SUBJECT: 2012 REGIONAL RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT

Transcription

1 Õ' o ù* tilsportárto/y o ó00 S, Grond Cenirol Porkwoy, Suite 350 ' Los Vegos, Nevodo 8910ó ' tox: OF SOU]HERN NEVADA Jocob L, Snow, Generol Monoger February 1,2072 Lorne Malkiewich Director Legislative Counsel Bureau Administrative Division 401 S. Carson Street Carson City, NV SUBJECT: 2012 REGIONAL RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT Dear Director Malkiewich, As Chairman of the Regional Rapid Transit Authority, I am pleased to submit to youthe enclosed Regional Rapid Transit Authority 2012 Anntal Report. In20Il, the Nevada legislature approved Senate Bill 151, which called for the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada to establish a Regional Transit Authority (the Authority). The Authority's purpose is to study the issues concerning the development of a regional rapid transit system. As noted in that legislation, the Committee must submit a report on orbeforefebruary 1 ofeachyear. Pleasefindthatreportattached. Itoutlinesthe activities and meetings of the Authority, its findings and its plans thus far. To date, the Authority has held two formal meetings and you will find the meeting summaries and presentations from those meetings also included in the attached report. Should you have any questions about the Authority or its 2012 Annual Report, please contact me directly at snowj@rtcsnv.com or by phone at (702) S L. SNOV/ GENERAL MANAGER Enclosure a./s

2 REGIONAL RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY 2012 ANNUAL REPORT Background & membership: In 2011, the Nevada legislature approved Senate Bill 151, which called for the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC) to establish a Regional Rapid Transit Authority. The Authority s purpose is to study the issues concerning the development of a regional rapid transit system in Southern Nevada. Based on the direction of its enabling legislation, the RTC s General Manager serves as Chair of the Authority. The Authority s current members are listed below: - RTC General Manager Jacob Snow, Chairman - Comm. Chris Giunchigliani - Las Vegas City Councilman Steve Ross - North Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce CEO Curtis Cummings - Henderson City Councilwoman Debra March - Nevada Resort Association President Virginia Valentine - Nevada Development Authority CEO Somer Hollingsworth - Nevada Department of Transportation Director Susan Martinovich - Dr. Robert Fielden, Architect (Representing the Nevada Arts Commission) Activities & meetings: On Nov. 8, 2011, the Authority held its first meeting (please see the meeting minutes attached). At that meeting, the Authority members received a report on its legislative charge, its policies and procedures. Mr. Phil Hoffman was introduced as the Authority s facilitator and he also provided a presentation on the expectation of the Authority s membership. Next, Mr. Hoffman provided an overview of previous work in Southern Nevada related to the study of rapid transit. Based on the thorough information presented by Mr. Hoffman, the Authority members discussed previous rapid transit efforts within Southern Nevada in detail. They also focused in on the Las Vegas Monorail, its efforts to expand in the future and the Monorail s potential as an alternative mode of transportation. In addition, the group discussed efforts to develop a high-speed transit option that would link Southern Nevada with California. The group specifically spoke about the DesertXpress project and the Western High-Speed Rail Alliance. The members concluded that these other entities should be included in future discussions regarding connectivity and any potential rapid transit construction projects. The group adjuourned their first meeting after finally discussing additional land-use issues and the potential to coordinate a rapid transit system with the current fixed route transit system in Southern Nevada, operated by the RTC. On Jan. 10, 2012, the Authority held its second meeting (please see the meeting minutes attached). At this meeting the group received a presentation on previous plans to implement rapid transit in the Las Vegas Valley. They discussed how those plans Page 1 of 2

3 REGIONAL RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY 2012 ANNUAL REPORT differed with the system that has been implemented in Southern Nevada over the past decade. The group also discussed the RTC s plans for future Bus Rapid Transit projects, including the Sahara Express and the potential for similar routes along Flamingo Road and Maryland Parkway. They also discussed the Las Vegas Strip and its transit needs at length, noting the current Bus Rapid Transit and traditional fixed route transit systems that currently serve that important corridor. Next the members received information on the various rapid transit technologies that could be considered and the benefits and drawbacks associated with each. That assessment included a review of the costs associated with these types of technologies. This second meeting concluded with the members agreeing to meet again on March 13, 2012 and to attend a field trip along the Las Vegas Boulevard corridor. Plans & next steps: Moving forward the Authority will continue to meet on a bi-monthly basis. They will develop a Regional Rapid Transit Authority Plan, as outlined in Senate Bill 151. The elements of that plan are listed below. Include economic development, engineering, planning, tourism and utility interests Quantify implications of introducing an exclusive rapid transit system in identified corridors Evaluate the need for and desirability of a system Asses corridor and route feasibility and desirability Assessment of available rapid transit technologies, including solar power or thoer renewable energy sources to minimize / eliminate the use of carbon-based fuels Opportunities, costs, constraints of corridor options, including: - Examination and evaluation of existing rail corridors and transit routes for inclusion in the system - Evaluation of potential sites for stations and facilities - Identification of locations in the county that would benefit most from proximity to the system, including airports, special event centers, stadiums, racetracks, etc. - Capital and operating cost estimates - Environmental impacts - Project schedule - Financing options, funding sources, federal funding, etc. - Potential for voter approval of bonds The Authority will provide an additional report to the Legislative Counsel Bureau by Feb. 1, Page 2 of 2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 MINUTES REGIONAL RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA JANUARY 10, 2012 These minutes are prepared in compliance with NRS Text is in summarized rather than verbatim format. For complete contents, please refer to meeting recordings on file at the Regional Transportation Commission. THIS MEETING WAS PROPERLY NOTICED AND POSTED IN THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS ON JANUARY 4, 2012 Clark County Government Center Las Vegas City Hall CC Regional Justice Center RTC RTC Web site 500 S. Grand Central Pkwy. 400 E. Stewart Ave. 200 Lewis Ave. 600 S. Grand Central Pkwy. Las Vegas, NV Las Vegas, NV Las Vegas, NV Las Vegas, NV CALL TO ORDER Mr. Jacob Snow, Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:12 p.m. in Meeting Room 296 of the Regional Transportation Commission Administration Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jacob Snow, Chair, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada Curtis Cummings, North Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce Chris Giunchigliani, Clark County Steve Ross, City of Las Vegas Virginia Valentine, Nevada Resort Association MEMBERS ABSENT: Dr. Robert Fielden, RAFI Architecture Somer Hollingsworth, Nevada Development Authority Debra March, City of Henderson Susan Martinovich, Nevada Department of Transportation RTC STAFF: Tracy Bower, Director of Government Affairs and Media Relations Brij Gulati, Senior Project Manager Mike Hand, Director of Engineering Services, Streets and Highways Phil Hoffmann, Facilitator Elizabeth Johnson, Administrative Specialist Zev Kaplan, Legal Counsel Fred Ohene, Assistant General Manager INTERESTED PARTIES: Randy DeVaul, City of North Las Vegas Bryan Gresh, Gresh Group Curtis Myles, Las Vegas Monorail Company Ingrid Reisman, Las Vegas Monorail Company

13 Regional Rapid Transit Authority Advisory Committee Meeting of January 10, 2012 Page 2 of 7 Item: CITIZENS PARTICIPATION Comments: Chair Jacob Snow, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, introduced Senator Michael Schneider, who had authored the bill which created the Regional Rapid Transit Authority Advisory Committee (Authority). Senator Schneider explained that he created the Authority in order to address the lack of public rapid transit in the Las Vegas Valley, which was the largest western city in the United States. This lack of transportation caused traffic concerns, specifically on Las Vegas Boulevard, the Las Vegas Strip (Strip). This was harmful to tourism, which was a large part of the Las Vegas economy. He detailed that he had reviewed the systems in Denver, Colorado and Salt Lake City, Utah. The addition of these systems had caused a rise in property values, as well as a reduction in traffic. He acknowledged that the resort corridor businesses had been opposed to it in the past, but he was hopeful that the Authority would be able to come up with ideas on a system that would connect the resort corridor with McCarran International Airport, as well as Downtown Las Vegas. He hoped that the system would also service neighborhoods. He reiterated that the community needed a public rapid transit system in order to grow and improve in the future. He concluded by reminding Chair Snow of a comment he made at the 2009 Legislative Session, where he stated that if a rail system was built, there would be 90,000 commuters riding the system each day and it would not affect the ridership of the public bus system. Chair Snow was hopeful that they would have the opportunity to find out if that statement was accurate. Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani, Clark County, agreed with Senator Schneider s remarks. She believed it was important to revisit how people are moved on the Strip, pointing out that many of the tourists came from regions where light rail was the main form of transportation. She expressed concern with baggage on the light rail, but pointed out that there were other options that addressed that component that they could research. Chair Snow acknowledged that Mr. Curtis Myles and Ms. Ingrid Reisman with the Las Vegas Monorail Company were both in attendance at the meeting. Motion: No motion was necessary. Vote/Summary: No vote was taken. Item: 1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Meeting of November 8, 2011 (FOR POSSIBLE ACTION) Comments: Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani, Clark County, pointed out that Mr. Denis Cederburg s name had been misspelled on page 3 of the minutes. Motion: Commissioner Giunchigliani made a motion to approve the minutes with the stated correction. Vote/Summary: 5 Ayes. 0 Nays. The motion carried. Item: 2. RECEIVE A REPORT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM Comments: Following a PowerPoint presentation [attached], Mr. Phil Hoffmann addressed this agenda item. Chair Jacob Snow, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC), asked the Regional Rapid Transit Authority Advisory Committee (Authority) to address the first question posed by Mr. Hoffmann;

14 Regional Rapid Transit Authority Advisory Committee Meeting of January 10, 2012 Page 3 of 7 would they consider light rail or exclusive bus lanes in the resort corridor. He clarified that the term resort corridor encompassed Las Vegas Boulevard from Sunset Road in the south to Bonanza Road in the north. Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani, Clark County, acknowledged some concerns of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department regarding the movement of emergency vehicles within the corridor. She made the suggestion to convert Las Vegas Boulevard to a corridor that only allowed pedestrians and light rail. She pointed out that there were originally zero setbacks allowed within the resort corridor, which could possibly be used for the project, which would lower the costs to purchase right-of-way. She suggested a lane for taxicabs and buses along this area, as well as transplanting the beautification improvements that had been made in the past. Mr. Hoffmann agreed with many of Commissioner Giunchigliani s points, adding that portions of the resort corridor were large enough to add dedicated light rail lanes. He explained that the largest issue that needed to be looked at was demand. The next important things to examine were the capital and operating costs, followed by funding. He added that there were funds available from the Federal Transit Administration, but that obtaining those funds was a very competitive process. The last fundamental element was stakeholder buy-in on the project. Commissioner Giunchigliani added that a solution was still necessary on Industrial Road, on the back end of the resort corridor. She suggested park and rides, property tax discounts, and incentives for employees to utilize public transit. She reiterated that moving the employees was equally as important as moving the tourists. She suggested they work to discuss both of these aspects with the stakeholders. Commissioner Giunchigliani acknowledged an underground project that Harrah s had in the works within the Flamingo Road corridor. She was curious if there were still plans to complete the project. Ms. Valentine confirmed that the work had already been completed. Councilman Steven Ross, city of Las Vegas, asked for clarification on the differences between the presentation they were given at the last meeting and the one presented at this meeting. Chair Snow pointed out that the current presentation included more information about cost, as well as a few additional points. Councilman Ross asked Ms. Valentine if she had presented the topic to the rest of the NRA. Ms. Valentine detailed that she had presented the topic to the NRA at their last board meeting, but she did not receive much of a response. She felt that it would be an educational process, reminding the Authority that many of the people who were current members of the NRA were not members when this topic had been discussed in the past. Councilman Ross next asked if the Authority was being tasked to approve a study of one route and, if so, was there funding to complete that study. He added that the focus seemed to be on the resort corridor; however he agreed with Commissioner Giunchigliani that there should be some focus placed on the routes to the back of the resorts. He continued, stating that if they decided to convert Las Vegas Boulevard into a one-way street, those streets behind the resorts would become heavily traveled routes. Councilman Ross clarified his preference to place light rail along Las Vegas Boulevard. Commissioner Giunchigliani suggested meeting with the stakeholders in the resort corridor one-on-one to discuss the intent, as well as to provide background information on what occurred 10 to 15 years ago. Councilman Ross hoped to also incorporate the Las Vegas Monorail Company (Monorail) into any proposed light rail system. Commissioner Giunchigliani believed that the only place the Monorail would work would be along the back of the resorts. She did agree, however, that the Monorail should be part of the discussion. Chair Snow reminded the Authority that they were currently being asked whether they would like to

15 Regional Rapid Transit Authority Advisory Committee Meeting of January 10, 2012 Page 4 of 7 consider bus rapid transit or light rail transit, disregarding any involvement of the stakeholders. He explained that this was the third time that this type of system had been researched and discussed. Chair Snow pointed out that, in order to build light rail in the 10-mile Las Vegas Boulevard corridor, it would cost approximately $1 billion dollars. He added that the best they could hope for was for the federal government to contribute half of the funding. This meant that they not only had to identify half of a billion dollars for the cost to build the system, but all of the additional funds to operate and maintain the system. He reiterated that it was a very competitive process to obtain federal funding for the system s construction. Lastly, he stated that there were funds available to conduct the study, but that they did not have the funding to construct the system after the study had concluded. He added that in the previous two research periods for light rail, studies were completed, but they did not have the funding to proceed. He explained that this was due, in part, to the opposition of the past stakeholders. Chair Snow added that the Monorail offered the potential to service employees, as well as tourists. He pointed out that the Monorail connected to the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. He believed that the Las Vegas Boulevard corridor was the only corridor that made sense for the light rail system. He added that, if there were concerns with service to the back of the resorts, there could be additional bus service provided to that corridor. Councilman Ross believed that they needed a study at their disposal prior to Ms. Valentine going back to the NRA. He was interested in proceeding with the study, adding that they needed to get further than the two previous attempts to introduce light rail. Chair Snow stated that the RTC could allocate funds to begin a study. He preferred to meet with the resorts one-on-one first. He added that another study would be largely the same as the previous studies. He was hopeful that they could determine if there was any appetite from the stakeholders. A determination on how to proceed could then be made. Commissioner Giunchigliani added that there may be other things that the stakeholders wanted to look at. Ms. Valentine agreed with Chair Snow that the best course of action would be to begin conducting meetings with the stakeholders to determine their level of interest prior to conducting another study. Chair Snow felt that the Authority showed consensus to consider light rail or exclusive bus rapid transit in the resort corridor. The next question posed to the group was whether they were interested in studying a light rail or exclusive bus rapid transit in the North Las Vegas and Henderson areas in the corridors identified in Mr. Hoffmann s presentation. He clarified that his statement regarding a ridership of 90,000 per day was in reference to a system that included the community ridership that these additional systems would provide for. Councilman Ross was interested in researching these systems as well. Chair Snow asked Mr. Hoffmann to return to the slides that referenced those corridors. He pointed out that a different corridor in Henderson, Nevada had been researched in the past than the one that they were considering at that time. Mr. Hoffmann added that there had been a fair amount of opposition by the neighborhoods along the previously suggested corridor in Henderson. He pointed out that they were currently suggesting an alternative along Las Vegas Boulevard South to St. Rose Parkway, which would still connect with the southwest portion of Henderson. He added that there were also transit routes available on Boulder Highway in the Henderson Express and the Boulder Highway Express bus rapid transit routes. Chair Snow added that the corridor presented by the red dotted line on slide 10 performed better than the previously suggested route along the railroad tracks in Henderson, due to the fact that the latter ran near many single family residence developments. He added that the agency was working on the design of a park and ride in the St. Rose Parkway area. Mr. Fred Ohene, RTC, stated that the design was expected to be complete in the fall of Commissioner Giunchigliani asked where the park and ride would be located. Mr. Ohene explained that it was close to St. Rose Parkway on Bruner Avenue. Chair

16 Regional Rapid Transit Authority Advisory Committee Meeting of January 10, 2012 Page 5 of 7 Snow added that they would likely research an additional park and ride in the area if exclusive bus rapid transit or light rail was placed in the corridor. Mr. Ohene stated that there was also adequate right-of-way going south. Chair Snow informed the Authority that there was less opposition along this corridor. The opposition that had been received was from residents of unincorporated Clark County. Councilman Ross asked if a formal motion was needed to proceed. Chair Snow stated that they did not need to make a formal motion; just provide direction to the agency. Councilman Ross pointed out that there were areas along the suggested corridors that were not yet developed. He wondered if they should construct a map to provide to the public so that they were aware of the plans for these corridors, particularly for those who owned land along the corridors. Mr. Curtis Cummings, North Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, questioned whether there would be any point in moving forward if there was no stakeholder support in the resort corridor. Chair Snow did not believe that it would make sense to try to proceed with planning a system in the resort corridor if they did not have the support of the stakeholders. Mr. Cummings next questioned which of the two systems would be cost-effective and would be used most by the people. Chair Snow explained that in the past the RTC had constructed the system that they had the funding to construct, which was a bus rapid transit system. He added that there was a ridership of 43,000 per day riding the current system. He believed that people would ride almost any form of transit provided to them along the resort corridor. He did acknowledge that people may prefer a train or light rail over bus rapid transit. Mr. Cummings explained that he had a background in construction and development and was concerned with the utilities in the areas that would be under construction. He was curious about what the footprint would look like. He suggested that the cost of most projects was always more than anticipated and they needed to keep that in mind moving forward. He also agreed with Councilman Ross and Commissioner Giunchigliani s suggestion to address the back end of the resorts as well. Commissioner Giunchigliani preferred that the stakeholders be approached with the light rail aspect. She did not feel that it was best to suggest a dedicated bus rapid transit lane. Chair Snow explained that they needed to be focused specifically on what they wanted to do going into the meetings with the stakeholders. He anticipated that the stakeholders would bring up additional ideas during those meetings. Ms. Valentine offered to assist Chair Snow in setting up the meetings, but she warned that the stakeholders would have many questions. Chair Snow added that they would need to be prepared to discuss how these changes would help the resorts bottom lines. Chair Snow asked Mr. Hoffmann to provide the Authority with an overview of the typical sources used for the local match funding necessary to obtain federal funds. Mr. Hoffmann stated that the most common was a dedicated sales tax. He added that the first thing that the Federal Transit Administration will ask of the agency will be for their financial plan. The agency must be able to show that they can cover the operating and maintenance costs of the system over a 35 year period following the construction. Councilman Ross believed that a special tax district in the resort corridor would be the best solution. He did not believe there were any other options to obtain the funds that they needed in order to acquire a federal match. He added that the sales pitch would be related to money and how this would benefit the resorts.

17 Regional Rapid Transit Authority Advisory Committee Meeting of January 10, 2012 Page 6 of 7 Mr. Cummings pointed out that the resorts would be most concerned with the bottom line and what the return would be on such an investment. He stated that presentation would be very important going into the meetings. Commissioner Giunchigliani pointed out that who the resorts were attracting was important to know as well. She added that the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority could assist with this information from the surveys they conducted. Councilman Ross added that it would cause a cultural change, which was difficult. He believed it was also smart to look into the future and determine what the resorts and the local entities envisioned for Las Vegas Boulevard in the future. Commissioner Giunchigliani reiterated that the Las Vegas Strip was not what it used to be and was now too congested to enjoy. She believed that there was no need for cars in the corridor. She added that connectivity to downtown would also be important. Chair Snow proposed to the Authority that they would go on a bus ride for their next meeting. He pointed out that the route that serviced the Premium Outlet Mall carried 15,000 riders each day. He added that bus rapid transit had been a precursor to determine if light rail would be warranted. He believed that it was in this particular corridor. Ms. Valentine and Commissioner Giunchigliani voiced interest in riding the bus through the corridor. Chair Snow asked Mr. Curtis Myles, Las Vegas Monorail Company, if he was interested in speaking to the Authority. Mr. Myles explained that he had been part of both of the previous studies. He added that the opposition on the fixed guideway system had been substantial in the past. He brought to the Authority s attention that, in light of what the resorts had been through over the previous 24 to 36 months, any suggestions would be a difficult for them to accept. Although the town was starting to rebound, many of the resorts were still facing challenges to keep their doors open. He next explained that there were plans at the Monorail to extend the system north and south, which had been part of the original plan for the system. There were also plans to go to McCarran International Airport (McCarran). He added that the McCarran offered a unique situation; the shortest distance from the region s airport to their largest central business district without a connection. He stated that those were all things that needed to be addressed. Chair Snow believed that the consensus for the Authority on the first question posed to them regarding the consideration of light rail or exclusive bus lanes in the resort corridor had been to proceed. The consensus on the second question regarding the consideration of light rail or exclusive bus lanes to North Las Vegas and Henderson along the presented corridors had also been to proceed. Commissioner Giunchigliani asked for clarification regarding the level of completion for the design of the Henderson corridor. Mr. Ohene clarified that there were no designs completed for the corridor at that time. Ms. Valentine believed that Chair Snow meant that there was already a heavier level of ridership on the south branch than there was on the north. Chair Snow responded in the affirmative. He added that the main focus would be on the resort corridor, and the Henderson / North Las Vegas connection would be subsequent. He explained that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) rated the applications based on the level of transit-supported land use within the requested corridor. He added that the Henderson corridor would not compare well with other corridors that the FTA was considering on applications; the North Las Vegas corridor was likely worse. He stated that there was a lot of potential for these areas, but they would currently be considered poor. He suggested, however, that they keep preservation of right-ofway within the corridor in mind. Motion:

18 Regional Rapid Transit Authority Advisory Committee Meeting of January 10, 2012 Page 7 of 7 No motion was necessary. Vote/Summary: No vote was taken. Item: CITIZENS PARTICIPATION Comments: No comments were made. Motion: No motion was necessary. Vote/Summary: No vote was taken. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Johnson, Recording Secretary

19 Rapid Transit Authority Advisory Committee ADVISORY COMMITTEE Meeting #2 January 10, 2012

20 What will we discuss? - The Plan vs The System Today - Remaining Corridors - Regional Fixed Guideway Corridor - Technologies & Costs - Next Steps

21 The Plan 2002 System Plan

22 RTC s Progress to Date Rapid Transit Corridors LIVE WORK Express Services Strip & Downtown Express Boulder Highway Express Henderson Express MAX Centennial Express Westcliff Airport Express Deuce on the Strip Sahara Express Maryland Express Flamingo Express

23 Current Projects Sahara BRT under construction Flamingo Pending funding, can begin final design & construction Maryland Parkway - Alternatives analysis in 2012

24 Regional Fixed Guideway Corridor Last Remaining Corridors Consider light rail or exclusive bus lane in the resort corridor? Consider light rail or exclusive bus lane to North Las Vegas and to Henderson along these corridors?

25 Minimum Operating Segment Initial Segment of the Regional Fixed Guideway Corridor

26 Potential extensions

27

28

29 Technologies Considered Light Rail Bus Rapid Transit Center- or Side-Running

30 Center-Running Dedicated Lanes

31 Minimum Operating Segment, SDX and Deuce

32

33 LRT/BRT Pros and Cons LRT BRT Advantages: More cost effective Higher vehicle capacity Disadvantages: Higher initial capital cost; wider ROW required Advantages: More flexible Lower initial capital cost Less ROW required Disadvantages: Lower vehicle capacity Higher O&M cost per passenger

34 LRT/BRT Capacity Comparison Capacity Comparison LRT vehicle = 160 passengers X 2 cars = 320 passengers with 1 operator BRT vehicle = passengers with 1 operator It would take 3-4 BRT vehicles with 3-4 operators to equal the capacity of 1 two-car train

35 LRT/BRT Cost Comparisons Up to 50% of capital cost can be funded by FTA

36 BRT Capital Cost Comparisons

37 LRT/BRT Cost Comparisons

38 Regional Fixed Guideway Corridor Last Remaining Corridors Consider light rail or exclusive bus lane in the resort corridor? Consider light rail or exclusive bus lane to North Las Vegas and to Henderson along these corridors?

39 System Plan Update? Analysis would: Update 2002 system plan Confirm corridors Identify new corridors Identify best technologies

40 Next Steps RTA Committee Field Trip thru the Corridor Next Committee Meeting - March 13, 2012

41 ADVISORY COMMITTEE