(Blue Diamond Road) Corridor Study - Regional Transportation ...

State Route 160 

(Blue Diamond Road) Corridor Study 

Final Report 

August 31, 2006 

Booz Allen Hamilton 

with Civilwise Inc.

Table of Contents 

RTC SR-160 Corridor Study 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................... 1-1 

2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS OF STUDY AREA ................................................... 2-1 

2.1 Description of SR-160 ....................................................................................2-1 

2.2 Geographic Boundaries ..................................................................................2-1 

2.3 Communities Served......................................................................................2-1 

2.4 Current Zoning and Community Plans ..............................................................2-3 

2.4.1 Clark County ......................................................................................2-3 

2.4.2 2004 Land Use Plan for Enterprise.........................................................2-3 

2.5 Current Land Use ..........................................................................................2-4 

2.5.1 Public Facilities Needs Assessment ........................................................2-5 

2.6 Future Growth ..............................................................................................2-6 

2.6.1 Transit-Supportive Land-Use Actions .....................................................2-7 

2.6.2 Recent Growth Management Activities .................................................2-13 

2.6.3 Potential for Future Growth ................................................................2-13 

2.7 Study Area Demographics ............................................................................2-14 

2.7.1 Population ........................................................................................2-15 

2.7.2 Employment .....................................................................................2-16 

2.8 Study Area Transportation System ................................................................2-17 

2.8.1 Daily Volumes...................................................................................2-18 

2.8.2 Congestion Index ..............................................................................2-19 

2.8.3 Level of Service (LOS) .......................................................................2-19 

2.9 Highways and Major Arterials........................................................................2-22 

2.9.1 Major Highways ................................................................................2-24 

2.9.2 Major Arterials ..................................................................................2-25 

2.10 Transit Services ..........................................................................................2-27 

2.10.1 Route Descriptions, Service Levels, and Ridership .................................2-27 

3.0 OVERVIEW OF TRANSIT MODES ................................................................ 3-1 

3.1 Conventional Bus Transit................................................................................3-1 

3.1.1 Overview............................................................................................3-1 

3.1.2 Vehicle Characteristics .........................................................................3-2 

3.1.3 Infrastructure Elements .......................................................................3-4 

3.1.4 Service Characteristics.........................................................................3-5 

3.1.5 Costs .................................................................................................3-5 

i



3.2 Bus Rapid Transit ..........................................................................................3-6 

3.2.1 Overview............................................................................................3-6 

3.2.2 Vehicle Characteristics .........................................................................3-7 

3.2.3 Infrastructure Elements .......................................................................3-8 

3.2.4 Service Characteristics.......................................................................3-10 

3.2.5 Costs ...............................................................................................3-10 

3.3 Light Rail Transit / Diesel Multiple Unit Transit ................................................3-12 

3.3.1 Overview..........................................................................................3-12 

3.3.2 Vehicle Characteristics .......................................................................3-13 

3.3.3 Infrastructure Elements .....................................................................3-14 

3.3.4 Service Characteristics.......................................................................3-15 

3.3.5 Capital Costs ....................................................................................3-15 

4.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY .................................................................... 4-1 

4.1 Factors Guiding Transit Expansion ...................................................................4-1 

4.2 Screening Methodology ..................................................................................4-3 

5.0 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT.................................................................... 5-1 

5.1 Radial and Cross Town Alignments ..................................................................5-1 

5.2 Physical Characteristics of Specific Alignments ..................................................5-2 

5.2.1 Radial Alignments ...............................................................................5-3 

5.2.2 Cross-Town Alignments........................................................................5-8 

5.3 Modal Options.............................................................................................5-10 

5.3.1 Light Rail/DMU..................................................................................5-11 

5.3.2 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) .....................................................................5-12 

5.3.3 Conventional Bus Transit....................................................................5-12 

5.4 Alternative Refinement ................................................................................5-13 

6.0 SR-160 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PLAN .................................................. 6-1 

6.1 Current conditions and SR-160 expansion project..............................................6-1 

6.2 Future Highway Lane Configuration .................................................................6-3 

6.3 Signaled Intersection Configuration .................................................................6-3 

6.4 Optimizing movement of transit vehicles ..........................................................6-4 

6.4.1 Queue-Jumping Intersections ...............................................................6-4 

6.4.2 Left Turn Lanes...................................................................................6-6 

6.4.3 Bus Signal Priority...............................................................................6-7 

6.5 Congestion Management Strategies.................................................................6-8 

6.5.1 Transportation System Management......................................................6-8 

6.5.2 Future Roadway System Performance ....................................................6-8 

ii



6.6 Representative Intersection Diagram ...............................................................6-9 

6.7 Union Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way ...............................................................6-11 

6.7.1 Overview..........................................................................................6-11 

6.7.2 Analysis by Segment .........................................................................6-12 

6.7.3 Conclusions ......................................................................................6-15 

7.0 PROPOSED PARK AND RIDE FACILITIES ................................................... 7-1 

7.1 Park & Ride Site and Design Criteria ................................................................7-1 

7.1.1 Location .............................................................................................7-1 

7.1.2 Configuration......................................................................................7-1 

7.1.3 Other Factors......................................................................................7-2 

7.2 Candidate Park & Ride Sites ...........................................................................7-2 

7.3 Recommended Park & Ride Sites.....................................................................7-4 

7.3.1 SR-160 east of S. Hualapai Way............................................................7-6 

7.3.2 SR-160 west of S. Durango Drive ........................................................7-11 

7.3.3 SR-160 between Rainbow and Torrey Pines ..........................................7-15 

7.4 Land Acquisition Options ..............................................................................7-19 

7.5 Bus Stops...................................................................................................7-20 

7.5.1 SR-160 at S. Buffalo Drive .................................................................7-21 

7.5.2 SR-160 at Arville Street .....................................................................7-21 

7.5.3 S. Decatur Boulevard near W. Robindale Road and W. Windmill Lane.......7-22 

8.0 COST ESTIMATES FOR TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES........................................ 8-1 

8.1 Capital Cost Estimates ...................................................................................8-1 

8.1.1 Overview of Capital Cost Benchmarks ....................................................8-1 

8.1.2 Alternative 1 –High Growth ..................................................................8-3 

8.1.3 Alternative 2 – Moderate Growth...........................................................8-5 

8.1.4 Summary/Conclusions .........................................................................8-6 

8.2 Operating Cost Estimates ...............................................................................8-7 

8.2.1 Estimation Methodology .......................................................................8-7 

8.2.2 Alternative 1 – High Growth .................................................................8-8 

8.2.3 Alternative 2 – moderate growth.........................................................8-10 

8.2.4 Summary/Conclusions .......................................................................8-11 

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



LIST OF EXHIBITS 

EXHIBIT 2-1: Map of Clark County’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan ..............................2-2 

EXHIBIT 2-2: Percentage of Land Use in Enterprise by Type ........................................2-4 

EXHIBIT 2-3: 2003 LAND USE .................................................................................2-5 

EXHIBIT 2-4: FUTURE LAND USE 2005 – 2030...........................................................2-6 

EXHIBIT 2-5: Major Projects in SR-160 Area..............................................................2-7 

EXHIBIT 2-6: Mixed Use Overlay District .................................................................2-12 

EXHIBIT 2-7: Enterprise Annual Population and Growth Rates 1990-2003 ...................2-15 

EXHIBIT 2-8: 2025 Employment Density.................................................................2-16 

EXHIBIT 2-9: SR-160 East at Jones Blvd .................................................................2-17 

EXHIBIT 2-10: SR-160 at Decatur Blvd ...................................................................2-18 

EXHIBIT 2-11: Level of Service (LOS).....................................................................2-20 

EXHIBIT 2-12: Level of Service (LOS) along SR-160 .................................................2-21 

EXHIBIT 2-13: Roadway System Classes.................................................................2-22 

EXHIBIT 2-14: 10-year Trend in Average Daily Traffic...............................................2-23 

EXHIBIT 2-15: Current and 2025 Traffic and LOS on Major Arterials ...........................2-25 

EXHIBIT 3-1: CAT Conventional Bus Service..............................................................3-2 

EXHIBIT 3-2: Conventional Bus Size and Capacity......................................................3-2 

EXHIBIT 3-3: Conventional Bus Transit Capital Costs..................................................3-6 

EXHIBIT 3-4: Body Design Types .............................................................................3-7 

EXHIBIT 3-5: Specialized BRT Vehicles .....................................................................3-7 

EXHIBIT 3-6: MAX Station at Las Vegas Blvd and Carey..............................................3-9 

EXHIBIT 3-7: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Capital Costs by Element ................................3-10 

EXHIBIT 3-8: Opening Dates for LRT Systems .........................................................3-12 

EXHIBIT 3-9: Light Rail Project Costs Over Time ($2003)...........................................3-16 

EXHIBIT 4-1: Carrying Capacity of Mass Transit Alternatives ........................................4-4 

EXHIBIT 5-1: Summary Assessment of Potential Alignments ........................................5-1 

EXHIBIT 5-2: Major Radial Alignments .......................................................................5-3 

EXHIBIT 5-3: Durango Drive Radial Alignment ............................................................5-4 

EXHIBIT 5-4: Rainbow Boulevard Radial Alignment .....................................................5-5 

EXHIBIT 5-5: Decatur Boulevard Radial Alignment ......................................................5-6 

EXHIBIT 5-6: Las Vegas Boulevard South Radial Alignment ..........................................5-7 

EXHIBIT 5-7: Major Cross-town Alignments................................................................5-8 

EXHIBIT 5-8: Warm Springs Road Cross-Town Alignment.............................................5-9 

EXHIBIT 5-9: Summary of Alignments and Modes .....................................................5-10 

iv



EXHIBIT 5-10: Alternative 1 – High Growth (2008) ...................................................5-15 




EXHIBIT 5-14: Alternative 2 – Moderate Growth (2015).............................................5-19 

EXHIBIT 5-15: Alternative 2 – Moderate Growth (2025).............................................5-20 

EXHIBIT 6-1: Dedicated Bus Lanes...........................................................................6-3 

EXHIBIT 6-2: Signaled Intersections.........................................................................6-3 

EXHIBIT 6-3: Possible Right-Turn / Queue-Jump Lane Configurations ...........................6-5 

EXHIBIT 6-4: Right-Turn Island ...............................................................................6-6 

EXHIBIT 6-5: SR-160 at Arville ..............................................................................6-10 

EXHIBIT 6-6: Overview of Blue Diamond Right-of-Way .............................................6-11 

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.....................................................................6-13 

EXHIBIT 6-9: UPRR ROW Looking SE ......................................................................6-13 

EXHIBIT 6-10: Right-of-Way from Crossing of SR-160 to Durango Dr. ........................6-13 

EXHIBIT 6-11: Railroad Right-of-Way Within SR-160 Corridor....................................6-14 

EXHIBIT 6-12: Right-of-Way Between Durango Dr. and Ft. Apache Rd........................6-14 

EXHIBIT 6-13: Right-of-Way with Westchester Hills Behind .......................................6-15 

EXHIBIT 6-14: Parcel Owners along Union Pacific Right-of-Way .................................6-16 

EXHIBIT 7-1: Candidate Park & Ride Sites.................................................................7-3 

EXHIBIT 7-2: S. Hualapai Way to S. Rainbow Blvd. ....................................................7-3 

EXHIBIT 7-3: S. Rainbow Blvd. to I-15 .....................................................................7-4 

EXHIBIT 7-4: S. Hualapai Way to S. Rainbow Blvd. ....................................................7-5 

EXHIBIT 7-5: S. Rainbow Blvd. to I-15 .....................................................................7-5 

EXHIBIT 7-6: Park & Ride Site 1-1 ...........................................................................7-7 

EXHIBIT 7-7: Aerial Photo, with Parcels, of P&R Site 1-1 .............................................7-8 

EXHIBIT 7-8: P&R Site 1-1 Facing Southeast .............................................................7-8 

EXHIBIT 7-9: Park & Ride 1-1 Configuration ............................................................7-10 

EXHIBIT 7-10: Residential Density at SR-160 / Durango ...........................................7-11 

EXHIBIT 7-11: Park & Ride Site 1-2/2-2..................................................................7-11 

EXHIBIT 7-12: Aerial Photo, with Parcels, of P&R Site 1-2/2-2 ...................................7-12 

EXHIBIT 7-13: P&R Site 1-2 Facing West ................................................................7-12 

EXHIBIT 7-14: Park & Ride 1-2/2-2 Configuration ....................................................7-14 

EXHIBIT 7-15: Park & Ride Site 1-4........................................................................7-15 

EXHIBIT 7-16: Aerial Photo, with Parcels, of P&R Site 1-4 .........................................7-16 

EXHIBIT 7-17: P&R Site 1-4 Facing Northwest .........................................................7-16 

v



EXHIBIT 7-18: Bus Route Through P&R Site 1-4.......................................................7-17 

EXHIBIT 7-19: Park & Ride 1-4 Configuration ..........................................................7-18 

EXHIBIT 7-20: BLM Rights-of-Way and Reservations for Park & Ride Facilities .............7-19 

EXHIBIT 7-21: Facing West From SR-160 at Buffalo .................................................7-21 

EXHIBIT 7-22: Facing North on Decatur Boulevard at Windmill Lane...........................7-22 

EXHIBIT 8-1: Summary of MAX Project Costs ............................................................8-2 

EXHIBIT 8-2: Alternative 1 – High Growth, Capital Costs.............................................8-4 

EXHIBIT 8-3: Alternative 2 – Moderate Growth Capital Costs .......................................8-5 

EXHIBIT 8-4: Hourly Marginal Costs for CAT Services .................................................8-7 

EXHIBIT 8-5: Segment Lengths ...............................................................................8-8 

EXHIBIT 8-6: Alternative 1 – Operating Costs............................................................8-9 

EXHIBIT 8-7: Alternative 2 – Moderate Growth Operating Costs.................................8-10 

EXHIBIT 8-8: Comparison of Vehicle Service Hours ..................................................8-11 

EXHIBIT A-1: Aerial View 1 .................................................................................... A-2 









EXHIBIT A-9: Aerial View 9 ...................................................................................A-10 

EXHIBIT A-10: Aerial View 10 ................................................................................A-11 






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-15.................................................................................. 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



EXHIBIT C-7: SR-160 at Jones................................................................................ C-8 

EXHIBIT C-8: SR-160 at Rainbow............................................................................ C-9 

vii

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 2025. 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 2025. 

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


 

 

 

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 

Bus Rapid 

Transit (BRT) 

Light Rail / 

Diesel 

Multiple Unit 

(DMU) 

Roadway with pedestrianaccessible 

stop location; bus 

stop signs with route info 

Protective bus shelters for 

high-volume stops 

Mixed traffic streets, 

dedicated/reserved lanes or 

grade-separated transitways 

Stations with shelters 

integrated into 

medians/sideways; ticket 

machines 

Trackway, vehicles, stations 

Storage yards 

Fixed equipment 

30,000 to 

100,000 

passengers 

per month 

4,000 to 

40,000 

passengers 

per day 

10,000 to 

90,000 

passengers 

per day 

CAT does not currently operate 

local routes in study area (no 

limited stop routes in study area) 

Crosstown service – local or 

limited stop 

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 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


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 2025. 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


Buses would operate on 15-30 minute headways, depending on route and time of day. The 

routes would be integrated into the RTC’s existing route network. 

2025 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


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 $ 2008 2015 2025 

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 27113-3, 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


 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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-160 

2-1


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


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. 

2.4.1 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. §278.150). 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. 

2.4.2 2004 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


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


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 

2.5.1 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


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 2005 – 2030. 

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 2005 – 2030 

2-6


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 

2.6.1 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


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. 2002. Making Smart Growth Work. Washington: Urban Land Institute 

2-8


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


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 30. 48 Part J, which sets forth the basic provisions 

of the Mixed Use Overlay District. According to Section 30.48.700, 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


 

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


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


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 50-80 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. 

2.6.2 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-0419-06. This 

proposed ordinance would extend the moratorium on nonconforming zone changes on 

properties within the Enterprise Land Use Plan, through December 2008. The moratorium 

extension was approved by the Clark County Commission on June 7, 2006. 

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. 

2.6.3 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


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). 3 

2.7 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 2004. 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 2008. 4 The population is anticipated to reach 

649,000 by the year 2025. 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 2025. The next 

3 The Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) became law in October, 1998. 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 1998. 

4 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


section documents population and employment densities for the study area, both for 2004 

conditions and as forecasted for 2025. 

EXHIBIT 2-7: Enterprise Annual Population and Growth Rates 1990-2003 

2.7.1 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 2006. 

2-15


2.7.2 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


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


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. 

2.8.1 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


2.8.2 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. 

2.8.3 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. 22-39. 

2-19


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 10 650 0.295 - 0.283 

B 16 1,040 0.473 - 0.452 

C 24 1,548 0.704 - 0.673 

D 32 1,952 0.887- 0.849 

E 39-43 2,200 - 2,300 1.000 

F Variable Variable Variable 

For our purposes, we will focus on LOS to determine baseline and future conditions at 

several locations along SR-160. 6 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


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 2023. 

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-160 

2003 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


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 2-13. 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


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 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

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


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. 

2.9.1 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


2.9.2 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


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 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


2.10 TRANSIT SERVICES 

2.10.1 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

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. 

overview of several mode characteristics, including: 

This discussion includes an 

 

 

 

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 

3.1.1 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


EXHIBIT 3-1: CAT Conventional Bus Service 

3.1.2 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) 

96-102 in 

(2.5- 2.6m) 

# Door 

Channels 

# Seats, 

including seats 

in wheel chair 

tie-down areas) 

Maximum 

Capacity* 

(seated plus 

standing) 

2-3 35-44 50-60 

Double-Decker 

(14 ft height) 

30 - 40 

(9.1 - 12.2 m) 

96-102 in 

(2.5- 2.6m) 

2-3 65-74 70 - 88 

Extended 45 (13.8 m) 

96-102 in 

(2.45-2.6m) 

2-3 35-52 60-70 

3-2


Configuration 

Length 

(Feet) 

Articulated 60 (18 m) 

Width 

(inches) 

98-102 in 

(2.5-2.6m) 

# Door 

Channels 

# Seats, 

including seats 

in wheel chair 

tie-down areas) 

Maximum 

Capacity* 

(seated plus 

standing) 

4-7 31-65 80-90 

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 2001. 

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


 

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. 

3.1.3 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


3.1.4 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. 

3.1.5 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 2004. 

3-5


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 


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 


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



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


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. 


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


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 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



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. 

3.2.5 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 


Running Way 

Mixed Flow Lanes -- 

Designated Lanes $2.5 - $2.9 million Lane mile 

At-Grade Exclusive Lanes $6.5 – 10.2 million Lane mile 

Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes – Aerial 

Grade-Separated Exclusive Lanes – Below 

Grade 

$12 – 30 million 

$60 – 105 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 2004. 

3-10



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 


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 



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


3.3 LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT / DIESEL MULTIPLE UNIT TRANSIT 


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


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). 


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



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. 


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



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 18-20 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. 

3.3.5 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


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

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


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


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


 

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) 

40 

30 

20 

10 

BRT 

LRT 

AGT 

Heavy Rail 

0 

5,000 

10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 

Capacity (passengers/hour) 

4-4


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

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 2006. 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


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 2006-2030, 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


5.2.1 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 

Jones Jones Blvd 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-215. 

5-3


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 2006. 

EXHIBIT 5-3: Durango Drive Radial Alignment 

CC-215 

Aerial view of Durango Drive looking north of SR-160 

5-4


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


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 Blvd @ UPRR looking north 

5-6


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


5.2.2 Cross-Town Alignments 

Several cross-town alignments are considered and characterized. 

cross-town alignments are depicted in Exhibit 5-7. 

The three east-west 

EXHIBIT 5-7: Major Cross-town Alignments 

CC-215 


Durango Durango Drive 

Buffalo Drive 

Rainbow Blvd 

Silverado Ranch Blvd 

Jones Jones Blvd 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


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 


to be completed after 

UPRR at Decatur is 

fully grade separated 

Aerial view of Warm Springs Road facing west 

5-9


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-15 

5.3 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


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. 

5.3.1 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


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. 

5.3.2 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. 

5.3.3 Conventional Bus Transit 

Conventional bus transit service, both local and express service, may be appropriate 

solutions for certain alignments. 

5-12


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 2025. 

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 2025. 

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


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


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



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- 

160. 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



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



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-160. 

5-18


EXHIBIT 5-14: Alternative 2 – Moderate Growth (2015) 


(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: 

SR-160 @ Hualapai Way (PR 1-1) 

SR-160 @ El Capitan Way 

SR-160 @ Buffalo Drive 

SR-160 @ Rainbow Blvd (PR 1-4) 

SR-160 @ Lindell Road 

SR-160 @ Arville Road 

Las Vegas Boulevard @ 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

2. Study Area Transportation System RTC SR-160 Corridor Study 

EXHIBIT 5-15: Alternative 2 – Moderate Growth (2025) 


(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 


5-20

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


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


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


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 


6 Arville Straight through Queue-jumping lanes and TSP 


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 


9 Jones Straight through Queue-jumping lanes and TSP 


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-160 

11 Rainbow NB Rainbow to WB SR-160 

and vice versa 

12 Buffalo Straight through Queue-jumping lanes and TSP 


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-160. 

6.4 OPTIMIZING MOVEMENT OF TRANSIT VEHICLES 

Various strategies can be implemented to expedite bus movement through signalized 

intersections and minimize delays. 

6.4.1 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


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. 53 

6-5


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. 

6.4.2 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


6.4.3 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. 50 

6-7


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 

6.5.1 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. 

6.5.2 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


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


EXHIBIT 6-5: SR-160 at Arville 

6-10


6.7 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY 


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


 

 

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, 2005. This corridor will be examined in three segments from east to west. 

6.7.2 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-160. 

6-12


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


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


$8.85M in March of 2005. 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 

6.7.3 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- 

160. 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


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-2 25.6 - - 50 

2 Albert A Flangas H-2 1.12 Mar 05 $8.85 100 

3 USA / BLM H-2 10.6 - - 50 

4 Farmanali Family Trust H-2 4.68 Oct 05 $4.93 50 

5 E&C Verzilli Family Trust H-2 1.16 Jun 05 $2.04 100 



8 unknown R-3 N/A N/A N/A 100 

9 Aries Holding LLC H-2 1.38 N/A N/A 100 

10 Storybook Homes LLC H-2 3.88 Aug 05 $3.15 30 

11 Allay Investments LLC H-2 1.49 Aug 05 $0.81 100 




15 Blue Diamond BLM LLC H-2 1.79 N/A N/A 40 

16 Aries Holding LLC H-2 1.86 N/A N/A 40 

17 Lucky Blue 007 LLC & M Peyman C-2 1.93 Jul 05 $0.96 30 

18 Lucky Blue 007 LLC & M Peyman C-2 2.0 Aug 05 $1.9 25 

19 Buffalo & Blue Diamond NE H-2 6.46 N/A N/A 5 

South of SR-160, listed north to south 

20 Mountains Edge LLC H-2 3.81 N/A N/A 20 * 

21 Mountains Edge LLC R-E 5.0 N/A N/A 30 * 

22 JV Properties LLC H-2 2.5 May 05 $1.1 10 

23 NATO Fund Inc R-E 2.5 Aug 05 $1.22 40 

24 Adams Linda Williams R-E 2.06 Jun 82 $0.12 40 

25 Lin Hwai Yu and Lun Chan R-E 2.0 Sep 04 $0.65 5 

26 Michael and Suzanne Hall R-E 0.64 Apr 80 $0.025 10 

27 Anderson and Zook R-E 2.07 Feb 97 $0.28 10 

28 D. Hilbrecht R-E 2.11 N/A N/A 5 

29 Rosanna & Gomer Investments R-E 2.5 Jan 04 $0.35 40 

30 Rainbow & Gomer Investments R-E 2.5 Jul 03 $0.55 40 

6-16


No. Owner Zoning 

Size 

(acres) 

Most 

Recent 

Sale 

Price 

($M) 

Approx. 

% on 

ROW 

31 Gomer & Rainbow Investments R-E 2.12 Apr 04 $0.575 5 

32 Robert Hixon R-E 2.5 N/A N/A 10 

33 Ganesh LLC R-E 2.5 Apr 05 $1.9 10 

34/35 USA / BLM R-E > 400 - - ** 

* 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

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. 

7.1.1 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 



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. 

7.1.2 Configuration 

The following criteria help guide Park & Ride facility design. 

7-1


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. 

7.1.3 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


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 

1-1 18 USA/BLM Hualapai 

1-2 10 USA/BLM Arlington Ranch 

Group 1: meet all criteria 1-3 200 USA/BLM Buffalo 

1-4 57 USA/BLM Torrey Pines 

1-5 13 Blue Diamond Ranch Decatur 

2-1 11 USA/BLM Hualapai 

Group 2: meet most criteria 

2-2 11 USA/BLM Durango 

2-3 16 Blue Diamond Ranch Decatur 

2-4 40 CC Dept. of Aviation Valley View 

3-1 32 USA/BLM Grand Canyon 

3-2 26 USA/BLM Ft. Apache 

Group 3: less favorable sites 3-3 77 USA/BLM Belcastro 

3-4 28 USA/BLM Torrey Pines 

3-5 48 CC Dept. of Aviation Arville 

EXHIBIT 7-2: S. Hualapai Way to S. Rainbow Blvd. 

Hualapai 

Durango 

Buffalo 

7-3


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. 

distributed on the corridor, as shown in EXHIBIT 7-4 and EXHIBIT 7-5 below. 

They are well 

7-4


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 

Rainbow 

EXHIBIT 7-5: S. Rainbow Blvd. to I-15 

Decatur 

Dean Martin 

I-15 

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 7.5. 

7-5


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. 

7.3.1 SR-160 east of S. Hualapai Way 

Reference No.: 1-1 

Size: 

17.7 acres (total) 

Owner: 

USA / BLM 

Parcel Number: 176-19-101-011 (govt lot 17 & pt govt lot 16) 

176-19-101-013 (pt govt lot 19 & pt govt lot 20) 

176-19-201-001 (pt SW4 NW4 sec 19 22 60) 

7-6


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: 176-19-101-011 (1.6 acres), 

176-19-101-013 (1.73 acres), and 176-19-201-001 (14.42 acres). The ground-level shot, 

looking toward the southeast, was taken in May, 2006. The site analysis did not determine 

whether any utilities are currently available. 

7-7


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


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 176-19-101-012 

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


EXHIBIT 7-9: Park & Ride 1-1 Configuration 

7-10


7.3.2 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: 176-20-601-009 (pt S2 NE4 sec 20 22 60) (south) 

176-20-601-014 (pt N2 sec 20 22 60) (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 7-10. 

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


two sites connected by a pedestrian bridge. 

without having to use or cross SR-160. 

Automobiles could access the Park & Ride 

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 7-14. 

7-12


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


EXHIBIT 7-14: Park & Ride 1-2/2-2 Configuration 

POTENTIAL FOR 

MUTUAL ACCESS 

EASEMENT 

7-14


7.3.3 SR-160 between Rainbow and Torrey Pines 

Reference No.: 1-4 

Size: 

~65 acres (total) 

Owner: 

USA / BLM 

Parcel Numbers: 176-23-601-017 (pt N2 sec 23 22 60) 

176-23-201-003 (pt S2 N2 sec 23 22 60) 

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 57.11 acre Clark County parcel 176-23-601-017. 

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 

176-23-201-003 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


with the Clark County aerial shot taken in September, 2005, and the ground-level picture, 

looking northwest from Serene and Torrey Pines, in May, 2006. 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


The configuration of this facility is shown in EXHIBIT 7-19. 

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 7-18. 

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


EXHIBIT 7-19: Park & Ride 1-4 Configuration 

7-18


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 7-20. 

EXHIBIT 7-20: BLM Rights-of-Way and Reservations for Park & Ride Facilities 

BLM 

Rights-of-Way 

Parcel 

1-1 5427 – authorized telephone/telegraph, 

10 feet wide 

3983 - authorized telephone/telegraph, 

10 feet wide 

60107 – authorized oil and gas pipeline, 

40 feet wide 

76038 - authorized water facility – 60 

feet wide 

1-2 1871 – authorized telephone/telegraph, 

10 feet wide 

60107 - authorized oil and gas pipeline, 

40 feet wide 

78316 – authorized power trans, 10 feet 

wide 

7099– authorized telephone/telegraph, 

width varies 

2-2 60682 – pending road, width varies 

76127 - authorized water facility,17 - 32 

feet wide 

1-4 39876 – authorized power trans, 5 feet 

wide 


wide 


wide 

75198 – authorized road, width varies 

61478 - authorized road, 30 feet wide 

Reservations 

Government Lot 32 – 

identified for public sale 

77376 – Pending 

Affordable Housing 







77378 – 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


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 (http://www.rtcsouthernnevada.com/rtc), 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 27113-3, 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


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. 

7.5.1 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. 

7.5.2 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


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. 

7.5.3 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

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 

8.1.1 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


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 $ 11,960,386 58.9% 

Vehicle Mfg Inspection - TRC/Semaly $ 340,760 1.7% 

Passenger Shelters 

Engineering Services - Stanley Consultants $ 1,150,966 5.7% 

Construction Bid (West Coast Contractors) $ 4,152,259 20.5% 

Guidance Markings $ 55,532 0.3% 

Miscellaneous $ 15,530 0.1% 

Dynamic Message Signs 

Passenger Information Displays $ - 

0.0% 

Ticket Vending Machines 

Production & Installation - GenFare Inc. $ 1,900,000 9.4% 

Fare Collection Design $ 200,000 1.0% 

Radio Communications/AVL 

Radio/AVL/APC Installation - Orbital $ 298,810 1.5% 

Transit Signal Priority 

Implementation Strategy & Analysis $ 26,026 0.1% 

Traffic Signal Equipment - 3M $ 120,000 0.6% 

Vehicle Emitters - 3M $ 10,945 0.1% 

Signal Controller Software Mods - GTS $ - 

0.0% 

Data Collection & Mgmt - Econolit/TrafficWerks $ 59,200 0.3% 

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


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 8-1. 

8.1.2 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 2025. 

8-3


EXHIBIT 8-2: Alternative 1 – High Growth, Capital Costs 

Alternative 1 – 

2008 

(’06 $) 


2015 

(’06 $) 


2025 

(’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 - 

$74,014,000 

8-4


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. 

8.1.3 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 2025 - 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 2015. 

EXHIBIT 8-3: Alternative 2 – Moderate Growth Capital Costs 

System Elements 


2008 

(’06 $) 


2015 

(’06 $) 


2025 

(’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 -- -- $500,000 

8-5


System Elements 


2008 

(’06 $) 


2015 

(’06 $) 


2025 

(’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. 

8.1.4 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


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. 

8.2.1 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 2004 2006 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


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 


4.1 

Rhodes 

Ranch 

To Rainbow Blvd 

2.2 To Decatur Blvd 

& Dewey 215 

Dr 

& Tropicana Ave 3.0 

2.0 

2.0 


Windmill Lane 

Jones Blvd 

Jones Blvd 

.25 

Pinnacle 

Peaks 

1.4 

To Transfer 

Point 

1.3 

1.0 

Blue Diamond 

.5 

.5 

Dean Martin Drive 

.6 

.5 


Las 

Vegas 

Outlet 

Center 

Windmill Lane 

.25 

To Transit 

Center 

Durango Drive 

Durango Drive 

2.4 

2.3 

1.5 

I-15 

Las Vegas Blvd 

Las Vegas Blvd 

Bermuda Road 

Bermuda Road 

PR 1-4 

1.6 

Hualapai Way 

PR 1-1 

Mountains 

2.1 Edge 

2.3 

.5 

Jones Blvd 

Jones Blvd 

Decatur Blvd 

Decatur Blvd 

Silverado Ranch Blvd 

UPRR 

Cactus Ave 

Rainbow Blvd 

Rainbow Blvd 

Buffalo Drive 

Buffalo Drive 

N 0 1 2 

Scale: Miles 

Southern 

Highlands 

©2006 Rand McNally & Company 

8.2.2 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 2025. 

2008 

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


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. 

2025 

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 


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 


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 1 

– 2008 

(’06 millions $) 

Alternative 1 

– 2015 


Alternative 1 

– 2025 


8.84 30 20,877 $1.16 $1.16 $1.16 

11.38 20 40,313 -- -- $2.25 

10.48 15 38,076 $2.12 -- -- 

10.99 30 19,965 -- $1.11 $1.11 

10.48 15 30,937 -- $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


8.2.3 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 5-15. 

2008 

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). 

2015 

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. 

2025 

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 5-15. 

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 


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 

2 – 2008 


Alternative 

2 – 2015 


Alternative 

2 – 2025 


8.87 20 31,421 -- $1.75 $1.75 

9.99 15 36,296 $2.02 $2.02 -- 

10.99 30 19,965 -- -- $1.11 

9.99 15 29,490 -- -- $2.45 

TOTAL -- -- -- $2.02 $3.77 $5.31 

8-10


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. 

8.2.4 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 2025. 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 1 2025 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 2025. 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 71,779 112,092 36,296 67,717 80,876 

8-11

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


EXHIBIT A-1: Aerial View 1 

A-2



A-3



A-4



A-5



A-6



A-7



A-8



A-9



A-10



A-11



A-12



A-13



A-14



A-15



A-16

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

APPENDIX B 

Candidate Park & Ride Site Data 

B-1


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: 

17619101011 

(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. 

17619101013 

(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. 

17619201001 

(pt SW4 NW4 

sec 19 22 60) 

Looking SE from northeast corner of 

Hualapai and SR-160, with SR-160 in 

midground. 

B-2


County Parcel 

No. No. & Govt. 

Description 

1-2 17620601009 

(pt S2 NE4 sec 

20 22 60) 


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


County Parcel 


Description 

1-3 Two parcels: 

17622201018 

(pt SW4 NW4 

sec 22 22 60) 

17622301014 

(pt S2 sec 22 

22 60) 


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


County Parcel 


Description 


17623601017 

(pt N2 sec 23 

22 60) 


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) 

17623201003 

(pt S2 N2 sec 

23 22 60) 

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


No. 

County Parcel 

No. & Govt. 

Description 


N/S of 

160 

Fronts on 

1-5 17613801025 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 


Looking S from southwest corner of 


B-6


No. 

County Parcel 

No. & Govt. 

Description 

2-1 17619101002 

(govt lots 7,9- 

11 & pt govt 

lots 15,16) 


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


County Parcel 


Description 

2-2 17620601014 

(pt N2 sec 20 

22 60) 


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 


Looking NW from just west of northwest 


B-8


No. 

County Parcel 

No. & Govt. 

Description 


N/S of 

160 

Fronts on 

2-3 17718301004 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


No. 

County Parcel 

No. & Govt. 

Description 


N/S of 

160 

Fronts on 

2-4 17718602016 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


No. 

County Parcel 

No. & Govt. 

Description 


N/S of 

160 

Fronts on 

Owned 

by 

Size 

(acres) 

Comments 

Photos 

(taken 2/14/06) 

Group 3: Less desirable alternate sites 

3-1 17619101018 

(pt NE4 NW4 

sec 19 22 60 & 

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


County Parcel 


Description 

3-2 17620201015 

(pt N2 sec 20 

22 60) 


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


County Parcel 


Description 

3-3 17622501019 

(pt N2 sec 22 

22 60) 


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


County Parcel 


Description 

3-4 17623501011 

(pt N2 sec 23 

22 60) 


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


County Parcel 


Description 


17718601001 


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. 

17718501015 

Looking N from middle of parcel along 

SR-160; construction apparent. 

Looking W from middle of parcel along 

SR-160. 

B-15

C. SR-160 Major Intersections RTC SR-160 Corridor Study 

APPENDIX C 

SR-160 Major Intersections 

C-1


EXHIBIT C-1: SR-160 at Las Vegas Blvd. 

C-2


EXHIBIT C-2: SR-160 at I-15 

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


EXHIBIT C-7: SR-160 at Jones 

(Note: North is toward the bottom of the drawing) 

C-8


EXHIBIT C-8: SR-160 at Rainbow 

(Note: North is toward the bottom of the drawing) 

C-9

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


D-2


D-3


D-4


D-5


D-6


D-7


D-8


D-9


D-10


D-11


D-12


D-13


D-14


D-15

(Blue Diamond Road) Corridor Study - Regional Transportation ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?