Bill seeks interim working group to plan regional rail in Nevada; wide support from transit, environmental and labor groups

Assemblymember Selena LaRue Hatch told the committee that Assembly Bill 256 would create a regional rail transit advisory working group to undertake an interim study and produce a plan to advance passenger rail transit across Nevada. “Fully functioning regional transit system with rail is not a 1 session bill,” LaRue Hatch said, and she described AB256 as the first step to combine existing planning and feasibility work and identify funding and legislative needs.

Presenters from the Nevada Rail Coalition and labor unions outlined the potential benefits. Anne Macquarrie summarized the 2021 Nevada State Rail Plan and said the state's existing rail footprint provides a foundation for cost‑effective passenger projects. Gabe Christiansen, representing railroad workers, pointed to potential quick wins using existing rights‑of‑way and argued rail can be more adaptable and have a smaller environmental footprint than repeated highway expansions. Supporters — including the Sierra Club (Tahoe‑Basin chapter), Nevada Environmental Justice Coalition, Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, Regional Transportation Commissions of Washoe and Southern Nevada, labor councils and several business and community groups — urged the committee to advance the bill so a working group can aggregate current studies and recommend next steps.

LaRue Hatch outlined that the working group would be housed in the interim Growth and Infrastructure committee, meet monthly, serve without compensation, and produce a study report identifying current rail conditions, desired routes, possible funding sources (including federal grants), and recommended statutory or funding changes for the legislature. She said membership would include state and local officials, regional transit agencies, labor and business representatives, and other stakeholders; she indicated she was open to adding a rural representative and a trade association seat after stakeholder requests.

Supporters gave examples of likely corridors and potential economic and household benefits: connecting the airport, the Las Vegas Strip and downtown; linking the North Valleys with Reno and the Tahoe Reno Industrial Center; and using existing freight corridors where feasible. Witnesses cited potential household savings from reduced car ownership and national analyses of jobs supported per billion dollars invested in transit. Multiple transit agencies said they are already conducting feasibility work and welcomed the coordinated interim working group.

Opposition was limited at the hearing but included public commenters who raised questions about cost allocation and potential legal issues related to local authority and special legislation. Story County, appearing in neutral, noted it is a contributor to the existing RTC Washoe Tahoe‑Reno Industrial Center study and described the RTC study as a collaborative regional effort.

No committee vote on AB256 was recorded at this hearing; committee members asked questions about membership, rural representation, existing right‑of‑way use, and financing options to be examined by the working group.