LAS VEGAS STREET RAILROAD CROSSING RR/PUC CONNECTION AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN

LAS VEGAS STREET RAILROAD CROSSING RR/PUC CONNECTION AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN Prepared for: City of Colorado Springs Prepared by: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 508 South Tejon Street Colorado Springs, CO 80903 719/314-1800 Project Manager: Steve Murray, PE Project Engineer: Todd S. Frisbie, PE, PTOE (report preparer) FHU Reference No. 10-114-01 November 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 A. Purpose and Organization ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 B. Access to City Transportation Network ------------------------------------------------------ 1 C. Origin / Destination Study ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 D. Project History -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 A. Roadway Conditions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5 B. Traffic Volumes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5 C. Traffic Operations --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 III. ROYER STREET CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS -------------------------------------------------- 7 A. Geometric and Traffic Control Features ----------------------------------------------------- 7 B. Traffic Volume Forecasts ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7 C. Traffic Operations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 IV. SPRING CREEK CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS ------------------------------------------------- 11 A. Geometric and Traffic Control Features ---------------------------------------------------- 11 B. Traffic Volume Forecasts ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 C. Traffic Operations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13 V. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16

LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Study Area ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2 Figure 2. Royer Street Origin/Destination Study ------------------------------------------------------- 3 Figure 3. Royer Street Crossing Existing Traffic Conditions-------------------------------------- 6 Figure 4. Royer Street Crossing Improvements -------------------------------------------------------- 8 Figure 5. Royer Street Crossing Improvements Future Traffic Conditions ------------------- 9 Figure 6. Spring Creek Crossing Improvements ------------------------------------------------------ 12 Figure 7. Travel Shed Analysis ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 Figure 8. Spring Creek Crossing Improvements Future Traffic Conditions ------------------ 15 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Royer Street Crossing Traffic Volumes ----------------------------------------------------- 10 Table 2. Las Vegas / Royer Street 95 th Percentile Queue Lengths ----------------------------- 10 Table 3. Spring Creek Crossing Traffic Volumes ---------------------------------------------------- 13 Table 4. Spring Creek Drive 95 th Percentile Queue Lengths ------------------------------------- 13

I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose and Organization This report provides traffic operational comparison of two railroad crossings in the Las Vegas Street corridor. These crossings known at Royer Street and Spring Creek are shown relative to the surrounding roadway network in Figure 1. Specially, this report will provide an evaluation of existing conditions at the Royer Street crossing which will include information on traffic volumes, truck percentages, queuing, level of service and accidents. Also included are operational analyses based on 5-year and 25-year planning horizons for both the existing Royer Street crossing with proposed improvements and at the proposed Spring Creek crossing. These analyses will include results on projected traffic volumes, truck percentages, level of service and queuing. B. Access to City Transportation Network In the past Las Vegas Street between Nevada Avenue and Academy Boulevard had four atgrade railroad crossings and one local street (Janitell) connecting it to other city arterial roadways. Three of these at-grade railroad crossings were eliminated when the US 24 Bypass was constructed which left nearly a five mile stretch of the Las Vegas Street corridor with only one railroad crossing (Royer Street) and one local street connection (Janitell) to the city s arterial network. This rather limited access to the City s arterial street network is atypical. For example, typical urban arterial streets in Colorado Springs have public street connections to other city arterials every ½ to one mile. By comparison Las Vegas Street from Nevada Avenue to Academy Boulevard has a connection to another city arterial about once every two miles. This limited amount of access effectively isolates Las Vegas Street from the rest of the city roadway network. In addition, the Royer Street connection, which is the only at-grade railroad crossing in a five stretch of Las Vegas Street, has restricted truck access due to design deficiencies at the railroad crossing which causes large trucks to high center on the tracks. This situation presents significant safety issues for both the railroad and the City of Colorado Springs. C. Origin / Destination Study Furthermore, the city conducted an origin-destination study of vehicle-trips using Royer Street. Figure 2 shows the primary origin-destination patterns observed in the study. These three patterns were approximately equal in magnitude at 650 to 750 vehicles per day. These patterns show that the majority of vehicles using the Royer Street crossing travel between Fountain Blvd. and the southern areas of the Las Vegas Street corridor. This suggests that the primary users of the Royer Street crossing are residents of the nearby Hillside Neighborhood. For it is unlikely that residents further east of Hancock Expressway would travel west to Royer and then back track south on Las Vegas. These residents are more likely to use Circle Drive to Janitell Road to Las Vegas Street. Page 1

Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Colorado Springs Railroad Crossing (Task IIa), 10-114-02, 10/28/11 Nevada Ave. 25 Royer St. Existing Crossing Fountain Blvd. HILLSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD Las Vegas Railroad Crossing : RR/PUC Coordination and Preliminary Design Figure 1 Study Area NORTH Janitell Rd. Proposed Replacement Crossing Union Blvd. Spring Creek Dr. Hancock Expwy. Circle Dr. EVERGREEN CEMETERY 24 25

Las Vegas Railroad Crossing : RR/PUC Coordination and Preliminary Design HILLSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD Fountain Blvd. Royer St. Existing Crossing 25 EVERGREEN CEMETERY Hancock Expwy. 24 Nevada Ave. Union Blvd. Circle Dr. 25 Janitell Rd. Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Colorado Springs Railroad Crossing (Task IIa), 10-114-02, 11/10/11 Figure 2 Royer Street Origin / Destination Survey Results Significant Travel Patterns NORTH

D. Project History The City of Colorado Springs is motivated in maintaining their lone railroad crossing in the Las Vegas corridor. Closing of the Royer Street crossing would impact the city s ability to access their water treatment plant, would add to local area business employees and their patrons to up to additional mile of out-of-direction travel and would hamper access to Hillside Neighborhood residents who have a high percentage of low income and minority families. In response to these issues at the Royer Street crossing the City began working on solutions to correct the design deficiencies at the Royer Street crossing. Given the constraints at the Royer Street crossing the solution was less than desirable. The solution impacted access and property of businesses along Las Vegas and still did not address design deficiencies such as the distance between the Las Vegas/Royer intersection and the railroad crossing. So in October 2010, the City of Colorado Springs began an evaluation of potential railroad crossings in the Las Vegas Street corridor to replace the deficient and unsafe Royer Street crossing. The result of this evaluation was a replacement crossing located south of the existing Royer Street crossing near the US 24 Bypass overpass. This replacement crossing shown in Figure 1 is known as the Spring Creek crossing. This location was chosen because it is relatively close in proximity to Royer Street, it directly accesses Hancock Expressway which better integrates Las Vegas into the city roadway network, there are no private property impacts and the location has the greatest separation between the railroad tracks and Las Vegas Street in the corridor. Page 4

II. EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Roadway Conditions The intersection of Las Vegas Street and Royer Street does not have turn lanes on any approach. Royer Street has a posted speed limit of 25 mph and Las Vegas has a eastbound posted speed of 30 mph and a westbound posted speed of 40 mph. The distance between the stop bar and the center of the railroad tracks is about 60 feet and grade between the tracks at Las Vegas Street is 14 percent. This steep grade the short distance between the tracks and Las Vegas Street has caused many trucks with long trailers to high center on the tracks. To prevent this city has posted signs and flashing beacons warning trucks to not use the Royer Street crossing. B. Traffic Volumes Figure 3 shows existing daily and peak hour traffic volumes collected in October 2010 along Las Vegas and Royer Streets. The data was collected in October 2010 and shows a daily traffic volume of about 5,500 vehicles per day on Las Vegas Street and about 3,860 vehicles per day on Royer Street. The traffic data also shows that PM peak hour traffic volumes are higher than the AM peak hour. On Las Vegas Street, trucks with three axels or more comprise of about 6% of the traffic. On Royer Street the truck percentage is about 2% of the traffic. However, the truck percentage is artificially low since operators of vehicles with long trailers are warned to not use the Royer Street railroad crossing. C. Traffic Operations Figure 3 also shows level of service and queue lengths at the Las Vegas / Royer intersection. Existing peak hour volumes at the intersection are relatively which results in good level of service for all intersection turn movements. As shown all turn movements currently operate at LOS C or better during the peak hours. With only about 60 feet between the stop bar and the railroad tracks only a car or two could store between Las Vegas and the railroad tracks. Therefore, it is likely that the queue of vehicles turning onto Las Vegas Street will extend across the railroad tracks. The analysis using SimTraffic simulations show the 95 th percentile queue of 70 feet which is over 10 feet past the railroad crossing. Page 5

Las Vegas Railroad Crossing : RR/PUC Coordination and Preliminary Design 73(93) 1(2) 54(77) 3,860 Royer St. 54(80) 96(128) 2(6) 94(88) 143(141) 1(1) 0(0) 1(7) 2(3) 5,680 a/a a/a a/a a/a 55'(70') 5,200 20'(35') LEGEND XXX(XXX) XXXX x/x XX'(XX') = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes = Daily Traffic Volumes = Unsignalized Movement Level of Service = AM(PM) 95th Percentile Queue = Stop Sign Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Colorado Springs Railroad Crossing (Task IIa), 10-114-02, 11/9/11 Figure 3 Royer St. Crossing - Existing Conditions NORTH

III. ROYER STREET CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS This section details the operation analysis of the improvements proposed at the existing atgrade railroad crossing at Royer Street. A. Geometric and Traffic Control Features Figure 4 shows the conceptual layout for improvements at the existing Royer Street crossing. As shown, the improvements would include turn lanes, raising Las Vegas Street by four feet and modifications to several existing utilities. These are enhancements to the current conditions at the Royer / Las Vegas intersection; however, the design has the following short comings: The distance between the stop bar and the center of the railroad tracks is 45 feet which does not meet railroad quiet zone standards. The grade from the railroad tracks to Las Vegas is 9% which does not meet roadway design criteria for grades approaching a roadway. Five and 25 year projected traffic volumes at Las Vegas / Royer intersection would not meet any of the volume related MUTCD signal warrant guidelines. However, MUTCD Signal Warrant 9 (Intersection near a Grade Crossing) states that traffic signal control should be considered if the distance between a grade crossing and the nearest intersection is less than 140 feet and intersection volumes plot above certain applicable curves. At the Royer Street crossing the distance between and the anticipated intersection volume satisfies the signalization criteria of MUTCD Warrant 9. Therefore, the intersection is proposed to be signalized. This signalization would include preemption protocols to ensure that queues are cleared from the tracks prior to the arrival of a train. B. Traffic Volume Forecasts Figure 5 shows five and 25-year projected daily and peak hour traffic volumes at the Royer Street crossing. These projected traffic volumes were developed from traffic volume forecasts and patterns observed between PPACG s 2015 and 2035 travel demand models. Travel demand estimates from these models were calibrated to differences between existing traffic counts and PPACG existing conditions travel demand model. This model over estimates existing traffic volumes on by 2,000 vehicles per day (vpd) on Royer Street by 2,200 vpd and on Las Vegas Street; therefore 2015 and 2035 travel demand model estimates for Royer Street and Las Vegas Street were reduced respectively. An additional growth factor was applied to Royer Street counts to account for the potential increase in truck volumes which is expected to increase when truck restrictions are removed at the crossing. Existing data shows Royer Street truck volumes at about 2%. Truck percentage data is not available prior to when the crossing restrictions were put in place, so it was assumed that the Royer Street truck percentage would likely be about 6% which is the current truck percentage observed on Las Vegas Street. Page 7

Las Vegas Railroad Crossing : RR/PUC Coordination and Preliminary Design Figure 4 Conceptual Geometry Royer Street Crossing Improvements Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Colorado Springs Railroad Crossing (Task IIa), 10-114-02, 11/9/11 NORTH

Las Vegas Railroad Crossing : RR/PUC Coordination and Preliminary Design Daily & Peak Hour Volumes Levels of Service Daily & Peak Hour Volumes XX'(XX') = AM(PM) 95th Percentile Queue Levels of Service a. 5-Year Scenario b. 25-Year Scenario Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Colorado Springs Railroad Crossing (Task IIa), 10-114-02, 11/9/11 Figure 5 Royer St. Crossing Improvements - Future Conditions NORTH 7,600 30'(25') 115(145) 190(235) 165(155) 275(260) 100'(110') 50'(50') 5,600 4,400 Royer St. 5,800 Royer St. Royer St. Royer St. A/A A/B 30'(30') 65(95) 110(145) 105(100) 160(155) 65'(75') 45'(35') 50'(55') 70'(85') 85(105) 65(90) 75'(90') 105'(145') 130(175) 130(155) LEGEND XXX(XXX) XXXX X/X = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes = Daily Traffic Volumes = Signalized Level of Service = Traffic Signal

So considering the travel demand model adjustments along with this anticipated increase in truck volumes, 5-year and 25-year forecasts were developed at the Las Vegas / Royer Street intersection. Figure 5 shows daily and peak hour forecasts for vehicles crossing the railroad tracks. As shown, the 4,400 vehicles per day will cross the tracks in the 5-year scenario and 5,800 vehicles will cross the tracks in the 25-year scenario. Table 1 show the percentage and number of trucks with three or more axels expected to cross the tracks each day in each future scenario. It is forecasted that in the five and 25-year scenarios 260 and 350 trucks per day, respectively, would cross the tracks on Royer Street. The posted speed limit on Royer Street is 25 mph which will continue to be the posted speed after improvements have been constructed. Table 1. Royer Street Crossing Traffic Volumes Scenario Daily Vehicle Traffic Truck Percent Daily Truck Traffic Speed Limit (mph) 5-Year 4,400 6% 260 25 25-Year 5,800 6% 350 25 C. Traffic Operations Using projected traffic volumes and level of service 95 th percentile queue lengths were calculated at the Las Vegas / Royer Street intersection. The results are shown in Figure 5. As expected, a signalized intersection operates well in both the 5-year and 25-year scenarios with a LOS A or B achieved during peak hours. Figure 5 also shows 95 th percentile queue lengths while Table 2 compares Royer Street 95 th percentile queue lengths to the distance between the stop bar and the center of the railroad tracks. As shown, even with intersection improvements at Royer Street and Las Vegas Street the 95 th percentile queues will cross the tracks in all scenarios. Table 2. Las Vegas / Royer Street 95 th Percentile Queue Lengths 95 th Percentile Queue (Feet) Distance From Stop Bar to Scenario AM Peak PM Peak Center of Tracks 5-Year 70 90 45 25-Year 105 145 45 Page 10

IV. SPRING CREEK CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS This section details the operation analysis of the improvements proposed at the replacement atgrade railroad crossing at Spring Creek Drive. A. Geometric and Traffic Control Features Figure 6 shows the conceptual layout for improvements at the replacement crossing at Spring Creek. As shown, the improvements would include turn lanes on the approaches and two full lanes between the railroad crossing and Las Vegas Street. The distance between the stop bar and the center of the railroad tracks is 120 feet. Projected traffic volumes at the Las Vegas/Spring Creek intersection would not meet any of the volume related MUTCD signal warrant guidelines in the 5-year scenario but would marginally meet some signal warrant criteria in the 25-year scenario. Furthermore, the distance between the crossing and the nearest intersection and intersection volumes satisfy the signalization criteria of MUTCD Warrant 9 (Intersection near a Grade Crossing). Given these conditions the Las Vegas Street / Spring Creek intersection would be signalized. This signalization would include preemption protocols to ensure that queues are cleared from the tracks prior to the arrival of a train. B. Traffic Volume Forecasts Future five and 25-year projected daily and peak hour traffic volumes were developed at the Spring Creek Drive crossing. Since the Spring Creek Drive does not exist today, the PPACG travel demand model was used to estimate volumes for the Spring Creek connection and the impact this new connection would have on Las Vegas Street traffic volumes. The PPACG travel demand model forecasts for the Spring Creek crossing are about double the forecasts on Royer Street. In addition, Las Vegas Street forecasts with the Spring Creek crossing are higher than with the Royer Street. For instance, 25-year forecasts for Las Vegas Street are 30 percent higher with the Spring Creek crossing. A likely explanation is the Spring Creek crossing provides more regional access to Las Vegas Street for areas to the north and east but is still close enough to the existing Royer Street crossing to provide local access for the Hillside neighborhood. Figure 7 illustrates this pattern. The location of the Royer Street crossing provides primary access between travel sheds B and C. On the other hand, the location of the Spring Creek Crossing can still serve travel shed B while making Las Vegas Street more accessible for portions of travel shed A. In other words, the Spring Creek crossing helps to integrate Las Vegas Street into the city s transportation network as it now has more direct connections to major roadways such as Hancock Expressway, Union Boulevard and US 24. Figure 8 shows daily and peak hour traffic volume forecasts for the 5-year and 25-year scenarios. Las Vegas Street forecasts were developed by reducing 25-year model forecasts by 2,200 vehicles per day which is the amount the model over predicts existing traffic volumes. Similarly, Spring Creek Drive projections from the travel demand model were reduced by 2,000 vehicles per day again to account for the existing model s over prediction of existing traffic volumes on Royer Street. Accordingly, 5-year forecasts were developed using the assumption Page 11

Las Vegas Railroad Crossing : RR/PUC Coordination and Preliminary Design Figure 6 Conceptual Geometry Spring Creek Crossing Improvements Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Colorado Springs Railroad Crossing (Task IIa), 10-114-02, 11/9/11 NORTH

that traffic volumes will increase at a constant rate between existing traffic volumes and 2035 forecasts. It is estimated that Spring Creek Drive will carry about 8,600 vehicles per day across the railroad tracks in the 5-year scenario and about 12,400 vehicles per day across the railroad tracks in 25-year scenario. Table 3 shows forecasted trucks percentages and volumes for both the five and 25-year scenarios. Since Spring Creek Drive is a new street, existing truck percentage data is not available. So it was assumed that the Spring Creek Drive truck percentage would likely be about 6% which is the current truck percentage observed on Las Vegas Street. As shown, the percentage and number of trucks with three or more axels expected to cross the railroad tracks each day is just over 500 in the 5-year scenario and about 750 in the 25-year scenario. The posted speed limit on Spring Creek is anticipated to be set at 25 mph. Table 3. Spring Creek Crossing Traffic Volumes Scenario Daily Vehicle Daily Truck Speed Limit Truck Percent Traffic Traffic (mph) 5-Year 8,600 6% 515 25 25-Year 12,400 6% 750 25 C. Traffic Operations Using projected traffic volumes, level of service and 95 th percentile queue lengths were calculated at the Hancock Expressway and Las Vegas Street intersections with Spring Creek Drive. These results are shown in Figure 8. As expected, signalized intersections at both ends of Spring Creek operate well in both the 5-year and 25-year scenarios with LOS B during peak hours. Figure 8 also shows 95 th percentile queue lengths while Table 4 compares Spring Creek 95 th percentile queue lengths to the distance between the stop bar and the center of the railroad tracks. As shown, in the near future 95 th percentile queues on Spring Creek Drive will not extend past the railroad tracks from either direction. In the 25-year scenario, only the southbound queue at Las Vegas is projected to extend to or past the railroad tracks. Table 4. Spring Creek Drive 95 th Percentile Queue Lengths Southbound Spring Creek at Las Vegas Northbound Spring Creek at Hancock Expressway 95 th Percentile Queue (Feet) Distance From Stop Bar to 95 th Percentile Queue (Feet) Distance From Stop Bar to Scenario AM Peak PM Peak Center of Tracks AM Peak PM Peak Center of Tracks 5-Year 95 90 115 80 125 450 25-Year 150 140 115 130 170 450 Page 13

Las Vegas Railroad Crossing : RR/PUC Coordination and Preliminary Design B Royer Railroad Crossing: Primary Users: B C Royer St. Fountain Blvd. Royer Crossing Spring Creek Crossing Hancock Expwy. Union Blvd. 24 A Spring Creek Railroad Crossing: Primary Users: B C Nevada Ave. D Janitell Rd. Circle Dr. Secondary Users: A C LEGEND X = Travel Sheds = Crossing Locations = Additional Areas Served by Spring Creek Crossing 25 C Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Colorado Springs Railroad Crossing (Task IIa), 10-114-02, 11/10/11 Figure 7 Travel Sheds NORTH

Las Vegas Railroad Crossing : RR/PUC Coordination and Preliminary Design Daily & Peak Hour Volumes Levels of Service XX'(XX') = AM(PM) 95th Percentile Queue Daily & Peak Hour Volumes Levels of Service a. 5-Year Scenario b. 25-Year Scenario Felsburg Holt & Ullevig Colorado Springs Railroad Crossing (Task IIa), 10-114-02, 11/9/11 Figure 8 Spring Creek Crossing Improvements - Future Conditions NORTH 13,300 11,300 12,400 10,300 8,100 Spring Creek Spring Creek Spring Creek 8,600 Spring Creek Hancock Expwy. Hancock Expwy. Hancock Expwy. Hancock Expwy. B/B B/B B/B B/B 205(170) 155(145) 75(245) 5(0) 165(120) 1 140(210) 110(215) 155(225) 135(225) 35(15) 230(125) 145(100) 90(140) 210(175) 180(275) 200(315) 115(335) 5(0) 235(190) 1 575(1035) 155(270) 175(250) 265(200) 300(240) 220(180) 35(15) 1240(575) 360(150) 140'(90') 150'(140') 30(10) 5(0) 25(20) 140'(190') 75'(65') 195'(280') 65'(60') 125'(170') 130'(155') LEGEND XXX(XXX) XXXX X/X = AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes = Daily Traffic Volumes = Signalized Level of Service = Traffic Signal 80'(60') 95'(90') 65'(125') 80'(65') 30(10) 5(0) 25(20)

V. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The existing at-grade railroad crossing at Royer Street has several safety issues. These include a very short distance between the crossing the next intersection at Las Vegas Street and a steep grade between the tracks and Las Vegas Street that causes trucks with long trailers to high center on the tracks. The City of Colorado Springs has attempted to temporarily address the safety issues by warning truck traffic through signing to not use the crossing. Concurrently, the City has also evaluated design solutions to mitigate the high centering safety issue. The City has taken these steps because they desire to keep the one at-grade railroad crossing in the Las Vegas Street corridor open. Simply eliminating the Royer Street crossing without a replacement crossing has following negative consequences on the city. Disconnects Las Vegas Street from the city s roadway network to the north and to the east. Hampers the city s ability to access their water treatment plant, Adds to local area business employees and their patrons up to additional mile of out-ofdirection travel and Restricts access to the Hillside Neighborhood which has the highest percentage of minority families in El Paso County. Therefore, the City has put forth two proposals to address the safety issues and to keep an atgrade railroad crossing open in the Las Vegas corridor. One option is to improve the existing Royer Street crossing. This option would add turn lanes on Las Vegas Street and raise Las Vegas Street to stop vehicles with trailers from high centering on the tracks. This option impacts existing property and business access on Las Vegas Street, existing utilities and still would not meet roadway design criteria for approach grades to intersections or quiet zone design criteria. The other option is too replace the Royer Street at-grade crossing with a new railroad crossing at Spring Creek Drive. This crossing does not have private property impacts, meets roadway design criteria and meets design criteria for quiet zones. Compared to improvements at the existing Royer Street crossing, the Spring Creek Drive option provides a greater separation between the railroad tracks and Las Vegas Street and provides a more convenient connection between Las Vegas Street and other major city roadways such as Union Boulevard, Hancock Expressway and US 24. Therefore, the City of Colorado Springs requests approval to replace the existing Royer Street crossing with a crossing at Spring Creek Drive. The Spring Creek Crossing meets roadway and quiet zone design criteria and eliminates the existing safety issue at the Royer Street crossing. Operational analyses show the intersection would operate with acceptable levels of service. The 95 th percentile queue lengths from Las Vegas could exceed the distance between the stop bar and the center of the tracks but this can be addressed with signal preemption that would clear the approach area of vehicles prior to the train s arrival. Page 16