State Route 160 (Blue Diamond Road) Corridor Study

Transcription

1 State Route 160 (Blue Diamond Road) Corridor Study Final Report August 31, 2006 Booz Allen Hamilton with Civilwise Inc.

2 Table of Contents RTC SR-160 Corridor Study TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CURRENT CONDITIONS OF STUDY AREA Description of SR Geographic Boundaries Communities Served Current Zoning and Community Plans Clark County Land Use Plan for Enterprise Current Land Use Public Facilities Needs Assessment Future Growth Transit-Supportive Land-Use Actions Recent Growth Management Activities Potential for Future Growth Study Area Demographics Population Employment Study Area Transportation System Daily Volumes Congestion Index Level of Service (LOS) Highways and Major Arterials Major Highways Major Arterials Transit Services Route Descriptions, Service Levels, and Ridership OVERVIEW OF TRANSIT MODES Conventional Bus Transit Overview Vehicle Characteristics Infrastructure Elements Service Characteristics Costs i

3 Table of Contents RTC SR-160 Corridor Study 3.2 Bus Rapid Transit Overview Vehicle Characteristics Infrastructure Elements Service Characteristics Costs Light Rail Transit / Diesel Multiple Unit Transit Overview Vehicle Characteristics Infrastructure Elements Service Characteristics Capital Costs EVALUATION METHODOLOGY Factors Guiding Transit Expansion Screening Methodology ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT Radial and Cross Town Alignments Physical Characteristics of Specific Alignments Radial Alignments Cross-Town Alignments Modal Options Light Rail/DMU Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Conventional Bus Transit Alternative Refinement SR-160 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PLAN Current conditions and SR-160 expansion project Future Highway Lane Configuration Signaled Intersection Configuration Optimizing movement of transit vehicles Queue-Jumping Intersections Left Turn Lanes Bus Signal Priority Congestion Management Strategies Transportation System Management Future Roadway System Performance ii

4 Table of Contents RTC SR-160 Corridor Study 6.6 Representative Intersection Diagram Union Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way Overview Analysis by Segment Conclusions PROPOSED PARK AND RIDE FACILITIES Park & Ride Site and Design Criteria Location Configuration Other Factors Candidate Park & Ride Sites Recommended Park & Ride Sites SR-160 east of S. Hualapai Way SR-160 west of S. Durango Drive SR-160 between Rainbow and Torrey Pines Land Acquisition Options Bus Stops SR-160 at S. Buffalo Drive SR-160 at Arville Street S. Decatur Boulevard near W. Robindale Road and W. Windmill Lane COST ESTIMATES FOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES Capital Cost Estimates Overview of Capital Cost Benchmarks Alternative 1 High Growth Alternative 2 Moderate Growth Summary/Conclusions Operating Cost Estimates Estimation Methodology Alternative 1 High Growth Alternative 2 moderate growth Summary/Conclusions APPENDIX A Aerial Photographs of Blue Diamond Corridor... A-1 APPENDIX B Candidate Park & Ride Site Data... B-1 APPENDIX C SR-160 Major Intersections... C-1 APPENDIX D RTC Policies and Procedures...D-1 iii

5 Table of Contents RTC SR-160 Corridor Study LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 2-1: Map of Clark County s Comprehensive Land Use Plan EXHIBIT 2-2: Percentage of Land Use in Enterprise by Type EXHIBIT 2-3: 2003 LAND USE EXHIBIT 2-4: FUTURE LAND USE EXHIBIT 2-5: Major Projects in SR-160 Area EXHIBIT 2-6: Mixed Use Overlay District EXHIBIT 2-7: Enterprise Annual Population and Growth Rates EXHIBIT 2-8: 2025 Employment Density EXHIBIT 2-9: SR-160 East at Jones Blvd EXHIBIT 2-10: SR-160 at Decatur Blvd EXHIBIT 2-11: Level of Service (LOS) EXHIBIT 2-12: Level of Service (LOS) along SR EXHIBIT 2-13: Roadway System Classes EXHIBIT 2-14: 10-year Trend in Average Daily Traffic EXHIBIT 2-15: Current and 2025 Traffic and LOS on Major Arterials EXHIBIT 3-1: CAT Conventional Bus Service EXHIBIT 3-2: Conventional Bus Size and Capacity EXHIBIT 3-3: Conventional Bus Transit Capital Costs EXHIBIT 3-4: Body Design Types EXHIBIT 3-5: Specialized BRT Vehicles EXHIBIT 3-6: MAX Station at Las Vegas Blvd and Carey EXHIBIT 3-7: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Capital Costs by Element EXHIBIT 3-8: Opening Dates for LRT Systems EXHIBIT 3-9: Light Rail Project Costs Over Time ($2003) EXHIBIT 4-1: Carrying Capacity of Mass Transit Alternatives EXHIBIT 5-1: Summary Assessment of Potential Alignments EXHIBIT 5-2: Major Radial Alignments EXHIBIT 5-3: Durango Drive Radial Alignment EXHIBIT 5-4: Rainbow Boulevard Radial Alignment EXHIBIT 5-5: Decatur Boulevard Radial Alignment EXHIBIT 5-6: Las Vegas Boulevard South Radial Alignment EXHIBIT 5-7: Major Cross-town Alignments EXHIBIT 5-8: Warm Springs Road Cross-Town Alignment EXHIBIT 5-9: Summary of Alignments and Modes iv

6 Table of Contents RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT 5-10: Alternative 1 High Growth (2008) EXHIBIT 5-11: Alternative 1 High Growth (2015) EXHIBIT 5-12: Alternative 1 High Growth (2025) EXHIBIT 5-13: Alternative 2 High Growth (2008) EXHIBIT 5-14: Alternative 2 Moderate Growth (2015) EXHIBIT 5-15: Alternative 2 Moderate Growth (2025) EXHIBIT 6-1: Dedicated Bus Lanes EXHIBIT 6-2: Signaled Intersections EXHIBIT 6-3: Possible Right-Turn / Queue-Jump Lane Configurations EXHIBIT 6-4: Right-Turn Island EXHIBIT 6-5: SR-160 at Arville EXHIBIT 6-6: Overview of Blue Diamond Right-of-Way EXHIBIT 6-7: Right-of-Way from UPRR Mainline to SR-160, and Land with Structures.6-12 EXHIBIT 6-8: UPRR ROW Looking NW EXHIBIT 6-9: UPRR ROW Looking SE EXHIBIT 6-10: Right-of-Way from Crossing of SR-160 to Durango Dr EXHIBIT 6-11: Railroad Right-of-Way Within SR-160 Corridor EXHIBIT 6-12: Right-of-Way Between Durango Dr. and Ft. Apache Rd EXHIBIT 6-13: Right-of-Way with Westchester Hills Behind EXHIBIT 6-14: Parcel Owners along Union Pacific Right-of-Way EXHIBIT 7-1: Candidate Park & Ride Sites EXHIBIT 7-2: S. Hualapai Way to S. Rainbow Blvd EXHIBIT 7-3: S. Rainbow Blvd. to I EXHIBIT 7-4: S. Hualapai Way to S. Rainbow Blvd EXHIBIT 7-5: S. Rainbow Blvd. to I EXHIBIT 7-6: Park & Ride Site EXHIBIT 7-7: Aerial Photo, with Parcels, of P&R Site EXHIBIT 7-8: P&R Site 1-1 Facing Southeast EXHIBIT 7-9: Park & Ride 1-1 Configuration EXHIBIT 7-10: Residential Density at SR-160 / Durango EXHIBIT 7-11: Park & Ride Site 1-2/ EXHIBIT 7-12: Aerial Photo, with Parcels, of P&R Site 1-2/ EXHIBIT 7-13: P&R Site 1-2 Facing West EXHIBIT 7-14: Park & Ride 1-2/2-2 Configuration EXHIBIT 7-15: Park & Ride Site EXHIBIT 7-16: Aerial Photo, with Parcels, of P&R Site EXHIBIT 7-17: P&R Site 1-4 Facing Northwest v

7 Table of Contents RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT 7-18: Bus Route Through P&R Site EXHIBIT 7-19: Park & Ride 1-4 Configuration EXHIBIT 7-20: BLM Rights-of-Way and Reservations for Park & Ride Facilities EXHIBIT 7-21: Facing West From SR-160 at Buffalo EXHIBIT 7-22: Facing North on Decatur Boulevard at Windmill Lane EXHIBIT 8-1: Summary of MAX Project Costs EXHIBIT 8-2: Alternative 1 High Growth, Capital Costs EXHIBIT 8-3: Alternative 2 Moderate Growth Capital Costs EXHIBIT 8-4: Hourly Marginal Costs for CAT Services EXHIBIT 8-5: Segment Lengths EXHIBIT 8-6: Alternative 1 Operating Costs EXHIBIT 8-7: Alternative 2 Moderate Growth Operating Costs EXHIBIT 8-8: Comparison of Vehicle Service Hours EXHIBIT A-1: Aerial View 1... A-2 EXHIBIT A-2: Aerial View 2... A-3 EXHIBIT A-2: Aerial View 2... A-3 EXHIBIT A-3: Aerial View 3... A-4 EXHIBIT A-4: Aerial View 4... A-5 EXHIBIT A-5: Aerial View 5... A-6 EXHIBIT A-6: Aerial View 6... A-7 EXHIBIT A-7: Aerial View 7... A-8 EXHIBIT A-8: Aerial View 8... A-9 EXHIBIT A-9: Aerial View 9...A-10 EXHIBIT A-10: Aerial View 10...A-11 EXHIBIT A-11: Aerial View 11...A-12 EXHIBIT A-12: Aerial View 12...A-13 EXHIBIT A-13: Aerial View 13...A-14 EXHIBIT A-14: Aerial View 14...A-15 EXHIBIT A-15: Aerial View 15...A-16 EXHIBIT B-1: Potential Park & Ride Sites That Are Owned By the Government or Long-Time Private Owners... B-2 EXHIBIT C-1: SR-160 at Las Vegas Blvd.... C-2 EXHIBIT C-2: SR-160 at I C-3 EXHIBIT C-3: SR-160 at Industrial... C-4 EXHIBIT C-4: SR-160 at Valley View Blvd... C-5 EXHIBIT C-5: SR-160 at Arville... C-6 EXHIBIT C-6: SR-160 at Decatur... C-7 vi

8 Table of Contents RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT C-7: SR-160 at Jones... C-8 EXHIBIT C-8: SR-160 at Rainbow... C-9 vii

9 1. Executive Summary RTC SR-160 Corridor Study 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Nevada State Route 160 (SR-160), also known as Blue Diamond Road, traverses the Enterprise Planning District in southwest Clark County, one of the fastest growing areas in the Las Vegas region. The study area includes several major residential developments, including Mountain s Edge, Rhodes Ranch, Westchester Hills, Pinnacle Peaks, Arlington Ranch, and Southern Highlands. Combined, these major projects will result in the addition of over 10,000 new dwelling units by With so much growth anticipated over the next two decades, Clark County is faced with the challenge of addressing the growing infrastructure gap, particularly as it relates to water, public services and transportation. In its current configuration, SR-160 is unable to accommodate the recent increase in traffic levels resulting directly from population growth in Enterprise. Blue Diamond Road (SR-160) Corridor S. Hualapai Way to S. Las Vegas Boulevard North The Regional Transportation Commission (RTC), which is responsible for providing transit service in the greater Las Vegas area, commissioned this study to develop a transit plan for SR-160. This study area includes SR-160 from S. Las Vegas Blvd. to S. Hualapai Way, a distance of approximately 8.5 miles, in addition to major arterial approaches within this corridor segment. Growth, travel patterns, and transit recommendations were examined for the years 2008, 2015, and Current Highway Configuration SR-160 is currently a two-lane road throughout the study corridor, with extra lanes at several major intersections. Several intersections along SR-160 are signalized, with an atgrade crossing at the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) mainline track. In 2004, NDOT developed a major corridor improvement plan that widens SR-160 through most of the study area, with several capacity improvements: A divided highway with turn lanes and signaling at all major intersections, 1-1

10 1. Executive Summary RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Eight lanes (four in each direction) from S. Las Vegas Blvd. to S. Rainbow Blvd., Six lanes from S. Rainbow Blvd. to S. Durango Dr., A new bridge and alignment over I-15 and connection to S. Las Vegas Blvd. at Windmill, and A grade separation over the UPRR mainline. In the future, it is anticipated that additional widening will occur on the western end of the corridor. The highway right-of-way is 150 feet wide from I-15 to Decatur, and 200 feet wide west of Decatur Boulevard. Transit Technologies Both bus and rail technologies were studied for their suitability in the SR-160 study area. The major factors for determining the viability of each technology are as follows: Mode Infrastructure Requirements Ridership Implementation Issues Conventional Bus Transit Roadway with pedestrianaccessible stop location; bus stop signs with route info Protective bus shelters for high-volume stops 30,000 to 100,000 passengers per month CAT does not currently operate local routes in study area (no limited stop routes in study area) Crosstown service local or limited stop? Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Mixed traffic streets, dedicated/reserved lanes or grade-separated transitways Stations with shelters integrated into medians/sideways; ticket machines 4,000 to 40,000 passengers per day Station spacing (3/4 to 1 mile apart) Stations should include shelters, Ticket Vending Machines (TVMs), seating and schedule information 14-inch high platforms for level boarding Light Rail / Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) Trackway, vehicles, stations Storage yards Fixed equipment 10,000 to 90,000 passengers per day Light Rail or DMU? Securing ROW Station design Access to employment centers Rail alternatives were not studied in depth for three primary reasons. The anticipated ridership levels were insufficient to justify light rail or DMU technology. The narrow configuration of SR-160 east of Decatur Blvd. would have required use of a different corridor (such as the former UPRR SR-160 branch line). The UPRR stated that their mainline right-of-way was at capacity and would not be available for passenger rail service. Evaluation Methodology When assessing the applicability of potential transit investments to specific corridor segments and developing route structure alternatives, planners consider both potential transit demand and the physical characteristics of the corridor. In developing new transit services, the basic route network structure is typically influenced by the spatial distribution 1-2

11 1. Executive Summary RTC SR-160 Corridor Study of trip generators and attractors, and the movement of these trips throughout the transportation network. Service levels defined by peak and non-peak frequencies, span of service, and total vehicle service hours for these new routes should correspond with observable transit demand. These criteria are applied to the SR-160 study area to develop and evaluate transit alternatives. Variables that capture transit demand are: Type and intensity of existing transit service, Existing transit ridership on services operating along the alignment, Traffic volumes and levels of congestion, and Number and type of activity centers. Variables that represent the physical characteristics of the alignment are: Right-of-way availability, and Pedestrian accessibility. Transit Alternatives In addition to SR-160 itself, the study evaluates two potential east/west corridors (all of which are shown in blue to the right) and five north/ south corridors (in red) for transit use. These connect with CC-215 to the north and S. Las Vegas Blvd. to the east, and provide transit service to the major residential and employment areas. Based on the analysis of travel patterns and anticipated transit ridership potential, the study team developed two sets of transit alignments for 2008, 2015, and The proposed 2025 bus routes for high growth and medium growth scenarios are shown in the two exhibits below. The different colors represent different bus services: Blue: Bus Rapid Transit Green: Express Other: Local 1-3

12 1. Executive Summary RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Buses would operate on minute headways, depending on route and time of day. The routes would be integrated into the RTC s existing route network High Growth 2025 Medium Growth Transit-Supportive Highway Features The study also investigates the feasibility of transit-supportive treatments along SR-160 such as bus-only lanes. In addition to bus-only lanes, it may be feasible to implement priority passage through signalized intersections, using a so-called queue-jumping technique whereby buses avoid queues of automobiles at intersections via either a dedicated lane or shared use of a right-turn lane. Once the bus reaches the head of the queue, the signal system sees the bus and gives it a green signal prior to the signal for automobiles, allowing the bus to proceed through the intersection first. Even without a queue-jumping lane, signal systems can be programmed to recognize an approaching bus and provide a green signal in that direction. SR-160 Park & Ride Plan The study initially evaluated fourteen potential Park & Ride sites, based on specific selection criteria. These sites were land parcels along the corridor that were possibly available because they either belong to the government or have not been recently sold for development purposes. A further filtering revealed three primary sites along SR-160 that meet the selection criteria and are the best spaced and positioned: Hualapai Way (the extreme west end of the study corridor), Durango Road. (near Mountain s Edge, Arlington Ranch, and Pinnacle Peaks), and Torrey Pines (at the east end of Mountain s Edge). 1-4

13 1. Executive Summary RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Each of the proposed sites would contain parking for up to several hundred cars, a kiss-andride area, bike lockers, lighting, and patron amenities. They could be ideal sites for joint development, in conjunction with retail and housing. No Park & Ride sites have been recommended on the corridor east of Jones, because of lower housing densities and more commercial facilities. On-street bus stops are also recommended along the corridor, with parking available at commercial sites. Costs The costs to construct and operate transit service along SR-160 vary greatly depending primarily on the cost to obtain the land for Park & Ride facilities, which could vary from $0 to $28 million, as well as on the ultimate amount of growth, which drives the level of transit service provided. Costs in 2006 $ Capital Costs High Growth $28,600 - $6,643,600 $35,012,250 - $35,043,800 - $70,896,200 $74,014,000 Moderate Growth $8,800 $28,600 $35,013,000 - $4,506,300 $7,525,600 $71,778,200 Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs High Growth $3,280,000 $4,840,000 $7,090,000 Moderate Growth $2,020,000 $3,770,000 $5,310,000 Land Acquisition Options The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) stated that land for Park & Ride or other necessary facilities could be obtained in three different ways: Right-of-Way (ROW): Obtaining land for P&R facilities through an ROW is the preferred method as process can begin immediately. No application, monitoring, or rental fee is required because RTC is a regional government agency The Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP): Authorizes lease or sale of public land for recreational or public purposes to State and local governments and to qualified nonprofit organizations. The RTC is not eligible for purchasing land under the R&PP; however, the land could be purchased by Clark County. Direct Sales: It would be difficult for the RTC to obtain BLM land under a noncompetitive bid. Under 43 CFR 11 Part , direct sales without competition may be utilized, when the public interest would best be served by a direct sale. Speedy discussion and negotiations with BLM is recommended to reserve any land that RTC wishes to use in the future. Recommendations It is recommended that the RTC undertake the following as quickly as possible: 1-5

14 1. Executive Summary RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Adopt a Blue Diamond Corridor Transit Plan, either per this report or with modifications; Incorporate the Blue Diamond Corridor Transit Plan into RTC s overall transit planning, and seek to obtain funding to implement the Plan; Work with BLM to: reserve access to Federally-owned land for Park & Ride facilities, and find the most cost-effective means of acquiring rights to the land; Work with NDOT to: incorporate prescribed transit features in the upgrade of SR-160, ensure that future transit-supportive features on SR-160 are not precluded by the design of the highway upgrade projects, and provide bus stops on SR-160 per existing RTC policies; Ensure that commercial developments along the corridor are required to support transit user parking at bus stops that are adjacent to their facilities; Continue to monitor growth and usage of the Blue Diamond Corridor and adjust the Transit Plan as necessary. 1-6

15 2. Current Conditions of Study Area RTC SR-160 Corridor Study 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS OF STUDY AREA 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF SR-160 Between Las Vegas Boulevard South and Hualapai Road, SR-160 is an 8.5 mile two-lane limited express state road that bisects a largely rural planning district in Clark County known as Enterprise. SR-160 connects to I-15 at a major freeway interchange a mile south of the CC-215/I-15 interchange, with a connector to Las Vegas Boulevard South just east of I-15. SR-160 runs west by southwest from I-15 through a local street network with several major north-south arterials, including Durango Drive, Rainbow Blvd, Jones Blvd, Buffalo Drive and Decatur Blvd. Much of the street network between I-15 and SR-160 is incomplete, with plans in place under the County s Major Projects program and the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to expand major arterials to better serve the communities along the SR-160 corridor. Between the I-15 interchange and Valley View, SR-160 is a four lane limited access state highway, with two lanes in each direction. East of Valley View, SR-160 is a limited access two lane facility, with one lane in each direction. Proposed 2025 right of way (ROW) width is 200 feet. The Union Pacific Railroad intersects SR-160 just west of Jones Boulevard, and runs north by northeast through the heart of the Las Vegas Valley. Currently, there is no passenger rail service along the corridor. 2.2 GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES The SR-160 corridor is located in the southern part of the Las Vegas Valley, just south of the east-west segment of CC-215 (Exhibit 2-1). The corridor study area is bounded by the SR-160/I-15 interchange to the east and Hualapai Road. The area encompasses a large portion of unincorporated Clark County, with the communities of Pinnacle Peaks, Rhodes Ranch and Summerlin South to the north and Mountains Edge and Southern Highlands to the south. The purpose of the study is to develop a multimodal transportation system management strategy for SR-160 that addresses the mobility and accessibility needs of this area. The corridor study area, approximately an 8.5-mile segment, is bounded by the SR-160/I-15 interchange to the east and Hualapai Road to the west. 2.3 COMMUNITIES SERVED The SR-160 corridor bisects a largely rural area of unincorporated southwest Clark County experiencing tremendous residential subdivision growth. The community of Mountains Edge is located south of SR-160 in the western portion of the study area. Directly north of SR

16 2. Current Conditions of Study Area RTC SR-160 Corridor Study is the community of Rhodes Ranch, a large residential subdivision adjacent to Bureau of Land Management lands and undeveloped rural parcels. Further to the east are the communities of Pinnacle Peaks and Southern Highlands. The majority of the land in the study area is part of Enterprise Planning Area, Clark County s fourth largest Planning Area behind Sunrise Manor, Spring Valley and Paradise. Clark County has developed a Comprehensive Land Use Plan that designates land use plans for specific areas, both in and out of the study area. One of the unique aspects of the plan is the establishment of Rural Neighborhood Preservation Districts throughout southwest Clark County, including seven zones along the SR-160 corridor within the study area. The residential zones within the study area range between Residential Low (up to 3.5 dwelling units per acre) to Residential High (from 8 dwelling units to 18 dwelling units per acre). In addition to residential and rural neighborhood preservation, the corridor also includes Commercial General Zones. EXHIBIT 2-1: Map of Clark County s Comprehensive Land Use Plan Source: Clark County, Department of Comprehensive Planning 2-2

17 2. Current Conditions of Study Area RTC SR-160 Corridor Study 2.4 CURRENT ZONING AND COMMUNITY PLANS The purpose of this section is to summarize the comprehensive plans from Clark County as they relate to this study area Clark County State law enables Clark County to prepare a master plan for the physical development of the city, county or region.... (N.R.S ). In December 1983, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) adopted the Clark County Comprehensive Plan, which established a policy for separate town plans. In 2004, the Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning updated detailed land use plans for the Town of Enterprise outlining goals, policies and maps Land Use Plan for Enterprise The Enterprise planning area is in unincorporated Clark County and covers more than 66 square miles in the southwest part of the Las Vegas Valley. The planning area is bisected by I-15 north to south and SR-160 east to west. Along with CC-215, these three highways serve as the major transportation corridors for Enterprise. One of the biggest challenges facing Clark County is the ability to provide the full range of public services and facilities to accommodate new development in largely rural and undeveloped sections of Enterprise. Goal 1 of the Enterprise Land Use Plan states: Implement a comprehensive land use plan by promoting development that is compatible with adjacent land uses, the natural environment, and that is well integrated with an appropriate circulation system, services, and facilities. The Enterprise Land Use Plan also emphasizes policies and plans that support mixed use development to guide the location, density, intensity and development standards for mixed use development. To support this goal, Clark County has adopted a Mixed Use Overlay District, which designates the locations where increased intensity of land use are allowed and considered conforming to the land use plan. The Mixed Use Overlay District designates the most of the SR-160 corridor for MUD 3 (Moderately Intense Suburban Form) and MUD 4 (Least Intense Suburban Form), allowing for exemptions to maximum density restrictions on development within the SR-160 corridor. 2-3

18 2. Current Conditions of Study Area RTC SR-160 Corridor Study 2.5 CURRENT LAND USE The Enterprise Planning Area consists of 66.5 square miles, or roughly 45,533 acres. Of the total developable land, approximately 39,384 acres, Clark County reported at about 16 percent is developed. Current land use, from Clark County, is shown in Exhibit 2-2 and is summarized below. Per Clark County s Land Use Plan, the 16.3 percent share of land use in Enterprise dedicated to Rural Neighborhood Preservation is unlikely to decrease. Enterprise today can be characterized as largely rural, with an increasing share of land devoted to medium density residential subdivisions consisting mostly of single family and multifamily housing and some supporting commercial and retail uses. As an outlying area of the Las Vegas Valley with large undeveloped parcels adjacent to BLM lands, the Enterprise Planning Area has recently been the focus of intense development. EXHIBIT 2-2: Percentage of Land Use in Enterprise by Type Source: 2004 Enterprise Land Use Plan, Clark County Department of Comprehensive Planning Figure 2-3 provides a visual depiction of 2003 land uses in the Enterprise planning area. Land uses in the SR-160 corridor fall in the following categories: single family residential, multi-family residential, industrial, mineral extraction, other commercial, public facility, and 2-4

19 2. Current Conditions of Study Area RTC SR-160 Corridor Study vacant land. Rural and estate properties on large lots (1/2 acre or greater) have developed in pockets throughout the SR-160 area and are shown by the light tan (Rural Residential). Protected by Rural Neighborhood Preservation zoning, these areas are likely to maintain their character. 1 This rural development pattern evolved amid large, privately owned, undeveloped parcels that sit vacant as future investments. Many of these privately held parcels are now being developed into large suburban residential subdivisions. EXHIBIT 2-3: 2003 LAND USE Public Facilities Needs Assessment In 2001, the Board of County Commissioners approved the Public Facilities Needs Assessment, which identifies several major projects in Pinnacle Peaks, Mountains Edge and Southern Highlands. The purpose of the Public Facilities Needs Assessment is to estimate the infrastructure needs required to accommodate new development and to determine the appropriate share burden for developers. Future approval of development permits will be contingent on the infrastructure needs identified through the Public Facilities Needs Assessment process. 1 The white areas outlined in red in Exhibit 1-1 map indicate the areas within the SR-160 study area that have been designated as Rural Preservation Districts. 2-5

20 2. Current Conditions of Study Area RTC SR-160 Corridor Study 2.6 FUTURE GROWTH There are significant developments currently in the planning phase or under consideration within and immediately adjacent to the study area, as shown on Exhibit 2-4, Future Land Use Clark County and local developers have collaborated on the creation of integrated communities that incorporate multiple land uses, including residential, commercial, resort, industrial, public and semi-public. The Major Projects process is intended to allow for comprehensive consideration of projects and supporting infrastructure, consistent with the goals of smart growth and environmental sustainability. The following are some of the major development projects currently underway: Southern Highlands Pinnacle Peaks Mountain s Edge Rhodes Ranch Southwest Ranch Summerlin South EXHIBIT 2-4: FUTURE LAND USE

21 2. Current Conditions of Study Area RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Exhibit 2-5 provides a summary of the Major Projects in the southwest area of Clark County. At buildout, these Major Projects will result in the conversion of 10,858 acres of undeveloped land into traditional suburban subdivisions of medium density (between 3 and 18 dwelling units per acre). Of the Major Projects currently approved, Clark County has issued development permits for 21,914 dwelling units, with substantially more dwelling units likely to be approved once Clark County negotiates future development agreements relating to street and other infrastructure improvements. EXHIBIT 2-5: Major Projects in SR-160 Area Transit-Supportive Land-Use Actions Establishing a successful multi-modal transportation system and maximizing transit use along SR-160 will require transit-supportive land use actions along with capital transportation improvements. This section explores the nexus between transportation generally, and more specifically transit, and land use decisions as they apply to the Blue Diamond study area. 2-7

22 2. Current Conditions of Study Area RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Over the past decade, transit-oriented development (TOD) has gained increasing popularity as a planning tool to promote sustainable, smart growth. Since the 1990s, an understanding of TOD has become intertwined with new urbanism, a concept emphasizing livable, environmentally sustainable communities. In Southern Nevada, consumers have expressed a growing desire for high-amenity housing in compact neighborhoods where retail services and commercial activity centers are located within walking distance, and where transit service is an option. Because RTC is introducing new mass transit systems throughout Clark County, TOD, if designed well, can create a pocket of mixed uses within walking distance of stations in a way that encourages walking and promotes transit usage. Unfortunately, successful examples of TOD are relatively few. Where they have been implemented successfully, such projects require persistent advocacy and dedicated public involvement, all based around a clear definition of TOD. Successful TOD projects share several common attributes, the most important of which is a rich mix of land uses capable of supporting the needs of the immediate neighborhood. Such mixed use developments generally go against the grain of more traditional suburban development patterns, which typically segregate land uses and impose circulation systems based exclusively around the use of the automobile. Most of the Major Projects in the Enterprise Planning District fit this general profile. Recently, Clark County Comprehensive Planning introduced land uses ordinances designed to encourage mixed use developments. The Mixed Use Overlay ordinance acknowledges the interaction between land use decisions and travel behavior and the unintended consequences of auto-centric development patterns that result in traffic problems. The purpose of this section is to identify key principles of community building designed to be more sustainable, productive, and environmentally responsible than traditional suburban communities developed over the past half century. The section concludes with an assessment of Clark County s Mixed Use Overlay Ordinance and offers recommendations for modification to the ordinance to encourage more sustainable development patterns. In Making Smart Growth Work 2, Porter describes six key principles of smart growth: 1. Compact, multiuse development, 2. Open-space conservation, 3. Expanded mobility, 4. Enhanced livability, 5. Efficient management and expansion of infrastructure, and 6. In-fill, redevelopment, and adaptive reuse in built-up areas. 2 Porter, Douglas Making Smart Growth Work. Washington: Urban Land Institute 2-8

23 2. Current Conditions of Study Area RTC SR-160 Corridor Study While there are many definitions of TOD, the underlying essence of TOD is reflected in the definition adopted by the State of California: Moderate to higher density development, located within an easy walk (approximately ½ mile) of a major transit stop, generally with a mix of residential, employment, and shopping opportunities designed for pedestrians without excluding the auto. TOD can be new construction or redevelopment of one or more buildings whose design and orientation facilitate transit use. - California Department of Transportation, 2002 In several states, TOD Initiatives have been adopted at the state level to encourage local growth patterns that incorporate principles of smart growth. The state of New Jersey, for example, has adopted a statewide New Jersey Transit Village Initiative program designed to promote TOD throughout the state. Individual locations are selected as a Transit Village and receive special treatment from the state with the goal of promoting smart growth. Municipalities must apply to the Transit Village Task Force (composed of representatives from each of the state agencies) and demonstrate that planning ordinances support the principles of the Transit Village Initiative, including compact development, transit-supportive land uses, and a high-quality pedestrian environment. While Clark County has introduced some TOD concepts to its Mixed Use Overlay Ordinance, the state of Nevada has not formally commissioned a study of a Mixed Use Village Initiative program comparable to what has been approved in New Jersey. Recent research of TOD suggests that certain underlying conditions must exist for transit ridership to increase. A study of rail stations in the San Francisco Bay Area showed a strong positive link between residential density, numbers of retail and service jobs (land use diversity), and the city block patterns (urban design) with transit use. In this study, two ridership growth scenarios are presented, based on a reasonable expectation of future land use growth patterns. Alternative 1 High Growth assumes increased developmental densities and transit-oriented, mixed use development within Clark County s Mixed Use Overlay District. Alternative 2 Moderate Growth assumes more limited developmental densities and mixed use developments within the Overlay District. Details for the 2030 forecast ridership estimates are provided in Technical Memorandum 2.1. Clark County s Mixed Use Overlay District In Clark County, there appear to be several locations particularly within the downtown area that meet the underlying conditions needed for TOD to encourage transit ridership growth. Nevertheless, Clark County, in partnership with the cities of Las Vegas and North 2-9

24 2. Current Conditions of Study Area RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Las Vegas, has recently developed land use policies both through the Town Planning process and more innovative land use tools that reflect many of the basic principles of smart growth. The city of Las Vegas has designated North 5 th Street as a high density, mixed use corridor focused around station catchment areas of the planning fixed guideway system. Clark County has established Ordinance Part J, which sets forth the basic provisions of the Mixed Use Overlay District. According to Section , the purpose of the Mixed Use Overlay District is to: Encourage a diversity of compatible land uses, including a mixture of residential with at least one or more of the following: commercial, office, educational, institutional, and other appropriate urban uses. The Overlay provides a mechanism to encourage new housing and innovative urban design that is less dependent on automobile transit and can be used to revitalize older commercial corridors and increase opportunities for infill housing. The Mixed Use Overlay District consists of four distinct subdistricts, as shown in the Mixed Use Overlay District map (Exhibit 2-6). Each district has specific development standards and design criteria consistent with community goals, including intensity and density considerations for the appropriate urban form. The four districts include: MUD-1 Most intense urban form. The MUD-1 subdistrict is intended to permit a highly concentrated and intense development of mixed residential, commercial, employment, and recreational uses typical of high intensity central business districts where existing high-rise, mid-rise, and high density uses already exist. MUD-1 is characterized by a highly developed pedestrian network and access to a combination of transportation modes, such as high frequency bus service, light rail, monorail, freeway, and other rapid transit modes of transportation. MUD-2 Most intense suburban form. The MUD-2 subdistrict is designed to be nodal, permits a highly concentrated mixture of low-rise to high-rise (up to 100 feet) residential, commercial, employment and recreational uses typical of high density suburban areas, and may be used to transition between MUD-1 and less intense land uses. MUD-3 Moderately intense suburban form. The MUD-3 subdistrict is intended to permit a moderately concentrated mixture of low-rise and mid-rise residential, commercial, employment, and recreational uses within suburban areas and is designed for areas transitioning from higher intensity to lower intensity mixed uses. MUD-3 may also be established at freeway interchanges, the intersections of 2-10

25 2. Current Conditions of Study Area RTC SR-160 Corridor Study arterials, and along high frequency transit corridors where a higher intensity mixed use may not be appropriate due to adjoining planned land uses MUD-4 Least intense suburban form. The MUD-4 subdistrict is intended to permit a less concentrated mixture of low-rise residential, commercial, employment, and recreational uses typical of medium to low density areas and is designed for areas transitioning from higher intensity mixed uses to suburban and single-family development. MUD-4 may also be established at the intersection of arterial streets and along transit corridors where a higher intensity mixed use may not be appropriate due to adjoining planned land uses. In addition to satisfying the MUD subdivision expectations, all proposed developments are also evaluated in terms of several additional criteria, including: Transitioning Considerations All mixed use developments shall incorporate appropriate bulk and use transitioning measures along the development s perimeter to achieve compatibility with existing development on adjacent properties. Pedestrian Orientation Proposed developments are also encouraged to incorporate pedestrian orientation on the project s overall design. Design and Development Standards Applications for mixed use projects must meet development standards, including the residential proximity standards. Density bonuses require special use permit approval with public hearings before the Commission and the Board. The provision also includes a Mixed Use Development Incentive, which includes a list of incentives and density bonuses to encourage uses capable of producing a sustainable community and addressing community housing needs. The boundary of Clark County s Mixed Use Overlay District includes the Blue Diamond corridor along SR-160. Between Hualapai Way and Durango Drive, the Overlay District is designated MUD-3 and MUD-4, which reflect Moderately intense suburban form and Least intense suburban form, respectively. Between Durango and Rainbow Boulevard, the Overlay District is designated MUD-4, Moderately intense suburban form. 2-11

26 2. Current Conditions of Study Area RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT 2-6: Mixed Use Overlay District Source: Clark County, Department of Comprehensive Planning Since the introduction of the Mixed Use Overlay District ordinance, Clark County has not yet received any development applications in the Blue Diamond area that exercise density allowances. Part of the problem may stem from the lack of compatibility between SR-160 which currently functions as a high-speed limited Cities like Englewood, CO have turned to Transit-oriented Development (TOD) as a way to promote sustainable communities, curb urban sprawl, and offer viable alternatives to the automobile. Englewood s City Hall and public center were built adjacent to a light rail line on the site of a vacant suburban mall. expressway and the circulation requirements for a mixed use master plan, which are typically located adjacent to major thoroughfares like SR-160. The other disadvantage is the absence of a regional fixed guideway system and associated station nodes around which to 2-12

27 2. Current Conditions of Study Area RTC SR-160 Corridor Study plan compact, mixed use developments that enable alternative modes of travel beyond the automobile. Within the study area, it is recommended that Clark County consider modifying the boundaries of the Mixed Use Overlay District to cover an undeveloped portion of Enterprise that is away from SR-160, which is not a suitable spine for a mixed use master plan given high traffic volumes. Segregating through traffic via SR-160 from a mixed use development is critical in creating a balanced transportation network, and assuring the sense of livability associated with TOD communities like Englewood, CO. A more suitable area for the Mixed Use Overlay District would be a acre site south of SR-160 that is comparable in size to Major Project developments currently underway. By master planning a mixed use district in an undeveloped parcel with no street yet in place, it is possible to superimpose a circulation system that simultaneously integrates auto, transit, bicycles, and pedestrian access without compromising traffic on existing commuter sheds like SR-160 that carry too many pass through vehicles Recent Growth Management Activities At the Enterprise Town Advisory Board meeting on May 10, 2006, Town Commissioners Woodbury and Boggs-McDonald introduced Clark County Ordinance ORD This proposed ordinance would extend the moratorium on nonconforming zone changes on properties within the Enterprise Land Use Plan, through December The moratorium extension was approved by the Clark County Commission on June 7, The Commissioners stated that development in the Enterprise area was moving faster than the county, RTC, and NDOT could keep up. They did not expect this ordinance to solve all the challenges, but indicated it will provide breathing room to reassess strategies for closing the infrastructure gap for Enterprise. Several members of the public spoke after the ordinance was introduced and they were all very supportive of it, as were members of the Advisory Board Potential for Future Growth Although the boundaries of this study do not extend east of I-15 or west of Hualapai Way, the analysis of the Blue Diamond study area considered plans to accommodate residential growth to east and west of SR-160. Planned residential development in west Henderson, southeast of SR-160, has accelerated efforts to construct interchanges at I-15 and Silverado Ranch Boulevard, Cactus, and Starr and to improve the interchange at St. Rose Parkway, all to the south of the study area. These projects will load additional trips onto SR-160, as there are not yet any major east-west corridors to the south. 2-13

28 2. Current Conditions of Study Area RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Large housing developments are being planned and constructed in the Pahrump area, and Clark County planning staff have heard discussion of desires to expand the southwest SNPLMA disposal (potential land sale) boundary (Rod Allison, personal communiqué, April, 2006) STUDY AREA DEMOGRAPHICS The purpose of this study is to develop a multimode transportation improvement strategy for the SR-160 corridor that builds on the capacity improvement efforts currently underway by NDOT. There has been significant growth in this region, creating more need for a balanced transportation system that improves regional mobility and enhances accessibility to activity centers. One of the big challenges facing this subregion is the high rate of automobile ownership and the pressure to focus capacity improvements on vehicular throughput. Southwest Las Vegas has a uniquely rural character, with a diverse community of long-time absentee property owners and residents who have worked with Clark County officials to preserve a distinctly rural community. Within the last five years, however, the conversion of large undeveloped parcels into major suburban subdivisions has sparked debate about how best to manage growth and preserve the subregion s rural character. With the influx of new residents to the area, the population in the SR-160 corridor has grown younger. The percentage of population 55 and older has decreased from 35 percent in 1996 to 24 percent in In terms of income, the population is largely middle class, with a very small population of low income households. Not surprisingly, the rate of automobile ownership per household is among the highest in the Las Vegas Valley, with the percentage of households without an automobile at less than 4 percent. As derived from the SNRPC Workgroup, the estimated 2003 population of Enterprise was 62,796 and had almost doubled to 110,594 by The population is anticipated to reach 649,000 by the year Total employment in the study area follows a similar pattern increasing from a current estimate of 137,000 to over 280,000 by the year The next 3 The Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) became law in October, It allows the Bureau of Land Management to sell public land within a specific boundary around Las Vegas, Nevada. Proceeds from those sales are then made available for certain types of projects. In November 2003, the Act was amended to direct $300 million, or $37.5 million each year over the next eight years, to Lake Tahoe for implementation of the Federal Environmental Improvement Program. Projects that are funded by SNPLMA are submitted each year to the Secretary of Interior for approval. The Secretary has approved five years of funding (five rounds) since The Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition coordinates regional planning by bringing together public jurisdictions in the discussion and prioritization of issues related to conservation, open space, land use, transportation, public facilities, air quality and infill development. Member agencies include the Regional Transportation Commission, the Southern Nevada Water Authority, the Regional Flood Control District, the Clark County School District, Clark County Air Quality, and the Clark County Airport Commission. 2-14

29 2. Current Conditions of Study Area RTC SR-160 Corridor Study section documents population and employment densities for the study area, both for 2004 conditions and as forecasted for EXHIBIT 2-7: Enterprise Annual Population and Growth Rates Population Population density is measured in persons per square mile. This density typically varies from a low of zero persons per acre in rural areas to much higher concentrations in urbanized areas. As the population becomes denser, more and more land is used for transportation, commercial, institutional, and industrial uses as well as housing. Based on the 2004 Las Vegas Valley Long Range Transit Plan, the population density of the SR-160 corridor is 381 persons per square mile, which ranks SR-160 among the least dense communities in southwest Las Vegas. With several Major Projects currently in the development phase, however, subdivision growth along the SR-160 corridor is expected to result in among the highest rates of population growth and population density in the Las Vegas Valley. The current land use variables project a population density of 1,782, more than four times the 2003 population density. Much of that population density is expected to be focused within the Major Project areas such as Mountains Edge, Rhodes Ranch, Pinnacle Peaks and Southern Highlands. With the rezoning of the area served by Durango Drive and CC-215 to allow for greater mixed use development opportunities, residential densities are likely to be higher than predicted by the current regional travel demand model. The update to the land use variables in the regional model is currently underway, and RTC Southern Nevada expects to have more robust projections of 2025 population densities by Spring

30 2. Current Conditions of Study Area RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Employment Employment density is measured in jobs per square mile. Current employment densities in the study area generally follow a similar pattern as the population densities, with some exceptions. Employment is presently centered on the area of the Las Vegas strip, the central portion of the corridor, and some of the northwestern area. Overall, the northern portion of the corridor, beginning at the CC-215 beltway, exhibits low concentrations of employment. In the SR-160 corridor, current employment per square mile is 235. As depicted in Exhibit 2-8, employment density is expected to increase to 753 jobs per square mile in 2025, with much of the employment density clustered along CC-215 west of I-15. The expansion of the employment base along the areas near CC-215 currently zoned for commercial and industrial uses will likely induce a sustainable share of automobile trips along major northsouth arterials such as Decatur Boulevard, Rainbow Blvd and Buffalo Drive that serve the Major Project residential subdivisions throughout the Blue Diamond subregion. EXHIBIT 2-8: 2025 Employment Density 2-16

31 2. Current Conditions of Study Area RTC SR-160 Corridor Study 2.8 STUDY AREA TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM This section contains both a description of the roadway and existing and planned transit systems in the SR-160 corridor, as well as a high level assessment of the performance of those transportation systems. Performance evaluation of the transportation system is accomplished through the use of three commonly accepted performance measures, which are: Daily Volumes, Congestion Index, and Level of Service (LOS). In addition, these measures are supplemented by qualitative observations of traffic patterns on SR-160. EXHIBIT 2-9: SR-160 East at Jones Blvd SR-160 experiences heavy traffic in the weekday peak period in both the westbound and eastbound directions, with the most severe traffic congestion concentrated between Valley View and Las Vegas Boulevard. Within this segment, the majority of traffic fed onto SR-160 arrives from I-15, where westbound traffic bottlenecks at the Industrial Road and Valley View intersections. This segment of SR-160 is two-lanes, one in each direction. Because the storage capacity behind the Industrial and Valley View intersections is limited, traffic backs up into the I-15 onramp. South of SR-160 just west of I-15 is a casino resort, with access to the parking facility available via an unprotected left turn pocket. North of SR-160 just east of Dean Martin Drive is a major truck depot with fueling, restaurant and convenience retail services. The 2-17

32 2. Current Conditions of Study Area RTC SR-160 Corridor Study volume of truck traffic diverting from SR-160 to the truck depot creates some traffic impedances that contribute to the low level of service between the I-15 onramp and the Dean Martin Drive connector. Overall, the share of truck traffic on SR-160 is very high, which also contributes to a reduction in the carrying capacity of SR-160. West of Valley View Blvd, the level of service improves significantly. Part of the reason is that SR-160 functions much more like a limited access highway, with only two signalized intersections at Rainbow Blvd and Decatur Blvd. The remainder of the roads that connect to SR-160 are minor access roads Daily Volumes The number of vehicles utilizing the transportation infrastructure represents the most basic measurement of demand. The two most common units of measure are peak hour volumes and average daily volumes. For this analysis, volume is calculated as vehicles per day (VPD): a count of vehicles made on a single day (not an average count over time), traveling in both directions. EXHIBIT 2-10: SR-160 at Decatur Blvd 2-18

33 2. Current Conditions of Study Area RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Congestion Index The noted transportation engineer, Morris J. Rothenberg, defines urban highway congestion as "a condition in which the number of vehicles attempting to use a roadway at any given time exceeds the ability of the roadway to carry the load at generally acceptable service levels. 5 There are two types of congestion: recurring and non-recurring. Typically, recurring congestion occurs during the morning and afternoon rush hours as commuters travel to and from work. Nonrecurring congestion is caused by random incidents, most often disabled vehicles and accidents. Different methods are used to determine a service level for each component of a transportation network. In general, the capacity of a street is a measure of its ability to accommodate a certain volume of moving vehicles. Typically, street capacity refers to the maximum number of vehicles that a street element (e.g. an intersection) can be expected to accommodate in a given time period under the prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. On a typical county road like SR-160, lane capacities are normally in the range of 1,400 to 1,600 vehicles per hour. One important deficiency related to congestion and the overall level of service provided to roadway users is the Volume to Capacity Ratio (V/C). As the volume of traffic increases, the density of vehicles increases as well as throughput, reaching a maximum flow rate when volume equals capacity (V/C ratio equal to one). Past that point conditions break down rapidly and delays increase (V/C ratio of over one). The methodology for determining congested corridors for this study was to compare the corridor's V/C ratio to a V/C ratio threshold. The impact of volume is different for different roadway types (minor arterials, major arterials, highways, freeways, etc.), so thresholds were established to account for these differences. The thresholds were determined by a technical working group of the Congestion Management System project and differ by functional class and area type types Level of Service (LOS) The concept of levels of service (LOS) is well established in highway capacity analysis. LOS is a quantitative measure that compares the vehicle flow of traffic with the vehicle capacity available. The resulting volume to capacity ratio (VCR) is then classified in one of six levels of service. A LOS is an A, B, C D, E, or F grading system that rates the quality of 5 Rothenberg, Morris J., "Urban Congestion in the United States: What Does the Future Hold?", ITE Journal, Volume 55, Number 7, July 1985, pp

34 2. Current Conditions of Study Area RTC SR-160 Corridor Study operation on a street system. As shown in Exhibit 2-11, Level of service ranges from an A, the best traffic operation rating, to an F, the poorest. Urban roadways are typically considered satisfactory if operating at LOS D, which represents a high-density but stable flow. Small increases in traffic at this level will often cause operational problems. The relationships between vehicle volumes, density, throughput, volume to capacity ratio, and LOS are summarized below. EXHIBIT 2-11: Level of Service (LOS) LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F LEVEL OF SERVICE MAXIMUM DENSITY (PC/MI/LN) MAX SERVICE FLOW RATE MAXIMUM VCR (PCPHPL) A B 16 1, C 24 1, D 32 1, E ,200-2, F Variable Variable Variable For our purposes, we will focus on LOS to determine baseline and future conditions at several locations along SR Based on 2003 traffic count data collected by NDOT, SR- 6 LOS is a function of traffic density (passenger cars per lane-mile) and the service flow rate (passenger cars per hour per lane). 2-20

35 2. Current Conditions of Study Area RTC SR-160 Corridor Study 160 experiences recurring peak hour traffic congestion, with the highest percentage of failing service occurring between I-15 and Valley View Blvd. Exhibit 2-12 summarizes the level of service (LOS) at five locations along the eastern segment of SR-160 between Valley View Blvd and Las Vegas Boulevard South. The analysis shows LOS for 2003 and projections LOS for 2023, based on 20-year traffic projections. Similar to state roads in most urban areas, SR-160 suffers from traffic congestion as it fills up with commuters traveling to and from work in the morning and afternoon rush hours. In addition, a high volume of heavy duty trucks carrying building materials to construction sites east of Valley View contributes to traffic problems. Additionally, SR-160 has become an increasingly popular travel shed for a growing share of commute trips originating from Pahrump into the heart of Las Vegas. The I-15 interchange and Las Vegas Boulevard during the peak period were at LOS D, indicating a high density of traffic and intermittent breakdowns. As mentioned previously, most of the breakdowns occur between Dean Martin Drive and Valley View Blvd, where insufficient storage capacity on the intersection approaches leads to excessive queuing. In the no build alternative, these intersections are projected to operate at or below LOS F or traffic gridlock in The build scenario involves reconstruction of the SR-160/I-15 interchange with capacity improvements on the approaches, consistent with the Phase 2A and 2B construction designs shown in Exhibit A. Under the 2030 Build scenario, the capacity improvements planned by NDOT are projected to result in LOS ranging between C and D. With the Flyover alternative, LOS on the southbound ramp of SR-160 improves from a D to a C. EXHIBIT 2-12: Level of Service (LOS) along SR NB 2023 NB* 2003 Build 2023 Build* 2023 Build** Las Vegas Blvd D 1 F D C C NB Ramp Terminal D 2 F C C C SB Ramp Terminal D 3 F C D C Industrial Road C 4 F C D D Valley View B 5 F B D D LOS E or worse for the following locations: * analyzed without flyer 1. NB left, NB thru, SB left, EB left, WB left ** analyzed with flyover 2. NB left, WB thru 3. EB thru, WB left, WB thru 4. NB thru, SB left, EB left, WB left 5. SB left, EB left Source: Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) Traffic Operations Analysis Division 2-21

36 2. Current Conditions of Study Area RTC SR-160 Corridor Study 2.9 HIGHWAYS AND MAJOR ARTERIALS SR-160 provides a critical link between the communities of the southwest Las Vegas Valley and major freeways that connect these communities to the rest of the Valley. One of the challenges facing SR-160 is the amount of truck movement and vehicular traffic fed onto SR-160 because the street network serving Enterprise is not completed. The current roadway network in the study area is comprised of five major arterials and an expanding number of collector streets, as shown in Exhibit With the completion of several Major Projects in the study area, the number of collector roads between SR-160 and these new subdivisions is expanding. EXHIBIT 2-13: Roadway System Classes Highways Major Arterials Collector Streets Interstate 15 Las Vegas Blvd El Capitan (planned) SR-160 Dean Martin Drive Grand Canyon (planned) Clark County 215 Decatur Blvd Fort Apache (planned) Rainbow Blvd Cimmaron Road Buffalo Blvd (planned) Fort Apache Road Valley View Blvd Arville Street Lindell Road Arden Road Quarterhorse Lane Monte Cristo Way Fort Apache Road Arlington Ranch Road Because of the absence of viable east-west alternatives parallel to SR-160, much of the east-west traffic through Enterprise is forced onto SR-160 through many of the collector streets and major arterials shown above. Similarly, the north-south arterial network is not completed, with major gaps on Fort Apache, Durango, Buffalo and Jones. As a result, trips destined for location northeast of State SR-160 are fed eastbound on State SR-160 and northbound on I-15. Exhibit 2-14 shows the trend in average daily traffic on several major arterials connecting to the SR-160 corridor. Overall, the upward trend in average daily traffic is a function of increased population in the Enterprise area of Clark County, where residential subdivision growth has increased dramatically over the past three years. Over a ten year period, traffic volumes have more than doubled along Decatur, Rainbow and Pahrump Valley Road. One of the big challenges facing this subregion is the ability to upgrade the transportation infrastructure to keep pace with increased traffic volumes. 2-22

37 2. Current Conditions of Study Area RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT 2-14: 10-year Trend in Average Daily Traffic 30,000 Average Daily Traffic 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Decatur Rainbow Pahrump Valley Rd YEAR Source: Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), 2003 Traffic Counts for the Southern Nevada Area Major arterial streets and highways carry the largest share of through or long-distance travel. Along the SR-160 corridor, one of the biggest factors contributing to peak traffic congestion cause by heavy volumes on SR-160 is the incomplete nature of the major arterial network in the southwest Clark County area. Because of gaps in several major north-south arterials approaching SR-160, traffic that would otherwise circulate through a more integrated street network is funneled onto SR-160. Currently, there are critical gaps in several major north-south arterials, including Durango, Fort Apache, Buffalo, Jones and Valley View. substitutes to SR-160. In addition, there are no viable east-west arterials that can serve as Collector streets provide direct service to residential areas, local parks, churches, etc. To preserve the amenities of neighborhoods, they are usually spaced at about half-mile intervals to collect traffic from local access streets and convey it to major and minor arterial streets and highways. The collector streets within the SR-160 corridor provide access to SR- 160 and other major arterials. Again, because of the disconnected nature of the circulation system, traffic is funneled to SR-160 with few viable alternatives. Local access streets are the smallest class of roadway and those not selected for inclusion in the arterial or collector classes. They allow access to individual homes, shops, and similar traffic destinations. Through traffic should be discouraged by using appropriate geometric 2-23

38 2. Current Conditions of Study Area RTC SR-160 Corridor Study designs and traffic control devices. Obviously, there are many local access streets within the SR-160 corridor, which can adversely impact traffic flow during peak hours with a heavy platoon of vehicles, especially in cases where there are no protected left turn storage lanes on SR-160. The street network has been planned using a grid system to ensure that the local street network flows properly into the collector and major streets and eventually into SR-160. The following sections describe the major highways, arterials and streets in the SR-160 corridor study area. These roadways are described in terms of the capacity and their operating characteristics. The functional classification of streets described below for the study area includes: Major highways, Major arterials, Collector streets. This differentiation is generally based on through traffic movement and access to adjacent land. Local roads and collector roads provide greater access to adjacent land or individual properties as compared to highways or arterials, which provide greater mobility Major Highways Descriptions of I-15, the Northern Beltway, and several major arterials within the SR-160 study area are included in this section. Interstate 15 I-15 runs along the south-eastern boundary of the SR-160 corridor study area. For the purposes of this study, the portion of I-15 that is considered part of the study area is the segment south of CC-215 and north of Wigwam Avenue. Along this stretch of the highway, there are six lanes (three in each direction), although there is a small portion of the highway at the northeast point where it meets the corridor boundary where it becomes four lanes. The 2003 average vpd volumes on this segment of I-15 are 114,500. The percentage of this segment that is congested, based on these counts, is 14 percent. Seven percent of the southern segment of I-15 operates at LOS F. Forecasts for 2025 reveal a traffic volume increase to 260,100 for the southern portion. This means that seven to 38 percent of this route will be congested in 2025 and up to 25 percent of the roadway will operate at LOS F. 2-24

39 2. Current Conditions of Study Area RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Major Arterials There are several major arterials in the SR-160 corridor study area that provide travel routes between activity districts. The geometric and operational characteristics of these roadways are described below. Exhibit 2-15 provides a summary of 2003 and 2025 projections of daily traffic volumes and level-of-service on major arterials serving SR-160. The column entitled % Congested represents the percentage of the total corridor length that experiences LOS D or worse. By 2025, it is anticipated that traffic congestion along these major arterials will increase dramatically, with corresponding increases in travel times. Much of the work-related traffic funneled through these arterials will originate from the SR-160 area and be destined for employment sites along the commercial districts near CC-215. The largest increase in traffic is expected on north-south arterials serving the eastern portion of the SR-160 study area, specifically Durango Drive and Hualapai Way. EXHIBIT 2-15: Current and 2025 Traffic and LOS on Major Arterials Avg Daily Volume (2003) Avg Daily Volume (2025) % Congested (2003) % Congested (2025) % Increase in Travel Times Las Vegas Boulevard South 11,900 16,900 3% 31% 26% Valley View Blvd 16,900 31,900 18% 71% 119% Decatur Blvd 15,000 35,800 4% 53% 59% Rainbow Blvd 27,800 44,100 23% 69% 55% Buffalo Drive 21,500 36,700 15% 81% 62% South Durango Drive 7,900 31,700 4% 97% 95% Fort Apache Road/Durango 21,600 39,200 4% 53% 59% Hualapai Way 12,500 26,500 0% 85% 174% Source: 2004 Las Vegas Valley Long Range Transit Plan Las Vegas Boulevard South Las Vegas Boulevard South runs from Fremont in downtown Las Vegas south to Sloan, and includes the Las Vegas Strip. The portion of Las Vegas Boulevard South serving SR-160 is a 7.3 mile segment between Sunset and St. Rose. This portion of Las Vegas Boulevard South is just south of the Las Vegas Strip corridor. Much of the eastbound traffic on SR-160 heads northbound on Las Vegas Boulevard South to the employment base along the Las Vegas Strip. From 2003 to 2025, travel times on Las Vegas Boulevard are expected to increase 26 percent. 2-25

40 2. Current Conditions of Study Area RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Decatur Boulevard Decatur Boulevard is one of the Las Vegas Valley s major north-south arterials, with connections to CC-215 and SR-160. At SR-160 and Decatur Blvd, there is a signalized intersection, with a major housing subdivision under construction at the northwest corner. South of CC-215, Decatur Blvd discontinues at Baudra, where a small access road connects to Jones Blvd to the west. From 2003 to 2025, travel times on Decatur Boulevard are expected to increase 59 percent. Rainbow Boulevard Rainbow Boulevard is an 18.1 mile north-south major arterial with a ROW width of 100 feet that runs from Ann Road in northwest Las Vegas to Starr Road. Rainbow is one of the few arterials that provides a continuous connection between SR-160 and locations in Northwest Las Vegas. South of CC-215, Rainbow serves as the western edge of the Pinnacle Peak Major Project area. The intersection at SR-160 and Rainbow is a signalized intersection. From 2003 to 2025, travel times on Rainbow Boulevard are expected to increase 55 percent. Durango Drive Durango Drive is a major north-south arterial west of I-15 bisecting the Summerlin area that runs from Summerlin Parkway to State SR-160. The intersection at SR-160 and Durango was signalized in July 2006, due to increased traffic and safety concerns at that intersection. Durango Drive is under construction, is being expanded to a six-lane roadway between Windmill to Hacienda, and serves as the eastern edge of the Rhodes Ranch subdivision just north of SR-160. The expected increase in congested conditions results directly from increased trips generated to and from these major residential subdivisions. From 2003 to 2025, travel times on Durango Drive are expected to increase 95 percent. Fort Apache Road Fort Apache Road is a 19.9 mile north-south major arterial segment running through the Summerlin area that terminates at SR-160. Currently, the intersection at Fort Apache and SR-160 is unsignalized, with a two-way stop north and south at Fort Apache. Fort Apache Road is currently under reconstruction, with six through lanes, left turn lanes, storm drain improvements, and traffic signals at Fort Apache/Twain and Fort Apache/Spring Mountain intersections. From 2003 to 2025, travel times on Fort Apache Road are expected to increase 59 percent. 2-26

41 2. Current Conditions of Study Area RTC SR-160 Corridor Study 2.10 TRANSIT SERVICES Route Descriptions, Service Levels, and Ridership Public transportation in the Las Vegas Valley is provided by the Citizens Area Transit (CAT). The system consists of 49 routes served by 305 buses, carrying close to 150,000 passengers everyday in the greater Las Vegas Valley. CAT provides standard fixed-route bus service to parts of southwest Las Vegas Valley. Most routes operate 5:30 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. seven days a week, while some routes operate 24 hours a day. Weekend service is usually the same, however, some headways may be extended. The Downtown Transportation Center (DTC) and the South Strip Transfer Terminal (SSTT) are major transfer points for CAT routes. The DTC is operated by the City of Las Vegas and the SSTT is operated by the RTC. For the purposes of this study, the SSTT is not within the study boundaries and will not be discussed further. The DTC will soon be replaced by the Central City Intermodal Transportation Terminal (CCITT), as previously mentioned. Routes are categorized based on route type: 100-series routes operate in a north-south direction. 200-series routes operate in an east-west direction. 400-series routes serve as connectors and circulators. Currently, there is no transit service along the SR-160 corridor. Route 117 operates along Las Vegas Boulevard South between the South Strip Transfer Terminal and several casino and resort locations to the south. CAT service along the SR-160 corridor has not been established largely because this area of southwest Las Vegas has consisted of low-density, rural neighborhoods where the rate of automobile ownership per household is among the highest in Clark County. Additionally, the fragmented street network between SR-160 and I-215 does not allow for the extension of 100-series routes south into the SR-160 area. With several Major Projects currently underway, such as Mountains Edge, Rhodes Ranch, Pinnacle Peaks and Southern Highlands, the demand for transit services is beginning to materialize. 2-27

42 3. Overview of Transit Modes RTC SR-160 Corridor Study 3.0 OVERVIEW OF TRANSIT MODES A key objective of a transit planning study is to determine the most appropriate transit mode to serve the activity centers and trip patterns of the study area. For the purposes of this study, a mode is defined here as a combination of vehicle and service design. This section articulates the characteristics of the most appropriate modes to consider for implementation in the SR-160 study area. This section discusses the modes in a systematic manner. This discussion includes an overview of several mode characteristics, including: Vehicle characteristics Infrastructure requirements, and Service and operational characteristics In all, three modes will be discussed: Conventional Bus Transit Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Light Rail Transit/Diesel Multiple Unit (LRT/DMU) 3.1 CONVENTIONAL BUS TRANSIT Overview Bus transit represents the basic building block of transit service in the United States. In fact, as of 2002 over 58.5 percent of all trips and 54.3 percent of all service is operated using buses. 7 Until the implementation of the MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system in 2004, 100 percent of the transit service operated by Citizens Area Transit was operated with conventional bus transit on local, express, and circulator routes. 7 National Transit Database, National Transit Summaries and Trends for the 2002 Report Year, Federal Transit Administration 3-1

43 3. Overview of Transit Modes RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT 3-1: CAT Conventional Bus Service Vehicle Characteristics Because buses operate on rubber tires, they can travel flexibly on many different types of right-of-way. For this reason, buses are used in a wide variety of operating contexts. This section describes various characteristics of buses. Vehicle Configuration Size Buses come in a variety of sizes and shapes, but the majority of buses operated in conventional service fall between 40 and 60 feet. The 40-foot bus is the standard length for bus transit in the United States, comprising approximately three-fourths of the vehicle purchases for fixed-route transit service. Recently, manufacturers have developed elongated versions of the standard-length bus. The 45-foot bus brings added seating and standing capacity. For services with significant demand, the 60-foot articulated buses are available. 60-foot buses feature an articulated hinge in the middle of the bus, enabling it to turn and maneuver in street traffic. EXHIBIT 3-2: Conventional Bus Size and Capacity Configuration Length (Feet) Standard 40 (12.2 m) Width (inches) in ( m) # Door Channels # Seats, including seats in wheel chair tie-down areas) Maximum Capacity* (seated plus standing) Double-Decker (14 ft height) ( m) in ( m) Extended 45 (13.8 m) in ( m)

44 3. Overview of Transit Modes RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Configuration Length (Feet) Articulated 60 (18 m) Width (inches) in ( m) # Door Channels # Seats, including seats in wheel chair tie-down areas) Maximum Capacity* (seated plus standing) Floor Height Traditionally, buses were built at a floor height that required passengers to climb a few steps to the floor of the vehicle. Passengers in wheelchairs were accommodated using lifts, which were cumbersome to operate and caused significant delays. In order to respond to the need for mobility-impaired groups, transit agencies have begun employing buses with low floors at the entry. Low-floor buses enable all passengers to enter the vehicle with just one short step up to the floor of the vehicle. Wheelchair passengers can board using a quick-deploying ramp. Low-floor buses are becoming the norm for bus transit in the United States, representing 64.7 percent of bus orders by transit agencies in the United States as of Propulsion Systems Buses can be powered by a number of different propulsion system configurations, each with a different profile of performance and emissions profile. The major choices currently available for vehicle propulsion are described below. Internal Combustion Engine The most common propulsion system is the internal combustion engine. Typically, internal combustion engines for bus operations have used diesel fuel. Several transit agencies use alternative fuels such as Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) in order to reduce emissions. In response to diesel bus regulations set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), recent innovations in diesel fuel emissions control and the introduction of Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) fuel potentially reduce emissions of diesel fuel to be comparable to CNG and LNG, leading to minimal differentiation in emissions of oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter among different fuels. Trolley Buses / Dual-Mode Buses Trolley buses are powered by electricity delivered through overhead catenary cables. Trolley buses have significant advantages over internal combustion engines in the smoothness of acceleration, the ability to navigate hills, and the ability to operate with zero local emissions for operation in tunnels or sensitive urban environments. A trolley bus can also carry an internal combustion engine in a dual-mode configuration, enabling buses to travel in areas where no catenary is installed. 3-3

45 3. Overview of Transit Modes RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Hybrid-electric Like dual-mode propulsion systems, hybrid-electric propulsion systems combine internal combustion engines with electric drive systems. Hybridelectric propulsion systems incorporate an on-board energy storage device (e.g., batteries or ultra capacitors), allowing the power to shift from one propulsion system to another, contributing to improved performance and fuel economy with reduced emissions. Hybrid buses operate in a limited number of places, most notably New York and Seattle. Other technologies such as fuel cell and electric batteries are still not developed enough to be commercially viable Infrastructure Elements Running Ways Conventional bus transit is versatile. Since rubber-tired buses allow them to travel along any road, including local streets, major arterials, and highways and freeways, conventional bus transit has no special running way requirements. Conventional transit typically has no provision for dedication of lanes and most often travels in mixed flow lanes. Stations / Stops A minimum requirement for stations or stops for conventional bus transit is a sign indicating the location of the bus stop. The sign often conveys information about the route and direction of the route serving that location. Typically, stops served by conventional bus transit lines with significant ridership are also provided with a protective shelter with seating and more transit information. Fare Collection Fare collection for conventional bus transit is typically a farebox at the entrance to the vehicle. Electronic fareboxes with smart card readers are slowly being integrated into urban transit systems to speed up the process of fare collection. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Conventional bus transit systems are also integrating intelligent transportation systems. Most prominently, transit systems are integrating automated vehicle location (AVL) systems. AVL systems can either use transponders with detectors placed along the route or can be based on Global-Positioning System (GPS) technology. These systems enable managers to monitor and dispatch vehicles and respond to passenger demand more interactively. 3-4

46 3. Overview of Transit Modes RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Service Characteristics Service characteristics, such as stop spacing, frequency, service span and route length for Conventional Bus Transit routes are largely determined by the type of route operated. Corridor-based Conventional Bus Transit operates in three primary route configurations: Local Service, Limited Service, and Express Service. Local Service Most fixed-route transit service operated with buses can be classified as local service. Local service operates along a given corridor, serving stops that are spaced close together, often every block or every other block. Because of the frequency of stops, average speeds on local service tend to be low, falling between 10 and 13 miles per hour. Limited Service Like local service, limited service serves a given corridor, picking up and dropping off passengers along the route. Just as the name suggests, limited services serve a limited number of stops, stopping less frequently than local service. Station spacing is often every half-mile to every mile. Speeds for limited service are generally faster than for express service. Express Service Express bus service generally operates between neighborhoods and a major destination such as a central business district, shopping mall, employment center, or airport. Express service typically combines a local segment in a neighborhood, where buses collect passengers; a line-haul express segment, where buses make no stops or only a few stops at major destinations; and a final segment where buses distribute passengers locally around a major trip generator. Also, most express service operates only during the peak hours and only in the direction of the predominant flow of travel, generally toward employment centers in the morning commute period and returning toward residential areas during the evening commute period Costs General capital costs associated with conventional bus transit are presented in the table below. 8 8 Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making, Federal Transit Administration, October

47 3. Overview of Transit Modes RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT 3-3: Conventional Bus Transit Capital Costs Capital Cost per Unit Stations Simple Stop $15,000 - $20,000 Station / Shelter Enhanced Stop $25,000 - $35,000 Station / Shelter Vehicles Vehicle Type Conventional Standard (40-foot) $300,000 to $350,000 Vehicle Conventional Articulated (60-foot) $500,000 to $645,000 Vehicle Propulsion System Trolley, Dual Mode +$200 to $400K increment Vehicle Hybrid Electric $100 to $250K increment Vehicle Fare Collection Electronic Farebox $4,000 to $12,000 Farebox Electronic Farebox with Smart Card Reader $5,000 to $14,000 Unit ITS Vehicle Prioritization Signal Controller Hardware $4,000 to $10,000 Intersection Operations Mgmt. Vehicle Location System $5,000 to $35,000 Vehicle Unit 3.2 BUS RAPID TRANSIT Overview Bus rapid transit (BRT) represents an improvement upon conventional bus transit. RTC s MAX system is one form of BRT. What differentiates BRT from conventional forms of bus transit is that BRT represents a fully integrated system designed to achieve higher performance. More specifically, BRT is an integrated system of physical elements and infrastructure, service design elements, and customer interface elements to provide a flexible, high-performance rapid transit mode with a unified quality image and a unique identity. The high level of design granted to bus rapid transit systems allows them to achieve many of the same performance objectives and benefits that some rail systems do. BRT systems have evolved as more attention has been paid to improving the performance of conventional bus services. Bus rapid transit systems have been in development all around the world with applications in Asia, Australia, Europe, and North and South America. In response to these developments, transit agencies in the United States are learning from the best examples around the world to develop BRT systems of their own. So far, at least 10 regions in the United States have completed BRT systems and many more are under development. The RTC in Las Vegas has implemented MAX, one of the most technologically advanced BRT systems, in the North Las Vegas Boulevard corridor heading in a northeasterly direction from the Downtown Transit Center (DTC). 3-6

48 3. Overview of Transit Modes RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Vehicle Characteristics As with conventional bus transit, BRT employs rubber-tired vehicles that can flexibly operate on many different types of right-of-way. BRT systems can incorporate many of the same vehicles that are used for conventional bus service. Often, however, transit agencies use the implementation of BRT as an opportunity to introduce more advanced vehicle types and vehicle features. Vehicle Configuration Like conventional bus transit, BRT systems can employ both conventional and standard vehicles of all sizes, standard 40-foot and articulated 60-foot. In addition, the level of investment in BRT systems often justifies implementation of specialized BRT vehicles. Specialized BRT vehicles employ a modern, aerodynamic body to provide a look similar to rail vehicles. Specialized BRT vehicles also often integrate into one package many characteristics that are considered options for more conventional vehicle types advanced communication systems, ITS features, precision docking, high quality interior design and finishes, and advanced propulsion systems. EXHIBIT 3-4: Body Design Types Body Design Conventional Stylized Specialized Capacity Standard X X Articulated X X X Given the desire to differentiate BRT from more conventional services, transit agencies are increasingly opting for configurations of vehicles that indicate greater attention to design, for both the exterior and the interior. EXHIBIT 3-5: Specialized BRT Vehicles Stylized Standard Vehicle Stylized Articulated Vehicle Specialized BRT Vehicle 3-7

49 3. Overview of Transit Modes RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Propulsion Systems Propulsion systems for BRT vehicles are undergoing the same evolution in propulsion systems as vehicles for conventional bus transit. The primary choices of propulsion systems are: Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles with internal combustion engines derive their power from the combustion of a fossil fuel. Buses typically use diesel (now available in ultra low sulfur form) or natural gas (compressed or liquefied). Internal combustion engines are the most common vehicle propulsion systems. Trolley Buses / Dual-Mode Buses Trolley buses have vehicle drives that are powered by electricity from overhead wires (catenary). Typically, trolley buses are used in tunnels (where zero pollutant emissions are required) or corridors with high bus volumes (where the amount of power delivered justifies the need to maintain infrastructure). Dual-mode buses can switch between electric power and power from an internal combustion engine. Hybrid-electric Hybrid-electric drives combine internal combustion engines with an on-board energy storage device, such as a battery. The advantages of hybridelectric drives over conventional buses include smoother and quicker acceleration, more efficient braking, improved fuel economy, and reduced emissions. Other technologies such as fuel cell and electric batteries are still not developed enough to be commercially viable Infrastructure Elements Running Ways BRT systems often include running ways that are specially designed for the exclusive use of BRT vehicles during part or all of a service day. Running ways for BRT can include any of the following running way types: Designated or reserved lanes lanes on arterial lanes that provide a fast, reliable alternative to mixed flow lanes At-grade transitways exclusive lanes operating in a separate right-of-way with occasional intersections with cross-streets Fully Grade-Separated Exclusive Transitways Exclusive lanes operating in a separate right-of-way with no crossings, enabling maximum speed between stations 3-8

50 3. Overview of Transit Modes RTC SR-160 Corridor Study BRT running ways often also include distinctive markings such as special signage or differentiated pavement color or texture. Stations BRT stations typically are designed with differentiated treatments to highlight the improvement in service that BRT offers. Stations use more elaborate off-the-shelf shelter designs or custom designs that are tailored to the site and the environment. BRT stations also often include amenities such as more elaborate lighting, security systems, vendors, more detailed transit information, and communications devices such as customer service telephones, and emergency alarms. EXHIBIT 3-6: MAX Station at Las Vegas Blvd and Carey Fare Collection Fare collection for BRT can often be structured similar to fare collection on rail systems, including alternate fare collection processes such as pre-paid fare collection. Depending on the fare collection process, BRT fare collection equipment can include either electronic fareboxes with smart card readers installed on the bus or ticket vending machines and smart card readers at stations. Typically, these advanced systems are installed as part of agencywide procurements. ITS BRT systems typically involve more complex intelligent transportation systems (ITS) than conventional bus transit, such as advanced communication systems and automated vehicle location systems that enable managers to monitor and dispatch vehicles and respond to passenger demand more interactively. BRT systems tend to install more active real-time information systems at stations and more interactive security systems at stations, enabling quicker responses to incidents and threats to passenger safety and security. 3-9

51 3. Overview of Transit Modes RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Service Characteristics Service characteristics, such as stop spacing, frequency, service span, and route length for BRT services can vary based on the demand for transit service in respective BRT corridors. The structure of BRT route systems can also vary. BRT systems operate in three primary types of route structures: Single Route One route pattern serving a route from end to end. Overlapping Route with Variations A trunk route is served by two or more routes. Each route serves a different set of stops or serves a different alignment beyond that route. Integrated or Network System Multiple routes serve some portion of a dedicated right of way. Some routes serve the entire trunk line from endto-end. Other routes serve commute markets with express/feeder service or local markets with local service. Typically, trunkline frequencies can vary between one bus every 30 seconds to one bus every 20 minutes Costs Capital costs for major BRT Elements are presented in the table below. 9 EXHIBIT 3-7: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Capital Costs by Element Capital Cost per Unit Running Way Mixed Flow Lanes -- Designated Lanes $2.5 - $2.9 million Lane mile At-Grade Exclusive Lanes $ million Lane mile Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes Aerial Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes Below Grade $12 30 million $ million Unit Lane mile Stations Simple Stop $15,000 - $20,000 Station / Shelter 9 Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making, Federal Transit Administration, October

52 3. Overview of Transit Modes RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Capital Cost per Unit Enhanced Stop $25,000 - $35,000 Station / Shelter Designated Station $150,000 - $2.5 million Station Intermodal Terminal or Transit Center $5 million to $20 million Station Unit Capital Cost per Unit Vehicles Vehicle Type Conventional Standard (40-foot) $300,000 to $350,000 Vehicle Conventional Articulated (60-foot) $500,000 to $645,000 Vehicle Stylized Standard $300,000 to $370,000 Vehicle Stylized Articulated $630,000 to $950,000 Vehicle Specialized BRT Vehicles $950,000 to $1,600,000 Vehicle Propulsion System Trolley, Dual Mode +$200 to $400K increment * Vehicle Hybrid Electric +$100 to $250K increment * Vehicle * An addition to base vehicle costs Capital Cost per Unit Fare Collection Electronic Farebox $4,000 to $12,000 Farebox Electronic Farebox with Smart Card Reader $5,000 to $14,000 Unit Smart Card Reader $1,000 to $7,000 Unit Ticket Vending Machine $30,000 to $60,000 Unit ITS Vehicle Prioritization Signal Controller Hardware $4,000 to $10,000 Intersection Driver Assist and Automation Electronic Precision Vehicle $50,000 Docking Hardware Operations Mgmt. Vehicle Location System $5,000 to $35,000 Vehicle Source: Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making, Federal Transit Administration, August 2004 Unit Unit 3-11

53 3. Overview of Transit Modes RTC SR-160 Corridor Study 3.3 LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT / DIESEL MULTIPLE UNIT TRANSIT Overview The Transportation Research Board s Urban Transportation Glossary defines light rail transit (LRT) as a metropolitan electric railway system characterized by its ability to operate single cars or short trains along exclusive rights-of-way at ground level, on aerial structures, in subways, or occasionally, in streets to board and discharge passengers at track or car floor level." LRT can operate in a variety of operating environments, including local streets, freeway medians, railroad rights-of-way and aerial structures. Compared to conventional buses that operated on shared local roads, LRT is more expensive to construct. However, because of LRT s design flexibility it is generally less costly to build and operate than other fixed guideway modes. Over the past quarter century, several major metropolitan regions have introduced LRT. The addition of LRT trunk lines and the coordination of regional bus service can result in the emergence of a robust multimodal transit system that encourages growth in transit ridership. EXHIBIT 3-8: Opening Dates for LRT Systems CITY OPENING DATE Edmonton April 1978 Calgary May 1981 San Diego July 1981 Buffalo October 1984 Portland September 1986 Sacramento March 1987 San Jose December 1987 Los Angeles July 1990 Baltimore April 1992 St. Louis July 1993 Denver October 1994 Dallas June 1996 Salt Lake City December 1999 Jersey City April 2000 LRT vehicles collect electrical power from an overhead wire and can operate in both mixed traffic and grade separated guideway. LRT can also be operated as Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) steel-wheel vehicles on grooved steel tracks embedded along major urban arterial streets. DMU is a self-propelled passenger rail car capable of pulling additional coaches. With DMU technology, overhead wires and catenary equipment are not required. The DMU is designed and approved to operate in mixed freight traffic, subject to FRA s newest 49 CFR 3-12

54 3. Overview of Transit Modes RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Part 238 specifications. The first and only DMU that is fully FRA compliant is the Colorado Railcar. DMU systems have become increasingly popular. Over the last ten years, DMU systems have been built in Trenton, New Jersey (South New Jersey Light Rail Transit), San Diego, California (North County Transit District s Sprinter Line) and Ottawa, Canada. Several others are currently being planned (Denver RTD, Portland, Oregon, Chicago, Illinois, and Orange County, California) Vehicle Characteristics Light rail vehicles (LRVs) and DMUs vary in shape and size, but one-piece cars typically range from 50 feet to 67 feet in length. Bodies that exceed that length are split into two or more sections that are hinged so that the articulated vehicle can negotiate tight curves. A three-car train operated by a single driver can transport more than 400 passengers. Depending on the number of car sections and the track configuration, LRT / DMU can accommodate between 2,000 and 20,000 passengers per hour in urban cities with populations between 500,000 and one million and densely developed corridors. LRT/DMU trains have modern electric propulsion and braking control systems that enable vehicles to operate safely in differing neighborhood and street environments. The maximum speed of an LRV/DMU is 55 miles per hour, and in mixed flow traffic the average operating speed is typically adjusted to the general traffic safety speeds of the local street. The DMU vehicle, which can be a single- or double-level vehicle, can pull two or three additional single level coaches depending on the track s elevation and ruling grade. The DMU gets 2 miles per gallon (mpg) carrying 90 passengers and 1.5 mpg carrying two additional coaches. The DMU has seating for 92 and a maximum passenger capacity of over 200 including standees. A DMU costs approximately $2.9 million. 3-13

55 3. Overview of Transit Modes RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Infrastructure Elements All LRT/DMU systems have the following basic elements: Running Way Infrastructure Wherever LRT/DMU systems operate, running way infrastructure must be installed. These include track and a power supply system. The number of tracks affects the capacity of the system. Tracks are either single-tracked (for low frequency systems) or double tracked (for high frequency systems). Track can be placed in at-grade, elevated, or subterranean alignment. Grade-separated alignments reduce potential traffic and safety conflicts with other types of vehicles. On electric-powered light rail system, an overhead catenary system (OCS) must be installed to deliver power to the light rail train. On DMU systems, no OCS installation is required because vehicles are individually propelled by diesel engines, simplifying the system design somewhat and reducing systems costs. Stations A station for light rail can be as simple as a curb on a street. Typical application of LRT / DMU in the United States involves a more elaborate design with specially designed platform designs, canopies, and architectural features. Pedestrian linkages to the adjacent community are also a part of rail station designs. Fare Collection LRT/DMU Fare collection systems often involve pre-paid fare collection. This is most often accomplished through the installation of ticket vending machines and smart card readers at stations. Systems LRT/DMU systems typically involve complex systems such as signaling and control system, communications infrastructure, and safety and security systems. 3-14

56 3. Overview of Transit Modes RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Service Characteristics LRT/DMU systems typically operate 10 to 15 minute peak headways during weekday service and accommodate relatively tightly spaced stations, allowing for short and moderate length trips. LRT/DMU systems allow for more efficient high-volume boarding than conventional buses because they can accommodate level boarding from a station platform and typically require fare pre-payment. Most properties operate LRT/DMU service between hours per weekday. Most of the new LRT/DMU systems built in the United States over the past quarter century range between 8 and 26 miles in route length. Research on transit ridership in cities with new LRT/DMU systems suggests that these systems, when implemented appropriately, have the potential to enhance transit efficiency. A Transportation Research Board (TRB) report published in November 2000 found that new LRT systems accounted for 22 percent of total system boardings and carried 30 percent of systemwide passenger miles but consumed only 17 percent of the operating and maintenance costs. While LRT/DMU has the potential to achieve significant efficiencies, it is worth noting that the cost of wayside maintenance, stations, electrification, signals and other fixed facilities are quite substantial. Achieving scale economies for LRT/DMU requires high ridership, and the presence of high-density transit friendly corridors that can anchor radial lines and crosstown bus feeder routes Capital Costs FTA s Light Rail Transit Capital Cost Study subdivides LRT capital costs into eight individual cost components. Guideway Trackwork Systems Stations Facilities Vehicles Special Conditions Right-of-Way Soft Costs: Engineering/Design/Project & Construction Management and Insurance Contingency 3-15

57 3. Overview of Transit Modes RTC SR-160 Corridor Study The table below provides recent unit cost estimates for a sample of pre-1991 and post-1991 LRT systems. For the sample of LRT projects completed after 1991, the average capital cost per linear foot of guideway was $8,489. The average capital cost per linear mile of guideway is $44.8M. EXHIBIT 3-9: Light Rail Project Costs Over Time ($2003) Actuals Quantity Adjusted Standard Model LRT Average Unit Cost (per L.F. Guideway) Pre 1991 Sample $ 6,566 $ 6,694 $ 6,532 Post 1991 Sample $ 10,386 $ 10,369 $ 8,489 $ Change $ 3,820 $ 3,676 $ 1,957 % Change 58% 55% 30% Source: Light Rail Transit Capital Cost Study, FTA Office of Program Management The sample does not include any LRT systems that employ DMU technology, which until recently has been typically implemented largely on interurban passenger rail service. Because DMU technology does not require overhead electrification, the unit costs for systems are slightly lower. For all other elements, the unit costs are relatively comparable. It should be noted that new DMU systems operating on shared tracks must be Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) compliant. Because the engineering and project management oversight required to meet FRA compliance is extensive, no savings in the area of soft costs and vehicle costs is anticipated. 3-16

58 4. Evaluation Methodology RTC SR-160 Corridor Study 4.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY When assessing the applicability of potential transit investments to specific corridor segments and developing route structure alternatives, it is important to consider both potential transit demand and the physical characteristics of the corridor. In developing new transit services, the basic route network structure is typically influenced by the spatial distribution of trip generators and attractors and the movement of these trips throughout the transportation network. To the extent possible, the route structure should maximize service to identifiable and predictable commuter and non-work-related trip sheds. Service levels defined by peak and non-peak frequencies, span of service, and total vehicle service hours for these new routes should correspond with observable transit demand. In the following section, several key planning variables that help determine the suitability of new transit service to expanding areas of a regional transportation system are presented. 4.1 FACTORS GUIDING TRANSIT EXPANSION Planning for transit improvements along the Blue Diamond corridor merits unique consideration because the intense pace of new residential development in the Enterprise area is unprecedented even for the Las Vegas Valley. With so much Major Project subdivision development currently underway and subsequent phases planned for future years, the character of the Enterprise community is being transformed from a quiet rural district to a sprawling suburban area vulnerable to a widening infrastructure gap. With respect to transportation infrastructure, a multimodal plan for SR-160 and connecting major arterials that includes a mass transit element must be developed before the window of opportunity closes even though there is no transit service there today. The potential to attract transit ridership is a function of several variables. The type and intensity of existing transit service The type of transit service already operating in a corridor gives an indication of the relative level of transit service that a corridor can support. The Blue Diamond study area does not currently benefit from any transit service. Given the breakneck pace of subdivision expansion south of SR-160 and between SR-160 and CC-215, mass transit improvements are needed, based on future population and development growth estimates and the changing nature of the community from rural to growing suburban. Traffic Volumes and Level of Congestion High traffic volumes indicate high demand for travel in specific sections of the transportation network. As Enterprise s only east-west connector to I-15, SR-160 is among the region s most heavily 4-1

59 4. Evaluation Methodology RTC SR-160 Corridor Study congested routes. The increasing share of trips between the Pahrump Valley and Las Vegas is also contributing to the growth in average daily traffic along SR-160. As described in the prior section, NDOT has completed capacity improvements for SR-160 which are to be completed in two separate phases. The number and type of activity centers Activity centers represent nodes that can serve as station sites for any high-capacity transportation system. They also represent locations where bus service may converge, facilitating transfers between regional transit and local transit and community shuttle services. Variables that represent the physical characteristics of the alignment include: Right-of-way availability Corridors may more easily have a dedicated track of running way when extra right-of-way (beyond what is required for already planned roadway expansions) is available. Corridors that have wide medians or extra rightof-way on the sides of roadways for potential queue jumpers or dedicated lanes have a higher likelihood of accommodating high-end BRT systems or LRT/DMU. The planned expansion of SR-160 does provide sufficient space for a dedicated transit running way in some areas An assessment of the feasibility of implementing a dedicated transit running way is presented in Section 4. Pedestrian accessibility Research on the link between transportation and land development suggests that the presence of high concentrations of population, employment sites, and activity centers within walking distance of transit stations promotes ridership. Alignments are assessed for the design of the pedestrian network around them and the likelihood that adjacent population clusters and activity centers will have pedestrian-friendly connections to potential stations. Since much of the study area has until recently been sparsely developed, with key gaps in the street network, issues related to pedestrian accessibility have not been central in the improvement of transportation infrastructure. Pedestrian accessibility is a design consideration in the conceptual drawings of two Park & Ride facilities (1-1 and 1-4). The factors described above are evaluated to ensure development of a transit plan for the Blue Diamond study area that captures future transit market shares without risking premature system overcapitalization. To the extent possible, operational considerations have been woven into the selection of potential station locations, Park & Ride facilities, and running way treatments. Because of the manner in which development in the study area is being phased in, a phasing strategy that ramps up service levels based on observed increases in the transit market is recommended. To plan for future growth, attention must also be given today to opportunities to reserve space for future transit-supportive features. Because of the tremendous demand for Bureau 4-2

60 4. Evaluation Methodology RTC SR-160 Corridor Study of Land Management (BLM) land in Enterprise, the window of opportunity to secure land needed for transit is quickly closing. In the following section, current ownership of desirable parcels is described. Methods available for acquiring federally owned right-of-way needed to construct transit-supportive amenities like Park & Ride facilities, transfer stations and intermediate transit stations, shelters and bus stops are also presented. 4.2 SCREENING METHODOLOGY This subsection presents a screening methodology to the corridor alternatives based on formal planning criteria and it establishs a framework for applying this screening methodology to each corridor alternative and recommending an alternative or set of alternatives that best suits the characteristics of the corridor. By design, the methodology to assess the corridor alternatives is taken from the evaluation criteria established for the Las Vegas Valley Long Range Transit Plan, which outlines a strategic vision for long-term transit investments for the Las Vegas Valley. The screening criteria include the following. Mobility Improvements How well do the proposed transit alternatives improve travel times and options? How does the proposed modal solution improve ridership and operational efficiency? To what extent will new transit services impact vehicular safety on existing roads where transit routes will be introduced? Presence of Transit Supportive Land Use Is the candidate corridor included in existing land use policies that emphasize smart growth and transit-oriented development? Engineering Feasibility How difficult is the build option to implement? What are the estimated capital and operating costs? What are the impacts to traffic circulation? Supportive Demographics Are there population and employment densities sufficient to justify the introduction of new transit services? Assuming the share of transit-dependent population in the study area is low, how many jobs are within a ½-mile of the corridor? Environmental Constraints How much right-of-way is available to construct facilities required to introduce local, express and bus rapid transit (BRT) services? How much relocation of utilities and other assets will be required? 4-3

61 4. Evaluation Methodology RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Community Support How much community support is there for new mass transit services? System ridership is an especially important measure of how effectively new transit service improves both mobility and accessibility. Ridership is related to several factors, including the baseline demographics of the residential population in proximity to transit stations and the transit supportive attributes of land uses within the corridor. In addition, the concentration of major trip attractors along the corridor, such as commercial, retail, tourist, and education, also plays an important role in the potential for new transit service to capture market shares. Generally, sufficiently high residential and commercial densities clustered tightly within a major transportation corridor are required to produce sufficient ridership levels to justify the investment in a fixed guideway mass transit system. This corridor profile is common in major cities with central business districts (CBDs) that represent a significant share of the region s employment and commercial activity. Where the prevailing transit mode share is high and land acquisition is prohibitively expensive, fixed guideway systems serving urban corridors do not typically require Park & Ride lots as a precondition for attracting ridership. In a lower density environment that may be characterized as suburban, Park & Ride facilities have been adopted as a transit-supportive strategy needed to attract choice riders in areas where the existing automobile mode share is very high. For our purposes, the land use characteristics of the Blue Diamond study area are defined as suburban/rural, with the area between Durango Drive and Decatur Boulevard transitioning from rural to largely suburban. EXHIBIT 4-1: Carrying Capacity of Mass Transit Alternatives 50 Average Speed (mph) BRT LRT AGT Heavy Rail 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Capacity (passengers/hour) 4-4

62 4. Evaluation Methodology RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Exhibit 4-1 provides a conceptual overview of the carrying capacity of major mass transit alternatives. Because of its high per mile capital costs, heavy rail (subway) and elevated rail systems are considered feasible only in central business districts (CBDs) in dense populated metropolitan regions where a substantial share of commute trips are bound for the central city. Generally, subways are considered only for regions where transit demand exceeds 15,000 passengers per hour. In regions where heavy rail is not considered a feasible alternative, transit agencies have invested in Light Rail Transit (LRT) systems which operate largely at-grade on city streets. Like heavy rail, LRT systems are typically retrofitted into high-density urban corridors where high transit demand cannot be sufficiently met by existing fixed route bus services and the expected benefit in new ridership justifies the economic costs of the fixed investment. Light rail system typically carry anywhere between 5,000 and 12,000 passengers per hour. Rarely are LRT systems considered suitable for corridors that currently possess daily ridership below 3,000 passengers per day, unless enough commercial development is anticipated. Where anticipated ridership levels are not high enough to justify a fixed guideway rail investment, transit planners have turned to an array of rubber-tire bus rapid transit (BRT) technologies. BRT systems have increased in popularity because they offer flexible options that can be scaled upward at comparatively lower marginal fixed costs to meet growing demand. 4-5

63 5. Alternative Development RTC SR-160 Corridor Study 5.0 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT The development of transit alternatives along SR-160 has been an iterative process throughout the project. In the second phase of the work, the consultant assessed proposed alternatives both through the planning framework summarized above, as well as the screening methodology for best modal treatment. Stakeholder input influenced the process on a regular basis through bi-monthly Technical Working Group meetings. This section summarizes the development of multi-modal alternatives for SR-160. First the potential alignments are presented. Second, the mode screening methodology is presented. Finally, the section presents the preferred modal options for each corridor (i.e., radial and cross-town corridor), within the Blue Diamond Study Area. 5.1 RADIAL AND CROSS TOWN ALIGNMENTS The consultant presented a series of Alternative proposals to the Technical Working Group in October 2005 and again in March Each proposal was subject to considerable debate, and gradually fine-tuned with respect to alignment, modal treatment, and applicability of Park & Ride locations. Exhibit 5-1 presents a summary of sketch planning variables used to assess the suitability of potential corridors for transit investment. Building on the analysis performed in the prior section, this section presents both qualitative and quantitative data related to the variables discussed above. Alignments EXHIBIT 5-1: Summary Assessment of Potential Alignments Radial Alignments Existing Transit Estimated 2030 Daily Traffic Volumes Extra Rightof-Way Available Pedestrian Accessibility 1. Durango Drive None 12,893 Yes 0 2. Rainbow Boulevard None 15,253 Yes 2 3. UPRR ROW None -- Yes 0 4. Decatur Boulevard None 28,729 Yes 2 5. Las Vegas Boulevard South None 17,912 Yes 2 Cross-Town Alignments 1. Warm Springs Road None 11,958 No 0 2. SR-160 None 37,044 No 0 3. Silverado Ranch Road None 17,389 Yes 0 4 = Excellent 2 = Limited 0 = Poor 5-1

64 5. Alternative Development RTC SR-160 Corridor Study One of the challenges in developing a transit plan for the Blue Diamond study area is the automobile-based orientation of businesses and residential areas throughout the study area. This prevailing development pattern contributes directly to the high private automobile mode share and the traffic problems that now recur at several key locations along SR-160 and approaching arterials. Use of alternative modes of transportation are severely limited by the absence of transit, pedestrian, and bicycling circulation systems that connect Blue Diamond to the rest of the Valley. RTC is currently working with Clark County to address these system gaps by amending the Mixed Used District (MUD) ordinance. For all the potential alignments described in Exhibit 2-1, pedestrian supportive amenities are virtually non-existent. 5.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SPECIFIC ALIGNMENTS Based on a review of the study area, including geographic analysis and field review, a number of potential alignments are identified as worthy of investigation for transit service improvements. This discussion considers two types of alignments. Radial alignments generally demonstrate heavy travel demand since they connect downtown Las Vegas with activity centers and residential neighborhoods. Cross-town alignments serve as connectors between suburban activity centers and residential neighborhoods, and to connect radials with each other. According to the Regional Transportation Plan for FY , Clark County is planning major street improvements to all arterials and streets on the ½-mile grid over the next 25 years, with many of the improvements planned within the Blue Diamond study area to be completed within the next five years. At a minimum, the major north-south arterials presented in this section will be four to six lanes. 5-2

65 Jones Jones Blvd Blvd 5. Alternative Development RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Radial Alignments The radial alignments shown in Exhibit 5-2 are major arterials connecting locations north of CC-215 to the SR-160 corridor. Other than the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) right-of-way, all radial alignments travel in a north to south alignment along major arterials. Since all major north-south arterials are planned for street widening improvements (the majority of which in the next five years), these radial alignments are considered potential transit corridors that can extend CAT service south to SR-160. Also, unless identified otherwise, most radial alignments considered are 6-lane corridors, with 3-lanes in each direction plus left-turn pockets/lanes at intersections. EXHIBIT 5-2: Major Radial Alignments CC-215 Warm Springs Road Durango Durango Drive Buffalo Drive Rainbow Blvd In general, initial development of the roadways to the South of SR-160 will be performed by the developers themselves. Clark County will handle Rainbow, Jones, Decatur, and Valley View. With the possible exception of an Eastwards connection to I-15 south of SR-160, all alignments proposed in this section connect SR-160 to points North and North East towards downtown Las Vegas and employment points along CC

66 5. Alternative Development RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Durango Drive Durango Drive extends south of CC-215 into the Blue Diamond study area and represents the major arterial connector serving the Rhodes Ranch and, ultimately, the Mountains Edge residential subdivisions. Durango is the western-most radial alignment identified for SR-160. South of CC-215, Durango Drive is a two-lane road that provides access to SR-160, albeit on a largely unpaved road. The high degree of construction activity occurring in the area renders it a challenging route for through drivers. In the most recent Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) from 2006, Clark County is planning to widen Durango Drive and connect it with SR-160; it should be built out to four lanes to Windmill by the end of EXHIBIT 5-3: Durango Drive Radial Alignment CC-215 Aerial view of Durango Drive looking north of SR

67 5. Alternative Development RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Rainbow Boulevard The second radial alignment is Rainbow Boulevard, which extends south of CC-215 and provides a direct connection to SR-160. Rainbow Boulevard is the major arterial serving the Pinnacle Peaks residential subdivision. Between SR-160 and CC- 215, it will be widened to four lanes by 2007 (i.e., two lanes in each direction) and to six lanes within ten years and it will be extended south to Jean and Sloan as part of the 25 year capital improvement plan. Access will be controlled with medians at stop lights. Rainbow Boulevard also serves several local retail and commercial strip malls between SR-160 and CC-215. EXHIBIT 5-4: Rainbow Boulevard Radial Alignment CC-215 Jones Blvd Rainbow Rainbow Blvd UPRR UPRR ROW SR-160 Aerial view of Rainbow Blvd looking north of SR-160 Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) The Union Pacific Railroad mainline bisects SR-160 at Jones Boulevard. There has been discussion about introducing passenger rail service on the UPRR, but no definite decisions or commitments have been made. 5-5

68 5. Alternative Development RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Decatur Boulevard The fourth major radial alignment goes along Decatur Boulevard, one of the Las Vegas Valley s major north-south arterials, with connections to CC-215 and SR-160. At SR-160 and Decatur Blvd, there is a signalized intersection, with a major housing subdivision under construction at the northwest corner. South of CC-215, Decatur Blvd discontinues at Baudra, where a small access road connects to Jones Blvd to the west. Clark County plans to start construction in 2006 on a retained cut under the UPRR mainline to connect the two halves of Decatur, under the railroad. Upon the completion of this structure, Clark County plans to initiate improvements between Warm Springs and SR-160. EXHIBIT 5-5: Decatur Boulevard Radial Alignment Discontinuous segments on Decatur Blvd CC-215 Aerial view of Decatur UPRR looking north 5-6

69 5. Alternative Development RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Las Vegas Boulevard South The fifth and final radial alignment to consider is Las Vegas Boulevard South which runs from Stewart in downtown Las Vegas south to Sloan and includes the Las Vegas Strip. The portion of Las Vegas Boulevard South serving SR-160 is a 7.3 mile segment between Sunset and St. Rose that represents its eastern terminus. This portion of Las Vegas Boulevard South is just south of the traditional Las Vegas Strip corridor. Much of the eastbound traffic on SR-160 heads northbound on Las Vegas Boulevard South to the employment base along the Las Vegas Strip. From 2003 to 2025, travel times on Las Vegas Boulevard are expected to increase 26 percent. EXHIBIT 5-6: Las Vegas Boulevard South Radial Alignment CC-215 SR-160 Las Vegas Blvd South Aerial view of Las Vegas Blvd South and SR-160 looking north 5-7

70 Jones Jones Blvd Blvd 5. Alternative Development RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Cross-Town Alignments Several cross-town alignments are considered and characterized. The three east-west cross-town alignments are depicted in Exhibit 5-7. EXHIBIT 5-7: Major Cross-town Alignments CC-215 Warm Springs Road Durango Durango Drive Buffalo Drive Rainbow Blvd Silverado Ranch Blvd SR-160 (Blue Diamond Road) The portion of SR-160 within this study is an 8.5 mile twolane limited express state road that bisects a largely rural planning district in Clark County known as Enterprise. SR-160 connects to I-15 at a major freeway interchange a mile south of the CC-215/I-15 interchange, with a connector to Las Vegas Boulevard South just east of I-15. SR-160 runs west by southwest from I-15 through a local street network with several major north-south arterials, including Industrial, Decatur, Jones, Raimbow, Buffalo, Durango. Much of the street network between I-15 and SR-160 is incomplete, with plans in place under the County s Major Projects program and the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to expand major arterials to better serve the communities along the SR-160 corridor. 5-8

71 5. Alternative Development RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Warm Springs Road Warm Springs Road parallels CC-215 just south of CC-215 between Durango and Decatur Blvd. It provides an important east-west connector to the Rhodes Ranch and Pinnacle Peaks subdivisions. The UPRR intersects Warm Springs Road at Decatur Boulevard. As shown in the aerial photo to the right Warm Springs Road discontinues between Decatur and Rainbow. Within the next 5-10 years, NDOT plans to grade separate the UPRR at Jones, which will enable Clark County to connect Warm Springs Road under the railroad bridge structure. The improvement for Warm Springs Road assumes sufficient capacity for six lanes. EXHIBIT 5-8: Warm Springs Road Cross-Town Alignment CC-215 Warm Springs Road to be completed after UPRR at Decatur is fully grade separated Aerial view of Warm Springs Road facing west 5-9

72 5. Alternative Development RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Silverado Ranch Blvd West of Las Vegas Boulevard South, Silverado Ranch Boulevard is a two-lane street that connects to Decatur Boulevard. Based on the unavailability of UPRR for regional passenger rail service, Silverado Ranch Boulevard is identified as a corridor that may be suitable for some fixed guideway treatment that connects with Silverado Silverado Ranch Ranch Blvd Blvd I-15 SR-160 Las Vegas Boulevard. Aerial view of Silverado Ranch Blvd looking west of I MODAL OPTIONS Each transit mode local and express bus, bus rapid transit (BRT) and light rail transit/dmu is assessed based on the suitability of that modal technology to the attributes of the corridors through which the routes are designated. This analysis does not estimate land use impacts of new transit investment. A more detailed treatment of land use impacts resulting from Clark County s Mixed Use Overlay District is addressed in Section 2. In additional, strategic nodes for Park & Ride Sites have been identified, and the route network for the study area has been structured around the Park & Ride facilities in a manner to maximize transit ridership through incentivizing Park & Ride utilization. The modes are analyzed from the most intensive to least intensive investment LRT/DMU, bus rapid transit, and conventional bus transit. Corridors EXHIBIT 5-9: Summary of Alignments and Modes Conventional Bus Local Conventional Bus Express Bus Rapid Transit SR-160 X X Decatur Boulevard X X Rainbow Drive X X Warm Springs Road X X Light Rail Transit/DMU Las Vegas Boulevard X X X Durango Drive X X Silverado Ranch Boulevard X 5-10

73 5. Alternative Development RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Exhibit 5-9 provides a summary matrix of potential modes to alignments identified as suitable for mass transit investment. Of the seven total corridors considered (four radial corridors and three cross-town corridors), three corridors within the study area have strong potential for new transit service or transit service improvements Light Rail/DMU Consistent with the previous discussion, light rail transit and DMU are suited for alignments with: Right-of-way for track, Direct access to a large parcel of land for a maintenance facility, Corridors with high demand for transit service, and Nodes with pedestrian access to high demand. Among the radial alignments, traffic volumes for all radial corridors are moderate, with heavy volumes predicted over the next fifteen years as Major Projects reach their development cap and the population of Enterprise increases. Given this fact, differentiation among corridors will be based on the factors mentioned above. The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) is the only corridor with existing rail right-of-way. However, Union Pacific has recently withdrawn interest in allowing passenger rail service on this railroad subdivision. Given continued interest in a regional fixed guideway system that connects both the southern and northern part of the Valley to the heart of the Las Vegas Strip, there may be opportunities to widen streets such as Silverado Ranch to accommodate fixed guideway connecting to Las Vegas Boulevard or I-15. These roads are new, allowing for allocation of the required right-of-way for a future light rail investment. With the possible exception of Las Vegas Boulevard South, none of the radial alignments appear to have demographics and dense built environment needed to support a fixed guideway system. Rainbow Boulevard, Durango Drive, and Decatur Boulevard currently have segments that are four to six lanes wide, but none have the type of compact development associated with corridors that support fixed guideway transit. Even if such densities existed, devoting space within these corridors for a fixed guideway rail envelope cannot be accomplished without extensive right-of-way acquisition. Given the rural preservation character and the residential nature of adjacent land uses, these corridors are better suited for a more flexible mass transit treatment that will not materially impact vehicle circulation. In the study area, no cross-town alignments are deemed to be appropriate for light rail or DMU, due to generally low levels of demand, suburban residential densities, and few activity 5-11

74 5. Alternative Development RTC SR-160 Corridor Study centers. Because of traffic interference problems caused by an at-grade fixed guideway system, SR-160 is determined not to suitable for a fixed guideway system. Also due to lack of connectivity with the planned regional rail network, cross-town alignments are more appropriate for light rail only if planned in conjunction with one or more radial alignments. The cross-town alignments are, therefore, determined to be sufficiently served by enhanced conventional bus transit and are not appropriate for consideration for light rail for the planning time horizon of this study Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) As described in the previous section, alignments that are appropriate for BRT are alignments that include: Right-of-way that can accommodate exclusive sections for queue jumpers or exclusive lanes, Medium to high demand for transit service, and Nodes with pedestrian access to activity centers and intense development. Radial alignments that provide access to SR-160 are appropriate for consideration for fixed route local, express, and BRT routes. Rainbow Drive, Decatur Boulevard, and Las Vegas Boulevard South serve multiple residential and retail centers and several large casinos. None of the radial alignments that connect to SR-160 have the distribution of population and activity centers to justify exclusive lanes, with the possible exception of Decatur Boulevard and, in the near term, Las Vegas Boulevard South. Over the long term, RTC considers Las Vegas Boulevard South a suitable candidate for exclusive BRT. With the exception of SR-160, the cross-town alignments have minimal demand to support frequent transit services associated with BRT. Of the cross-town alignments, only SR-160 has the right-of-way space to support a BRT line, but SR-160 lacks pedestrian access to concentrations of population, employment, or activity to warrant a significant investment in transit infrastructure. The linkage between pedestrian amenities and transit ridership creates a motivation for planners to improve pedestrian infrastructure for corridors where transit investments are desired. Such improvements include revised street standards, revised urban design guidelines, landscaping, siting of building façades and entrances toward the street, and the installation of pedestrian pathways Conventional Bus Transit Conventional bus transit service, both local and express service, may be appropriate solutions for certain alignments. 5-12

75 5. Alternative Development RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Local Service Because there is no transit service currently in the Blue Diamond study area, the introduction of new transit service will be in the form of local fixed route service. The introduction of local conventional bus service is appropriate as a cost-effective means of testing the potential market followed by gradually expanding service levels to accommodate observed growth in transit demand. Potential routes for conventional bus transit service will be composed of: Radial Alignments Of the radial alignments considered, Rainbow Boulevard, Durango Drive, and Decatur Boulevard south of SR-160 will be considered for conventional bus transit service. The radial alignments will be anchored to Park & Ride facilities off SR-160, which function as critical system nodes. Cross-town Alignments The three cross-town alignments contain largely automobile-oriented commercial activity and serve residential neighborhoods. The Warm Springs Road alignment will be considered for improvement to conventional bus transit service. Express Service In addition to local fixed-route service, conventional bus transit service also includes the operation of express bus service that operates in the peak-period. Although peak-period express service typically requires physical space for Park & Ride Sites that collect passengers and access to a highway for higher speed service to a final destination, express overlay service can operate without such fixed assets during initial operations. Of all alignments considered, SR-160, Rainbow Boulevard, and Decatur Boulevard have the physical characteristics and ridership potential to support express service. Therefore, this portion of SR-160 will be considered for implementation of express bus service. 5.4 ALTERNATIVE REFINEMENT Two alternatives are presented representing three distinct phases 2008, 2015 and The purpose of presenting the transit investment strategy in multiple phases is to provide a cost-effective and scalable approach to service expansion based on observed ridership trends. Based on the trends, it may be that ridership growth increases at a much lower rate than assumed in this study, and that it is more appropriate to implement only two of the three proposed phases by The following sections provide a detailed system description of each of the following alignment configurations: A. Alternative 1 High Growth (2008), (2015), (2025) 5-13

76 5. Alternative Development RTC SR-160 Corridor Study B. Alternative 2 Moderate Growth (2008), (2015), (2025) Alternative 1 High Growth assumes substantial mixed use development within Clark County s Mixed Use Overlay District and ridership growth that reflects development scenario. Alternative 2 Moderate Growth assumes more limited mixed use development within Clark County s Mixed Use Overlay District and more modest transit ridership growth. Assumptions regarding service levels for each alternative are developed as part of Sections 6 and 7, which estimates capital and operating costs. Detailed maps of the alignment configurations are provided with each alignment configuration description, with a corresponding table identifying proposed stations. These alignments are supported by three Park & Ride facilities along SR-160, which are described in detail in Section 7. Fares and fare media types are assumed to be consistent with that of the CAT system overall. 5-14

77 5. Alternative Development RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT 5-10: Alternative 1 High Growth (2008) Alternative 1 High Growth (2008) is the first of a phased transit investment strategy that expands service incrementally based observed ridership growth patterns, in addition to land use growth patterns. Alternative 1 (2008) is composed of two routes, both of which are anchored to the planned Park & Ride lot at SR-160 and Hualapai Way. The local route (shown in red) is the southern extension of Route 101 into the Blue Diamond corridor via Rainbow Boulevard The express route along SR-160 (shown in green) provides service to Park & Ride lots along SR-160, extends north on Decatur Boulevard, east on Warm Springs Road with a stop location at the Las Vegas Outlet Center, then north on Gilespie to the South Strip Transfer Terminal (SSTT). Park & Ride Sites 1-1 and 1-4, which are discussed in greater detail in Section 5.1, are critical nodes in the transit plan for the Blue Diamond corridor. PR 1-1, which will accommodate up to 200 vehicles, is designed to attract commuters from the Pahrump Valley, Mountain s Edge and Rhodes Ranch; PR 1-4, which can accommodate up to 250 vehicles, is designed to attract commuters from Pinnacle Peaks, Southern Highlands and other communities near central SR-160. Not shown in these drawings is a third potential Park & Ride site, referred to as 1-2/2-2, which is discussed in Section 8. This facility would be located on SR-160 at S. Durango Drive, in the heart of the Mountain s Edge community. 5-15

78 5. Alternative Development RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT 5-11: Alternative 1 High Growth (2015) Alternative 1 High Growth (2015) introduces a bus rapid transit (BRT) overlay route along SR-160 and should be implemented based on observed increases in the demand for regional express service connecting the Blue Diamond area to the Strip and downtown Las Vegas. The BRT overlay route is designed to offer enhanced end-to-end travel times between the western terminal PR 1-1 through numerous operational enhancements and service attributes, including fewer station stops, enhanced stations (with multi-entry level boardings), dedicated bus lanes along SR- 160, traffic signal priority (TSP) and/or queue-jumping. This route will also have a dedicated fleet of advanced BRT vehicles similar in design and station interface to the MAX system, with an off-vehicle proofof-payment fare system. Proposed BRT stations are denoted in the map by a white square. An express route is also planned for SR At Warm Springs Road, this express route continues north along Decatur Boulevard. Local route 101 is similar in alignment to the Route 101 alignment introduced in 2008, with the exception that service levels (peak and non-peak frequencies) may increase depending on growth in transit demand. Bus shelters and bus stops are denoted by a white circle (see legend). 5-16

79 5. Alternative Development RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT 5-12: Alternative 1 High Growth (2025) Alternative 1 High Growth (2025) introduces a fourth route (designated local) that connects PR 1-4 to western part of the Las Vegas Valley along Durango Drive, where the employment base is expected to expand west of Rainbow near CC-215. The local route extends north on Decatur Boulevard, west on Warm Springs Road, and continues north along Durango Drive. The final buildout is designed to provide northern connections via three primary axes: Durango, Rainbow and Las Vegas Boulevard. the South Strip Transfer Terminal (SSTT). The connection to the SSTT is designed to allow for high-volume transfers to express and local routes serving the Strip and areas north of Blue Diamond. The BRT route along SR-160 (shown in green) provides service to Park & Ride lots along SR-160, extends north on Decatur Boulevard, east on Warm Springs Road with a stop location at the Las Vegas Outlet Center, then north on Gilespie to 5-17

80 5. Alternative Development RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT 5-13: Alternative 2 High Growth (2008) Alternative 2 Moderate Growth (2008) is the first of a phased transit investment strategy that expands service more conservatively based on lower transit demand and lower overall development growth than assumed in Alternative 1. The most obvious difference between this investment strategy and Phases 1 (A, B and C) is that Phase 2 is scaled up in more conservatively, with the Phase 2 (2025) representing a more modest buildout than Alternative 1. These alternatives are meant to reflect a scenario in which corridor ridership is moderate. Alternative 2 Moderate Growth (2008) is composed of one express trunk route anchored to the planned Park & Ride lot at SR-160 and Hualapai Way. The express route along SR-160 (shown in green) provides service to both Park & Ride lots along SR-160, extends north on Las Vegas Boulevard South, east on Warm Springs Road, then north on Gilespie to the South Strip Transfer Terminal (SSTT). The express route is designed to connect western Blue Diamond area to routes serving the Las Vegas Strip and retail and employment areas north via SSTT. Park & Ride Sites 1-1 and 1-4 are critical features to the transit plan for the Blue Diamond corridor. PR 1-1 is designed to attract commuters from the Pahrump Valley, Mountain s Edge and Rhodes Ranch; PR 1-4 is designed to attract commuters from Pinnacle Peaks, Southern Highlands and other communities near central SR

81 5. Alternative Development RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT 5-14: Alternative 2 Moderate Growth (2015) Alternative 2 Moderate Growth (2015) introduces a local route to serve as a north-south corridor along Rainbow Blvd and Durango Drive. The local route, which has a southern terminus at the Park & Ride Site at SR-160 and Rainbow Boulevard (PR 1-4), is designed to serve trips originating in the Pinnacle Peaks and Rhodes Ranch destined for commercial activity sites along CC-215 and in the Summerlin area. The local route extends north along Rainbow Blvd, west on Warm Springs and north on Durango Drive. Stop locations for the local route are proposed on Rainbow Blvd a ¼-mile south of Warm Springs Road and along Durango Drive one block north of Warm Springs. increase based on observed boardings and growth in Park & Ride demand. The proposed stop locations along SR-160 include: Hualapai Way (PR 1-1) El Capitan Way Buffalo Drive Rainbow Blvd (PR 1-4) Lindell Road Arville Road Las Vegas the Las Vegas Outlet Mall South Strip Transfer Terminal The structure of the express route does not change from the base configuration recommended for 2008, with the exception that service frequencies may 5-19

82 2. Study Area Transportation System RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT 5-15: Alternative 2 Moderate Growth (2025) Alternative 2 Moderate Growth (2025) involves the conversion of the express route along SR-160 to a bus rapid transit route. The BRT overlay route is designed to offer enhanced end-to-end travel times between the western terminal PR 1-1 through numerous operational enhancements and service attributes, including fewer station stops, enhanced stations (with multi-entry level boardings), dedicated bus lanes along SR- 160, traffic signal priority (TSP) and/or queue-jumping. This route will also have a dedicated fleet of advanced BRT vehicles similar in design and station interface as the MAX system, with an off-vehicle proofof-payment fare system. The final buildout is also adds an express route service from PR 1-1 along SR-160, with service along Decatur Boulevard. Both the Decatur Express and Blue Diamond BRT would operate along a dedicated busway on SR-160. This buildout scenario is designed to provide northern connections via three primary axes: Durango Drive, Decatur Blvd and Las Vegas Boulevard. 5-20

83 6. SR-160 Corridor Improvement Plan RTC SR-160 Corridor Study 6.0 SR-160 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PLAN 6.1 CURRENT CONDITIONS AND SR-160 EXPANSION PROJECT The portion of SR-160 that was analyzed for this study extends from Las Vegas Boulevard in Las Vegas to where it intersects Hualapai Way, approximately 8.5 miles to the west. Along that stretch, there are several major street intersections, an overpass at I-15, and a grade crossing of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) mainline. Most of SR-160 in this corridor is a two-lane roadway, although at some of the major intersections the highway widens and has turning lanes. The terrain gains approximately 650 feet in elevation between S. Las Vegas Blvd. and Hualapai Way in a steady ascending grade to the west. The tightest curve on the highway has a radius of 3,000 feet. The applicability of the former Union Pacific Railroad branch line right-of-way for transit purposes is discussed in Section 6.7. The SR-160 widening project, led by the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), is being undertaken in phases, moving east to west from Las Vegas Boulevard South to beyond South Durango Drive. Construction has started on some of the work, while other areas are still in the design phase. When it is completed, major components of this project will include: A fully divided, multi-lane highway to Durango Drive.; Eight lanes (four in each direction) from S. Las Vegas Blvd. to Rainbow Blvd.; Six lanes from S. Rainbow Blvd. to Durango Drive.; A new bridge and alignment over I-15; A new connection to Las Vegas Blvd. South at Windmill Lane, approximately 0.4 miles south of the existing intersection; Major intersections with left and right turn lanes and 4-way signals at several locations (no grade-separated intersections); An overpass over the UPRR mainline immediately west of Jones Blvd. to replace the grade crossing that currently exists; 12-foot traffic lanes; 8-foot bike lanes on both sides of the highway; and Either 5.5foot sidewalks or 8-foot shoulders. At this time, there are no provisions in the project for HOV or transit-only lanes. At the east end of the corridor, there will be 5½-foot sidewalks on both sides of the highway. As the highway continues westward into less developed areas, there will initially 6-1

84 6. SR-160 Corridor Improvement Plan RTC SR-160 Corridor Study be eight-foot shoulders in lieu of sidewalks. As residential and commercial development continues to the west, the shoulders will ultimately be replaced by sidewalks and driveways. For purposes of highway configuration considerations, the SR-160 study corridor can be divided into the following four segments: Segment No. From / to Length Corridor width Lanes 1 S. Las Vegas Boulevard to S. Decatur Boulevard 2 miles 150 feet (W of I-15) 8 (varies over I-15) 2 S. Decatur Boulevard to S. Rainbow Boulevard 2¼ miles 200 feet 8 3 S. Rainbow Boulevard to S. Durango Drive 2 miles 200 feet 6 (narrows west of Rainbow) 4 S. Durango Drive to S. Hualapai Way 2 miles 200 feet 2 (narrows west of Durango) Segment 4 Segment 3 Segment 1 Segment 2 It would be difficult to implement special provisions for transit vehicles, other than signal priority technology, in Segment 1 with its eight-lane configuration and nominal 29 foot center median within a 150 foot corridor. (Eight 12-foot lanes, one 29 foot median, two 8-foot bike lanes, and two 5½-foot sidewalks require 152 feet, as shown in the diagram to the right.) The 200 foot corridor of Segments 2, 3, and 4 between Hualapai Way and Decatur Boulevard would accommodate various transit-supportive features. Where the highway width is less than the corridor width, the highway will generally be centered in the right-of-way. 6-2

85 6. SR-160 Corridor Improvement Plan RTC SR-160 Corridor Study 6.2 FUTURE HIGHWAY LANE CONFIGURATION Initially, there will likely be no special transit features along SR-160 between intersections; transit vehicles would proceed with the flow of traffic in the general traffic lanes. If the level of traffic eventually warrants, however, bus-only lanes could be provided in the 200-foot wide corridor without compromising any of the general traffic lanes or the bike lanes. Transit-only lanes, as shown in EXHIBIT 6-1, would be located between the slow lanes and the 5 foot bike lanes. At signaled intersections, the lanes could flow into a queue-jumping lane, a dedicated lane that enables buses to proceed through an intersection ahead of general traffic. EXHIBIT 6-1: Dedicated Bus Lanes Transit-only lanes would likely be combined with lanes used to access commercial driveways along SR-160. Due to the frequent signals and cross traffic, making the transit-only lanes available to all HOVs would not be feasible. Bus stops along the SR-160 corridor are recommended at intermediate locations between Park & Ride facilities. They would generally be located on the far (exit) side of intersections, and would be located out of the general traffic lanes except in Segment 1. This subject is addressed in greater detail in Section 7. A typical cross-section of SR-160 at an intersection is shown for Arville Drive in EXHIBIT 6- at the end of this section. 6.3 SIGNALED INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION NDOT is still refining the list of intersections on SR-160 that will be signalized. The intersections that have been identified for signaling within the study corridor at this time are as shown in EXHIBIT 6-2 below 10. Most, if not all, of the intersections on the transit corridor would include the ability to implement some form of Bus Signal Priority (TSP). EXHIBIT 6-2: Signaled Intersections No. Cross Street Bus Movement Recommended Configuration 1 Las Vegas EB SR-160 to NB LV TSP for left turn from EB SR-160 Boulevard Boulevard and vice versa onto NB Las Vegas Boulevard 2 I-15 Straight through TSP both EB and WB 10 Not all of these intersections are officially programmed to be signaled upon the initial widening of SR-160, although NDOT indicates that further traffic studies will likely result in the vast majority receiving signals. 6-3

86 6. SR-160 Corridor Improvement Plan RTC SR-160 Corridor Study No. Cross Street Bus Movement Recommended Configuration 3 Dean Martin Straight through TSP and, if possible, queuejumping lanes both EB and WB 4 Valley View Straight through Queue-jumping lanes and TSP both EB and WB 5 Hinson Street Straight through Queue-jumping lanes and TSP both EB and WB 6 Arville Straight through Queue-jumping lanes and TSP both EB and WB 7 Decatur Straight through on SR-160, as well as EB SR-160 to northbound Decatur and vice versa Queue-jumping lanes and TSP both EB and WB; left turn lane and TSP from EB SR-160 to NB Decatur 8 Lindell Straight through Queue-jumping lanes and TSP both EB and WB 9 Jones Straight through Queue-jumping lanes and TSP both EB and WB 10 Torrey Pines WB SR-160 to SB Torrey Pines and vice versa Transit-only left turn lane and TSP from WB SR-160 to SB Torrey Pines TSP for left turn from NB Rainbow to WB SR Rainbow NB Rainbow to WB SR-160 and vice versa 12 Buffalo Straight through Queue-jumping lanes and TSP both EB and WB 13 Durango Straight through EB: queue-jumping lane and TSP; WB: queue-jumping lane, transit-only lane west of intersection until beyond P&R, and TSP The only non-signalized intersection on SR-160 which could cause delays to transit vehicles is at Hualapai Way, where westbound buses would turn south, across the eastbound lanes, to enter the Park & Ride facility. SR-160 will remain in a two-lane configuration for the immediate future, although Clark County s current RTP calls for widening of the highway to four lanes between Mountain Springs and Ft. Apache Road by 2016 (Project #261), at which time the intersection may require signaling. There are no existing plans to widen Hualapai Way near SR OPTIMIZING MOVEMENT OF TRANSIT VEHICLES Various strategies can be implemented to expedite bus movement through signalized intersections and minimize delays Queue-Jumping Intersections Bus operation at many of the intersections shown in EXHIBIT 6- will simply be straight through, from east to west or vice versa. These intersections could implement queuejumping lanes and be equipped with TSP capabilities. A queue-jumping lane enables buses to go to the head of the queue at an intersection by use of a dedicated transit lane or right 6-4

87 6. SR-160 Corridor Improvement Plan RTC SR-160 Corridor Study turn lane approaching the intersection. The signal for this dedicated lane goes green several seconds prior to the signal for the general traffic lanes, enabling the bus to pass through the intersection ahead of other vehicles. There are two possible configurations for these intersections. As shown in EXHIBIT 6-3, the first has separate right-turn and queue-jumping lanes, which requires the bicycle and rightturn lanes to weave prior to the intersection. (This is not an uncommon configuration.) The second combines the right-turn and queue-jumping lanes, resulting in a narrower design; efficient signal timing can help ensure that the right turn lane will be clear of automobiles before the bus receives a green signal at the intersection. Both configurations fit within the 200-foot SR-160 corridor. The implementation of one option over the other would be decided on a case-by-case basis, and is generally predicated on the number of vehicles expected to be making right turns at the intersection. The AASHTO Park & Ride Guide states that an exclusive bus lane should be considered when right-turn volumes are greater than 400 vehicles per hour. 11 EXHIBIT 6-3: Possible Right-Turn / Queue-Jump Lane Configurations Separate right-turn and queue-jump lanes Combined right-turn and queue-jump lane BUS ONLY BUS ONLY These same lane configuration options could be used when there is a bus stop or a driveway into a Park & Ride at the far side of the intersection. Although the lane configuration would be the same, there would be no need for an early green signal since buses could enter a short transit-only lane on the far side of the intersection prior to entering the facility. 11 Guide for Park & Ride Facilities, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, November 2004, p

88 6. SR-160 Corridor Improvement Plan RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Preliminary NDOT intersection EXHIBIT 6-4: Right-Turn Island drawings (included in Appendix C) indicate that some right-turn lanes turn short of traffic islands, which would make it difficult to implement queue-jumping. An example of this is shown in EXHIBIT 6-4, which shows westbound SR-160 at Jones Blvd. RTC should work with NDOT to ensure that the highway design does not preclude transit-supportive features such as queue-jumping lanes. No right-turn lane is planned for eastbound SR-160 at Rainbow Blvd. A major Park & Ride facility is proposed on BLM land southeast of this intersection, which would require eastbound buses to turn south on Rainbow to access the facility. Lacking a right-turn lane onto Rainbow Blvd., eastbound buses could be unnecessarily delayed at this intersection. If a different access route to this Park & Ride is provided, or even if it is never built, the lack of a right-turn lane would preclude queue-jumping at Rainbow Blvd Left Turn Lanes The median on the widened section of SR-160 will be 29 feet wide between intersections, which will narrow to five feet at each intersection, thus providing space for up to two 12 foot turn lanes. The space for these two lanes can be configured in three ways: 1. Both lanes are left turn lanes for general traffic. 2. There is only one left turn lane; the lane to the right is an unused buffer area. 3. The left lane is the turn lane for general traffic, with the right lane being a turn lane for buses only. The main determinant of which option is used is generally based on the anticipated number of vehicles that will be turning, although the width of the receiving roadway is also a factor. The intersection at Arville Street, shown in EXHIBIT 6-5 at the end of this section, will be configured with the first two of these configurations. There will be two left turn lanes from eastbound SR-160 to northbound Arville Street, but one left turn lane and one buffer lane from westbound SR-160 onto southbound Arville Street. NDOT s anticipated configuration is not yet available for all intersections, including Torrey Pines Boulevard, where westbound buses would be turning left from SR-160. If NDOT determines that two westbound general traffic left turn lanes are not required, consideration could be given to implementing a bus-only left turn lane in lieu of a buffer lane (Option 3 above) at this location. 6-6

89 6. SR-160 Corridor Improvement Plan RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Bus Signal Priority AASHTO s Guide for Park & Ride Facilities 12 lists eleven different types of Bus Signal Priority strategies, which are as follows. Unconditional priority: priority is given whenever a bus detector requests it from signals. Conditional priority: includes variables that may limit priority given, such as bus occupancy, queue length, and time since last priority was granted. Phase: part of the traffic signal time cycle allocated to any combination of traffic movements receiving right-of-way simultaneously during one or more intervals. Green extension: green phase is extended when bus is nearby to allow it to go through. Special phase: a special green phase is injected into the normal phase sequence while all other phases are stopped. Compensation: green time is allocated to a non-priority phase that was truncated to make up for lost time. Red truncation: if the bus arrives at an intersection during the beginning or middle of a red phase, the red phase is truncated and green phase is injected to allow the bus to go through. Early start: when bus arrives at intersection during a red, green follows quicker than usual. Green recall: a green phase is displayed each cycle whether demand exists or not. Synchronization: timing groups of traffic signals along an arterial to provide for the smooth movement of traffic with minimal stops. Phase suppression: one or more non-priority phases with low demand may be omitted from the normal phase sequence. The strategy implemented at queue-jumping lane intersections would likely include one of the TSP solutions listed above, or it could simply provide a green signal to the queuejumping lane approximately five to ten seconds prior to the green signal for the general traffic lanes, either on every cycle or only when a bus is detected. (All buses will be equipped with TSP emitters.) Such decisions would need to be made on a case-by-case basis at each intersection. TSP can be programmed to activate only in the peak direction during peak periods, or only if buses are running behind schedule (as determined by the bus operator). It is likely that 12 Ibid, p

90 6. SR-160 Corridor Improvement Plan RTC SR-160 Corridor Study determining the proper TSP strategies to be implemented would need to be determined once traffic flows and bus headways have been established and stabilize. Each intersection would require its own analysis of the optimum TSP solution. TSP implementation would be integrated with the Las Vegas Valley s Freeway and Arterial System of Transportation (FAST) program which optimizes traffic signal timing and coordination. The RTC 2005 Annual Report indicates that FAST will address the SR-160 corridor. 6.5 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES Transportation System Management Transportation System Management (TSM) components generally include low cost improvements to manage congestion. The term TSM is used to encompass a wide range of strategies aimed at making efficient use of existing transportation facilities. Typically, these strategies are less costly than major capacity improvements and may constitute costeffective alternatives to major highway and transit projects. In some cases, TSM strategies have greater positive impacts on air quality and energy consumption when compared with more capital-intensive strategies. TSM strategies that maintain the efficiency of the existing transportation system can include the use of the following approaches or programs. Access Control limits access to arterial facilities from abutting land uses to preserve free-flowing travel conditions and arterial capacity. Site Planning and Traffic Review examines development density and traffic generation to mitigate any adverse impact on the roadway system. Intersection Improvements involves improving intersections through lower cost strategies such as constructing turn lanes, realigning intersections, and adding or improving existing traffic signals. Clark County reviews all development and traffic plans to preserve free-flowing travel conditions and arterial capacity Future Roadway System Performance Traffic conditions in the Blue Diamond corridor are predicted to become more congested over time. Additional lane improvements, included in the 2030 RTP, will help to maintain or improve traffic service on some roadway segments. Without these improvements, traffic service would be significantly worse, resulting in longer delays and slower travel. It is clear, however, that further transportation improvements are required to provide an acceptable overall level of service. 6-8

91 6. SR-160 Corridor Improvement Plan RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Transportation management strategies are usually implemented to extend a roadway's effective design life and improve its operational characteristics. These strategies are typically designed to increase the efficiency of the existing transportation system by improving traffic flow and expanding travel options for travelers. Transportation management strategies can be divided into two categories: Transportation System Management (TSM) (listed above) and Travel Demand Management (TDM). TDM actions are designed to reduce vehicle demand on the roadway system by increasing vehicle occupancy or altering the attractiveness of competing travel modes. 6.6 REPRESENTATIVE INTERSECTION DIAGRAM EXHIBIT 6-5 represents a typical intersection on SR-160 after the initial phase of highway widening. The cross-section, in this case at Arville, reveals how the eight-lane highway will take up the entire width of the 150-foot right-of-way, although 48 feet of unused space is available where the corridor width is 200 feet. NDOT drawings of all major intersections on the corridor are provided in Appendix C. 6-9

92 6. SR-160 Corridor Improvement Plan RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT 6-5: SR-160 at Arville 6-10

93 6. SR-160 Corridor Improvement Plan RTC SR-160 Corridor Study 6.7 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY Overview This section evaluates whether any part of the abandoned Union Pacific Railroad s Blue Diamond branch line including the rail line that still exists or any of the land along the remainder of the right-of-way would be appropriate and cost-effective for fixed-guideway use. The evaluation includes the determination of property ownership and physical condition of the right-of-way. Most of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) branch line that extended from their mainline at Arden to the Blue Diamond mine no longer exists and all track and structures have been removed, although a good portion of the original right-of-way (ROW) is still intact. EXHIBIT 6-6: Overview of Blue Diamond Right-of-Way Approximately 3.6 miles of the ROW is potentially viable for transit usage. This segment of the corridor starts at the UPRR mainline at Arden and heads northwest to SR-160. After crossing the highway, the right-of-way parallels SR-160 until just east of Fort Apache Road. Here, it turns in a northwesterly direction away from the highway, into the hills, and through a recently constructed detention basin, where it becomes unsuitable for transit purposes. Most of the land under the abandoned right-of-way is now privately owned, although the Federal Government owns some large parcels. There are approximately 34 parcels along the corridor, none of which includes solely the right-of-way itself, which are zoned into four categories: H-2, general highway frontage district C-2, general commercial district 6-11

94 6. SR-160 Corridor Improvement Plan RTC SR-160 Corridor Study R-E, rural estates residential district R-3, multiple-family residential district The aerial photographs with property lines, as well as the listed property owners as of November, 2005, are from the Clark County OpenWeb Info Mapper. The majority of the square parcels shown are approximately 2.5 acres in size. The photographs were taken in April, This corridor will be examined in three segments from east to west Analysis by Segment Between the UPRR mainline at Arden and SR-160 Two in-service tracks extend approximately one mile from the UPRR mainline at Arden to the current end of what remains of the branch line. These tracks appear to be used only to store freight cars. After passing through two privately-owned parcels at Meranto Ave (parcels 24 and 25 in EXHIBIT 6-14) where some minor buildings have been constructed, the ROW continues intact for another 0.25 mile to SR-160. At the site of the former crossing of SR-160, the tracks have been removed and there are no signs of the former railroad alignment. At this location, the highway right-of-way is 200 feet wide, and SR-160, after widening, will be a six-lane highway. EXHIBIT 6-7: Right-of-Way from UPRR Mainline to SR-160, and Land with Structures At this time there are few obstructions that would preclude a transit alignment toward the UP mainline on or parallel to the existing right-of-way. A new transit corridor could go on either the northeast or southwest side of the remaining branchline tracks; the final determination would depend on where a BRT/rail corridor is located and how it would be most easily accessed from SR

95 6. SR-160 Corridor Improvement Plan RTC SR-160 Corridor Study There are currently 16 parcels of land along or adjacent to the ROW, most of which are zoned R-E (rural estates). The largest parcel by far, although it is not along a continuous corridor, is owned by the Federal Government. The rest are owned by individuals, investment firms, and developers. A transit corridor would require obtaining at least a portion of some of these parcels. EXHIBIT 6-8: UPRR ROW Looking NW EXHIBIT 6-9: UPRR ROW Looking SE Between the former crossing of SR-160 and South Durango Drive This segment of the corridor is approximately 1.25 miles in length, with the UPRR ROW just north of and parallel to SR-160. EXHIBIT 6-10: Right-of-Way from Crossing of SR-160 to Durango Dr. The widened SR-160 will have six traffic lanes where the UPRR ROW crosses it, and it will continue in this configuration to Durango Drive. The highway will easily fit within the 200- foot-wide highway corridor, and except as noted below will not require appropriation of any of the UPRR ROW that parallels the highway. 6-13

96 6. SR-160 Corridor Improvement Plan RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT 6-11: Railroad Right-of-Way Within SR-160 Corridor UPRR ROW within SR-160 corridor After crossing SR-160, the UPRR ROW is within the 200 wide SR-160 corridor for about 0.2 mile before entering private property just before Buffalo Drive, as can be seen in EXHIBIT 6-11 above. Much of this part of the ROW could be incorporated in the approximately 125- foot-wide six-lane expansion of SR-160, although the UPRR ROW would remain unaffected if the highway were constructed toward the south edge of its corridor in this area. The UPRR ROW then passes through the south end of 16 privately-owned parcels prior to Durango Drive. The parcels in this area (parcels 4-21) are almost all H-2, with two C-2 and one R-3. All are owned by trusts, investment firms, or development companies and are generally one to three acres in size. Many of these parcels have been sold within the last eighteen months. No structures appear to have been built on this stretch of the ROW. Between South Durango Drive and South Fort Apache Road West of Durango Drive, the UPRR ROW continues to parallel SR-160 for another 0.8 mile, at which point the railroad alignment turns northwest, away from the highway, where it becomes unusable for transit. The highway narrows from a six-lane configuration to two lanes west of Durango, although widening to at least four lanes is expected eventually. EXHIBIT 6-12: Right-of-Way Between Durango Dr. and Ft. Apache Rd. The UPRR ROW passes through three parcels in this area, two of which are owned by the Federal Government. The 1.12 acre parcel (parcel 2), which is privately owned, sold for 6-14

97 6. SR-160 Corridor Improvement Plan RTC SR-160 Corridor Study $8.85M in March of All are zoned H-2 (general highway frontage). Immediately to the north of the 200-foot highway corridor and the Federally-owned parcel that contains the UPRR ROW is the Westchester Hills development. As of April, 2005, there were no obstructions on these parcels. The land that continues to parallel SR-160 to Fort Apache Rd. after the UPRR ROW turns north is owned by the Federal Government. EXHIBIT 6-13: Right-of-Way with Westchester Hills Behind Conclusions Technically, there are no show stoppers that would prevent usage of the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way for transit purposes. The portion of the ROW that was studied is essentially intact, and no structures of any significance have been built along the corridor. The geometry of the ROW would allow bus or rail operation at normal speeds, except possibly just east of S. Buffalo Dr. where the ROW turns to cross SR-160. At this same location, the UPRR ROW is within the highway corridor for a short length, although this is not a significant issue. Many of the parcels have recently been sold to investment companies and developers, and will likely be developed soon. The cost of these parcels will undoubtedly continue to escalate as development flourishes in this area. The economic feasibility of acquisition of these parcels for transit purposes has not been studied. A light rail or BRT corridor along the Union Pacific Railroad mainline between Arden and downtown Las Vegas could be accessed either via the segment of the railroad right-of-way between SR-160 and Arden, or via SR-160 itself east of the right-of-way s crossing of SR SR-160 will cross the UPRR mainline on a new aerial structure 1.7 miles east of where the UPRR s Blue Diamond ROW crosses SR-160, and the highway right-of-way is 200 feet wide for the entire distance. 6-15

98 6. SR-160 Corridor Improvement Plan RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Parcel Owners EXHIBIT 6-14 indicates the ownership and zoning (as of 11/05) for the parcels along the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way: EXHIBIT 6-14: Parcel Owners along Union Pacific Right-of-Way No. Owner Zoning Size (acres) Most Recent Sale Price ($M) Approx. % on ROW North of SR-160, listed west to east 1 USA / BLM (Bureau of Land Mgmt.) H Albert A Flangas H Mar 05 $ USA / BLM H Farmanali Family Trust H Oct 05 $ E&C Verzilli Family Trust H Jun 05 $ E&C Verzilli Family Trust H Jun 05 $ E&C Verzilli Family Trust H Jun 05 $ unknown R-3 N/A N/A N/A Aries Holding LLC H N/A N/A Storybook Homes LLC H Aug 05 $ Allay Investments LLC H Aug 05 $ Allay Investments LLC H Aug 05 $ Allay Investments LLC H Aug 05 $ Allay Investments LLC H Aug 05 $ Blue Diamond BLM LLC H N/A N/A Aries Holding LLC H N/A N/A Lucky Blue 007 LLC & M Peyman C Jul 05 $ Lucky Blue 007 LLC & M Peyman C Aug 05 $ Buffalo & Blue Diamond NE H N/A N/A 5 South of SR-160, listed north to south 20 Mountains Edge LLC H N/A N/A 20 * 21 Mountains Edge LLC R-E 5.0 N/A N/A 30 * 22 JV Properties LLC H May 05 $ NATO Fund Inc R-E 2.5 Aug 05 $ Adams Linda Williams R-E 2.06 Jun 82 $ Lin Hwai Yu and Lun Chan R-E 2.0 Sep 04 $ Michael and Suzanne Hall R-E 0.64 Apr 80 $ Anderson and Zook R-E 2.07 Feb 97 $ D. Hilbrecht R-E 2.11 N/A N/A 5 29 Rosanna & Gomer Investments R-E 2.5 Jan 04 $ Rainbow & Gomer Investments R-E 2.5 Jul 03 $

99 6. SR-160 Corridor Improvement Plan RTC SR-160 Corridor Study No. Owner Zoning Size (acres) Most Recent Sale Price ($M) Approx. % on ROW 31 Gomer & Rainbow Investments R-E 2.12 Apr 04 $ Robert Hixon R-E 2.5 N/A N/A Ganesh LLC R-E 2.5 Apr 05 $ /35 USA / BLM R-E > ** * The right-of-way splits some parcels into two sections that may or may not be usable. ** This USA-owned property is comprised of two separate parcels. The ROW occupies a small percentage of this land. N/A = Information is not available. 6-17

100 7. Proposed Park and Ride Facilities RTC SR-160 Corridor Study 7.0 PROPOSED PARK AND RIDE FACILITIES 7.1 PARK & RIDE SITE AND DESIGN CRITERIA Experience with Park & Ride (P&R) sites nationwide has led to the development of criteria for their siting and design. A leading industry source for these criteria is the Guide for Park and Ride Facilities (November, 2004), published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The most relevant criteria for sites within the SR-160 corridor study area are those for location and configuration as listed below Location The following criteria help determine the proper siting of Park & Ride facilities. Wherever possible, site Park & Ride lots on the inbound side of the arterial on which they are located. This preference results from most users perceiving inbound access efficiency to be more critical than outbound and they generally time their arrival at a Park & Ride close to the scheduled arrival time of their transit connection. Select Park & Ride lot locations that minimize automobile access time and serve the greatest possible population base that would use the site. Select Site Park & Ride lots that minimize the need to backtrack, i.e., drive away from the final destination, to get to the lots. Basic Park & Ride lots require the following footprints (including driveways and bus bays): a lot with 550 parking spaces requires approximately 6 acres a lot with 1100 parking spaces requires approximately 11 acres a lot with 1900 parking spaces requires approximately 21 acres Locate Park & Ride lots along primary transit corridors, minimizing the amount of time a transit vehicle is not traveling in its primary direction. Arrange Park & Ride lots to minimize the impact on existing traffic patterns. Locate Park & Ride lots upstream of congestion and choke-points. Take advantage of freeways or main radial roadways as much as possible. Where feasible, take advantage of opportunistic or joint-use lots where parking facilities are shared with other activities, such as churches, theaters, and shopping areas. Ground slopes of up to 5 percent are acceptable for Park & Ride sites Configuration The following criteria help guide Park & Ride facility design. 7-1

101 7. Proposed Park and Ride Facilities RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Limite the furthest walking distance from parking spaces to transit stops within a Park & Ride to less than 500 feet. Place vehicular access and egress points to Park & Ride lots at least 300 feet from the nearest intersection. Bus-only access and egress lanes to Park & Ride lots can be considered where feasible. Include Kiss-and-Ride provisions, pedestrian (up to 0.5 miles), and bicycle (2-5 miles) access. Design Park & Ride lots to be no more than 85 percent full. Beyond this level, a lot is perceived to be full and is a deterrent to usage Other Factors Although there is no specific guideline for the spacing of Park & Ride facilities, industry experience has also shown that 50 percent of a Park & Ride s users drive less than 2.5 miles to their site, although this would not apply to the first lot along a route. Ultimately, the siting and spacing of Park & Ride facilities should be done in a way that provides the best balance of efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and usability. Park & Ride usage increases substantially when bus service is no less frequent than every 15 minutes, especially when users can get to their destinations without having to transfer. Midday service also tends to enhance ridership, since users do not feel that they would be stranded if they need to return home in the middle of the day. It is critical that the overall financial cost to the user parking fee (if any) plus fares be competitive with the cost of driving. 7.2 CANDIDATE PARK & RIDE SITES Undeveloped land parcels along SR-160 that could be considered for potential Park & Ride sites were placed into two categories: 1. those that have changed ownership within the last five years, likely for development purposes, and 2. those that are owned by either the government or by long-time private owners. Since there were a sufficient number of parcels in Category 2, which could potentially be more readily available at less expense than those in Category 1, parcels in the latter category were evaluated based on the criteria stated above and were divided into three groups based on their compliance with the criteria. The groups are: 7-2

102 7. Proposed Park and Ride Facilities RTC SR-160 Corridor Study 1. Sites that meet all the location criteria, 2. Good alternate sites that meet most of the location criteria, and 3. Less desirable sites that may be acceptable only if more favorable sites are not available. Of the fourteen relevant Category 2 parcels that are located along SR-160, five are in Group 1, four in Group 2, and five in Group 3. They are categorized as shown in EXHIBIT 7-1 below, and located as shown in EXHIBIT 7-2 and EXHIBIT 7-3 that follow. Green (sites 1-1 through 1-5) represents Group 1, yellow (sites 2-1 through 2-4) represents Group 2, and red (sites 3-1 through 3-5) represents Group 3. Within groups, parcels are listed from west to east. EXHIBIT 7-1: Candidate Park & Ride Sites Group ID Acres Owned by Nearest N/S street USA/BLM Hualapai USA/BLM Arlington Ranch Group 1: meet all criteria USA/BLM Buffalo USA/BLM Torrey Pines Blue Diamond Ranch Decatur USA/BLM Hualapai Group 2: meet most criteria USA/BLM Durango Blue Diamond Ranch Decatur CC Dept. of Aviation Valley View USA/BLM Grand Canyon USA/BLM Ft. Apache Group 3: less favorable sites USA/BLM Belcastro USA/BLM Torrey Pines CC Dept. of Aviation Arville EXHIBIT 7-2: S. Hualapai Way to S. Rainbow Blvd. Hualapai Durango Buffalo 7-3

103 7. Proposed Park and Ride Facilities RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT 7-3: S. Rainbow Blvd. to I-15 Jones Rainbow Decatur Dean Martin Appendix B provides detailed information on the characteristics of all fourteen potential Park & Ride parcels. Since the analysis found a sufficient number of acceptable Category 2 parcels that are owned by the government or long-term owners, an evaluation of recently-purchased parcels was not deemed necessary and was not conducted. 7.3 RECOMMENDED PARK & RIDE SITES Further analysis of the availability, attributes, and benefits of the fourteen candidate sites resulted in the selection and detailed study of three recommended Park & Ride locations within the study corridor. These locations are: South of SR-160, immediately east of S. Hualapai Way (Site 1-1), Both north and south of SR-160, west of S. Durango Drive (Sites 1-2 and 2-2), and South of SR-160, at S. Torrey Pines Drive (part of Site 1-4). All three sites contain government-owned parcels that are in Group 1. They are well distributed on the corridor, as shown in EXHIBIT 7-4 and EXHIBIT 7-5 below. 7-4

104 7. Proposed Park and Ride Facilities RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT 7-4: S. Hualapai Way to S. Rainbow Blvd. West of S. Durango Drive (Sites 1-2, 2-2) Hualapai East of S. Hualapai Way (Site 1-1) SR-160 Durango Buffalo EXHIBIT 7-5: S. Rainbow Blvd. to I-15 Decatur Dean Martin I-15 Rainbow SR-160 Rainbow Torrey Pines Jones At S. Torrey Pines Drive (Site 1-4) On SR-160 east of S. Decatur Drive, there is a significant amount of currently undeveloped land owned by the Clark County Department of Aviation. Although some of this land could be considered for Park & Ride sites, for the foreseeable future there will be no major residential communities in the area due to the flight paths from McCarran Airport, and these parcels were thus not deemed worthwhile sites for large Park & Ride facilities at this time. They could, however, have on-street bus stops with adjacent parking, as discussed in Section

105 7. Proposed Park and Ride Facilities RTC SR-160 Corridor Study The US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the owner of the land at the three proposed Park & Ride sites, is under no obligation to make this land available to the RTC for Park & Ride use. In fact, according to review of BLM land parcel records, two of the sites (1-2/2-2 and 1-4) are already reserved for workforce housing and/or schools. Rather than being a negative factor, this could provide an opportunity for Clark County to implement Transit Oriented Development (TOD) communities around or above the Park & Ride facilities, which could include housing, small retail outlets, day care facilities, etc. Further discussion of this subject is contained in Section 7.4, Land Acquisition Options. At some locations, privately-owned parcels adjacent to the Park & Ride facilities could become land locked without access to public roads. Under these circumstances, specific access or easements to nearby streets must be provided. This would be addressed on a case-by-case basis. All Park & Ride facilities would be lighted and landscaped, and be equipped with shelters, restroom facilities, maps/schedules, pay telephones, bike racks and/or lockers, a kiss-andride area, and disabled parking. Details regarding the three proposed Park & Ride sites are as follows SR-160 east of S. Hualapai Way Reference No.: 1-1 Size: 17.7 acres (total) Owner: USA / BLM Parcel Number: (govt lot 17 & pt govt lot 16) (pt govt lot 19 & pt govt lot 20) (pt SW4 NW4 sec ) 7-6

106 7. Proposed Park and Ride Facilities RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT 7-6: Park & Ride Site 1-1 Hualapai Way Park-&-Ride This 17¾ acre site is at the extreme western end of the study area. The Park & Ride would initially be used primarily by people coming from Pahrump and the western Blue Diamond area, although there are plans for housing developments to eventually extend west to Hualapai. The site consists of three parcels, two small ones which front on SR-160 and one larger one immediately to the south. Funds are being sought from the Nevada Department of Transportation to provide bus service from Park & Ride facilities in Pahrump to the South Strip Transfer Terminal in Las Vegas. Any direct transit service from Pahrump to Las Vegas would likely lessen the initial importance and usage of this particular Park & Ride site. This land is virtually flat and completely undeveloped at this time, as shown in EXHIBIT 7-7 and EXHIBIT 7-8 below. The Clark County aerial photograph was taken in September, 2005, and shows the three parcels that comprise this site: (1.6 acres), (1.73 acres), and (14.42 acres). The ground-level shot, looking toward the southeast, was taken in May, The site analysis did not determine whether any utilities are currently available. 7-7

107 7. Proposed Park and Ride Facilities RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT 7-7: Aerial Photo, with Parcels, of P&R Site 1-1 EXHIBIT 7-8: P&R Site 1-1 Facing Southeast 7-8

108 7. Proposed Park and Ride Facilities RTC SR-160 Corridor Study The proposed configuration of this facility is shown in EXHIBIT 7-9. As the end-of-line facility, all RTC buses would arrive from and depart to the east. Bus entry to this site is via Hualapai Way, and they would depart directly onto SR-160 for their eastbound runs toward Las Vegas. Automobiles would access the facility via either Hualapai Way or Conquistador Road No traffic signal is currently envisaged for either intersection. Being the terminal stop for RTC bus operations, buses would layover at this location. Secured break and restroom facilities would be provided for bus operators. A privately-owned 2.15 acre parcel is surrounded by the Park and-ride facility on three sides and SR-160 on the north. This land, Clark County parcel number which is owned by Blue Diamond & Hualapai LLC and Encore Homes LLC, would require direct access to SR-160 unless NDOT requires that access be provided via the Park & Ride. The proposed configuration would initially contain 777 parking stalls (40 of which are handicapped spaces), three bus bays in each direction (although bi-directional use is not initially contemplated), a kiss-and-ride area, and ancillary facilities within 12.8 acres at the north end of the site. Space for an additional 593 spaces is available at the south end of the property for parking expansion if necessary. 7-9

109 7. Proposed Park and Ride Facilities RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT 7-9: Park & Ride 1-1 Configuration 7-10

110 7. Proposed Park and Ride Facilities RTC SR-160 Corridor Study SR-160 west of S. Durango Drive Reference No.: 1-2 and 2-2 Size: 9.6 acres south of SR-160, 10.6 acres north Owner: USA / BLM Parcel Numbers: (pt S2 NE4 sec ) (south) (pt N2 sec ) (north) A Park & Ride facility near Durango Drive is valuable due to the large Mountain s Edge and Arlington Ranch developments south of SR-160, and Westchester Hills and Rhodes Ranch to the north. To the north of SR-160, Durango will be widened to become a major north-south arterial. The current land mapping in this area is reflected in the Clark County plan dated May, 2006, shown in EXHIBIT EXHIBIT 7-10: Residential Density at SR-160 / Durango Durango SR-160 EXHIBIT 7-11: Park & Ride Site 1-2/2-2 Park-&- Ride Park-&-Ride Located 1.9 miles east of Park & Ride Site 1-1, this Park & Ride facility immediately west of S. Durango Drive would consist of two parcels, one north of SR-160 and one south, with the 7-11

111 7. Proposed Park and Ride Facilities RTC SR-160 Corridor Study two sites connected by a pedestrian bridge. Automobiles could access the Park & Ride without having to use or cross SR-160. EXHIBIT 7-12: Aerial Photo, with Parcels, of P&R Site 1-2/2-2 EXHIBIT 7-13: P&R Site 1-2 Facing West The configuration of this facility is shown in EXHIBIT

112 7. Proposed Park and Ride Facilities RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Eastbound buses would enter the south-side facility via a dedicated driveway from SR-160, service the facility, and re-enter eastbound SR-160 in a queue-jumping lane at the Durango Drive intersection. Westbound buses would use a queue-jumping lane to cross Durango and enter the north-side facility via a dedicated driveway, after which they would re-enter the westbound traffic lanes of SR-160. Automobiles would access the south-side facility via driveways on either Arlington Ranch Road or SR-160. Durango Drive could also be directly accessed if a mutual access easement is obtained from the owner of the undeveloped property immediately to the east, which is currently Diamond PHD LLC. The north-side facility would be accessed via Durango. The pedestrian bridge would be equipped with stairs and either ramps (preferred) or elevators for ADA compliance. Transit riders who park at the facility would generally have to cross SR-160 either via the bridge or at the signaled Durango intersection once per round trip. The facility north of SR-160 would have 713 parking spaces (including 20 handicapped), while there would be 648 spaces south of SR-160 (30 handicapped). There is no room for further expansion of either segment of the facility without the acquisition of privately-owned land. 7-13

113 7. Proposed Park and Ride Facilities RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT 7-14: Park & Ride 1-2/2-2 Configuration POTENTIAL FOR MUTUAL ACCESS EASEMENT 7-14

114 7. Proposed Park and Ride Facilities RTC SR-160 Corridor Study SR-160 between Rainbow and Torrey Pines Reference No.: 1-4 Size: ~65 acres (total) Owner: USA / BLM Parcel Numbers: (pt N2 sec ) (pt S2 N2 sec ) EXHIBIT 7-15: Park & Ride Site 1-4 Park-&-Ride This Park & Ride facility, located 2.5 miles east of Site 1-2/2-2, would initially occupy approximately 15.8 acres of land between Redwood Street and S. Torrey Pines Drive, which is located at the southwest corner of the acre Clark County parcel Should additional parking eventually be required, an additional 4.5 acres is available east of Torrey Pines in the same parcel, with another 4+ acres east of Torrey Pines in parcel northeast of the original site. The southwest corner of the facility would be located at the corner of Redwood Street and W. Serene Avenue. W. Serene Avenue provides access to S. Rainbow Boulevard, which connects to SR-160 at a signaled intersection. The east end of the facility would connect to SR-160 via S. Torrey Pines Drive at a signaled intersection 13. At this time, the parcel is flat and is completely undeveloped. However, RTC is working with the Clark County Redevelopment Agency to develop workforce housing and shared parking facilities adjacent to the currently proposed school site. The current condition of the portion that is to be used for the Park & Ride is shown in EXHIBIT 7-16 and EXHIBIT 7-17 below, 13 Although the SR-160 / Torrey Pines intersection is not currently programmed to be signaled, NDOT expects it to qualify prior to the completion of highway improvements. 7-15

115 7. Proposed Park and Ride Facilities RTC SR-160 Corridor Study with the Clark County aerial shot taken in September, 2005, and the ground-level picture, looking northwest from Serene and Torrey Pines, in May, The dedicated right-of-way along the southern bound of the north parcel may provide a corridor for access from the housing, so that both parcels could be accessible from the planned housing location. EXHIBIT 7-16: Aerial Photo, with Parcels, of P&R Site 1-4 EXHIBIT 7-17: P&R Site 1-4 Facing Northwest 7-16

116 7. Proposed Park and Ride Facilities RTC SR-160 Corridor Study The configuration of this facility is shown in EXHIBIT The Park & Ride could initially contain 808 parking places (including 52 handicapped), six bus bays (three in each direction), a kiss-and-ride area, and amenities within a 15.5 acre site. Space would be available for an additional 619 parking places in two sites to the east of the initial sites. Westbound buses would turn left from SR-160 in a left turn lane at the signaled S. Torrey Pines intersection, and proceed south on S. Torrey Pines into the Park & Ride. They would exit the Park & Ride westbound on Serene Avenue, turn north onto Rainbow Boulevard, and west onto SR-160 at a signaled intersection. Eastbound buses would follow the same path in the opposite direction. These routes, which are shared with automobiles, are shown in yellow in EXHIBIT EXHIBIT 7-18: Bus Route Through P&R Site 1-4 Bus route The direct connection to Rainbow Boulevard is beneficial because Rainbow marks the eastern edge of the Mountain s Edge community. There will be several good east-west roads through the community that would enable Mountain s Edge residents to access the Park & Ride facility without having to cross or travel on SR-160 in either direction, which is a major benefit. S. Torrey Pines Drive will be the interim means of accessing Jones Boulevard to the north from SR-160 until the intersection atop the UPRR flyover structure is completed in that direction. The green route shown exiting the Park & Ride to the south on Redwood Street connects to Silverado Ranch Road, which is planned to be upgraded in the future, including a grade separation of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, a Park & Ride facility at Dean Martin Drive, and another direct connection to the Mountain s Edge community. 7-17

117 7. Proposed Park and Ride Facilities RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT 7-19: Park & Ride 1-4 Configuration 7-18

118 7. Proposed Park and Ride Facilities RTC SR-160 Corridor Study 7.4 LAND ACQUISITION OPTIONS The four recommended Park & Ride facilities adjacent to SR-160 are on property managed by the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM). A review of the BLM Nevada Lands Records on May 19, 2006, indicates that the BLM parcels preferred for Park & Ride facilities contain the rights-of-way and pending reservations as shown in EXHIBIT EXHIBIT 7-20: BLM Rights-of-Way and Reservations for Park & Ride Facilities BLM Rights-of-Way Parcel authorized telephone/telegraph, 10 feet wide authorized telephone/telegraph, 10 feet wide authorized oil and gas pipeline, 40 feet wide authorized water facility 60 feet wide authorized telephone/telegraph, 10 feet wide authorized oil and gas pipeline, 40 feet wide authorized power trans, 10 feet wide 7099 authorized telephone/telegraph, width varies pending road, width varies authorized water facility,17-32 feet wide authorized power trans, 5 feet wide authorized power trans, 10 feet wide authorized power trans, 6 feet wide authorized road, width varies authorized road, 30 feet wide Reservations Government Lot 32 identified for public sale Pending Affordable Housing Pending Affordable Housing Pending Affordable Housing Pending Affordable Housing Pending Clark County School District The following three options for obtaining these BLM-managed parcels were discussed via personal communiqués with BLM Las Vegas Field Office Supervisory Realty Specialist Anna Wharton in May, 2006: Right-of-Way (ROW): BLM can issue a ROW to any individual, company, or organization at the discretion of the authorized officer. As authorized by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, BLM can issue ROW grants for facilities or systems that are in the public interest. A ROW is for a specific purpose, and a specific time, typically 30 years, and most can be renewed. Per Ms. Wharton, obtaining the land 7-19

119 7. Proposed Park and Ride Facilities RTC SR-160 Corridor Study for the Park & Ride facilities through an ROW is the preferred method as the process can begin immediately. In addition, because the RTC is a regional government agency ( no application, monitoring, or rental fee is required. The Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP): R&PP authorizes lease or sale of public land for recreational or public purposes to State and local governments and to qualified nonprofit organizations. Ms. Wharton stated that the RTC itself is not eligible for purchasing land under the R&PP; however, the land could be purchased by Clark County. Direct Sales: According to Ms. Wharton, it would be difficult for the RTC to obtain BLM land under a non-competitive bid. Under 43 CFR 11 Part , direct sales, without competition, may be utilized, when, in the opinion of the authorized officer, the public interest would best be served by a direct sale. Although examples of appropriate sales are included in the regulations and appear applicable, per Ms. Wharton, they are usually not granted because of overriding sales requirements in the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA). 7.5 BUS STOPS In addition to the Park & Ride facilities, curbside bus stops will be provided in locations where residential density is lower, where there is already parking available, or where land for a Park & Ride facility is not available. RTC Policies and Procedures (latest revision 3/9/06) states, in part, On RTC-funded projects where full street improvements are to be constructed, bus turnouts shall be constructed for future bus routes at locations determined in accordance with Section B.2.a of this policy. Although the SR-160 improvement project is not funded by the RTC, NDOT normally accommodates RTC configuration standards within the Las Vegas area, and RTC is working with NDOT and Clark County to ensure provisions are made for bus stop turnouts along the SR-160 corridor. The relevant section of the RTC Policies and Procedures document, along with turnout configuration drawings adopted by Clark County, is contained in Appendix D. In addition, the Uniform Standard Drawings for bus pullouts apply to all developments abutting arterial roadways and major corridors. Per the Uniform Standard Drawings, bus stops will be required at the far side of all major arterial intersections. On SR-160 east of S. Decatur Drive, there will be major retail centers rather than large residential developments and on-street bus stops would likely be provided in lieu of Park & Ride facilities. The retail centers, with their significant parking capacity, can complement the RTC-mandated bus stops in two ways: 7-20

120 7. Proposed Park and Ride Facilities RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Local residents who do not live along bus routes could use some of the parking spaces at these retail centers to access bus services, and Local residents who live along bus routes could take public transit to the retail centers. Whereas the Park & Ride facilities would be served by local, express, and BRT bus routes, it is likely that most on-street bus stops would generally only be serviced by local routes. Three representative locations for bus stops have been identified SR-160 at S. Buffalo Drive S. Buffalo Drive is in the middle of the Mountain s Edge development and is adjacent to the Exploration Peak Park on the south side of SR-160. Eastbound and westbound bus stops on SR-160 at the signaled intersection with S. Buffalo Drive could provide some transit benefit at little cost and without interfering with traffic lanes. (See EXHIBIT 7-21.) EXHIBIT 7-21: Facing West From SR-160 at Buffalo Alternatively, there is a large parking lot for Exploration Peak Park on Buffalo less than ½ mile south of SR-160. Since this lot is generally underutilized on weekdays, the developers at Mountain s Edge could make this lot available as a Park & Ride facility, and in fact a bus stop adjacent to the lot already exists. Not being located directly on SR-160, however, it would add to the running time of express bus or BRT service along the corridor SR-160 at Arville Street Arville Street, located approximately 0.6 miles east of Decatur Boulevard, will likely become a signaled intersection at SR-160. With some smaller developments nearby, bus stops 7-21

121 7. Proposed Park and Ride Facilities RTC SR-160 Corridor Study could be beneficial in this area. Unless easements can be obtained, these bus stops would be within one of the general traffic lanes due to SR-160 having eight lanes in a 150 foot right-of-way through this area S. Decatur Boulevard near W. Robindale Road and W. Windmill Lane Bus routes that use Decatur rather than the eastern segment of SR-160 will pass smaller developments that warrant bus stops. The right-of-way is sufficiently wide to accommodate bus stops in both directions without impacting through traffic. The area between the intersections at Robindale Road and Windmill Lane, approximately one mile north of SR-160 is an appropriate site for northbound and southbound bus stops (See EXHIBIT 7-222). EXHIBIT 7-22: Facing North on Decatur Boulevard at Windmill Lane The feasibility of providing more significant transit facilities in the vicinity of Decatur Boulevard and Warm Springs Road could be limited by the Rural Neighborhood Preservation area. 7-22

122 8. Estimated System Costs RTC SR-160 Corridor Study 8.0 COST ESTIMATES FOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES This section provides capital and operating cost estimates for each of the transit alternatives under consideration for the SR-160 corridor. For each of the alternatives Alternative 1 high build and Alternative 2 low build costs are provided for three time horizons: 1) 2008, 2) 2015, and 3) 2025, for a total of six transit alternatives. Capital estimates are provided first for each of the six alternatives, followed by annual operating costs for each alternative. 8.1 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES Overview of Capital Cost Benchmarks Capital costs are an important component in assessing the suitability of a given modal technology to the ridership characteristics of a given corridor. Conventional Bus Transit Standard 40-ft bus currently in use on CAT service Conventional fixed route bus service is a low-cost system that operates on mixed traffic streets, roads and highway without any special running way requirements. The basic requirement for fixed route bus service is a roadway and locations to stop and service passengers. Bus stops often include information indicating the carrier, the location of the bus stop, route alignment and the schedule. Typically, stops served by conventional fixed route bus lines with high ridership are provided with a protective shelter with seating and more transit information. Where no roadway investment is required, the only additional cost that may be incurred is the purchase of new transit vehicles where spare vehicles are not available. Conventional bus service could be provided on the corridor at minimal cost Bus stops can be located where desired along SR-160 by the placement of simple signs and benches, and buses can be purchased or redeployed to support the service. This could be an appropriate first step prior to providing a more elegant transit solution. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) RTC has already implemented one bus rapid transit line in the Las Vegas Region. CAT operates RTC Southern Nevada s Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) route, which travels northeast from the Downtown Transportation Center (DTC) to North Las Vegas along North Las Vegas Boulevard. The MAX system includes a curbside lane reserved for operation of transit vehicles and turning vehicles. Stations are generally spaced between 0.75 and 1.0 miles apart. Station architecture includes a canopy for weather and sun protection, map cases, fare vending machines, vending machines for beverages, and seating. MAX 8-1

123 8. Estimated System Costs RTC SR-160 Corridor Study functions as a rapid transit overlay onto the local CAT transit services in North Las Vegas and more specifically Route 113, the local bus route operating along Las Vegas Boulevard North. EXHIBIT 8-1 provides a cost summary by element of MAX. MAX system costs serve as a logical starting point for estimating BRT implementation costs because fixed assets, operational parameters, and rolling stock requirements for BRT alternatives under consideration for the SR-160 corridor are similar to the MAX system. EXHIBIT 8-1: Summary of MAX Project Costs Project Element Total Cost % of Total Cost Civis Vehicle Vehicle & Systems (10 Total) - Irisbus $ 11,960, % Vehicle Mfg Inspection - TRC/Semaly $ 340, % Passenger Shelters Engineering Services - Stanley Consultants $ 1,150, % Construction Bid (West Coast Contractors) $ 4,152, % Guidance Markings $ 55, % Miscellaneous $ 15, % Dynamic Message Signs Passenger Information Displays $ - 0.0% Ticket Vending Machines Production & Installation - GenFare Inc. $ 1,900, % Fare Collection Design $ 200, % Radio Communications/AVL Radio/AVL/APC Installation - Orbital $ 298, % Transit Signal Priority Implementation Strategy & Analysis $ 26, % Traffic Signal Equipment - 3M $ 120, % Vehicle Emitters - 3M $ 10, % Signal Controller Software Mods - GTS $ - 0.0% Data Collection & Mgmt - Econolit/TrafficWerks $ 59, % TOTAL $ 20,290,414 The total project capital cost was approximately $20.3M (or $2.6M/mile). This total cost per alignment mile (not directional route mile) is on the lower end of the typical project scale for in-street mixed traffic alignments. The main reason the total project cost was comparatively low is because RTC did not incur any right-of-way acquisition or improvement costs. These were covered through the availability of the wide existing alignment profile and the right-of-way ownership by Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT). Similar right-of-way availability is anticipated for the SR-160 corridor. The largest project cost was the BRT vehicles, which represented approximately 59 percent of the total project cost. The next largest project element was the engineering and construction of the MAX stations (20.5 percent), followed by the acquisition and installation of the ticket vending machines (9.4 percent). Much of the traffic signal equipment was in 8-2

124 8. Estimated System Costs RTC SR-160 Corridor Study place before the MAX project. Therefore, the cost for the additional TSP, vehicle emitter equipment, and installations was only $216,171. The communications system and the associated vehicle location and passenger counting systems were installed for a combined cost of $298,810. These systems acquisition and installation costs were also relatively low. Soft costs (including administration, agency and consultant costs) were not estimated for the project costs and not included in EXHIBIT Alternative 1 High Growth While MAX project costs provide a baseline for estimating capital costs for the SR-160 corridor BRT alternatives, costs for the SR-160 corridor will be higher largely due to the acquisition, design, and construction of Park & Ride facilities at two of the alignment s five proposed BRT stations and additional transit signal priority costs along the corridor where such advances are not expected to be in place as they were for MAX. A range of costs is provided for each alternative, reflecting variability in two cost elements: 1) whether additional 40 foot coaches would need to be purchased for conventional bus transit services or service could be provided using the current CAT vehicle fleet, and 2) how the property would be acquired from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for two Park & Ride facilities along the BRT route. Alternatives for acquiring the land from BLM result in very different costs for the corridor. If RTC can obtain a Right-of-Way (ROW) agreement from BLM for the required land, RTC would incur virtually no costs paying only nominal processing fees for the application review and ongoing monitoring. Outright purchase of the land in question results in the highest costs identified and is based on current Clark County assessed values on the land parcels in question. EXHIBIT 8-2 provides an estimate of the capital costs for Alternative 1 alternatives. Capital costs for both Options 1 and 2 increase dramatically in the year during which BRT service is implemented 2015 for Alternative 1 and 2025 for Alternative 2, reflecting the higher level of capital investment required for such service. Note that capital costs are presented in total for each horizon year, and include the costs for investment that may have occurred in an earlier year. For example, costs for Alternative 1 (2015) are inclusive of costs required to implement Alternative 1 (2008) so that each alternative can be evaluated in its entirety rather than as an increment to full build-out in

125 8. Estimated System Costs RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT 8-2: Alternative 1 High Growth, Capital Costs Alternative ( 06 $) Alternative ( 06 $) Alternative ( 06 $) Guideway Costs Re-striping/Transit Signal Priority -- $500,000 $500,000 Acquisition Subtotal: Guideway Costs -- $500,000 $500,000 Vehicle Costs 40 Coaches $0 - $5,250,000 (15 coaches) $0 - $3,500,000 (10 coaches) $0 - $5,950,000 (17 coaches) Station Costs BRT Vehicles (8 vehicles) -- $10,480,000 $10,480,000 $10,480,000 - $10,480,000 - Subtotal: Vehicles $0-$5,250,000 $13,980,000 $16,430,000 Park & Ride Stations (2) -- $7,000,000 $7,000,000 Land Acquisition -- $0 - $28,612,000 $0 - $28,612,000 Intermediate Stations (3) -- $3,750,000 $3,750,000 Surface Parking (at P&R stations) -- $1,200,000 $1,200,000 Other Costs Bus Stop Amenities $26,000 $27,000 $50,000 Subtotal: Station Costs $26,000 $11,977,000 - $40,589,000 $12,000,000 - $40,612,000 Maintenance/Storage Costs -- $500,000 $500,000 Ticket Vending Machines -- $560,000 $560,000 Operations Control -- $250,000 $250,000 Subtotal: Other Costs -- $860,000 $860,000 Cost Contingencies Program Implementation Guideway Costs (10%) -- $50,000 $50,000 Design/Construction (25%) -- $2,994,250 $3,000,000 Vehicle Costs (10%) $0 - $525,000 Subtotal: Cost Contingencies $0 - $525,000 $1,048,000 - $1,398,000 $4,092,250 - $4,443,000 $1,048,000 - $1,643,000 $4,098,000 - $4,693,000 Design/Construction (31%) -- $3,713,000 $3,713,000 Guideway (15%) -- $75,000 $75,000 Vehicle Procurement (5%) $0 -$262,500 $524,000 - $699,000 $524,000 - $821,500 Project Reserve (10%) Subtotal: Program Implementation TOTAL $2,600 - $580,100 $2,600 $842,600 $28,600 - $6,643,600 $2,790,925 - $6,037,200 $7,103,000 - $10,524,200 $35,012,250 - $70,896,200 $2,793,800 - $6,309,500 $7,105,800 - $10,919,000 $35,043,800 - $74,014,

126 8. Estimated System Costs RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Alternatives 1 (2015) and 1 (2025) which vary only by the level of conventional bus transit provided have the same lower bound capital cost estimate which assumes there is no need to purchase additional 40 coaches for conventional bus services. The roughly $2.5 million difference in the upper bound estimate for these two alternatives reflects the additional costs of 40 coaches in Alternative 1 (2025) which provides a greater level of conventional bus transit services Alternative 2 Moderate Growth Like Alternative 1 High Growth, Alternative 2 Moderate Growth costs are provided as ranges reflecting variability in two cost elements: 1) the need to purchase additional 40 foot coaches, and 2) how the property for Park & Ride facilities would be acquired from BLM. EXHIBIT 8-3 provides an estimate of the capital costs for Alternative 2 Moderate Growth. Capital costs for Alternative 2 increase dramatically in the year during which BRT service is implemented. Like costs for Alternative 1, capital costs for Alternative 2 are presented in total for each horizon year, and include the costs for investment that may have occurred in an earlier year. For example, costs for Alternative 2 (2025) are inclusive of costs required to implement Alternative 2 in EXHIBIT 8-3: Alternative 2 Moderate Growth Capital Costs System Elements Alternative ( 06 $) Alternative ( 06 $) Alternative ( 06 $) Guideway Costs Re-striping/Transit Signal Priority $500,000 Acquisition Subtotal: Guideway Costs $500,000 Vehicle Costs 40 Coaches $0 - $3,500,000 (10 coaches) $0 - $5,950,000 (17 coaches) $0 - $4,200,000 (12 coaches) Station Costs BRT Vehicles (8 vehicles) $10,480,000 Subtotal: Vehicles $0-$3,500,000 $0 - $5,950,000 $10,480,000 - $14,680,000 Park & Ride Stations (2) $7,000,000 Land Acquisition $0 - $28,612,000 Intermediate Stations (3) $3,750,000 Surface Parking (at P&R stations) $1,200,000 Other Costs Bus Stop Amenities $8,000 $26,000 $27,000 Subtotal: Station Costs $8,000 $26,000 $11,977,000 - $40,589,000 Maintenance/Storage Costs $500,

127 8. Estimated System Costs RTC SR-160 Corridor Study System Elements Alternative ( 06 $) Alternative ( 06 $) Alternative ( 06 $) Ticket Vending Machines $560,000 Operations Control $250,000 Subtotal: Other Costs $860,000 Cost Contingencies Program Implementation Guideway Costs (10%) $50,000 Design/Construction (25%) $2,995,000 Vehicle Costs (10%) $0 - $350,000 $0 - $595,000 Subtotal: Cost Contingencies $0 - $350,000 $0 - $595,000 $1,048,000 - $1,468,000 $4,093,000 - $4,513,000 Design/Construction (31%) $3,713,000 Guideway (15%) $75,000 Vehicle Procurement (5%) $0 -$262,500 $0 - $297,500 $524,000 - $734,000 Project Reserve (10%) Subtotal: Program Implementation $800 $648,300 TOTAL $800 - $385,800 $2,600 - $657,100 $8,800 - $4,506,300 $2,600 - $954,600 $28,600 - $7,525,600 $2,791,000 - $6,114,200 $7,103,000 - $10,636,200 $35,013,000 - $71,778,200 Alternatives 2 (2008) and (2015), which vary only by the level of conventional bus transit provided, have much lower capital costs than Alternative 2 (2025) which introduces BRT. If no additional buses are required, capital costs for Alternatives 2 (2008) and (2015) would be incurred only for bus stop amenities benches, shelters, and signage. Alternative 2 (2025) is very close in cost to Alternatives 1 (2015) and 1 (2025) as all three include BRT (the largest capital cost element of the alternatives under review), and vary only by the level of conventional bus transit to be provided. Indeed, were there no need for additional 40 foot coaches, capital costs for Alternative 1 (2008) and (2025), and Alternative 2 (2025) would be virtually identical Summary/Conclusions Differences in capital cost estimates for Alternatives 1 and 2 arise primarily from the year in which BRT service is provided in the corridor (2015 versus 2025), and the level of conventional bus transit service provided and the resulting need (or lack thereof) of additional 40 vehicles for the bus service. On a year-by-year basis, Alternative 2 is the lower capital cost alternative as it provides an overall lower level of transit investment. Overall, BRT costs on a per mile basis are estimated to be between $3.34 million and $6.37 million depending on the need to purchase land from BLM for Park & Ride facilities. 8-6

128 8. Estimated System Costs RTC SR-160 Corridor Study 8.2 OPERATING COST ESTIMATES Annual operating costs of transit alternatives in the corridor must also be considered when selecting a transit investment. Operating costs represent an ongoing, recurring expense that can quickly dwarf the start up capital investment of bus alternatives, and must be accommodated within RTC s annual transit operating budget Estimation Methodology Two primary sources of information were used in the development of operating cost estimates for transit alternatives in the SR-160 corridor the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) evaluation of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) and performance trend data for CAT route 113 and MAX from RTC s transit department. Hourly marginal operating cost estimates from these two sources have been inflated to current year dollars and are applied to annual revenue service hour estimates for each of the alternative bus routes making up Alternatives 1 and 2 for the SR-160 corridor. Hourly operating cost estimates incorporate the contractor hourly rate plus a variable cost per hour for RTC transit division staff, and are shown in EXHIBIT 8-4. EXHIBIT 8-4: Hourly Marginal Costs for CAT Services Service Type estimated CAT Bus Route $52.52 $55.72 MAX $78.38 $83.15 Note: Costs reflect hourly contractor costs plus RTC variable costs per hour as identified in performance trend data for route 113 and MAX provided by RTC s transit department. Costs have been escalated by 3% per year to arrive at estimated current year (2006) costs. For each of the transit alternatives under consideration, annual revenue service hours were estimated using some basic assumptions: Peak frequency based on that of the current CAT route to which the proposed bus alternative would connect; Off-peak frequency estimated at half the peak period frequency or 60 minutes, whichever is less; Both peak and off-peak periods last twelve hours; Weekdays 254 in total use the 12/12 peak/off-peak split while weekends/holidays 111 in total are treated as 24 hours of off-peak operations; Operating speeds for local, express, and BRT alternatives are 10 mph, 13 mph, and 16 mph respectively (based, in part, on data provided in the FTA review of MAX). 8-7

129 Durango Drive Durango Drive Las Vegas Blvd Las Vegas Blvd 8. Estimated System Costs RTC SR-160 Corridor Study These operating characteristics were applied to the route length of each alternative bus alignment identified for the corridor. Segment lengths for the roadways, and future roadways, in the study area are shown in EXHIBIT 8-5. EXHIBIT 8-5: Segment Lengths To Durango Dr & Flamingo Rd Fort Apache Road 4.1 Rhodes Ranch To Rainbow Blvd 2.2 To Decatur Blvd & Dewey 215 Dr & Tropicana Ave Warm Springs Road Windmill Lane Jones Blvd Jones Blvd.25 Pinnacle Peaks 1.4 To Transfer Point Blue Diamond.5.5 Dean Martin Drive.6.5 Warm Springs Road Las Vegas Outlet Center Windmill Lane.25 To Transit Center I-15 PR 1-4 Hualapai Way PR 1-1 Mountains 2.1 Edge 2.3 Buffalo Drive Buffalo Drive Rainbow Blvd Rainbow Blvd Jones Blvd Jones Blvd Decatur Blvd Decatur Blvd Silverado Ranch Blvd UPRR Cactus Ave Bermuda Road Bermuda Road N Scale: Miles Southern Highlands 2006 Rand McNally & Company Alternative 1 High Growth Alternative 1, which reflects the maximum level of transit investment in the SR-160 corridor, includes four bus route alternatives incorporating local, express, and BRT services by the year Alternative 1 (2008) reflects the level of transit investment by 2008, and includes only the local bus route connecting to CAT route 101 on Rainbow Boulevard (route designation in red), and a modified east/west running express bus route. By 2008, the express bus route would follow the same alignment as the BRT route (designated in blue) in Exhibit 5-10, connecting to current CAT services at the South Strip Transfer Terminal (SSTT). 8-8

130 8. Estimated System Costs RTC SR-160 Corridor Study 2015 Alternative 1 (2015) reflects the level of transit investment in the SR-160 corridor by 2015 and includes all services shown in Exhibit 5-11 except the second local route (designated in orange) connecting to CAT routes 201 and 203 at Flamingo and Durango Boulevards Alternative 1 (2025) reflects the maximum level of transit investment in the SR-160 corridor and includes all elements shown in Exhibit 5-12 two local routes, an express route and BRT service on SR-160 connecting to the region s future fixed guideway system on South Las Vegas Boulevard. Operating costs for each of the three time horizons for Alternative 1 are summarized in EXHIBIT 8-6, and are shown in current year (2006) dollars. Routes Local Route 1 (Route 101 Connector) Local Route 2 (Route 201 and 203 Connector) Express Route 1 (on BRT alignment) Express Route 1a (Route 103 Connector) BRT Route (connecting to southern end of Regional Fixed Guideway on S. Las Vegas Boulevard) EXHIBIT 8-6: Alternative 1 Operating Costs Route Length (miles) Peak Frequency (minutes) Annual Service Hours Alternative ( 06 millions $) Alternative ( 06 millions $) Alternative ( 06 millions $) ,877 $1.16 $1.16 $ , $ ,076 $ , $1.11 $ , $2.57 $2.57 TOTAL $3.28 $4.84 $7.09 Annual service hours for each route alternative are a direct reflection of the route length, peak service frequency, and operating speed of each route. Generally, greater service frequencies, longer route lengths, and lower operating speeds lead to greater service hours resulting in overall higher service hours for local routes than either express or BRT routes. On a cost basis, however, BRT is the most expensive service to operate due to the higher cost per hour. 8-9

131 8. Estimated System Costs RTC SR-160 Corridor Study Alternative 2 moderate growth Alternative 2, which reflects a lesser level of transit investment in the SR-160 corridor than in Alternative 1, includes three bus route alternatives incorporating local, express, and BRT services by the year 2025, as shown in Exhibit Alternative 2 (2008) reflects the level of transit investment by 2008, and includes only a modified east/west running express route from that shown in Exhibit 5-13 (route designation in green) Alternative 2 (2015) reflects the level of transit investment in the SR-160 corridor by 2015 and adds a local route (designated in red in Exhibit 5-14) to the express route in Alternative 2 (2008). This local route would connect to CAT routes 201 and 203 at Flamingo and Durango Boulevards Alternative 2 (2025) reflects a lesser level of transit investment in the SR-160 corridor than Alternative 1 (2025) but includes local, express, and BRT services as shown in Exhibit Operating costs for each of the three time horizons for Alternative 2 are summarized in EXHIBIT 8-7, and are shown in current year (2006) dollars. Routes Local Route 1 (Route 201 and 203 Connector) Express Route 1 (on BRT alignment) Express Route 1a (Route 103 Connector) BRT Route (connecting to southern end of Regional Fixed Guideway on S. Las Vegas Boulevard) EXHIBIT 8-7: Alternative 2 Moderate Growth Operating Costs Route Length (miles) Peak Frequency (minutes) Annual Service Hours Alternative ( 06 millions $) Alternative ( 06 millions $) Alternative ( 06 millions $) , $1.75 $ ,296 $2.02 $ , $ , $2.45 TOTAL $2.02 $3.77 $

132 8. Estimated System Costs RTC SR-160 Corridor Study As under Alternative 1, annual service hours for each route alternative are a direct reflection of the route length, peak service frequency, and operating speed of each route. For Alternative 2, this means that the most service hours are associated with the express route operating at 15 minute peak frequencies. On a cost basis, however, the higher cost per hour results in the BRT route being the most expensive to operate Summary/Conclusions Alternative 2 alternatives represent an overall lower level of investment than Alternative 1 alternatives in each of the three key years of investment 2008, 2015, and The delay of BRT implementation and one less local route under Alternative 2 build-out in 2025 result in a 34% lower overall operating cost impact than the Alternative alternative. The difference between the two alternatives is even greater in 2008 with Alternative 1 being 85% more costly to operate than Alternative 2 which includes a single express route as opposed to both an express and local route in Alternative 1. However, the 2008 Alternative 2 alternative provides no north-south connectivity to the current CAT system west of I-15 whereas Alternative 1 connects to the current CAT system along Rainbow Boulevard Additionally, the higher initial investment under Alternative 1 results in less growth in operating costs from 2008 to 2015, and 2008 to 2025 at 48 percent and 116 percent respectively than under Alternative 2 where costs are estimated to grow by 86 percent from 2008 to 2015, and by 163 percent from 2008 to Cost growth is a direct reflection of the number of service hours provided under each option as shown in EXHIBIT 8-8. EXHIBIT 8-8: Comparison of Vehicle Service Hours Alternative 1 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 Service Hours (2025) (2015) (2025) (2015) (2015) (2025) Bus Service Hours 58,953 71, ,092 36,296 67,717 80,

133 A. Aerial Photographs of Blue Diamond Corridor RTC SR-160 Corridor Study APPENDIX A Aerial Photographs of Blue Diamond Corridor 2005 photographs of study corridor shown West to East, from Clark County GIS website A-1

134 A. Aerial Photographs of Blue Diamond Corridor RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT A-1: Aerial View 1 A-2

135 A. Aerial Photographs of Blue Diamond Corridor RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT A-2: Aerial View 2 A-3

136 A. Aerial Photographs of Blue Diamond Corridor RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT A-3: Aerial View 3 A-4

137 A. Aerial Photographs of Blue Diamond Corridor RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT A-4: Aerial View 4 A-5

138 A. Aerial Photographs of Blue Diamond Corridor RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT A-5: Aerial View 5 A-6

139 A. Aerial Photographs of Blue Diamond Corridor RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT A-6: Aerial View 6 A-7

140 A. Aerial Photographs of Blue Diamond Corridor RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT A-7: Aerial View 7 A-8

141 A. Aerial Photographs of Blue Diamond Corridor RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT A-8: Aerial View 8 A-9

142 A. Aerial Photographs of Blue Diamond Corridor RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT A-9: Aerial View 9 A-10

143 A. Aerial Photographs of Blue Diamond Corridor RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT A-10: Aerial View 10 A-11

144 A. Aerial Photographs of Blue Diamond Corridor RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT A-11: Aerial View 11 A-12

145 A. Aerial Photographs of Blue Diamond Corridor RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT A-12: Aerial View 12 A-13

146 A. Aerial Photographs of Blue Diamond Corridor RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT A-13: Aerial View 13 A-14

147 A. Aerial Photographs of Blue Diamond Corridor RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT A-14: Aerial View 14 A-15

148 A. Aerial Photographs of Blue Diamond Corridor RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT A-15: Aerial View 15 A-16

149 B. Candidate Park & Ride Site Data RTC SR-160 Corridor Study APPENDIX B Candidate Park & Ride Site Data B-1

150 B. Candidate Park & Ride Site Data RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT B-1: Potential Park & Ride Sites That Are Owned By the Government or Long-Time Private Owners No. County Parcel No. & Govt. Description Location / Map(s) N/S of 160 (within groups, listed west to east) Fronts on Owned by Size (acres) Comments Photos (taken 2/14/06) Group 1: Meet all location criteria 1-1 Three parcels: (govt lot 17 & pt govt lot 16) Between Hualapai and Conquistador South SR-160, Hualapai, Conquistador USA / BLM 17.7 (total) Would probably be the western terminus of transit service. Good collector site for traffic from Pahrump and Blue Diamond, with space for approximately 1500 parking stalls (pt govt lot 19 & pt govt lot 20) Only need one of the two parcels fronting on SR-160 to provide access to main lot area, preferably the western one which provides access to SR-160 via Hualapai. Looking S from northeast corner of Hualapai and SR-160. SR-160 in foreground. Little development in this area (pt SW4 NW4 sec ) Looking SE from northeast corner of Hualapai and SR-160, with SR-160 in midground. B-2

151 B. Candidate Park & Ride Site Data RTC SR-160 Corridor Study County Parcel No. No. & Govt. Description (pt S2 NE4 sec ) Location / Map(s) West of (but separated from) Durango N/S of 160 South Fronts on SR-160, Arlington Ranch Owned by USA / BLM Size (acres) Comments 9.6 Well situated between Pinnacle Peaks and Westchester Hills. Photos (taken 2/14/06) A parcel owned by Diamond PHD is between this parcel and Durango; would require easement to Durango for access without additional intersection on SR-160. Looking S across SR-160 from just west of northwest corner of Durango and SR-160. Alternatively, SR-160 past this site is not currently scheduled for widening. It would be possible to put bus stops along the SR-160 corridor itself, with a pedestrian overpass for westbound access. Looking SW across SR-160 from just west of northwest corner of Durango and SR-160. B-3

152 B. Candidate Park & Ride Site Data RTC SR-160 Corridor Study County Parcel No. No. & Govt. Description 1-3 Two parcels: (pt SW4 NW4 sec ) (pt S2 sec ) Location / Map(s) N/S of 160 Fronts on Buffalo to Pioneer South SR-160, Buffalo, Pioneer Owned by USA / BLM Size (acres) 4.7 along SR160, 194 immediately south Comments Somewhat hilly, but slope up to 5% is acceptable for P&R lots. Availability of this parcel is now questionable, because the west side and frontage along SR-160 was recently made into a nature park -- the Mountain s Edge development shows a portion of this land as Exploration Park, although ownership still shows as being with BLM. Photos (taken 2/14/06) Looking East at park building across Buffalo from SW corner of Buffalo and SR-160. Looking SE across Buffalo from SW corner of Buffalo and SR-160. Looking east across Buffalo from just south of southwest corner of Buffalo & SR-160. Sign is for new nature park. B-4

153 B. Candidate Park & Ride Site Data RTC SR-160 Corridor Study County Parcel No. No. & Govt. Description 1-4 Two parcels: (pt N2 sec ) Location / Map(s) N/S of 160 Fronts on Redwood to UPRR mainline South SR-160 (east of Mann), Redwood, Torrey Pines, El Camino Owned by USA / BLM Size (acres) 57 for larger parcel, 7¾ for smaller Comments Large but somewhat awkward and disjointed. SR-160 will go aerial over the UPRR in this area. Photos (taken 2/14/06) (pt S2 N2 sec ) It may be possible to construct onramp to WB SR-160 under new overpass, otherwise access will be best via Torrey Pines. Looking S across SR-160 to parcel 1-4. Looking S across SR-160 to parcel 1-4. B-5

154 B. Candidate Park & Ride Site Data RTC SR-160 Corridor Study No. County Parcel No. & Govt. Description Location / Map(s) N/S of 160 Fronts on Immediately west of Decatur South SR-160, Decatur Owned by Blue Diamond Ranch (last sale date and price not avail.) Size (acres) 13 (H-2) Comments Long-time private owner. Good access from both SR-160 and Decatur. Close to Southern Highlands development. Photos (taken 2/14/06) Looking W from southwest corner of Decatur and 160. Looking SW from southwest corner of Decatur and 160. Looking S from southwest corner of Decatur and 160. B-6

155 B. Candidate Park & Ride Site Data RTC SR-160 Corridor Study No. County Parcel No. & Govt. Description (govt lots 7,9-11 & pt govt lots 15,16) Location / Map(s) N/S of 160 Fronts on Owned by Size (acres) Comments Group 2: Good alternate sites that meet most location criteria Immediately east of Hualapai North SR-160, Hualapai USA / BLM 11 Could be alternate site of end-of-line P&R, but is not on inbound side of SR-160. Also does not have as much capacity as site on south side of SR-160. Photos (taken 2/14/06) Looking SE from just north of northeast corner of Hualapai and sr-160. B-7

156 B. Candidate Park & Ride Site Data RTC SR-160 Corridor Study County Parcel No. No. & Govt. Description (pt N2 sec ) Location / Map(s) N/S of 160 Fronts on Immediately west of Durango North SR-160, Durango Owned by USA / BLM Size (acres) Comments 10.6 Has good access via Durango. Would be worth considering if site #1-2 is not available, even though on north side of SR-160. Photos (taken 2/14/06) One privately-owned high price parcel between this site and site #2-3. Looking W from just west of northwest corner of Durango and SR-160. This parcel is quite linear; careful design would be required to minimize walking distances. Looking E from just west of northwest corner of Durango and SR-160. Looking NW from just west of northwest corner of Durango and SR-160. B-8

157 B. Candidate Park & Ride Site Data RTC SR-160 Corridor Study No. County Parcel No. & Govt. Description Location / Map(s) N/S of 160 Fronts on Immediately east of Decatur North SR-160, Decatur Owned by Blue Diamond Ranch (last sale date and price not avail.) Size (acres) 16 (C-2) Comments Long-time owner. Is a good site, except for being on the north side of SR-160. Has good access to SR-160 and Decatur. Would be worth serious consideration if bus routes turn north onto Decatur to Warm Springs. Photos (taken 2/14/06) Looking W across parcel to houses on west side of Decatur. Much development nearby. Looking north, chip seal road bisecting lot in foreground. Looking west, chip seal road bisecting lot in foreground. B-9

158 B. Candidate Park & Ride Site Data RTC SR-160 Corridor Study No. County Parcel No. & Govt. Description Location / Map(s) N/S of 160 Fronts on East and west of Hinson South SR-160, Hinson, Valley View Owned by CC Dept of Aviation Size (acres) 40 (H-2) Comments Although a highly desirable location, it could not be placed in Group 1 because of access issues. Photos (taken 2/14/06) No Photos. Without flyovers, access to/from westbound SR-160 requires a ¼ mile drive along Valley View or an easement to Arville (which would be right at the corner of SR-160). Privately-owned parcels prevent easier access to Valley View or Arville. Despite the negative aspects of this parcel and its awkward shape, it is an excellent location for a P&R facility (being the easternmost site prior to I-15) and ways need to be explored to make it viable. B-10

159 B. Candidate Park & Ride Site Data RTC SR-160 Corridor Study No. County Parcel No. & Govt. Description Location / Map(s) N/S of 160 Fronts on Owned by Size (acres) Comments Photos (taken 2/14/06) Group 3: Less desirable alternate sites (pt NE4 NW4 sec & govt lot 5 & pt govt lots 19,20) Conquistador to Grand Canyon North SR-160, Grand Canyon USA / BLM 31.6 Another possible end-of-line site, but also on north side of SR-160. Is larger than site #2-1 above. There is no good access to eastbound SR-160 without the addition of a new dedicated intersection. Looking SE from northeast corner of Hualapai and SR-160. Looking E from northeast corner of Hualapai and SR-160. Looking west to detention basin near intersection of Hualapai and SR-160. B-11

160 B. Candidate Park & Ride Site Data RTC SR-160 Corridor Study County Parcel No. No. & Govt. Description (pt N2 sec ) Location / Map(s) Immediately east of Ft. Apache N/S of 160 North Fronts on SR-160, Ft. Apache Owned by USA / BLM Size (acres) Comments 26 Good size, but north of SR-160 and very linear, which would result in long walking distances. Photos (taken 2/14/06) Has good access to Westchester Hills development, which helps to mitigate the drawback of being north of SR-160. Looking W from northeast corner of Ft Apache and SR-160. RV is on Ft Apache stopped at intersection. Would require backtracking from Mountain s Edge. Looking NW from northeast corner of Ft Apache and SR-160. Looking N from northeast corner of Ft Apache and SR-160 toward Westchester Hills development. B-12

161 B. Candidate Park & Ride Site Data RTC SR-160 Corridor Study County Parcel No. No. & Govt. Description (pt N2 sec ) Location / Map(s) Monte Cristo almost to Rainbow N/S of 160 North Fronts on SR-160, Monte Cristo, Belcastro Owned by USA / BLM Size (acres) Comments 77 Location on the north side of SR-160 is a disadvantage. Is very large, although somewhat disjointed only part of this property would be required for a P&R. Some private parcels are imbedded within this parcel. Photos (taken 2/14/06) Looking N, just west of northwest corner of Rainbow and SR-160. No major existing developments are in the immediate area. Looking NW, just west of northwest corner of Rainbow and SR-160. Looking NW, just west of northwest corner of Rainbow and SR-160. B-13

162 B. Candidate Park & Ride Site Data RTC SR-160 Corridor Study County Parcel No. No. & Govt. Description (pt N2 sec ) Location / Map(s) Torrey Pines to UPRR mainline N/S of 160 North Fronts on SR-160, Torrey Pines, El Camino Owned by USA / BLM Size (acres) Comments 28 On north side of SR-160. SR-160 will go aerial over the UPRR in this area. Photos (taken 2/14/06) Access from west may be possible under overpass, parallel to UPRR tracks (using part of site #1-4 above). Looking N just west of west side of UPRR ROW. The lot is long and narrow, requiring careful design to minimize walking distances. Looking W just west of west side of UPRR ROW. Looking northeast on west side of UPRR ROW. Tracks visible just past powerline. B-14

163 B. Candidate Park & Ride Site Data RTC SR-160 Corridor Study County Parcel No. No. & Govt. Description 3-5 Two parcels: Location / Map(s) Immediately east of Arville, with larger adjacent parcel extending to Valley View N/S of 160 North Fronts on SR-160, Arville Owned by CC Dept of Aviation Size (acres) 8.25 and 40 (C-2) Comments On north side of SR-160. Current construction appears to be for retail development. Photos (taken 2/14/06) May be able to take advantage of opportunistic or joint-use parking. Looking NE from middle of parcel along SR-160. Signage indicates retail center under construction Looking N from middle of parcel along SR-160; construction apparent. Looking W from middle of parcel along SR-160. B-15

164 C. SR-160 Major Intersections RTC SR-160 Corridor Study APPENDIX C SR-160 Major Intersections C-1

165 C. SR-160 Major Intersections RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT C-1: SR-160 at Las Vegas Blvd. C-2

166 C. SR-160 Major Intersections RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT C-2: SR-160 at I-15 C-3

167 C. SR-160 Major Intersections RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT C-3: SR-160 at Industrial C-4

168 C. SR-160 Major Intersections RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT C-4: SR-160 at Valley View Blvd. C-5

169 C. SR-160 Major Intersections RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT C-5: SR-160 at Arville C-6

170 C. SR-160 Major Intersections RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT C-6: SR-160 at Decatur C-7

171 C. SR-160 Major Intersections RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT C-7: SR-160 at Jones (Note: North is toward the bottom of the drawing) C-8

172 C. SR-160 Major Intersections RTC SR-160 Corridor Study EXHIBIT C-8: SR-160 at Rainbow (Note: North is toward the bottom of the drawing) C-9

173 D. RTC Policies and Procedures RTC SR-160 Corridor Study APPENDIX D RTC Policies and Procedures Last Revised: March 9, 2006 Excerpt covering Guidelines for the Provision of Bus Turnouts and Passenger Loading Areas for the Citizens Area Transit (CAT) Bus Including Uniform Standard Drawings for Bus Stops D-1

174 D. RTC Policies and Procedures RTC SR-160 Corridor Study D-2

175 D. RTC Policies and Procedures RTC SR-160 Corridor Study D-3

176 D. RTC Policies and Procedures RTC SR-160 Corridor Study D-4

177 D. RTC Policies and Procedures RTC SR-160 Corridor Study D-5

178 D. RTC Policies and Procedures RTC SR-160 Corridor Study D-6

179 D. RTC Policies and Procedures RTC SR-160 Corridor Study D-7

180 D. RTC Policies and Procedures RTC SR-160 Corridor Study D-8

181 D. RTC Policies and Procedures RTC SR-160 Corridor Study D-9

182 D. RTC Policies and Procedures RTC SR-160 Corridor Study D-10

183 D. RTC Policies and Procedures RTC SR-160 Corridor Study D-11

184 D. RTC Policies and Procedures RTC SR-160 Corridor Study D-12

185 D. RTC Policies and Procedures RTC SR-160 Corridor Study D-13

186 D. RTC Policies and Procedures RTC SR-160 Corridor Study D-14

187 D. RTC Policies and Procedures RTC SR-160 Corridor Study D-15