table 5-3 Freeway Mainline Level of Service - Existing Conditions........................................................................... 5-5

Table 5-4 Ramp Junction Level of Service – Existing Conditions .............................................................................. 5-6

Table 5-5 Freeway Mainline Level of Service – 2013 Baseline Conditions................................................................ 5-7

Table 5-6 Freeway Mainline Level of Service – 2013 Baseline plus DMU Conditions ............................................... 5-8

Table 5-7 Freeway Mainline Level of Service – 2013 Baseline plus EMU Conditions.............................................. 5-10

Table 5-8 Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2013 Baseline Conditions .................................................................. 5-12

Table 5-9 Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2013 Baseline plus DMU Alternative Conditions................................ 5-13

Table 5-10 Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2013 Baseline plus EMU Alternative Conditions.............................. 5-14

Table 5-11 HCS Assumptions – 2030 Conditions .................................................................................................... 5-17

Table 5-12 Freeway Mainline Level of Service – 2030 Baseline Conditions............................................................ 5-17

Table 5-13 Freeway Mainline Level of Service – 2030 Baseline plus DMU Conditions ........................................... 5-19

Table 5-14 Freeway Mainline Level of Service – 2030 Baseline plus EMU Conditions............................................ 5-20

Table 5-15 Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2030 Baseline Conditions ................................................................ 5-22

Table 5-16 Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2030 Baseline plus DMU Alternative Conditions.............................. 5-23

Table 5-17 Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2013 Baseline plus EMU Alternative Conditions.............................. 5-24

Table 6-1 Intersection Level of Service Description ................................................................................................. 6-25

Table 6-2 Victorville Option 1 - Intersection Level of Service - Existing Conditions ................................................. 6-27

Table 6-3 Victorville Option 1 - Existing plus DMU Conditions LOS......................................................................... 6-31

Table 6-4 Victorville Option 1 - Existing plus EMU Conditions LOS......................................................................... 6-33

Table 6-5 Victorville Option 1 - 2013 Baseline Conditions LOS ............................................................................... 6-34

Table 6-6 Victorville Option 1 – 2013 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS.............................................................. 6-34

Table 6-7 Victorville Option 1 – 2013 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS.............................................................. 6-35

Table 6-8 Victorville Option 1 - 2030 Baseline Conditions LOS ............................................................................... 6-36

Table 6-9 Victorville Option 1 – 2030 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS.............................................................. 6-37

Table 6-10 Victorville Option 1 – 2030 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS............................................................ 6-37

Table 6-11 Victorville Option 1 - Existing plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS ...................................................... 6-38

Table 6-12 Victorville Option 1 - Existing plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS....................................................... 6-39

Table 6-13 Victorville Option 1 – 2013 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS ............................................................ 6-40

Table 6-14 Victorville Option 1 - 2013 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS ............................................ 6-40

Table 6-15 Victorville Option 1 - 2013 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS............................................. 6-41

Table 6-16 Victorville Option 1 – 2030 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS ............................................................ 6-42

Table 6-17 Victorville Option 1 – Queuing Analysis ................................................................................................. 6-43

Table 6-18 Victorville Option 2 - Existing Conditions LOS ....................................................................................... 6-44
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Table of Contents 

 vi September 2008 

Table 6-19 Victorville Option 2 – Existing plus DMU Conditions LOS...................................................................... 6-48

Table 6-20 Victorville Option 2 – Existing plus EMU Conditions LOS ...................................................................... 6-50

Table 6-21 Victorville Option 2 – 2013 Baseline Conditions LOS ............................................................................ 6-51

Table 6-22 Victorville Option 2 – 2013 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS............................................................ 6-52

Table 6-23 Victorville Option 2 – 2013 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS............................................................ 6-53

Table 6-24 Victorville Option 2 - 2030 Baseline Conditions LOS ............................................................................. 6-55

Table 6-25 Victorville Option 2 - 2030 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS............................................................. 6-55

Table 6-26 Victorville Option 2 - 2030 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS............................................................. 6-56

Table 6-27 Victorville Option 2 - Existing plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS....................................................... 6-57

Table 6-28 Victorville Option 2 - 2013 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS ............................................ 6-57

Table 6-29 Victorville Option 2 - 2013 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS............................................. 6-58

Table 6-30 Victorville Option 2 - 2030 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS............................................. 6-59

Table 6-31 Victorville Option 2 – Queuing Analysis ................................................................................................. 6-60

Table 7-1 Downtown Station Location Alternative - Existing Conditions LOS ............................................................ 7-5

Table 7-2 Downtown Station Location Alternative - 2013 Baseline Conditions LOS.................................................. 7-8

Table 7-3 Downtown Station Location Alternative - 2013 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS ................................. 7-9

Table 7-4 Downtown Station Location Alternative 2013 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS.................................. 7-10

Table 7-5 Downtown Station Location Alternative 2030 Baseline Conditions LOS .................................................. 7-11

Table 7-6 Downtown Station Location Alternative - 2030 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS ............................... 7-12

Table 7-7 Downtown Station Location Alternative - 2030 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS ............................... 7-12

Table 7-8 Downtown Station Location Alternative 2013 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS.................................. 7-14

Table 7-9 Downtown Station Location Alternative 2013 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS ................. 7-15

Table 7-10 Downtown Station Location Alternative 2013 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS ............... 7-16

Table 7-11 Downtown Station Location Alternative 2030 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS................................ 7-17

Table 7-12 Downtown Station Location Alternative 2030 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS ............... 7-18

Table 7-13 Downtown Station Location Alternative 2030 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS .............. 7-19

Table 7-14 Central Station Location “A” Alternative - Existing Conditions LOS ....................................................... 7-21

Table 7-15 Central Station Location “A” Alternative – 2013 Baseline Conditions LOS............................................. 7-25

Table 7-16 Central Station Location “A” Alternative 2013 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS............................... 7-26

Table 7-17 Central Station Location “A” Alternative – 2013 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS ............................ 7-27

Table 7-18 Central Station Location “A” Alternative – 2030 Baseline Conditions LOS............................................. 7-28

Table 7-19 Central Station Location “A” Alternative 2030 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS............................... 7-29

Table 7-20 Central Station Location “A” Alternative 2030 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS ............................... 7-30

Table 7-21 Central Station Location “A” Alternative 2013 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS ............................... 7-31

Table 7-22 Central Station Location “A” Alternative 2013 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS............... 7-32

Table 7-23 Central Station Location “A” Alternative 2013 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS............... 7-33

Table 7-24 Central Station Location “A” Alternative 2030 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS ............................... 7-34

Table 7-25 Central Station Location “A” Alternative 2030 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS............... 7-35

Table 7-26 Central Station Location “A” Alternative 2030 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS............... 7-36

Table 7-27 South Station Location Alternative Existing Conditions LOS.................................................................. 7-39

Table 7-28 South Station Location Alternative 2013 Baseline Conditions LOS ...................................................... 7-42

Table 7-29 South Station Location Alternative 2013 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS....................................... 7-43

Table 7-30 South Station Location Alternative 2013 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS....................................... 7-44

Table 7-31 South Station Location Alternative 2030 Baseline Conditions LOS ....................................................... 7-45

Table 7-32 South Station Location Alternative 2030 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS....................................... 7-46

Table 7-33 South Station Location Alternative 2030 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS....................................... 7-47

Table 7-34 South Station Location Alternative 2013 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS ...................................... 7-48

Table 7-35 South Station Location Alternative 2013 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS....................... 7-49

Table 7-36 South Station Location Alternative 2013 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS...................... 7-50

Table 7-37 South Station Location Alternative 2030 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS ....................................... 7-52

Table 7-38 South Station Location Alternative - 2030 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS ................... 7-53
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis Table of Contents 

 vii September 2008 

Table 7-39 South Station Location Alternative 2030 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS....................... 7-55

Table 7-40 Central Station Location “B” Alternative - Existing Conditions LOS ....................................................... 7-56

Table 7-41 Central Station Location “B” Alternative 2013 Baseline Conditions LOS................................................ 7-60

Table 7-42 Central Station Location “B” Alternative 2013 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS............................... 7-61

Table 7-43 Central Station Location “B” Alternative 2013 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS ............................... 7-62

Table 7-44 Central Station Location “B” Alternative 2030 Baseline Conditions........................................................ 7-62

Table 7-45 Central Station Location “B” Alternative 2030 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS............................... 7-63

Table 7-46 Central Station Location “B” Alternative 2030 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS ............................... 7-64

Table 7-47 Central Station Location “B” Alternative 2013 Baseline Mitigation Conditions ....................................... 7-65

Table 7-48 Central Station Location “B” Alternative 2013 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions....................... 7-66

Table 7-49 Central Station Location “B” Alternative 2013 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions....................... 7-66

Table 7-50 Central Station Location “B” Alternative 2030 Baseline Mitigation Conditions ....................................... 7-67

Table 7-51 Central Station Location “B” Alternative 2030 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions...................... 7-68

Table 7-52 Central Station Location “B” Alternative 2030 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions....................... 7-69

Table 8-1 Project Mitigations – DMU Alternatives...................................................................................................... 8-2

Table 8-2 Project Mitigations – EMU Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 8-5
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 1.0 – INTRODUCTION 

 1-1 February 2009 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This report analyzes the potential traffic impacts that could result from the proposal by 

DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC, to construct and operate a high-speed passenger railroad 

between Victorville, California, and Las Vegas, Nevada. DesertXpress would finance and own 

the system and be responsible for the project’s development, construction, operation, and 

maintenance. Approvals by several federal agencies, including the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Surface Transportation Board 

(STB), and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) would be necessary to implement the 

project, including the granting of permission to use of public lands and/or highway rights-of-way. 

1.1 Project Description 

1.1.1 Overview 

The project would construct nearly 200 miles of new, high quality exclusive double track railroad 

with no at-grade crossings. The route would either be immediately alongside or in the median of 

Interstate 15 (I-15) and/or within existing railroad corridors/rights-of-way. There would be two 

passenger stations; one at each end of the line, in Victorville, California, and Las Vegas, 

Nevada. 

DesertXpress would provide trains departing both ends of the line at least hourly and as 

frequently as every 20 minutes on Fridays and Sundays. DesertXpress would travel at speeds 

up to 150 mph. The 200-mile trip would take between 1 hour and 45 minutes and 2 hours, and 

would operate every day of the year. The trains would be based on high speed trains used in 

Europe and customized for the high desert. Each car would be self-propelled to provide the high 

power-to-weight ratio needed o negotiate the alignment’s relatively steep grades. 

ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES

From Victorville, a completely separate, dedicated two-track passenger railway would be 

constructed, largely following the north side or median of I-15, making maximum use of excess 

freeway right-of-way. At Mountain Pass, there are two alignment options. One option would 

divert south of the I-15 corridor and traverse at grade a three mile portion of the Mojave National 

Preserve. East of the Preserve near Primm, this option would rejoin the I-15 corridor, continuing 

northeasterly toward metropolitan Las Vegas. The second option would divert north of the I-15 

corridor at Mountain Pass and pass through the Clark Range in two tunnels, 1,300 feet and 

5,000 feet in length respectively, to rejoin the I-15 corridor near Primm. Near Sloan Road, one 

alignment option continues in the I-15 corridor to reach Las Vegas, while another option would 

diverge from the I-15 corridor and generally follow or be located within the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad (UPRR) right-of-way to reach Las Vegas. 

EQUIPMENT ALTERNATIVES

Two technology alternatives are under consideration: a diesel-electric multiple unit train (DMU) 

and an electric multiple unit train (EMU). The two technology options would have similar right-of-
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 1.0 – INTRODUCTION 

 1-2 February 2009 

way width requirements as well as the same construction footprint. However, the EMU option 

would also include overhead catenary wires and supports, three electrical substations, and 

approximately seventeen transformers, all of which would be located within the right-of-way 

and/or within construction easement areas. 

STATION ALTERNATIVES

Two passenger stations would be constructed, one in Victorville located along the west side of I15 near the Stoddard Wells Road interchanges, and the other in Las Vegas at one of four 

possible locations. 

Two sites north of central Victorville are being considered for the Victorville station. Site 1 is 

located just north of the southern Stoddard Wells Road exit (Exit #154); Site 2 is located to the 

northwest of the northern Stoddard Wells Road exit (Exit #157). The two site options are located 

about 1.5 miles apart. The facilities directly associated with the either station site would occupy 

about 60 to 70 acres and would 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 

Victorville station would offer train ticketing, baggage handling, and hotel room check-in for Las 

Vegas resorts. 

In Las Vegas, the terminal station would be designed to serve as a multi-modal facility with 

convenient access to rental cars, hotel shuttles, and taxis. The four options are being 

considered for the Las Vegas passenger station are: 

 Southern Station, along Polaris Road, between West Russell Road and West Hacienda 

Drive, across I-15 from the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino 

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

the Rio Suites Hotel property 

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

that is currently occupied by industrial and light industrial uses 

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

Bonneville Avenue and Boulder Avenue 

Note that the Southern Station option could not be utilized if the UPRR alignment option north of 

Sloan Road was selected. 

1.1.2 Operations, Maintenance, and Storage Facility Alternatives 

A 50-acre train maintenance and storage facility and operations center would be built in 

Victorville. The facility would include a train washing facility, repair shop, parts storage, trains 

storage tracks, operations control center, meeting rooms and administrative offices. OMSF site 

option 1 is located in the City of Victorville southwest of proposed Victorville station site 1. 

OMSF site option 2 is located north of Victorville station site option 2, west of I-15 and south of 

the Dale Evans Parkway interchange. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 1.0 – INTRODUCTION 

 1-3 February 2009 

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

northern terminus of the project. Three site options are under consideration for the Las Vegas 

area maintenance and storage facility: 

 Sloan Road - located approximately 5 miles south of Sloan Road, on the east side of I15, between the I-15 freeway and South Las Vegas Boulevard (Nevada State Route 

604), near where Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) crosses from east to west side of I-15. 

 Wigwam Avenue – located west of the I-15 freeway about one half mile south of Blue 

Diamond Boulevard (Nevada State Route 160). 

 Robindale Avenue – also located west of the I-15 freeway, about one half mile south of 

Blue Diamond Boulevard. 

1.2 Relationship of Traffic Analysis Report to EIS 

An EIS is being prepared by the FRA in cooperation with STB, BLM, FHWA, the California 

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

to evaluate the impacts of the DesertXpress proposal. The FRA has authority to regulate the 

safety of railroads, under 49 U.S.C. 20101 et seq. The BLM has approval authority over the use 

of public lands under their control under 43 U.S.C. 1761, the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA). The STB has jurisdiction, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10501(b), over the 

construction, acquisition, operation, and abandonment of rail lines, railroad rates and services, 

and rail carrier consolidations and mergers. The FHWA has jurisdiction over the use of and/or 

modification of Interstate highway right of way under 23 CFR 1.23. On June 25, 2007, the STB 

issued a declaratory order in finding that the proposed construction and operation of the 

interstate high-speed passenger rail system is not subject to state and local environmental 

review and land use and other permitting requirements because of the Federal preemption 

authority in 49 U.S.C. 10501(b). 

This Traffic Analysis Report has been prepared by DMJM Harris for DesertXpress Enterprises. 

The research and analysis for preparing this report was conducted in coordination with the 

FRA’s EIS consultant, CirclePoint. This report will be provided to CirclePoint for their use in 

preparing the transportation section of the EIS, as well as other sections. 

1.3 Overview of Traffic Analysis Methodology 

This report quantifies the potential impact of the DesertXpress project in terms of vehicular 

traffic on surrounding roadway facilities. The project represents the introduction of a new mode 

of travel in the Southern California to Las Vegas corridor. As such, the project will have the 

effect of shifting travelers from one mode to another. The size of these shifts have been 

forecast in a rail ridership report prepared for DesertXpress Enterprises and peer-reviewed by a 

firm hired by the FRA’s EIS consultant. (see below). The first step of the rail ridership study 

was to forecast the annual number of trips by each existing mode between Southern California 

and Las Vegas through 2035. Existing modes included air, auto, and bus. The ridership study 

then applied rail diversion factors to each mode to develop rail ridership. These rail ridership 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 1.0 – INTRODUCTION 

 1-4 February 2009 

forecasts are the basis for the traffic analysis. Note that the rail ridership study only included 

trips that originate in Southern California. 

The traffic analysis focused on three separate areas which were selected based on likely 

changes in traffic patterns. One focus area is the I-15 freeway mainline, which will experience a 

reduction in traffic due to introduction of DesertXpress. Trips that were formerly made by auto 

will be diverted to the train, thereby reducing the number of vehicles on I-15 between Victorville 

and Las Vegas. 

South of Victorville, the rail project will have a negligible effect on mainline freeway traffic 

volumes. Since I-15 is essentially the only route to Las Vegas, all auto and bus trips must pass 

through Victorville. Rail trips that otherwise would have been made by the auto and bus modes 

will use I-15 to reach Victorville from Southern California. These trips would be on I-15 south of 

Victorville whether or not the rail project is built. With the rail project, these trips will leave the 

freeway at Victorville and switch to the rail mode. Trips diverted from the air mode to the rail 

mode most likely will access the Victorville station via the auto mode. The diverted air trips are 

not currently using I-15 south of Victorville. Instead, persons making a trip to Las Vegas by air 

travel to the most convenient airport. To use the rail mode, these travelers will now use I-15 

south of Victorville to reach the rail station. However, the ridership study indicates that only 

11% of the forecast rail trips would be diverted from the air mode. Applying this factor to the 

2013 forecast rail ridership and converting from person-trips to vehicle trips, this works out to 

only 63 additional vehicles in the peak hour, peak direction on the segment of I-15 south of 

Victorville. This is less than 1% of the existing southbound PM peak hourly volume of 6490 

vehicles in this section. 

The other two focus areas are near the proposed station sites in Victorville and Las Vegas, 

respectively, and specifically the local roadway intersections. In these areas, the stations will 

act to concentrate trips that would otherwise remain on the freeway (in Victorville) or be 

dispersed on the local road network (Las Vegas). For the station areas, the DesertXpress 

project will increase the number of vehicles on the local roadways. 

Two horizon years were selected for the traffic analysis: 2013 and 2030. DesertXpress is 

expected to begin operating in 2013. The out-year of 2030 was selected because it is about 20 

years after the start of construction, and because it was the farthest year in the future for which 

regional travel forecasts were available for the metropolitan Las Vegas area. In the Victorville 

area, intersections were also analyzed for existing conditions. This was done due to uncertainty 

regarding the completion date of the South Stoddard Wells Road interchange relative to the 

opening date of the DesertXpress rail project. 

The traffic analysis uses outputs from regional travel models as the baseline “without-project” 

traffic volumes. With-project traffic volumes were calculated by either subtracting (for the I-15 

mainline) or adding (for the station areas) project-related vehicle trips to the baseline traffic 

volumes. For the I-15 mainline, baseline future volumes were obtained from the respective 

regional travel models in each state, as reviewed and agreed upon by the two state DOTs. In 

Victorville, baseline future traffic volumes were obtained from the Victor Valley travel demand 

model recently prepared for the City of Victorville. This model was based on the SCAG 2004 

RTP model. Note that the Victorville model produces 2035 forecasts, which were factored back 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 1.0 – INTRODUCTION 

 1-5 February 2009 

by DMJM Harris to be compatible with the 2030 horizon year. In the Las Vegas area, future 

baseline volumes were obtained from the RTC travel demand model. The RTC model included 

future roadway improvement projects as identified in their Regional Transportation Plan 2009 – 

2030. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 2.0 – TRANSPORTATION SETTING 

 2-1 February 2009 

2.0 TRANSPORTATION SETTING 

Today, over one-third of the 38 million annual Las Vegas visitors come from Southern 

California. The transportation system serving these trips consists of: 

 The freeway network of Southern California, feeding auto trips to I-15 at Victorville. 

 Interstate 15, the only direct roadway available, is only two lanes in each direction for 

most of its length, and has not been modified since it was constructed about 50 years 

ago. 

 Airlines and airports such as LAX, Burbank, Ontario, and John Wayne with flights to 

McCarran. 

 Buses that use the freeway network. 

Most travelers drive, leaving their point of origin and traveling by the most convenient route to 

Victorville. Though they used many different routes to reach Victorville, at the point where they 

cross the Mojave River, all of them are on I-15, where they will stay until they reach the I-215 

beltway in Las Vegas. At this point, they will begin to exit the freeway and make their way to the 

final destination at a resort or hotel. 

According to the project’s ridership study (see below), the projected travel demand from 

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

that DesertXpress would potentially capture over 20 percent of the total trips between southern 

California and Las Vegas in the first full start up year. Most of these trips would be diverted 

from private automobiles that would otherwise use I-15 between Victorville and Las Vegas. 

In the future, Interstate 15 will remain in its existing configuration for most the distance between 

Victorville and Las Vegas, except for capacity improvements in the urban areas. Caltrans is 

planning the following improvements to the I-15 freeway that would add capacity1

: 

 Widen bridge over Mojave River in Victorville; reconstruct D Street, E Street, and South 

Stoddard Wells Road interchanges. 

 Widen approximately 1 mile of freeway to 6 lanes and reconstruct an interchange in 

Barstow. 

 Add several truck lanes in sections with steep grades. 

NDOT is planning the following improvements to I-152

: 

 “NEON” project in the City of Las Vegas, includes reconstruction of Charleston 

interchange, local access improvements, and a HOV direct connector from US 95 to I15. 

 “I-15 South” project from Sloan Road to Tropicana Avenue, includes new interchanges 

at Bermuda Road, Starr Ave. and Cactus Road, plus reconstruction of Sloan Road 

interchange. 

 

1

 Email communication from Caltrans District 8, February, 28, 2008 

2

 NDOT Quarterly Report for Major Projects, March 31, 2008 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 2.0 – TRANSPORTATION SETTING 

 2-2 February 2009 

In addition, NDOT has a planning study underway of potential upgrades to I-15 and parallel 

roadways between I-215 and US 95, called the Urban Resort Corridor Study. 

Clark County is considering a new airport in the Ivanpah Valley to supplement McCarran airport. 

Though planning has not advanced far enough to provide specifics, the new airport project has 

triggered consideration of adding roadway capacity in the I-15 corridor, either through freeway 

widening and/or construction of a new arterial roadway. 

In the Victorville area, planning is underway for the High Desert Corridor (HDC) roadway 

project. This facility would intersect with I-15 between the Stoddard Wells Road interchanges at 

a freeway-to-freeway interchange. This section of the HDC is part of a longer facility envisioned 

to run from I-5 near Lancaster and Palmdale to east of Victorville. The section between I-15 

and US 395 would be one of the earlier phases constructed. 

Also near Victorville, the city is preparing a specific plan for the North Mojave area, which 

stretches along I-15 from the Mojave River to the north of the Dale Evans Parkway interchange. 

The specific plan area overlaps the alternative DesertXpress station and operations facility sites. 

As will be discussed in the following sections, the preliminary specific plan land use concepts 

have been included in the Victor Valley area travel demand model, and the future no-project 

traffic volumes used in the present analysis include a substantial level of development in this 

area. However, planning work is not complete on the plan, and the roadway system to support 

the specific plan development has not been fully defined. As a result, the assumed roadway 

geometry should be considered as preliminary. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 3.0 – BASELINE TRAFFIC FORECASTS 

 3-1 September 2008 

3.0 BASELINE TRAFFIC FORECASTS 

In order to determine the project impact (to be discussed in subsequent sections) in the two 

horizon years, future background traffic volumes needed to be obtained. Project volumes are 

then added to these future volumes before comparison of level of service can be made between 

the ‘with’ and ‘without’ project scenarios. The comparison results would be the project impact. 

3.1 I-15 Mainline 

Traffic volumes on I-15 in 2030 were obtained from the area wide model of San Bernardino 

Association of Governments (SANBAG) and Regional Transportation Commission of Southern 

Nevada (RTC) for the sections in California and Nevada respectively. These volumes had been 

reviewed by Caltrans and NDOT. These numbers were then used to interpolate for traffic 

volume in 2013 based on existing traffic counts. Existing counts for the California section of I-15 

were published 2006 peak hour volumes by Caltrans; RTC provided 2005 volumes for the 

Nevada section. Tables 3-1 and 3-2 show the forecast volumes on I-15. 

Table 3-1 

Future Forecast of California Section of I-15 

Table 3-2 

Future Forecast of Nevada Section of I-15 

3.2 Victorville Area 

City of Victorville provided the 2035 3-hour peak volumes for local intersections around the 

proposed station locations. Growth factors for 2013 and 2030 were derived through straight line 

interpolation from the calibration year of 2005 and applied to existing turning movement counts 

collected for this project in 2006. These volumes were then adjusted to balance the ‘in’ and ‘out’ 

numbers. A peak hour factor of 0.28 was used whenever necessary according to the San 

Bernardino County CMP Guidelines 2005. A total of 13 intersections were analyzed for the two 

proposed station location alternatives. 

NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB

Primm to Sloan 2,945 2,945 3,776 3,776 4,674 5,111 6,366 5,834 8,348 9,713 11,870 10,206

Sloan to I-215 3,772 2,824 3,786 4,662 7,520 6,904 7,285 9,242 15,483 15,573 14,720 18,974

AM PM

2005

Section

2013

AM PM

2030

AM PM

NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB

No. Jct. Stoddard

Wells to Jct. I-40 3,335 2,795 2,250 4,560 3,756 3,147 2,533 5,134 4,777 4,003 3,221 6,529

Jct. I-40 to Nevada

State Line 2,465 2,065 1,659 3,361 2,842 2,382 1,915 3,881 3,760 3,150 2,537 5,143

Section

2006 2013 2030

AM PM AM PM AM PM
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 3.0 – BASELINE TRAFFIC FORECASTS 

 3-2 September 2008 

3.3 Las Vegas Area 

Future 2030 average daily traffic volumes (ADT) of local intersection volumes around the 

proposed station locations in Las Vegas were provided by RTC. Straight line interpolation was 

used to obtain the 2013 growth factors. Turning movement counts at intersections under Clark 

County jurisdiction were collected for this project in 2008 while the City of Las Vegas provided 

turn volumes for intersections under its jurisdiction. There were four alternatives for the 

proposed station location, giving a total of 48 intersections being analyzed. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 4.0 – PROJECT TRAFFIC FORECASTS 

 4-1 September 2008 

4.0 PROJECT TRAFFIC FORECASTS 

4.1 Ridership Studies 

Ridership projections for the project were developed through a comprehensive travel demand 

modeling process commissioned by DesertXpress Enterprises. This forecast was prepared by 

URS and independently peer-reviewed by Stear Davies and Gleave (SDG). The URS study 

incorporated a comprehensive travel demand model that divided the Southern California area 

into zones (by postal zip codes), computed travel times and costs from those zones for the 

automobile and air travel modes, and then compared those modes to the time and cost of 

DesertXpress. The study also utilized an internet-based stated preference survey of selected 

Southern California residents (carried out in July 2005) to estimate how many existing auto and 

air trips to Las Vegas could potentially be diverted to DesertXpress. 

Subsequently, the FRA’s EIS consultants hired Cambridge Systematics (CSI) to independently 

review the URS study and SDG peer review. The Cambridge Systematics study examined and 

evaluated the methodologies employed in the URS ridership study and confirmed that the URS 

work was done in a professional manner using widely accepted travel forecasting tools. CSI 

noted that numerous factors could alter the findings of the URS ridership study in both positive 

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

to alter the findings, CSI concluded that the ridership forecast numbers prepared by URS should 

be adjusted downwards by a factor of about 10 percent overall for use in the EIS. CSI prepared 

a reduced forecast which is being used for all of the EIS studies that require a travel forecast, 

including noise, air quality, energy, and traffic. The CSI./URS report was also the source for 

average auto occupancy. 

4.2 Rail Operating Plan 

The preliminary operations plan used for the traffic analysis assumes that trains would operate 

between approximately 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., 365 days per year. There would be ten cars per train. 

Passenger capacities for DMU trains would be 478 passengers. EMU trains, which have slightly 

longer and wider cars, would have a capacity of 675 passengers. 

Depending upon the direction of travel and the specific alignment and station locations, one-way 

travel times are in the range of 100 minutes for the EMU technology option to 116 minutes for 

the DMU technology option. DMU average speeds would be approximately 100 mph while EMU 

average speeds would be approximately 112 mph, enabling a shorter travel time for the EMU 

technology option (98 minutes for the EMU; 109 minutes for the DMU). Trains would depart 

from both ends of the line at 20 minute headways during peak hours and once per hour during 

off-peak periods. 

Rail passengers would have the option of using a full-service valet parking and baggage 

service, where they would be greeted at the Victorville station as if they were arriving at their 

hotel in Las Vegas. Staff in Victorville would park their car, check them into their hotel and 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 4.0 – PROJECT TRAFFIC FORECASTS 

 4-2 September 2008 

forward their bags to their room. On arriving in Las Vegas, these passengers would take a hotel 

shuttle to their resort, where they would find their bags in their room. 

4.3 Rail Ridership Forecasts 

The URS and CSI rail ridership forecasts assumed that DesertXpress would begin operation in 

2012. Since these forecasts were prepared, it has become apparent that 2013 would be a more 

likely opening date. Part of the URS forecast methodology assumed that there would be a 

“ramp-up” period for rail ridership covering the first two years of operation. This was 

implemented by discounting the total rail market to 60% in the first year and 80% in the second 

year of operation. As shown in Table 4-1, Wilbur Smith Associates, as part of their review of the 

rail operation plan for the EIS consultant, adjusted the CSI forecasts to a 2013 opening date. 

This table also shows the annual rail round trips that were used in the traffic analysis. 

Table 4-1 

Rail Ridership Ramp-Up Adjustments Annual Round Trips 

4.4 Mainline Traffic Reduction 

As discussed earlier, the proposed DesertXpress rail service is aimed to reduce traffic between 

southern California and Las Vegas. As such, it is envisaged that traffic along I-15 between the 

proposed Victorville station and Las Vegas would decrease when the service begins in 2013. 

Two train types were considered for this project, each with a different capacity. As a result, the 

potential traffic reduction on I-15 would vary. Table 4-2 shows the expected volume reduction 

for the peak direction during peak hour. Following assumptions were made in arriving at the 

mainline traffic reduction. 

Project Assumptions: Average daily trips were calculated from annual trips by dividing by 365. 

Using data from the URS report, DH calculated the number of rail trips diverted from the auto, 

air and bus modes. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 4.0 – PROJECT TRAFFIC FORECASTS 

 4-3 February 2009 

Table 4-2 

Expected Number of Vehicle Reduction on I-15 

Alternativ

e

Year

Average 

Annual 

Daily Rail 

One-way 

Trips

Daily Trips 

Diverted 

From Auto

Daily Trips 

Diverted 

From Bus

Daily 

Diverted 

Auto 

Volume

Daily 

Diverted 

Bus Volume

Total Daily 

Diverted 

Volume

Total Volume 

Reduction in 

Peak Hour of 

Peak Direction

DEMU 2013 11,098 9,988 1,110 4,060 18 4,097 410

DEMU 2030 29,732 26,759 2,973 10,878 50 10,977 1,098

EMU 2013 14,089 12,680 1,409 5,154 23 5,201 520

EMU 2030 37,745 33,970 3,774 13,809 63 13,935 1,393

Trips diverted from the auto and bus modes to rail will reduce traffic on the section of I-15 

between Victorville and Las Vegas. 

Rail trips diverted from auto were converted to vehicle trips using an average vehicle occupancy 

rate of 2.46 persons per vehicle. 

Rail trips diverted from bus were converted to vehicle trips using an average vehicle occupancy 

rate of 60 persons per bus. 

Peak hour diverted vehicle volumes were derived from average daily diverted vehicle volumes 

by applying the highway peak hour factor of 10%. 

It is assumed that 90% of the reduced trips would be auto trips and 10% would be bus trips. 

The occupancy for one car is 2.46 passengers and that for bus is 60 passengers. The peak 

hour volume in the peak direction is assumed to be 10% of the daily trips. 

4.5 Station Mode Share and Trip Generation 

The expected number of passengers using the project’s stations will arrive or leave the station 

via 5 modes. Tables 4-3 and 4-4 present the mode share for Victorville and Las Vegas Station 

respectively, together with the assumed occupancy. 

Table 4-3 

Mode Share at Victorville Station 

Mode Occupancy 

(passenger/car) Spilt % PCE1

Self Drive 2.4 75% 

Kiss & Ride 1 5% 

Charter Bus 10 4% 1.5 

Shuttle Bus 3 11% 

Taxi 1 5% 

Total 100% 

1

Passenger Car Equivalent 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 4.0 – PROJECT TRAFFIC FORECASTS 

 4-4 September 2008 

Table 4-4 

Mode Share at Las Vegas Station 

Mode 

Occupancy 

(passenger/car) Spilt % PCE 

Rental/Car 1.5 21% 

Kiss & Ride 1 7% 

Charter Bus 15 5% 1.5 

Shuttle Bus 2 35% 

Taxi 1 32% 

Total 100% 

The number of trips generated at the proposed stations depends on the type of train system 

selected for operation. EMU has a higher capacity of 675 passengers at full load whereas the 

capacity of DMU is 478. The train station would operate in the off-peak mode for both directions 

(outbound/inbound) on Monday to Thursday and on Saturday. For the Victorville Station, it 

would operate at peak mode during Friday for the outbound direction and the inbound direction 

would operate in off-peak mode. On Sunday, it would operate in peak mode for the inbound 

direction and off-peak mode for outbound. The Las Vegas Station on the other hand, would 

operate at peak mode for its inbound direction on Friday and off-peak mode for outbound. The 

outbound direction on Sunday would be peak and the inbound direction would operate at offpeak. 

When both directions are operating as off-peak mode (Monday – Thursday and Saturday), it is 

assumed that the headway for each train would be 60 minutes, at full loading capacity. On days 

when one direction is operating at peak mode, the off-peak direction train would operate at 20-

minute headway at only 69% capacity. The peak direction train would also operate at 20-minute 

headway but at 100% capacity. Table 4-5 and 4-6 show the number of peak hour trips (in terms 

of cars) generated at each station for each technology alternative. 

Table 4-5 

Peak Hour Trips Generated for Victorville Station 

Trips In Trips Out Total Trips Trips In Trips Out Total Trips

Mon-Thurs, Sat 

(arrive/depart)

342 342 685 Mon-Thurs, Sat 

(arrive/depart)

243 243 486

Friday 

(peak=depart, offpeak= arrive)

993 739 1732

Friday 

(peak=depart, offpeak= arrive)

704 524 1227

Sunday 

(peak=arrive, offpeak=depart)

739 993 1732

Sunday 

(peak=arrive, offpeak=depart)

524 704 1227

EMU DMU
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 4.0 – PROJECT TRAFFIC FORECASTS 

 4-5 September 2008 

Table 4-6 

Peak Hour Trips Generated for Las Vegas Station 

Station employees are included in the trip generation numbers, as are vehicles serving the 

station for deliveries, maintenance, etc. Note that some access modes such as kiss and ride 

generate both an in and out trip, while other modes such as self park generate only an inbound 

or outbound trip. This accounts for the relatively higher trip figures for the Las Vegas Station 

when compared to the Victorville Station. 

4.6 Operation and Maintenance Service Facilities 

Alternative locations have been proposed for the O & M facilities in Victorville and Las Vegas. 

Figures 4-1 and 4-2 show the proposed location options. A third alternative location in Las 

Vegas, near Sloan Road is not shown on the map. 

Employees at these facilities would be divided into three shifts. Only the day and night shift 

employees would commute during the peak hour of the adjacent street. The day shift would 

work 7:00 am to 3:30 pm and the night shift starts at 11:00 pm and works to 7:30 am. It is 

assumed that 15% of the day shift would arrive after 7:00 am, constituting inbound trips. All the 

night shift employees would leave during the AM peak, making up the outbound station trips. 

No O & M generated trips would be added to the PM peak commute. Assuming each employee 

drives alone, Tables 4-7, 4-8 and 4-9 shows the number of trips generated at both facilities in 

2013 and 2030. In 2030, the DMU fleet would be larger than the EMU fleet, leading to higher 

trip volumes for the DMU alternative. 

Table 4-7 

O & M Trip Generation in 2013 

Inbound Trips Outbound Trips 

 Station 

Location 

Employees 

(Day Shift) 

Trips @ 

15% 

Employees 

(Night Shift) 

Trips @ 

100% Total 

Victorville 60 9 40 40 49 

Las Vegas 11 2 22 22 24 

Trips In Trips Out Total Trips Trips In Trips Out Total Trips

Off Peak 

(arrive/depart) 528 528 1056 Off Peak 

(arrive/depart) 374 374 749

Friday 

(peak=arrive, offpeak=depart)

1136 1537 2673

Friday 

(peak=arrive, offpeak=depart)

803 1089 1892

Sunday 

(peak=depart, offpeak=arrive)

1537 1136 2673

Sunday 

(peak=depart, offpeak=arrive)

1089 803 1892

EMU DMU
Victorville

OMSF

Alternative 2

Victorville

OMSF

Alternative 1A

15

STODDARD FRONTAGE

WELLS

RD

RD

QUARRY RD

STODDARD WELLS

RD

18

DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED VICTORVILLE STATION

Figure 4-1

(2 Alternatives)

PROPOSED MAINTENANCE FACILITY AT VICTORVILLE

Maintenance facilities Victorville.ai
DESERT XPRESS LAS VEGAS

Figure 4-2

(2 Alternatives)

PROPOSED MAINTENANCE FACILITY AT LAS VEGAS

Las Vegas Maintenance Sites rev1.ai

15

ROBINDALE

WINDMILL LN

WARM SPRINGS RD

RD

AV

AV

AV

AV

AV

FORD

WIGWAM

TORINO

PEBBLE

MOBERLY

BLUE DIAMOND RD

BLVD VIEW VALLEY

LAS VEGAS BLVD

DEAN MARTIN DR DEAN MARTIN DR

BERMUDA RD

?

Las Vegas

MSF

Robindale Road

Alternative

Las VegasMSFWigwam AvenueAlternative
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 4.0 – PROJECT TRAFFIC FORECASTS 

 4-8 September 2008 

Table 4-8 

O & M Trip Generation in 2030 for EMU 

Inbound Trips Outbound Trips 

Station 

Location 

Employees 

(Day Shift) 

Trips @ 

15% 

Employees 

(Night Shift) 

Trips @ 

100% Total 

Victorville 79 12 53 53 64 

Las Vegas 14 2 29 29 31 

Table 4-9 

O & M Trip Generation in 2030 for DMU 

Inbound Trips Outbound Trips 

Station 

Location 

Employees 

(Day Shift) 

Trips @ 

15% 

Employees 

(Night Shift) 

Trips @ 

100% Total 

Victorville 109 16 72 72 89 

Las Vegas 20 3 40 40 43 

The number of trips generated by the proposed O&M facilities in 2013 would be less than 50 

trips. Based on the San Bernardino County CMP and Caltrans guidelines, intersection analysis 

would not be necessary at the Victorville Station. Since the station location at Victorville Station 

would be served primarily by I-15, with less than 100 trips in 2030, intersection analysis on I-15 

ramps would not be necessary as well. The proposed locations in Las Vegas are away from the 

high traffic area and the amount of trips generated is also less than 50 peak hour trips for both 

the horizon years. While RTC does not have guidelines on the minimum number of trips 

required for analysis, based on the California agencies’ criteria, detailed evaluation of the local 

intersections would not be necessary as well. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS 

 5-1 September 2008 

5.0 I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS 

5.1 Roadway Network 

Regional Access. Currently I-15 is the only significant surface transportation route between 

Victorville and Las Vegas. The general number of traffic lanes on I-15 is described below: 

• Victorville to Barstow - 3 lanes each way with a 4th southbound truck lane between 

Barstow and the summit, 

• Barstow to I-40 - 3 lanes each way plus some auxiliary lanes, 

• I-40 to Baker - 2 lanes each way, 

• Baker to State Line - 2 lanes each way with a truck lane approaching Halloran Summit 

(~17 miles north of Baker) and at Mountain Pass (~15 miles south of the State Line), 

• State Line to I-215 - 3 southbound lanes and 2 northbound lanes, with an additional 

northbound lane currently being constructed, 

• I-215 to Flamingo Road in Las Vegas - 3 lanes each way plus auxiliary lanes, and 

• North of Flamingo Road in Las Vegas - 4 lanes each way. 

5.2 Freeway Section and Ramp Junction Analysis Methodology 

The operating conditions for the freeway mainline were evaluated using the Highway Capacity 

Manual (HCM) methodology. For freeway mainlines, this methodology determines LOS based 

on the density of the freeway section, which is the number of vehicles within a given section of 

roadway for a period of time (presented in passenger cars per mile per lane, or pc/mi/ln).1

Density values of LOS A through E assume stable non-breakdown operations, while LOS F 

signifies that a breakdown condition exists or is expected to occur. For the freeway-ramp 

junctions, the level of service is based on the amount of vehicles in the area of the freeway 

directly downstream of the analysis ramp, combining the mainline volume with the ramp volume. 

Density values of LOS A through E assume stable non-breakdown operations, while LOS F 

signifies that a breakdown condition exists or is expected to occur. In California and Nevada 

LOS E and F are considered unacceptable service conditions. Table 5-1 presents the 

definitions LOS threshold values for freeway sections and the ramp junctions. 

 

1

 Density is not computed when free-flow speed is less than 55 mph. Under LOS F conditions, free-flow 

speed drops to below 55 mph. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS 

 5-2 September 2008 

Table 5-1 

 Freeway Mainline and Ramp Junction Level of Service Thresholds 

Level of Service Freeway Density Range 

(pc/mi/ln) 

Ramp (Merge and Diverge 

area) Density Range (pc/mi/ln)

A 0 to 11 ≤ 10 

B > 11 to 18 > 10 to 20 

C > 18 to 26 > 20 to 28 

D > 26 to 35 > 28 to 35 

E > 35 to 45 > 35 

F > 50 Demand exceeds capacity 

SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. 

5.3 Existing Freeway Section Analysis 

Interstate 15 (I-15) mainline conditions were evaluated for the following sections for weekday 

AM and PM peak hours:

1. North Stoddard Wells to Junction I-40 (California) 

2. Junction I-40 to Nevada State Line (California) 

3. Primm to Sloan (Nevada) 

4. Sloan to I-215 (Nevada) 

These sections are also indicated on Figure 5-1. 

For the mainline analysis sections in California, volumes for existing (year 2007) conditions 

were obtained by interpolating between year 2006 and year 2030 volumes provided by the San 

Bernardino Association of Government’s (SANBAG) travel demand model. Similarly for the 

mainline analysis sections in Nevada, volumes for existing (year 2007) conditions were obtained 

by interpolating between year 2005 and year 2030 volumes provided by Regional 

Transportation Commission (RTC) travel demand model. The mainline section AM and PM 

peak hour volumes are presented on Figure 5-2. 

The following assumptions were made for the mainline HCM analysis (Table 5-2). 

Table 5-2 

HCM Analysis Assumptions – Existing Conditions 

Description California Nevada 

Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 

Terrain Level Level 

Trucks and Buses (%) 20 10 

Driver population adjustment 1.0 1.0 

Measured Free Flow Speed 70.0 70.0 

Number of Lanes 

 North Stoddard Wells to Junction I-40 (NB, SB) 

Junction I-40 to Nevada State line (NB, SB) 

Primm to Sloan (NB, SB) 

 Sloan to I-215 (NB, SB) 

3 NB, 3 SB 

2 NB, 2 SB 

3 NB, 3 SB 

3 NB, 3 SB 

SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 
NEVADA CALIFORNIA 14 58

10

40

5

10

15

15

15

210

405

395

95 93

395

RIVERSIDE

PALM SPRINGS

SAN

BERNARDINO

SANTA

ANA

VICTORVILLE

BARSTOW

PALMDALE

LAS VEGAS

DESERT XPRESS

Figure 5-1

I-15 MAINLINE ANALYSIS SECTIONS

I-15 Mainline Analysis Secs.ai

SECTION 1

SECTION 2 SECTION 3

SECTION 4

SECTION 2
NEVADA CALIFORNIA 14 58

10

40

5

10

15

15

15

210

405

395

95 93

395

RIVERSIDE

PALM SPRINGS

SAN

BERNARDINO

SANTA

ANA

VICTORVILLE

BARSTOW

PALMDALE

LAS VEGAS

DESERT XPRESS

Figure 5-2

AM (PM) Peak Hour

I-15 MAINLINE EXISTING VOLUMES

I-15 Mainline existing volumes.ai

>

SECTION 1

SECTION 2

SECTION 3

SECTION 4

4709 (4661)

3377 (4424)

2519 (1695)

xx (xx) = AM (PM) volumes

3395 (2290)

3844 (5807)

3486 (4290)

2110 (3436)

2845 (4642)

SECTION 1

SECTION 2

SECTION 3

SECTION 4
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS 

 5-5 September 2008 

Based on the assumptions listed in Table 5-2 and existing peak hour volumes shown on Figure 

5-2, level of service analysis was performed on the freeway mainline sections. Table 5-3 

presents the results of the analysis. 

Table 5-3 

Freeway Mainline Level of Service - Existing Conditions 

NB SB 

No. Section 

Peak 

Hour LOS Density LOS Density 

AM C 19.8 B 16.6 1 North Stoddard Wells to 

Junction I-40 PM B 13.3 D 28.4 

AM C 22.1 C 18.4 2 Junction I-40 to Nevada 

State line PM B 14.8 D 33.5 

AM C 18.8 C 19.4 3 Primm to Sloan 

PM C 25.1 C 24.2 

AM D 27.1 C 21.4 4 Sloan to I-215 

PM D 26.8 E 38.7 

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

Notes: 

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound 

b) LOS = Level of Service 

c) Density reported in pc/mi/ln 

As indicated in Table 5-3, all the freeway sections operate at acceptable conditions in the AM 

and PM peak hours except Section 4 from Sloan to I-215 that operates at LOS E in the 

southbound direction during the PM peak hour. 

The unacceptable condition indicates that the travel speeds along the freeway section are low, 

with delays to traffic and breakdown in flow. 

5.4 Existing Ramp Junction Analysis 

In accordance with Chapter 6 of this report, the ramp junction analysis is performed for the PM 

peak hour only as done for the intersection analysis. Ramp junctions were evaluated at both of 

the proposed station locations in Victorville. The following ramp-junctions were evaluated for the 

PM peak hour conditions. Ramp junctions 1 through 4 indicate merge and diverge areas at the 

station location alternative 1 and ramp junctions 5 through 8 are near the station location 

alternative 2. 

1. I-15 NB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells (Diverge analysis) 

2. I-15 SB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells (Diverge analysis) 

3. I-15 NB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells (Merge analysis) 

4. I-15 SB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells (Merge analysis) 

5. I-15 NB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells (Diverge analysis) 

6. I-15 SB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells (Diverge analysis) 

7. I-15 NB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells (Merge analysis) 

8. I-15 SB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells (Merge analysis) 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS 

 5-6 September 2008 

For the above ramp junctions, volumes for existing (year 2007) conditions were obtained by 

interpolating between year 2006 and year 2035 volumes provided by the San Bernardino 

Association of Government’s (SANBAG) travel demand model. The existing ramp junction 

volumes are presented in the Appendix. Table 5-4 presents the results of the ramp junction 

analysis. HCS calculation sheets are provided in the Appendix. 

Table 5-4 

Ramp Junction Level of Service – Existing Conditions 

Location LOS DR

1 I-15 NB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells B 18.4 

2 I-15 SB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells D 28.2 

3 I-15 NB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells B 18.5 

4 I-15 SB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells D 31.0 

5 I-15 NB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells B 17.5 

6 I-15 SB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells C 27.9 

7 I-15 NB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells B 17.5 

8 I-15 SB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells D 29.7 

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

Notes: 

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound 

b) LOS = Level of Service 

c) Density of ramp (DR) reported in pc/mi/ln

As indicated in Table 5-4, all the ramp junctions would operate at acceptable conditions. 

5.5 Impact Analysis 

This section presents the assessment of transportation impacts due to the proposed project on 

the freeway mainline. The impacts were assessed for the following scenarios: 

• 2013 Opening Year Conditions; 

• 2013 Opening Year plus Project Conditions; 

• 2030 Cumulative Baseline Conditions; and, 

• 2030 Cumulative Baseline plus Project Conditions 

5.6 2013 Opening Year Conditions 

5.6.1 Freeway Analysis 

1. 2013 Baseline Conditions 

For the mainline analysis sections in California, volumes for opening (year 2013) conditions 

were obtained by interpolating between year 2006 and year 2030 volumes provided by the San 

Bernardino Association of Government’s (SANBAG) travel demand model. Similarly for the 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS 

 5-7 September 2008 

mainline analysis sections in Nevada, volumes for opening (year 2013) conditions were 

obtained by interpolating between year 2005 and year 2030 volumes provided by Regional 

Transportation Commission (RTC) travel demand model. I-15 mainline volumes for analysis 

sections are presented in the Appendix. 

Table 5-5 presents the results of 2013 Baseline conditions for the freeway mainline. 

Table 5-5 

Freeway Mainline Level of Service – 2013 Baseline Conditions 

NB SB 

No. Section 

Peak 

Hour LOS Density LOS Density 

AM C 21.9 C 18.3 1 North Stoddard Wells 

to Junction I-40 PM B 14.7 D 33.3 

AM C 25.4 C 20.8 2 Junction I-40 

to Nevada State line PM B 16.7 E 43.6 

AM D 26.9 D 30.5 3 Primm to Sloan 

PM F >45.0 E 39.1 

AM F >45.0 F >45.0 4 Sloan to I-215 

PM F >45.0 F >45.0 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound 

b) LOS = Level of Service 

c) Density reported in pc/mi/ln 

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions

As indicated in Table 5-5, the following freeway sections would operate at unacceptable 

conditions: 

AM Peak Hour: 

• #4. Sloan to I-215 in the northbound and southbound directions (LOS F) 

PM Peak Hour: 

• #2. Junction I-40 to Nevada State Line in southbound direction (LOS E) 

• #3. Primm to Sloan in the northbound and southbound directions (LOS F and E 

respectively) 

• #4. Sloan to I-215 in the northbound and southbound directions (LOS F) 

The unacceptable conditions indicate that the travel speeds along the freeway are low, with 

delays to traffic and breakdown in flow. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS 

 5-8 September 2008 

2. 2013 Baseline plus DMU Alternative Conditions 

Based on the mainline traffic reduction for the DMU alternative presented in Section 4.2, the 

project trips associated with the alternative were reduced from the 2013 Baseline volumes to 

generate 2013 Baseline plus DMU alternative volumes, presented in Figure 5-3. 

For analysis purposes, existing mainline geometry was assumed for year 2013. Based on the 

assumptions presented in Table 5-2 and mainline volumes presented in Figure 5-3, HCS 

analysis has been performed. Table 5-6 presents the results of 2013 Baseline plus DMU 

alternative conditions for the freeway mainline sections. 

Table 5-6 

Freeway Mainline Level of Service – 2013 Baseline plus DMU Conditions 

2013 Baseline 

Conditions 

2013 Baseline 

plus DMU Conditions 

NB SB NB SB 

No. Section 

Peak 

Hour LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density

AM C 21.9 C 18.3 C 19.5 B 15.9 1 North Stoddard Wells 

to Junction I-40 PM B 14.7 D 33.3 B 12.4 D 29.1 

AM C 25.4 C 20.8 C 21.3 B 17.2 2 Junction I-40 to 

Nevada State line PM B 16.7 E 43.6 B 13.1 D 34.1 

AM D 26.9 D 30.5 C 24.0 D 27.1 3 Primm to Sloan 

PM F >45.0 E 39.1 E 41.0 D 33.7 

AM F >45.0 F >45.0 F > 45.0 F > 45.0 4 Sloan to I-215 

PM F >45.0 F >45.0 F > 45.0 F > 45.0

Note: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound 

b) LOS = Level of Service 

c) Density reported in pc/mi/ln 

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions 

Comparing the HCS analysis results from 2013 Baseline conditions to 2013 Baseline plus DMU 

conditions, it can be seen from Table 5-6 the following freeway section operating conditions 

improve from unacceptable to acceptable conditions with the reduction in volume with the DMU 

project alternative: 

PM Peak Hour: 

• #2. Section from Junction I-40 to Nevada State Line improves from LOS E to LOS D in 

the southbound direction. 

• #3. Section from Primm to Sloan improves from LOS E to LOS D in the southbound 

direction. 
NEVADA CALIFORNIA 14 58

10

40

5

10

15

15

15

210

405

395

95 93

395

RIVERSIDE

PALM SPRINGS

SAN

BERNARDINO

SANTA

ANA

VICTORVILLE

BARSTOW

PALMDALE

LAS VEGAS

DESERT XPRESS

Figure 5-3

AM (PM) Peak Hour

I-15 MAINLINE 2013 PLUS DMU ALTERNATIVE VOLUMES

2013 + DEMU volumes rev1.ai

>

7110 (6875)

4264 (5956)

2432 (1505)

xx (xx) = AM (PM) volumes

3346 (2123)

6494 (8832)

4701 (5424)

1972 (3471)

2737 (4724)

SECTION 1

SECTION 2

SECTION 3

SECTION 4
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS 

 5-10 September 2008 

However, the following sections continue to operate at unacceptable level of service under 2013 

Baseline plus DMU conditions: 

AM Peak Hour: 

• #4. Sloan to I-215 in the northbound and southbound directions (LOS F) 

PM Peak Hour: 

• #3. Primm to Sloan in the northbound direction (LOS F to LOS E) 

• #4. Sloan to I-215 in the northbound and southbound directions (LOS F) 

3. 2013 Baseline plus EMU Alternative Conditions 

Based on the mainline traffic reduction for the EMU alternative presented in Section 4.2, the 

project trips associated with the alternative were reduced from the 2013 Baseline volumes to 

generate 2013 Baseline plus EMU alternative volumes, presented in Figure 5-4. 

For analysis purposes, existing mainline geometry was assumed for year 2013. Based on the 

assumptions presented in Table 5-2 and mainline volumes presented in Figure 5-4, HCS 

analysis has been performed. Table 5-7 presents the results of 2013 Baseline plus the EMU 

alternative conditions for the freeway mainline sections. 

Table 5-7 

Freeway Mainline Level of Service – 2013 Baseline plus EMU Conditions 

2013 Baseline 

Conditions 

2013 Baseline 

plus EMU Conditions 

NB SB NB SB 

No. Section 

Peak 

Hour LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density

AM C 21.9 C 18.3 C 18.8 B 15.3 1 North Stoddard Wells 

to Junction I-40 PM B 14.7 D 33.3 B 11.7 D 28.1 

AM C 25.4 C 20.8 C 20.3 B 16.3 2 Junction I-40 to 

Nevada State line PM B 16.7 E 43.6 B 12.2 D 32.2 

AM D 26.9 D 30.5 C 23.3 D 26.2 3 Primm to Sloan 

PM F >45.0 E 39.1 E 39.3 D 32.6 

AM F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 4 Sloan to I-215 

PM F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound 

b) LOS = Level of Service 

c) Density reported in pc/mi/ln 

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions 
NEVADA CALIFORNIA 14 58

10

40

5

10

15

15

15

210

405

395

95 93

395

RIVERSIDE

PALM SPRINGS

SAN

BERNARDINO

SANTA

ANA

VICTORVILLE

BARSTOW

PALMDALE

LAS VEGAS

DESERT XPRESS

Figure 5-4

AM (PM) Peak Hour

I-15 MAINLINE 2013 PLUS EMU ALTERNATIVE VOLUMES

2013 + EMU volumes rev1.ai

>

7000 (6765)

4154 (5846)

2322 (1395)

xx (xx) = AM (PM) volumes

3236 (2013)

6384 (8722)

4591 (5314)

1862 (3361)

2627 (4614)

SECTION 1

SECTION 2

SECTION 3

SECTION 4
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS 

 5-12 September 2008 

Comparing the HCS analysis results from 2013 Baseline conditions to 2013 Baseline plus EMU 

conditions, it can be seen from Table 5-7 the following freeway section operating conditions 

improve from unacceptable to acceptable conditions with the reduction in volume with the EMU 

project alternative: 

PM Peak Hour: 

• #2. Section from Junction I-40 to Nevada State Line improves from LOS E to LOS D in 

the southbound direction. 

• #3. Section from Primm to Sloan improves from LOS E to LOS D in the southbound 

direction. 

However, the following sections continue to operate at unacceptable level of service under 2013 

Baseline plus EMU conditions: 

AM Peak Hour: 

• #4. Sloan to I-215 in the northbound and southbound directions (LOS F) 

PM Peak Hour: 

• #3. Primm to Sloan in the northbound direction (LOS F to LOS E) 

• #4. Sloan to I-215 in the northbound and southbound directions (LOS F) 

5.6.2 Ramp Junction Analysis 

1. 2013 Baseline Conditions 

The future year 2013 baseline volumes were obtained by interpolating between the existing year 

and future year 2035 travel demand volumes. The 2013 baseline condition volumes are 

presented in the Appendix. For analysis purposes, existing geometry was assumed for the 

future year 2013 conditions. Table 5-8 presents the results of the ramp junction analysis for 

2013 baseline conditions. HCS calculation sheets are provided in the Appendix. 

Table 5-8 

Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2013 Baseline Conditions 

Location LOS DR

1 I-15 NB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells F 41.5 

2 I-15 SB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells F 47.5 

3 I-15 NB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells F 48.3 

4 I-15 SB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells F 69.7 

5 I-15 NB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells F 38.8 

6 I-15 SB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells F 47.0 

7 I-15 NB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells F 44.1 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS 

 5-13 September 2008 

Location LOS DR

8 I-15 SB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells F 65.3 

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

Notes: 

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound 

b) LOS = Level of Service 

c) Density of ramp (DR) reported in pc/mi/ln

As indicated in Table 5-8, all the ramp junctions operate at unacceptable level of service 

conditions under this scenario. This indicates that the existing ramp configuration would not be 

able to handle the future volume growth in the area. 

2. 2013 Baseline plus DMU Alternative Conditions 

The DMU project alternative volumes were added to the 2013 baseline volumes to obtain the 

2013 baseline plus DMU alternative condition volumes. These volumes are presented in the 

Appendix. Table 5-9 presents the results of the ramp junction analysis for 2013 baseline plus 

DMU conditions. HCS calculation sheets are provided in the Appendix. 

Table 5-9 

Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2013 Baseline plus DMU Alternative Conditions 

Location LOS DR

1 I-15 NB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells F 42.3 

2 I-15 SB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells F 47.5 

3 I-15 NB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells F 48.5 

4 I-15 SB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells F 73.4 

5 I-15 NB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells F 39.8 

6 I-15 SB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells F 47.0 

7 I-15 NB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells F 44.2 

8 I-15 SB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells F 68.4 

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

Notes: 

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound 

b) LOS = Level of Service 

c) Density of ramp (DR) reported in pc/mi/ln

Comparing results from tables 5-8 and 5-9, it can be noted that all the ramp junctions continue 

to operate at unacceptable conditions under this scenario. The densities at the ramp influence 

area only increase with the addition of the DMU project volumes. 

3. 2013 Baseline plus EMU Alternative Conditions 

The EMU project alternative volumes were added to the 2013 baseline volumes to obtain the 

2013 baseline plus EMU alternative condition volumes. These volumes are presented in the 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS 

 5-14 September 2008 

Appendix. Table 5-10 presents the results of the ramp junction analysis for 2013 baseline plus 

EMU conditions. HCS calculation sheets are provided in the Appendix. 

Table 5-10 

Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2013 Baseline plus EMU Alternative Conditions 

Location LOS DR

1 I-15 NB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells F 42.7 

2 I-15 SB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells F 47.5 

3 I-15 NB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells F 48.6 

4 I-15 SB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells F 74.9 

5 I-15 NB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells F 40.3 

6 I-15 SB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells F 47.0 

7 I-15 NB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells F 44.3 

8 I-15 SB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells F 69.7 

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

Notes: 

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound 

b) LOS = Level of Service 

c) Density of ramp (DR) reported in pc/mi/ln

Comparing results from tables 5-8 and 5-10, it can be noted that all the ramp junctions continue 

to operate at unacceptable conditions under this scenario. The densities at the ramp influence 

area only increase with the addition of the EMU project volumes. 

5.7 2030 Cumulative Conditions 

This section presents the analysis of 2030 Cumulative conditions without and with project (both 

DMU and EMU options). 

5.7.1 Freeway Analysis 

1. 2030 Baseline Conditions 

For the mainline analysis sections in California, cumulative conditions volumes for the future 

year 2030 were obtained from the San Bernardino Association of Government’s (SANBAG) 

travel demand model. Similarly for the mainline analysis sections in Nevada, cumulative 

conditions volumes for the future year 2030 were obtained from the Regional Transportation 

Commission (RTC) travel demand model. 

Future year 2030 lane configuration for all the analysis sections is presented in Figure 5-5. The 

mainline section AM and PM peak hour volumes are presented on Figure 5-6. 
NEVADA CALIFORNIA 14 58

10

40

5

10

15

15

15

210

405

395

95 93

395

RIVERSIDE

PALM SPRINGS

SAN

BERNARDINO

SANTA

ANA

VICTORVILLE

BARSTOW

PALMDALE

LAS VEGAS

DESERT XPRESS

Figure 5-5

I-15 MAINLINE FUTURE YEAR 2030 GEOMETRY

2030 Mainline Geometry rev1.ai

>

SECTION 1

SECTION 2 SECTION 3

SECTION 4
NEVADA CALIFORNIA 14 58

10

40

5

10

15

15

15

210

405

395

95 93

395

RIVERSIDE

PALM SPRINGS

SAN

BERNARDINO

SANTA

ANA

VICTORVILLE

BARSTOW

PALMDALE

LAS VEGAS

DESERT XPRESS

Figure 5-6

AM (PM) Peak Hour

I-15 MAINLINE 2030 NO BUILD VOLUMES

2030 No Build Volumes rev1.ai

>

15,483 (14,720)

8348 (11,870)

3760 (2537)

xx (xx) = AM (PM) volumes

4777 (3221)

15,573 (18,974)

9713 (10,206)

3150 (5143)

4003 (6529)

SECTION 1

SECTION 2

SECTION 3

SECTION 4
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS 

 5-17 September 2008 

Table 5-11 

HCS Assumptions – 2030 Conditions 

Description California Nevada 

Peak Hour Factor 

Number of Lanes 

 North Stoddard Wells to Junction I-40 (NB, SB) 

 Junction I-40 to Nevada State line (NB, SB) 

 Primm to Sloan (NB, SB) 

 Sloan to I-215 (NB, SB) 

0.95 

3 NB, 3 SB 

2 NB, 2 SB 

0.95 

4 NB, 4 SB 

5 NB, 5 SB 

 SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

Based on the assumptions presented in Table 5-11 and mainline volumes presented in 

Figure 5-6, HCS analysis has been performed. Table 5-12 presents the results of 2030 

Baseline condition analysis for the freeway mainline sections. 

Table 5-12 

Freeway Mainline Level of Service – 2030 Baseline Conditions 

NB SB 

No. Section 

Peak 

Hour LOS Density LOS Density 

AM D 27.4 C 22.2 1 North Stoddard Wells 

to Junction I-40 PM B 17.8 F >45.0 

AM E 35.8 D 27.0 2 Junction I-40 

to Nevada State line PM C 21.0 F >45.0 

AM E 40.6 F >45.0 3 Primm to Sloan 

PM F >45.0 F >45.0 

AM F >45.0 F >45.0 4 Sloan to I-215 

PM F >45.0 F >45.0 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound 

b) LOS = Level of Service 

c) Density reported in pc/mi/ln 

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions

As indicated in Table 5-12, all the freeway sections operate at unacceptable conditions (LOS E 

or F), except section 1 in the northbound direction in the AM and PM peak hours, in the 

southbound direction in the AM peak hour and section 2 in southbound direction during the AM 

peak hour as well as in the northbound direction during the PM peak hour.

2. 2030 Baseline plus DMU Alternative Conditions 

Based on the mainline traffic reduction for DMU alternative presented in Section 4.2, the project 

trips associated with the alternative were reduced from the 2030 Baseline volumes to generate 

2030 Baseline plus DMU alternative volumes, presented in Figure 5-7. 
NEVADA CALIFORNIA 14 58

10

40

5

10

15

15

15

210

405

395

95 93

395

RIVERSIDE

PALM SPRINGS

SAN

BERNARDINO

SANTA

ANA

VICTORVILLE

BARSTOW

PALMDALE

LAS VEGAS

DESERT XPRESS

Figure 5-7

AM (PM) Peak Hour

I-15 MAINLINE 2030 PLUS DMU ALTERNATIVE VOLUMES

2030 + DEMU volumes rev1.ai

>

14,385 (13,622)

7250 (10,772)

2662 (1439)

xx (xx) = AM (PM) volumes

3679 (2123)

14,475 (17,876)

8615 (9108)

2052 (4045)

2905 (5431)

SECTION 1

SECTION 2

SECTION 3

SECTION 4
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS 

 5-19 September 2008 

Based on the assumptions presented in Table 5-11 and mainline volumes presented in 

Figure 5-7, HCS analysis has been performed. Table 5-13 presents the results of 2030 

Baseline plus DMU alternative conditions for the freeway mainline sections. 

Table 5-13 

Freeway Mainline Level of Service – 2030 Baseline plus DMU Conditions 

2030 Baseline 

Conditions 

2030 Baseline plus 

DMU Conditions 

NB SB NB SB 

No. Section 

Peak 

Hour LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density

AM D 27.4 C 22.2 C 20.3 B 16.0 

1 

North Stoddard 

Wells to Junction 

I-40 PM B 17.8 F >45.0 B 11.7 D 33.4 

AM E 35.8 D 27.0 C 22.1 B 17.0 

2 Junction I-40 to 

Nevada State line PM C 21.0 F >45.0 B 11.9 E 42.2 

AM E 40.6 F >45.0 D 30.9 E 44.0 

3 Primm to Sloan 

PM F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 

AM F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 4 Sloan to I-215 

PM F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound 

b) LOS = Level of Service 

c) Density reported in pc/mi/ln 

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions 

Comparing the HCS analysis results from 2030 Baseline conditions to 2030 Baseline plus DMU 

conditions, it can be seen from Table 5-13 that following freeway section operating conditions 

improve from unacceptable to acceptable conditions with the reduction in volume with the DMU 

project alternative: 

AM Peak Hour: 

• #2. Section from Junction I-40 to Nevada State Line improves from LOS E to LOS C in 

the northbound direction. 

• #3. Section from Primm to Sloan improves from LOS E to LOS D in the northbound 

direction. 

It can also be noted from Table 5-13 that sections 2 and 3 improve operating conditions from 

LOS F to LOS E in the southbound direction. 

PM Peak Hour: 

• #1. Section from North Stoddard Wells to Junction I-40 improves from LOS F to LOS D 

in the southbound direction. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS 

 5-20 September 2008 

All the other freeway sections operating at unacceptable conditions under the 2030 Baseline 

conditions continue to operate at unacceptable conditions under the 2030 DMU project 

conditions. 

3. 2030 Baseline plus EMU Alternative Conditions 

Based on the mainline traffic reduction for EMU alternative presented in Section 4.2, the project 

trips associated with the alternative were reduced from the 2030 Baseline volumes to generate 

2030 Baseline plus EMU alternative volumes, presented in Figure 5-8. 

Based on the assumptions presented in Table 5-11 and mainline volumes presented in 

Figure 5-8, HCS analysis has been performed. Table 5-14 presents the results of 2030 

Baseline plus EMU alternative conditions for the freeway mainline sections. 

Table 5-14 

Freeway Mainline Level of Service – 2030 Baseline plus EMU Conditions 

2030 Baseline 

Conditions 

2030 Baseline 

plus EMU Conditions 

NB SB NB SB 

No. Section 

Peak 

Hour LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density 

AM D 27.4 C 22.2 C 18.7 B 14.4 

1 

North Stoddard 

Wells to Junction 

I-40 PM B 17.8 F >45.0 A 10.1 D 30.4 

AM E 35.8 D 27.0 C 19.6 B 14.5 

2 

Junction I-40 to 

Nevada State 

line PM C 21.0 F >45.0 A 9.5 E 35.6 

AM E 40.6 F >45.0 D 29.0 E 40.3 

3 Primm to Sloan 

PM F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 

AM F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 

4 Sloan to I-215 

PM F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 F >45.0 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound 

b) LOS = Level of Service 

c) Density reported in pc/mi/ln 

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions

Comparing the HCS analysis results from 2030 Baseline conditions to 2030 Baseline plus EMU 

conditions, it can be seen from Table 5-14 that following freeway section operating conditions 

improve from unacceptable to acceptable conditions with the reduction in volume with the EMU 

project alternative: 

AM Peak Hour: 

• #2. Section from Junction I-40 to Nevada State Line improves from LOS E to LOS C in 

the northbound direction.. 
NEVADA CALIFORNIA 14 58

10

40

5

10

15

15

15

210

405

395

95 93

395

RIVERSIDE

PALM SPRINGS

SAN

BERNARDINO

SANTA

ANA

VICTORVILLE

BARSTOW

PALMDALE

LAS VEGAS

DESERT XPRESS

Figure 5-8

AM (PM) Peak Hour

I-15 MAINLINE 2030 PLUS EMU ALTERNATIVE VOLUMES

2030 + EMU volumes rev1.ai

>

14,090 (13,327)

6955 (10,477)

2367 (1144)

xx (xx) = AM (PM) volumes

3384 (1828)

14,180 (17,581)

8320 (8813)

1757 (3750)

2610 (5136)

SECTION 1

SECTION 2

SECTION 3

SECTION 4
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS 

 5-22 September 2008 

• #3. Section from Primm to Sloan improves from LOS E to LOS D in the northbound 

direction. 

It can also be noted from Table 5-14 that section 3 improves operating conditions from LOS F to 

LOS E in the southbound direction. 

PM Peak Hour: 

• #1. Section from North Stoddard Wells to Junction I-40 improves from LOS F to LOS D 

in the southbound direction. 

It can also be noted from Table 5-10 that section 2 improves operating conditions from LOS F to 

LOS E in the southbound direction. 

All the other freeway sections operating at unacceptable conditions under the 2030 Baseline 

conditions continue to operate at unacceptable conditions under the 2030 EMU project 

conditions. Although it can be noted from Table 5-14 that freeway section 2 improves from 

LOS F to LOS E. 

5.7.2 Ramp Junction Analysis 

1. 2030 Baseline Conditions 

The future year 2030 baseline volumes were obtained by interpolating between the existing year 

and future year 2035 travel demand volumes. The 2030 baseline condition volumes are 

presented in the Appendix. For analysis purposes, existing geometry was assumed for the 

mainline and two lanes were considered for the on- and off-ramps. Table 5-15 presents the 

results of the ramp junction analysis for 2013 baseline conditions. HCS calculation sheets are 

provided in the Appendix. 

Table 5-15 

Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2030 Baseline Conditions 

Location LOS DR

1 I-15 NB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells F 96.8 

2 I-15 SB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells F 115.5 

3 I-15 NB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells F 118.4 

4 I-15 SB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells F 163.1 

5 I-15 NB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells F 84.3 

6 I-15 SB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells F 116.7 

7 I-15 NB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells F 106.1 

8 I-15 SB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells F 156.7 

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

Notes: 

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound 

b) LOS = Level of Service 

c) Density of ramp (DR) reported in pc/mi/ln
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS 

 5-23 September 2008 

As indicated in Table 5-15, all the ramp junctions operate at unacceptable conditions under this 

scenario. This indicates that the future ramp configuration would not be able to handle the 

future volume growth in the area 

2. 2030 Baseline plus DMU Alternative Conditions 

The DMU project alternative volumes were added to the 2030 baseline volumes to obtain the 

2030 baseline plus DMU alternative condition volumes. These volumes are presented in the 

Appendix. Table 5-16 presents the results of the ramp junction analysis for 2030 baseline plus 

DMU conditions. HCS calculation sheets are provided in the Appendix. 

Table 5-16 

Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2030 Baseline plus DMU Alternative Conditions 

Location LOS DR

1 I-15 NB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells F 99.9 

2 I-15 SB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells F 115.7 

3 I-15 NB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells F 118.6 

4 I-15 SB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells F 166.8 

5 I-15 NB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells F 87.9 

6 I-15 SB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells F 116.9 

7 I-15 NB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells F 106.3 

8 I-15 SB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells F 159.8 

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

Notes: 

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound 

b) LOS = Level of Service 

c) Density of ramp (DR) reported in pc/mi/ln

Comparing results from tables 5-15 and 5-16, it can be noted that all the ramp junctions 

continue to operate at unacceptable conditions under this scenario. The densities at the ramp 

influence area only increase with the addition of the DMU project volumes. 

3. 2030 Baseline plus EMU Alternative Conditions 

The EMU project alternative volumes were added to the 2030 baseline volumes to obtain the 

2030 baseline plus EMU alternative condition volumes. These volumes are presented in the 

Appendix. Table 5-17 presents the results of the ramp junction analysis for 2030 baseline plus 

EMU conditions. HCS calculation sheets are provided in the Appendix. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 5.0 – I-15 MAINLINE AND RAMP ANALYSIS 

 5-24 September 2008 

Table 5-17 

Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2030 Baseline plus EMU Alternative Conditions 

Location LOS DR

1 I-15 NB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells F 101.2 

2 I-15 SB Off-ramp to Stoddard Wells F 115.8 

3 I-15 NB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells F 118.7 

4 I-15 SB On-ramp from Stoddard Wells F 168.3 

5 I-15 NB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells F 89.3 

6 I-15 SB Off-ramp to North Stoddard Wells F 117.0 

7 I-15 NB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells F 106.3 

8 I-15 SB On-ramp from North Stoddard Wells F 161.0 

Bold indicates unacceptable conditions SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

Notes: 

a) NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound 

b) LOS = Level of Service 

c) Density of ramp (DR) reported in pc/mi/ln

Comparing results from tables 5-15 and 5-17, it can be noted that all the ramp junctions 

continue to operate at unacceptable conditions under this scenario. The densities at the ramp 

influence area only increase with the addition of the EMU project volumes. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS 

 6-25 September 2008 

6.0 VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATION 

6.1 Victorville Station Location Option 1 

The proposed station in Victorville would be located along the west side of I-15 between the two 

existing Stoddard Wells Road interchanges. Access to this station would be via the two existing 

Stoddard Wells Road interchanges. 

6.1.1 Existing Conditions 

EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK

The two Stoddard Wells Road interchanges with I-15 will provide the most direct regional 

access to the proposed Victorville train station. Currently, Stoddard Wells Road has a single 

travel lane in each direction and because of the relatively low traffic volumes intersections in the 

area are stop controlled. The existing lane geometry at the Victorville study intersections is 

shown in Figure 6-1. 

EXISTING TRANSIT CONDITIONS

The Victor Valley Transit Authority (VVTA) provides local transit service throughout the Victor 

Valley, including Victorville and San Bernardino County communities. The only bus line 

operating in the vicinity of the proposed station location is Route 22. 

Route 22- Helendale is a local service running between Silver Lakes Market and Lorene 

Transfer with approximately 120 minute headways from 6:00 AM to 8:00PM, Monday to 

Saturday. 

EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS

The intersection analysis was performed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 

methodologies, a requirement of the San Bernardino Congestion Management Program (CMP), 

which was implemented using SYNCHRO Version 7 software. Level of Service designation and 

corresponding delay thresholds are provided in Table 6-1. 

Table 6-1 

Intersection Level of Service Description 

Level of Service 

Signalized Intersections 

Delay Thresholds 

Unsignalized Intersections 

Delay Thresholds 

A ≤ 10 ≤ 10 

B > 10 and ≤ 20 > 10 and ≤ 15 

C > 20 and ≤ 35 > 15 and ≤ 25 

D > 35 and ≤ 55 > 25 and ≤ 35 

E > 55 and ≤ 80 > 35 and ≤ 50 

F > 80 > 50 

Notes: Delay reported in seconds per vehicle SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. 
DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED VICTORVILLE STATION

Figure 6-1

Victorville Station Alternative 1

EXISTING INTERSECTION LANE GEOMETRY

existing geometry.ai

STODDARD WELLS RD

STODDARD WELLS RD

OUTER HIGHWAY

15

?

4

1

2

3

I-15 Ramps

Outer Hwy I-15 SB Off Stoddard Wells Rd

Stoddard Wells Rd

Stoddard Wells Rd

Outer Hwy

I-15 SB On

Stoddard Wells Rd Stoddard Wells Rd

PROPOSED

VICTORVILLE

STATION

Alternative 1
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS 

 6-27 September 2008 

In Victorville, level of service values A through D are considered satisfactory service levels, and 

LOS E and F conditions are considered unsatisfactory service levels. Unsignalized 

intersections are considered to operate at unsatisfactory conditions if one approach operates at 

LOS E or F and Caltrans peak hour volume signal warrants are met. 

Based on the station location, the following intersections were identified for analysis purposes 

as shown on Figure 6-1: 

• Outer Highway & I-15 NB Ramps 

• Outer Highway & Stoddard Wells Rd 

• Stoddard Wells Rd & I-15 SB Off-Ramp 

• Stoddard Wells Rd & I-15 SB On-Ramp 

Afternoon peak hour turning movement counts were obtained at the study intersections and are 

shown in Figure 6-2. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) conditions were analyzed for weekday 

PM peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) at the study intersections. The results of the analysis are 

presented in Table 6-2. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix. 

Table 6-2 

Victorville Option 1 - Intersection Level of Service - Existing Conditions 

Existing Conditions 

Intersection Traffic Control LOS Delay1

1 Outer Highway & I-15 NB Ramps Unsignalized2 C (WB)3 16.3 

2 Outer Highway & Stoddard Wells Rd Unsignalized2 B (EB)3 12.7 

3 Stoddard Wells Rd & I-15 SB On-Ramp Unsignalized2 B (WB)3 10.4 

4 Stoddard Wells Rd & I-15 SB Off-Ramp Unsignalized2 B (WB)3 11.9 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. EB=Eastbound, WB=Westbound

As indicated in Table 6-2, all the analysis intersections have acceptable conditions (LOS D or 

better) under existing conditions. 

6.1.2 Impact Analysis 

This section presents the assessment of transportation impacts due to the proposed project. 

The transportation conditions were assessed for the following scenarios: 

• Existing plus Project Conditions; 

• 2013 Opening Year Conditions; 

• 2013 Opening Year plus Project (DMU and EMU alternatives) Conditions; 

• 2030 Cumulative Baseline Conditions; and, 

• 2030 Cumulative Baseline plus Project (DMU and EMU alternatives) Conditions 
DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED VICTORVILLE STATION

Figure 6-2

Victorville Station Alternative 1

EXISTING INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES

existing volumes alt 1.ai

STODDARD WELLS RD

STODDARD WELLS RD

OUTER HIGHWAY

15

?

4

1

2

3

I-15 Ramps

Outer Hwy I-15 SB Off

Stoddard Wells Rd

Stoddard Wells Rd

Stoddard Wells Rd

Outer Hwy

I-15 SB On Ramp

Stoddard Wells Rd Stoddard Wells Rd

14

12

5

317

23

16

3

2

24

23

116

202

46

85

270

23654

117

97

195105

2

10

7

165

6

165
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS 

 6-29 September 2008 

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

The following are the significance criteria used by the City of Victorville and San Bernardino 

County CMP guidelines for the determination of impacts associated with a proposed project: 

• If the proposed site adds 5% or more to the peak hour traffic of an intersection. 

• Level of service C will be the design objective for capacity and under no 

circumstances will less than level of service D be accepted. 

PROJECT TRAVEL DEMAND

The Victor Valley Area Transportation Study (VVATS) travel demand forecasting model was 

used to develop the base “no-project” travel forecasts for future year 2013 and 2030 traffic 

analysis. The City of Victorville provided future year 2035 travel forecasts from the model to 

DMJM Harris. DMJM Harris has applied a straight line methodology to interpolate the 

intermediate year growth factors for each network link in the model. The calculated growth 

factors were applied to the existing volumes to generate analysis year volumes. The growth 

factor calculations are presented in the Appendix. The project-related trips were then added to 

the future year base volumes to determine the “with project conditions”. 

TRIP DISTRIBUTION

The overall trip distribution for the station is shown in Figure 6-3. This station is served primarily 

by I-15 and Stoddard Wells Road. Due to its proximity to the southern I-15 / Stoddard Wells 

Road interchange, it is assumed that all vehicle trips generated by the proposed station would 

use this interchange. Hence, no project traffic is assigned to the northern I-15 / Stoddard Wells 

Road interchange. 

6.1.3 Existing plus Project Conditions 

EXISTING PLUS DIESEL ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNIT (DMU) ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 6-3, project trips accessing the station were 

assigned to the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative conditions for 

existing conditions are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 

existing volumes to generate the Existing plus DMU volumes. 

Based on the Existing plus DMU volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level of 

service analysis was performed. Table 6-3 presents the results of the analysis. SYNCHRO 

analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 6-3, the intersections of Outer highway and I-15 northbound ramps and 

Stoddard Wells Road and I-15 southbound off-ramp operate at unacceptable conditions, while 

all other intersections operate at acceptable conditions. 
15 STODDARD

OUTER

WELLS HIGHWAY

(Private Haul Road)

RD

?

DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED VICTORVILLE STATION

Figure 6-3

Alternative 1

VICTORVILLE STATION TRIP DISTRIBUTION

Victorville Station trip distribution 1.ai

PROPOSED

VICTORVILLE

STATION

Alternative 1

85%

5%

10%

(to Hwy 18)
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS 

 6-31 September 2008 

 Table 6-3 

Victorville Option 1 - Existing plus DMU Conditions LOS 

Existing Conditions

Existing plus DMU 

Conditions 

Intersection Traffic Control LOS Delay1

 LOS Delay1

1 Outer Highway & I-15 NB 

Ramps Unsignalized2

 C (WB)3 16.3 F (WB)3 - 

2 Outer Highway & Stoddard 

Wells Road Unsignalized2

 B (EB)3 12.7 D (EB)3 32.5 

3 Stoddard Wells Road & I-15 

SB On-Ramp Unsignalized2

 B (WB)3 10.4 D (WB)3 25.1 

4 Stoddard Wells Road & I-15 

SB Off-Ramp Unsignalized2

 B (WB)3 11.9 F (WB)3 179.5 

5 Stoddard Wells Road & 

Station Access #14 Signalized - - B 15.7 

6 Stoddard Wells Road & 

Station Access #24 Unsignalized2

 - - A 0 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. EB=Eastbound, WB=Westbound

4. See Figure 6-4 for locations

Comparing the results of the Existing plus DMU conditions to the Existing conditions level of 

service, it can be noted that due to the addition of project volumes, the intersections of Outer 

highway and I-15 northbound ramps and Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 southbound off-ramp 

deteriorate from acceptable (LOS C or better) to unacceptable (LOS F) conditions. As the 

project trips add more than 5% of the existing volume to these intersections, project impacts at 

these intersections are considered to be significant. 

EXISTING PLUS ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNIT (EMU) ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 6-3, project trips for EMU alternative 

conditions were calculated. These project trips were added to the existing volumes to generate 

the Existing plus EMU volumes. Based on the Existing plus EMU volumes and the existing 

geometry, intersection level of service analysis was performed. Table 6-4 presents the results 

of the analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 6-4, all the intersections, except those at the station access roads, operate 

at unacceptable conditions (LOS F). 

Comparing the results of the Existing plus EMU conditions to the Existing conditions level of 

service, it can be noted that due to the addition of project volumes, all the existing intersections 

deteriorate from acceptable (LOS C or better) to unacceptable (LOS F) conditions. As the 

project trips add more than 5% of the existing volume to these intersections, project impacts at 

these intersections are considered to be significant. 
DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED VICTORVILLE STATION

Figure 6-4

Victorville Station Alternative 1

FUTURE YEAR 2030 INTERSECTION LANE GEOMETRY

Victorville 2030 geometry 1.ai

STODDARD WELLS RD Station Access #1

Station Access #2

STODDARD WELLS RD FRONTAGE RD

OUTER HIGHWAY

15

?

7

8

5

6

Stoddard Wells Rd

I-15 Ramps

I-15 Off

Frontage Rd

Stoddard

Wells Rd

Traffic SignalStop Sign

Stoddard Wells Rd

100’

Station Access #2

Stoddard

Wells Rd

100’

300’

300’300’150’

150’

150’

350’

200’ 100’

Station

Access #1

PROPOSED

VICTORVILLE

STATION

Alternative 1
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS 

 6-33 September 2008 

Table 6-4 

Victorville Option 1 - Existing plus EMU Conditions LOS 

Existing 

Conditions 

Existing plus 

EMU Conditions 

Intersection Traffic Control LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 Outer Highway & I-15 

NB Ramps Unsignalized2

 C (WB)3 16.3 F (WB)3 - 

2 Outer Highway & 

Stoddard Wells Road Unsignalized2

 B (EB)3 12.7 F (EB)3 335.8 

3 Stoddard Wells Road & 

I-15 SB On-Ramp Unsignalized2

 B (WB)3 10.4 F (WB)3 204.6 

4 Stoddard Wells Road & 

I-15 SB Off-Ramp Unsignalized2

 B (WB)3 11.9 F (WB)3 839.2 

5 Stoddard Wells Road & 

Station Access #14 Signalized - - C 22.5 

6 Stoddard Wells Road & 

Station Access #24 Unsignalized2

 - - A 0 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. EB=Eastbound, WB=Westbound 

4. See Figure 6-4 for location 

6.1.4 2013 Baseline Conditions (Opening Year Analysis) 

2013 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Future year 2013 base volumes were calculated by applying the growth factor on the existing 

year volumes. These volumes are presented in the Appendix. For analysis purposes, existing 

intersection geometry was assumed for future year 2013 conditions. 

Based on the 2013 base volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level service analysis 

was performed. Table 6-5 presents the results of the analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets 

are provided in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 6-5, all the intersections except Stoddard Wells Road and I-15 SB Offramp operate at unacceptable conditions (LOS F) during the analysis period. 

2013 BASELINE PLUS DIESEL-ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNIT (DMU) ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 6-2, project trips accessing the station were 

assigned to the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative conditions for year 

2013 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2013 base volumes 

to generate the 2013 base plus DMU volumes. 

Based on the 2013 Baseline plus DMU volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level 

service analysis was performed. Table 6-6 presents the results of the analysis. SYNCHRO 

analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS 

 6-34 September 2008 

Table 6-5 

Victorville Option 1 - 2013 Baseline Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

1 Outer Highway & I-15 NB Ramps Unsignalized2 F (WB)3 324.0 

2 Outer Highway & Stoddard Wells Road Unsignalized2 F (EB)3 154.9 

3 Stoddard Wells Rd. & I-15 SB On-Ramp Unsignalized2 F (WB)3 113.4 

4 Stoddard Wells Rd. & I-15 SB Off-Ramp Unsignalized2 C (WB)3 20.5 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. EB=Eastbound, WB=Westbound

Table 6-6 

Victorville Option 1 – 2013 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline 

Conditions 

2013 Baseline 

plus DMU 

Conditions 

Intersection Traffic Control LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 Outer Highway & 

I-15 NB Ramps Unsignalized2

 F (WB)3 324.0 F (WB)3 - 

2 Outer Highway & 

Stoddard Wells Road Unsignalized2

 F (EB)3 154.9 F (EB)3 - 

3 Stoddard Wells Road & 

I-15 SB On-Ramp Unsignalized2

 F (WB)3 113.4 F (WB)3 - 

4 Stoddard Wells Road & 

I-15 SB Off-Ramp Unsignalized2

 C (WB)3 20.5 F (WB)3 - 

5 Stoddard Wells Road & 

Station Access #14 Signalized - - B 14.9 

6 Stoddard Wells Road & 

Station Access #24 Unsignalized2

 - - A 0.0 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. EB=Eastbound, WB=Westbound 

4. See Figure 6-4 for location 

As indicated in Table 6-6, all the intersections except station access roads operate at 

unacceptable conditions during the analysis period. 

Comparing the results of 2013 Baseline plus DMU conditions to the 2013 Baseline conditions 

level of service, it can be noted that due to the addition of project volumes, intersections already 

operating at LOS F would worsen with higher delays. As the project trips account for more than 

5% of the volume at these intersections, project impacts at these intersections are considered to 

be significant. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS 

 6-35 September 2008 

2013 BASELINE PLUS ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNIT (EMU) ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 6-2, project trips accessing the station were 

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for EMU alternative conditions for year 

2013 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2013 base 

conditions volumes to generate the 20103 baseline plus EMU volumes. 

Based on the 2013 Baseline plus EMU volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level 

service analysis was performed. Table 6-7 presents the results of the analysis. SYNCHRO 

analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix. 

Table 6-7 

Victorville Option 1 – 2013 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline 

Conditions 

2013 Baseline plus 

EMU Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

 LOS Delay1

1 Outer Highway & 

I-15 NB Ramps Unsignalized2 F (WB)3

 324.0 F (WB)3 - 

2 Outer Highway & 

Stoddard Wells Rd Unsignalized2 F (EB)3

 154.9 F (EB)3 - 

3 Stoddard Wells Rd & 

I-15 SB On-Ramp Unsignalized2 F (WB)3

 113.4 F (WB)3 - 

4 Stoddard Wells Rd & 

I-15 SB Off-Ramp Unsignalized2 C (WB)3

 20.5 F (WB)3 - 

5 Stoddard Wells Rd & 

Station Access #14 Signalized - - D 38.6 

6 Stoddard Wells Rd & 

Station Access #24 Unsignalized2 - - A 0.2 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. EB=Eastbound, WB=Westbound

4. See Figure 6-4 for location

As indicated in Table 6-7, all the intersections except station access roads operate at 

unacceptable conditions during the analysis period. 

Comparing the results of 2013 Baseline plus EMU conditions to the 2013 Baseline conditions 

level of service, it can be noted that due to the addition of project volumes, intersections already 

operating at LOS F would worsen with higher delays. As the project trips account for more than 

5% of the volume at these intersections, project impacts at these intersections are considered to 

be significant. 

6.1.5 2030 Cumulative Conditions 

Under this scenario, the proposed improvements include a new Stoddard Wells Road 

interchange at existing southerly Stoddard Wells ramps as shown in Figure 6-4. Improvements 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS 

 6-36 September 2008 

also include signalized intersections at the ramp interchange locations. Based on the arterial 

lane geometry information provided by the City of Victorville travel demand model, intersection 

geometry presented in Figure 6-4 was assumed for future year 2030. 

2030 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Future year 2030 base volumes were calculated by applying the growth factor on the existing 

year volumes. These volumes are presented in the Appendix. 

Based on the future base volumes and geometry presented in Figure 6-4, intersection level 

service analysis was performed. Table 6-8 presents the results of intersection operating 

conditions for future year 2030 baseline conditions. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are 

presented in the Appendix. 

Table 6-8 

Victorville Option 1 - 2030 Baseline Conditions LOS 

2030 Baseline 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

7 Stoddard Wells Road and I-15 SB Ramps Signalized F 102.9 

8 Stoddard Wells Road and I-15 NB Ramps Signalized F 216.4 

Notes: Delay reported in seconds per vehicle SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

As indicated in Table 6-8, all the intersections operate at unacceptable conditions during the 

analysis period. 

2030 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 6-3, project trips accessing the station were 

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative conditions for year 

2030 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2030 base 

conditions volumes to generate the 2030 baseline plus DMU volumes. 

Based on the 2030 Baseline plus DMU volumes geometry presented in Figure 6-4, intersection 

level service analysis was performed. Table 6-9 presents the results of the analysis. 

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 6-9, all the intersections except Stoddard Wells Road at Station Access #2 

operate at unacceptable conditions during the analysis period. 

Comparing the results of 2030 Baseline plus DMU conditions to the 2030 Baseline conditions 

level of service, it can be noted that due to the addition of project volumes, intersections already 

operating at LOS F would continue to operate at LOS F. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS 

 6-37 September 2008 

Table 6-9 

Victorville Option 1 – 2030 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS 

2030 Baseline 

Conditions 

2030 Baseline 

DMU Conditions

Intersection Traffic Control LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

5 Stoddard Wells Road & 

Station Access #1 Signalized - - E 58.6 

6 Stoddard Wells Road & 

Station Access #2 Unsignalized - - A 0.0 

7 Stoddard Wells Road & 

I-15 SB Ramps Signalized F 102.9 F 192.8 

8 Stoddard Wells Road & 

I-15 NB Ramps Signalized F 216.4 F 162.1 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2030 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 6-3, project trips accessing the station were 

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for EMU alternative conditions for year 

2030 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2030 base 

conditions volumes to generate the 2030 baseline plus EMU volumes. 

Based on the 2030 Baseline plus EMU volumes geometry presented in Figure 6-4, intersection 

level service analysis was performed. Table 6-10 presents the results of the analysis. 

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

Table 6-10 

Victorville Option 1 – 2030 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS 

2030 Baseline 

Conditions 

2030 Baseline EMU 

Conditions 

Intersection Traffic Control LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

5 Stoddard Wells Road 

& Station Access #1 Signalized - - F 95.6 

6 Stoddard Wells Road 

& Station Access #2 Unsignalized - - A 0.0 

7 Stoddard Wells Road 

& I-15 SB Ramps Signalized F 102.9 F 261.4 

8 Stoddard Wells Road 

& I-15 NB Ramps Signalized F 216.4 F 214.3 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS 

 6-38 September 2008 

As indicated in Table 6-10, all the intersections except Stoddard Wells Road at Station 

Access #2 operate at unacceptable conditions during the analysis period. 

Comparing the results of 2030 Baseline plus EMU conditions to the 2030 Baseline conditions 

level of service, it can be noted that due to the addition of project volumes, intersections already 

operating at LOS F would continue to operate at LOS F. 

6.1.6 Mitigation Measures 

EXISTING PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 6-3, intersections at Outer Highway and I-15 northbound ramps and 

Stoddard Wells Road and I-15 southbound on-ramp are significantly impacted by the proposed 

project. To mitigate these intersections, the following mitigation measures are proposed: 

• #1: Signalize intersection of Outer Highway at I-15 northbound ramps. 

• #4: Signalize intersection of Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 southbound off-ramp. 

After applying the above mitigation measures to the existing roadway network, the intersection 

level of service was calculated. Table 6-11 presents the results of the Existing plus DMU 

mitigation conditions analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

The signal warrant analysis at both these intersections indicates that the warrant for peak hour 

(Warrants 3A and 3B) are met. The signal warrant analysis worksheets are provided in the 

Appendix. As indicated in Table 6-11, signalization at both the impacted intersections improves 

the operating conditions to acceptable levels (LOS C). 

Table 6-11 

Victorville Option 1 - Existing plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS 

Existing plus DMU 

Mitigation 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

 

1 Outer Highway & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized C 20.9 

4 Stoddard Wells Rd & I-15 SB Off-Ramp Signalized C 20.4 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

EXISTING PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 6-4, all the existing intersections except project access roads are 

significantly impacted by the proposed project. To mitigate these intersections, following 

mitigation measures are proposed: 

• #1: Signalize intersection of Outer Highway at I-15 northbound ramps. 

• #2: Signalize intersection of Outer Highway at Stoddard Wells Road and add a 

northbound left turn lane and a southbound right turn lane. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS 

 6-39 September 2008 

• #3: Signalize the intersection of Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 southbound on-ramp. 

• #4: Signalize the intersection of Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 southbound off-ramp. 

After applying the above mitigation measures to the existing roadway network, intersection level 

of service was calculated. Table 6-12 presents the results of the Existing plus EMU mitigation 

conditions analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. The signal 

warrant analysis indicates that the warrant for peak hour (Warrants 3A and 3B) are met for 

intersections 1, 2 and 4 and only Warrant 3B is satisfied for intersection 3. The signal warrant 

analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix. 

Table 6-12 

Victorville Option 1 - Existing plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS 

Existing plus EMU 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

1 Outer Highway & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized B 16.4 

2 Outer Highway & Stoddard Wells Rd Signalized C 25.3 

3 Stoddard Wells Rd & I-15 SB On-Ramp Signalized D 41.7 

4 Stoddard Wells Rd & I-15 SB Off-Ramp Signalized A 7.3 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 6-12, installing traffic signals at both the impacted intersections improves 

the operating conditions to acceptable levels (LOS D or better). 

2013 BASELINE CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 6-5, three study intersections operate at unacceptable conditions in the 

2013 baseline conditions. To improve operating conditions at these intersections and 

accommodate the future volume growth, following mitigation measures are proposed: 

• #1: Signalize the intersection of Outer Highway at I-15 northbound ramps and add an 

eastbound right turn lane. 

• #2: Signalize the intersection of Outer Highway at Stoddard Wells Road and add a 

northbound left turn lane and southbound right turn lane. 

• # 3: Signalize the intersection of Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 southbound on-ramp and 

add a southbound left turn lane. 

After applying above mitigation measures to the existing roadway network, intersection level of 

service was calculated. Table 6-13 presents the results of 2013 baseline mitigation conditions 

analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. The signal warrant 

analysis indicates that the warrant for peak hour (Warrants 3A and 3B) are met for intersections 

1 and 2 and only Warrant 3B is satisfied for intersection 3. The signal warrant analysis 

worksheets are provided in the Appendix. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS 

 6-40 September 2008 

As indicated in Table 6-13, applying the proposed mitigation measures at the impacted 

intersections improves the operating conditions to acceptable levels (LOS C or better). 

Table 6-13 

Victorville Option 1 – 2013 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline 

Mitigation Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

1 Outer Highway & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized A 8.9 

2 Outer Highway & Stoddard Wells Rd Signalized C 22.5 

3 Stoddard Wells Rd & I-15 SB On-Ramp Signalized A 7.2 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2013 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 6-6, four study intersections operate at unacceptable conditions in the 

2013 baseline plus DMU conditions. To improve the operating conditions at these intersections, 

along with the mitigation measures identified in the 2013 Baseline conditions, the following 

mitigation measures are proposed:

• # 1: Add a second eastbound right turn lane at Outer highway and I-15 northbound 

ramps intersection. 

• # 4: Signalize intersection of Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 southbound off-ramp 

After applying the mitigation measures from 2013 baseline conditions and the mitigation 

measures suggested above to the existing roadway network, intersection level of service was 

calculated. Table 6-14 presents the results of 2013 baseline plus DMU mitigation conditions 

analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. The signal warrant 

analysis at intersection 4 indicates that the warrant for peak hour (Warrants 3A and 3B) is met. 

The signal warrant analysis worksheet is provided in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 6-14, the impacted intersections operating conditions improve to 

acceptable levels (LOS B or better). 

Table 6-14 

Victorville Option 1 - 2013 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline plus 

DMU Mitigation 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

1 Outer Highway & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized A 8.3 

2 Outer Highway & Stoddard Wells Rd Signalized B 11.4 

3 Stoddard Wells Rd & I-15 SB On-Ramp Signalized B 15.2 

4 Stoddard Wells Rd & I-15 SB Off-Ramp Signalized A 7.8 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS 

 6-41 September 2008 

2013 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 6-7, four study intersections operate at unacceptable conditions in the 

2013 baseline plus EMU conditions. To improve the operating conditions at these intersections, 

along with the mitigation measures identified in the 2013 Baseline conditions, following 

mitigation measure are proposed: 

• #1: Add a second eastbound right turn lane at Outer Highway and I-15 northbound 

ramps intersection. 

• #2: Add a second northbound left turn lane and second southbound right turn lane at 

Stoddard Wells Road and Outer Highway intersection. 

• #3: Add a southbound left turn lane at Stoddard Wells Road and I-15 southbound onramp intersection. 

• #4: Signalize the intersection of Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 southbound off-ramp 

After applying mitigation measures from 2013 baseline conditions and the mitigation measrues 

suggested above to the existing roadway network, intersection level of service was calculated. 

Table 6-15 presents the results of 2013 baseline plus EMU mitigation conditions analysis. 

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. The signal warrant analysis at 

intersection 4 indicates that the warrant for peak hour (Warrants 3A and 3B) is met. The signal 

warrant analysis worksheet is provided in the Appendix. 

Table 6-15 

Victorville Option 1 - 2013 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline 

plus EMU 

Mitigation 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

1 Outer Highway & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized B 19.5 

2 Outer Highway & Stoddard Wells Road Signalized B 16.4 

3 Stoddard Wells Road & I-15 SB On-Ramp Signalized C 28.8 

4 Stoddard Wells Road & I-15 SB Off-Ramp Signalized B 27.5 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

As indicated in Table 6-15, the impacted intersections operating conditions improve to 

acceptable levels (LOS C or better). 

2030 BASELINE CONDITIONS 

As indicated in Table 6-8, both the study intersections operate at unacceptable conditions in the 

2030 baseline conditions. To mitigate these intersections and accommodate the future volume 

growth, following mitigation measures are proposed: 

• #7: Add an eastbound left turn lane and an eastbound through lane to the intersection of 

Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 southbound ramps. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS 

 6-42 September 2008 

• #8: Add an eastbound left turn lane and a northbound right turn late at the intersection of 

Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 northbound ramps. 

After applying above mitigations to the existing roadway network, the intersection level of 

service was calculated. Table 6-16 presents the results of 2030 baseline mitigation conditions 

analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

Table 6-16 

Victorville Option 1 – 2030 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS 

2030 Baseline Mitigation 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

7 Stoddard Wells Rd and I-15 SB Ramps Signalized E 61.5 

8 Stoddard Wells Rd and I-15 NB Ramps Signalized F 83.4 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 6-16, both the study intersections continue to operate at unacceptable 

conditions even when mitigated. 

The addition of project volumes at these intersections operating at unacceptable conditions 

would only worsen the operating conditions. Hence mitigation analysis for 2030 Baseline plus 

DMU and 2030 Baseline plus EMU conditions was not performed. However, the intersection of 

Stoddard Wells Road at Station Access #1 can be mitigated under the DMU and EMU 

conditions with the addition of third southbound lane. With this mitigation, the intersection 

operating condition improves to LOS C with 25.3 seconds of delay under DMU conditions and to 

LOS D with 49.6 seconds of delay under EMU conditions. 

6.1.7 Queuing Analysis 

Queuing analysis was performed to identify the required length of turn pockets under the future 

year 2030 cumulative conditions at the ramp locations. Table 6-17 presents the results of 

queuing analysis for 2030 baseline and project conditions with and without mitigations. Queuing 

analysis worksheets are included in the Appendix. 

It can be noted from table 6-17 that the queue lengths under the mitigated conditions are 

considerably lower than the baseline conditions. However, some of the turn pockets experience 

higher queues under the mitigated conditions than the baseline conditions. This occurs 

because of the signal timing, which provides more green time to the heavier traffic volumes 

movements to bring the operating conditions at the intersection to acceptable levels. For 

example, under the 2030 baseline conditions, the westbound left-turn and right-turn queue 

lengths are shorter than the 2030 mitigated conditions. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS 

 6-43 September 2008 

Table 6-17 

Victorville Option 1 – Queuing Analysis 

95th % queue length (ft) 

Intersection Movement 2030 2030 + DMU 2030 + EMU 

Baseline Conditions 

7 Stoddard Wells Rd & I15 SB Ramps 

EBL 

EBR 

WBL 

WBR 

NBL 

SBL 

947 

33 

82 

54 

200 

141 

1050 

63 

83 

156 

336 

211 

1048 

7 

76 

265 

348 

223 

8 Stoddard Wells Rd & I15 NB Ramps 

EBL 

WBR 

NBL 

NBR 

412 

21 

289 

1861 

430 

23 

829 

1768 

464 

25 

1011 

1882 

With Mitigations 

7 Stoddard Wells Rd & I15 SB Ramps 

EBL 

EBR 

WBL 

WBR 

NBL 

SBL 

608 

22 

115 

323 

197 

139 

718 

m29 

102 

228 

290 

180 

846 

43 

130 

346 

312 

173 

8 Stoddard Wells Rd & I15 NB Ramps 

EBL 

WBR 

NBL 

NBR 

187 

21 

269 

1207 

175 

21 

347 

997 

218 

26 

414 

1155 

SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

6.2 Victorville Station Location Option 2 

The proposed station in Victorville would be located along the west side of I-15 between the two 

existing Stoddard Wells Road interchanges. Access to this station would be via the existing 

northerly Stoddard Wells Road interchange. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS 

 6-44 September 2008 

6.2.1 Existing Conditions 

EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK

The two Stoddard Wells Road interchanges with I-15 will provide the most direct regional 

access to the proposed Victorville train station. Currently the Stoddard Wells Road in this area 

has a single travel lane in each direction and because of the relatively low traffic volumes, 

intersections in the area are stop controlled. The existing lane geometry at the Victorville study 

intersections is shown in Figure 6-5. 

EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS

Based on the station location options, following intersections in the vicinity of the station location 

were identified for analysis purposes: 

• Stoddard Wells Road and I-15 NB Ramps 

• Stoddard Wells Road and Quarry Road 

• I-15 SB Ramps and Quarry Road 

The afternoon peak hour turning movement counts were obtained at the study intersections and 

are presented in Figure 6-6. 

Intersection Level of Service (LOS) conditions were analyzed for weekday PM peak period (4:00 

PM to 6:00 PM) at the study intersections. The results of the analysis are presented in 

Table 6-18. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix. 

Table 6-18 

Victorville Option 2 - Existing Conditions LOS 

Existing Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

1 Stoddard Wells Rd and I-15 NB Ramps Unsignalized2 A (SB) 10.0 

2 Stoddard Wells Rd and Quarry Road Unsignalized2 A (SB) 8.6 

3 I-15 SB Ramps and Quarry Road Unsignalized2 A (WB) 8.8 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. SB=Southbound, WB=Westbound 

As indicated in Table 6-18, all the study intersections operate at acceptable conditions under 

existing conditions. 

In Victorville, LOS A through D is considered satisfactory levels, and LOS E and F conditions 

are considered unsatisfactory service levels. Unsignalized intersections are considered to 

operate at unsatisfactory conditions if one approach operates at LOS E or F and Caltrans peak 

hour volume signal warrants are met. 
DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED VICTORVILLE STATION

Figure 6-5

Victorville Station Alternative 2

EXISTING INTERSECTION LANE GEOMETRY

existing geometry alt 2.ai

STODDARD WELLS RD

VICTORVILLE

QUARRY

RD

STODDARD WELLS RD

OUTER HIGHWAY

SAUGUS RD LOS PADRES RD

SOLANO RD

GRUDLEY ST

LAMADA ST

15



1

3

2

Stoddard Wells Rd

I-15 Ramps

Outer Hwy

I-15 Ramps

Victorville Quarry Rd

Stoddard Wells Rd

Victorville

Quarry Rd

PROPOSED

VICTORVILLE

STATION

Alternative 2
DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED VICTORVILLE STATION

Figure 6-6

Victorville Station Alternative 2

EXISTING INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES

existing volumes alt 2.ai

STODDARD WELLS RD

VICTORVILLE

QUARRY

RD

STODDARD WELLS RD

OUTER HIGHWAY

SAUGUS RD LOS PADRES RD

SOLANO RD

GRUDLEY ST

LAMADA ST

15

?

1

2

3

Stoddard Wells Rd

I-15 Ramps

Outer Hwy

I-15 Ramps

Victorville Quarry Rd

Stoddard Wells Rd

Victorville

Quarry Rd

23

3

98

00

39

9818

05

012314

1

11

1

208

50

55
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS 

 6-47 September 2008 

6.2.2 Impact Analysis 

This section presents the assessment of transportation impacts due to the proposed project. 

The transportation conditions were assessed for the following scenarios: 

• Existing plus Project Conditions; 

• 2013 Opening Year Conditions; 

• 2013 Opening Year plus Project Conditions; 

• 2030 Cumulative Baseline Conditions; and, 

• 2030 Cumulative Baseline plus Project Conditions. 

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

The following are the significance criteria used by the City of Victorville and San Bernardino 

County CMP guidelines for the determination of impacts associated with a proposed project: 

• If the proposed site adds 5% or more to the peak hour traffic of an intersection. 

• Level of service C will be the design objective for capacity and under no 

circumstances will less than level of service D be accepted. 

PROJECT TRAVEL DEMAND

The Victor Valley Area Transportation Study (VVATS) travel demand forecasting model was 

used to develop the base “no-project” travel forecasts for future year 2013 and 2030 traffic 

analysis. The City of Victorville provided future year 2035 travel forecasts from the model to 

DMJM Harris. DMJM Harris has applied a straight line method to interpolate the intermediate 

year growth factors for each network link in the model. The calculated growth factors were 

applied to the existing volumes to generate analysis year volumes. The growth factor 

calculations are presented in the Appendix. The project-related trips were then added to the 

future year base volumes to determine the “with project conditions”. 

TRIP DISTRIBUTION

The overall trip distribution for the station is shown in Figure 6-7. This station is served primarily 

by I-15 and Stoddard Wells Road. Due to its proximity to the northern I-15 / Stoddard Wells 

Road interchange, it is assumed that all vehicles generated by the proposed station would use 

this interchange. Hence, no project traffic is assigned to the southern I-15 / Stoddard Wells 

Road interchange. 

EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS

a) Existing plus Diesel Electric Multiple Unit (DMU) Alternative Conditions 

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 6-7, project trips accessing the station 

were assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative 

conditions for existing conditions are presented in the Appendix. These project trips 

were added to the existing volumes to generate the Existing plus DMU volumes. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS 

 6-48 September 2008 

Based on the Existing plus DMU volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level of 

service analysis was performed. Table 6-19 presents the results of the analysis. 

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 6-19, all the study intersections operate at acceptable conditions 

under existing plus DMU project conditions. 

Table 6-19 

Victorville Option 2 – Existing plus DMU Conditions LOS 

Existing 

Conditions 

Existing plus DMU 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

 LOS Delay1

1 

Stoddard Wells Road & I15 NB Ramps Unsignalized2

 A (SB) 10.0 D (SB) 28.8 

2 

Stoddard Wells Road & 

Quarry Road Unsignalized2

 A (SB) 8.6 C (SB) 25.0 

3 I-15 SB Ramps & Quarry 

Road Unsignalized2

 A (WB) 8.8 B (WB) 10.8 

4 Quarry Road & Station 

Access #1 Unsignalized2

 - - A (NB) 9.3 

5 

Stoddard Wells Road & 

Station Access #2 Unsignalized2

 - - B (SB) 13.4 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. NB=Northbound, SB=Southbound, WB=Westbound

b) Existing plus Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) Alternative Conditions 

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 6-7, project trips accessing the station 

were assigned to the analysis intersections. The project trips for EMU alternative 

conditions for existing conditions are presented in the Appendix. These project trips 

were added to the existing volumes to generate the Existing plus EMU volumes. 

Based on the Existing plus EMU volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level of 

service analysis was performed. Table 6-20 presents the results of the analysis. 

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 6-20, all the study intersections operate at acceptable conditions 

except Stoddard Wells Road and I-15 northbound ramps and Stoddard Wells Road and 

Quarry Road intersections. 
15 STODDARD

OUTER

WELLS HIGHWAY

(Private Haul Road)

RD

?

DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED VICTORVILLE STATION

Figure 6-7

Alternative 2

VICTORVILLE STATION TRIP DISTRIBUTION

Victorville Station trip distribution 2.ai

PROPOSED

VICTORVILLE

STATION

Alternative 2

95%

5%
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS 

 6-50 September 2008 

Table 6-20 

Victorville Option 2 – Existing plus EMU Conditions LOS 

Existing 

Conditions 

Existing plus 

EMU Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

 LOS Delay1

1 Stoddard Wells Road & 

I-15 NB Ramps Unsignalized2

 A (SB) 10.0 F (NB) - 

2 Stoddard Wells Road & 

Quarry Road Unsignalized2

 A (SB) 8.6 F (SB) 63.2 

3 I-15 SB Ramps & Quarry 

Road Unsignalized2

 A (WB) 8.8 B (WB) 12.0 

4 Quarry Road & Station 

Access #1 Unsignalized2

 - - A (NB) 9.9 

5 Stoddard Wells Road & 

Station Access #2 Unsignalized2

 - - C (SB) 19.9 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. NB=Northbound, SB=Southbound, WB=Westbound

Comparing the results of the Existing plus EMU conditions to the Existing conditions level of 

service, it can be noted that due to the addition of project volumes, intersections approaches at 

Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 northbound ramps and Stoddard Wells Road at Quarry Road 

deteriorate from acceptable (LOS A) to unacceptable (LOS F) conditions. As the project trips 

add more than 5% of the existing volumes at these intersections, project impacts at these 

intersections are considered to be significant. 

6.2.3 2013 Opening Year Conditions 

2013 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Future year 2013 base volumes were calculated by applying the growth factor on the existing 

year volumes. These volumes are presented in the Appendix. For analysis purposes, the 

existing intersection geometry was assumed for future year 2013 conditions. Based on the 

future base volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level of service analysis was 

performed. 

Table 6-21 presents the results of intersection operating conditions for future year 2013 baseline 

conditions. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS 

 6-51 September 2008 

Table 6-21 

Victorville Option 2 – 2013 Baseline Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

1 Stoddard Wells Rd and I-15 NB Ramps Unsignalized2 C (SB) 17.3 

2 Stoddard Wells Rd and Quarry Road Unsignalized2 A (SB) 9.4 

3 I-15 SB Ramps and Quarry Road Unsignalized2 A (WB) 9.6 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. SB=Southbound, WB=Westbound

As indicated in Table 6-21, all the study intersections continue to operate at acceptable 

conditions under 2013 Baseline conditions. 

2013 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 6-7, project trips accessing the station were 

assigned to the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative conditions for year 

2013 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2013 base 

conditions volumes to generate the 2013 baseline plus DMU volumes. For analysis purposes, 

the existing intersection geometry was assumed for future year 2013 conditions. 

Based on the 2013 Baseline plus DMU volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level of 

service analysis was performed. Table 6-22 presents the results of the analysis. SYNCHRO 

analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 6-22, intersection of Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 northbound ramps 

operates at unacceptable conditions (LOS F) while all others operate at acceptable conditions 

(LOS D or better). 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS 

 6-52 September 2008 

Table 6-22 

Victorville Option 2 – 2013 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline 

Conditions 

2013 Baseline 

DMU Conditions 

Intersection Traffic Control LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 Stoddard Wells Rd and I-15 

NB Ramps Unsignalized2

 C (SB) 3 17.3 F (NB3) - 

2 Stoddard Wells Rd and 

Quarry Road Unsignalized2

 A (SB) 3 9.4 D (SB) 3 34.2 

3 I-15 SB Ramps and Quarry 

Road Unsignalized2

 A (WB) 3 9.6 C (WB) 3 16.0 

4 Quarry Road and Station 

Access #1 Unsignalized2

 - - A (NB) 3 9.3 

5 Stoddard Wells Road and 

Station Access #2 Unsignalized2

 - - C (SB) 3 15.9 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. NB= Northbound, SB=Southbound, WB=Westbound

Comparing the results of 2013 Baseline plus DMU conditions to the 2013 Baseline conditions 

level of service, it can be noted that due to the addition of project volumes, intersections 

approaches at Stoddard Wells Road and I-15 northbound ramps deteriorates from acceptable 

(LOS C) to unacceptable (LOS F) conditions. As the project trips add more than 5% of the 

existing volume at these intersections, the project impacts at these intersections are considered 

to be significant. 

2013 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 6-7, project trips accessing the station were 

assigned to the analysis intersections. The project trips for EMU alternative conditions for year 

2013 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2013 base 

conditions volumes to generate the 2013 baseline plus EMU volumes. 

Based on the 2013 Baseline plus EMU volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level of 

service analysis was performed. Table 6-23 presents the results of the analysis. SYNCHRO 

analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 6-23, intersections of Stoddard Wells Road at northbound ramps 

intersection and Stoddard Wells Road at Quarry Road intersection operate at unacceptable 

conditions while all others operate at acceptable conditions. 

Comparing the results of 2013 Baseline plus EMU conditions to the 2013 Baseline conditions 

level of service, it can be noted that due to the addition of project volumes, intersections of 

Stoddard Wells Road and I-15 northbound ramps and Stoddard Wells Road at Quarry Road 

deteriorate from acceptable (LOS C or better) to unacceptable (LOS F) conditions. As the 

project trips add more than 5% of existing volume at these intersections, project impacts at 

these intersections are considered to be significant. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS 

 6-53 September 2008 

Table 6-23 

Victorville Option 2 – 2013 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline 

Conditions 

2013 Baseline EMU 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 Stoddard Wells Rd 

and I-15 NB Ramps Unsignalized2

 C (SB) 3 17.3 F (NB) 3 - 

2 Stoddard Wells Rd 

and Quarry Road Unsignalized2

 A (SB) 3 9.4 F (SB) 3 141.8 

3 I-15 SB Ramps and 

Quarry Road Unsignalized2

 A (WB) 3 9.6 C (WB) 3 22.3 

4 Quarry Road and 

Station Access #1 Unsignalized2

 - - D (NB) 3 26.5 

5 

Stoddard Wells 

Road and Station 

Access #2 

Unsignalized2 - - A (NB) 3 9.9 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. NB= Northbound, SB=Southbound, WB=Westbound 

6.2.4 2030 Cumulative Conditions 

Under this scenario, the proposed improvements include signalization at all study intersections. 

Future year 2030 roadway geometry and signal control are presented in Figure 6-8. 

2030 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Future year 2030 base volumes were calculated by applying a growth factor to the existing year 

volumes. These volumes are presented in the Appendix. 

Based on the future base volumes and geometry presented in Figure 6-8, intersection level of 

service analysis was performed. Table 6-24 presents the results of intersection operating 

conditions for future year 2030 baseline conditions. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are 

presented in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 6-24, all the study intersections operate at acceptable conditions under 

this scenario. 

2030 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 6-7, project trips accessing the station were 

assigned to the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative conditions for year 

2030 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2030 base 

conditions volumes to generate the 2030 baseline plus DMU volumes. 

Based on the 2030 Baseline plus DMU volumes and geometry presented in Figure 6-8, 

intersection level of service analysis was performed. Table 6-25 presents the results of the 

analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 
DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED VICTORVILLE STATION

Figure 6-8

Victorville Station Alternative 2

FUTURE YEAR 2030 INTERSECTION LANE GEOMETRY

Victorville 2030 geometry 2.ai

STODDARD WELLS RD

VICTORVILLE

QUARRY

QUARRY

RD

RD

Station

Access #1

Station Access #2

STODDARD WELLS RD

OUTER HIGHWAY

SAUGUS RD LOS PADRES RD

SOLANO RD

GRUDLEY ST

15

?

1

3

5

2

4

Stoddard Wells Rd

150’150’

150’150’ 150’

150’

350’

I-15 Ramps

Outer Hwy

Quarry Rd

Quarry Rd

Station Access #2

I-15 Ramps

Victorville

Quarry Rd

Stoddard

Wells Rd

Victorville

Quarry Rd

Stoddard

Wells Rd

Station

Access #1

Traffic SignalStop Sign

50’

250’ 150’

150’

150’

PROPOSED

VICTORVILLE

STATION

Alternative 2
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS 

 6-55 September 2008 

Table 6-24 

Victorville Option 2 - 2030 Baseline Conditions LOS 

2030 Baseline 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

1 Stoddard Wells Rd and I-15 NB Ramps Signalized C 28.3 

2 Stoddard Wells Rd and Quarry Road Signalized B 19.2 

3 I-15 SB Ramps and Quarry Road Signalized C 31.2 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

As indicated in Table 6-25, all the study intersections operate at acceptable conditions under 

this scenario. 

Table 6-25 

Victorville Option 2 - 2030 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS 

2030 Baseline 

Conditions 

2030 Baseline DMU 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 Stoddard Wells Road 

& I-15 NB Ramps Signalized C 28.3 D 49.4 

2 Stoddard Wells Road 

& Quarry Road Signalized B 19.2 B 15.4 

3 I-15 SB Ramps & 

Quarry Road Signalized C 31.2 C 22.9 

4 Quarry Road & 

Station Access #1 Unsignalized2

 - - A (NB) 3 2.6 

5 Stoddard Wells Road 

& Station Access #2 Signalized - - A 7.3 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. NB= Northbound, SB=Southbound, WB=Westbound 

2030 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 6-7, project trips accessing the station were 

assigned to the analysis intersections. The project trips for EMU alternative conditions for year 

2030 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2030 base 

conditions volumes to generate the 2030 baseline plus EMU volumes. 

Based on the 2030 Baseline plus EMU volumes geometry presented in Figure 6-8, intersection 

level of service analysis was performed. Table 6-26 presents the results of the analysis. 

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 6-26, all the study intersections operate at acceptable conditions except 

the Stoddard Wells Road and I-15 northbound ramps intersection. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS 

 6-56 September 2008 

Table 6-26 

Victorville Option 2 - 2030 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS 

2030 Baseline 

Conditions 

2030 Baseline EMU 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 Stoddard Wells Road 

& I-15 NB Ramps Signalized C 28.3 F 99.2 

2 Stoddard Wells Road 

& Quarry Road Signalized B 19.2 B 19.6 

3 I-15 SB Ramps & 

Quarry Road Signalized C 31.2 C 23.9 

4 Quarry Road & 

Station Access #1 Unsignalized2 - - A (NB) 3 2.8 

5 Stoddard Wells Road 

& Station Access #2 Signalized - - B 11.0 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. NB= Northbound, SB=Southbound, WB=Westbound 

Comparing the results of 2030 Baseline plus EMU conditions to the 2030 Baseline conditions 

level of service, it can be noted that due to the addition of project volumes, intersection of 

Stoddard Wells Road and I-15 northbound ramps and deteriorates from acceptable (LOS C) to 

unacceptable (LOS F) conditions. 

6.2.5 Mitigation Measures 

EXISTING PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 6-20, two existing intersections are significantly impacted by the proposed 

project. To mitigate these intersections, following mitigation measures are proposed: 

• # 1: Signalize intersection of Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 northbound ramps. 

• # 2: Signalize intersection of Stoddard Wells Road at Quarry Road. 

After applying above mitigation measures to the existing roadway network, the intersection level 

of service was calculated. Table 6-27 presents the results of Existing plus EMU mitigation 

conditions analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 6-27, intersections of Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 northbound ramps and 

Stoddard Wells Road at Quarry Road operate at acceptable conditions (LOS B or better) with 

mitigation measures. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS 

 6-57 September 2008 

Table 6-27 

Victorville Option 2 - Existing plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS 

Existing plus EMU 

Mitigation 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

1 Stoddard Wells Rd and I-15 NB Ramps Signalized B 12.9 

2 Stoddard Wells Rd and Quarry Road Signalized A 6.8 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

The signal warrant analysis at intersection 1 indicates that the warrant for peak hour (Warrants 

3A and 3B) is met while it is not satisfied at intersection 2. The signal warrant analysis 

worksheets are provided in the Appendix. 

2013 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 6-22, one study intersection operates at unacceptable conditions in the 

2013 baseline plus DMU conditions. To mitigate this intersection, following mitigation measure 

is proposed: 

• # 1: Signalize intersection of Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 northbound ramps. 

After applying above mitigation measure to the existing roadway network, the intersection level 

of service was calculated. Table 6-28 presents the results of 2013 baseline plus DMU 

mitigation conditions analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

The signal warrant analysis at intersection 1 indicates that the warrant for peak hour (Warrants 

3A and 3B) is met. The signal warrant analysis worksheets is provided in the Appendix. 

Table 6-28 

Victorville Option 2 - 2013 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline plus 

DMU Mitigation 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

1 Stoddard Wells Rd and I-15 NB Ramps Signalized C 22.8 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 6-28, intersection of Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 northbound ramps 

operates at acceptable conditions (LOS C) with the mitigation measures. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS 

 6-58 September 2008 

2013 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 6-23, two study intersections operate at unacceptable conditions in the 

2013 baseline plus EMU conditions. To mitigate these intersections, following mitigation 

measures are proposed: 

• # 1: Signalize the intersection of Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 northbound ramps and 

add northbound left turn lane. 

• # 2: Signalize the intersection of Stoddard Wells Road at Quarry Road. 

After applying above mitigation measures to the existing roadway network, the intersection level 

of service was calculated. Table 6-29 presents the results of 2013 baseline plus EMU mitigation 

conditions analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 6-29, the intersections of Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 northbound ramps 

and Stoddard Wells Road at Quarry Road operate at acceptable conditions (LOS C or better) 

with mitigation measures. 

Table 6-29 

Victorville Option 2 - 2013 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline plus 

EMU Mitigation 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

1 Stoddard Wells Rd and I-15 NB Ramps Signalized C 31.0 

2 Stoddard Wells Rd and Quarry Rd Signalized A 9.5 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

The signal warrant analysis at intersection 1 indicates that the warrant for peak hour (Warrants 

3A and 3B) is met while it is not satisfied at intersection 2. The signal warrant analysis 

worksheets are provided in the Appendix 

2030 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 6-26, one study intersection operates at unacceptable conditions in the 

2030 baseline plus EMU conditions. To mitigate this intersection, following mitigation measure 

is proposed: 

• #11: Add a second southbound right turn lane at the intersection of Stoddard Wells 

Road at I-15 northbound ramps. 

After applying above mitigation to the 2030 base roadway network, the intersection level of 

service was calculated. Table 6-30 presents the results of 2030 baseline plus EMU mitigation 

conditions analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS 

 6-59 September 2008 

Table 6-30 

Victorville Option 2 - 2030 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS 

2030 Baseline plus EMU 

Mitigation Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

1 Stoddard Wells Rd & 

I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 50.2 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle

As indicated in Table 6-30, intersection of Stoddard Wells Road at I-15 northbound ramps 

operates at acceptable conditions (LOS D) with mitigation measure. 

6.2.6 Queuing Analysis 

Queuing analysis was performed to identify the required length of turn pockets under the future 

year 2030 cumulative conditions at the ramp locations. Table 6-31 presents the results of 

queuing analysis for 2030 baseline and project conditions with and without mitigation measures. 

The queuing analysis worksheets are included in the Appendix. 

It can be noted from table 6-31 that the queue lengths under the mitigated conditions are 

considerably shorter than the baseline conditions. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 6.0 – VICTORVILLE STATION LOCATIONS 

 6-60 September 2008 

Table 6-31 

Victorville Option 2 – Queuing Analysis 

95th % queue length (ft) 

Intersection Movement 2030 2030 + DMU 2030 + EMU 

Baseline Conditions 

1 Stoddard Wells Rd & I15 NB Ramps 

EBL 

EBR 

WBL 

WBR 

NBL 

NBR 

SBL 

SBR 

35 

170 

119 

16 

178 

43 

146 

36 

59 

68 

165 

20 

230 

51 

105 

712 

98 

62 

235 

30 

343 

36 

216 

1379 

3 I-15 SB Ramps & 

Quarry Rd 

NBR 

SBL 

51 

4 

52 

60 

348 

109 

With Mitigations 

1 Stoddard Wells Rd & I15 NB Ramps 

EBL 

EBR 

WBL 

WBR 

NBL 

NBR 

SBL 

SBR 

N/A N/A 72 

66 

199 

24 

284 

46 

216 

542 

3 I-15 SB Ramps & 

Quarry Rd 

NBR 

SBL 

N/A N/A 298 

109 

SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-1 September 2008 

7.0 LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

7.1 Downtown Station Location Alternative 

The proposed Downtown station would be located east of I-15 in the downtown area. This 

station is bounded by Union Pacific Railroad to the west, South Main Street to the east, West 

Charleston Boulevard to the south and West Bonneville Avenue to the north. The proposed 

downtown station can be accessed from I-15 via ramps located at South Grand Central 

Parkway and West Charleston Boulevard and from I-515 via ramps located at North Las Vegas 

Boulevard. 

7.1.1 Existing Conditions 

Local Access. The existing local access roadway network for Las Vegas, Nevada near the 

proposed station locations are described below. These descriptions were adopted from 

“Roadway Functional Classification” map published by Federal Aid Highway System of Nevada 

in 2004. This map is included in the Appendix. 

Las Vegas Boulevard is a two-way north-south minor arterial. The roadway generally 

has three lanes in each direction with sidewalks on both sides of the street in the study 

area. In the vicinity of the proposed Downtown station location, this street provides 

access to I-515 via the ramps located north of the station. 

Main Street is a two-way north-south minor arterial. This roadway extends between Las 

Vegas Boulevard / 5th Street at the north and Las Vegas Boulevard / E St. Louis Avenue 

intersection at the south. In the vicinity of the proposed Downtown station location, this 

street generally has one lane in each direction with sidewalks on both sides of the street. 

On-street parking is permitted on the east side of the street. 

Grand Central Parkway is a two-way north-south minor collector. This roadway 

extends between Main Street at the north and Charleston Boulevard at the south. In the 

vicinity of the proposed Downtown station location, this street generally has two lanes in 

each direction with a sidewalk on the west side of the street. On-street parking is 

generally not permitted on both sides of the street. 

Martin Luther King Boulevard is a two-way north-south minor arterial. This roadway 

extends between Craig Road at the north and Oakey Boulevard at the south. In the 

vicinity of the proposed Downtown station location, this street generally has two lanes in 

each direction with a sidewalk on the west side of the street. On-street parking is 

generally not permitted on both sides of the street. Southbound I-15 from the Downtown 

station can be accessed via the ramps on Martin Luther King Boulevard south of 

Charleston Avenue. 

Rancho Drive is a two-way north-south roadway that extends between highway 95 at 

the north and I-15 at the south. In the vicinity of the proposed Downtown station 

location, this street generally has two lanes in each direction and a center turning lane, 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-2 September 2008 

with sidewalks on both sides of the street. On-street parking is generally not permitted 

on both sides of the street. 

Bonneville Avenue/Alta Drive is a two-way east-west minor arterial. Bonneville 

Avenue extends from east of I-15 to Charleston Boulevard. On the west of I-15, 

Bonneville Avenue continues as Alta Drive and extends west outside the project limits. 

Charleston Boulevard is a two-way east-west principal arterial. This roadway extends 

from west of Decatur Boulevard to east of Las Vegas Boulevard. In the vicinity of the 

proposed Downtown station location, this street generally has three lanes in each 

direction with sidewalks on the both sides of the street. On-street parking is generally 

not permitted on both sides of the street. 

EXISTING TRANSIT CONDITIONS

The proposed station locations in Las Vegas, Nevada are well served by public transit. 

Following section describes the various transit facilities operating near the proposed station 

locations: 

• The 103-Decatur is a 24-hour bus service running along Decatur Boulevard. This 

service runs from Decatur/Rome to Decatur/Tropicana with approximately 20 minute 

headways from 5:00AM to 8:00PM and 40-60 minute headways for the rest during 

weekdays. 

• The 104-Valley View/ Torrey Pines is running from Alexander/ Rancho to South Strip 

Transfer Terminal with approximately 30 minute headways from 4:30 AM to 7:00 PM and 

40-60 minute headways for the rest during weekdays. 

• The 105-Martin L. King is a 24-hour bus service running along Martin Luther King Blvd. 

This service runs from Camino Al Norte/ Ann to Downtown Transportation Center with 

approximately 30 minute headways from 5:00AM to 8:00 PM and 60 minute headways 

for the rest during weekdays. 

• The 113-Las Vegas Blvd is a 24-hour service running along Las Vegas Blvd. This 

service connects from Las Vegas Blvd (Wal-mart Supercenter) to Downtown 

Transportation Center. This service runs with approximately 30 minute headways. 

• The 204-Sahara is a 24 hour bus service running along Sahara Avenue. This service 

runs from Sahara/ Fort Apache to Sahara/ Sloan intersection with approximately 20 

minute headways from 5:00 AM to 8:00 PM and approximately 30-60 minute headways 

for the rest of the weekdays. 

• The 206-Charleston is a 24- hour bus service running along Charleston Blvd. This 

service runs from the Red Rock Station to the Charleston and Sloan intersection with 

approximately 45 minute headways for the weekdays and 20-35 minute headways for 

the weekends and holidays. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-3 September 2008 

• The 207-Alta/Stewart is running from Rainbow/ Westcliff to Bonanza/ Nellis with 

approximately 60 minute headways for Eastbound. For the Westbound, it runs 

approximately 30 minute headways from 5:30 AM to 6:30 PM and 40-60 minute 

headways for the rest during weekdays. 

• The Deuce-Las Vegas Blvd is a 24-hour bus service running along Las Vegas Blvd. 

This service runs from Las Vegas/ Stewart to South Strip Transfer Terminal Center 

(SSTT) with 7 minute headways from 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM and 8-17 minute headways 

at all other times. This service stops at virtually every hotel, casino and every quarter 

mile in each direction along the Las Vegas Strip. 

EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS

On-Street parking is generally not permitted on any street in the local roadway network near the 

proposed station location, except the east side of Main Street. 

EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS

The intersection analysis was performed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 

methodologies, a requirement of the Regional Transportation Commission, which was 

implemented using SYNCHRO Version 7 software. Level of Service thresholds and 

corresponding delays for signalized and unsignalized intersections are provided in Table 6-1. 

In Clark County, LOS A through D is considered satisfactory levels, and LOS E and F conditions 

are considered unsatisfactory service levels. Unsignalized intersections are considered to 

operate at unsatisfactory conditions if one approach operates at LOS E or F and peak hour 

volume signal warrants are met. 

Based on the station location options, intersections in the vicinity of the station location were 

identified for analysis purposes. Figure 7-1 presents the existing lane geometry at the study 

intersections. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) conditions were analyzed for weekday PM 

peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) at the study intersections. The results of the analysis are 

presented in Table 7-1. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 7-1, all the study intersections operate at acceptable conditions except two 

intersections along Martin Luther King at Charleston Boulevard and I-15 SB on-ramp and Grand 

Central Parkway at Charleston Boulevard that operate at unacceptable conditions 

(LOS F). 

7.1.2 Impact Analysis 

This section presents the assessment of transportation impacts due to the proposed project. 

The transportation conditions were assessed for the following scenarios: 

• 2013 Opening Year Conditions; 

• 2013 Opening Year plus Project (DMU and EMU alternatives) Conditions; 

• 2030 Cumulative Baseline Conditions; and, 

• 2030 Cumulative Baseline plus Project (DMU and EMU alternatives) Conditions 
DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED LAS VEGAS DOWNTOWN STATION

Figure 7-1

Downtown Station

EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY

Downtown Geometry rev2.ai

95

15

515

W. BONANZA

MESQUITE AV

ALTA DR

CHARLESTON BLVD

CHARLESTON BLVD

WALDMAN AV

OAKEY BLVD OAKEY BLVD

FRANKLIN AV

SHADOW LN

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BLVD

DESERT LN

RANCHO DR

E. BONANZA

FREMONT

BRIDGER

CLARK

GARCES

GASS

HOOVER

E. BONNEVIILLE

BONNEVIILLE

E. OGDEN

ST

AV

AV

AV

AV

AV

AV

AV

S. MAIN

N. MAIN

1ST

3RD

CASINO CENTER

4TH

6TH

7TH

9TH

10TH

11TH

S.

MARYLAND

PKWY

PKWY

DR

DISCOVERY

CENTRAL

GRAND

LAS

VEGAS BLVD

S. MAIN ST

S. MAIN ST

S. 6TH ST

S. 13TH ST WYOMING AV

ST. LOUIS AV

ST

ST

RD

RD

?

Clark

County

Government

Center

Las Vegas

Premium

Outlets

IRON

HORSE CT

PROPOSED

DOWNTOWN

STATION

1

2

3 4

5

6

7

8 9

10

11 12 13

14

Ogden Av

1

Main St

Bonneville Av

150’

60’

90’

125’

2

Main St

Bonneville Av

130’130’

100’100’

100’

100’

100’

70’

70’

3

Grand Central Pkwy

I-15 SB Off Ramp

5

M L King Jr Bl

Bonneville Av

Alta Dr

100’

100’

100’

100’

100’

100’

200’

4

M L King Jr Bl

Charleston Bl

200’

200’

500’500’

120’

270’

270’

6

M L King Jr Bl

Iron Horse Ct

I-5 NB Ramps

7

Grand Central Pkwy

Charleston Bl

180’180’

100’

100’

290’

175’

175’

320’ 8

Grand Central Pkwy

Charleston Bl

9

Main St

Las Vegas Bl 175’

100’

150’

150’

125’

125’

14

Main St

450’

190’

230’

180’

200’

Charleston Bl

13

Las Vegas Blvd

Charleston Blvd

125’

220’

220’

125’

12

4th St

150’

125’

100’

175’

Charleston Bl

11

Casino Center Blvd

I-15 SB On Ramp

10

M L King Jr Bl
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-5 September 2008 

Table 7-1 

Downtown Station Location Alternative - Existing Conditions LOS 

Existing 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

1 N. Main St & S. Grand Central Pkwy Signalized B 14.1 

2 E. Bonneville & N. Main St Signalized D 52.1 

3 E. Bonneville & S. Grand Central Pkwy Signalized C 30.7 

4 W. Bonneville & S. MLK Signalized D 54.6 

5 S. MLK & I-15 SB Off-Ramp Signalized A 9.5 

6 S. MLK & W. Charleston Signalized F 117.3 

7 S. Grand Central Pkwy & Iron Horse Ct / I-15 NB ramps Signalized B 16.9 

8 S. Grand Central Pkwy & W. Charleston Signalized E 71.2 

9 S. Main St & W. Charleston Signalized D 53.2 

10 S. MLK & I-15 SB On-Ramp Unsignalized2 F (NB)3 85.1 

11 Casino Center & Charleston Signalized A 9.7 

12 4th Street & Charleston Signalized B 10.5 

13 Las Vegas Blvd & Charleston Signalized D 46.0 

14 S. Las Vegas Blvd & S. Main St Signalized D 39.8 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. NB=Northbound 

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

The following are the significance criteria required by the Regional Transportation Commission 

in Nevada for the determination of impacts associated with a proposed project: 

• Level of service C will be the design objective for capacity and under no circumstances 

will less than level of service D be accepted for site and non-site traffic. 

PROJECT TRAVEL DEMAND

The Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) travel demand forecasting model was used to 

develop the base “no-project” travel forecasts for the future year 2013 and 2030 traffic analysis. 

RTC provided future year 2030 travel forecasts from the model to DMJM Harris. DMJM Harris 

has applied a straight line method to interpolate the intermediate year growth factors. The 

calculated growth factors were applied to the existing volumes to generate analysis year 

volumes. The growth factor calculations are presented in the Appendix. The additional projectrelated trips were then added to the future year base volumes to determine the “with project 

conditions”. 

TRIP DISTRIBUTION

The overall trip distribution for the station is shown in Figure 7-2. This station is served primarily 

by I-15 and Main Street in the north-south direction and Charleston Road and Bonneville 

Avenue in the east-west direction. Passengers at the train station would mainly originate or end 

their trips in commercial developments along ‘the Strip’. As such, most traffic would be using 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-6 September 2008 

local streets instead of the freeways. Most traffic would head south as the station location is at 

the northern end of ‘The Strip’. Most traffic coming from I-15 would use the Charleston Road 

interchange. Only a small percentage would use the on/off ramp of I-515. 

7.1.3 2013 Conditions (Opening Year Analysis) 

2013 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Future year 2013 base volumes were calculated by applying the growth factor on the existing 

year volumes. These volumes are presented in the Appendix. For analysis purposes, existing 

intersection geometry was assumed for future year 2013 conditions. 

Based on the 2013 base volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level service analysis 

was performed. Table 7-2 presents the results of the analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets 

are provided in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 7-2, intersections along Martin Luther King at Bonneville Avenue, 

Charleston Boulevard and I-15 SB on-ramp and intersections of Bonneville Avenue at Main 

Street, Grand Central Parkway at Charleston Boulevard operate at unacceptable conditions 

(LOS E or F). All other intersections operate at acceptable conditions. 

2013 BASELINE PLUS DIESEL-ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNIT (DMU) ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-2, project trips accessing the station were 

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative conditions for year 

2013 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2013 base volumes 

to generate the 2013 base plus DMU volumes. 

Based on the 2013 Baseline plus DMU volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level 

service analysis was performed. Table 7-3 presents the results of the analysis. SYNCHRO 

analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 7-3, the intersections along Martin Luther King at Bonneville Avenue, 

Charleston Boulevard and I-15 SB on-ramp and the intersections of Bonneville Avenue at Main 

Street and Grand Central Parkway at Charleston Boulevard continue to operate at unacceptable 

conditions (LOS F), while the intersection of Main Street at Charleston deteriorates from 

acceptable (LOS D) to unacceptable conditions (LOS F) with the addition of project volumes. 

All other intersections operate at acceptable conditions. 
DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED LAS VEGAS DOWNTOWN STATION

Figure 7-2

DOWNTOWN STATION TRIP DISTRIBUTION

Downtown Station Trip Distribution.ai

95

15

515

W. BONANZA

MESQUITE AV

ALTA DR

CHARLESTON BLVD

CHARLESTON BLVD

WALDMAN AV

OAKEY BLVD OAKEY BLVD

FRANKLIN AV

SHADOW LN

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BLVD

DESERT LN

RANCHO DR

E. BONANZA

FREMONT BRIDGER

CLARK

GARCES

GASS

HOOVER

E. BONNEVIILLE

BONNEVIILLE

E. OGDEN

ST

AV

AV

AV

AV

AV

AV AV

S. MAIN

N. MAIN

1ST

3RD

CASINO CENTER

4TH

6TH 7TH

9TH 10TH 11TH

S.

MARYLAND

PKWY

PKWY

DR

DISCOVERY

CENTRAL

GRAND LAS

VEGAS

BLVD

S. MAIN ST

S. MAIN ST

S. 6TH ST

S. 13TH ST WYOMING AV

ST. LOUIS AV

ST

ST

RD

RD

?

Clark

County

Government

Center

Las Vegas

Premium

Outlets

IRON HORSE

CT

PROPOSED

DOWNTOWN

STATION

40%

10%

10%

10%

10%

10%

10%
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-8 September 2008 

Table 7-2 

Downtown Station Location Alternative - 2013 Baseline Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

1 N. Main St & S. Grand Central Pkwy Signalized B 13.2 

2 E. Bonneville & N. Main St Signalized F 82.2 

3 E. Bonneville & S. Grand Central Pkwy Signalized C 34.2 

4 W. Bonneville & S. MLK Signalized E 56.3 

5 S. MLK & I-15 SB Off-Ramp Signalized B 10.8 

6 S. MLK & W. Charleston Signalized E 60.0 

7 S. Grand Central Pkwy & Iron Horse Ct / I-15 NB 

ramps Signalized B 18.1 

8 S. Grand Central Pkwy & W. Charleston Signalized E 79.2 

9 S. Main St & W. Charleston Signalized D 54.9 

10 S. MLK & I-15 SB On-Ramp Unsignalized2

 F (NB)3 154.3 

11 Casino Center & Charleston Signalized A 9.9 

12 4th Street & Charleston Signalized B 10.9 

13 Las Vegas Blvd & Charleston Signalized D 46.8 

14 S. Las Vegas Blvd & S. Main St Signalized D 40.3 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. NB=Northbound 

2013 BASELINE PLUS ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNIT (EMU) ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-2, project trips accessing the station were 

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for EMU alternative conditions for year 

2030 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2030 base 

conditions volumes to generate the 2013 baseline plus EMU volumes. 

Based on the 2013 Baseline plus EMU volumes and geometry presented in Figure 7-1, 

intersection level service analysis was performed. Table 7-4 presents the results of the 

analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 7-4, the intersections along Martin Luther King at Bonneville Avenue, 

Charleston Boulevard and I-15 SB on-ramp and the intersections of Grand Central Parkway at 

Charleston Boulevard and Bonneville at Main Street continue to operate at unacceptable 

conditions (LOS F) with the addition of project volumes. The intersection of Main Street at 

Charleston Boulevard deteriorates from acceptable conditions (LOS D) to unacceptable 

conditions (LOS F) with the addition of project volumes. All other intersections operate at 

acceptable conditions (LOS D or better). 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-9 September 2008 

Table 7-3 

Downtown Station Location Alternative - 2013 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline 

Conditions 

2013 Baseline 

plus DMU 

Conditions 

Intersection LOS Delay1

 LOS Delay1

1 N. Main St & S. Grand Central Pkwy B 13.2 B 16.4 

2 E. Bonneville & N. Main St F 82.2 F 96.2 

3 E. Bonneville & S. Grand Central Pkwy C 34.2 C 33.9 

4 W. Bonneville & S. MLK E 56.3 E 56.2 

5 S. MLK & I-15 SB Off-Ramp B 10.8 B 13.3 

6 S. MLK & W. Charleston E 60.0 F 101.4 

7 S. Grand Central Pkwy & Iron Horse Ct / I-15 NB ramps B 18.1 B 19.7 

8 S. Grand Central Pkwy & W. Charleston E 79.2 F 96.0 

9 S. Main St & W. Charleston D 54.9 F 163.8 

10 S. MLK & I-15 SB On-Ramp F (NB)3 154.3 F (NB)3 236.7 

11 Casino Center & Charleston A 9.9 A 9.7 

12 4th Street & Charleston B 10.9 B 11.1 

13 Las Vegas Blvd & Charleston D 46.8 D 49.3 

14 S. Las Vegas Blvd & S. Main St D 40.3 D 46.4 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008.

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. NB=Northbound 

7.1.4 2030 Cumulative Conditions 

In the future year 2030, the proposed roadway improvements in the vicinity of the Downtown 

station location include the following: 

• Interchange reconfiguration at Charleston Boulevard and I-15 northbound and 

southbound ramps. This interchange will be configured as a Single Point Urban 

Interchange (SPUI) at Charleston Boulevard. 

• Intersection of Martin Luther King Boulevard at Charleston Boulevard would be grade 

separated in the future. 

• Bonneville Avenue would be one-way in the eastbound direction west of Main Street. 

Due to the above roadway improvements, the existing southbound on and off ramp intersections 

at Martin Luther King Boulevard, the existing northbound ramps at Iron Horse Court and Grand 

Central Parkway and the existing at grade intersection at Martin Luther King Boulevard and 

Charleston Boulevard would not be analyzed under the 2030 cumulative conditions. Hence for 

SYNCHRO analysis, intersections 5, 6, 7 and 10 from previous scenarios were replaced by 

intersection 15 for the 2030 Cumulative (Baseline, DMU and EMU) conditions. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-10 September 2008 

Table 7-4 

Downtown Station Location Alternative 

2013 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline 

Conditions 

2013 Baseline 

plus EMU 

Conditions 

Intersection LOS Delay1

 LOS Delay1

1 N. Main St & S. Grand Central Pkwy B 13.2 B 17.9 

2 E. Bonneville & N. Main St F 82.2 F 103.6 

3 E. Bonneville & S. Grand Central Pkwy C 34.2 C 33.8 

4 W. Bonneville & S. MLK E 56.3 E 56.1 

5 S. MLK & I-15 SB Off-Ramp B 10.8 B 15.5 

6 S. MLK & W. Charleston E 60.0 F 125.7 

7 S. Grand Central Pkwy & Iron Horse Ct / I-15 NB ramps B 18.1 C 20.9 

8 S. Grand Central Pkwy & W. Charleston E 79.2 F 105.7 

9 S. Main St & W. Charleston D 54.9 F 240.8 

10 S. MLK & I-15 SB On-Ramp F (NB)3 154.3 F (NB)3 280.2 

11 Casino Center & Charleston A 9.9 A 9.7 

12 4th Street & Charleston B 10.9 B 11.2 

13 Las Vegas Blvd & Charleston D 46.8 D 51.2 

14 S. Las Vegas Blvd & S. Main St D 40.3 D 49.2 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. NB=Northbound 

2030 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Future year 2030 base volumes were calculated by applying the growth factor on the existing 

year volumes. These volumes are presented in the Appendix. 

Based on the future base volumes and future analysis intersections, level of service analysis 

was performed. Table 7-5 presents the results of intersection operating conditions for future 

year 2030 baseline conditions. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 7-5, the intersections of Bonneville at Main Street, Bonneville at Martin 

Luther King Boulevard, Grand Central Parkway at Charleston Boulevard, Main Street at 

Charleston Boulevard and the new SPUI interchange at Charleston Boulevard operate at 

unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F). All the other intersections operate at acceptable 

conditions during the analysis period. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-11 September 2008 

Table 7-5 

Downtown Station Location Alternative 

2030 Baseline Conditions LOS 

2030 Baseline 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

1 N. Main St & S. Grand Central Pkwy Signalized B 13.4 

2 E. Bonneville & N. Main St Signalized E 66.7 

3 E. Bonneville & S. Grand Central Pkwy Signalized D 48.1 

4 W. Bonneville & S. MLK Signalized E 65.8 

8 S. Grand Central Pkwy & W. Charleston Signalized F 97.6 

9 S. Main St & W. Charleston Signalized E 66.5 

11 Casino Center & Charleston Signalized B 10.6 

12 4th Street & Charleston Signalized B 12.0 

13 Las Vegas Blvd & Charleston Signalized D 50.2 

14 S. Las Vegas Blvd & S. Main St Signalized D 41.8 

15 I-15 ramps & Charleston Signalized E 56.9 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2030 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-2, project trips accessing the station were 

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative conditions for year 

2030 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2030 base 

conditions volumes to generate the 2030 baseline plus DMU volumes. 

Based on the 2030 Baseline plus DMU volumes and future analysis intersections, level service 

analysis was performed. Table 7-6 presents the results of the analysis. SYNCHRO analysis 

worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 7-6, the intersections of Bonneville at Main Street, Bonneville at Martin 

Luther King Boulevard, Grand Central Parkway at Charleston Boulevard, Main Street at 

Charleston Boulevard and the new SPUI interchange at Charleston Boulevard continue to 

operate at unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F) with the addition of project traffic. All the other 

intersections operate at acceptable conditions during the analysis period. 

2030 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-2, project trips accessing the station were 

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for EMU alternative conditions for year 

2030 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2030 base 

conditions volumes to generate the 2030 baseline plus EMU volumes. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-12 September 2008 

Table 7-6 

Downtown Station Location Alternative - 2030 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS 

2030 Baseline 

Conditions 

2030 Baseline plus 

DMU Conditions 

Intersection LOS Delay1

 LOS Delay1

1 N. Main St & S. Grand Central Pkwy B 13.4 B 15.2 

2 E. Bonneville & N. Main St E 66.7 F 86.3 

3 E. Bonneville & S. Grand Central Pkwy D 48.1 D 47.9 

4 W. Bonneville & S. MLK E 65.8 E 71.3 

8 S. Grand Central Pkwy & W. Charleston F 97.6 F 152.1 

9 S. Main St & W. Charleston E 66.5 F 237.5 

11 Casino Center & Charleston B 10.6 B 10.7 

12 4th Street & Charleston B 12.0 B 11.8 

13 Las Vegas Blvd & Charleston D 50.2 D 50.9 

14 S. Las Vegas Blvd & S. Main St D 41.8 D 47.3 

15 I-15 ramps & Charleston E 56.9 F 80.8 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

Based on the 2030 Baseline plus EMU volumes and future analysis intersections, level service 

analysis was performed. Table 7-7 presents the results of the analysis. SYNCHRO analysis 

worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

Table 7-7 

Downtown Station Location Alternative - 2030 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS 

2030 Baseline 

Conditions 

2030 Baseline plus EMU 

Conditions 

Intersection LOS Delay1

 LOS Delay1

1 N. Main St & S. Grand Central Pkwy B 13.4 B 16.1 

2 E. Bonneville & N. Main St E 66.7 F 95.2 

3 E. Bonneville & S. Grand Central Pkwy D 48.1 D 47.8 

4 W. Bonneville & S. MLK E 65.8 E 74.1 

8 S. Grand Central Pkwy & W. Charleston F 97.6 F 177.2 

9 S. Main St & W. Charleston E 66.5 F 327.5 

11 Casino Center & Charleston B 10.6 B 10.7 

12 4th Street & Charleston B 12.0 B 11.8 

13 Las Vegas Blvd & Charleston D 50.2 D 51.3 

14 S. Las Vegas Blvd & S. Main St D 41.8 D 52.6 

15 I-15 ramps & Charleston E 56.9 F 93.9 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-13 September 2008 

As indicated in Table 7-7, the intersections of Bonneville at Main Street, Bonneville at Martin 

Luther King Boulevard, Grand Central Parkway at Charleston Boulevard, Main Street at 

Charleston Boulevard and the new SPUI interchange at Charleston Boulevard continue to 

operate at unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F) with the addition of project traffic. All the other 

intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during the analysis period. 

7.1.5 Mitigation Measures 

It should be noted that the proposed mitigations suggested in this section have not been field 

verified. 

2013 BASELINE CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-2, the intersections along Martin Luther King at Bonneville Avenue, 

Charleston Boulevard and I-15 SB on-ramp, the intersections of Bonneville Avenue at Main 

Street and Grand Central Parkway at Charleston Boulevard operate with unacceptable 

conditions (LOS E or F). To mitigate these intersections, the following mitigations measures are 

proposed: 

• #2. Bonneville/Main Street 

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane. 

• #4. Bonneville/S. Martin Luther King Boulevard 

- Add second eastbound left turn lane. 

• #6. Charleston/S. Martin Luther King Boulevard 

- Optimize network offset and signal timing. 

• #8. Grand Central Parkway/W. Charleston Boulevard 

- Optimize network offset and signal timing. 

• #10. S. Martin Luther King Boulevard/ I-15 southbound On-ramp 

- Signalize the intersection. 

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-8 presents the 

results of 2013 Baseline mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in 

the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 7-8, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D or 

better) with mitigations. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-14 September 2008 

Table 7-8 

Downtown Station Location Alternative 

2013 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS 

2030 Baseline 

Mitigation Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

2 E. Bonneville & N. Main St Signalized D 47.3 

4 W. Bonneville & S. MLK Signalized D 35.2 

6 S. MLK & W. Charleston Signalized D 43.4 

8 S. Grand Central Pkwy & W. Charleston Signalized C 24.6 

10 S. MLK & I-15 SB On-Ramp Signalized A 4.7 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2013 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-3, the intersections along Martin Luther King at Bonneville Avenue, 

Charleston Boulevard and I-15 SB on-ramp and the intersections of Bonneville Avenue at Main 

Street, Grand Central Parkway at Charleston Boulevard and Main Street at Charleston operate 

with unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F) under 2013 Baseline plus DMU conditions. To 

mitigate these intersections, the following mitigations measures are proposed: 

• #2. Bonneville/Main Street 

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane. 

• #4. Bonneville/S. Martin Luther King Boulevard 

- Add second eastbound left turn lane. 

• #6. Charleston/S. Martin Luther King Boulevard 

- Optimize network offset and signal timing. 

• #8. Grand Central Parkway/W. Charleston Boulevard 

- Optimize network offset and signal timing. 

• #9. Main Street/Charleston Boulevard 

- Add second eastbound left turn lane. 

- Add exclusive dual southbound right turn lanes. 

• #10. S. Martin Luther King Boulevard/ I-15 southbound On-ramp 

- Signalize the intersection. 

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-9 presents the 

results of 2013 Baseline plus DMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are 

presented in the Appendix. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-15 September 2008 

Table 7-9 

Downtown Station Location Alternative 

2013 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline plus 

DMU Mitigation 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

2 E. Bonneville & N. Main St Signalized D 47.1 

4 W. Bonneville & S. MLK Signalized D 35.2 

6 S. MLK & W. Charleston Signalized D 50.4 

8 S. Grand Central Pkwy & W. Charleston Signalized D 38.0 

9 S. Main St & W. Charleston Signalized D 52.2 

10 S. MLK & I-15 SB On-Ramp Signalized A 8.4 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

As indicated in Table 7-9, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D or 

better) with mitigations. 

2013 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-4, the intersections along Martin Luther King at Bonneville Avenue, 

Charleston Boulevard and I-15 SB on-ramp and the intersections of Grand Central Parkway at 

Charleston Boulevard and Main Street at Charleston Boulevard operate with unacceptable 

conditions (LOS E or F) under 2013 Baseline plus EMU conditions. To mitigate these 

intersections, following mitigations measures are proposed: 

• #2. Bonneville/Main Street 

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane. 

• #4. Bonneville/S. Martin Luther King Boulevard 

- Add second eastbound left turn lane. 

• #6. Charleston/S. Martin Luther King Boulevard 

- Add exclusive eastbound right turn lane. 

• #8. Grand Central Parkway/W. Charleston Boulevard 

- Optimize network offset and signal timing. 

• #9. Main Street/Charleston Boulevard 

- Add fourth westbound through lane. 

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane. 

- Add second eastbound left turn lane. 

- Add exclusive eastbound right turn lane. 

- Add exclusive dual southbound right turn lanes. 

• #10. S. Martin Luther King Boulevard/ I-15 southbound On-ramp 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-16 September 2008 

- Signalize the intersection. 

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-10 presents 

the results of 2013 Baseline plus EMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are 

presented in the Appendix. 

Table 7-10 

Downtown Station Location Alternative 

2013 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline plus EMU 

Mitigation Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

2 E. Bonneville & N. Main St Signalized D 52.1 

4 W. Bonneville & S. MLK Signalized D 35.1 

6 S. MLK & W. Charleston Signalized D 48.5 

8 S. Grand Central Pkwy & W. Charleston Signalized D 40.5 

9 S. Main St & W. Charleston Signalized D 49.4 

10 S. MLK & I-15 SB On-Ramp Signalized B 12.2 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

As indicated in Table 7-10, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D 

or better) with mitigations. 

2030 BASELINE CONDITIONS 

As indicated in Table 7-5, intersections of Bonneville at Main Street, Bonneville at Martin Luther 

King Boulevard, Grand Central Parkway at Charleston Boulevard, Main Street at Charleston 

Boulevard and the new SPUI interchange at Charleston Boulevard operate at unacceptable 

conditions (LOS E or F) under 2030 Baseline conditions. To mitigate these intersections, 

following mitigations measures are proposed: 

• #2. Bonneville/Main Street 

- Optimize network offset and signal timing. 

• #4. Bonneville/S. Martin Luther King Boulevard 

- Add exclusive southbound right turn lane. 

• #8. Grand Central Parkway/W. Charleston Boulevard 

- Add second eastbound left turn lane. 

- Add third southbound right turn lane. 

• #9. Main Street/Charleston Boulevard 

- Optimize network offset and signal timing. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-17 September 2008 

• #15. I-15 Ramps/Charleston Boulevard (SPUI Interchange) 

- Optimize network offset and signal timing. 

Applying the above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-11 

presents the results of 2030 Baseline mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are 

presented in the Appendix. 

Table 7-11 

Downtown Station Location Alternative 

2030 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS 

2030 Baseline 

Mitigation Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

2 E. Bonneville & N. Main St Signalized D 43.6 

4 W. Bonneville & S. MLK Signalized D 49.0 

8 S. Grand Central Pkwy & W. Charleston Signalized D 42.6 

9 S. Main St & W. Charleston Signalized D 53.9 

15 I-15 ramps & Charleston Signalized D 45.4 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

As indicated in Table 7-11, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D) 

with mitigations. 

2030 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-6, the intersections of Bonneville at Main Street, Bonneville at Martin 

Luther King Boulevard, Grand Central Parkway at Charleston Boulevard, Main Street at 

Charleston Boulevard and the new SPUI interchange at Charleston Boulevard operate at 

unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F) under 2030 Baseline plus DMU conditions. To mitigate 

these intersections, following mitigations measures are proposed: 

• #2. Bonneville/Main Street 

- Optimize network offset and signal timing. 

• #4. Bonneville/S. Martin Luther King Boulevard 

- Add exclusive southbound right turn lane. 

• #8. Grand Central Parkway/W. Charleston Boulevard 

- Add second eastbound left turn lane. 

- Add fourth westbound through lane. 

- Add third southbound right turn lane. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-18 September 2008 

• #9. Main Street/Charleston Boulevard 

- Add two eastbound left turn lanes. 

- Add exclusive eastbound right turn lane. 

- Add exclusive dual southbound right turn lanes. 

• #15. I-15 Ramps/Charleston Boulevard (SPUI Interchange) 

- Add third southbound left turn lane. 

Applying the above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-12 

presents the results of 2030 Baseline plus DMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis 

worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

Table 7-12 

Downtown Station Location Alternative 

2030 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS 

2030 Baseline plus 

DMU Mitigation 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

2 E. Bonneville & N. Main St Signalized D 50.6 

4 W. Bonneville & S. MLK Signalized D 52.4 

8 S. Grand Central Pkwy & W. Charleston Signalized D 40.0 

9 S. Main St & W. Charleston Signalized D 52.5 

15 I-15 ramps & Charleston Signalized D 49.6 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

As indicated in Table 7-12, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D) 

with mitigations. 

2030 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-7, the intersections of Bonneville at Main Street, Bonneville at Martin 

Luther King Boulevard, Grand Central Parkway at Charleston Boulevard, Main Street at 

Charleston Boulevard and the new SPUI interchange at Charleston Boulevard operate at 

unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F) under 2030 Baseline plus EMU conditions. To mitigate 

these intersections, the following mitigations measures are proposed: 

• #2. Bonneville/Main Street 

- Optimize network offset and signal timing. 

• #4. Bonneville/S. Martin Luther King Boulevard 

- Add exclusive southbound right turn lane. 

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane. 

• #8. Grand Central Parkway/W. Charleston Boulevard 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-19 September 2008 

- Add second eastbound left turn lane. 

- Add fourth westbound through lane. 

- Add third southbound right turn lane. 

• #9. Main Street/Charleston Boulevard 

- Add two eastbound left turn lanes. 

- Add exclusive eastbound right turn lane. 

- Add second northbound left turn lane. 

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane. 

- Add two westbound through lanes. 

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane. 

- Add exclusive dual southbound right turn lanes. 

- Add second southbound left turn lane. 

• #15. I-15 Ramps/Charleston Boulevard (SPUI Interchange) 

- Add third southbound left turn lane. 

- Add fourth westbound through lane. 

Applying the above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-13 

presents the results of 2030 Baseline plus EMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis 

worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

Table 7-13 

Downtown Station Location Alternative 

2030 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS 

2030 Baseline plus 

EMU Mitigation 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

2 E. Bonneville & N. Main St Signalized D 53.5 

4 W. Bonneville & S. MLK Signalized D 41.4 

8 S. Grand Central Pkwy & W. Charleston Signalized D 51.8 

9 S. Main St & W. Charleston Signalized D 52.6 

15 I-15 ramps & Charleston Signalized D 48.1 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

As indicated in Table 7-13, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D) 

with mitigations. 

7.2 Central Station Location “A” Alternative 

The proposed Central Station would be located west of I-15, near the existing Rio Suites Hotel 

and Casino. This station is bounded by South Valley View Boulevard to the west, the Union 

Pacific Railroad to the east, West Flamingo Road (Route – 592) to the south and West Twain 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-20 September 2008 

Avenue to the north. The proposed Central “A” station can be accessed from I-15 via ramps 

located at Flamingo Road. 

7.2.1 Existing Conditions 

EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK

For other north-south streets description, refer to section 7.1.1. 

Industrial Boulevard is a two-way north-south minor arterial. This roadway extends from north 

of Sahara Avenue to Twain Avenue where it merges into Dean Martin Drive. In the vicinity of 

the proposed Central “A” station, this street generally has two lanes in each direction with 

sidewalk on the east side of the street. On-street parking is generally not permitted on both 

sides of the street. 

Valley View Boulevard is a two-way north-south minor arterial. This roadway extends from 

Washington Avenue at the north to Flamingo Road at the south. In the vicinity of the proposed 

Central “A” station location, this street generally has two lanes in each direction and a center 

turning lane, with sidewalks on both sides of the street. On-street parking is generally not 

permitted on both sides of the street. 

For other north-south streets description, refer to section 7.1.1. 

Spring Mountain Road is a two-way east-west minor collector. This roadway extends from 

east of Decatur Blvd to Las Vegas Boulevard Avenue where it merges into Sands Avenue. In 

the vicinity of the proposed Central “A” Station location, this street generally has three lanes in 

each direction with sidewalks on the both sides of the street. On-street parking is generally not 

permitted on both sides of the street. 

Twain Avenue is a two-way east-west minor collector. This roadway extends from Town 

Center Drive to the east of Frank Sinatra Drive. In the vicinity of the proposed Central “A” 

Station location, this street generally has three lanes in the westbound direction and two lanes 

in the eastbound direction with sidewalks on the both sides of the street. On-street parking is 

generally not permitted on both sides of the street. 

Flamingo Road is a two-way east-west minor arterial. This roadway extends from south of 

Desert Inn Road/ Red Rock Ranch Road to Stephanie St. In the vicinity of the proposed Central 

“A” Station location, this street generally has three lanes in each direction with sidewalks on the 

both sides of the street. On-street parking is generally not permitted on both sides of the street. 

EXISTING TRANSIT CONDITIONS

Refer to section 7.1.1 under for other transit lines serving the area. 

• The 202-Flamingo is a 24-hour bus service running along Flamingo Road from Grand 

Canyon Parkway Shopping Center to Harmon/ Boulder Hwy with approximately 10-15 

minute headways from 5:00 AM to 7:00 PM and 20-30 minute headways for the rest 

during weekdays. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-21 September 2008 

• The 203-Spring Mountain/Twain is running from Durango/ Tropicana to Flamingo/ 

Pecos with approximately 30-minute headways from 5:30 AM to 6:30 PM and 40-60 

minute headways for the rest during weekdays. 

EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS

On-street parking is generally not permitted on any street in the local roadway network near the 

proposed station location. 

EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS

Based on the station location options, intersections in the vicinity of the station location were 

identified for analysis purposes. The existing lane geometry at the study intersections is shown 

in Figure 7-3. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) conditions were analyzed for weekday PM 

peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM). The results of the analysis are presented in Table 7-14. 

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix. 

Table 7-14 

Central Station Location “A” Alternative - Existing Conditions LOS 

Existing Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

1 Spring Mountain & Polaris Signalized C 24.6 

2 W. Twain & S. Valley View Signalized D 53.0 

3 W. Twain & Procyon Unsignalized2 B (SB) 3 11.8 

4 W. Twain & Polaris Signalized C 25.7 

5 W. Twain & Dean Marin Dr/Industrial Signalized C 30.9 

6 Industrial & Frank Sinatra Signalized C 31.0 

7 W. Twain & Frank Sinatra Signalized C 20.4 

8 W. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized C 27.7 

9 W. Flamingo & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized A 7.2 

10 W. Flamingo & S. Valley View Signalized D 38.2 

11 W. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Dr Signalized D 41.1 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. SB=Southbound 

As indicated in Table 7-14, all intersections operate at acceptable conditions in the existing 

conditions (LOS D or better). 
DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED LAS VEGAS CENTRAL STATION

Figure 7-3

Central Station Alternative A

EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY

Central Geometry - Alt 1 rev1.ai

15

SIRIUS AV

W. DESERT INN RD

MOUNTAIN RD

HIGHLAND DR

PINKS PL

POLLUX AV

CINDER LN

SPRING

W. TWAIN AV

W. VIKING RD

W. FLAMINGO RD

COMPLEX

DRIVE

DR

RIO

HOTEL

ROCHELLE AV

E. FLAMINGO RD

PROCYON ST

POLARIS AV

ALDEBARAN

RANCHO

VIEW BLVD S. VALLEY

WYNN ST

ARVILLE ST

E. DESERT INN RD

COUNTRY CLUB PARADISE RD

IDA AV

WINNICK AV

ALBERT AV

WESTERN

STARDUST RD

HIGHLAND

LAS VEGAS BLVD S

SANDS AV

HUGHES

HOWARD

MANHATTAN ST

RD

DESERT

INN DIO

INDUSTRIAL

DEAN MARTIN DR

FRANK

DR SINATRA

LAS VEGAS BOULEVARD S

KOVAL LN

AUDRIE ST

HARMON AV HARMON AV HARMON AV

POLARIS AV

AV

CONVENTION CENTER

?

PROPOSED

CENTRAL

STATION

1

2 3

4

5

6

7

8 9

10

11

Spring Mtn Rd

1

Polaris Av

400’

100’

140’

125’

125’

Twain Av

130’

110’

125’ 160’

2

Valley View Bl

Twain Av

50’

3

Procyon St

500’115’115’

180’120’

80’

80’

Twain Av

4

Polaris Av

Twain Av

225’225’

165’

110’

200’

200’

5

Industrial Rd

Dean Martin Dr

Frank Sinatra Dr

6

Industrial Rd

Twain Av

7

Frank Sinatra Dr

Flamingo Rd

325’325’

530’

430’

430’

430’

530’ 8

I-15 NB Ramps 250’ 250’

200’

Flamingo Rd

9

I-15 SB On Ramp

I-15 SB Off Ramp

200’

400’

400’

150’

100’

200’200’200’

100’

315’315’

Flamingo Rd

10

Valley View Bl

W. Flamingo Rd

11

Hotel Rio Dr

150’775’

300’150’

350’

240’
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-23 September 2008 

7.2.2 Impact Analysis 

This section presents the assessment of transportation impacts due to the proposed project. 

The transportation conditions were assessed for the following scenarios: 

• 2013 Opening Year Conditions; 

• 2013 Opening Year plus Project Conditions; 

• 2030 Cumulative Baseline Conditions; and, 

• 2030 Cumulative Baseline plus Project Conditions 

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

The following are the significance criteria required by the Regional Transportation Commission 

in Nevada for the determination of impacts associated with a proposed project: 

• Level of service C will be the design objective for capacity and under no circumstances 

will less than level of service D be accepted for site and non-site traffic. 

PROJECT TRAVEL DEMAND

The Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) travel demand forecasting model was used to 

develop the base “no-project” travel forecasts for future year 2013 and 2030 traffic analysis. 

RTC provided future year 2030 travel forecasts from the model to DMJM Harris. DMJM Harris 

has applied a straight line method to interpolate the intermediate year growth factors. The 

calculated growth factors were applied to the existing volumes to generate analysis year 

volumes. The growth factor calculations are presented in the Appendix. The additional projectrelated trips were then added to the future year base volumes to determine the “with project 

conditions”. 

TRIP DISTRIBUTION

The overall trip distribution for the station is shown in Figure 7-4. This station is served primarily 

by I-15, Industrial Road – Dean Martin Drive in the north-south direction and Flamingo Road, 

Twain Avenue and Spring Mountain Road in the east-west direction. Most train passengers 

would have origins or destinations at the commercial developments on ‘The Strip’; only a small 

percentage of 10% would travel to/from the west of the proposed location. A good proportion of 

vehicles heading towards the commercial developments on ‘The Strip’ would choose to use 

Industrial Road / Dean-Martin Drive as travel time on Las Vegas Boulevard tends to be higher. 

7.2.3 2013 Conditions (Opening Year Analysis) 

Under the future with project conditions, station access from Twain Avenue will be located east 

of the Twain Avenue and Polaris Avenue intersection. It should be noted that this intersection 

would be analyzed in “with-project conditions” and is designated as intersection 12 on the 

SYNCHRO network. 
DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED LAS VEGAS CENTRAL STATION

Figure 7-4

CENTRAL STATION A TRIP DISTRIBUTION

Central Station Trip Distribution.ai

15

SIRIUS AV

W. DESERT INN RD

MOUNTAIN RD

HIGHLAND DR

PINKS PL

POLLUX AV

CINDER LN

SPRING

W. TWAIN AV

W. VIKING RD

W. FLAMINGO RD

COMPLEX

DRIVE

DR

RIO

HOTEL

ROCHELLE AV

E. FLAMINGO RD

PROCYON ST

POLARIS AV

ALDEBARAN

RANCHO

VIEW BLVD S. VALLEY

WYNN ST

ARVILLE ST

E. DESERT INN RD

COUNTRY CLUB PARADISE RD

IDA AV

WINNICK AV

ALBERT AV

WESTERN

STARDUST RD

HIGHLAND

LAS VEGAS BLVD S

SANDS AV

HUGHES

HOWARD

MANHATTAN ST

RD

DESERT

INN DIO

INDUSTRIAL

DEAN MARTIN DR

LAS VEGAS BOULEVARD S

KOVAL LN

AUDRIE ST

HARMON AV HARMON AV HARMON AV

POLARIS AV

AV

CONVENTION CENTER

?

PROPOSED

CENTRAL

STATION

15% 10%

10%

10%

10%

15% 20% (local)

10%

(local)

(I-15)
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-25 September 2008 

2013 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Future year 2013 base volumes were calculated by applying the growth factor on the existing 

year volumes. These volumes are presented in the Appendix. For analysis purposes, existing 

intersection geometry was assumed for future year 2013 conditions. Based on the future base 

volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level service analysis was performed. 

Table 7-15 presents the results of intersection operating conditions for future year 2013 baseline 

conditions. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

Table 7-15 

Central Station Location “A” Alternative – 2013 Baseline Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

1 Spring Mountain & Polaris Signalized C 24.9 

2 W. Twain & S. Valley View Signalized E 59.3 

3 W. Twain & Procyon Unsignalized2 B (SB) 3 12.0 

4 W. Twain & Polaris Signalized C 26.5 

5 W. Twain & Dean Martin Dr/Industrial Signalized C 30.4 

6 Industrial & Frank Sinatra Signalized D 36.2 

7 W. Twain & Frank Sinatra Signalized C 20.2 

8 W. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized C 29.5 

9 W. Flamingo & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized A 7.5 

10 W. Flamingo & S. Valley View Signalized D 41.6 

11 W. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Dr Signalized D 39.1 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. SB=Southbound 

As indicated in Table 7-15, all the intersections operate at acceptable conditions except 

intersection of Twain Avenue at Valley View. 

2013 BASELINE PLUS DIESEL-ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNIT (DMU) ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-4, project trips accessing the station were 

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative conditions for year 

2013 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2013 base 

conditions volumes to generate the 2013 baseline plus DMU volumes. For analysis purposes, 

existing intersection geometry was assumed for future year 2013 conditions. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-26 September 2008 

Based on the 2013 Baseline plus DMU volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level 

service analysis was performed. Table 7-16 presents the results of the analysis. SYNCHRO 

analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

Table 7-16 

Central Station Location “A” Alternative 

2013 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline 

Conditions 

2013 Baseline plus DMU 

Conditions 

Intersection LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 Spring Mountain & Polaris C 24.9 C 24.9 

2 W. Twain & S. Valley View E 59.3 E 62.9 

3 W. Twain & Procyon B (SB) 3 12.0 B (SB)3 12.4 

4 W. Twain & Polaris C 26.5 C 29.5 

5 W. Twain & Dean Martin Dr/Industrial C 30.4 E 62.1 

6 Industrial & Frank Sinatra D 36.2 D 45.9 

7 W. Twain & Frank Sinatra C 20.2 C 23.4 

8 W. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps C 29.5 E 57.3 

9 W. Flamingo & I-15 SB Ramps A 7.5 A 9.0 

10 W. Flamingo & S. Valley View D 41.6 D 42.6 

11 W. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Dr D 39.1 E 76.5 

12 W. Twain & Station Access - - B 13.1 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. SB=Southbound 

As indicated in Table 7-16, intersections of Twain at Valley View continues to operate at 

unacceptable conditions (LOS E) while intersections of Twain at Dean Martin Drive, Flamingo at 

I-15 northbound ramps and Flamingo at Hotel Rio Drive deteriorate from acceptable conditions 

(LOS D or better) in 2013 baseline conditions to unacceptable conditions (LOS E) with the 

addition of project volumes. 

2013 BASELINE PLUS ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNIT (EMU) ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-4, project trips accessing the station were 

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for EMU alternative conditions for year 

2013 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2013 base 

conditions volumes to generate the 2030 baseline plus EMU volumes. 

Based on the 2013 Baseline plus EMU volumes and geometry presented in Figure 7-3, 

intersection level service analysis was performed. Table 7-17 presents the results of the 

analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-27 September 2008 

Table 7-17 

Central Station Location “A” Alternative – 2013 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline 

Conditions 

2013 Baseline plus EMU 

Conditions 

Intersection LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 Spring Mountain & Polaris C 24.9 C 24.9 

2 W. Twain & S. Valley View E 59.3 E 64.8 

3 W. Twain & Procyon B (SB) 3 12.0 B (SB) 3 12.5 

4 W. Twain & Polaris C 26.5 C 30.4 

5 W. Twain & Dean Martin Dr/Industrial C 30.4 F 94.6 

6 Industrial & Frank Sinatra D 36.2 E 55.9 

7 W. Twain & Frank Sinatra C 20.2 C 24.8 

8 W. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps C 29.5 E 76.4 

9 W. Flamingo & I-15 SB Ramps A 7.5 B 10.1 

10 W. Flamingo & S. Valley View D 41.6 D 42.9 

11 W. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Dr D 39.1 F 105.7 

12 W. Twain & Station Access - - C 31.7 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. SB=Southbound 

As indicated in Table 7-17, intersections of Twain at Valley View continues to operate at 

unacceptable conditions (LOS E) while intersections of Twain at Dean Martin Drive, Industrial at 

Frank Sinatra, Flamingo at I-15 northbound ramps and Flamingo at Hotel Rio Drive deteriorate 

from acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) in 2013 baseline conditions to unacceptable 

conditions (LOS E) with the addition of project volumes. 

7.2.4 2030 Cumulative Conditions 

2030 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Future year 2030 base volumes were calculated by applying the growth factor to the existing 

year volumes. These volumes are presented in the Appendix. For analysis purposes, existing 

intersection geometry was assumed for future year 2030 conditions. 

Based on the future base volumes and geometry presented in Figure 7-3, intersection level 

service analysis was performed. Table 7-18 presents the results of intersection operating 

conditions for future year 2030 baseline conditions. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are 

presented in the Appendix. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-28 September 2008 

Table 7-18 

Central Station Location “A” Alternative – 2030 Baseline Conditions LOS 

2030 Baseline Conditions 

Intersection Traffic Control LOS Delay1

1 Spring Mountain & Polaris Signalized C 26.1 

2 W. Twain & S. Valley View Signalized E 70.8 

3 W. Twain & Procyon Unsignalized2 B (SB) 3 12.5 

4 W. Twain & Polaris Signalized C 28.2 

5 W. Twain & Dean Martin Dr/Industrial Signalized D 38.1 

6 Industrial & Frank Sinatra Signalized E 61.2 

7 W. Twain & Frank Sinatra Signalized B 17.0 

8 W. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 37.9 

9 W. Flamingo & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized A 8.6 

10 W. Flamingo & S. Valley View Signalized F 95.8 

11 W. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Dr Signalized D 39.1 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. SB=Southbound 

As indicated in Table 7-18, intersections of Twain at Valley View, Industrial at Frank Sinatra and 

Flamingo at Valley View operate with unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F) under the analysis 

scenario. 

2030 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-4, project trips accessing the station were 

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative conditions for year 

2030 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2030 base 

conditions volumes to generate the 2030 baseline plus DMU volumes. 

Based on the 2030 Baseline plus DMU volumes geometry presented in Figure 7-3, intersection 

level service analysis was performed. Table 7-19 presents the results of the analysis. 

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 7-19, intersections of Twain Avenue at Valley View, Industrial at Frank 

Sinatra and Flamingo at Valley View continue to operate with unacceptable conditions (LOS E 

or F) while intersections of Twain at Dean Martin Drive/Industrial Avenue, Flamingo at I-15 

northbound ramps, and Flamingo at Hotel Rio Drive deteriorate from acceptable (LOS D) to 

unacceptable (LOS E or F) conditions with the addition of project volumes. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-29 September 2008 

Table 7-19 

Central Station Location “A” Alternative 

2030 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS 

2030 Baseline 

Conditions 

2030 Baseline plus DMU 

Conditions 

Intersection LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 Spring Mountain & Polaris C 26.1 C 26.1 

2 W. Twain & S. Valley View E 70.8 E 76.1 

3 W. Twain & Procyon B (SB) 3 12.5 B (SB) 3 12.8 

4 W. Twain & Polaris C 28.2 C 30.5 

5 W. Twain & Dean Martin Dr/Industrial D 38.1 F 105.4 

6 Industrial & Frank Sinatra E 61.2 E 79.5 

7 W. Twain & Frank Sinatra B 17.0 C 22.4 

8 W. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps D 37.9 E 71.8 

9 W. Flamingo & I-15 SB Ramps A 8.6 B 10.9 

10 W. Flamingo & S. Valley View F 95.8 F 95.9 

11 W. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Dr D 39.1 E 77.2 

12 W. Twain & Station Access Road - - B 13.1 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. SB=Southbound 

2030 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-4, project trips accessing the station were 

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative conditions for year 

2030 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2030 base 

conditions volumes to generate the 2030 baseline plus EMU volumes. 

Based on the 2030 Baseline plus EMU volumes geometry presented in Figure 7-3, intersection 

level service analysis was performed. Table 7-20 presents the results of the analysis. 

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 7-20, intersections of Twain Avenue at Valley View, Industrial at Frank 

Sinatra and Flamingo at Valley View continue to operate with unacceptable conditions (LOS E 

or F) while intersections of Twain at Dean Martin Drive/Industrial Avenue, Flamingo at I-15 

northbound ramps, and Flamingo at Hotel Rio Drive deteriorate from acceptable (LOS D) to 

unacceptable (LOS E or F) conditions with the addition of project volumes. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-30 September 2008 

Table 7-20 

Central Station Location “A” Alternative 

2030 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS 

2030 Baseline 

Conditions 

2030 Baseline plus EMU 

Conditions 

Intersection LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 Spring Mountain & Polaris C 26.1 C 26.1 

2 W. Twain & S. Valley View E 70.8 E 79.1 

3 W. Twain & Procyon B (SB) 3 12.5 B (SB) 3 13.0 

4 W. Twain & Polaris C 28.2 C 31.3 

5 W. Twain & Dean Martin Dr/Industrial D 38.1 F 142.2 

6 Industrial & Frank Sinatra E 61.2 F 90.4 

7 W. Twain & Frank Sinatra B 17.0 C 25.4 

8 W. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps D 37.9 F 92.1 

9 W. Flamingo & I-15 SB Ramps A 8.6 B 11.9 

10 W. Flamingo & S. Valley View F 95.8 F 95.8 

11 W. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Dr D 39.1 F 107.2 

12 W. Twain & Station Access Road - - D 35.8 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. SB=Southbound 

7.2.5 Mitigation Measures 

It should be noted that the proposed mitigations suggested in this section have not been field 

verified. 

2013 BASELINE CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-15, the intersection of Twain Avenue at Valley View operates at 

unacceptable conditions under 2013 Baseline conditions. To mitigate this intersection, following 

mitigation measure is proposed: 

• #2. Twain Avenue & Valley View 

- Optimize network offset. 

Applying above mitigation, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-21 presents the 

results of 2013 Baseline mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in 

the Appendix. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-31 September 2008 

Table 7-21 

Central Station Location “A” Alternative 

2013 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

2 W. Twain & S. Valley View Signalized D 48.4 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

As indicated in Table 7-21, the intersection of Twain at Valley View operates at acceptable 

conditions (LOS D) with mitigations. 

2013 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-16, the intersections of Twain at Valley View, Twain at Dean Martin 

Drive, Flamingo at I-15 northbound ramps and Flamingo at Hotel Rio Drive operate with 

unacceptable conditions under 2013 Baseline plus DMU conditions. To mitigate these 

intersections, following mitigation measures are proposed: 

• #2. Twain Avenue & Valley View 

- Optimize network offset. 

• #5. Twain Avenue & Dean Martin Drive/Industrial 

- Optimize network offset. 

• #8. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps 

- Optimize network offset. 

• #11. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Drive 

- Add third southbound left turn lane. 

- Add fourth westbound through lane. 

- Add second westbound right turn lane. 

- Add fourth eastbound through lane. 

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-22 presents 

the results of 2013 Baseline plus DMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are 

presented in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 7-22, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D) 

with mitigations. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-32 September 2008 

Table 7-22 

Central Station Location “A” Alternative 

2013 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS 

2030 Baseline plus 

DMU Mitigation 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

2 W. Twain & S. Valley View Signalized D 49.8 

5 W. Twain & Dean Martin Dr/Industrial Signalized D 51.3 

8 W. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 51.0 

11 W. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Drive Signalized D 40.4 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2013 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-17, the intersections of Twain at Valley View, Twain at Dean Martin 

Drive, Industrial at Frank Sinatra, Flamingo at I-15 northbound ramps and Flamingo at Hotel Rio 

Drive operate with unacceptable conditions (LOS E of F) under 2013 Baseline plus EMU 

conditions. To mitigate these intersections, following mitigation measures are proposed: 

• #2. Twain Avenue & Valley View 

- Optimize network offset. 

• #5. Twain Avenue & Dean Martin Drive/Industrial 

- Add second southbound right turn lane. 

• #6. Industrial & Frank Sinatra 

- Add second westbound right turn lane 

• #8. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps 

- Add third eastbound right turn lane 

• #11. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Drive 

- Add third southbound left turn lane. 

- Add fourth westbound through lane. 

- Add second westbound right turn lane. 

- Add fourth eastbound through lane. 

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-23 presents 

the results of 2013 Baseline plus EMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are 

presented in the Appendix. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-33 September 2008 

Table 7-23 

Central Station Location “A” Alternative 

2013 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline plus 

EMU Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

2 W. Twain & S. Valley View Signalized D 50.5 

5 W. Twain & Dean Martin Dr/Industrial Signalized C 26.5 

6 Industrial & Frank Sinatra Signalized C 22.5 

8 W. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 42.0 

11 W. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Dr Signalized D 48.0 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

As indicated in Table 7-23, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D 

or better) with mitigations. 

2030 BASELINE CONDITIONS 

As indicated in Table 7-18, the intersections of Twain at Valley View, Industrial at Frank Sinatra 

and Flamingo at Valley View operate with unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F) under 2030 

Baseline conditions. To mitigate these intersections, following mitigation measures are 

proposed: 

• #2. Twain Avenue & Valley View 

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane. 

• #6. Industrial & Frank Sinatra 

- Add second westbound right turn lane 

• #10. Flamingo & Valley View 

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane. 

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-24 presents 

the results of 2030 Baseline mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented 

in the Appendix. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-34 September 2008 

Table 7-24 

Central Station Location “A” Alternative 

2030 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS 

2030 Baseline 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

2 W. Twain & S. Valley View Signalized D 50.5 

6 Industrial & Frank Sinatra Signalized C 25.5 

10 W. Flamingo & S. Valley View Signalized D 50.4 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

As indicated in Table 7-24, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D 

or better) with mitigations. 

2030 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-19, the intersections of Twain Avenue at Valley View, Industrial at Frank 

Sinatra, Flamingo at Valley View, Twain at Dean Martin Drive/Industrial Avenue, Flamingo at I15 northbound ramps, and Flamingo at Hotel Rio Drive operate at unacceptable conditions 

(LOS E or F) under 2030 Baseline plus DMU conditions. To mitigate these intersections, 

following mitigation measures are proposed: 

• #2. Twain Avenue & Valley View 

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane. 

• #5. Twain Avenue & Dean Martin Drive/Industrial 

- Add second southbound right turn lane. 

• #6. Industrial & Frank Sinatra 

- Add second westbound right turn lane 

• #8. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps 

- Add third eastbound left turn lane 

• #10. Flamingo & Valley View 

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane. 

• #11. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Drive 

- Add third southbound left turn lane. 

- Add fourth westbound through lane. 

Applying the above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-25 

presents the results of 2030 Baseline plus DMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis 

worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-35 September 2008 

Table 7-25 

Central Station Location “A” Alternative 

2030 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline plus 

DMU Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

2 W. Twain & S. Valley View Signalized D 53.7 

5 W. Twain & Dean Martin Dr/Industrial Signalized C 26.5 

6 Industrial & Frank Sinatra Signalized C 26.3 

8 W. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 47.5 

10 W. Flamingo & S. Valley View Signalized D 48.3 

11 W. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Dr Signalized D 46.0 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

As indicated in Table 7-25, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D 

or better) with mitigations. 

2030 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-20, the intersections of Twain Avenue at Valley View, Industrial at Frank 

Sinatra, Flamingo at Valley View, Twain at Dean Martin Drive/Industrial Avenue, Flamingo at 

I-15 northbound ramps, and Flamingo at Hotel Rio Drive operate at unacceptable conditions 

under 2030 Baseline plus EMU conditions. To mitigate these intersections, following mitigation 

measures are proposed: 

• #2. Twain Avenue & Valley View 

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane. 

• #5. Twain Avenue & Dean Martin Drive/Industrial 

- Add second southbound right turn lane. 

• #6. Industrial & Frank Sinatra 

- Add second westbound right turn lane. 

• #8. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps 

- Add third eastbound left turn lane. 

- Add fourth westbound through lane. 

• #10. Flamingo & Valley View 

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane. 

• #11. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Drive 

- Add third southbound left turn lane. 

- Add fourth westbound through lane. 

- Add second westbound right turn lane. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-36 September 2008 

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-26 presents 

the results of 2030 Baseline plus EMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are 

presented in the Appendix. 

Table 7-26 

Central Station Location “A” Alternative 

2030 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline plus 

EMU Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

2 W. Twain & S. Valley View Signalized D 54.6 

5 W. Twain & Dean Martin Dr/Industrial Signalized C 24.5 

6 Industrial & Frank Sinatra Signalized C 29.0 

8 W. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 40.6 

10 W. Flamingo & S. Valley View Signalized D 49.3 

11 W. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Dr Signalized D 50.1 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

As indicated in Table 7-26, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D 

or better) with mitigations. 

7.3 South Station Location Alternative 

The proposed South Station would be located west of I-15, to the south end of the Strip. This 

station is bounded by Polaris Avenue to the west, I-15 to the east, West Russell Road to the 

south and West Hacienda Avenue to the north. The proposed south station can be accessed 

from I-15 via ramps located at West Russell Road. 

7.3.1 Existing Conditions 

EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK

For north-south streets description, refer to section 7.1.1. 

Tropicana Avenue is a two-way east-west principal arterial. This roadway extends from south 

of Town Center Drive to the north of Broadbent Boulevard. In the vicinity of the proposed South 

Station location, this street generally has three lanes in each direction with sidewalks on the 

both sides of the street. On-street parking is generally not permitted on both sides of the street. 

Hacienda Avenue is a two-way east-west minor collector. This roadway extends from Wynn 

Road to Dean Martin Drive where it merges Mandalay Bay Road. In the vicinity of the proposed 

South Station location, this street generally has two lanes in each direction with sidewalks on 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-37 September 2008 

the both sides of the street. On-street parking is generally not permitted on both sides of the 

street. 

Mandalay Bay Road is a two-way east-west minor collector. This roadway extends from Dean 

Martin Drive to Las Vegas Blvd where it merges Hacienda Ave. In the vicinity of the proposed 

South Station location, this street generally has three lanes in each direction with sidewalks on 

the both sides of the street. On-street parking is generally not permitted on both sides of the 

street. 

Russell Road is a two-way east-west minor arterial. This roadway extends from John 

Boulevard to west of Las Vegas Boulevard. In the vicinity of the proposed South Station 

location, this street generally has three lanes in each direction with sidewalks on the both sides 

of the street. On-street parking is generally not permitted on both sides of the street. 

EXISTING TRANSIT CONDITIONS

Refer to section 7.1.1 under for other transit lines serving the area. 

• The 201-Tropicana is a 24-hour bus service running along Tropicana Avenue. This 

service connects Andover on the east (east of I-515) to Durango Avenue intersection on 

the west (west of I-15). This service runs with approximately 15 minute headways from 

5:00 AM to 8:00 PM and approximately 20-60 minute headways for the rest during 

weekdays. 

EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS

On-Street parking is generally not permitted on any street in the local roadway network near 

the proposed station location. 

EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS

Based on the station location options, intersections in the vicinity of the station location were 

identified for analysis purposes. The existing lane geometry at the study intersections is shown 

in Figure 7-5. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) conditions were analyzed for weekday PM 

peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM). The results of the analysis are presented in Table 7-27. 

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix. 
DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED LAS VEGAS SOUTH STATION

Figure 7-5

South Station

EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY

South Geometry rev1.ai

15

TOMPKINS AV TOMPKINS AV

PALMS CENTER

TROPICANA AV

TROPICANA AV

BELL DR

HACIENDA HACIENDA

FOUR SEASONS

MANDALAY BAY

RENO AV RENO AV

AV

AV

AV

RD

DR

LN

MESA VISTA

DIABLO

QUAIL

OQUENDO

PONDEROSA WY

ALI BABA

DEWEY DR

W. RUSSELL RD

PROCYON ST

PROCYON ST

POLARIS AV POLARIS AV

INDUSTRIAL RD

BLVD VALLEY VIEW

WYNN RD WYNN RD

ARVILLE ST ARVILLE ST

KOVAL LN

AUDRIE ST

LAS VEGAS BLVD

DEAN MARTIN DR

FRANK

FRANK

SINATRA DR

SINATRA DR

LAS VEGAS BOULEVARD S

HARMON AV HARMON AV HARMON AV

CENTURY PARK

?

McCARRAN

INTERNATIONAL

AIRPORT

PROPOSED

SOUTH

STATION

1 2 3

4

5 6 7

8 9 10

11

Tropicana Av

1

Valley View Bl 160’

130’170’

100’

600’

190’

190’

175’

175’

175’

Tropicana Av

2

Dean Martin Dr 230’ 230’

140’

100’

155’

155’

Tropicana Av

470’470’

110’

600’600’ 3

I-15 NB Ramps

Aldebaran

4

Dean Martin Dr

Hacienda Av

5

Aldebaran

Hacienda Av

6

Polaris Av

115’

75’

115’

115’

80’

80’

Hacienda Av

7

Valley View Bl

Russell Rd

115’

175’

150’

8

Polaris Av

160’

560’

250’

250’

360’

360’

160’

Russell Rd

9

I-15 SB Ramps

230’230’

Russell Rd

10

I-15 NB Ramps

11

Tropicana Av

SB Ramps

700’
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-39 September 2008 

Table 7-27 

South Station Location Alternative 

Existing Conditions LOS 

Existing Conditions 

Intersection Traffic Control LOS Delay1

1 W. Tropicana & S. Valley View Signalized E 55.2 

2 W. Tropicana & Dean Martin Dr Signalized D 52.6 

3 W. Tropicana & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized C 26.4 

4 Dean Martin Dr & Circulation Unsignalized2 C (EB) 3 16.9 

5 Aldebaran & W. Hacienda Unsignalized2 B (SB) 3 12.9 

6 W. Hacienda & Polaris Ave Unsignalized2 F (NB) 3 128.8 

7 W. Hacienda & S. Valley View Signalized C 24.1 

8 W. Russell & Polaris Signalized D 46.2 

9 W. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized E 68.1 

10 W. Russell & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized C 33.5 

11 W. Tropicana & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized B 15.4 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. EB=Eastbound, NB=Northbound, SB=Southbound 

As indicated in Table 7-27, the signalized intersections of Tropicana at Valley View and I-15 

southbound ramps at Russell Road and unsignalized intersection of Hacienda at Polaris operate 

at unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F) under the existing conditions. 

7.3.2 Impact Analysis 

This section presents the assessment of transportation impacts due to the proposed project. 

The transportation conditions were assessed for the following scenarios: 

• 2013 Opening Year Conditions; 

• 2013 Opening Year plus Project Conditions; 

• 2030 Cumulative Baseline Conditions; and, 

• 2030 Cumulative Baseline plus Project Conditions 

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

The following are the significance criteria required by the Regional Transportation Commission 

of Southern Nevada for the determination of impacts associated with a proposed project: 

• Level of service C will be the design objective for capacity and under no circumstances 

will less than level of service D be accepted for site and non-site traffic. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-40 September 2008 

PROJECT TRAVEL DEMAND

The Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) travel demand forecasting model was used to 

develop the base “no-project” travel forecasts for future year 2013 and 2030 traffic analysis. 

RTC provided future year 2030 travel forecasts from the model to DMJM Harris. DMJM Harris 

has applied a straight line method to interpolate the intermediate year growth factors. The 

calculated growth factors were applied to the existing volumes to generate analysis year 

volumes. The growth factor calculations are presented in the Appendix. The additional projectrelated trips were then added to the future year base volumes to determine the “with project 

conditions”. 

TRIP DISTRIBUTION

The overall trip distribution for the station is shown in Figure 7-6. This station is served primarily 

by I-15, Industrial Road – Dean Martin Drive and Frank Sinatra Drive in the north-south 

direction. Industrial Road – Dean Martin Drive and Frank Sinatra Drive provided an alternative 

to Las Vegas Boulevard on which travel time tends to be high. Most passengers of the 

proposed DesertXpress train would contribute to local traffic with origin or destination on or near 

‘The Strip’. As a result, only a small percentage would make use of the freeway system. 

7.3.3 2013 Conditions (Opening Year Analysis) 

Under the future with project conditions, project trips along Dean Martin Drive would access the 

station by turning at Circulation Road and making left turns at the Hacienda/CirculationAldebaran and Hacienda/Polaris intersections. Under the existing conditions, there is no left 

turn lane at Hacienda/Circulation-Aldebaran intersection. The project would add a left turn lane 

at this intersection. It should be noted that this intersection would be analyzed with a 

northbound left turn lane under “with-project conditions”. 

2013 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Future year 2013 base volumes were calculated by applying the growth factor on the existing 

year volumes. These volumes are presented in the Appendix. For analysis purposes, existing 

intersection geometry was assumed for future year 2013 conditions. Based on the future base 

volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level service analysis was performed. 

Table 7-28 presents the results of intersection operating conditions for future year 2013 baseline 

conditions. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix. 
DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED LAS VEGAS SOUTH STATION

Figure 7-6

SOUTH STATION TRIP DISTRIBUTION

South Study Trip Distribution.ai

15

TOMPKINS AV TOMPKINS AV

PALMS CENTER

TROPICANA AV

BELL DR

HACIENDA HACIENDA

FOUR SEASONS

MANDALAY BAY

RENO AV RENO AV

AV

AV

AV

RD

DR

LN

MESA VISTA

DIABLO

QUAIL

OQUENDO

PONDEROSA WY

ALI BABA

DEWEY DR

W. RUSSELL RD

PROCYON ST

PROCYON ST

POLARIS AV POLARIS AV

INDUSTRIAL RD

BLVD VALLEY VIEW

WYNN RD WYNN RD

ARVILLE ST ARVILLE ST

KOVAL LN

AUDRIE ST

LAS VEGAS BLVD

DEAN MARTIN DR

FRANK

FRANK

SINATRA DR

SINATRA DR

LAS VEGAS BOULEVARD S

HARMON AV HARMON AV HARMON AV

CENTURY

PARK

?

McCARRAN

INTERNATIONAL

AIRPORT

PROPOSED

SOUTH

STATION

10%

10%

(I-15)

15%

10%

(I-15)

5%

5%

25%

10%

10%
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-42 September 2008 

Table 7-28 

South Station Location Alternative 

2013 Baseline Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline 

Conditions 

Intersection Traffic Control LOS Delay1

1 W. Tropicana & S. Valley View Signalized E 70.3 

2 W. Tropicana & Dean Martin Dr Signalized E 59.8 

3 W. Tropicana & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized C 31.3 

4 Dean Martin Dr & Circulation Unsignalized2 C (EB) 3 18.2 

5 Circulation/Aldebaran & W. Hacienda Unsignalized2 B (SB) 3 13.8 

6 W. Hacienda & Polaris Ave Unsignalized2 F (NB) 3 336.9 

7 W. Hacienda & S. Valley View Signalized D 35.2 

8 W. Russell & Polaris Signalized D 52.9 

9 W. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized F 83.1 

10 W. Russell & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 36.4 

11 W. Tropicana & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized B 16.2 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle e 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. EB=Eastbound, NB=Northbound, SB=Southbound 

As indicated in Table 7-28, signalized intersections of Tropicana at Valley View, Tropicana at 

Dean Martin Drive and I-15 southbound ramps at Russell Road and unsignalized intersection of 

Hacienda at Polaris operate at unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F) under the 2013 baseline 

conditions. 

2013 BASELINE PLUS DIESEL-ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNIT (DMU) ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-6, project trips accessing the station were 

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative conditions for year 

2013 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2013 base 

conditions volumes to generate the 2013 baseline plus DMU volumes. For analysis purposes, 

existing intersection geometry was assumed for future year 2013 conditions. 

Based on the 2013 Baseline plus DMU volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level 

service analysis was performed. Table 7-29 presents the results of the analysis. SYNCHRO 

analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-43 September 2008 

Table 7-29 

South Station Location Alternative 

2013 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline 

Conditions 

2013 Baseline plus DMU 

Conditions 

Intersection LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 W. Tropicana & S. Valley View E 70.3 E 74.7 

2 W. Tropicana & Dean Martin Dr E 59.8 E 70.5 

3 W. Tropicana & I-15 NB Ramps C 31.3 C 31.5 

4 Dean Martin Dr & Circulation C (EB) 3 18.2 C (EB) 3 18.8 

5 Circulation/Aldebaran & W. Hacienda B (SB) 3 13.8 F (NB) 3 232.1 

6 W. Hacienda & Polaris Ave F (NB) 3 336.9 F (NB) 3 - 

7 W. Hacienda & S. Valley View D 35.2 D 40.1 

8 W. Russell & Polaris D 52.9 F 327.7 

9 W. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps F 83.1 F 89.1 

10 W. Russell & I-15 NB Ramps D 36.4 D 37.5 

11 W. Tropicana & I-15 SB Ramps B 16.2 B 18.0 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. EB=Eastbound, NB=Northbound, SB=Southbound 

As indicated in Table 7-29, signalized intersections of Tropicana at Valley View, Tropicana at 

Dean Martin Drive and I-15 southbound ramps at Russell Road and unsignalized intersection of 

Hacienda at Polaris continue to operate at unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F). However, 

intersections at Hacienda/Circulation-Aldebaran and Russell at Polaris deteriorate from 

acceptable (LOS D or better) to unacceptable conditions (LOS F) with the addition of project 

volumes. 

2013 BASELINE PLUS ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNIT (EMU) ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-6, project trips accessing the station were 

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for EMU alternative conditions for year 

2013 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2013 base 

conditions volumes to generate the 2030 baseline plus EMU volumes. 

Based on the 2013 Baseline plus EMU volumes and geometry presented in Figure 7-5, 

intersection level service analysis was performed. Table 7-30 presents the results of the 

analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-44 September 2008 

Table 7-30 

South Station Location Alternative 

2013 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline 

Conditions 

2013 Baseline plus EMU 

Conditions 

Intersection LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 W. Tropicana & S. Valley View E 70.3 E 76.4 

2 W. Tropicana & Dean Marin Dr E 59.8 E 76.7 

3 W. Tropicana & I-15 NB Ramps C 31.3 C 31.6 

4 Dean Marin Dr & Circulation C (EB) 3 18.2 C (EB) 3 19.0 

5 Circulation/Aldebaran & 

W. Hacienda B (SB) 3 13.8 F (NB) 3 - 

6 W. Hacienda & Polaris Ave F (NB) 3 336.9 F (NB) 3 - 

7 W. Hacienda & S. Valley View D 35.2 D 42.4 

8 W. Russell & Polaris D 52.9 F 550.8 

9 W. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps F 83.1 F 94.9 

10 W. Russell & I-15 NB Ramps D 36.4 D 38.9 

11 W. Tropicana & I-15 SB Ramps B 16.2 B 19.0 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. EB=Eastbound, NB=Northbound, SB=Southbound 

As indicated in Table 7-30, signalized intersections of Tropicana at Valley View, Tropicana at 

Dean Martin Drive and I-15 southbound ramps at Russell Road and unsignalized intersection of 

Hacienda at Polaris continue to operate at unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F). However, 

intersections at Hacienda/Circulation-Aldebaran and Russell at Polaris deteriorate from 

acceptable (LOS D or better) to unacceptable conditions (LOS F) with the addition of project 

volumes. 

7.3.4 2030 Cumulative Conditions 

Under the future with project conditions, project trips along Dean Martin Drive would access the 

station by turning at Circulation Road and making left turns at the Hacienda/CirculationAldebaran and Hacienda/Polaris intersections. Under existing conditions, there is no left turn 

lane at Hacienda/Circulation-Aldebaran intersection. The project would add a left turn lane at 

this intersection. It should be noted that this intersection would be analyzed with a northbound 

left turn lane under “with-project conditions”. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-45 September 2008 

2030 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Future year 2030 base volumes were calculated by applying the growth factor on the existing 

year volumes. These volumes are presented in the Appendix. For analysis purposes, existing 

intersection geometry was assumed for future year 2030 conditions. 

Based on the future base volumes and geometry presented in Figure 7-5, intersection level 

service analysis was performed. Table 7-31 presents the results of intersection operating 

conditions for future year 2030 baseline conditions. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are 

presented in the Appendix. 

Table 7-31 

South Station Location Alternative 

2030 Baseline Conditions LOS 

2030 Baseline 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

1 W. Tropicana & S. Valley View Signalized F 425.2 

2 W. Tropicana & Dean Martin Dr Signalized F 80.0 

3 W. Tropicana & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized E 78.3 

4 Dean Martin Dr & Circulation Unsignalized2 C (EB) 3 24.9 

5 Circulation/Aldebaran & W. Hacienda Unsignalized2 C (SB) 3 17.3 

6 W. Hacienda & Polaris Ave Unsignalized2 F (NB) 3 - 

7 W. Hacienda & S. Valley View Signalized F 618.8 

8 W. Russell & Polaris Signalized F 81.3 

9 W. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized F 144.1 

10 W. Russell & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized E 67.7 

11 W. Tropicana & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized C 20.7 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. EB=Eastbound, NB=Northbound, SB=Southbound 

As indicated in Table 7-31, all the intersections operate at unacceptable conditions during the 

analysis period except two unsignalized intersections of Dean Martin Drive at Aldebaran and 

Hacienda at Circulation/Aldebaran. 

2030 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-6, project trips accessing the station were 

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative conditions for year 

2030 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2030 base 

conditions volumes to generate the 2030 baseline plus DMU volumes. 

Based on the 2030 Baseline plus DMU volumes geometry presented in Figure 7-5, intersection 

level service analysis was performed. Table 7-32 presents the results of the analysis. 

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-46 September 2008 

Table 7-32 

South Station Location Alternative 

2030 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS 

2030 Baseline 

Conditions 

2030 Baseline 

plus DMU 

Conditions 

Intersection LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 W. Tropicana & S. Valley View F 425.2 F 423.4 

2 W. Tropicana & Dean Martin Dr F 80.0 F 95.4 

3 W. Tropicana & I-15 NB Ramps E 78.3 E 78.4 

4 Dean Martin Dr & Circulation C (EB) 3 24.9 D (EB) 3 26.0 

5 Circulation/Aldebaran & W. Hacienda C (SB) 3 17.3 F (SB) 3 - 

6 W. Hacienda & Polaris Ave F (NB) 3 - F (NB) 3 - 

7 W. Hacienda & S. Valley View F 618.8 F 617.4 

8 W. Russell & Polaris F 81.3 F 472.6 

9 W. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps F 144.1 F 158.0 

10 W. Russell & I-15 NB Ramps E 67.7 F 90.8 

11 W. Tropicana & I-15 SB Ramps C 20.7 C 23.9 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. EB=Eastbound, NB=Northbound, SB=Southbound 

As indicated in Table 7-32, all the intersections continue to operate at unacceptable conditions 

during the analysis period except the unsignalized intersection of Dean Martin and Aldebaran 

that operates at acceptable conditions (LOS D). However, intersection of Hacienda/CirculationAldebaran deteriorates from LOS C to LOS F with the addition of project volumes. 

2030 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-6, project trips accessing the station were 

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for EMU alternative conditions for year 

2030 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2030 base 

conditions volumes to generate the 2030 baseline plus EMU volumes. 

Based on the 2030 Baseline plus EMU volumes geometry presented in Figure 7-5, intersection 

level service analysis was performed. Table 7-33 presents the results of the analysis. 

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-47 September 2008 

Table 7-33 

South Station Location Alternative 

2030 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS 

2030 Baseline 

Conditions 

2030 Baseline plus 

EMU Conditions 

Intersection LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 W. Tropicana & S. Valley View F 425.2 F 422.4 

2 W. Tropicana & Dean Martin Dr F 80.0 F 103.2 

3 W. Tropicana & I-15 NB Ramps E 78.3 E 78.4 

4 Dean Martin Dr & Circulation C (EB) 3 24.9 D (EB) 3 26.5 

5 Circulation/Aldebaran & W. Hacienda C (SB) 3 17.3 F (SB) 3 - 

6 W. Hacienda & Polaris Ave F (NB) 3 - F (NB) 3 - 

7 W. Hacienda & S. Valley View F 618.8 F 617.2 

8 W. Russell & Polaris F 81.3 F 818.7 

9 W. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps F 144.1 F 164.8 

10 W. Russell & I-15 NB Ramps E 67.7 F 103.6 

11 W. Tropicana & I-15 NB Ramps C 20.7 C 25.3 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2. LOS and Delay reported for worst approach 

3. EB=Eastbound, NB=Northbound, SB=Southbound 

As indicated in Table 7-33, all the intersections continue to operate at unacceptable conditions 

during the analysis period except the unsignalized intersection of Dean Martin and Aldebaran 

that operates at acceptable conditions (LOS D). However, the intersection of 

Hacienda/Circulation-Aldebaran deteriorates from LOS C to LOS F with the addition of project 

volumes. 

7.3.5 Mitigation Measures 

It should be noted that the feasibility of the proposed mitigations suggested in this section have 

not been field verified. 

2013 BASELINE CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-28, intersections of Tropicana at Valley View, Tropicana at Dean Martin 

Drive, I-15 southbound ramps at Russell Road, and Hacienda at Polaris operate at 

unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F) under the 2013 baseline conditions. To mitigate these 

intersections, following mitigation measures are proposed: 

• #1. Tropicana/Valley View 

- Add exclusive southbound free right turn lane. 

• #2. Tropicana & Dean Martin Drive/Industrial 

- Optimize signal offset along Tropicana. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-48 September 2008 

• #6. Hacienda/Polaris 

- Signalize this intersection. 

• #9. Russell/I-15 SB Ramps 

- Optimize signal offset along Russell Road. 

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-34 presents 

the results of 2013 Baseline mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented 

in the Appendix. 

Table 7-34 

South Station Location Alternative 

 2013 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline 

Mitigation Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

1 W. Tropicana & S. Valley View Signalized D 41.3 

2 W. Tropicana & Dean Martin Dr Signalized D 50.0 

6 W. Hacienda & Polaris Ave Signalized A 7.5 

9 W. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized D 44.4 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

As indicated in Table 7-34, all intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) 

with mitigations. 

2013 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-29, intersections of Tropicana at Valley View, Tropicana at Dean Martin 

Drive and I-15 southbound ramps at Russell Road, Hacienda at Polaris, Hacienda/CirculationAldebaran and Russell at Polaris operate with unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F) under 2013 

Baseline plus DMU conditions. To mitigate these intersections, following mitigations measures 

are proposed: 

• #1. Tropicana & Valley View 

- Add exclusive southbound free right turn lane 

• #2. Tropicana & Dean Martin Drive/Industrial 

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane. 

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane. 

• #5. Hacienda & Aldebaran 

- Signalize this intersection. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-49 September 2008 

• #6. Hacienda & Polaris 

- Signalize this intersection. 

- Add exclusive northbound left turn lane. 

• #8. Russell/Polaris 

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane. 

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane. 

- Add southbound dual left turn lanes. 

• #9. Russell/I-15 SB Ramps 

- Optimize signal offsets along Russell Road. 

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-35 presents 

the results of 2013 Baseline plus DMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are 

presented in the Appendix. 

Table 7-35 

South Station Location Alternative 

2013 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline plus 

DMU Mitigation 

Conditions 

Intersection Traffic Control LOS Delay1

1 W. Tropicana & S. Valley View Signalized D 49.0 

2 W. Tropicana & Dean Martin Dr Signalized D 40.6 

5 Circulation/Aldebaran & W. Hacienda Signalized B 11.0 

6 W. Hacienda & Polaris Ave Signalized D 37.5 

8 W. Russell & Polaris Signalized C 31.7 

9 W. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized D 37.4 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

As indicated in Table 7-35, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D 

or better) with mitigations. 

2013 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-30, intersections of Tropicana at Valley View, Tropicana at Dean Martin 

Drive, I-15 southbound ramps at Russell Road, Hacienda at Polaris, Hacienda/CirculationAldebaran and Russell at Polaris operate with unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F) under 2013 

Baseline plus EMU conditions. To mitigate these intersections, following mitigation measures 

are proposed: 

• #1. Tropicana & Valley View 

- Add exclusive southbound free right turn lane. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-50 September 2008 

• #2. Tropicana & Dean Martin Drive/Industrial 

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane. 

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane. 

• #5. Hacienda & Aldebaran 

- Signalize this intersection. 

• #6. Hacienda & Polaris 

- Signalize this intersection. 

- Add exclusive eastbound right turn lane. 

- Add second westbound left turn lane. 

- Add exclusive northbound left turn lane. 

• #8. Russell/Polaris 

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane. 

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane. 

- Add southbound dual left turn lanes. 

- Add exclusive southbound right turn lane. 

• #9. Russell/I-15 SB Ramps 

- Add second southbound right turn lane. 

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-36 presents 

the results of 2013 Baseline plus EMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are 

presented in the Appendix. 

Table 7-36 

South Station Location Alternative 

2013 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline plus 

EMU Mitigation 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

1 W. Tropicana & S. Valley View Signalized D 54.4 

2 W. Tropicana & Dean Martin Dr Signalized D 43.0 

5 Circulation/Aldebaran & W. Hacienda Signalized A 9.2 

6 W. Hacienda & Polaris Ave Signalized D 44.7 

8 W. Russell & Polaris Signalized D 47.3 

9 W. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized D 49.1 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

As indicated in Table 7-36, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D 

or better) with mitigations. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-51 September 2008 

2030 BASELINE CONDITIONS 

As indicated in Table 7-31, the intersections along Tropicana at Valley View, Dean Martin Drive, 

and I-15 northbound ramps, the intersections along Hacienda at Valley View and Polaris, and 

the intersections along Russell Road at Polaris, I-15 northbound ramps and I-15 southbound 

ramps operate with unacceptable conditions under 2030 Baseline conditions. To mitigate these 

intersections, following mitigation measures are proposed: 

• #1. Tropicana & Valley View 

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane. 

- Add exclusive southbound free right turn lane. 

- Add second southbound left turn lane. 

• #2. Tropicana & Dean Martin Drive/Industrial 

- Add fourth eastbound through lane. 

- Add fourth westbound through lane. 

• #3. Tropicana & I-15 NB Ramps 

- Add second northbound right turn lane. 

• #6. Hacienda & Polaris 

- Signalize this intersection. 

• #7. Hacienda & Valley View 

- Add second eastbound left turn lane. 

- Add exclusive eastbound right turn lane. 

- Add third eastbound through lane. 

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane. 

- Add third westbound through lane. 

- Add second northbound left turn lane. 

- Add third northbound through lane. 

• #8. Russell & Polaris 

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane. 

- Add exclusive southbound left turn lane. 

• #9. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps 

- Add second southbound right turn lane. 

• #10. Russell/I-15 NB Ramps 

- Optimize signal offset along Russell Road. 

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-37 presents 

the results of 2030 Baseline mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented 

in the Appendix. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-52 September 2008 

Table 7-37 

South Station Location Alternative 

2030 Baseline Mitigation Conditions LOS 

2030 Baseline 

Mitigation Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

1 W. Tropicana & S. Valley View Signalized D 51.7 

2 W. Tropicana & Dean Marin Dr Signalized D 53.4 

3 W. Tropicana & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 45.7 

6 W. Hacienda & Polaris Ave Signalized B 16.1 

7 W. Hacienda & S. Valley View Signalized D 49.8 

8 W. Russell & Polaris Signalized D 37.1 

9 W. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized D 48.9 

10 W. Russell & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 50.0 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

As indicated in Table 7-37, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D 

or better) with mitigations. 

2030 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-32, all the intersections operate at unacceptable conditions during the 

analysis period except the unsignalized intersection of Dean Martin and Aldebaran that operates 

at acceptable conditions (LOS D). To mitigate these intersections, following mitigation 

measures are proposed: 

• #1. Tropicana & Valley View 

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane. 

- Add second westbound left turn lane. 

- Add exclusive southbound free right turn lane. 

- Add second southbound left turn lane. 

• #2. Tropicana & Dean Martin Drive/Industrial 

- Add fourth eastbound through lane. 

- Add fourth westbound through lane. 

• #3. Tropicana & I-15 NB Ramps 

- Add second northbound right turn lane. 

• #5. Hacienda & Aldebaran 

- Signalize this intersection. 

• #6. Hacienda & Polaris 

- Signalize this intersection. 

- Add exclusive northbound left turn lane. 

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-53 September 2008 

• #7. Hacienda & Valley View 

- Add two additional eastbound left turn lanes. 

- Add exclusive eastbound right turn lane. 

- Add third eastbound through lane. 

- Add second westbound left turn lane. 

- Add second northbound left turn lane. 

• #8. Russell & Polaris 

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane. 

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane. 

- Add three southbound left turn lanes. 

• #9. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps 

- Add second eastbound right turn lane. 

- Add second southbound right turn lane. 

• #10. Russell/I-15 NB Ramps 

- Add second northbound left turn lane. 

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-38 presents 

the results of 2030 Baseline plus DMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are 

presented in the Appendix. 

Table 7-38 

South Station Location Alternative - 

2030 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions LOS 

2030 Baseline plus 

DMU Mitigation 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

1 W. Tropicana & S. Valley View Signalized D 49.5 

2 W. Tropicana & Dean Martin Dr Signalized D 43.6 

3 W. Tropicana & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 46.2 

5 Circulation/Aldebaran & W. Hacienda Signalized A 7.1 

6 W. Hacienda & Polaris Ave Signalized C 27.1 

7 W. Hacienda & S. Valley View Signalized D 54.0 

8 W. Russell & Polaris Signalized D 54.2 

9 W. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized C 32.4 

10 W. Russell & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 49.6 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-54 September 2008 

As indicated in Table 7-38, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D 

or better) with mitigations. 

2030 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-33, all the intersections operate at unacceptable conditions during the 

analysis period except unsignalized intersection of Dean Martin and Aldebaran that operates at 

acceptable conditions (LOS D). To mitigate these intersections, following mitigation measures 

are proposed: 

• #1. Tropicana & Valley View 

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane. 

- Add second westbound left turn lane. 

- Add second southbound left turn lane. 

- Add exclusive southbound free right turn lane. 

• #2. Tropicana & Dean Martin Drive/Industrial 

- Add fourth eastbound through lane. 

- Add fourth westbound through lane. 

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane. 

- Add third northbound through lane. 

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane. 

• #3. Tropicana & I-15 NB Ramps 

- Add second northbound right turn lane. 

• #5. Hacienda & Aldebaran 

- Signalize this intersection. 

• #6. Hacienda & Polaris 

- Signalize this intersection. 

- Add two additional westbound left turn lanes. 

- Add exclusive northbound left turn lane. 

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane. 

• #7. Hacienda & Valley View 

- Add two additional eastbound left turn lanes. 

- Add exclusive eastbound right turn lane. 

- Add third eastbound through lane. 

- Add second westbound left turn lane 

- Add second northbound left turn lane. 

- Add second southbound left turn lane. 

• #8. Russell & Polaris 

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane. 

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane. 

- Add three southbound left turn lanes. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-55 September 2008 

• #9. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps 

- Add second eastbound right turn lane. 

- Add second westbound left turn lane. 

- Add second southbound right turn lane. 

• #10. Russell/I-15 NB Ramps 

- Add third eastbound left turn lane. 

- Add second northbound left turn lane. 

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-39 presents 

the results of 2030 Baseline plus EMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are 

presented in the Appendix. 

Table 7-39 

South Station Location Alternative 

2030 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions LOS 

2030 Baseline plus 

EMU Mitigation 

Conditions 

Intersection Traffic Control LOS Delay1

1 W. Tropicana & S. Valley View Signalized D 50.4 

2 W. Tropicana & Dean Martin Dr Signalized D 41.5 

3 W. Tropicana & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 46.0 

5 Circulation/Aldebaran & W. Hacienda Signalized A 6.2 

6 W. Hacienda & Polaris Ave Signalized D 39.5 

7 W. Hacienda & S. Valley View Signalized D 53.7 

8 W. Russell & Polaris Signalized D 40.9 

9 W. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps Signalized D 44.2 

10 W. Russell & I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 36.4 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

As indicated in Table 7-39, all impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D 

or better) with mitigations. 

7.4 Central Station Location “B” Alternative 

The proposed Central Station Alternative “B” would be located west of I-15, near the existing 

Rio Suites Hotel and Casino. This station is bounded by Union Pacific Railroad and Polaris 

Avenue to the west, Dean Martin Drive to the east, Hotel Rio Drive to the North and West 

Harmon Avenue to the South. The proposed central station can be accessed from I-15 via 

ramps located at Flamingo Road and Tropicana Avenue. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-56 September 2008 

7.4.1 Existing Conditions 

EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK

• Las Vegas Boulevard Refer to Section 7.1.1 

• Flamingo Road Refer to Section 7.2.1 

• Tropicana Avenue Refer to Section 7.3.1 

EXISTING TRANSIT CONDITIONS

• Deuce-Las Vegas Blvd Refer to Section 7.1.1 

• 202-Flamingo Refer to Section 7.2.1 

• 201-Tropicana Refer to Section 7.3.1 

EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS

On-Street parking is generally not permitted on any street in the local roadway network near the 

proposed station location. 

EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS

Based on the station location options, intersections in the vicinity of the station location were 

identified for analysis purposes. The existing lane geometry at the study intersections is shown 

in Figure 7-7. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) conditions were analyzed for weekday PM 

peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM). The results of the analysis are presented in Table 7-40. 

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are provided in the Appendix. 

Table 7-40 

Central Station Location “B” Alternative - Existing Conditions LOS 

Existing Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

1 W Flamingo Rd/Hotel Rio Dr Signalized D 40.9 

2 Flamingo/I-15 SB Ramps Signalized A 7.2 

3 Flamingo/I-15 NB Ramps Signalized C 27.1 

4 Hotel Rio Dr/Dean Martin Dr Signalized C 24.1 

5 W Harmon Ave/Polaris Ave Signalized C 20.2 

6 W Tropicana Ave/Polaris Ave Signalized B 11.4 

7 W Tropicana Ave/Dean Martin Dr Signalized D 53.6 

8 Tropicana/I-15 SB Ramps Signalized B 15.3 

9 Tropicana/I-15 NB Ramps Signalized C 26.5 

10 W Harmon Ave/Aldebaran Ave Signalized B 11.7 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 
15

MOUNTAIN RD

HIGHLAND DR

POLLUX AV

CINDER LN

SPRING

W. TWAIN AV

W. VIKING RD

W. FLAMINGO RD

COMPLEX

DRIVE

DR

RIO

ROCHELLE AV

E. FLAMINGO RD

Y PROC

POLAR

A ALDEB

VIEW BLVD S. VALLEY

WYNN ST

ARVILLE ST

COUNTRY CLUB PARADISE RD

IDA AV

WINNICK AV

ALBERT AV

SANDS AV

HUGHES

HOWARD

MANHATTAN ST

INDUSTRIA

DEAN MARTIN DR

KOVAL LN

AUDRIE ST

HARMON AV

HARMON AV HARMON AV

POLARIS AV

ALDEBARAN AV BUSINESS LN

?

TOMPKINS AV TOMPKINS AV

PALMS CENTER

TROPICANA TROPICANA AV AV

BELL DR

DR

DR

HACIENDA

HACIENDA

FOUR SEASONS

MANDALAY BAY

RENO AV RENO AV

AV

AV

LN

MESA VISTA

ALI BABA

PROCYON ST

PROCYON ST

POLARIS AV

LARIS AV O

INDUSTRIAL RD

BLVD Y VIEW E

WYNN RD

WYNN RD

ARVILLE ST ARVILLE ST

KOVAL LN

AUDRIE ST

LAS VEGAS BLVD

DEAN MARTIN

FRANK SINATRA McCARRAN

INTERNATIONAL

HOTEL

DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED LAS VEGAS CENTRAL STATION

Figure 7-7

Central Station Alternative B

EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY

Central Geometry - Alt 2.ai

PROPOSED

CENTRAL

STATION

1

4

2 3

10 5

6 7 8 9 600’

175’

175’

Tropicana Av

7

Dean Martin Dr

230’230’

140’

155’

155’

Tropicana Av

6

Polaris Av

W. Flamingo Rd

1

Hotel Rio Dr

150’775’

300’150’

140’

375’

240’

W. Harmon Av

5

Polaris Av

10

W. Harmon Av

Aldebaran Av driveway 130’ 200’

150’

120’

Hotel Rio Dr

4

Dean Martin Dr

230’

200’

200’

200’

100’

2

Flamingo Rd

SB Ramps

250’250’

530’530’

430’

430’

430’

430’

430’

325’

200’

Flamingo Rd

3

NB Ramps

Tropicana Av

8

SB Ramps

700’

470’

600’600’

Tropicana Av

9

NB Ramps
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-58 September 2008 

As indicated in Table 7-40, all intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) 

in the existing conditions. 

7.4.2 Impact Analysis 

This section presents the assessment of transportation impacts due to the proposed project. 

The transportation conditions were assessed for the following scenarios: 

• 2013 Opening Year Conditions; 

• 2013 Opening Year plus Project (DMU and EMU alternatives) Conditions; 

• 2030 Cumulative Baseline Conditions; and, 

• 2030 Cumulative Baseline plus Project (DMU and EMU alternatives) Conditions 

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

The following are the significance criteria required by the Regional Transportation Commission 

of Southern Nevada for the determination of impacts associated with a proposed project: 

• Level of service C will be the design objective for capacity and under no circumstances 

will less than level of service D be accepted for site and non-site traffic. 

PROJECT TRAVEL DEMAND

The Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) travel demand forecasting model was used to 

develop the base “no-project” travel forecasts for future year 2013 and 2030 traffic analysis. 

RTC provided future year 2030 travel forecasts from the model to DMJM Harris. DMJM Harris 

has applied a straight line method to interpolate the intermediate year growth factors. The 

calculated growth factors were applied to the existing volumes to generate analysis year 

volumes. The growth factor calculations are presented in the Appendix. The additional 

project-related trips were then added to the future year base volumes to determine the “with 

project conditions”. 

TRIP DISTRIBUTION

The overall trip distribution for the station is shown in Figure 7-8. This station is served primarily 

by I-15 and Industrial Road – Dean Martin Drive in the north-south direction; Flamingo Road 

and Tropicana Avenue serve the east-east direction. Most trips to/from the commercial 

developments on ‘The Strip’ would use Tropicana Avenue and Flamingo Road due to 

accessibility. 
15

MOUNTAIN RD

HIGHLAND DR

POLLUX AV

CINDER LN

SPRING

W. TWAIN AV

W. VIKING RD

W. FLAMINGO RD

COMPLEX

DRIVE

DR

RIO

ROCHELLE AV

E. FLAMINGO RD

Y PROC

POLAR

A ALDEB

VIEW BLVD S. VALLEY

WYNN ST

ARVILLE ST

COUNTRY CLUB PARADISE RD

IDA AV

WINNICK AV

ALBERT AV

SANDS AV

HUGHES

HOWARD

MANHATTAN ST

INDUSTRIA

DEAN MARTIN DR

LAS VEGAS BOULEVARD S

KOVAL LN

AUDRIE ST

HARMON AV

HARMON AV HARMON AV

POLARIS AV

ALDEBARAN AV BUSINESS LN

?

TOMPKINS AV TOMPKINS AV

PALMS CENTER

TROPICANA TROPICANA AV AV

BELL DR

DR

DR

HACIENDA

HACIENDA

FOUR SEASONS

MANDALAY BAY

RENO AV RENO AV

AV

AV

LN

MESA VISTA

ALI BABA

PROCYON ST

PROCYON ST

POLARIS AV

LARIS AV O

INDUSTRIAL RD

BLVD Y VIEW E

WYNN RD

WYNN RD

ARVILLE ST ARVILLE ST

KOVAL LN

AUDRIE ST

LAS VEGAS BLVD

DEAN MARTIN

FRANK SINATRA McCARRAN

INTERNATIONAL

HOTEL

DESERT XPRESS PROPOSED LAS VEGAS CENTRAL STATION

Figure 7-8

CENTRAL STATION B TRIP DISTRIBUTION

Central Station Trip Distribution Alt 2.ai

PROPOSED

CENTRAL

STATION

5%

5%

10%

10%

30%

30%

(I-15)

10%

(I-15)
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-60 September 2008 

2013 Conditions (Opening Year Analysis) 

2013 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Future year 2013 base volumes were calculated by applying the growth factor on the existing 

year volumes. These volumes are presented in the Appendix. For analysis purposes, existing 

intersection geometry was assumed for future year 2013 conditions. Based on the future base 

volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level service analysis was performed. 

Table 7-41 presents the results of intersection operating conditions for future year 2013 baseline 

conditions. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

 

Table 7-41 

Central Station Location “B” Alternative 

2013 Baseline Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

1 W Flamingo Rd/Hotel Rio Dr Signalized D 39.0 

2 Flamingo/I-15 SB Signalized A 7.5 

3 Flamingo/I-15 NB Signalized C 29.0 

4 Hotel Rio Dr/Dean Martin Dr Signalized C 24.5 

5 W Harmon Ave/Polaris Ave Signalized C 20.6 

6 W Tropicana Ave/Polaris Ave Signalized B 12.7 

7 W Tropicana Ave/Dean Martin Dr Signalized E 60.2 

8 Tropicana/I-15 SB Ramp Signalized B 16.2 

9 Tropicana/I-15 NB Ramp Signalized C 31.2 

10 W Harmon Ave/Aldebaran Ave Signalized B 11.6 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

As indicated in Table 7-41, all the intersections operate at acceptable conditions except 

intersection of Tropicana Avenue at Dean Martin Drive that operates at unacceptable conditions 

(LOS E) under 2013 Baseline conditions. 

2013 BASELINE PLUS DIESEL-ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNIT (DMU) ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-8, project trips accessing the station were 

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative conditions for year 

2013 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2013 base 

conditions volumes to generate the 2013 baseline plus DMU volumes. For analysis purposes, 

existing intersection geometry was assumed for future year 2013 conditions. 

Based on the 2013 Baseline plus DMU volumes and the existing geometry, intersection level 

service analysis was performed. Table 7-42 presents the results of the analysis. SYNCHRO 

analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-61 September 2008 

Table 7-42 

Central Station Location “B” Alternative 

2013 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline 

Conditions 

2013 Baseline plus 

DMU Conditions 

Intersection LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 W Flamingo Rd/Hotel Rio Dr D 39.0 F 180.0 

2 Flamingo/I-15 SB A 7.5 A 7.4 

3 Flamingo/I-15 NB C 29.0 D 38.5 

4 Hotel Rio Dr/Dean Martin Dr C 24.5 D 46.9 

5 W Harmon Ave/Polaris Ave C 20.6 C 22.8 

6 W Tropicana Ave/Polaris Ave B 12.7 C 20.7 

7 W Tropicana Ave/Dean Martin Dr E 60.2 F 115.3 

8 Tropicana/I-15 SB Ramp B 16.2 B 15.5 

9 Tropicana/I-15 NB Ramp C 31.2 C 34.0 

10 W Harmon Ave/Aldebaran Ave B 11.6 C 22.0 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

As indicated in Table 7-42, intersection of Tropicana Avenue at Dean Martin Drive continues to 

operate at unacceptable conditions while intersection of Flamingo at Hotel Rio Drive 

deteriorates from acceptable conditions (LOS D) to unacceptable conditions (LOS F) with 

addition of the project volumes. 

2013 BASELINE PLUS ELECTRIC MULTIPLE UNIT (EMU) ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-8, project trips accessing the station were 

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for EMU alternative conditions for year 

2013 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2013 base 

conditions volumes to generate the 2013 baseline plus EMU volumes. 

Based on the 2013 Baseline plus EMU volumes and geometry presented in Figure 7-7, 

intersection level service analysis was performed. Table 7-43 presents the results of the 

analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 7-43, intersection of Tropicana Avenue at Dean Martin Drive continues to 

operate at unacceptable conditions while intersections of Flamingo at Hotel Rio Drive 

deteriorates from acceptable conditions (LOS D) to unacceptable conditions (LOS F) and Hotel 

Rio Drive at Dean Martin Drive deteriorates from acceptable (LOS C) to unacceptable (LOS F) 

conditions with addition of the project volumes. 

7.4.3 2030 Cumulative Conditions 

2030 BASELINE CONDITIONS

Future year 2030 base volumes were calculated by applying the growth factor on the existing 

year volumes. These volumes are presented in the Appendix. For analysis purposes, existing 

intersection geometry was assumed for future year 2030 conditions. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-62 September 2008 

Table 7-43 

Central Station Location “B” Alternative 

2013 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS 

2013 Baseline Conditions 

2013 Baseline plus 

EMU Conditions 

Intersection LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 W Flamingo Rd/Hotel Rio Dr D 39.0 F 293.4 

2 Flamingo/I-15 SB A 7.5 A 7.7 

3 Flamingo/I-15 NB C 29.0 D 45.5 

4 Hotel Rio Dr/Dean Martin Dr C 24.5 F 87.6 

5 W Harmon Ave/Polaris Ave C 20.6 C 25.7 

6 W Tropicana Ave/Polaris Ave B 12.7 C 26.5 

7 W Tropicana Ave/Dean Martin Dr E 60.2 F 149.7 

8 Tropicana/I-15 SB Ramp B 16.2 B 15.4 

9 Tropicana/I-15 NB Ramp C 31.2 D 35.7 

10 W Harmon Ave/Aldebaran Ave B 11.6 C 23.7 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

Based on the future base volumes and geometry presented in Figure 7-7, intersection level 

service analysis was performed. Table 7-44 presents the results of intersection operating 

conditions for future year 2030 baseline conditions. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are 

presented in the Appendix. 

Table 7-44 

Central Station Location “B” Alternative 

2030 Baseline Conditions 

2030 Baseline Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

1 W Flamingo Rd/Hotel Rio Dr Signalized D 39.1 

2 Flamingo/I-15 SB Signalized A 8.6 

3 Flamingo/I-15 NB Signalized D 37.9 

4 Hotel Rio Dr/Dean Martin Dr Signalized C 26.6 

5 W Harmon Ave/Polaris Ave Signalized B 18.7 

6 W Tropicana Ave/Polaris Ave Signalized B 17.6 

7 W Tropicana Ave/Dean Martin Dr Signalized F 80.2 

8 Tropicana/I-15 SB Ramp Signalized C 20.7 

9 Tropicana/I-15 NB Ramp Signalized E 77.0 

10 W Harmon Ave/Aldebaran Ave Signalized B 11.8 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-63 September 2008 

As indicated in Table 7-44, all the study intersections operate at acceptable conditions except 

intersections of Tropicana Avenue at Dean Martin Drive and Tropicana Avenue at I-15 

northbound ramps that operate at unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F) under 2030 Baseline 

conditions. 

2030 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-8, project trips accessing the station were 

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for DMU alternative conditions for year 

2030 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2030 base 

conditions volumes to generate the 2030 baseline plus DMU volumes. 

Based on the 2030 Baseline plus DMU volumes geometry presented in Figure 7-7, intersection 

level service analysis was performed. Table 7-45 presents the results of the analysis. 

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 7-45, the intersections of Tropicana Avenue at Dean Martin Drive and 

Tropicana Avenue at I-15 northbound ramps continue to operate at unacceptable conditions 

(LOS E or F). However, the intersections of Flamingo Road at Hotel Rio Drive deteriorate from 

LOS D to LOS F and Flamingo Road at I-15 northbound ramps deteriorates from LOS D to 

LOS E with the addition of project volumes. 

Table 7-45 

Central Station Location “B” Alternative 

2030 Baseline plus DMU Conditions LOS 

2030 Baseline 

Conditions 

2030 Baseline plus 

DMU Conditions 

Intersection LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 W Flamingo Rd/Hotel Rio Dr D 39.1 F 185.7 

2 Flamingo/I-15 SB A 8.6 A 8.7 

3 Flamingo/I-15 NB D 37.9 E 55.4 

4 Hotel Rio Dr/Dean Martin Dr C 26.6 D 49.2 

5 W Harmon Ave/Polaris Ave B 18.7 C 24.3 

6 W Tropicana Ave/Polaris Ave B 17.6 C 27.8 

7 W Tropicana Ave/Dean Martin Dr F 80.2 F 146.1 

8 Tropicana/I-15 SB Ramp C 20.7 C 20.1 

9 Tropicana/I-15 NB Ramp E 77.0 F 85.3 

10 W Harmon Ave/Aldebaran Ave B 11.8 C 22.9 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

2030 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

Based on the trip distribution presented in Figure 7-8, project trips accessing the station were 

assigned at the analysis intersections. The project trips for EMU alternative conditions for year 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-64 September 2008 

2030 are presented in the Appendix. These project trips were added to the 2030 base 

conditions volumes to generate the 2030 baseline plus EMU volumes. 

Based on the 2030 Baseline plus EMU volumes geometry presented in Figure 7-7, intersection 

level service analysis was performed. Table 7-46 presents the results of the analysis. 

SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in the Appendix. 

Table 7-46 

Central Station Location “B” Alternative 

2030 Baseline plus EMU Conditions LOS 

2030 Baseline 

Conditions 

2030 Baseline plus 

EMU Conditions 

Intersection LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1

1 W Flamingo Rd/Hotel Rio Dr D 39.1 F 301.2 

2 Flamingo/I-15 SB A 8.6 A 9.0 

3 Flamingo/I-15 NB D 37.9 E 64.4 

4 Hotel Rio Dr/Dean Martin Dr C 26.6 F 87.0 

5 W Harmon Ave/Polaris Ave B 18.7 C 27.5 

6 W Tropicana Ave/Polaris Ave B 17.6 D 35.0 

7 W Tropicana Ave/Dean Martin Dr F 80.2 F 181.2 

8 Tropicana/I-15 SB Ramp C 20.7 C 20.1 

9 Tropicana/I-15 NB Ramp E 77.0 F 87.6 

10 W Harmon Ave/Aldebaran Ave B 11.8 C 23.8 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

As indicated in Table 7-46, the intersections of Tropicana Avenue at Dean Martin Drive and 

Tropicana Avenue at I-15 northbound ramps continue to operate at unacceptable conditions 

(LOS E or F). However, the intersections of Flamingo Road at Hotel Rio Drive deteriorates from 

LOS D to LOS F, Flamingo Road at I-15 northbound ramps deteriorates from LOS D to 

LOS E and Hotel Rio Drive at Dean Martin Drive deteriorates from LOS C to LOS F with the 

addition of project volumes. 

7.4.4 Mitigation Measures 

It should be noted that the feasibility of the proposed mitigations suggested in this section have 

not been field verified. 

2013 BASELINE CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-41, all the intersections operate at acceptable conditions except the 

intersection of Tropicana Avenue at Dean Martin Drive that operates at unacceptable conditions 

(LOS E) under 2013 Baseline conditions. To mitigate this intersection, following mitigation 

measure is proposed: 

• #7. Tropicana Avenue & Dean Martin Drive 

- Optimize signal offset along Tropicana Avenue. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-65 September 2008 

Applying above mitigation, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-47 presents the 

results of 2013 Baseline mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented in 

the Appendix. 

Table 7-47 

Central Station Location “B” Alternative 

2013 Baseline Mitigation Conditions 

2013 Baseline Mitigation 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

7 W Tropicana Ave/Dean Martin Dr Signalized D 46.1 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

As indicated in Table 7-47, the intersection of Tropicana Avenue at Dean Martin Drive operates 

at acceptable conditions (LOS D) with mitigation. 

2013 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-42, the intersections of Tropicana Avenue at Dean Martin Drive and 

Flamingo Road at Hotel Rio Drive operate at unacceptable conditions (LOS F) under 2013 

Baseline plus DMU conditions. To mitigate these intersections, following mitigation measures 

are proposed: 

• #1. Flamingo Road & Hotel Rio Drive 

- Add fourth eastbound through lane. 

- Add second westbound left turn lane. 

- Add second northbound right turn lane. 

• #7. Tropicana Avenue & Dean Martin Drive 

- Add exclusive eastbound right turn lane. 

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-48 presents 

the results of 2013 Baseline plus DMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are 

presented in the Appendix. 

As indicated in Table 7-48, all the impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS 

D) with mitigations. 

2013 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-43, the intersections of Tropicana Avenue at Dean Martin Drive, 

Flamingo at Hotel Rio Drive and Hotel Rio Drive at Dean Martin Drive operate at unacceptable 

conditions under 2013 Baseline plus EMU conditions. To mitigate these intersections, following 

mitigation measures are proposed: 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-66 September 2008 

Table 7-48 

Central Station Location “B” Alternative 

2013 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions 

2013 Baseline plus DMU 

Mitigation Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

1 W Flamingo Rd/Hotel Rio Dr Signalized D 46.1 

7 W Tropicana Ave/Dean Martin Dr Signalized D 49.0 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

• #1. Flamingo Road & Hotel Rio Drive 

- Add fourth eastbound through lane. 

- Add second westbound left turn lane. 

- Add fourth westbound through lane. 

- Add second northbound right turn lane. 

• #4. Hotel Rio Drive & Dean Martin Drive 

- Modify eastbound right turn to have overlap phasing. 

• #7. Tropicana Avenue & Dean Martin Drive 

- Add exclusive eastbound right turn lane. 

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane. 

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane. 

- Add third southbound left turn lane. 

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-49 presents 

the results of 2013 Baseline plus EMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are 

presented in the Appendix. 

Table 7-49 

Central Station Location “B” Alternative 

2013 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions 

2013 Baseline plus EMU 

Mitigation Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

1 W Flamingo Rd/Hotel Rio Dr Signalized D 51.6 

4 Hotel Rio Dr/Dean Martin Dr Signalized C 30.5 

7 W Tropicana Ave/Dean Martin Dr Signalized D 42.2 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

As indicated in Table 7-49, all the impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS 

D or better) with mitigations. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-67 September 2008 

2030 BASELINE CONDITIONS 

As indicated in Table 7-44, the intersections of Tropicana Avenue at Dean Martin Drive and 

Tropicana Avenue at I-15 northbound ramps operate at unacceptable conditions (LOS E or F) 

under 2030 Baseline conditions. To mitigate these intersections, following mitigation measures 

are proposed: 

• #7. Tropicana Avenue & Dean Martin Drive 

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane. 

• #9. Tropicana Avenue & I-15 NB Ramps 

- Optimize signal offsets along Tropicana Avenue. 

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-50 presents 

the results of 2030 Baseline mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are presented 

in the Appendix. 

Table 7-50 

Central Station Location “B” Alternative 

2030 Baseline Mitigation Conditions 

2030 Baseline Mitigation 

Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

7 W Tropicana Ave/Dean Martin Dr Signalized D 54.0 

9 Tropicana/I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 46.3 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

As indicated in Table 7-50, all the impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS 

D) with mitigations. 

2030 BASELINE PLUS DMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-45, the intersections of Tropicana Avenue at Dean Martin Drive, 

Tropicana Avenue at I-15 northbound ramps, Flamingo Road at Hotel Rio Drive and Flamingo 

Road at I-15 northbound ramps operate at unacceptable conditions under 2030 Baseline plus 

DMU conditions. To mitigate these intersections, following mitigation measures are proposed: 

• #1. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Drive 

- Add fourth eastbound through lane. 

- Add fourth westbound through lane. 

- Stripe existing northbound through lane as share through right lane. 

• #3. Flamingo Road & I-15 NB Ramps 

- Optimize signal offsets along Flamingo Road. 

• #7. Tropicana Avenue & Dean Martin Drive 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-68 September 2008 

- Add fourth eastbound through lane. 

- Add fourth westbound through lane. 

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane. 

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane. 

- Add third southbound left turn lane. 

• #9. Tropicana Avenue & I-15 NB Ramps 

- Add second northbound right turn lane. 

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-51 presents 

the results of 2030 Baseline plus DMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are 

presented in the Appendix. 

Table 7-51 

Central Station Location “B” Alternative 

 2030 Baseline plus DMU Mitigation Conditions 

2030 Baseline plus DMU 

Mitigation Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

1 W Flamingo Rd/Hotel Rio Dr Signalized D 42.5 

3 Flamingo/I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 51.4 

7 W Tropicana Ave/Dean Martin Dr Signalized D 42.8 

9 Tropicana/I-15 NB Ramps Signalized D 51.4 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

As indicated in Table 7-51, all the impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS 

D) with mitigations. 

2030 BASELINE PLUS EMU CONDITIONS

As indicated in Table 7-46, the intersections of Tropicana Avenue at Dean Martin Drive, 

Tropicana Avenue at I-15 northbound ramps, Flamingo Road at Hotel Rio Drive, Flamingo Road 

at I-15 northbound ramps and Hotel Rio Drive at Dean Martin Drive operate at unacceptable 

conditions under 2030 Baseline plus EMU conditions. To mitigate these intersections, following 

mitigation measures are proposed: 

• #1. Flamingo & Hotel Rio Drive 

- Add fourth eastbound through lane. 

- Add fourth westbound through lane. 

- Stripe existing northbound through lane as share through right lane. 

• #3. Flamingo & I-15 NB Ramps 

- Add fourth westbound through lane. 

• #4. Hotel Rio Drive & Dean Martin Drive 

- Add second northbound left turn lane. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 7.0 – LAS VEGAS AREA ANALYSIS 

 7-69 September 2008 

• #7. Tropicana Avenue & Dean Martin Drive 

- Add fourth eastbound through lane. 

- Add fourth westbound through lane. 

- Add exclusive westbound right turn lane. 

- Add exclusive northbound right turn lane. 

- Add third southbound left turn lane. 

• #9. Tropicana Avenue & I-15 NB Ramps 

- Add second northbound right turn lane. 

Applying above mitigations, intersection level of service was calculated. Table 7-52 presents 

the results of 2030 Baseline plus EMU mitigation analysis. SYNCHRO analysis worksheets are 

presented in the Appendix. 

Table 7-52 

Central Station Location “B” Alternative 

2030 Baseline plus EMU Mitigation Conditions 

2030 Baseline plus EMU 

Mitigation Conditions 

Intersection 

Traffic 

Control LOS Delay1

1 W Flamingo Rd/Hotel Rio Dr Signalized D 48.4 

3 Flamingo/I-15 NB Signalized D 37.0 

4 Hotel Rio Dr/Dean Martin Dr Signalized D 54.2 

7 W Tropicana Ave/Dean Martin Dr Signalized D 47.1 

9 Tropicana/I-15 NB Ramp Signalized D 54.4 

Notes: SOURCE: DMJM Harris, 2008. 

1. Delay reported in seconds per vehicle 

As indicated in Table 7-52, all the impacted intersections operate at acceptable conditions (LOS 

D) with mitigations. 

 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 8.0 –SUMMARY 

 8-1 September 2008 (rev) 

8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

The preceding analysis indicates that implementation of the DesertXpress project would result 

in a reduction in traffic on Interstate 15 between Victorville and Las Vegas, when compared to 

the no-project condition. This reduction ranges from 400 to 500 vehicles per peak hour in the 

peak direction in 2013, and 1,100 to 1,400 vehicles in 2030, depending on whether the DMU or 

EMU alternative is selected. 

In the areas around the proposed rail stations, the DesertXpress project would result in higher 

traffic volumes through some nearby intersections. In general, these higher volumes can be 

mitigated by adding signalization and/or adding lanes to the intersection approaches. Tables 8-

1 and 8-2 summarize the mitigation measures recommended for the DMU and EMU alternatives 

respectively. 

The following paragraphs describe the mitigation measures identified for the EMU alternative in 

2013 for each alternative station site: 

Victorville Station – Option 1: Signalize all four intersections that comprise the South 

Stoddard Wells Road interchange with I-15, and add a left turn lane to the southbound approach 

of the southbound ramp intersection. 

Victorville Station – Option 2: Signalize the two intersections on Stoddard Wells Road that 

serve the I-15 interchange, and add a left turn lane to the northbound approach of the 

northbound ramp intersection. 

Las Vegas Station – Downtown Alternative: At Main Street/Charleston Boulevard, which is 

the primary intersection serving the station, add: 

• Fourth westbound through lane. 

• Exclusive westbound right turn lane. 

• Second eastbound left turn lane. 

• Exclusive eastbound right turn lane. 

• Exclusive dual southbound right turn lanes. 

Also add a right turn lane to the eastbound approach of the Charleston Boulevard/South Martin 

Luther King Boulevard intersection. 

Las Vegas Station – Central Location “A” Alternative: Add the following to the Flamingo 

Road/Hotel Rio Drive intersection, which would be one of the primary access points to the 

station: 

• Third southbound left turn lane. 

• Fourth westbound through lane. 

• Second westbound right turn lane. 

• Fourth eastbound through lane. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 8.0 –SUMMARY 

 8-2 September 2008 (rev) 

Add one right turn lane to one approach at each of the following intersections: Twain 

Avenue/Dean Martin Drive/Industrial, Industrial/Frank Sinatra Drive, and Flamingo 

Road/Northbound I-15 Ramps. 

Las Vegas Station – South Alternative: At the Polaris Avenue/Hacienda Avenue intersection, 

add one turn lane to the eastbound, westbound and northbound approaches. At the Polaris 

Avenue/Russell Road intersection, add the following: 

• Exclusive eastbound right turn lane. 

• Second westbound left turn lane. 

• Exclusive northbound left turn lane. 

Signalize the Hacienda Avenue/Aldebaran intersection. Add a right turn lane to the southbound 

approach of the Russell Road/Southbound I-15 Ramps intersection. At the Tropicana 

Avenue/Dean Martin Drive/Industrial Road intersection, add right turn lanes to the westbound 

and northbound approaches. (Note that of the four Las Vegas alternatives, this location is in the 

least developed neighborhood with the lowest-capacity existing street system.) 

Las Vegas Station – Central Location “B” Alternative: Add the following to the Flamingo 

Road/Hotel Rio Drive intersection, which would be one of the primary access points to the 

station: 

• Fourth eastbound through lane. 

• Second westbound left turn lane. 

• Fourth westbound through lane. 

• Second northbound right turn lane. 

At Tropicana Avenue/Dean Martin Drive add one lane to each approach. 

Table 8-1 

Project Mitigations – DMU Alternatives 

Station Location 

Alternative Existing 2013 2030 

Victorville 

Option 1 

 

#1. Outer Highway & I-15 NB 

Ramps 

− Signalize 

 

#4. Stoddard Wells Road & I15 SB Off-ramp 

− Signalize 

 #5. Stoddard Wells Road & 

Station Access #1 

− Add third southbound 

through lane 

 

#7 & #8. Stoddard Wells 

Road & i-15 Ramps 

− Future intersections 

cannot be mitigated under 

2030 Baseline (No build) 

conditions. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 8.0 –SUMMARY 

 8-3 September 2008 (rev) 

Station Location 

Alternative Existing 2013 2030 

Victorville 

Option 2 

 

No mitigations required under 

this scenario. 

 

#1. Stoddard Wells Road & I15 NB Ramps 

− Signalize 

No mitigations required under 

this scenario. 

 

Downtown Station 

Location 

Alternative 

 

No analysis performed for 

Existing plus DMU project 

conditions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 #9. Main Street / Charleston 

Boulevard 

− Add second eastbound 

left turn lane 

− Add exclusive dual 

southbound right turn 

lanes 

 

 

 

 

 

 #8. Grand Central Parkway / 

W. Charleston Boulevard 

− Add fourth westbound 

through lane. 

#9. Main Street/Charleston 

Boulevard 

− Add third eastbound left 

turn lane. 

− Add exclusive eastbound 

right turn lane. 

#15. I15 Ramps/Charleston 

Boulevard (SPUI 

Interchange) 

− Add third southbound left 

turn lane 

Central Station 

Location "A" 

 

No analysis performed for 

Existing plus DMU project 

conditions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 #5. Twain Avenue & Dean 

Martin Drive/Industrial 

− Optimize network offset. 

#8. Flamingo & I-15 NB 

Ramps 

− Optimize network offset. 

#11. Flamingo & Hotel Rio 

Drive 

− Add third southbound left 

turn lane. 

− Add fourth westbound 

through lane. 

− Add second westbound 

right turn lane. 

− Add fourth eastbound 

through lane. 

 #5. Twain Avenue & Dean 

Martin Drive/Industrial 

− Add second southbound 

right turn lane. 

#8. Flamingo & I-15 NB 

Ramps 

− Add third eastbound left 

turn lane 

South Station 

Location 

 

No analysis performed for 

Existing plus DMU project 

conditions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 #2. Tropicana & Dean 

Martin Drive/Industrial 

− Add exclusive westbound 

right turn lane. 

− Add exclusive northbound 

right turn lane. 

#5. Hacienda & Aldebaran 

− Signalize this intersection. 

#6. Hacienda & Polaris 

− Add exclusive northbound 

left turn lane. 

#8. Russell/Polaris 

− Add exclusive westbound 

right turn lane. 

 #1. Tropicana & Valley View 

− Add second westbound 

left turn lane. 

#6. Hacienda & Polaris 

− Add exclusive northbound 

right turn lane. 

#7. Hacienda & Valley View 

− Add third eastbound left 

turn lane. 

− Add second westbound 

left turn lane. 

#8. Russell & Polaris 

− Add third southbound left 

turn lane. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 8.0 –SUMMARY 

 8-4 September 2008 (rev) 

Station Location 

Alternative Existing 2013 2030 

 

 

 

 

− Add exclusive northbound 

right turn lane. 

− Add southbound dual left 

turn lanes. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#9. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps 

− Add second eastbound 

right turn lane. 

#10. Russell/I-15 NB Ramps 

− Add second north-bound 

left turn lane. 

Central Station 

Location "B" 

 

No analysis performed for 

Existing plus DMU project 

conditions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 #1. Flamingo Road & Hotel 

Rio Drive 

− Add fourth eastbound 

through lane. 

− Add second westbound 

left turn lane. 

− Add second northbound 

right turn lane. 

#7. Tropicana Avenue & 

Dean Martin Drive 

− Add exclusive eastbound 

right turn lane. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 #1. Flamingo & Hotel Rio 

Drive 

− Add fourth westbound 

through lane. 

− Stripe existing northbound 

through lane as shared 

through/right lane. 

#3. Flamingo Road & I-15 NB 

Ramps 

− Optimize signal offsets 

along Flamingo Road. 

#7. Tropicana Avenue & 

Dean Martin Drive 

− Add fourth eastbound 

through lane. 

− Add fourth westbound 

through lane. 

− Add exclusive westbound 

right turn lane. 

− Add third southbound left 

turn lane. 

#9. Tropicana Avenue & I-15 

NB Ramps 

− Add second northbound 

right turn lane. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 8.0 –SUMMARY 

 8-5 September 2008 (rev) 

Table 8-2 

Project Mitigations – EMU Alternatives 

Station Location 

Alternative Existing 2013 2030 

Victorville Option 1 #1. Outer Highway & I-15 NB 

Ramps 

− Signalize 

 #2. Outer Highway & 

Stoddard Wells Road 

− Signalize 

− Add northbound left turn 

lane 

− Add south-bound right 

turn lane 

 #3. Stoddard Wells Road & I15 SB On-ramp 

− Signalize 

 #4. Stoddard Wells Road & I15 SB Off-ramp 

− Signalize 

 #5. Stoddard Wells Road & 

Station Access #1 

− Add third southbound 

through lane 

 

#7 & #8. Stoddard Wells 

Road & i-15 Ramps 

Future intersections cannot 

be mitigated under 2030 

Baseline (No build) 

conditions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Victorville Option 2 #1. Stoddard Wells Road & I15 NB Ramps 

− Signalize 

 

 

#2. Stoddard Wells Road & 

Quarry Road 

− Signalize 

 #1. Stoddard Wells Road & I15 NB Ramps 

− Add northbound left turn 

lane 

 #1. Stoddard Wells Road & I15 NB Ramps 

− Add second southbound 

right turn lane 

 

 

 

 

Downtown Station 

Location 

Alternative 

 

No analysis performed for 

Existing plus EMU project 

conditions. 

 

 

 

 #6. Charleston/S. Martin 

Luther King Boulevard 

− Add exclusive eastbound 

right turn lane. 

#9. Main Street/Charleston 

Boulevard 

− Add fourth westbound 

through lane. 

− Add exclusive westbound 

right turn lane. 

− Add second eastbound 

left turn lane. 

− Add exclusive eastbound 

right turn lane. 

− Add exclusive dual 

southbound right turn 

lanes. 

 

 

 #4. Bonneville/S. Martin 

Luther King Boulevard 

− Add exclusive westbound 

right turn lane. 

#8. Grand Central 

Parkway/W. Charleston 

Boulevard 

− Add fourth westbound 

through lane. 

#9. Main Street/Charleston 

Boulevard 

− Add third eastbound left 

turn lane. 

− Add second northbound 

left turn lane. 

− Add exclusive 

northbound right turn 

lane. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 8.0 –SUMMARY 

 8-6 September 2008 (rev) 

Station Location 

Alternative Existing 2013 2030 

 

 

− Add fifth westbound 

through lane. 

− Add second southbound 

left turn lane. 

#15. I-15 Ramps / Charleston 

Boulevard (SPUI 

Interchange) 

− Add third southbound left 

turn lane. 

− Add fourth westbound 

through lane. 

Central Station 

Location "A" 

 No analysis performed for 

Existing plus EMU project 

conditions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 #5. Twain Avenue & Dean 

Martin Drive/Industrial 

− Add second southbound 

right turn lane. 

#6. Industrial & Frank Sinatra 

− Add second westbound 

right turn lane 

#8. Flamingo & I-15 NB 

Ramps 

− Add third eastbound right 

turn lane 

#11. Flamingo & Hotel Rio 

Drive 

− Add third southbound left 

turn lane. 

− Add fourth westbound 

through lane. 

− Add second westbound 

right turn lane. 

− Add fourth eastbound 

through lane. 

#8. Flamingo & I-15 NB 

Ramps 

− Add third eastbound left 

turn lane. 

− Add fourth westbound 

through lane. 

South Station 

Location 

 

 No analysis performed for 

Existing plus EMU project 

conditions. 

 #2. Tropicana & Dean 

Martin Drive/Industrial 

− Add exclusive westbound 

right turn lane. 

− Add exclusive northbound 

right turn lane. 

#5. Hacienda & Aldebaran 

− Signalize this intersection. 

#6. Hacienda & Polaris 

− Add exclusive eastbound 

right turn lane. 

− Add second westbound 

left turn lane. 

− Add exclusive northbound 

left turn lane. 

#8. Russell/Polaris 

 #1. Tropicana & Valley View 

− Add second westbound 

left turn lane. 

#2. Tropicana & Dean Martin 

Drive/Industrial 

− Add exclusive westbound 

right turn lane. 

− Add third northbound 

through lane. 

− Add exclusive northbound 

right turn lane. 

#6. Hacienda & Polaris 

− Add third westbound left 

turn lane. 

− Add exclusive northbound 

right turn lane. 
Draft Final Report - DesertXpress Traffic Impact Analysis 8.0 –SUMMARY 

 8-7 September 2008 (rev) 

Station Location 

Alternative Existing 2013 2030 

− Add exclusive westbound 

right turn lane. 

− Add exclusive northbound 

right turn lane. 

− Add southbound dual left 

turn lanes. 

− Add exclusive 

southbound right turn 

lane. 

#9. Russell/I-15 SB Ramps 

− Add second southbound 

right turn lane. 

 

 

 

#7. Hacienda & Valley View 

− Add third eastbound left 

turn lane. 

− Add second westbound 

left turn lane 

− Add second southbound 

left turn lane. 

#8. Russell & Polaris 

− Add third southbound left 

turn lane. 

#9. Russell & I-15 SB Ramps 

− Add second eastbound 

right turn lane. 

− Add second westbound 

left turn lane. 

#10. Russell/I-15 NB Ramps 

− Add third eastbound left 

turn lane. 

− Add second northbound 

left turn lane. 

Central Station 

Location "B" 

No analysis performed for 

Existing plus EMU project 

conditions. 

 

 #1. Flamingo Road & Hotel 

Rio Drive 

− Add fourth eastbound 

through lane. 

− Add second westbound 

left turn lane. 

− Add fourth westbound 

through lane. 

− Add second northbound 

right turn lane. 

#4. Hotel Rio Drive & Dean 

Martin Drive 

− Modify eastbound right 

turn to have overlap 

phasing. 

#7. Tropicana Avenue & 

Dean Martin Drive 

− Add exclusive eastbound 

right turn lane. 

− Add exclusive westbound 

right turn lane. 

− Add exclusive northbound 

right turn lane. 

− Add third southbound left 

turn lane. 

 #1. Flamingo & Hotel Rio 

Drive 

− Stripe existing northbound 

through lane as shared 

through/right lane. 

#3. Flamingo & I-15 NB 

Ramps 

− Add fourth westbound 

through lane. 

#4. Hotel Rio Drive & Dean 

Martin Drive 

− Add second northbound 

left turn lane. 

#7. Tropicana Avenue & 

Dean Martin Drive 

− Add fourth eastbound 

through lane. 

− Add fourth westbound 

through lane. 

#9. Tropicana Avenue & I-15 

NB Ramp 

− Add second northbound 

right turn lane.