ADOPTED APRIL 2012

Southern California Association of Governments

PASSENGER RAIL APPENDIX
PASSENGER RAIL

Overview and Description 1

High Speed Rail 1

HSRT and the IOS 2

The State of the Existing Passenger Rail System 3

The Pacific Surfliner 3

Metrolink 4

Projects In Development 6

The Constrained and Strategic Plans: Our Passenger Rail Vision 7

Constrained and Strategic Plan Project Selection 7

Funding Rail Investment: Phased Implementation and the Blended Approach 14

Strategies and Recommendations 16

Speed and Service 16

Cooperative Agreements 16

Marketing and Fares 18

The Strategic Plan: Our Ultimate Vision for High Speed Rail 19

Strategic Plan Projects 19

Greater Vision for our Commuter and Passenger Rail System 20

Metrolink Enhancements 20

Additional Passenger Rail Service 21
Overview and Description

While the SCAG Region is served by a large and diverse transit system, including heavy 

rail, light rail, fixed route bus and demand response services, it is also served by a 

network of intercity passenger rail and commuter rail services. These services operate on 

the region’s rail network, often sharing facilities with freight rail. They operate at higher 

speeds and have less frequent station stops than traditional transit services, and are 

more likely to serve intercity and interregional trips.

Two operators offer rail services to passengers within our region: Amtrak and the 

Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink). Between the two services, 

Southern California has a passenger rail network serving five of the six counties in the 

SCAG region. 

Within our region, intercity passenger rail service is operated by Amtrak, and is divided 

into two types of service: long distance and corridor. Four of Amtrak’s fifteen long distance routes, the Coast Starlight, the Texas Eagle, the Southwest Chief, and the Sunset 

Limited, connect our region with destinations throughout the country. Of these services, 

the Coast Starlight and Southwest Chief offer daily service, and the other two offer service three days a week.

Amtrak provides much more frequent intercity passenger rail corridor service via the 

Pacific Surfliner. This 351 mile long service traverses the length of the Los Angeles-San 

Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) rail corridor. Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner is the second 

most used service in Amtrak’s national network, moving nearly 9 percent of the system’s 

total national ridership. Surfliner ridership is also growing over 8 percent a year recently. 

Administrative and management services for this corridor are currently provided by the 

Caltrans Division of Rail, and both Amtrak and Caltrans contribute operating revenues for 

the Surfliner.

Metrolink is currently the sole operator of commuter rail service in our region. Metrolink 

operates 512 route miles of service along seven routes in Ventura, Orange, Los Angeles, 

San Bernardino, Riverside and San Diego Counties. Metrolink passengers travel further 

than most other transit passengers, having an average trip length of 36.9 miles. In 

FY 2011, Metrolink reported providing 10,605,300 unlinked passenger trips. Five routes, 

the Ventura County Line, the Orange County Line, the Inland Empire-Orange County Line, 

and the SR-91 Line, share portions of the LOSSAN Corridor with the Pacific Surfliner. 

Other Metrolink routes include the Antelope Valley Line, the San Bernardino Line, and the 

Riverside Line.

High Speed Rail 

Despite these services, fast and efficient interregional ground transportation remains an 

issue within our region. SCAG has historically sought to address these issues through the 

development of a High Speed Regional Transport (HSRT) system. Beginning in the 1990s, 

HSRT was seen as a way of providing high speed intraregional mobility in key transportation corridors. This system was seen as a way to provide an alternative to congested 

commutes, to aid the regional goods movement system, and to help regionalize our aviation system.

As described in the 2001, 2004, and 2008 RTPs, an HSRT system would facilitate the 

development of a regional airport system and connect major activity and multi-modal 

transportation centers in Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange Counties. In 

December 2002, SCAG’s Regional Council approved the focused study of a 56-mile Initial 

Operating Segment (IOS) of the HSRT system, connecting West Los Angeles with Ontario 

International Airport via Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS).

TECHNICAL ANALYSES OF THE HSRT IOS

SCAG has produced multiple analyses of the HSRT serving the IOS Corridor since 1998. 

The first of these reports was “Southern California Intra Regional Maglev for the Next 

Millennium,” published in 1998. This was followed by the “California Maglev Deployment 

Program” in 2000, which contained a detailed project description and ridership projections for the West L.A. to Inland Empire Corridor. The “SCAG Maglev Deployment Program 

Phases I and II” were published in 2003 and 2006, respectively. The report for Phase 

I included financial analyses, and explored the integration of the IOS with existing rail 

infrastructure. Phase II included detailed cost analysis, and preliminary engineering 

drawings and station designs. In 2007, SCAG released two more reports, the “West Los 

Angeles Multi-Modal Transfer Transit Site Survey” and the “HSRT Business Plan.” The 

West Los Angeles report analyzed potential station sites in West L.A., and the Business 

Plan investigated financial innovations for funding the HSRT system. In early 2009, SCAG 

released the “HSRT Alternatives Analysis” which presented refined ridership and financial 

forecasts, as well as analysis of a possible HSRT extension to LAX.

Passenger Rail 1
HSRT and the IOS

Much of SCAG’s analysis of HSRT has focused on Maglev propulsion systems. Maglev 

is the name for an elevated monorail using advanced magnetic levitation technology to 

move people and goods at a very high speed (up to 310 mph). Maglev technology exists 

on test tracks in Europe, Japan, and the United States. Worldwide, the only high speed 

Maglev system in revenue service is the Shanghai Transrapid, a 19 mile system connecting Shanghai Pudong International Airport with the Longyang Road Metro Station 

in Shanghai’s suburbs. A low speed Maglev system also operates in the Japanese city 

of Nagoya. Capital and operating costs remain fairly amorphous in the North American 

context. As these details became apparent, analysis of the HSRT IOS became mode 

neutral, and further study of the proposal evaluated both Maglev and conventional High 

Speed Rail.

In selecting the IOS, SCAG considered the RTP performance measures, stakeholder support and environmental issues. Initial feasibility studies suggested that the HSRT system 

could be constructed and deployed through a public-private partnership structure administered through a public agency or a Joint Powers Authority (JPA). In 2009, the Southern 

California Regional High Speed Transport Authority (SCRHSTA) began meeting in order to 

pursue strategies to deliver an HSRT IOS project. The Cities of Los Angeles, West Covina, 

and Ontario were the partners in this JPA. The JPA met several times in 2009, but has 

since been dormant.

SCAG’s technical analysis of the potential HSRT IOS evolved over the course of ten 

years. By the publication of the HSRT AA in 2009, consultant staff were using the most 

advanced analytical tools and more conservative assumptions. This led to lower performance projections than earlier studies, and methodological reasons for these differences are discussed in the appendices to the HSRT AA. Further, the HSRT AA sought to 

compare the costs and benefits of both conventional and Maglev high speed transport 

systems, and of routes along I-10 or the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. The proposals examined included station assumptions in West L.A., L.A.Union Station, Ontario 

International Airport, and either West Covina or the City of Industry.

TABLE 1 Key Findings 2009 High Speed Regional Transportation 

Alternatives Analysis

Technology 2035 Daily Ridership 

Forecast

Estimated Capital Cost 

(in 2008 Dollars)

Conventional High Speed 

Rail Technology 11,290–12,470 $4.63 Billion–$4.41 Billion

Maglev Technology 11,670–12,800 $7.03 Billion–$7.82 Billion

Source: SCAG [2009] High Speed Regional Transportation System Alternatives Analysis

 Travel Time Variation: Travel time varied by about 12 percent among the four different options. This variety is influenced by technology, alignment, and direction. 

Neither technology reaches its top design speed (311 mph for maglev and 220 mph 

for High Speed Rail).

 Capital Cost Estimates: Capital cost estimates range between $4.41 and $7.82 

billion for the four options. Maglev options in this corridor appear to be about 60 

percent to 70 percent more capital intensive. Maglev systems require much higher 

guide-beam costs, more intensive traction and power distribution investments, and 

higher vehicle acquisition costs.

 Operations Costs and Revenue Forecast: Forecast annual operational revenues vary 

between $52.6 million and $57 million. None of the four alternatives generates an 

operational surplus by the 2035 forecast year. Annual O&M costs were forecast 

to be between $73.4 and $81.2 million and projected annual operating deficits in 

that year range from $16.4 to $28.6 million. Maglev technologies have significantly 

higher propulsion costs—due to high electric consumption. HSR systems have significantly higher Maintenance of Equipment costs. Farebox recovery would be about 

65 percent to 78 percent, which is fairly high for an intraregional transit system. 

By adjusting fares to a more distance-weighted regimen, the HSRT system would 

attract 28 percent more riders and 18 percent more revenues. 

Given the projected operations loss, none of the proposed HSRT alternatives would likely 

generate revenues sufficient for bond financing. An economic analysis was performed 

using Monte Carlo Simulation, and found that in only 14 percent of scenarios would 

there be positive revenue; even assuming revenue maximizing fares only 38 percent of 

2 Passenger Rail
operating scenarios would return positive revenue. It would be very difficult to attract 

private sector financing with these revenue projections. Moreover, it is important to note 

that in these forecasts technology has no impact on profitability while ridership, revenue, 

and operational performance are roughly similar across modes, and capital costs are 

60–70 percent higher for MAGLEV.

While SCAG was analyzing the potential of a HSRT, the state had begun analyzing the 

potential of a statewide high speed rail system. In 1996, the state legislature authorized 

the formation of the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority). The Authority has 

spent the past fifteen years planning and designing a two-phase High-Speed Train (HST) 

system, intending to link Southern California and the Bay Area. In 2008, California voters 

approved Prop 1A, authorizing nearly $9 billion in bonds for system design and construction. Phase I of the HST system will connect San Francisco with Anaheim, with several 

intermediate stops, and Phase II will add connections to Sacramento, Ontario, Riverside, 

and San Diego.

The evolution of the state HST system illustrated very large challenges to the HSRT 

system. The first is financial: the HSRT’s business model appears to be unprofitable, and 

there are no apparent programmed funds for project development or delivery. It seems 

that bond financing or private sector financing is also very unlikely for this proposal. 

Secondly, the HSRT IOS would likely occupy a corridor that has also been analyzed by the 

Authority for Phase II of the California HST, specifically the Los Angeles to San Diego via 

the Inland Empire segment. The Authority has recently issued a preliminary Alternatives 

Analysis of this corridor, which included a comprehensive outreach process including 

monthly meetings with county transportation commissions and MPOs along the corridor, 

a series of technical working groups with local agency staff, one-on-one meetings with 

local agencies and jurisdictions, and several series of public meetings. The Authority 

is currently seeking Prop 1A planning funds to continue technical and outreach work in 

pursuit of an EIR/EIS.

This competing project is also part a state wide transport system, and ridership numbers 

would benefit from access to Riverside, San Diego, the Central Valley and the Bay Area. 

Further, given these longer distances, the fare structure is drastically different than for 

the HSRT, with much higher maximum ticket prices. These fares give the project a much 

higher likelihood of profitability, and thus private sector finance.

The state HST system will provide an additional long distance transport option in the state 

of California, offering an alternative to air and auto travel for Californians. Total cost for 

Phase I is estimated at $98.5 billion in year of expenditure dollars. This figure does not 

include Phase II, and the state has secured only $12.6 billion in funds for the project to 

date. The Authority, in partnership with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), has 

chosen to begin construction in the San Joaquin Valley, using federal High-Speed and 

Intercity Passenger Rail funds. 

Three segments of the project are being developed in the SCAG Region: Los Angeles to 

Anaheim, Los Angeles to Palmdale, and Los Angeles to San Diego via the Inland Empire. 

All three segments have produced Alternatives Analysis documents, and are proceeding in 

various stages of the environmental review process. The Authority’s Draft 2012 Business 

Plan was recently released and has introduced a new construction and implementation 

approach called the “Blended Approach,” that recognizes the funding and implementation 

realities that have changed dramatically since passage of the bond. A major component 

of this approach is to connect to, and invest in, existing rail services in the state until the 

entire HST system is built.

The State of the Existing Passenger Rail System

The Pacific Surfliner

Passenger rail service has been operated in the Los Angeles to San Diego corridor since 

1938. This service, dubbed the San Diegan, was initially operated by the AtchinsonTopeka and Santa Fe Railroad. In 1971, when domestic passenger rail services were 

nationalized, Amtrak assumed operation of the San Diegan service, In 1992, Metrolink 

commuter rail service was added to the corridor as a result of new state revenues from 

the passage of 1990’s Proposition 116. In 2000, the San Diegan was renamed the Pacific 

Surfliner, and service was extended north to San Luis Obispo. 

In order to coordinate planning activities along the corridor, stakeholders formed the 

Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency (LOSSAN). LOSSAN is 

a JPA which seeks to address issues of safety, revenue, productivity and reliability 

along the LOSSAN corridor. Its membership consists of the San Luis Obispo Council of 

Governments (SLOCOG), the Santa Barbara Association of Governments (SBCAG), the 

Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC), the Los Angeles County Metropolitan 

Passenger Rail 3
Transportation Authority (Metro), the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), 

the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), the North County Transit District 

(NCTD), the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and the California Department 

of Transportation’s Division of Rail (Caltrans DOR). SCAG, the California High- Speed Rail 

Authority, and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are all ex officio 

members of this JPA.

Members of this group have been meeting to coordinate planning activities for the corridor since the 1980s. Over this time period, the LOSSAN partners have attracted nearly 

$1.2 billion in state and federal funds for the corridor, while also investing nearly a half 

billion in local funds. As a result of this activity, the Pacific Surfliner has seen significant 

ridership growth. Between April 2000 and 2011, annual ridership is up 77 percent.

This growth is challenged by two issues, however. The first is On-Time Performance 

(OTP), which remains a major challenge in the LOSSAN corridor. Due to a combination 

of congestion and underbuilt infrastructure, any minor delay can lead to a train losing its 

slot, thereby causing cascading delays throughout the network. In April 2011, OTP for the 

Pacific Surfliner was 81.2 percent. According to Amtrak’s monthly performance report 

for May 2011, the Surfliner was delayed a total of 20,302 minutes during the course of 

the month. Of this total, 4,131 minutes of delay were imposed by Amtrak due to passenger hold orders, engine failures, or crew-related delays. An additional 13,587 minutes of 

delay were imposed by the seven host railroads, including freight train interference, slow 

orders, and passenger train interference.

Second, operating and maintenance costs also remain a challenge to the Pacific Surfliner 

service. As per Section 209 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 

2008, Amtrak medium distance corridor services funded by both state and federal revenue streams will lose federal revenues by October of 2013. The FRA is currently working 

with the states to promulgate operating cost allocation standards by which to make this 

transition and to recognize in these standards previous capital investments by states such 

as California. The Pacific Surfliner is one of 11 state supported Intercity Passenger Rail 

Corridors that will be affected by Section 209, but the only one in California.

The Pacific Surfliner operates 22 trains a day carrying over 8,000 passengers. The 

Pacific Surfliner carried 2.8 million passengers in FY 2011, a 6.6 percent increase over 

FY 2010. This continues a ten-year trend of year over year ridership increases. Revenues 

are also growing. In May of 2011, total fare revenues were $4,791,891, compared with 

$2,643,578 in May 2003. This is a growth of 81 percent for the Surfliner. However, 

farebox recovery for FY2010 was 50.7 percent. Of the $47 million operating subsidy for 

the Surfliner, roughly $28 million was contributed by Caltrans DOR, and roughly $16 million by Amtrak. While 50.7 percent would be an outstanding farebox recovery ratio for an 

urban mass transit service, the Pacific Surfliner is an intercity transportation mode, with 

a different fare structure and additional revenue streams such as business class and a 

dining car. Moving forward, it is important to find strategies to garner increased farebox 

recovery for the Pacific Surfliner.

Metrolink

Metrolink operates with a very different business model. Metrolink was formed in 1991, 

when five local county transportation commissions, Metro, OCTA, VCTC, RCTC and 

SANBAG, formed a JPA with the intent of addressing congestion on regionally significant highway corridors. This agency, the Southern California Regional Rail Authority 

(Metrolink) began providing commuter rail service in the fall of 1992.

Commuter rail service is defined by the National Transit Database as a transit mode that 

is an electric or diesel propelled railway for urban passenger train service consisting of 

local short distance travel operating between a central city and adjacent suburbs. Service 

must be operated on a regular basis by or under contract with a transit operator for the 

purpose of transporting passengers within urbanized areas (UZAs), or between UZAs and 

outlying areas.

Such rail service, using either locomotive hauled or self-propelled railroad passenger 

cars, is generally characterized by:

 Multi-trip tickets

 Specific station-to-station fares

 Railroad employment practices

 Minimal stations in the central business district 

It does not include:

 Heavy rail rapid transit 

 Light rail / streetcar transit service 

4 Passenger Rail
Commuter rail station stops tend to be much closer together than those of intercity passenger rail. Also, smaller portions of the total route alignment tend to be out of urbanized statistical areas, and a much higher proportion of passengers are daily riders. Peak 

ridership occurs on weekdays, whereas intercity rail operators often have weekend peak 

ridership. Commuter rail often fuses urban transit business models with railroad style 

operations. As such, farebox recovery ratios tend to be lower, though operations costs 

tend to be similar.

Metrolink operates 163 trains on seven lines carrying roughly 42,000 passengers on 

weekdays. Metrolink carried 10.6 million passengers in FY 2011, a 1.6 percent decrease 

from FY2010. Ridership has generally increased year over year but was negatively 

impacted by the recession. Metrolink has made strong progress in improving its farebox 

recovery ratio. Nearly 44 percent of Metrolink’s FY2011 $173.3 million operating budget 

was funded with fare revenues. This compares with a 37 percent ratio in FY2002. During 

the last year, Metrolink implemented operational policies that saved $10 million in costs, 

increased revenue by $6 million, and reduced fuel consumption by 840,000 gallons. It 

also is in the process of accepting its new passenger car fleet designed with special new 

safety features.

FIGURE 1 Pacific Surfliner and Metrolink Ridership 2000–2011

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Millions

Source: Amtrak and Metrolink Ridership Reports Pacific Surfliner Metrolink

Compared to commuter rail operators in other metropolitan regions with populations of 

over five million, Metrolink is a strong fiscal performer. In 2008, Metrolink’s average cost 

per passenger mile was 19 percent lower than the national median, and cost per trip was 

only 2 percent higher than the national median. The national median farebox recovery for 

operators in large metropolitan regions was 48 percent, which Metrolink outperformed 

by 2 percent. However, Metrolink’s cost per service hour was 30 percent higher than the 

national median.

Average speeds for the Pacific Surfliner and Metrolink are 46 mph and 40 mph respectively. The average speeds vary by line and while top speeds are 79 mph, the number of 

stops and capacity and geographic constraints result in these average speeds which are 

lower than one would think. These facts demonstrate the need to fund capital projects in order to speed up the service and make these services more attractive to the 

SOV commuter.

Passenger Rail 5
The extent of the total commuter rail network is another area where Southern California 

is highly competitive. Our region boasts 4.32 commuter rail route miles per 100,000 

residents, which is 2.71 times the median for large metropolitan regions. However, in 

2008 residents of the SCAG region took only 0.7 per capita trips on the commuter rail 

system, well below the national median of 0.82. Chicagoans, by contrast, took 8.28 trips 

per capita, on a network that provides 11.8 route miles for every 100,000 residents. 

Residents of Baltimore took 34 percent more commuter rail trips per capita on a network 

similar to that of the SCAG region. Thus, our commuter rail system has the potential and 

capacity to be used much more intensely.

Projects In Development

Metrolink’s short term capital investment priorities include improvements for capacity, access, and safety. The Metrolink Service Expansion Program (MSEP), sponsored 

by OCTA and Metrolink, will deliver increased Metrolink service between Fullerton and 

Laguna Niguel/Mission Viejo. This program was approved by OCTA’s board of directors in 2005, but the Great Recession and subsequent anemic economic growth has 

slowed implementation. In order to facilitate increased commuter train volumes, OCTA 

and Metrolink have begun building station and capacity improvements along the Orange 

County Line. This $91 million program of improvements includes a turn back facility at 

Laguna Niguel/Mission Viejo Station, new track at Fullerton station, a new Metrolink 

station in Placentia, a new parking structure in Fullerton, and new passenger amenities 

including shade structures and ticket vending machines.

Also in Orange County, an $85 million investment program is also being pursued via 

the Orange County Grade Crossing Safety Improvement (OCX) program. This program 

will provide grade crossing safety enhancements at 31 grade crossings in the cities of 

Orange, Anaheim, Tustin, San Juan Capistrano, Dana Point, San Clemente and Irvine. 

Additional safety improvements are also being made along the Burlington Northern Santa 

Fe (BNSF) main line as part of the Orange County Bridges program. Currently, BNSF operates up to 70 freight trains a day along its mainline, and expects to run up to 130 a day by 

2030. To reduce delay and improve safety, OCTA is constructing seven grade separations 

in the cities of Fullerton, Placentia, and Anaheim. The City of Irvine is also engaging in a 

$55.9 million effort to grade separate Sand Canyon Avenue. As with all grade separation 

projects, this new underpass will improve both safety and traffic flow. 

Metrolink is also pursuing safety and capacity enhancements in Los Angeles County. The 

Glendale Corridor Grade Crossing Safety Improvements program will enable Metrolink to 

meet the latest grade crossing and safety standards by installing automatic vehicle exit 

gates, pedestrian gates, roadway widenings, new sidewalks and handrails, and advance 

traffic signal pre-emption at six grade crossings in the city of Glendale. Additionally, 

Metrolink is engaged in a program of improvements to install tunnel lighting and intrusion 

detection systems in six L.A. County train tunnels, mostly along the Antelope Valley and 

Ventura County Lines. Metrolink’s final major capital priority is the reconstruction of L.A. 

Union Station’s Platform 7. This $8.5 million project will restore tracks 13, 14, and 15 into 

service after 35 years of non-passenger use, and improve communications systems and 

install new lighting and message boards. 

Additional projects in Los Angeles County that are priorities for Metro include the ongoing 

Antelope Valley Line Infrastructure Improvement Strategic Plan study, the Control Point 

(CP) Raymern to CP Bernson Double Track, and the Van Nuys Station second platform.

In Riverside County, the largest near term capital priority is the Perris Valley Line (PVL). 

The PVL is a 24 mile extension of Metrolink’s 91 Line, and will connect residents of 

the cities of Riverside, Moreno Valley, and Perris with jobs and services in Orange and 

Los Angeles Counties. This service will connect to the BNSF mainline near the City of 

Riverside, and use the San Jacinto Branch line paralleling I-215 to reach South Perris. 

Four new stations will include Riverside Hunter Park, Moreno Valley March Field Station, 

Downtown Perris Station, and South Perris Station. This project represents the first addition of new track miles to the Metrolink system since the 1990s. 

San Bernardino County is also expanding its rail network. The Downtown San Bernardino 

Passenger Rail Project is a one mile extension of Metrolink service into Downtown San 

Bernardino. Upon projected completion in 2014, commuter rail service will terminate at 

the future site of the San Bernardino Transit Center at E Street and Rialto Avenue. This 

will allow greatly increased regional transit access to downtown San Bernardino, an 

important center for governance, commerce, and services in the San Bernardino Valley. 

Metrolink passengers will also be able to connect to the sBX E Street BRT service at this 

location. SANBAG is also investigating potential transit connections to the city Redlands 

via the Redlands Subdivision.

6 Passenger Rail
The Constrained and Strategic Plans: 

Our Passenger Rail Vision

Constrained and Strategic Plan Project Selection

In June 2011, the Regional Council approved the formation of the High-Speed Rail (HSR) 

Subcommittee. The purpose of the subcommittee was to help guide staff in defining and 

formulating high-speed rail strategies for the RTP’s Constrained and Strategic Plans due 

to the significant number of projects in the planning phase.

Since several HSR projects are in the planning phases, with varying degrees of funding, 

costing, and operational specifics, the Regional Council formed the HSR subcommittee to 

evaluate all of the projects in depth, so as to make informed project inclusion decisions 

for the Constrained and Strategic Plans. Due to their different levels of development, 

it was difficult to rate and compare the projects on a direct basis, and in some cases 

projects directly compete with one another. Therefore, staff developed an evaluation 

approach using various criteria to determine which projects in the planning phases are 

most viable, beneficial to our region, and offer the greatest chances of being implemented 

sooner rather than later.

The decision-making approach used to make a final recommendation of HSR projects 

to include in the RTP had three steps. The first step narrowed down the proposed HSR 

projects to a set of projects that were qualified for the Strategic Plan. The second step 

narrowed down the projects further to those to be included in the Constrained Plan. This 

required higher levels of details relative to costs, funding, ridership potential, community 

and stakeholder support and other measures. The final step evaluated how the proposed 

HSR system worked together with the rest of the planned transportation system using 

SCAG’s travel demand model.

The criteria that staff used to formulate the preferred HSR alternative included: reasonableness of available funding, level and amount of costing details, current project status, 

level of stakeholder and public support, stakeholder consensus of project’s alignment and 

operational characteristics, degree of regional connectivity, ridership potential and commuter rail potential.

TABLE 2 High Speed Rail Matrix

Project Project

Description Project Readiness ProjectConsensus

Stakeholder 

Support

Regional ConnectivityRidership 

Potential Cost Funding Business Plan Commuter Rail Potential

Staff Recommendation

California 

High-Speed 

Rail Phase 

One

San Francisco to 

L.A. Union Station 

with additional 

alignment south 

to Anaheim. Top 

speed 220 mph.

Alternatives Analysis 

completed.

Some stakeholders have 

concerns 

with project 

finances. 

Moderate, 

especially 

among cities 

with stations. 

Very good. 

Connecting 

and adjacent 

transit services 

must be properly adjusted 

to provide 

appropriate 

feeder role.

Very good. 

Should attract 

significant 

inter-city and 

also current 

auto and 

airline trips.

$98.5 

billion

Only partially funded. 

Some of 

those funds 

will be used 

to provide 

shared 

benefits 

improvements to 

LOSSAN and 

Metrolink.

New draft 

business plan 

out in early 

November for 

public comment.

Not good. 

High-Speed 

rail fares 

will be too 

expensive for 

commuters 

without local 

subsidies.

Include in 

Constrained 

Plan. 

Passenger Rail 7
Project Project

Description Project Readiness ProjectConsensus

Stakeholder 

Support

Regional ConnectivityRidership 

Potential Cost Funding Business Plan Commuter Rail Potential

Staff Recommendation

California 

High-Speed 

Rail Phase 

Two

Merced to Sacramento and L.A. 

Union Station to 

San Diego via the 

Inland Empire.

In Alternatives Analysis. Moderate, 

some concerns 

of negative 

impacts in San 

Gabriel Valley 

and Inland 

Empire along 

alternative 

alignments.

Moderate, some 

concerns of 

negative impacts in San 

Gabriel Valley 

and Inland 

Empire along 

alternative 

alignments.

Very good. 

Connecting 

and adjacent 

transit services 

must be properly adjusted 

to provide 

appropriate 

feeder role.

Very good. 

Should attract 

significant 

inter-city and 

also current 

auto and 

airline trips.

Not 

estimated.

Currently not 

funded.

New draft 

business plan 

out in early 

November for 

public comment.

Not good. High 

Speed rail 

fares will be 

too expensive 

for commuters 

without local 

subsidies.

Include in 

Strategic Plan.

Desert 

Xpress

Las Vegas to Victorville with no intermediate stops, 

generally along 

I-15 corridor. 

Phase 2 would 

connect Victorville 

with Palmdale. 

Top speed of 150 

MPH using Tier III 

compliant electric 

multiple unit 

trains.

Project specific EIS is 

complete and federal interstate operating 

licenses were issued in 

2011: FRA Record of Decision (ROD). STB issued 

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 

authorizing DesertXpress 

as an interstate railroad. 

BLM ROD; FHWA ROD; 

executed a ROW lease 

agreement with BLM 

High - agreements in place 

with the State 

of California, 

and Surface 

Transportation 

Board. 

Support 

from cities 

in Antelope 

and Victor 

Valleys, San 

Bernardino 

County, LA 

County, and in 

Nevada.

Eventual Phase 

II Connection 

to Palmdale could 

provide for a 

connection 

to Metrolink 

and ultimately 

to California 

High- Speed 

Rail

Very good. 

Should attract 

a significant 

amount of 

current auto 

and airline 

trips along this 

corridor.

$6.5 

billion

Federal loan 

or privately 

funded.

Ridership and 

revenue report 

completed for 

loan application but not yet 

available.

This service is 

not expected 

to attract commuter trips, 

though DXE 

staff believe 

phase II might 

attract some 

commuters..

Include in 

Strategic Plan.

California/

Nevada 

SuperSpeed Train

Maglev project 

from Las Vegas 

to Anaheim with 

intermediate stops 

in Primm, Barstow, Victorville 

and Ontario. Top 

speed 300 mph.

Program EIS begun 

in 2004 has not been 

completed.

Low. Project 

not moving 

forward and 

is a competing project to 

Desert Xpress 

which is 

further along in 

project delivery 

process.

Low. Project 

not moving 

forward and 

is a competing project to 

Desert Xpress 

which is 

further along 

in project delivery process.

Would be good 

if project was 

built.

Would be good 

if project was 

built.

$12.1 

billion

$45 million 

federal 

earmark for 

environmental work. 

Potential 

funding from 

TIFIA and 

private bonding.

2007 Financial 

Plan submitted 

to FRA.

Moderate. This 

service would 

attract some 

commuter trips 

between Victorville, Ontario 

and Anaheim.

Include in 

Strategic Plan.

8 Passenger Rail
Project Project

Description Project Readiness ProjectConsensus

Stakeholder 

Support

Regional ConnectivityRidership 

Potential Cost Funding Business Plan Commuter Rail Potential

Staff Recommendation

California/

Nevada 

SuperSpeed Train 

Anaheim to 

Ontario IOS

Initial operating segment, 

or stand-alone 

project of CNSSTP 

from Ontario Airport to Anaheim. 

Top speed 220 

mph.

Program EIS begun 

in 2004 has not been 

completed.

Good, but 

lower outside 

of corridor and 

operator not 

identified.

Good, but 

maglev 

technology does not 

have broad 

stakeholder 

support and 

consensus in 

our region.

Very good. 

Connecting 

and adjacent 

transit services 

must be properly adjusted 

to provide 

appropriate 

feeder role.

Good. Will 

provide 

excellent connection from 

under-utilized 

Ontario airport 

to Anaheim 

Resort area.

$2.77 

billion

$45 million 

federal 

earmark for 

environmental work. 

Potential 

funding from 

TIFIA and 

private bonding.

2003 Financial 

Plan submitted to FRA 

and updated 

in 2011 with 

Implementation Plan.

Moderate. This 

service would 

attract some 

commuter 

trips between 

Ontario and 

Anaheim.

Include in 

Strategic Plan.

Orangeline 

– Northern 

Segment

Speed and service 

improvements 

from Santa Clarita 

to L.A. Union Station via Bob Hope 

Airport.

In Metrolink Antelope Valley and Bob Hope Airport 

Ground Access studies.

Good with 

corridor 

stakeholders. 

Operational 

characteristics 

not yet vetted. 

Duplicates 

CAHSRA alignment.

OLDA 

members 

strongly support concept. 

Still need to 

work with 

some corridor 

stakeholders.

Good. Provides 

multi-modal 

connections 

along alignment. Can 

be integrated 

to serve as 

feeder to CA 

HSR, Metrolink 

and Amtrak. 

Includes new 

station at Bob 

Hope Airport.

Very good. 

Provides direct 

connection to 

Bob Hope Burbank Airport 

and downtown 

L.A.

No updated 

costs 

available.

Not funded. Some station 

area planning 

completed. 

Project requires further 

definition.

Very good. 

This service 

would attract 

commuter 

trips.

Include in 

Strategic Plan.

Amtrak 

LOSSAN 

Corridor 

Improvements

Speed and service 

improvements to 

Pacific Surfliner 

corridor in SCAG 

region. Top speeds 

up to 110 mph in 

some segments.

Improvements ready to go 

with funding.

Very high Very high Very good. 

Connecting 

and adjacent 

transit services 

must be properly adjusted 

to provide 

appropriate 

feeder role.

Very good. 

Should attract 

significant 

intercity and 

also current 

auto trips.

Costing for 

some 

identified 

projects is 

estimated.

Funding will 

be committed 

by CAHSRA 

MOU – up to 

$1 billion.

2010 LOSSAN Corridor Strategic 

Assessment. 

Ridership 

forecasting in 

progress for 

2030.

Very good. 

This service 

already 

attracts commuter trips.

Include in 

Constrained 

Plan.

Passenger Rail 9
Project Project

Description Project Readiness ProjectConsensus

Stakeholder 

Support

Regional ConnectivityRidership 

Potential Cost Funding Business Plan Commuter Rail Potential

Staff Recommendation

IOS HSRT 

proposed 

in the 2008 

RTP by 

SCAG

IOS West L.A. to 

Ontario Airport 

with four additional possible 

segments. Technology neutral.

In conceptual stage. Moderate, 

with stronger 

support in the 

Inland Empire. 

Operator not 

identified. JPA 

has not met in 

over a year.

Moderate, 

with some 

support in the 

Inland Empire.

IOS redundant 

to CA HSR 

Phase 2 from 

L.A. Union 

Station to San 

Bernardino.

IOS redundant 

to CA HSR 

Phase 2 from 

L.A. Union 

Station to San 

Bernardino.

$7.8 

billion 

(2007 

estimate)

Not funded. 

Planning 

assumptions 

questionable.

2007 Business 

Case Study

Good. This 

service would 

attract commuter trips.

Do not include 

in 2012 RTP.

Metrolink 

Improvements

All current Metrolink corridors, with 

current emphasis 

on the Antelope 

Valley Corridor. 

Top speeds up to 

110 mph in some 

segments.

Improvements being 

studied.

Very high. Very high. Very good. 

Connecting 

and adjacent 

transit services 

must be properly adjusted 

to provide 

appropriate 

feeder role. 

Metrolink and 

the CAHSR will 

complement 

one another.

Very good. 

Should attract 

significant 

inter-city and 

also current 

auto trips.

Costing for 

some 

identified 

projects is 

estimated.

Funding will 

be committed 

by CAHSRA 

MOU - up to 

$1 billion.

2007 Strategic 

Assessment. 

Update in 

progress.

Excellent. This 

service already 

attracts many 

commuter 

trips.

Include in 

Constrained 

Plan.

10 Passenger Rail
The projects selected for inclusion in the Constrained Plan are detailed below:

California High-Speed Rail Phase I

Phase I is from San Francisco to Anaheim via L.A. Union Station, and in our region from 

the Kern County line to Anaheim via L.A. Union Station with stops in Palmdale, Sylmar, 

Burbank, L.A. Union Station, Norwalk and Anaheim. This inclusion in to the Constrained 

Plan is conditional upon the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) entering in to 

a MOU with Southern California transportation agencies to invest $1 billion in HSR funding to the LOSSAN and Metrolink corridors over the next few years.

AMTRAK LOSSAN CORRIDOR AND METROLINK SYSTEM

There has been strong stakeholder support in our region to pursue significant improvements to the LOSSAN corridor and Metrolink system that would enable operation of HSR 

services at least on some segments that would meet the FRA criteria for HSR (110 mph 

or above). Amtrak, Metrolink and the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency are continuously 

working towards speed and service improvements. These stakeholders are in the process 

of identifying and planning corridor projects with estimated costs through the LOSSAN 

Corridorwide Strategic Implementation Plan, which will identify programs and policies to 

better coordinate all rail services in the corridor and aim to increase ridership and develop 

new markets. The plan is expected to be completed in early 2012. This, coupled with the 

California High Speed Rail Authority’s new blended approach for HSR implementation has 

resulted in consensus among our Region’s stakeholders, the Regional Council and the 

Authority that $1 billion in HSR funding be allocated to the LOSSAN and Metrolink corridors over the next few years. Currently, a MOU is being developed between the Authority, 

SCAG, Metrolink, Metro, OCTA, RCTC, SANBAG and SANDAG to prescribe how these 

funds will be allocated.

This is the most viable way to expedite HSR operation in our region and also to connect to 

the CA HST Phase I that will begin construction in the Central Valley next year. This new 

approach in our region is reflected nationwide since much of the federal HSR appropriation awards have funded existing Amtrak intercity rail corridors. 

Passenger Rail 11
12 

EXHIBIT 1 Constrained Plan HSR Map
 13

EXHIBIT 2Commuter Rail
TABLE 3 Transit Ridership

SCAG Region Annual Transit Ridership

2001 2005 2008 2035 Plan

Metro Rail 61,802,000 74,243,000 86,707,000 150,000,000 

Commuter Rail 7,398,000 10,693,000 12,681,000 25,000,000 

Bus 548,728,000 609,795,000 622,286,000 806,000,000 

Total 617,928,000 694,731,000 721,674,000 981,000,000 

Source: National Transit Database (NTD) for past years and SCAG model estimates for 2035 based on the 2012 RTP/SCS

Funding Rail Investment: Phased Implementation 

and the Blended Approach

The Authority’s Draft 2012 Business plan outlines new capital cost estimates and new 

strategies to secure necessary revenues. The new estimate of $98.5 Billion (in year of 

expenditure dollars) will require new state, federal, and public private partnership (P3) 

revenues to ensure Phase I completion by 2034. The Authority’s new strategy to secure 

funds and deliver incremental projects between now and 2034 involves a strategy of 

phased implementation and blended operations. 

As part of this strategy, the state’s HST program will proceed in two simultaneous paths: 

the critical path of major corridor delivery, and a coterminous path of early investments 

that provide early benefits to existing rail operators and passengers. These early investments will delvier more efficient and safer passenger rail service for current services, 

while eventually linking our region to the state system. As noted on page 2-3 of the draft 

2012 business plan:

“It is important to note that, although improvements to local and regional rail systems 

are intended to improve or facilitate connections to the High Speed Train System, they do 

not need to be implemented sequentially. As with the stages of the HST system, these 

improvements, such as grade crossing eliminations and additional tracks, have independent utility that will benefit riders prior to connection to the high speed system. Where 

possible, they should move ahead independently and as quickly as feasible.”

The new critical path outlined by the Authority includes a vision of risk mitigation through 

incremental project delivery. As each phase of the critical path is delivered, the California 

High Speed Rail Authority’s governing board comes to a decision point:

a. Should the program move forward?

b. What is the appropriate next phase/segment?

The draft business plan envisions this strategy as delivering incremental benefits while 

allowing the state to opt out of the project if cost or schedule overruns become too burdensome. The plan also lays out the following critical path and concurrent activities:

14 Passenger Rail
TABLE 4 Phased Critical Path Sections, California High-Speed Rail Program

Section Length Endpoints Description Incremental Cost in 

2010 Billions Completion Year

Initial Construction 

Section (ICS)

130 Fresno – Bakersfield Provides track and structures to support system spin; allows vehicle testing.$5.2 2018

IOS Options (North/

South)

290/300 Bakersfield to San Jose/ 

Merced to San Fernando 

Valley

Supports 220 mph HSR service; includes trains 

and systems. Ridership and revenues sufficient 

to attract private participation. Connects with 

regional/local rail for blended operation.

$19.4 to $26.4/$21.0 to 

$25.8

2022

Bay to Basin 410 San Jose and Merced to 

the San Fernando Valley

First HSR service to connect the San Francisco 

Bay area with the Los Angeles Basin.

$14.2 to $17.3 2027

Phase I Blended (Noncritical path)520 San Francisco to 

Los Angeles/Anaheim

Builds on Bay to Basin with blended operations with existing commuter/intercity rail, 

and additional improvements for a one-seat 

ride, connecting downtown San Francisco and 

Los Angeles/Anaheim. Caltrain corridor electrified for HSR, and new dedicated lines into 

Los Angeles and Anaheim.

$14.1 to $18.0 2026–2034

Full Phase I 520 San Francisco to 

Los Angeles/Anaheim

Continues dedicated highspeed alignment in 

full from San Jose to San Francisco and into 

Los Angeles/Anaheim.

$8.2 to $10.5 2034

The Authority estimates that the Initial Construction Segment (ICS) will be complete in 

2018; this will lead to a decision point:

a. Should the program move forward?

b. Should the next step be to extend south, or extend north?

The business plan identifies two possible Initial Operating Segments (IOS). The first is a 

northward connection of the ICS into San Jose. This project is estimated to cost between 

$19.4 and $26.4 billion, and is estimated to generate between $207 and $368 million in 

net operating surplus by 2025. This option is named the IOS-North.

The second, IOS-South, would build the system south from Bakersfield, extending HST 

service into the San Fernando Valley. The estimated capital cost of this extension south 

would be $21.0 to $25.8 billion. The Authority estimates that the IOS – South would generate between $352 and $582 in annual net operating surplus by 2025.

The step on the critical path after the IOS is the “Bay to Basin” phase. In this phase, the 

authority will deliver the IOS section that was not selected to move forward in the previous section. Two key decisions will have to be made at this step:

a. Should the program move forward?

b. Is the operating surplus significant enough to attract P3 investment?

The net operating surpluses discussed above are crucial to this step. The business 

plan views the IOS stage as demonstrating the revenue generating potential of the total 

system, and the first point in the program where there is significant potential to attract 

Passenger Rail 15
private sector funding. As such, a careful analysis of ridership and revenue forecasts it 

crucial to the IOS selection process.

Concurrent to the critical path activities are the Phase I Blended projects. These improvements will consist of incremental projects that deliver benefits to existing railroads and 

lay the foundation for eventual high speed service. Many core projects in this phase will 

begin in 2026, but early actions on the LOSSAN Corridor and the Metrolink system will 

occur before then.

Before the full build out of Phase I of the HST program in 2034, the business plan envisions a partial “sharing [of] existing commuter rail infrastructure” resulting in a “oneseat-ride from end-to-end.” By upgrading existing Caltrain, Metrolink, or Amtrak rights 

of way or infrastructure, high speed trains can travel onward to San Francisco or Los 

Angeles at lower speeds. Eventually, upgrades to existing infrastructure will allow up to 

125 mph service.

In the SCAG Region, this plan will be complicated by drive issues. While the Authority’s 

HSTs will be electric drive, and powered by direct-overhead contact lines (often called 

catenaries), Amtrak and Metrolink currently operate diesel-electric locomotives, as do 

UP and BNSF. Moving forward, the region will have to reconcile the use of electric and 

diesel-electric locomotives in the same corridor; and resolve whether these two types 

of locomotives can share facilities. Blended operations may not be possible until these 

conflicts are resolved.

The final critical step of the program is the full build out of Phase I between downtown 

San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Anaheim. Final steps will include electrifying rail infrastructure and sealing corridors here in Southern California, and tunneling from 4th and 

King to the Transbay terminal in San Francisco.

The blended Phase I step is particularly important to the vision for passenger rail in the 

SCAG Region presented here. The 2012 RTP contains strategies to accelerate and implement Phase I blended investments, allowing the existing Amtrak Pacific Surfliner and 

Metrolink system to operate at top speeds over 110 mph in the near term. Funds from 

Proposition 1A and other Authority revenue streams can be leveraged to allow high speed 

travel years before the 2034 completion of the HST program. The MOU between the 

Authority and local rail stakeholders discussed above will set a funding mechanism for 

moving funds for initial investments from the state to local agencies.

Strategies and Recommendations

There are several strategies to increase rail ridership in our region. It is important to note 

that there are three distinct rail markets: commuter, intercity, and interregional. The first 

served by Metrolink, the second by Amtrak, and the third will be served by the state HST 

service. However, the three carriers can be attractive to the rail travel markets different 

from their own. Rail strategies include:

 Increasing speed

 Increasing service levels

 Cooperative fare agreements and media

 Cooperative marketing efforts

Speed and Service

The LOSSAN partners and Metrolink are in the process of planning and implementing 

capital projects to improve capacity, speed, and service, bringing at least some segments of their networks up to the federally defined high speed of 110 mph or greater. This 

includes a strategic implementation plan for 2030 that is estimating ridership and additional service using a coordinated schedule among Metrolink, Amtrak and NCTD’s Coaster 

commuter rail service. This effort is also looking at extending some Metrolink trips to San 

Diego and some Coaster trips to L.A. Union Station. As speeds improve, these services 

will become more competitive with SOV travel and thus ridership will continue to grow. 

Further, their schedules should be adjusted once the state HST project is implemented 

so that all rail services complement and feed each other. These local efforts will now be 

greatly increased and speeded up due to the new funding partnership with the Authority.

Cooperative Agreements

The LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency Joint Powers Board consists of the Ventura County 

Transportation Commission (VCTC), the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), 

the North County Transit District (NCTD), the San Diego Association of Governments 

(SANDAG), San Diego’s Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), the San Luis Obispo Council 

of Governments (SLOCOG), the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments 

(SBCAG), the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), and 

the California Department of Transportation, Division of Rail (DOR), and coordinates 

16 Passenger Rail
 17

EXHIBIT 3Strategic Plan HSR Map
service and investment planning along the corridor. SCAG, the California High-Speed Rail 

Authority, Amtrak, and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are exofficio members of the Joint Powers Board.

Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner is the designated intercity passenger rail service in the corridor, 

and Caltrans DOR provides administration and management for the Surfliner. Both Amtrak 

and the DOR currently provide operating subsidies for the Pacific Surfliner. Other rail 

operations in the corridor include NCTD and Metrolink commuter rail service, and freight 

service by Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe.

The LOSSAN Corridor Strategic Assessment, outlining a long-term, shared vision for 

enhancing passenger rail service between San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Luis Obispo 

through 2025, was completed in January 2010. This vision includes express services, 

faster travel times, and increased coordination between operators. 

At the direction of the LOSSAN Board, the LOSSAN member agency CEOs group examined changes to LOSSAN’s governance structure that would enhance LOSSAN’s ability 

to implement the Strategic Assessment vision, especially in light of upcoming changes 

to federal operating subsidies per the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act 

of 2008. The LOSSAN CEOs proposed a new joint powers structure wherein the LOSSAN 

Rail Corridor Agency would have direct control of Amtrak operations, similar to Northern 

California’s Capital Corridor JPA. The LOSSAN Board has reiterated that initial governance 

changes should focus only on the state-supported intercity rail service and not modifications to the Metrolink or NCTD COASTER governance structures.

The benefits of local management of passenger rail service in the LOSSAN corridor 

include:

 More efficient resource allocation related to service expansion, frequencies, and 

schedules;

 A unified voice at the state and federal levels when advocating on passenger rail 

issues, including funding for capital improvements;

 Consolidated services such as fares, ticketing, marketing, and passenger information systems;

 Coordinated capital improvement prioritization; and

 More focused oversight of on-time performance, schedule integration, mechanical 

issues, and customer service.

It is expected that this new JPA will be formalized over the next year.

Marketing and Fares

Cooperative fare agreements and media also offer opportunities for increasing rail 

ridership and attracting new riders. For example, the Rail-to-Rail pass allows Metrolink 

monthly-pass riders who have origin and destination points along the LOSSAN corridor to 

ride Amtrak. Agreements like this one could be expanded once the CA HST project is built. 

Metrolink has recently been pursuing innovative marketing, ticket pricing and operations 

strategies to increase ridership and reduce costs. In May 2011, Metrolink started express 

service demonstration programs on its San Bernardino and Antelope Valley Lines. This 

service shaves a large amount of travel time off the conventional trips. By skipping most 

stops, travel time is reduced 33 percent to just one hour on the San Bernardino Line, and 

25 percent to an hour and a half on the Antelope Valley Line. Metrolink has also started 

specific trains for both Dodgers’ and Angels’ games, and other special events.

Amtrak also initiated an express trip in February 2011. It shaves 17 minutes off the northbound trip (currently, there is no southbound express). The provision of more express trips 

in the future should attract new transit riders.

Metrolink also started some progressive new fares this year, including the $10.00 allweekend pass. From 7:00 p.m. Friday to 12:00 p.m. Sunday, riders can take multiple trips 

anywhere on the Metrolink system. Monthly pass holders can also take unlimited trips on 

the weekend regardless of their pass’ origin/destination pair.

18 Passenger Rail
The Strategic Plan: Our Ultimate Vision 

for High Speed Rail 

Our ultimate vision for a true HST system that would link major urban areas and activity centers within our region and beyond would be incomplete without Phase II of the 

proposed state HST system. Phase II would link Los Angeles Union station to San Diego 

via the Inland Empire in our region. The project is being planned in segments all in different degrees of project readiness. This corridor is approximately 160 miles long, stretching from Union Station in downtown Los Angeles through San Bernardino and Riverside 

Counties, and terminating in San Diego County. With 20.8 million residents, these four 

counties make up approximately 56 percent of the state’s current population and will 

grow significantly by 2050.

Phase II of the state HST system, by adding connections to the Inland Empire and San 

Diego County, completes the backbone of a true regional High-Speed Transport system. 

The LOSSAN, Metrolink system, and state HST Phase I investments will provide high 

speed travel alternatives in Northern Los Angeles County, the San Fernando Valley, the 

Gateway Cities, and Orange County; Phase II will extend those alternatives to the San 

Gabriel Valley and the Inland Empire. Upon completion, Phase II will provide important 

access to planned and existing regional centers, including Ontario International Airport, 

the March Inland Port, and possibly San Bernardino International and Corona airports, 

helping to meet SCAG’s long-term goal of regionalizing air travel in Southern California. 

Furthermore, Phase II may one day be the basis for further high speed rail extensions into 

Nevada or Arizona. Another possibility for service to Nevada exists with Phase II of the 

Desert Xpress Project. That service may eventually operate between Palmdale and Las 

Vegas, allowing Metrolink or CA HST passengers an option.

The state HST system will provide excellent regional connectivity to our region by connecting with a robust network of intercity and commuter rail, subway and light-rail, and 

fixed-route transit systems. Integrated planning and service levels of these connecting 

services will allow them and the state HST to feed and complement each other. While 

commuter, intercity and interregional rail services are distinct travel markets, the proper 

coordination of their schedules will further increase the region’s rail and transit ridership 

by attracting crossover passengers to these different markets. It will also significantly 

relieve capacity constraints of the existing air and highway transportation system as 

increases in intercity travel demand in California occur. By attracting a large number of 

trips from current auto and air travel markets, a significant decrease in GHG emissions 

will be achieved in our region. In addition, the state HST system will provide a much 

cheaper alternative to building additional airport and highway capacity to serve intrastate 

aviation routes and auto trips.

Strategic Plan Projects

CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL PHASE II

Phase II is from Madera to Sacramento and in our region from L.A. Union Station to San 

Diego through the San Gabriel Valley and Inland Empire. Phase II is in the Supplemental 

Alternatives Analysis phase and includes some alternative alignments in our region: either 

I-10 or SR 60 through the San Gabriel Valley, and either I-15 or I-215 from the Inland 

Empire to the San Diego County line. There is currently no funding for Phase II.

DESERTXPRESS

The Desert Xpress would connect Las Vegas to Victorville using steel wheel on steel rail 

technology. There are no intermediate stops. The project has completed the environmental process and the FRA issued a record of decision (ROD) on July 8, 2011. DesertXpress 

Enterprises has applied to the FRA’s Railroad Rehabilitation Improvement Financing (RRIF) 

program for a loan to start and complete construction of the project. In addition to the 

RRIF loan, private debt and equity will be included in the project financing. Phase Two of 

this project would connect Victorville to Palmdale, thereby providing a connection with the 

CA HST system and the Metrolink Antelope Valley Line. Phase Two was not included in 

DesertXpress’ environmental process, nor is it part of their FRA loan application.

Passenger Rail 19
The DesertXpress EIS has received the following Federal approvals: 

 July 8, 2011: Federal Railroad Administration Record of Decision (ROD) 

 October 26, 2011: Surface Transportation Board issued Certificate of Public 

Convenience and Necessity.

 October 31, 2011: Bureau of Land Management ROD 

 November 18, 2011: Federal Highway Administration ROD 

 December 7, 2011: DesertXpress executed a lease agreement with BLM for the 

alignment and facilities located on federal land. 

 Application for a federal loan under the FRA Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement 

Financing program currently under review by US Department of Transportation.

CALIFORNIA/NEVADA SUPER-SPEED TRAIN

The California/Nevada Super-Speed Train (CNSST) project would connect Las Vegas 

to Anaheim using maglev with intermediate stops in Primm, Barstow, Victorville, and 

Ontario. A Programmatic EIR/EIS was initiated in 2004 but has not been completed 

to date, and $45 million of federal funding has been earmarked for the environmental 

review. Plans call for building the first 40-mile segment either from Las Vegas to Primm 

or Anaheim to Ontario. To date, no funds for construction have been identified.

CALIFORNIA/NEVADA SUPER-SPEED TRAIN 

ANAHEIM TO ONTARIO INITIAL OPERATING SEGMENT

This is a maglev project which is part of the larger Las Vegas to Anaheim project. 

This southernmost segment from Anaheim to Ontario is being considered as the initial 

operating segment of the larger project due to its strong ridership potential and regional 

connectivity, and its ability to operate as a stand-alone project. A $45 million planning 

project for this segment is also included in the Constrained Plan.

ORANGELINE NORTHERN SEGMENT

The northern segment of the Orangeline is between Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS) 

and Santa Clarita. The Orangeline Development Authority (OLDA) is a joint powers authority formed to pursue development of a higher speed, environmentally friendly, technology 

neutral transit system from Cerritos to Santa Clarita. The southern section from LAUS 

to Cerritos is along the West Santa Ana Branch PE ROW that is partially funded by 

Measure R.

A series of improvements in the corridor are being evaluated including the previously 

mentioned high-speed rail memorandum of understanding (MOU) effort, the Antelope 

Valley Line Infrastructure Improvement Plan, and the on-going Bob Hope Airport Ground 

Access Study. This interagency MOU includes a list of priority projects including a 

proposed new Metrolink station at the Bob Hope Airport. Therefore, the OLDA Northern 

Corridor will benefit from a set of investments during the life of the plan that will improve 

safety, efficiency, capacity, speed and connectivity. This supports OLDA’s intermediate 

vision of more frequent service and increased hours of operation within the corridor.

Greater Vision for our Commuter 

and Passenger Rail System

Metrolink Enhancements

Metrolink provides our region’s commuter rail service operating 163 trips on seven lines 

carrying 42,000 passengers on weekdays. With the investments proposed within the 

Constrained Plan in Chapter 2, we expect to achieve more than double the ridership by 

2035. But, we believe, the Metrolink system has even greater untapped potential for 

our region.

Our region boasts 4.32 commuter rail route miles per 100,000 residents, which is over 

2.5 times the median for large metropolitan regions. However, in 2008, residents of the 

SCAG region took only 0.7 per capita trips on the commuter rail system, well below the 

national median of 0.82. Chicagoans, by contrast, took 8.28 trips per capita, on a network that provides 11.8 route miles for every 100,000 residents. Residents of Baltimore 

took 34 percent more commuter rail trips per capita on a network similar to that of the 

SCAG region.

The average speed for Metrolink is about 40 mph today. The average speeds vary by 

line and while top speeds are 79 mph, the number of stops and physical capacity and 

geographic constraints result in this average system speed which is lower than one would 

20 Passenger Rail
think. This shows the need to fund capital projects in order to speed up the service and 

make Metrolink more attractive to the SOV commuter.

The recent release of the Authority’s draft 2011 Business Plan puts off the arrival of the 

state HST system in our region to 2033, and greatly escalates the official project cost. 

This confirms long-standing stakeholder concerns of the project’s implementation timeline and viability, and therefore confirms the need to spend HSR dollars on our region’s 

current rail services. In fact, the new Business Plan calls for “blended” rail services 

whereby incremental operating segments of the state HST system will connect with existing rail services until the entire project gets built.

Our Strategic Plan vision for Metrolink speed and service improvements calls for an 

intensive investment in capital projects to further increase speed and service levels over 

and above the Constrained Plan. The Strategic Plan results in even more segments of 

the network operating at speeds of 110 mph or greater. These projects include additional 

double tracking, sidings, station improvements, grade separations, and grade crossings. 

Not only will this benefit commuter rail trips in our region, but will benefit Amtrak intercity 

and the state HST interregional trips also as the three systems feed and complement each 

other. While these are three distinct travel markets, improving all three networks encourages cross-over rail travel market trips.

In addition to capital improvements, our strategic vision calls for:

 A doubling of system use by 2020, and possibly doubling again by 2035. The constrained plan increases ridership by 338 percent from 2001 to 2035.

 Considerably more express trips

 Regular special event services

 A connection to Ontario International airport

 The implementation of new BRT services that directly connect with the 

Metrolink system

 A robust growth of TOD around Metrolink stations 

 The implementation of first mile/last mile policies for robust bicycle and pedestrian 

improvements around Metrolink stations.

Additional Passenger Rail Service

An additional Strategic Plan passenger rail element implements daily passenger rail 

service between downtown Los Angeles and the Coachella Valley. Stops would include 

L.A. Union Station, Fullerton, Riverside, Redlands/Loma Linda, Beaumont/Banning, Palm 

Springs, Rancho Mirage and Indio. Service would be operated by Amtrak with ideally at 

least two if not three daily round trips.

Currently, rail service between downtown L.A. and the Coachella Valley is only provided 

three days a week with an unattractive schedule as part of Amtrak’s interstate services. 

Union Pacific Railroad owns this rail corridor east of Colton and is opposed to implementing additional passenger service without large capital improvements. However, Amtrak 

retains the right to operate passenger service on freight-owned railroads and there is a 

process in place to resolve freight opposition, although Amtrak and other partners such 

as Caltrans DOR and RCTC may be required to fund capital projects to mitigate potential 

financial damages to Union Pacific. A 2010 RCTC study estimates $75 million in station 

costs, $40 million in equipment costs, and $11.4 million in yearly operating costs to start 

this service. These figures do not include any capital costs required to mitigate service 

disruptions incurred by Union Pacific.

Passenger Rail 21
REGIONAL OFFICES

Imperial County

1405 North Imperial Avenue

Suite 1 

El Centro, CA 92243 

Phone: (760) 353-7800 

Fax: (760) 353-1877

Orange County

OCTA Building 

600 South Main Street

Suite 906 

Orange, CA 92863 

Phone: (714) 542-3687 

Fax: (714) 560-5089 

Riverside County

3403 10th Street

Suite 805 

Riverside, CA 92501 

Phone: (951) 784-1513 

Fax: (951) 784-3925

San Bernardino County

Santa Fe Depot 

1170 West 3rd Street

Suite 140 

San Bernardino, CA 92410 

Phone: (909) 806-3556 

Fax: (909) 806-3572

Ventura County

950 County Square Drive

Suite 101 

Ventura, CA 93003 

Phone: (805) 642-2800 

Fax: (805) 642-2260 

818 West 7th Street, 12th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90017 

Phone: (213) 236-1800 

Fax: (213) 236-1825

www.scag.ca.gov

please recycle 2347 2012.04.09