Alternative Study

TOMORROW... 5/10/1866 Big Picture Presenter: Zant Doty Big Picture Salt Lake City is historically a rail hub. Time to be a leader again! Develop the process and show the way! TOMORROW... 5/10/1866

Salt Lake City Las Vegas Presenter: Zant Doty Scope of Project Connect Salt Lake City with Las Vegas and So. Utah Mobilize economy Infrastructure development Salt Lake City Las Vegas

Presenter: Zant Doty Scope of Project

Presenter: Zant Doty Study Objectives Provide alignment alternatives for high- speed rail from Salt Lake City - Las Vegas (McCarran Intl’ Airport) Provide UTA with engineering basis of design Promote UTA as continued leader in public transportation Provide work that can be used to gain political & economic support

Alignment Alternatives Presenter: Zant Doty Alignment Alternatives Northern Alternatives Central Alignment Southern Alternatives

Northern Alignment N-1) Tooele County N-2) Provo-South Presenter: Zant Doty Northern Alignment N-1) Tooele County N-2) Provo-South N-2-A) Tintic Mountain Cutoff N-2-B) Chicken Creek

Central Alignment C-1) Consistent for any selected alternative Presenter: Zant Doty Central Alignment C-1) Consistent for any selected alternative

Southern Alignment S-1) US-93 S-2) St. George Alignments Presenter: Zant Doty Southern Alignment S-1) US-93 S-2) St. George Alignments S-2-A) St. George S-2-B) Bulldog Canyon S-3-C) Gunlock Alignment

Evaluation Criteria North: Ranked 1-3 South: Ranked 1-2 Presenter: Daniel Thomson Evaluation Criteria North: Ranked 1-3 South: Ranked 1-2 Higher = Better The best alternative should… be the most cost-effective ensure the shortest and fastest trip provide the highest possible ridership have the least environmental impact

Cost Criteria General Track Mileage Alternative Track Mileage Presenter: Daniel Thomson Cost Criteria General Track Mileage Alternative Track Mileage Cut & Fill Estimates Easements & Ownerships Interferences Structural Features Drainage Features

Ridership Criteria Major Hubs – 2.19 million Minor Hubs – 740 k Presenter: Daniel Thomson Ridership Criteria Major Hubs – 2.19 million Salt Lake City – 1.06 million Las Vegas – 1.13 million Minor Hubs – 740 k Provo – 578 k Cedar City – 127 k St. George – 35 k

Travel Time & Speed Criteria Presenter: Daniel Thomson Travel Time & Speed Criteria Consistency Average Total Travel Time % @ 250MPH % 175 – 250 MPH % 125 – 175 MPH % < 125 MPH Average Speed Distance / Travel Time

Environmental Criteria Presenter: Daniel Thomson Environmental Criteria Protected Wildlife Vulnerable: Desert Tortoise Near Threatened: Greater-Sage Grouse Least Concern: Pronghorn Antelope, Deer, & Elk Wetlands National Forest Joshua Tree

Northern Alignment Alternatives Presenter: Grady Mensel Northern Alignment Alternatives

North: N-1) Tooele County Presenter: Grady Mensel Description Beginning at Salt Lake City Int’l Airport Heads west past Oquirrh Mountains Runs south through Tooele until reaching the Chicken Creek Alignment Connection Distance - 104.6 miles

North: N-1) Tooele County Presenter: Grady Mensel Major Alignment Constraints Oquirrh Mountains Recommendation: Tunnel Approximate Length = 3 miles Description Turns southwest before junction of Highway 201 and Interstate 80, cuts through mountain, and exits north of Lake Point Constricted Area near Stockton Recommendation: Two Cuts First, 1800 ft long by 200 ft deep Second, 1200 ft long by 100 ft deep Description This area is constricted due to the South Mountains on the west and the Oquirrh Mountains to the east

Total Cost ($) / Category North: N-1) Tooele County Presenter: Grady Mensel Total Cost Breakdown: Score = 2/3 Category Total Cost ($) / Category Cost ($) / Mile Track Materials $ 88,095,000 $ 839,000 Alternative Track $ 240,000,000 $ 2,285,714 Cut & Fill $ 195,000,000 $ 1,857,143 Easements/Ownership $ 20,950,000 $ 199,524 Interferences $ 1,350,000 $ 12,857 Structural Features $ 427,709,548 $ 4,073,424 Drainage Features $ 27,738,000 $ 264,171 Totals Cost / Mile (125%) = 11.9 M Grand Total (125%) = 1.3 B

North: N-1) Tooele County Presenter: Grady Mensel Travel Time & Speed: Score = 3/3 Alignment Total Length (mi) % Track at 250 mph % Track 175 – 250 mph % Track 125 – 175 mph % Track Below 125 mph Estimated Time (min) Average Speed (mph) Tooele County 104.6 80 12 7 1 27 232.4

North: N-1) Tooele County Presenter: Grady Mensel Ridership: Score = 3/3 Salt Lake City Population 1.06 M Percentage of for Northern Section 65% SLC International Tourism

North: N-1) Tooele County Presenter: Grady Mensel Environmental Considerations: Score = 1/3 Great Sage Grouse Length of track within habitat 65 miles Pronghorn Antelope Length of track within habitat 75 miles

Most Environmental Impact North: N-1) Tooele County Presenter: Grady Mensel Scoring Breakdown   Applicable Values Score Percent Weight Weighted Score Total Cost Breakdown $11.9M / mile $1.3B total 2 40% 0.8 Travel Time and Speed 27 min. Trip Time 232.4 mph Avg Speed 3 20% 0.6 Ridership 1.06 M people 65% of Northern pop. Environmental Considerations Most Environmental Impact 1 0.2 Weighted Sum: 2.2

N-2-A) Tintic Mountain N-2-B) Chicken Creek North: N-2) Provo Connector Presenter: Krystal Harman N-2-A) Tintic Mountain N-2-B) Chicken Creek

North: N-2-A) Provo –Tintic Mountain Presenter: Krystal Harman Description Connects Provo to the Western Alignment Curves around southern Utah Lake and north of the mountains heading west Distance - 48 miles

North: N-2-B) Provo – Chicken Creek Presenter: Krystal Harman Description Connects Provo to the Western Alignment Follows I-15 for 45 miles heading west at Chicken Creek Distance - 83 miles

Major Alignment Constraints North: N-2-A) Provo – Tintic Mountain Presenter: Krystal Harman Major Alignment Constraints Smaller Turning Radius Recommendation: Lower speed Approximate Length = 1 mile Speed = 110-125 mph from 150-175 mph Cost Time Mountain Range (Unavoidable) Description: Short peaks or high grade west of Utah Lake along mountain range Recommendation: Tunnel or Cut & Fill 0.5 miles of tunnel, along Tintic Range Cost Variable based on type of earth present

Major Alignment Constraints North: N-2-B) Provo – Chicken Creek Presenter: Krystal Harman Major Alignment Constraints Smaller Turning Radius Recommendation: Lower speed Approximate Length = 20-30 miles Speed = 90-110 mph from 150-175 mph Cost Time Mountain Range (Unavoidable) Description: Uneven earth for miles followed by a sudden elevation increase Recommendation: Tunnel or Cut and Fill 7 miles total Cost Variable based on type of earth present

Total Cost ($) / Category Total Cost ($) / Category North: N-2) Provo Connector Presenter: Krystal Harman Total Cost Breakdown (Tintic): Score = 3/3 Total Cost Breakdown (Chicken Creek): Score = 1/3 Total Cost ($) / Category Cost ($) / Mile $ 40,272,000 $ 839,000 $ 43,750,000 $ 911,458 $ 44,400,000 $ 925,000 $ 10,035,000 $ 209,063 $ 550,000 $ 11,458 $ 215,148,750 $ 4,482,266 $ 23,076,000 $ 480,750 Cost / Mile (125%) = 10 M Grand Total (125%) = 471 M Total Cost ($) / Category Cost ($) / Mile $ 69,637,000 $ 839,000 $ 522,500,000 $ 6,295,181 $ 68,400,000 $ 824,096 $ 15,325,000 $ 184,639 $ 300,000 $ 3,614 $ 169,022,928 $ 2,036,421 $ 20,271,000 $ 244,229 Cost / Mile (125%) = 13 M Grand Total (125%) = 1.1 B

North: N-2) Provo Connector Travel Time & Speed (Tintic): Score = 1/3 Travel Time & Speed (CC): Score = 2/3 Alignment Total Length (mi) % Track at 250 mph % Track 175 – 250 mph % Track 125 – 175 mph % Track Below 125 mph Estimated Time (min) Average Speed (mph) Tintic 85 43 30 26 1 36 141.66 Alignment Total Length (mi) % Track at 250 mph % Track 175 – 250 mph % Track 125 – 175 mph % Track Below 125 mph Estimated Time (min) Average Speed (mph) Chicken Creek 83 35 23 17 25 34 146.47

North: N-2) Provo Connector Presenter: Krystal Harman Ridership (Both): Score = 1.5/3 Provo Population 578 K Percentage of Northern Section 35% Third Largest City Tourist attractions

North: N-2) Provo Connector Presenter: Krystal Harman Enviro. Considerations (Tintic): Score = 2/3 Enviro. Considerations (CC): Score = 3/3 Pronghorn Antelope 19.39 miles – Tintic Mountain 1.25 miles – Chicken Creek Great Sage Grouse 7 miles – Tintic Mountain

North: N-2) Provo South Connector Presenter: Krystal Harman Scoring Summary North Alternative 2-A (Tintic Mountain) North Alternative 2-B (Chicken Creek)   Applicable Values Score Total Cost Breakdown $10M / mile $471M total 3 $13M / mile $1.1B total 1 Travel Time & Speed 36 min. Trip time 141.66 mph Avg. speed 34 min. 146.47 mph Avg. speed 2 Ridership 574 K people 35% of North pop. 1.5 Environmental Considerations Medium Environmental Impact Least Environmental Impact

North: N-2) Provo South Connector Presenter: Krystal Harman Scoring Comparison North Alternative 2-A (Tintic Mountain) North Alternative 2-B (Chicken Creek)   Total Score Percent Weight Weighted Score Overall Cost of Alternative 3 40% 1.2 1 0.4 Average Travel Time 20% 0.2 2 Ridership of Alternative 1.5 0.3 Environmental Impact 0.6 Weighted Sum: 2.1 1.7

North Alignment Alternatives Evaluation Presenter: Krystal Harman Tooele, Tintic Mtn., & Chicken Creek North Alternatives Comparison   N-1 N-2-A N-2-B Overall Cost of Alternative 0.8 1.2 0.4 Average Travel Time 0.6 0.2 Ridership of Alternative 0.3 Environmental Impact 2.2  2.1 1.7

North Alignment Alternatives Evaluation Presenter: Krystal Harman Tooele, Tintic Mtn., & Chicken Creek North Alternatives Comparison   N-1 N-2-A N-2-B Overall Cost of Alternative 0.8 1.2 0.4 Average Travel Time 0.6 0.2 Ridership of Alternative 0.3 Environmental Impact 2.2  2.1 1.7

Presenter: John Horn Central Alignment

Central: Central Alignment Presenter: John Horn No Stop Option Distance: 215 miles Speed: 250 mph Vertical Grade: 0.3% - 3.3% Time: 52 minutes Lynndyl - Beryl

Central: Central Alignment Presenter: John Horn Cedar City Loop Additon Distance: 259 miles,191 - 68 Speed: 240 mph Vertical Grade: 0.3% - 2.4% Time: 70-75 minutes

Major Alignment Constraints Central: Central Alignment Presenter: John Horn Major Alignment Constraints Both Routes Cedar Loop Option Cut and fill areas Speed Land purchases River/stream crossings Alignment Total Length (mi) % Track @ 250 mph 175 – 250 mph 125 – 175 mph % Track Below 125 mph Estimated Time (min) Central 215 92 4 3 1 50-55 Central and Cedar City Loop 259 88 8 70-75

Southern Alignment Alternatives Presenter: John Horn Southern Alignment Alternatives

South: S-1) US-93 Route Breakdown Beryl to 319 319 to Panaca Presenter: John Horn Route Breakdown Beryl to 319 319 to Panaca Bennett Springs Road/Pass US 93

South: S-1) US-93 319 to Panaca Short mountain mountain range Presenter: John Horn 319 to Panaca Short mountain mountain range Grade: 4-5% Minor cut and fills Speed: 90 mph 125 mph

South: S-1) US-93 Bennett Springs Road/Pass Presenter: John Horn Bennett Springs Road/Pass Larger mountain mountain range Grade: 4-5% Major cut and fills Speed: 90-125 mph

South: S-1) US-93 Panaca Avoids grade changes 32.2 more miles Presenter: John Horn Panaca Avoids grade changes 32.2 more miles Never drop below 150 mph

South: S-1) US-93 Panaca to US-93 Red-South Yellow-West Presenter: John Horn Panaca to US-93 Red-South Flat- high speeds, little infrastructure Rugged canyon Major cut/fill and tunnels Yellow-West Flatter Two smaller cut and fills <3.0% grades

Total Cost ($) / Category South: S-1) US-93 Presenter: John Horn Total Cost Breakdown: Score = 2/2 Category Total Cost ($) / Category Cost ($) / Mile Track Materials $ 159,410,000 $ 839,000 Alternative Track $ 45,000,000 $ 236,842 Cut & Fill $ 320,000,000 $ 1,684,211 Easements/Ownership $ 11,837,500 $ 62,303 Interferences $ 100,000 $ 526 Structural Features $ 383,722,140 $ 2,019,590 Drainage Features $ 55,722,000 $ 293,274 Totals Cost / Mile (125%) = 6.4 M Grand Total (125%) = 1.2 B

South: S-1) US-93 Travel Time & Speed: Score = 1/2 US-93 189.4 60 14 Presenter: John Horn Travel Time & Speed: Score = 1/2 Alignment Total Length (mi) % Track at 250 mph % Track 175 – 250 mph % Track 125 – 175 mph % Track Below 125 mph Estimated Time (min) Average Speed (mph) US-93 189.4 60 14 13 58 196

South: S-1) US-93 Ridership (Both): Score = 1/2 Cedar City only Presenter: John Horn Ridership (Both): Score = 1/2 Cedar City only Population 35 K Percentage for Southern Section 22% Tourism National Parks

South: S-1) US-93 Environmental Considerations: Score = 2/2 Desert Tortoise 45 miles Joshua Tree National Forest Area

Least Environmental Impact South: S-1) US-93 Presenter: John Horn Scoring Breakdown   Applicable Values Score Percent Weight Weighted Score Total Cost Breakdown $6.4M / mile $1.2B total 2 40% 0.8 Travel Time and Speed 58 min. Trip Time 196 mph Avg Speed 1 20% 0.2 Ridership 35 K people 22% of Southern pop. Environmental Considerations Least Environmental Impact 0.4 Weighted Sum: 1.6

South: S-2) St. George Alignments Presenter: Alex Sprung South: S-2) St. George Alignments 3 Alternatives Provided St. George Alignment (SGA) Gunlock Alignment – (GA) Bulldog Canyon Alignment (BCA)

Major Alignment Constraints Presenter: Alex Sprung South: S-2) St. George Alignments Major Alignment Constraints Beaver Dam Wash Critical Habitats Speeds dependent on radius of curvature

Total Cost ($) / Category Presenter: Alex Sprung South: S-2) St. George Alignments Total Cost Breakdown: Score = 1/2 Category Total Cost ($) / Category Cost ($) / Mile Track Materials $ 121,655,000 $ 839,000 Alternative Track $ 650,000,000 $ 4,482,759 Cut & Fill $ 800,000,000 $ 5,517,241 Easements/Ownership $ 9,500,000 $ 65,517 Interferences $ 200,000 $ 1,379 Structural Features $ 82,025,240 $ 565,691 Drainage Features $ 48,276,000 $ 332,938 Totals Cost / Mile (125%) = 15 M Grand Total (125%) = 2.1 B

South: S-2) St. George Alignments Presenter: Alex Sprung South: S-2) St. George Alignments Travel Time and Speed: Score = 2/2 Alignment Total Length * (mi) % Track @ 250 mph % Track 175- 250 mph % Track 125-175 mph % Track Below 125 mph Estimated Time (min) Average Speed (mph) St. George 145 77 18 1 4 48 181

South: S-2) St. George Alignments Presenter: Alex Sprung South: S-2) St. George Alignments Ridership: Score = 2/2 Cedar City and St. George Population 162 K Percentage for Southern Section 100% Tourism National Parks

Environmental Considerations: Score = 1/2 Presenter: Alex Sprung South: S-2) St. George Alignments Environmental Considerations: Score = 1/2

South: S-2) St. George Alignments Presenter: Alex Sprung South: S-2) St. George Alignments Critical Habitats  Category   SGA Alignment GA Alignment BGA Alignment (Track Miles) ANIMALS Pronghorn 12.30 12.70 0.00 Bighorn Sheep 4.30 11.00 Desert Tortoise 43.00 23.00 25.00 Greater Sage Grouse WETLANDS 63.00

Most Environmental Impact South: S-2) St. George Presenter: Alex Sprung Scoring Breakdown   Applicable Values Score Percent Weight Weighted Score Total Cost Breakdown $15M / mile $2.1B total 1 40% 0.4 Travel Time and Speed 48 min. Trip Time 181 mph Avg Speed 2 20% Ridership 162 K people 100% of Southern pop. Environmental Considerations Most Environmental Impact 0.2 Weighted Sum: 1.4

South Alignment Alternatives Evaluation Presenter: Alex Sprung US-93 & St. George South Alternatives Comparison   S-1 S-2 Overall Cost of Alternative 0.8 0.4 Average Travel Time 0.2 Ridership of Alternative Environmental Impact  1.6 1.4

South Alignment Alternatives Evaluation Presenter: Alex Sprung US-93 & St. George South Alternatives Comparison   S-1 S-2 Overall Cost of Alternative 0.8 0.4 Average Travel Time 0.2 Ridership of Alternative Environmental Impact  1.6 1.4

Alternative Review North Alignment N-1) Tooele N-2-A) Tintic Mountain Presenter: Jeff Thomas Alternative Review North Alignment N-1) Tooele N-2-A) Tintic Mountain N-2-B) Chicken Creek. Central Southern Alignment S-1) US-93 S-2) St. George Thanks Alex, This feasibility study has gathered all information on each of these alignment possibilities to help inform UTA engineers about the best path to build this unprecedented high-speed rail line between Salt Lake City and Las Vegas.

Alignment Scoring Summary Presenter: Jeff Thomas Alignment Scoring Summary Alternative Comparison Summary   Total Cost Weighted Score North Alternative 1 $1.3 B 2.2 North Alternative 2-A $ 471 M 2.1 North Alternative 2-B $ 1.1 B 1.7 Central Alignment $ 1.2 B N/A South Alternative S-1 1.6 South Alternative S-2 $ 2.1 B 1.4 My team members have detailed the decision factors for each alignment and provided their respective scores. This table summarizes the score information; the scores include the cost, but that also has been included on the table to provide a better idea of what scale of project this will be. The alternatives were considered, and a preferred alignment has been recommended.

Preferred Alignment North Alignment N-1) Tooele Alignment Presenter: Jeff Thomas Preferred Alignment North Alignment N-1) Tooele Alignment N-2-A) Tintic Mtn. Alignment Central Southern Alignment S-1) US-93 The preferred alignment takes the alignments with the highest scores from each section. We recommend the alignment that strikes the best balance of cost, environmental concerns, ridership and travel time.

Preliminary Alignment Scoring Presenter: Jeff Thomas Preliminary Alignment Scoring Alternative Comparison Summary   Total Cost Weighted Score North Alternative 1 $1.3 B 2.2 North Alternative 2-A $ 471 M 2.1 Central Alignment $ 1.2 B N/A South Alternative S-1 1.6  Estimated Cost:  $4.171 B A preliminary estimate of total cost of project construction is $4.17 billion. While this could be a very low estimate, we have thoroughly examined the costs of other high speed rail projects and developed what we are confident is a good feasibility study estimate within plus or minus 50% of the final cost.

Presenter: Jeff Thomas Next Steps Develop preliminary design calculations based on a preferred alternative from Salt Lake City - Las Vegas (McCarran Intl’ Airport) Meet with UTA to determine this alternative Provide UTA with Preliminary Engineering Design Report Allow future planners a place to start Present the report to UTA and Community to Gauge reception of the design Our next step is to meet with UTA to set in stone a preferred alternative. With this information, the team will continue to develop preliminary design calculations on the selected alternative. This next design study should narrow the cost estimate to within plus or minus 30 percent. The calculations will be included in the Preliminary Design Report, and should provide a great starting resource for any future planners looking to initiate this high speed rail project.

Questions We hope that we have provided you with solutions and alternatives that you had not considered on your own, and have discovered some of the hazardous and preferable areas for the project. Do you have any questions for the team?