Loading...
03 March 18, 2019 Technical Advisory Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. MEETING AGENDA Technical Advisory Committee Time 10:30 a.m. (PLEASE NOTE TIME) Date March 18, 2019 Location Coachella Valley Association of Governments Board Room 73710 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 COMMITTEE MEMBERS Lori Askew, City of Calimesa Armando Baldizzone, City of Blythe Chad Blais, City of Norco Bo Chen, City of Palm Desert K. George Colangeli, PVVTA John Corella, Cathedral City Victor A. Duran, SunLine Transit Agency Jesse Eckenroth, City of Rancho Mirage Brad Fagrell, City of Lake Elsinore Christopher Gray, WRCOG Jonathan Hoy, City of Coachella Vacant, City of Beaumont Joe Indrawan, City of Eastvale Rohan Kuruppu, Riverside Transit Agency David Lee, Caltrans District 8 Steve Loriso, City of Jurupa Valley Martin Magana, CVAG Bryan McKinney, City of La Quinta Bob Moehling, City of Murrieta Farshid Mohammadi, City of Riverside Vice Chair Joel Montalvo, City of Palm Springs Habib Motlagh, Cities of Perris and San Jacinto Nelson Nelson, City of Corona Aaron Palmer, City of Canyon Lake Daniel Porras, City of Desert Hot Springs Patricia Romo, County of Riverside Ken Seumalo, City of Indian Wells – Chair Sudi Shoja, City of Hemet Jonathan Smith, City of Menifee Patrick Thomas, City of Temecula Art Vela, City of Banning Timothy T. Wassil, City of Indio Michael Wolfe, City of Moreno Valley Dan York, City of Wildomar RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda. TIME: 10:30 A.M. DATE: March 18, 2019 LOCATION: Coachella Valley Association of Governments Board Room 73710 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Government Code Section 54954.2, and the Federal Transit Administration Title VI, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787‐7141 if special assistance is needed to participate in a public meeting, including accessibility and translation services. Assistance is provided free of charge. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting time will assist staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide assistance at the meeting. 1. Call to Order 2. Self-Introductions 3. Approval of September 17, 2018 and January 14, 2019 Minutes 4. Public Comments (This is for comments on items not listed on agenda. Comments relating to an item on the agenda will be taken when the item is before the Committee.) 5. Election of Officers 6. Logistics Fee Study Update (Attachment) 7. ATP Cycle 4 MPO Project Recommendations (Verbal Presentation) 8. FY 2019/20 SB 821 Call for Projects (Verbal Presentation) 9. FTIP Schedule Update (Attachment) 10. SB-1 Funding Program March 12th Workshop Update (Attachment) 11. #RebootMyCommute (Verbal Presentation) 12. Caltrans Update (Attachment) 13. January Commission Workshop Highlights (Verbal Presentation) 14. Other Announcements Technical Advisory Committee Meeting March 18, 2019 Page 2 15. Other Business 16. Adjournment The next meeting will be May 20 in Riverside at 10:00 a.m. MINUTES AGENDA ITEM 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: March 18, 2019 TO: Technical Advisory Committee FROM: Lorelle Moe-Luna, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: Approval of the Logistics Mitigation Fee Nexus Study STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1. Receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Purpose of the Study In 2015, the Commission and the County of Riverside (County) filed a lawsuit against the City of Moreno Valley and Highland Fairview, the developer of the World Logistics Center (WLC) project. The lawsuit challenged the environmental impact report to ensure adequate mitigation to impacts created by the WLC project. The WLC is pr oposed to be located in the eastern portion of the city, southerly of State Route 60, between Redlands Boulevard and Gilman Springs Road. The project would encompass over 2,610 acres with 40 million square feet for a large -scale logistics operation and is estimated to attract over 14,000 truck trips and 68,721 trips daily . In July 2016, a settlement agreement was reached between the Commission, the County, the City of Moreno Valley, and Highland Fairview. A key provision of the settlement required that the four parties each contribute $250,000, for a total of $1 million, for the Commission to conduct a regional transportation study to evaluate a logistics-related regional fee, including the fee structure and implementing mechanism. A result of the study could be a new fee program that would, for example, set a fee on new distribution center warehouses, based on facility size, to help pay for highway improvements. This fee would differ from existing Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Programs in that it would only focus on highway projects, as compared to the regional TUMF Programs, which collect funds for regional arterials and local streets. Per the settlement agreement, if the County or at least 75 percent of the Commission’s member cities adopt a regional warehouse fee within two years after a final court judgment is issued, Highland Fairview will pay 65 cents per square foot for each operating warehouse within the WLC. If no regional fee is adopted, the fee would be 50 cents per square foot. Proceeds would be used for projects identified as part of the regional truck study. Scope of Work The scope of work includes five tasks as summarized in the table below: Task/Scope Task 1: Existing and Future Conditions Analysis  Inventory existing and forecasted (2040) logistics facilities in the County, analyze the various types of logistics facilities, the functions that they serve, and the types of businesses that utilize them.  Quantify truck traffic and impacts on the highway system related to existing and forecasted (2040) logistics facilities in the County; describe the nature of the truck trips such as origin/destination, type of cargo, time-of-day, and equipment. Task 2: Funding and Cost Analysis  Identify and quantify currently available funding sources and mechanisms to offset impacts of logistics facilities in the County.  Identify and quantify costs of addressing existing deficiencies in highway infrastructure in the County. Task 3: Nexus Study  Establish the relationship between growth of logistics-related facilities within the County, truck traffic growth, and the needed improvements to mitigate such growth. Task 4: Fee Allocation Structure and Implementing Mechanism  Design a fee program based on the research and review of existing and similar fees throughout the County and other states with consideration to the legal, political, and practical implications; conduct an economic elasticity analysis that measures the impact of a logistics-related facilities mitigation fee, particularly focused on local employment and economic development.  The proposed fee program will, at minimum, include: legal requirements; actions required by the Commission and other local jurisdictions; implementation mechanism; fee schedule; anticipated revenues; parameters of expenditures from fee revenues; and timeframe of the fee program. Task 5: Study Recommendations  A compilation of all information gathered from all tasks to make findi ngs and recommendations to the Commission on actions it can take to establish a new regional logistics-related facilities mitigation fee in the County. Project Status In January 2017, the Commission approved the award for a regional truck study and development and implementation of a regional logistics mitigation fee to WSP USA, formerly Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. The study was kicked off in spring 2017 and a Study Advisory Team was created to review and discuss the data and deliverables provided by the consultant team. Since then, staff has also provided updates on the study to the RCTC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), comprised of Public Works Directors and City Engineers as appointed by the City Managers, and other regional bodies such as the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) City Managers TAC, and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Transportation Committee. At the June 2018 Commission meeting, staff and the project consultant provided an update on the study. At that time, the Existing and Future Conditions Analysis and Funding and Cost Analysis were completed and concluded the following:  Sufficient data sources are available to justify the completion of a Nexus Study;  Logistics warehousing is estimated to grow in Riverside County by about 37 million square feet by 2040;  Future deficiencies in the highway network caused by logistics growth were identified in western county;  Proposed projects to mitigate the logistics growth could range from the addition o f an auxiliary lane at on-and-off ramps, or, the widening of a mainline;  Existing capacity deficiencies, pass-through trips in Riverside County, and infrastructure improvements that are already planned or have been completed (i.e. SR-91 Capital Improvement Program or French Valley Parkway) would be excluded;  Total cost of infrastructure improvements is estimated at $383.3 million, of which the attributable share to logistics growth is $47.8 million; and  A potential fee could be up to $1.28 per square foot of gross floor area. A Nexus Study is also being finalized to establish the relationship between growth related to logistics facilities and truck traffic and the improvements needed to mitigate such growth. At the July 2018 Commission meeting, public comments from the development community were made regarding the study, including a request for additional public outreach . At the September 2018 Commission meeting, staff reported that additional stakeholder outreach efforts were planned to provide the public with information on the study and to solicit feedback and comments. A stakeholder workshop was held on September 28, 2018 and December 7, 2018 to target public and private stakeholders, such as local and regional agencies and the development community. The workshops were advertised via the website, social media, the Study Advisory Team, and RCTC and partnering-agency distribution lists. There was a total of about 42 attendees between both workshops. The workshops provided an overview of the study purpose and preliminary findings, including the methodology of the fee and the maximum amount that could be charged. Most of the comments and questions received were more general in terms of who the fee would apply to and what types of projects the fee revenues would be allocated towards. Some comments were more technical regarding the methodology and calculation of the fee. Workshop and study materials were made available at www.rctc.org/feestudy for stakeholders to submit comments and review study materials. The study also considered the potential locational impacts a logistics mitigation fee might have on economic development in the county. Research indicates that a logistics mitigation fee would likely have limited impacts on demand for warehouse development in Riverside County. For example, it is estimated that total development costs in Western Riverside County is about $121.10 per square feet for industrial buildings and a proposed logistics fee of up to $1.28 would increase the total by about 1.1%. In comparison, the total development costs in Los Angeles County is about 55% higher than the Inland Empire. Additionally, impact fees are generally higher in San Bernardino County compared to Riverside County, although fees vary widely. A logistics fee in Riverside County would make the average for Western Riverside County higher than San Bernardino. Next Steps Staff is moving forward with finalizing the Nexus Study, which will be taken to the Commission in May 2019 for approval. The approval of the Nexus Study does not constitute the pursuit of a fee program, but rather fulfills the Commission’s obligation to complete the analysis per the settlement agreement. Should the Commission decide to pursue a fee program, staff would return at a later time for the approval of an implementation plan including a proposal of the establishment of a fee administrator. If implemented, the required adoption and public hearing process for the Nexus Study would take place. Fiscal Impact There is no financial impact for this item. Attachment 1: Draft Nexus Study Prepared for : Prepared by: In partnership with Revised: June 2018 RCTC TRUCK STUDY AND REGIONAL LOGISTICS MITIGATION FEE Draft Technical Memorandum: Task 3 – Nexus Study RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study i Table of Contents 1. Introduction, Background and Purpose ................................................................................. 1 1.1. Nexus Study Process ....................................................................................................... 2 2. Forecasting Logistics Growth And Traffic Impacts ............................................................... 4 2.1. Forecasting Logistics Growth ......................................................................................... 4 2.2. Forecasting Traffic Impacts ............................................................................................. 9 2.2.1. SCAG Model Adjustment and Re-Validation ........................................................ 10 2.2.2. Forecasting Traffic Volumes and Identifying Traffic Impacts .............................. 12 2.3. Attributing Capacity Deficiencies to New Logistics Development .............................. 18 2.3.1. Percent Attributable to Future Development ........................................................ 18 2.3.2. Percent Attributable to New Logistics Trucks in Riverside County ...................... 18 2.3.3. Percent of Freeway Capacity Deficiencies Attributable to New Logistics Development in Riverside County ....................................................................................... 19 3. Determining Freeway Mitigation Concepts and Costs........................................................ 22 3.1. Assessing Project Limits ............................................................................................... 22 3.2. Review of Currently Funded/Programmed Improvements.......................................... 23 3.3. Development of Project Concepts ................................................................................ 25 3.4. Project Cost Estimating ................................................................................................. 26 3.4.1. Project Costs Attributable to New Logistics Development .................................. 29 4. Funding Gap Analysis ........................................................................................................... 30 4.1. Riverside County Strategic Assessment ....................................................................... 30 4.2. Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act ............................................................... 31 4.3. Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Senate Bill 1) ........................................ 32 4.4. Summary of Available Funding from All Sources ........................................................ 32 5. Logistics Mitigation Fee and Nexus Determination ............................................................ 34 5.1. Logistics Mitigation Fee Calculation............................................................................. 34 5.2. Nexus Determination .................................................................................................... 35 5.2.1. Purpose of the Fee ................................................................................................. 35 5.2.2. Use of Fee Revenues .............................................................................................. 35 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study ii 5.2.3. Use/Type-of-Development Relationship ............................................................... 36 5.2.4. Need/Type-of-Development Relationship ............................................................. 36 5.2.5. Proportionality Relationship .................................................................................. 37 5.3. Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 37 6. Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 38 Appendix A – Capacity Improvement Concept Plans ................................................................ A-1 Appendix B – Conceptual Project Cost Estimate Tables ........................................................... B-1 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study iii List of Figures Figure 1-1: Flowchart of Key Steps in the Nexus Study Process .................................................. 3 Figure 2-1: EDD Warehouse and Other Transportation Employment Extrapolated Trends (Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA) ..................................................................................... 5 Figure 2-2: Transportation Employment - Caltrans Transportation Economics Branch Forecast vs. Extrapolated EDD Trend (Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA) ...................................... 6 Figure 2-3: Comparison of Modeled to Actual Daily Truck Volumes on Riverside County Freeways ....................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2-4: AM and PM Peak Hour Comparison of PEMS Total Traffic Volumes and SCAG Model Total Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................................... 11 Figure 2-5: AM and PM Peak Hour Comparison of PEMS Total Traffic Volumes and SCAG Model Adjusted Total Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................ 12 Figure 2-6: Existing Deficiencies on Riverside County Freeways during the AM Peak Hour .... 14 Figure 2-7: Future Deficiencies on Riverside County Freeways during the AM Peak Hour ...... 14 Figure 2-8: Existing Deficiencies on Riverside County Freeways during the PM Peak Hour .... 15 Figure 2-9: Future Deficiencies on Riverside County Freeways during the PM Peak Hour ...... 15 Figure 2-10: Capacity Deficient Segments on Riverside County Freeways (2040 No Improvement) .............................................................................................................................. 17 Figure 2-11: Components of 2040 Traffic Demand as a Percentage of Capacity ..................... 21 List of TablesList of TablesList of TablesList of Tables Table 2-1: Warehouse Trends in Riverside County, 2012-2040 .................................................... 7 Table 2-2: Warehouse Growth in Riverside County, 2016-2040 ................................................... 7 Table 2-3: Warehouse Growth by TAZs in Riverside County (in thousand square feet gross floor area and percentage) ............................................................................................................. 8 Table 2.4: Capacity Deficient Segments on Riverside County Freeways (2040 No Improvement) .............................................................................................................................. 16 Table 2-5: Deficient Segment Locations and Percent Attributable to New Logistics Development in Riverside County ............................................................................................... 20 Table 3-1: Practical Limits of Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Projects ................... 23 Table 3-2: Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Projects to be Included in the Fee Program ........................................................................................................................................ 25 Table 3-3: Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Project Conceptual Cost Estimates ...... 28 Table 3-4: Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Project Logistics Cost Share ................. 29 Table 4-1: Freeway Funding Program Amount (in millions) and Risk, 2016 to 2039 ............... 31 Table 4-2: Projected RCTC Funding from FAST (in millions), 2017 to 2040 ............................. 32 Table 4-3: Projected RCTC Funding from SB1 (in millions), 2017 to 2040 ............................... 32 Table 4-4: RCTC Projected Freeway Project Funding 2017-2040 - All Sources (in millions) ..... 33 Table 5-1: Logistics and Warehouse Impact Fee Calculation ..................................................... 34 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 1 1. INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Despite the recent slow-down in the rate of development in the region due to the lasting effects of the economic recession, Western Riverside County remains one of the fastest growing regions in the country. The proximity to Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego, the availability of comparatively affordable land, and the generally high quality of life in area communities each contribute to making Riverside County an attractive place to live and work. However, the continuing rapid rate of growth in the region exceeds the capacity of existing financial resources to meet demand for transportation infrastructure. Traditional transportation funding sources, Measure A and the respective Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) programs, as well motor fuel tax revenues generated by the recent enactment of Senate Bill 1 (SB1), substantially contribute to building and maintaining transportation infrastructure, although these funding sources are considered insufficient to address all the area’s transportation funding needs into the future. This is particularly the case for the freeway system in Western Riverside County where existing needs, anticipated future growth and the fluctuating increase in land and material costs exceed the capability of current local, state and federal programs to meet future funding needs. The projected growth in Western Riverside County can be expected to significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial additional investments are not made in the transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for the freeway system which provides the foundation for the area’s transportation system and is recognized as an essential element for sustaining the regional economy. Further increases in congestion and degradation in mobility on the freeway system will have a considerable impact on the economy and overall quality of life in Western Riverside County. The impact of trucks and other traffic associated with warehousing and logistics uses has increasingly emerged as an issue of concern in Riverside County as more of these developments are located within the county. The issue of adequate mitigation of the impacts of these uses on regional freeways recently culminated with a multi-party lawsuit involving mitigation of the Highland Fairview development in Moreno Valley. As part of a settlement agreement between the respective parties to the lawsuit, it was agreed that the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) would undertake a regional truck study to verify the cumulative level of impact of warehousing and logistics uses on the freeway system in Riverside County as the basis for establishing a regional logistics mitigation fee. This Nexus Study represents a critical milestone in the RCTC Truck Study and Development and Implementation of Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee work effort. The RCTC Truck Study and Development and Implementation of Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee is intended to verify the anticipated rate of growth in warehousing and logistics-related development in Riverside County, and to quantify the associated level of traffic impacts on the Riverside County highway system because of the expected growth in warehousing and logistics RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 2 activities. In quantifying impacts, the study is also intended to determine the amount that each new warehousing or logistics development should pay in lieu of completing actual freeway improvements to mitigate the cumulative regional traffic impacts specifically associated with truck trips generated by new warehousing and logistics developments. The findings of this study are intended to provide the framework for implementing a program to collect impact fees that will contribute to mitigating the truck traffic impacts associated with new warehousing and logistics developments in Riverside County. Such a program can help to ensure that all new logistics-related development approved in Riverside County will bear a proportional fair share of the cost of building transportation infrastructure to address future transportation needs. This technical memorandum represents the third in a series of documents that will verify the rate of new warehousing and logistics related developments in Riverside County, the associated truck trip generation rates and cumulative regional traffic impacts, the cost to mitigate these impacts, and the fair share basis for collecting a potential fee. This document summarizes the technical evaluation efforts and presents the analysis findings developed as part of the prior study tasks to calculate a fair share fee amount and document the rational nexus for a regional logistics mitigation fee. 1.1. NEXUS STUDY PROCESS The various steps of the fee calculation process that contribute to accomplishing this task are summarized in the following sections of this document. The study process starts by confirming the expected growth in population and employment in the region, and specifically growth in warehousing and logistics uses in Riverside County, applies the regional travel demand model to generate traffic data outputs to identify future capacity deficiencies in the highway network, and then determines the proportion of those deficiencies that are attributable to new warehousing and logistics related development. The resultant information is then cross-referenced with project cost information to determine the overall cost of mitigating logistics impacts as the basis for estimating a fee. This cost is then divided by the anticipated rate of growth in new warehousing and logistics developments in Riverside County to determine the fair share fee amount. The subsequent chapters of this Nexus Study document describe the various assumptions, data inputs and analysis leading to the determination of a fee that represents the maximum “fair share” amount that can be charged to new warehouse and logistics uses to mitigate the indirect cumulative regional impacts of the development on the freeway network. The overall process for establishing the fee nexus is illustrated in the flow chart in Figure 1.1 outlining the various technical steps in this fee calculation process. Each technical step that was followed to determine the fee and establish the program nexus is described in the subsequent sections, with reference to the numbers denoted on the flow chart correlating to the various steps. The flow chart also incorporates color coding of the steps to indicate those steps that involved the application of the SCAG regional travel demand model, steps that utilized other input data, steps that are computations of various inputs, and key outputs. RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 3 Figure 1-1: Flowchart of Key Steps in the Nexus Study Process RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 4 2. FORECASTING LOGISTICS GROWTH AND TRAFFIC IMPACTS This initial phase of the study process is to inventory existing logistics facilities in Riverside County, confirm the forecast growth in logistics facilities through 2040, and determine the magnitude and location of logistics related truck traffic impacts. This effort encompasses the first nine steps illustrated in the study process flow chart. 2.1. FORECASTING LOGISTICS GROWTH The settlement agreement that prompted the study effort specifically cites warehouse and logistics uses as the subject of the analysis and potential fee. As a precursor to inventorying and forecasting logistics facilities and their impacts, specific types of logistics facilities were defined to be the subject of the analysis and resultant fee based on the functions they serve, the types of businesses that utilize them, and their design and trip generation characteristics. A range of data sources were reviewed including the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) High-Cube Warehouse Vehicle Trip Generation Analysis, the SCAG Industrial Warehousing Study, the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, and the recently-released SCAQMD/NAIOP/ITE study of vehicle trip generation for high-cube warehouses, as well as available industry databases to identify an appropriate definition of the subject uses. The various datasets use different systems to classify industries; the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC). The U.S. Census Bureau uses the NAICS structure. Similarly, SCAG uses the NAICS structure as the basis for developing regional employment forecasts as part of its long-range planning responsibilities. The NAICS applies a 6-digit hierarchical coding system to classify all economic activity into 20 industry sectors. Five sectors are mainly goods-producing sectors and 15 are entirely services- producing sectors. Transportation and Warehousing (Industry Code 48 & 49) is defined in NAICS as “Industries providing transportation of passengers and cargo, warehousing and storage for goods, scenic and sightseeing transportation, and support activities related to modes of transportation. Establishments in these industries use transportation equipment or transportation related facilities as a productive asset. Modes of transportation include air, rail, water, road, and pipeline. (Example: Freight Trucking Companies, Warehousing and Storage, Couriers and Delivery Services.)”1. The Warehousing subcategory (NAICS subcategory code 493) is included within this category and was determined to be the most applicable subcategory for the purposes of this study. The current SCAG Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) was adopted on April 7, 2016 and constitutes the officially-adopted land use forecast for the region. The horizon year for the SCS is 2040. The primary SCS forecast for non-residential development incorporates units of jobs (as opposed to acres, square feet, etc.) for a full range of land uses, including Warehousing employment. As the adopted growth forecast for the SCAG region, the SCAG SCS provides the starting point for forecasting logistics growth in Riverside County. The SCAG SCS base year (2012) jobs in the Warehousing subcategory was compared to other sources as a reasonableness check. The California Employment Development Department 1 North American Industry Classification System United States, Executive Office of the President Office of Management and Budget, 2017 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 5 (EDD) Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) employment data by detailed NAICS industries code were utilized for this purpose. The SCAG SCS base year (2012) employment in Warehousing in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties is 15,821 jobs, which is less than two-thirds of the 24,900 Warehousing jobs indicated for the same period in the EDD employment data for the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA. For this reason, the SCAG SCS data were adjusted to support the travel demand forecasting completed as part of this study. EDD collects data on employment by detailed NAICS industries, but only at the MSA geographic level. Moreover, EDD does not include long-term forecasts, only past observed data. Therefore, the EDD historical data for the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA had to be extrapolated into the future and disaggregated by county. The adjustments were accomplished by first observing the historical trend for Warehousing jobs in the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA and extrapolating for the years 2016 to 2040. As illustrated in Figure 2-1, 2003 marks a notable inflection point where the rate of growth in warehousing increases relative to the growth of transportation/warehousing employment overall. Therefore, the post-2003 trend was used to extrapolate from 2016 to 2040 for both for the Warehousing sub-category and the rest of Transportation sub-categories as the basis for adjusting the employment data in the model. Figure 2-1: EDD Warehouse and Other Transportation Employment Extrapolated Trends (Riverside- San Bernardino-Ontario MSA) Caltrans’ Transportation Economics Branch provides annual county-level projections of employment by 2-digit NAICS industry categories through 2050. A comparison of the Caltrans data for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties combined reveals the total jobs for 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 19901992199419961998200020022004200620082010201220142016201820202022202420262028203020322034203620382040Warehouse Non-Warehouse RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 6 Transportation and Warehousing correlates very closely with the EDD historical trend extrapolation described previously, as illustrated in Figure 2-2. Considering the close correlation of totals between datasets, the proportion of total jobs in Transportation and Warehousing in Riverside County compared to San Bernardino County based on the Caltrans dataset was used to disaggregate the EDD extrapolated Warehouse jobs by MSA into county subtotals. Figure 2-2: Transportation Employment - Caltrans Transportation Economics Branch Forecast vs. Extrapolated EDD Trend (Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA) The preceding steps produced a control total for the growth in warehouse jobs in Riverside County accomplishing Step 1 in the study process as illustrated in Figure 1-1. However, accomplishing this first step provided no indication about where in the county these jobs would be located. Locational data is needed so that the anticipated growth in warehouse and logistics development will be properly represented in the travel demand forecast in terms of where resultant traffic impacts will affect the freeway system. The best available data for distributing warehousing growth across Riverside County can be derived from the SCAG Industrial Warehousing Study, some products of which are available for Heavy Duty Truck modeling purposes. For the purposes of the Industrial Warehousing Study, SCAG developed forecasts of the rate of warehouse growth in terms of the gross floor area of buildings as well as jobs. Table 2-1 summarizes the forecasts developed as part of the SCAG study effort and incorporated into the SCAG Heavy Duty Truck Model that supported the 2016 RTP/SCS. 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 200020022004200620082010201220142016201820202022202420262028203020322034203620382040Caltrans Economic Forecast Extrapolated EDD Trend RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 7 Table 2-1: Warehouse Trends in Riverside County, 2012-2040 Year High Cube Warehousing Low Cube Warehousing Warehouse Area (square feet) Employment Warehouse Area (square feet) Employment 2012* 41,281,541 1,793 8,833,418 1,804 2016 48,837,363 2,810 14,472,627 2,533 2020 56,393,177 3,819 20,111,826 3,256 2030 64,664,947 6,120 26,810,782 5,070 2040 69,410,192 7,427 31,231,977 6,185 * The area shown in 2012 includes total available floor space. The area shown in 2016 and years after includes planned occupied floor space. Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS Heavy Duty Truck Model Although the SCAG warehouse employment forecast appeared to be low when compared to other data sources, as described previously, the warehouse area forecast appears to be more consistent with the amount of existing and planned warehouse development in Riverside County. Furthermore, as a check of the reasonableness of the EDD extrapolation of Warehouse sector employment in Riverside County, the jobs were multiplied by the square foot per employee ratio for warehousing uses as published by the National Association for Industrial and Office Parks (NAIOP) Logistics Trends and Specific Industries that Will Drive Warehouse and Distribution Growth and Demand for Space in March 2010. As indicated in Table 2-2, when the extrapolated EDD warehouse employment trend forecast is multiplied by the 2,241 square feet per employee ratio cited by NAIOP, the resultant interpolated growth in warehouse building area is similar, although slightly lower, than the rate forecast by SCAG in the Industrial Warehousing Study and utilized in the Heavy Duty Truck Model. For this reason, the rate of growth in the gross floor area of warehouses in Riverside County was accepted by the Study Review Team as the basis for calculating the fee accomplishing Step 4 in the study process, as illustrated in Figure 1-1. This finding also affirmed using the data to guide the disaggregation of EDD extrapolated warehouse jobs in Riverside County for travel demand modeling purposes. Table 2-2: Warehouse Growth in Riverside County, 2016-2040 Growth (2016 to 2040) Employees Square Feet of Gross Floor Area SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS Forecast 8,269 37,332,179 Extrapolated EDD Forecast* 14,582 32,678,262 * Forecast based on EDD extrapolated employment trend and 2,241 square feet per employee ratio from NAIOP Logistics Trends and Specific Industries that Will Drive Warehouse and Distribution Growth and Demand for Space, March 2010 Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS Forecast & Heavy Duty Truck Model; EDD RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 8 Table 2-3 arrays the forecast growth in the gross floor area of warehousing in Riverside County based on the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS forecast presented in the Industrial Warehouse Study and utilized in the Heavy Duty Truck Model. The extrapolated growth in warehouse jobs in Riverside County was multiplied by the percentage of warehouse job growth for each Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) as derived from the SCAG Heavy Duty Truck Model to produce the adjusted forecast of the growth in warehouse employment by TAZ to support the travel demand forecasting conducted as part of this study, accomplishing Step 3 in the study process, as illustrated in Figure 1-1. Table 2-3: Warehouse Growth by TAZs in Riverside County (in thousand square feet gross floor area and percentage) TAZ_ ID High-cube 2016 Low-cube 2016 High-cube 2040 Low-cube 2040 Total Change 2016-2040 Percent change 2016 - 2040 Percent of total growth countywide 43344 5,417 2,323 20,136 8,628 21,024 271.63% 56.31% 43336 641 1,497 3,198 7,461 8,521 398.55% 22.82% 43338 101 231 355 822 845 254.52% 2.26% 43148 4,437 410 4,437 1,029 619 12.77% 1.66% 43571 - - 594 - 594 0.00% 1.59% 43130 2,050 465 2,050 988 522 20.80% 1.40% 43364 - 182 331 293 442 242.86% 1.18% 43573 - - 421 - 421 0.00% 1.13% 43302 655 - 1,072 - 417 63.66% 1.12% 43305 302 - 604 - 302 100.00% 0.81% 43264 - - 300 - 300 0.00% 0.80% 43187 - 119 - 340 221 185.71% 0.59% 43575 156 37 311 75 193 100.00% 0.52% 43260 2,031 820 2,031 1,002 180 6.38% 0.48% 43452 172 - 343 - 172 99.42% 0.46% 43345 - - - 163 163 0.00% 0.44% 43448 - 60 - 209 150 248.33% 0.40% 43286 - - - 149 149 0.00% 0.40% 43332 101 44 202 88 145 100.00% 0.39% 43249 3,197 1,716 3,197 1,860 144 2.93% 0.39% 43395 131 - 262 - 131 100.00% 0.35% 43415 2,992 244 2,992 369 124 3.86% 0.33% 43134 474 454 474 574 120 12.93% 0.32% 43454 119 - 237 - 119 99.16% 0.32% 43168 491 - 491 116 116 23.63% 0.31% RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 9 43409 - - - 108 108 0.00% 0.29% 43366 - - - 89 89 0.00% 0.24% 43236 - 83 - 165 83 98.80% 0.22% 43399 - 81 - 162 81 100.00% 0.22% 43265 - - - 80 80 0.00% 0.21% 43488 - 78 - 155 78 98.72% 0.21% 43563 308 162 308 232 70 14.89% 0.19% 43246 328 487 328 547 61 7.36% 0.16% 43276 - 59 - 117 59 98.31% 0.16% 43429 - 57 - 115 57 101.75% 0.15% 43162 - - - 56 56 0.00% 0.15% 43181 821 61 821 112 51 5.78% 0.14% 43420 286 48 286 96 48 14.37% 0.13% 43261 - 120 - 163 43 35.83% 0.12% 43136 289 193 289 233 40 8.30% 0.11% 43310 - 40 - 80 40 100.00% 0.11% 43125 5,048 692 5,048 727 36 0.61% 0.10% 43474 - 32 - 65 32 103.13% 0.09% 43397 - 31 - 62 31 100.00% 0.08% 43188 380 145 380 175 30 5.71% 0.08% 43214 - 285 - 311 27 9.12% 0.07% TOTAL 30927 11256 51498 28016 37334 3249.83% 100.00% Source: SCAG Industrial Warehouse Study/Heavy Duty Truck Model 2.2. FORECASTING TRAFFIC IMPACTS A key step in the process of determining the basis for any impact fee program is identifying the extent of the impact that will result from new development activity. For the purposes of this study, the SCAG regional travel demand model was the primary tool used for identifying existing and future travel demands and capacity deficiencies, and determining attribution of deficiencies to new logistics trucking2. While the SCAG regional model provides the primary tool for quantifying the traffic impacts of new warehousing and logistics development, additional information regarding the trip generation characteristics of warehousing and logistics land uses is used to validate and refine the SCAG model results for the purposes of the study evaluation. The process for quantifying the trips associated with new logistics centers is summarized in the following section. 2 The following model analysis was performed by WSP based upon modeling information originally developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG is not responsible for how the model is applied or for any changes to the model scripts, model parameters, or model input data. The resulting modeling data does not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of SCAG. SCAG shall not be held responsible for the modeling results and the content of the documentation. RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 10 2.2.1. SCAG Model Adjustment and Re-Validation The California Transportation Commission (CTC) 2010 California Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines states the following about adjusting and re-validating a regional travel model prior to using it for sub-regional studies: “Agencies that use MPO models for purposes other than regional planning should ensure that the model provides the appropriate scale and sensitivity for applications at a sub‐regional level such as corridor, sub‐area, or local planning studies. Below the regional level, model refinements are likely necessary to ensure the model meets the validation targets established in these guidelines and is appropriately sensitive to smaller scale changes associated with sub‐regional studies.” In accordance with the CTC guidelines and best industry practice, the SCAG model was reviewed, adjusted and revalidated to improve the accuracy of the results with respect to freeways in Riverside County. This process involved a series of diagnostic tests being performed on the SCAG model to test its validity for use in a freeway impact fee nexus study. The tests showed that the model reasonably represented truck traffic on Riverside County freeways. For example, Figure 2-3 compares the volume of trucks at various freeway locations in the model versus the volumes provided in the Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS) data. The results reflect a reasonable correlation between the model and actual values, and no systemic tendency towards over- or under-estimating the truck volumes and percentage of total traffic. Figure 2-3: Comparison of Modeled to Actual Daily Truck Volumes on Riverside County Freeways 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000SCAG Model Volumes Traffic Counts I-15 SR 60 I-215 SR-91 I-10 Overestimated Underestimated RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 11 However, the tests also revealed that there was an issue warranting adjustment. Figure 2-4 shows link flows from a SCAG model run for 2016 compared to PeMS data for the same year. This data was evaluated two ways, namely: • The shaded areas in Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4 show the allowable deviation based on Caltrans guidelines. The allowable deviation reflects the fact that the actual traffic volumes on roads fluctuate from day to day, so the “normal” traffic volume that a model should replicate is a range rather than a fixed value. A model is considered generally valid if 75% of the points fall within the allowable deviation. In this case 77% of the sites are within the allowable range in the AM peak hour and 86% in the PM peak hour, so the model passes this test of validity. • The second test was to see whether there was a general tendency for the model to over- estimate or under-estimate total traffic volumes on freeways in Riverside County. Figure 2-4 shows that the model did not satisfy this test; consistently over-estimating traffic on Riverside County freeways by an average of 26% in the AM peak hour and 20% in the PM peak hour. Figure 2-4: AM and PM Peak Hour Comparison of PEMS Total Traffic Volumes and SCAG Model Total Traffic Volumes The model overestimation was corrected by factoring down model volumes in a post-model adjustment3. Only car volumes were factored down, not truck volumes, because truck volumes did not show the same trend of overestimation, as illustrated previously in Figure 2-3. Figure 2-5 shows the results after applying factors of 0.74 and 0.80 in the AM peak hour and PM peak 3 Additional details regarding the model testing, adjustments and re-validation are presented in Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions (WSP, October 2017) and Technical Memorandum: Task 2 – Funding and Cost Analysis (WSP, June 2018). RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 12 hour, respectively. After adjustments, the R-squared4 value increased from 0.11 to 0.79 in the AM peak hour and from 0.51 to 0.84 in the PM peak hour, satisfying the recommended guidelines for model validity. Figure 2-5: AM and PM Peak Hour Comparison of PEMS Total Traffic Volumes and SCAG Model Adjusted Total Traffic Volumes 2.2.2. Forecasting Traffic Volumes and Identifying Traffic Impacts The SCAG Model’s 2016 scenario year network was used for all model runs with the extrapolated 2016 and 2040 socio-economic forecasts described previously in Section 2.1 providing the basis for the demand inputs in Riverside County. These model files were from the version of the SCAG model used to develop the 2016 RTP/SCS. The SCAG model outputs were factored in accordance with the post-model adjustment described in Section 2.2.1 to yield adjusted forecast total traffic volumes on the various freeways in Riverside County for analysis years 2016 and 2040. This process to forecast 2016 and 2040 traffic volumes effectively encompasses steps 10, 12 and 14 as illustrated previously in Figure 1-1. Based on the post-model adjusted total traffic volumes, the volume to capacity (V/C) ratio was computed for each freeway link in Riverside County for the AM and PM peak hours using the capacities and passenger car equivalent (PCE) factors5 embedded in the SCAG model (steps 13 and 15 in Figure 1-1). Per the RCTC Congestion Management Program, the adopted minimum Level of Service (LOS) threshold for freeways in Riverside County is LOS “E” meaning that freeway facilities with a V/C ratio of 1.0 or higher are considered deficient. 4 R-squared is a measure of how well the forecast accounts for variations in the traffic counts. R-squared values can range from 0.00, indicating no relationship between the model values and the counts, to 1.00, indicating that the model accounts for all variation in the count data set. 5 PCE factors are used to account for the difference in size, speed, and maneuverability between different classes of vehicles, including the effect of slopes on the operating characteristics of trucks. RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 13 Figures 2-6 and 2-8 show the existing V/C ratios on Riverside County freeways for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour, respectively, with green and yellow indicating acceptable V/C ratios (<0.9), orange indicating marginal V/C ratios (0.9 – 1.0) and red indicating deficient V/C ratios (>1.0). Under existing conditions, three current deficiencies were identified on the freeway network in Riverside County: SR-91 in Corona during the both the AM and PM peak hours, I-15 in the Jurupa Valley during the PM peak hour, and I-215 between Riverside and Moreno Valley during the PM peak hour. These congested sections may result in queuing in upstream sections whose V/C ratios would not in themselves be problematic, but may be perceived by drivers as problem sections beyond the actual deficient segment. Figures 2-7 and 2-9 show 2040 traffic demand assigned to the existing network6 with no added capacity improvements for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively (i.e. a 2040 “No Improvement” Scenario). Comparing the existing capacity deficiencies with the future deficiencies helps to show where new deficiencies would occur that are entirely attributable to new development. Furthermore, comparing the existing and future V/C ratio on the freeway segments that are currently deficient shows the proportion of the future deficiency that is attributable to new development. The 2040 No Improvmenet results clearly indicate the existing deficiencies worsen and two additional deficiencies in the AM peak hour and five additional deficiencies in the PM peak hour would manifest. It should be noted that although the following exhibits illustrate the model results for the Western Riverside County, modeling and V/C ratios were done for all freeways in Riverside County. However, the results did not indicate any deficient segments of freeway outside of Western Riverside County, although some modest deterioration of V/C can be observed along I-10 in the Coachella Valley during the 2040 PM peak hour, as illustrated in Figure 2-9. It should also be noted that the model results reflect V/C ratio as the basis for identifying freeway capacity deficiencies. Beyond the embedded capacity of each freeway segment in the SCAG model network, the analysis did not consider operational deficiencies in the freeway network that may contribute to traffic breakdown and congestion (e.g. lane drops, weaving and merging areas, horizontal and vertical alignment, and other design characteristics). These types of operational deficiencies can be considered existing design deficiencies and therefore usually cannot be attributed to the impacts of future new development, although future new development can exacerbate the magnitude of congestion associated with these operational deficiencies. For this reason, V/C is used to identify freeway segments with a capacity deficiency that can be attributable to the additional traffic from new development, while also factoring the extent that existing traffic demand contribute to the deficiency. Operational deficiencies are considered during the development of concepts to mitigate the capacity deficiencies to the extent that addressing the operational deficiencies represents necessary improvement elements to accomplish successful mitigation of the capacity deficiency. 6 The SCAG existing model network represents the current state of the transportation system in 2016 and does not reflect those projects completed since 2016. In Riverside County, the SR-91 Express Lanes Extension project that included various freeway improvements along SR-91 from the Orange County line to I-15 was completed after 2016. Projects completed after 2016 (as well as projects currently under construction) get reconciled during subsequent study steps, as described in Chapter 4 of this technical memorandum. RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 14 Figure 2-6: Existing Deficiencies on Riverside County Freeways during the AM Peak Hour Figure 2-7: Future Deficiencies on Riverside County Freeways during the AM Peak Hour RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 15 Figure 2-8: Existing Deficiencies on Riverside County Freeways during the PM Peak Hour Figure 2-9: Future Deficiencies on Riverside County Freeways during the PM Peak Hour RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 16 Based on the findings of the V/C analysis, freeway segments identified as being deficient in the 2040 No Improvement Scenario were tabulated. These locations represent the freeway segments where future traffic demands exceed the existing capacity, and therefore require mitigation. These locations are listed in Table 2-4 and illustrated in Figure 2-10. Section 3 of this report describes the process that was used to determine the share of the deficiency in each of these segments that is specifically attributable to the impacts of new warehousing and logistics developments occurring in Riverside County. Table 2.4: Capacity Deficient Segments on Riverside County Freeways (2040 No Improvement) ID Route Dir Beginning End 1 a,b I-15 NB SR-79 S Rancho California Rd Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd 2 Winchester Rd Lane Add south of I-15/I-215 Split 3 Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd 4 El Cerrito Rd Ontario Ave 5 Norco Dr/6th St Limonite Ave 6 a,b SB Cantu Galeano Ranch Rd Limonite Ave Limonite Ave Norco Dr/6th 7 Cajalco Rd Indian Truck Trail 8 El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd 9 a,b SR-60 EB Rubidoux Blvd Market St Market St Main St 10 a,b I-215 NB Box Springs Rd Central Ave/Watkins Dr Central Ave/Watkins Martin Luther King 10c Martin Luther King Blvd SR-91 11 Center St Off-Ramp Riverside County Line/Iowa 12 SB Martin Luther King Jr Sycamore Canyon Rd 13 Van Buren Blvd Case Rd 14 a,b,c SR-91 EB Riverside County Line Green River Rd Off-Ramp Green River Rd Off-Ramp SR-71 SR-71 Serfas Club Dr Off-Ramp 15 Serfas Club Dr Off-Ramp Grand Blvd Rd Off-Ramp 16 On-Ramp from SB-I-15 On Ramp from NB- I-15 17 McKinley St Off Ramp Pierce St 18 Pierce St Magnolia St 19 a,b WB Serfas Club Dr Off-Ramp Lane Add at SR-71 Lane Add at SR-71 Riverside County Line RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 17 Figure 2-10: Capacity Deficient Segments on Riverside County Freeways (2040 No Improvement) RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 18 2.3. ATTRIBUTING CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES TO NEW LOGISTICS DEVELOPMENT In addition to generating the traffic volume forecasts used as the basis to determine V/C and identify the capacity deficiencies described previously, the SCAG model runs produce several outputs that can be used in the attribution of share to logistics uses. The following section summarizes the process for determining attribution to new logistics development using various outputs from the SCAG model runs. 2.3.1. Percent Attributable to Future Development Impact fees must be limited to only account for a new development’s “fair share” of the cost of needed improvements to mitigate associated impacts. In particular, impacts fees cannot be assessed to directly cover the cost to mitigate existing deficiencies. Therefore, the first step in attributing impacts is to complete a comparison of existing and future freeway deficiencies to determine how much of each future deficiency can be attributed to traffic from future development. There are three possible situations for each freeway link: • Freeway volumes are below the capacity of the freeway, even when the traffic from new development is added in. In such cases there is no deficiency. No fee can be collected because no improvement is needed. • Existing traffic volumes are below the capacity of the freeway, but the addition of traffic from new growth creates a deficiency where none previously existed. In such cases 100% of the deficiency can be attributed to new development. • There is an existing deficiency that will worsen with the addition of traffic from new growth. In these cases, the percent of the deficiency attributable to new growth is the portion of the excess traffic (excess being the traffic above the capacity of the road) that arises from new growth rather than from existing traffic. The existing and future traffic for each of the deficient segments idenfied in Table 2-4 was compared to detemine which of the three possible situations applied. The percent attributable to new development was determined based on this comparison, and the results were tabulated as the share of impact attributable to all new development. 2.3.2. Percent Attributable to New Logistics Trucks in Riverside County In order to compute the percent of each deficiency that is attributable specifically to warehousing and logistics truck trips, it was necessary to separate the truck trips generated by warehousing and logistics uses from the total traffic forecast during the model assignment process. This process is represented by steps 5 through 9 and 19 through 23 as illustrated in the flowchart in Figure 1-1. This process was accomplished by first modifying the Truck Employment table in the SED input files to the SCAG model to reflect only the growth in warehousing and logistics employment in Riverside County. A select-zone query was then generated during the model RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 19 assignment step allowing logistics only truck trips generated by warehouse and logistics uses in Riverside County to be recorded for each link in the model. This specifically isolates the truck trips associated with warehousing and logistics uses in Riverside County from the trips associated with all other land use in the county, as well as the truck trips that are generated outside the county but still traverse freeways within Riverside County (i.e. pass-through trips). A comparison of the Riverside County logistics related truck trips in 2040 to the total traffic forecast in 2040 provides the share of Riverside County logistics related truck trips in 2040 for each deficient segment on Riverside County freeways. 2.3.3. Percent of Freeway Capacity Deficiencies Attributable to New Logistics Development in Riverside County As described in Section 2.2.2, the freeway segments in Riverside County with new or increased deficiencies in either peak hour in 2040 relative to the existing condition in 2016 were identified as deficient segments. For each deficient segment, the share of logistics related truck trips, as described in Section 2.3.2, was multiplied by the share of deficiencies attributable to all future growth, as described in Section 2.3.1, to determine the percent of each deficiency specifically attributable to new logistics related truck trips. Consistent with the identification of deficiencies based on AM and PM peak hour observations, all these steps were done for both AM and PM peak hour traffic, then the peak hour with the higher percent attributable was selected to represent the link. Continuous sequences of model segments, as listed in Table 2-4, were grouped for the purposes of assigning the percent of freeway capacity deficiencies attributable to new logistics development in Riverside County. Where multiple deficient segments were grouped, a weighted percent attributable was calculated based on the respective segment percent attributable and the length of each segment. Table 2-5 arrays the critical V/C ratios, deficiencies, and percent attributable for each deficient segment of freeway in Riverside County. Figure 2-11 visually represents the components of traffic (existing, non-logistics growth, and logistics growth) relative to the capacity for each deficient segment location. RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 20 Table 2-5: Deficient Segment Locations and Percent Attributable to New Logistics Development in Riverside County 2016 AM V/C2016 PM V/C2040 AM V/C2040 PM V/CAM Peak Hour PM Peak HourAM Peak HourPM Peak HourAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour(F) = Max (E)SR-79 S Rancho California Rd4 0.98 0.35 0.66 0.52 1.01 No Deficiency 100% 1.2% 0.7% No Deficiency 0.7%0.7%Rancho California RdWinchester Rd4 1.10 0.45 0.74 0.60 1.01 No Deficiency 100% 1.4% 0.7% No Deficiency 0.7%0.7%2 I-15 NB Winchester Rd Lane Add south of I-15/I-215 Split 4 0.75 0.46 0.79 0.58 1.02 No Deficiency 100% 2.3% 0.9% No Deficiency 0.9%0.9%0.9%3 I-15 NB Clinton Keith RdBaxter Rd3 0.76 0.52 0.80 0.65 1.03 No Deficiency 100% 1.1% 0.3% No Deficiency 0.3%0.3%0.3%4 I-15 NB El Cerrito RdOntario Ave3 0.19 0.86 0.90 1.03 0.88 100% No Deficiency 1.1% 100.0% 1.1% No Deficiency 1.1%1.1%5 I-15 NB Norco Dr/6th StreetLimonite Ave3 2.03 0.82 1.10 0.87 1.14 No Deficiency 29%4.1% 2.5% No Deficiency 0.7%0.7%0.7%Cantu Galeano Ranch RdLimonite Ave3 1.30 0.77 0.96 0.77 1.02 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 4.3% No Deficiency 4.3%4.3%Limonite AveNorco Dr/6th Street3 2.00 0.87 1.01 0.90 1.04 No Deficiency 88%4.7% 5.9% No Deficiency 5.2%5.2%7 I-15 SB El Cerrito RdDos Lagos Dr3 2.14 0.65 0.92 0.61 1.03 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 2.2% No Deficiency 2.2%2.2%2.2%8 I-15 SB Temescal Canyon RdIndian Truck Trail3 2.21 0.61 0.83 0.56 1.01 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 1.4% No Deficiency 1.4%1.4%1.4%Rubidoux BlvdMarket St3 0.79 0.84 0.95 0.81 1.03 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 30.9% No Deficiency 30.9%30.9%Market StMain St3 0.10 0.87 1.00 0.82 1.06 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 39.0% No Deficiency 39.0%39.0%Box Springs RdCentral Ave4 0.41 0.94 1.08 1.09 1.07 100%0%14.3% 100.0% 14.3% 0.0%14.3%Watkins DrMartin Luther King Jr4 0.78 0.94 1.05 1.12 1.16 100%66% 24.8% 57.9% 24.8% 38.4%38.4%10c I-215 NB University Ave Off-Ramp Upstream of Univ Ave On-ramp 3 0.36 0.90 1.04 0.98 1.04 No Deficiency 13% 26.9% 100.0% No Deficiency 13.3%13.3%13.3%11 I-215 NB Center St Off-Ramp Riverside County Line/Iowa Ave 3 0.53 0.79 1.00 0.79 1.03 No Deficiency 97% 91.5% 12.2% No Deficiency 11.8%11.8%11.8%12 I-215 SB Martin Luther King JrSycamore Canyon Rd4 1.58 0.96 1.13 1.07 1.25 100%50% 57.1% 55.2% 57.1% 27.7%57.1%57.1%13 I-215 SB Van Buren BlvdHarley Knox Blvd3 1.22 0.67 0.95 0.64 1.06 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 4.4% No Deficiency 4.4%4.4%4.4%Riverside County Line Green River Rd Off-Ramp 5 0.76 0.89 1.18 0.76 1.23 No Deficiency 23% 100.0% 6.1% No Deficiency 1.4%1.4%Green River Rd Off-RampSR-715 1.33 0.79 1.01 0.72 1.02 No Deficiency 69% 100.0% 14.1% No Deficiency 9.8%9.8%SR-71Serfas Club Dr Off-Ramp4 1.35 0.92 1.17 0.85 1.27 No Deficiency 36% 100.0% 4.1% No Deficiency 1.5%1.5%15 SR-91 NB Serfas Club Dr Off-RampGrand Blvd Off-Ramp4 2.33 0.85 1.00 0.80 1.03 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 8.9% No Deficiency 8.9%8.9%8.9%16 SR-91 NB On-Ramp from SB I-15On-Ramp from NB I-153 0.32 0.81 1.03 0.76 1.07 No Deficiency 55% 100.0% 13.6% No Deficiency 7.5%7.5%7.5%17 SR-91 NB McKinley St Off-RampPierce St3 1.60 0.81 0.98 0.76 1.02 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 10.1% No Deficiency 10.1%10.1%10.1%18 SR-91 NB Magnolia AveLa Sierra Ave3 0.30 0.76 0.93 0.69 1.00 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 8.3% No Deficiency 8.3%8.3%8.3%Serfas Club Dr Off-RampLane Add at SR-714 2.26 0.97 1.08 1.05 1.01 100%0%2.8% 100.0% 2.8% 0.0%2.8%Lane Add at SR-71Riverside County Line5 1.75 0.92 1.00 1.02 0.91 100% No Deficiency 1.8% 100.0% 1.8% No Deficiency 1.8%30.0%4.7%2.3%0.7%4.8%31.8%SR-91 SBSR-9110I-15 NBNBSR-60 EBI-15 SBI-215 NB1916149Critical SegmentPercent Deficiency Attributable to New Logistics TrucksCritical V/C ratioPercent Deficiency Attributable to New DevelopmentPercent Deficiency Attributable to New Logistics Trucks by Peak HourNew Logistics Trucks as Percent of 2016 to 2040 Growth2016 GP Lanes on Critical SegmentEnd(D) (E) = (C) * (D)(A) (B)Weighted Average Highest % Deficiency Attributable to New Logistics TrucksStartRouteNameDirProject ID(C) = 100%, for (A) < 1.0 and (B) > 1.0(C) = [(B)-(A)]/[(B)-1], for (A) > 1.0Segment Length (mi) RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 21 Figure 2-11: Components of 2040 Traffic Demand as a Percentage of Capacity 60%70%80%90%100%110%120%130% 1a 1b 2 3 4 5 6a 6b 7 8 9a 9b 10a 10b 10c 11 12 13 14a 14b 14c 15 16 17 18 19a 19b Existing Traffic Non-Logistics Growth New Logistics Trucks RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 22 3. DETERMINING FREEWAY MITIGATION CONCEPTS AND COSTS Having identified deficient freeway segments in Section 2.2, and determined the share of the deficiency in each segment that is attributable to new warehouse and logistics uses in Riverside County in Section 2.3, the next step in the study process involved the preparation of design concepts for the mitigation of freeway traffic impacts, and the estimation of the costs associated to implement the necessary mitigation. This section describes the process for developing mitigation concepts and determining associated costs. The resultant mitigation costs will be compared to the percent attributable to each deficient segment, as defined in Table 2-5, to determine the fair share of the cost to mitigate each deficient segment to is attributable to the impacts of new warehouse and logistics development in Riverside County. 3.1. ASSESSING PROJECT LIMITS Future capacity deficiencies on the freeway network in Riverside County were summarized in Table 2-4 as a list of directional freeway segments where the future demand exceeded capacity and resulted in a bottleneck in the system. Limiting capacity expansion to the specific identified segment would be expected to mitigate the bottleneck in that segment, however it is likely that the bottleneck would be moved to the next adjacent segment without alleviating the capacity deficiency. Therefore, the list of deficient segments was reviewed in relation to the traffic data and the physical characteristics of the existing freeway facility to determine the extent of the improvement projects that would be necessary (i.e. to define the practical limits and logical termini for the associated improvement project) to effectively mitigate the segment deficiency. At each freeway segment identified as having a capacity deficiency, the traffic data was reviewed to determine the location (typically an off-ramp) where the demand along the corridor was reduced enough to no longer exceed the capacity of the freeway mainline. Other considerations were physical characteristics of the freeway that might also contribute to capacity reduction, such as uphill grades where additional capacity to accommodate slower moving trucks would benefit the operation of the freeway, and system interchanges where demand changed substantially and there were opportunities for lane drops at freeway-to- freeway connectors. The practical limits of each of the 19 projects required to mitigate the deficient segments are listed in Table 3-1. The definition of this project list correlates to accomplishing step 18 in Figure 1-1. RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 23 Table 3-1: Practical Limits of Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Projects ID Route Name Dir Beginning End 1 I-15 NB SR-79 S Rancho California Rd Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd 2 Winchester Rd Lane Add south of I-15/I-215 Split 3 Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd 4 El Cerrito Rd Ontario Ave 5 Norco Dr/6th St Limonite Ave 6 SB Cantu Galeano Ranch Rd Limonite Ave Limonite Ave Norco Dr/6th 7 Cajalco Rd Indian Truck Trail 8 El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd 9 SR-60 EB Rubidoux Blvd Market St Market St Main St 10 I-215 NB Box Springs Rd Central Ave/Watkins Dr Central Ave/Watkins Martin Luther King 10c Martin Luther King Blvd SR-91 11 Center St Off-Ramp Riverside County Line/Iowa 12 SB Martin Luther King Jr Sycamore Canyon Rd 13 Van Buren Blvd Case Rd 14 SR-91 EB Riverside County Line Green River Rd Off-Ramp Green River Rd Off-Ramp SR-71 SR-71 Serfas Club Dr Off-Ramp 15 Serfas Club Dr Off-Ramp Grand Blvd Rd Off-Ramp 16 On-Ramp from SB-I-15 On Ramp from NB- I-15 17 McKinley St Off Ramp Pierce St 18 Pierce St Magnolia St 19 WB Serfas Club Dr Off-Ramp Lane Add at SR-71 Lane Add at SR-71 Riverside County Line 3.2. REVIEW OF CURRENTLY FUNDED/PROGRAMMED IMPROVEMENTS Once the practical limits of the improvements were defined, each project was compared to known, programmed projects that were recently completed (and are not included in the SCAG 2016 Model existing network), are currently under construction, or are currently in RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 24 development and are funded for construction. There are three projects that are within the study area that were identified as meeting these criteria: • The I-15/French Valley Parkway Interchange Project, Phases 1 and 2 • The I-15 Express Lane Project • The SR-91 Express Lane Extension Project The French Valley Parkway Project includes the implementation of the I-15/French Valley Parkway Interchange as well as improvements to the Winchester Road Interchange and a collector-distributor road system along I-15 between Winchester Road and the I-15/I-215 system interchange. This project adds as many as three lanes in each direction north of Winchester Road. Based on the Preferred Alternative Layout Plans included in the IS/EA (January 2010), the FVP Phasing Exhibit (December 2, 2015) and the Ultimate Project Exhibit (July 12, 2017), it was determined that the French Valley Parkway Project successfully eliminates the need to further mitigate deficient segment 2. The I-15 Express Lane Project will implement one or two tolled managed lanes in each direction northbound and southbound between Cajalco Road and SR-60. This project also adds general purpose lanes and auxiliary lanes at specific locations. Based on a review of the I-15 Express Lane Project Tolling Concept Plans (June 21, 2017), the I-15 Express Lane Project successfully eliminates the need to further mitigate deficient segments 4, 5, and 6. The SR-91 Express Lane Extension Project extends from west of the Orange County Line to east of I-15 both eastbound and westbound. In addition to the tolled express lanes, additional general purpose lanes were also constructed as part of this project. Based on a field review of the project as it has been constructed, the SR-91 Express Lane Extension Project successfully eliminates the need to further mitigate deficient segments 14, 15, 17, and 19. Table 3-2 lists the remaining deficient segments and associated mitigation projects that would be included as the basis for the logistics fee program. RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 25 Table 3-2: Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Projects to be Included in the Fee Program ID Route Name Dir Beginning End 1 I-15 NB SR-79 S Rancho California Rd Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd 3 Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd 7 SB Cajalco Rd Indian Truck Trail 8 El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd 9 SR-60 EB Rubidoux Blvd Market St Market St Main St 10 I-215 NB Box Springs Rd Central Ave/Watkins Dr Central Ave/Watkins Martin Luther King 10c Martin Luther King Blvd SR-91 11 Center St Off-Ramp Riverside County Line/Iowa 12 SB Martin Luther King Jr Sycamore Canyon Rd 13 Van Buren Blvd Case Rd 16 SR-91 EB On-Ramp from SB-I-15 On Ramp from NB- I-15 18 Pierce St Magnolia St 3.3. DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT CONCEPTS Using scalable, georeferenced aerial photography, project concept plans were developed consistent with Caltrans design standards for urban area freeways to show the primary quantifiable cost items for each project, including: • Right-of-Way Impact • Retaining Walls • Freeway Mainline Widening • Structure Construction • Ramp Realignment • Roadway Excavation • Street Improvements • Signalization For the initial assessment and development of project concept plans, a combination of Google Earth and limited field reviews were used to determine existing conditions for the corridors. The conditions recorded include number of lanes, width of pavement, HOV lanes, inside (left) shoulder width, outside (right) shoulder width, assumed right-of-way boundary, freeway RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 26 structures, ramp locations, major drainage facilities, retaining walls, sounds walls, signage, and signals. All widths and lengths provided were obtained by doing desktop research on Google Earth and limited field reviews, and were based on sound engineering judgement. Although arterial highway improvement projects were not specifically examined as part of the study effort, any arterial highway improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed freeway capacity improvements (e.g. ramp realignment, bridge reconstruction, intersection signalization) were identified and included in the concept drawings. The concept plans show colored lines and areas that can be measured and used to estimate quantities for the various categories of construction or property acquisition. These project concept drawings were reviewed by the Study Advisory Team to confirm that they reasonably represent the minimum improvements necessary to mitigate the identified deficiency. The resultant improvement concept plans are included in Appendix A of this technical memorandum. The completion of the design concept drawings represents the accomplishment of step 24 in the study process flow chart Figure 1-1. It should be noted that the conceptual designs were based on a visual analysis and that no detailed engineering or surveying has been done to verify the assumptions. 3.4. PROJECT COST ESTIMATING To accomplish step 25 and 26 in the study process, the unit costs for the various construction components were taken from the Caltrans cost database and other recent project cost estimates for projects of similar scale and scope within the Inland Empire. Right-of-way cost per residential unit and per square foot are based on recent property valuations in Riverside County. Specific elements in the unit costs include: Roadway Item Costs - Roadway costs include PCC pavement, tie-back walls, pavement markings and markers and replacement of signs. Unit costs were extrapolated from a similar freeway construction project. - The quantity of each component was then multiplied by the unit cost to produce a cost item for the roadway component. Drainage Item Costs - Per our initial assessment, widening affects the existing drainage. Further analysis is needed as impacts to drainage can increase the costs. - The costs associated with the potential impacts to drainage are 15% of the roadway items cost. Specialty Item Costs - Specialty item costs include retaining walls due to proposed widening, removal of existing retaining walls, sounds wall replacement, tie back walls and ramp adjustments. RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 27 - The quantity of each component was then multiplied by the unit cost to produce a cost item for the specialty item costs. Minor Items Costs - Minor items can include anything from ADA items to other minor items that are not considered high costs items. Typical Caltrans value is 5-10%. Mobilization Costs - Mobilization includes costs incurred due to mobilization of personnel and equipment as well as pre-construction expenses. Typical value of 10% can be adjusted when actual costs are available. Roadway Additions - Roadway addition items can include price index fluctuations, value analysis, maintaining traffic, removal of rock and debris, etc. These supplemental items cover work for items that cannot be quantified as contract bid item. All roadway supplemental items would be within the FHWA approved items list. At this stage it is appropriate to assume there will be supplemental items. Typical Caltrans value is 5- 10%. Contingency - Contingency of 25% is within Caltrans recommended values: Pre-PSR 30%, PSR 25%, Draft PR 20%, PR 15%, after PR approval 10% and final PS&E is 5%. Caltrans contingencies allow for unforeseen increases. Due to the level of detail and engineering available, the contingency percentage is appropriate. As more information becomes available, costs would be refined and contingency would be decreased. This is typical per Caltrans. Support Costs - Support costs are 35% of the capital outlay costs. Support costs include design costs, construction management, Caltrans reimbursed costs and Metro internal costs. These costs are functional overhead costs not administrative overhead. The support costs can be refined as more information becomes available. The unit costs were multiplied by the quantities determined from the conceptual design plans to yield a conceptual cost estimate for each proposed project. The proposed improvement project conceptual cost estimates were compared to the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) 2016 Nexus Study Report, with a focus on identifying arterial-freeway interchange and bridge projects that are also included in TUMF. The TUMF program assesses all development types, including warehouse and logistics uses, impact fees to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on the arterial highway system, including arterial-freeway RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 28 interchanges and bridges. As such, new warehouse and logistics uses are already contributing toward the cost of these improvement projects to the extent they are included in the TUMF program. Where the conceptual improvement projects were determined to include project elements that were also identified in the TUMF program, the conceptual cost estimate for the project was reduced by an amount equal to the lesser of the estimated conceptual cost of the relevant project element (i.e. the conceptual cost of the arterial interchange and/or bridge improvements) or the maximum eligible amount prescribed in the 2016 TUMF Nexus Study. This reduction in the conceptual improvement costs as part of this study eliminates overlap with the TUMF program in terms of the cost for implementing arterial interchange and bridge improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed freeway capacity expansion necessary to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development, including warehousing and logistics uses, on the freeway network. The resultant conceptual project cost estimates are summarized in Table 3-3Error! Reference source not found.. A more detailed breakout of the conceptual project cost estimates to mitigate the deficient segments is included in Appendix B of this technical memorandum. Table 3-3: Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Project Conceptual Cost Estimates ID Route Name Dir Beginning End Cost Estimate 1 I-15 NB SR-79 S Rancho California Rd $36,237,000 Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd 3 Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd $7,406,000 7 SB Cajalco Rd Indian Truck Trail $37,825,000 8 El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd $10,408,000 9 SR-60 EB Rubidoux Blvd Market St $40,234,000 Market St Main St 10 I-215 NB Box Springs Rd Central Ave/Watkins Dr $26,513,000 Central Ave/Watkins Martin Luther King 10c Martin Luther King Blvd SR-91 $55,081,000 11 Center St Off-Ramp Riverside County Line/Iowa $42,212,000 12 SB Martin Luther King Jr Sycamore Canyon Rd $13,403,000 13 Van Buren Blvd Case Rd $95,365,000 16 SR-91 EB On-Ramp from SB-I-15 On Ramp from NB- I-15 $7,611,000 18 Pierce St Magnolia St $13,040,000 Total Project Cost Estimate $385,335,000 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 29 3.4.1. Project Costs Attributable to New Logistics Development The conceptual cost estimate of $385,335,000 presented in Table 3-3 represents the unfunded amount of the total cost to implement the minimum improvements necessary to mitigate the impacts of new development on Riverside County Freeways. However, as described in Section 2.3, this cost cannot be entirely attributed to the impact of new logistics developments and must be adjusted as the basis for calculating a fair share fee to reflect only the share of the cost for each segment that can be attributed to the impact of new logistics developments. This key step in the study process, represented by step 28 in the study process flowchart in Figure 1-1, is accomplished by multiplying the unfunded project costs summarized in Table 3-3 by the share of each segments impact attributable to new logistics development summarized in Table 2-5. Table 3-4 presents the outcome of this step with a total of $47,841,000 or 12.4% of the conceptual cost estimate being determined to be the maximum share of the cost attributable to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new warehousing and logistics developments in Riverside County. Table 3-4: Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Project Logistics Cost Share ID Route Name Dir Beginning End Conceptual Cost Estimate Logistics Attributable Share Logistics Cost Share 1 I-15 NB SR-79 S Rancho California Rd $36,237,000 0.7% $258,000 Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd 3 Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd $7,406,000 0.3% $19,000 7 SB Cajalco Rd Indian Truck Trail $37,825,000 2.2% $820,000 8 El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd $10,408,000 1.4% $142,000 9 SR-60 EB Rubidoux Blvd Market St $40,234,000 31.8% $12,802,000 Market St Main St 10 I-215 NB Box Springs Rd Central Ave/Watkins Dr $26,513,000 30.0% $7,963,000 Central Ave/Watkins Martin Luther King 10c Martin Luther King Blvd SR-91 $55,081,000 13.3% $7,317,000 11 Center St Off-Ramp Riverside County Line/Iowa $42,212,000 11.8% $4,978,000 12 SB Martin Luther King Jr Sycamore Canyon Rd $13,403,000 57.1% $7,658,000 13 Van Buren Blvd Case Rd $95,365,000 4.4% $4,235,000 16 SR-91 EB On-Ramp from SB-I-15 On Ramp from NB- I-15 $7,611,000 7.5% $571,000 18 Pierce St Magnolia St $13,040,000 8.3% $1,078,000 Total Project Cost Estimate $385,335,000 12.4% $47,841,000 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 30 4. FUNDING GAP ANALYSIS As described in Section 3, the fair share of costs to mitigate future freeway deficiencies that are attributable to new warehousing and logistics uses varies by segment, but is a relatively small proportion of the total cost to complete the necessary improvements. Furthermore, although the project concepts and associated cost estimates have identified a minimum level of improvement necessary to reasonably mitigate the identified impact, it is likely the scale and scope of any proposed improvement project would be greater to account for the accomplishment of other transportation goals and/or freeway operational needs, including rehabilitation and roadway maintenance, resolution of existing needs, or anticipation of addition future demands beyond the horizon year of the fee program. Since the resolution of these items cannot be fairly attributed to the mitigation of new development impacts, it is necessary to ensure that sufficient alternative funding sources are expected to be available to complete the necessary improvements and establish an implementable program. This section summarizes projections of alternative transportation funding sources that might be available to complete freeway capacity expansion projects identified as part of this study. 4.1. RIVERSIDE COUNTY STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT In 2015, the RCTC directed its staff to conduct an assessment to assist the Commission in examining the County’s need for transportation investments. In early 2016, the RCTC approved the Riverside County Strategic Assessment7. The Strategic Assessment includes a detailed review of federal, state and local revenues through 2040.8 9 It looked at 37 different funding sources covering all modes and categorized them into three levels (A, B and C), depending on their level of certainty. Category A represents existing revenues that can be reasonably expected to be available in the future, Category B includes existing and programmed revenues that Riverside County might realistically secure on a discretionary or competitive basis and those in Category C are considered strategy revenues. According to the Strategic Assessment, the total costs of freeway and interchange projects between 2016 and 2039 were expected to be $8.724 billion and the anticipated revenues were $5.326 billion, representing funding for 61% of the freeway needs, thus leaving an unfunded gap of $3.326 billion through 2039. Table 4-1 summarizes the breakdown of funding contained in the Strategic Assessment by program and risk. 7 HDR, January 2016, Riverside County Strategic Assessment: Executive Summary, RCTC. 8 Since the document was prepared in 2015, it did not include several recent funding sources, which are discussed later in this memo. 9 HDR, November 4, 2015, RCTC Strategic Assessment Technical Memorandum: Task 4 Funding Gap Analysis. RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 31 Table 4-1: Freeway Funding Program Amount (in millions) and Risk, 2016 to 2039 Funding Program Category A Category B Category C Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) $219.7 Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) $315.2 State Regional Improvement Program (RIP) $441.9 Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) $58.8 Mileage Based User-Fees (MBUF) $2,233.5 Local Measure A* $915.7 SR 91 Net Toll Revenues* $618.5 I-15 Express Lane Toll Revenues* $319.7 Mid County Parkway (MCP) toll revenues $153.5 Total (2016-2039) $2,880 $59 $2,387 *Debt service and operations and maintenance costs have been deducted from these amounts. Because the assessment was prepared in 2015 it did not include certain funding sources approved after that. New funding sources and their potential implications are described in the following sections. 4.2. FIXING AMERICA'S SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ACT On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST) Act10 into law. Overall, the FAST Act largely maintains program structures and funding shares between highways and transit. The FAST Act provided two new grant programs – the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects (NSFHP) and the Advanced Technology and Congestion programs – that could reasonably be expected to provide funding for freeway and interchange projects in Riverside County. Table 4-2 shows the new FAST funding amounts by program and risk category that could reasonably be expected to be available to RCTC each year based on a proportional allocation of total program funding: 10 Pub. L. No. 114-94 RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 32 Table 4-1: Projected RCTC Funding from FAST (in millions), 2017 to 2040 Funding Program Category A Category B Category C NSFHP (INFRA) $159.8 Advanced Technology and Congestion Management Deployment Program $10.7 Total $170.5 4.3. ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017 (SENATE BILL 1) In 2017 the California legislature passed and the governor signed into law a major transportation funding bill.11 The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (referred to as SB1) provided additional funding to several existing programs, including the STIP, and established several new funding programs that are relevant to this study. Most of the SB1 funds that could go to freeways and interchanges are via competitive grant programs. Table 4-3 shows the projected allocation Riverside County could reasonably be expected to obtain based on a proportional share of the total funding proposed. Table 4-3: Projected RCTC Funding from SB1 (in millions), 2017 to 2040 Funding Program Category A Category B Category C LPP (county allocation) $162.9 TCEP $623.9 SCCP $360 LPP (competitive grant) $162.9 $162.9 $1,146.8 4.4. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE FUNDING FROM ALL SOURCES To quantify the total funds that might be available to freeway and interchange projects in Riverside County through 2040, sources identified in the Strategic Assessment were combined those from FAST and SB1 programs. Table 4-4 combines funding sources to establish a total of anticipated freeway project funding through 2040 from all sources by risk category. 11 http://catc.ca.gov/ RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 33 Table 4-4: RCTC Projected Freeway Project Funding 2017-2040 - All Sources (in millions) Funding Source Category A Category B Category C Total Strategic Assessment Sources $2,948.6 $61 $2,465.8 Total New Sources $162.9 $1,317.3 Grand Total of All Sources $3111.5 $1,378.3 $2,465.8 As can be seen in Table 4-4, the infusion of SB1 funds, which are mostly allocated through competitive grants and therefore are considered risk category B, creates better balance across the risk categories than that found in the Strategic Assessment, which was heavily reliance on high-risk, category C funds. It should be noted that although the SB1 program has been legislated, there is an on-going repeal effort that jeopardizes the future availability of SB1 funding programs. The total estimated conceptual cost to complete the reasonable mitigation of deficient segments identified as part of this study is $385,335,000. Although only 12.4% of this cost can be attributed to new warehousing and logistics developments, the estimates of alternative funding sources described in this section clearly indicate that the remaining costs to complete these improvement projects could reasonably be expected to be obtained from existing and proposed funding sources after the logistics impact fee contributes a fair share for mitigation of logistics related impacts. Furthermore, the projected availability of future funding for freeway and interchange improvement projects is over six times the amount of the conceptual cost estimates to mitigate the impacts of new development on the freeway system indicating that sufficient funding might reasonably be expected to account for the expansion of scale and scope of associated freeway projects to address other project needs not directly attributable to the impacts of new development. RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 34 5. LOGISTICS MITIGATION FEE AND NEXUS DETERMINATION The foundation established by accomplishing the various steps in the prior tasks provides the basis for computing the amount and value of the in-lieu fee to mitigate the cumulative regional impact of new warehousing and logistics developments on the freeway network in Riverside County, as well as establishing the relationship between future growth of logistics related facilities within Riverside County, truck traffic growth, and the need for additional freeway improvements to mitigate the impacts of this growth. The maximum defensible fair- share fee that could be charged to new logistics uses for mitigating their impacts is presented in this section, along with a summary of the study findings that support the nexus determination. 5.1. LOGISTICS MITIGATION FEE CALCULATION Utilizing the findings of the prior study tasks as presented in the previous sections of this report, the process for computing the fee requires dividing the project costs attributable to new logistics development as determined in Step 28 and summarized in Table 3-4 by the forecast amount of new warehousing and logistics facilities in square feet as determined in Step 4 and presented in Table 2-2 to produce a fee per square foot. Table 5-1: Logistics and Warehouse Impact Fee Calculation Logistics and Warehouse Impact Fee for Riverside County Logistics Cost Share of Freeway Mitigation $47,841,000 Growth in Warehouse Gross Floor Area in Square Feet 37,332,179 Fee per Square Foot of Gross Floor Area $1.28 As derived from Table 2-2 and summarized in Table 5-1, the growth in warehousing gross floor area is forecast to grow by 37,332,179 square feet of gross floor area from 2016 to 2040, according to the SCAG Industrial Warehousing Study and as utilized in the Heavy Duty Truck Model. The travel demand modeling and deficiency analysis completed for this study indicates the growth in warehousing will result in the need to contribute $47,841,000 toward the cost of freeway capacity improvements throughout Riverside County to cover the logistics share of mitigating future freeway deficiencies, as presented in Table 3-4. This equates to a value of $1.28 per square foot of gross floor area of new warehousing and logistics developments to fully satisfy the fair share contribution. As such, this amount represents the maximum fee permissible to be collected under California law and in accordance with legal precedents to address the cumulative regional impacts of new warehousing and logistics developments on the freeways network in Riverside County. RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 35 5.2. NEXUS DETERMINATION The Mitigation Fee Act, as set forth in the California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66008, establishes the framework for mitigation fees in the State of California. In establishing the basis for a fee to be implemented, the Act requires agencies to make five findings with respect to a proposed fee. These findings are described in the following sections. 5.2.1. Purpose of the Fee Identify the Purpose of the Fee The purpose of the Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee is to establish a uniform, fair-share mitigation fee to be paid by new warehouse and logistics developments to mitigate the cumulative, indirect, regional impacts of the truck traffic generated by these future developments on overall traffic conditions on the freeway network in Riverside County. The fees, to be paid in-lieu of completing specific improvements associated with a particular development, will be utilized to help fund capacity improvements on freeways in Riverside County that are needed to maintain the target level of service in the face of the higher traffic volumes brought on by new growth in the county. Specific to Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee for Riverside County, the completion of this study and the determination of a fair-share fee satisfies specific provisions of the July 29, 2016 Settlement Agreement between the County of Riverside, the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the City of Moreno Valley and Highland Fairview. This agreement established that each party would contribute toward the cost of “an RCTC-conducted regional transportation study to evaluate a logistics-related regional fee.” 5.2.2. Use of Fee Revenues Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities shall be identified The Mitigation Fee Act requires that the public facilities that are to be financed using the impact fee be identified. In the case of the Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee, the deficiency analysis described in Section 2 identified those locations on the Riverside County freeway network that would be impacted by additional traffic growth associated with new development activity in Riverside County. This information was subsequently utilized in Section 3 to define specific improvement projects and the associated costs to mitigate the deficiencies, as summarized in Table 3-3. Furthermore, the share of the cost of each individual improvement project to specifically address the mitigation of impacts associated with the growth of warehousing and logistics uses was determined and summarized in Table 3-4 as the basis for calculating the logistics fee. RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 36 5.2.3. Use/Type-of-Development Relationship Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees’ use and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed To determine the “use” relationship, the development being assessed an impact fee must be reasonably shown to derive some use or benefit from the facility being built using the fee. In the case of the Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee, the projects to be funded by the fee were identified by completing deficiency analysis to determine where the additional traffic generated by new development in Riverside County would impact the freeway network. Improvement project concepts were developed to mitigate these impacts, with at least part of the cost of these improvements being determined to be attributable to new logistics related development. The fact that the projects that will be funded in part by the Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee are to provide additional freeway capacity, and recognizing that freeways are the highest functional class of the roadway network and critically important on the regional roadway hierarchy, means that all residents and businesses in the county benefit in important ways from the maintenance of a reasonable level of service on these facilities. More specifically, most truck trips coming to or going from new warehouse and logistics uses can be expected to use area freeways for at least part of their trips, as demonstrated by the results of the deficiency analysis described in Section 2, and those that do not use freeways will nevertheless benefit because good traffic conditions on the area freeways will keep drivers from diverting to other roads and causing congestion in other parts of the county. Even residents or workers in the new developments who do not drive at all will benefit from access to goods and services made possible in part by the serviceability of the regional freeway network. 5.2.4. Need/Type-of-Development Relationship Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of development on which the fees are imposed To determine the “need” relationship the facilities to be financed by the fee must be shown to be needed at least in part because of the new development. The primary intended purpose of the regional transportation study as required by the July 29, 2016 Settlement Agreement was to determine the extent to which additional truck trips associated with new warehouses and logistics uses would impact the freeways in Riverside County as the basis for determining the fair share amount of in-lieu fee payments to adequately mitigate the impacts. This was determined by analyzing the forecast traffic demand with the expected degree of new development and comparing that with the demand without new development. Projects were analyzed individually and the degree to which the need for the project was attributable to new warehouses and logistics developments varied widely from project to project. The findings of this analysis is summarized in Table 3-4, which indicates that new warehousing and logistics development activities are responsible for a share of the overall mitigation needed to address future freeway capacity deficiencies. RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 37 5.2.5. Proportionality Relationship Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed The “proportionality” relationship requires that there be rough proportionality between the fee charged to each development and the cost of the facility being financed. In the case of the Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee, the share of truck traffic generated specifically by warehouses and logistics uses was estimated using the validated SCAG travel demand model as the basis to determine the rough proportion of the improvement cost to mitigate future deficiencies caused by these trucks on the Riverside County freeway network. Furthermore, the share of project costs was adjusted to account for those improvements already being completed by current funded capacity expansion projects, as well as the share of the cost of arterial interchange improvements necessary to accommodate freeway capacity expansion that are already being funded by the existing WRCOG TUMF program. The overall project cost share was also adjusted to account for existing capacity deficiencies that cannot be fully be attributed to new growth in Riverside County. Table 2-5 summarizes the attribution of various project cost factors resulting in the determination of the fair-share of improvement costs that are roughly proportional to the specific impacts of new warehouse and logistics uses. Additionally, the detailed cost breakdowns in Appendix B include the adjustments for project cost elements already covered as part of the WRCOG TUMF program. 5.3. CONCLUSIONS The findings of the RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Study indicate that there is reasonable relationship between the cumulative regional freeway traffic impacts of new land development projects in Riverside County, including truck traffic impacts associated with new warehouse and logistics developments, and the need to mitigate these freeway traffic impacts, including using funds levied through a Regional Logistics Fee. The study evaluation results have established the proportional fair share of the freeway improvement cost attributable to truck trips generated by new warehouse and logistics development having adjusted for existing deficiencies, the impacts of other development type and the effects of pass through trips, and having accounted for improvements already being completed as part of an ongoing freeway project or funded by another impact fee. As presented in Table 5-1, the fair share fee to mitigate the cumulative indirect regional freeway traffic impacts of truck trips associated with new warehouse and logistics growth in Riverside County is $1.28 per square foot of gross floor area. RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study 38 6. APPENDICES Appendix A – Capacity Improvement Concept Plans Appendix B – Conceptual Project Cost Estimate Tables RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study A-1 APPENDIX A – CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT PLANS OVERLAND D RI-15 SBI-15 NBNB OFF RAMPSB ON RAMPNB OFF RAMPNB ON RAMPSB OFF RAMPSB ON RAMPI-15 SBI-15 NBJEFFERSON AVESANTIAGO RDI-15 SBI-15 NBHWY 79 OLD TOWN FRONT ST3SEE BELOW SEE ABOVE SEE BELOW SEE ABOVE 42233234SB OFF RAMPNB ON RAMPSB ON RAMPNB OFF RAMP2562RANCHO CALIFORNIA S44877701TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>01-MAR-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>01-RCTC_Exh.dgn01-RCTC_Exh.dgn11:45ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION 33CLINTON KEITH RDI-15 SBI-15 NBI-15 SBI-15 NBBAXT E R RDSEE BELOW SEE ABOVE SB ON RAMPNB OFF RAMPNB ON RAMPSB OFF RAMPSB ON RAMPNB OFF RAMPSB OFF RAMPNB ON RAMP5462703TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>03-RCTC_Exh.dgn03-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:14ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION SEE BELOWSEE ABOVE SEE EXHIBIT 07 2 OF 2 I-15 SBI-15 NBSB OFF RAMPNB OFF RAMPSB ON RAMPNB ON RAMPCAMPBELL RANCH RDDE PALMA RDI-15 SBI-15 NBTRUCK TRAI LI NDI AN 1653EXHIBIT 1 OF 30723S78TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>07_1 of 3-RCTC_Exh.dgn07_1 of 3-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:14ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION CANYON RDTEMESCAL I-15 SBI-15 NBI-15 SBI-15 NBI-15 SBI-15 NBCANYON RD TEM ESCAL SB OFF RAMPNB ON RAMPSB ON RAMPNB OFF RAMPKNABE RDTEMESCAL CANYON RD45643334SEE BELOWSEE BELOW SEE ABOVESEE ABOVE SEE EXHIBIT 07 3 OF 3 SEE EXHIBIT 07 1 OF 3 EXHIBIT 2 OF 307S22222782TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>07_2 of 3-RCTC_Exh.dgn07_2 of 3-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:14ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION DOS LAGOS DR SB I-15NB I-15KNABE RDNB ON RAMPNB OFF RAMPSB ON RAMPSB OFF RAMPSB I-15NB I-15SB OFF RAMPSB ON RAMPN B O N R A MPNB OFF RAMPC AJ ALC O R D3 SEE BELOW SEE ABOVE SEE EXHIBIT 07 2 OF 3 5634422EXHIBIT 3 OF 307S8265TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>07_3 of 3-RCTC_Exh.dgn07_3 of 3-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:15ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION SB I-15NB I-15SB OFF RAMPSB ON RAMPN B O N R A MPNB OFF RAMPSB I-15NB I-15EL CERRITO RD C AJ ALC O R D 334SEE BELOW SEE ABO VE 65408SB ON RAMPSB OFF RAMPSS88722TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>08-RCTC_Exh.dgn08-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:15ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION SR-60 EBSR-60 WBHALL AVEWALLACE STEB ON RAMP WB OFF RAMP 3424SR-60 EBSR-60 WBMARKET STFAIRGROUNDS STM AIN STORANGE ST OAKLEY AVESTODDARD AVEFAIRM OUNT BLVD SEE BELOWWB ON RAMP EB OFF RAMPEB ON RAMP WB OFF RAMPEB OFF RAMP WB ON RAMP SEE ABOVE 34SSEB ON RAMP 5785477098TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>09-RCTC_Exh.dgn09-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:15ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION CENTRAL AV E WATKINS DRNB I-215SB I-215SYCAMORE CANYON BLVDBO X SPRIN G S RDNB ON RAMPSB OFF RAMPNB I-215SB I-215SYCAMORE CANYON BLVDSYCAMORE CANYON BLVDKING BLVDMARTIN LUTHER SB ON RAMPNB OFF RAMPSB OFF RAMPNB ON RAMP321S B OF F R AMPNB OFF RAMPSB ON RAMPNB O N RA MP SEE BELOW SEE ABOVE S357662357448101TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>10-RCTC_Exh.dgn10-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:15ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION NB I-215SB I-215UNI VE RSIT Y AVESB OFF RAMPNB ON RAMPW LI N DE N ST IOWA AVESB ON RAMPNB OFF RAMPSR-91NB I-215 TO EB SR-91EB SR-91 TO SB I -215NB I-215SB I-215CREST DRCANYON 3RD ST 55634424223256SS88477310C11TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>10c-RCTC_Exh.dgn10c-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:15ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION CENTER ST I OWA AVESB ON RAMPMAIN ST LA CADENA DRHIGHGROVE PLSTEPHENS AVELA CADENA DRSB OFF RAMP31NB OFF RAMP116754562447SB I-215NB I-215TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>11-RCTC_Exh.dgn11-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:15ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION NB I -215SB I-215NB I-215SB I-215KI N G BLVD M A RTI N LUTH ER SB ON RAMPNB OFF RAMPSYCAMORE CANYON BLVDWATKINS DRSB ON RAMPNB OFF RAMPSYCAMORE CANYON BLVDBOX SPRINGS RDSB OFF RAMPNB ON RAMPSB OFF RAMPN B O N R A MP32232 SEE BELOW SEE ABOVE 12S827541TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>12-RCTC_Exh.dgn12-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:15ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION CASE RDSB OFF RAMPNB ON RAMPNB OFF RAMPSB ON RAMPSB I-215NB I-215SB I-215NB I-215SB I-215NB I-215NB OFF RAMPNB ON RAMPSB ON RAMPSB OFF RAMPREDLANDS AVE SAN JACINTO AVESSEE EXHIBIT 2 OF 4 SEE BELOW SEE ABOVESEE ABOVE SEE BELOW658472444333EXHIBIT 1 OF 413.21TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>13_OPT 1(1 OF 4) CASE-RCTC_Exh.dgn13_OPT 1(1 OF 4) CASE-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:15ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION D STPERRIS BLVDSB I-215NB I-215NUEVO RDA STSB I -215NB I -215SB I-215NB I-215SB OFF RAMPNB ON RAMPSB ON RAMPNB OFF RAMPPL A C E N T IA A V EI-215 FRONTAGE RDI-215 FRONTAGE RDI-215 FRONTAGE RDSEE EXHIBIT 1 OF 4 SEE BELOWSEE EXHIBIT 3 OF 4 SEE ABOVE SSEE ABOVE SEE BELOW33 35574444787EXHIBIT 2 OF 413.1TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>13_OPT 1(2 OF 4) CASE-RCTC_Exh.dgn13_OPT 1(2 OF 4) CASE-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:15ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION SB I-215NB I-215SB I-215NB I-215RAM ONA EXPY NB OFF RAMPSB OFF RAMPNB ON RAMPSB ON RAMPNEVADA RDNB OFF RAMPSB ON RAMPS66335874SEE BELOW SEE ABOVE SEE EXHIBIT 2 OF 4 SEE EXHIBIT 4 OF 4EXHIBIT 3 OF 413.1TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>13_OPT 1(3 OF 4) CASE-RCTC_Exh.dgn13_OPT 1(3 OF 4) CASE-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:16ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION SB I-215NB I-215HARLEY KNOX RD SB OFF RAMPSB I-215NB I-215NB ON RAMPVA N B U R EN B LVDNB OFF RAMPNB ON RAMPSB ON RAMPSB OFF RAMPS6533478SEE BELOW SEE ABOVE SEE EXHIBIT 3 OF 4 EXHIBIT 4 OF 413.2TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>13_OPT 1(4 OF 4) CASE-RCTC_Exh.dgn13_OPT 1(4 OF 4) CASE-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:16ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION EB SR-91WB SR-91P R OM EN AD E A V E NB I-15SB I-15 SB I-15 ON RAMPNB I-15 ON RAMPEB SR-91WB SR-91EB SR-91 ON RAMP63516TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>22-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>16-RCTC_Exh.dgn16-RCTC_Exh.dgn09:31ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION PIERCE STEB OFF RAMPWB ON RAMPWB ON RAMPEB OFF RAMPMAGNOLI A AVE EB ON RAMPWB SR-91EB SR-91 WB OFF RAMPS663554478518TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>18-RCTC_Exh.dgn18-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:16ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Draft Technical Memorandum: Nexus Study B-1 APPENDIX B – CONCEPTUAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE TABLES ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $665,000 SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $6,173,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $1,205,850 SECTION 4: Speciallty Items $96,000 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $1,105,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $462,243 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $924,485 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $462,243 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $4,437,528 40% of Sections 1-10 BRIDGES $20,207,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $35,738,348 SUPPORT COSTS $12,508,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $48,246,000 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs Project #1: I-15 NB, from SR-79 S On-Ramp to Winchester Rd Off-Ramp I. Roadway Items Summary Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (NB Off Ramp Rancho California)0.-56020-235 7831.70CY$15.00$117,475.56 Roadway Excavation (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California)0-2020-200 13690.93 CY$15.00$205,363.89 Roadway Excavation (NB On Ramp Rancho California)6550-185 22810.22 CY$15.00$342,153.33Pavment Structural Section Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)14605.0010.00 16227.78 SQYD$36.38$590,366.56 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)14605.0022.00 8330.26CY$72.10$600,611.69 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)14605.0022.00 5823.74 TON$85.00$495,018.22 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)14605.0022.00 10710.33 CY$270.00$2,891,790.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd)1415.008.00 1257.78 SQYD$36.38$45,757.96 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd)1415.0038.00 1394.04CY$72.10$100,510.07 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd)1415.0038.00 974.58TON$85.00$82,839.41 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd)1415.0038.00 1792.33CY$270.00$483,930.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd)800.008.00 711.11 SQYD$36.38$25,870.22 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd)800.0046.00 954.07CY$72.10$68,788.74 Lane plus shoulder at 46' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd)800.0046.00 667.00TON$85.00$56,695.00 Lane plus shoulder at 46' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd)800.0046.00 1226.67CY$270.00$331,200.00 Lane plus shoulder at 46' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia)835.008.00 742.22 SQYD$36.38$27,002.04 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia)835.0036.00 779.33CY$72.10$56,189.93 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia)835.0036.00 544.84TON$85.00$46,311.19 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia)835.0036.00 1002.00CY$270.00$270,540.00 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Speciallty Items Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)8625.001597.41 SQFT$60.00$95,844.44 Retaing wall height 5'Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization4.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00$200,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)14605.0014605.00 LF$0.65$9,493.25 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)29210.0029210.00 LF$2.41$70,396.10 Removal of Existing Striping (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd)4252.004252.00LF$0.65$2,763.80 Thermoplastic Striping (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd)4252.004252.00LF$2.41$10,247.32 Removal of Existing Striping (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd)2027.002027.00LF$0.65$1,317.55 Thermoplastic Striping (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd)2027.002027.00LF$2.41$4,885.07 Removal of Existing Striping (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia)1870.001870.00LF$0.65$1,215.50 Thermoplastic Striping (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia)1870.001870.00LF$2.41$4,506.70 Reconstruct Sign Structure4.00EA$200,000.00$800,000.00Santiago Rd Bridge-Tie-back70.0022.00 1540.00 SQ FT$375.00$577,500.00Rancho Califnoria Rd Bridge Replacement122.00262.00 31964.00 SQ FT$250.00$7,991,000.00Drainge Underpass Widening58.0022.00 1276.00 SQ FT$375.00$478,500.00Overland Rd Bridge Replacement62.00720.00 44640.00 SQ FT$250.00$11,160,000.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavment Structural SectionSpeciallty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$665,000.00$6,173,000.00$96,000.00$1,105,000.00$20,207,000.00$0.00$8,039,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #1: I-15 NB, from SR-79 S On-Ramp to Winchester Rd Off-RampI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $665,000 SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $1,596,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $375,300 SECTION 4: Speciallty Items $16,000 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $225,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $143,865 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $287,730 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $143,865 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $1,381,104 40% of Sections 1-10 BRIDGES $7,991,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $12,824,864 SUPPORT COSTS $4,489,000 SUBTOTAL PROJECT COSTS $17,314,000 Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study $12,009,000.00 Amount to be reduced from Total Project Costs $12,009,000.00 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs Project #1: I-15 NB at Rancho California Subtotal I. Roadway Items Summary Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (NB Off Ramp Rancho California)0.-56020-235 7831.70CY$15.00$117,475.56 Roadway Excavation (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California)0-2020-200 13690.93 CY$15.00$205,363.89 Roadway Excavation (NB On Ramp Rancho California)6550-185 22810.22 CY$15.00$342,153.33Pavment Structural Section Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd)1415.008.00 1257.78 SQYD$36.38$45,757.96 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd)1415.0038.00 1394.04CY$72.10$100,510.07 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd)1415.0038.00 974.58TON$85.00$82,839.41 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd)1415.0038.00 1792.33CY$270.00$483,930.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd)800.008.00 711.11 SQYD$36.38$25,870.22 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd)800.0046.00 954.07CY$72.10$68,788.74 Lane plus shoulder at 46' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd)800.0046.00 667.00TON$85.00$56,695.00 Lane plus shoulder at 46' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd)800.0046.00 1226.67CY$270.00$331,200.00 Lane plus shoulder at 46' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia)835.008.00 742.22 SQYD$36.38$27,002.04 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia)835.0036.00 779.33CY$72.10$56,189.93 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia)835.0036.00 544.84TON$85.00$46,311.19 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia)835.0036.00 1002.00CY$270.00$270,540.00 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Speciallty Items Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)1400.00259.26 SQFT$60.00$15,555.56 Retaing wall height 5'Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization4.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00$200,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd)4252.004252.00LF$0.65$2,763.80 Thermoplastic Striping (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd)4252.004252.00LF$2.41$10,247.32 Removal of Existing Striping (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd)2027.002027.00LF$0.65$1,317.55 Thermoplastic Striping (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd)2027.002027.00LF$2.41$4,885.07 Removal of Existing Striping (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia)1870.001870.00LF$0.65$1,215.50 Thermoplastic Striping (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia)1870.001870.00LF$2.41$4,506.70 Reconstruct Sign Structure$0.00Santiago Rd Bridge-Tie-back$0.00Rancho Califnoria Rd Bridge Replacement122.00262.00 31964.00 SQ FT$250.00$7,991,000.00Drainge Underpass Widening$0.00Overland Rd Bridge Replacement$0.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavment Structural SectionSpeciallty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$665,000.00$1,596,000.00$16,000.00$225,000.00$7,991,000.00$0.00$2,502,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #1: I-15 NB at Rancho California SubtotalI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $2,239,000 SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $2,328,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $809,700 SECTION 4: Specialty Items $35,000 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $796,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $310,385 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $620,770 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $310,385 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $2,979,696 40% of Sections 1-10 BRIDGES $360,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $10,788,936 SUPPORT COSTS $3,776,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $14,565,000 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs Project #3: I-15 NB, from Clinton Keith Rd. On-ramp to Baxter Rd. Off-Ramp I. Roadway Items Summary Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (NB Off Ramp Baxter Rd)1175.000-185 14.00 50359.04 CY$15.00$755,385.56 Roadway Excavation (NB On Ramp Baxter Rd)860.000-200 28.00 98907.41 CY$15.00$1,483,611.11Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)4840.0010.005377.78 SQYD$36.38$195,643.56 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)4840.0022.002760.59CY$72.10$199,038.73 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)4840.0022.001929.95 TON$85.00$164,045.75 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)4840.0022.003549.33CY$270.00$958,320.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp Baxter)1220.008.001084.44 SQYD$36.38$39,452.09 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase(NB Off Ramp Baxter)1220.0024.00759.11CY$72.10$54,731.91 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB Off Ramp Baxter)1220.0024.00530.70TON$85.00$45,109.50 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp Baxter)1220.0024.00976.00CY$270.00$263,520.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp Baxter)1235.008.001097.78 SQYD$36.38$39,937.16 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB On Ramp Baxter)1235.0024.00768.44CY$72.10$55,404.84 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB On Ramp Baxter)1235.0024.00537.23TON$85.00$45,664.13 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp Baxter)1235.0024.00988.00CY$270.00$266,760.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Specialty Items$0.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)1055.00586.11 SQFT$60.00$35,166.67 Retaining wall height 5'Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization7.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00$350,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)4840.004840.00LF$0.65$3,146.00 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)9680.009680.00LF$2.41$23,328.80 Removal of Existing Striping (NB Off Ramp Baxter)1475.001475.00LF$0.65$958.75 Thermoplastic Striping (NB Off Ramp Baxter)1475.001475.00LF$2.41$3,554.75 Removal of Existing Striping (NB On Ramp Baxter)1235.001235.00LF$0.65$802.75 Thermoplastic Striping (NB On Ramp Baxter)1235.001235.00LF$2.41$2,976.35 Reconstruct Sign Structure2.00EA$200,000.00$400,000.00Baxter Rd Bridge-Tie-back60.0016.00960.00 SQFT$375.00$360,000.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$2,239,000.00$2,328,000.00$35,000.00$796,000.00$360,000.00$0.00$5,398,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #3: I-15 NB, from Clinton Keith Rd. On-ramp to Baxter Rd. Off-RampI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $2,239,000 SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $811,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $573,000 SECTION 4: Specialty Items $0 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $770,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $219,650 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $439,300 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $219,650 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $2,108,640 40% of Sections 1-10 BRIDGES $360,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $7,740,240 SUPPORT COSTS $2,709,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $10,449,000 Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study $7,159,000.00 Amount to be reduced from Total Project Costs $7,159,000.00 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs Project #3: I-15 NB at Baxter Subtotal I. Roadway Items Summary Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (NB Off Ramp Baxter Rd)1175.000-185 14.00 50359.04 CY$15.00$755,385.56 Roadway Excavation (NB On Ramp Baxter Rd)860.000-200 28.00 98907.41 CY$15.00$1,483,611.11Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp Baxter)1220.008.001084.44 SQYD$36.38$39,452.09 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase(NB Off Ramp Baxter)1220.0024.00759.11CY$72.10$54,731.91 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB Off Ramp Baxter)1220.0024.00530.70TON$85.00$45,109.50 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp Baxter)1220.0024.00976.00CY$270.00$263,520.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp Baxter)1235.008.001097.78 SQYD$36.38$39,937.16 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB On Ramp Baxter)1235.0024.00768.44CY$72.10$55,404.84 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB On Ramp Baxter)1235.0024.00537.23TON$85.00$45,664.13 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp Baxter)1235.0024.00988.00CY$270.00$266,760.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Specialty Items$0.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)$0.00 Retaining wall height 5'Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization7.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00$350,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (NB Off Ramp Baxter)1475.001475.00LF$0.65$958.75 Thermoplastic Striping (NB Off Ramp Baxter)1475.001475.00LF$2.41$3,554.75 Removal of Existing Striping (NB On Ramp Baxter)1235.001235.00LF$0.65$802.75 Thermoplastic Striping (NB On Ramp Baxter)1235.001235.00LF$2.41$2,976.35 Reconstruct Sign Structure2.00EA$200,000.00$400,000.00Baxter Rd Bridge-Tie-back60.0016.00960.00 SQFT$375.00$360,000.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$2,239,000.00$811,000.00$0.00$770,000.00$360,000.00$0.00$3,820,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #3: I-15 NB at Baxter SubtotalI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $1,510,000 SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $11,919,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $2,251,950 SECTION 4: Specialty Items $304,000 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $1,280,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $863,248 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $1,726,495 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $863,248 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $8,287,176 40% of Sections 1-10 BRIDGES $4,310,000 Right of Way Acquisition $375,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $33,690,116 SUPPORT COSTS $11,792,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $45,482,000 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs Project #7, I-15 SB, from Cajalco Rd On-Ramp to Indian Truck Trail On-Ramp I. Roadway Items Summary Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. II. STRUCTURE ITEMS Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (SB On Ramp Indian Truck Trail)840.00 0-186 0-12 36720.00 CY$15.00$550,800.00 Roadway Excavation (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)1100.0011-167 0-11 36410.00 CY$15.00$546,150.00 Roadway Excavation (West of SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)17350-1620-7 10460.52 CY$15.00$156,907.78 Roadway Excavation (West of SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)640.0036-700-2 2587.11CY$15.00$38,806.67 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)830.0014-102 0-3 5971.00CY$15.00$89,565.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon)860.0012-125 0-2 4170.44CY$15.00$62,556.67 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos)520.000-850-2 1586.07CY$15.00$23,791.11 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos)950.000-900-2 2776.52CY$15.00$41,647.78Pavement Structural Section Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)29203.0010.0032447.78 SQYD$36.38$1,180,450.16 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)29203.0022.0016656.53 CY$72.10$1,200,935.52 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)29203.0022.0011644.70 TON$85.00$989,799.18 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)29203.0022.0021415.53 CY$270.00$5,782,194.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail)215.008.00191.11 SQYD$36.38$6,952.62 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail)215.0026.00144.93CY$72.10$10,449.16 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail)215.0026.00101.32TON$85.00$8,612.09 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail)215.0026.00186.33CY$270.00$50,310.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)1220.008.001084.44 SQYD$36.38$39,452.09 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)1220.0052.001644.74CY$72.10$118,585.81 Lane plus shoulder at 52' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)1220.0052.001149.85 TON$85.00$97,737.25 Lane plus shoulder at 52' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)1220.0052.002114.67CY$270.00$570,960.00 Lane plus shoulder at 52' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)955.008.00848.89 SQYD$36.38$30,882.58 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)955.0036.00891.33CY$72.10$64,265.13 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)955.0036.00623.14TON$85.00$52,966.69 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)955.0036.001146.00CY$270.00$309,420.00 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon)1165.008.001035.56 SQYD$36.38$37,673.51 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon)1165.0034.001026.93CY$72.10$74,041.36 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon)1165.0034.00717.93TON$85.00$61,024.16 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon)1165.0034.001320.33CY$270.00$356,490.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos)740.008.00657.78 SQYD$36.38$23,929.96 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos)740.0038.00729.04CY$72.10$52,563.57 Lane plus shoulder at 38 with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos)740.0038.00509.68TON$85.00$43,322.38 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos)740.0038.00937.33CY$270.00$253,080.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos)1050.008.00933.33 SQYD$36.38$33,954.67 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos)1050.0036.00980.00CY$72.10$70,658.00 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos)1050.0036.00685.13TON$85.00$58,235.63 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos)1050.0036.001260.00CY$270.00$340,200.00 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Specialty Items Remove Retaining Wall1095.001095.00LF$15.00$16,425.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)14010.004792.22 SQFT$60.00$287,533.33 Retaining wall height 5'Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization12.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00$600,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)29203.0029203.00LF$0.65$18,981.95 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)58406.0058406.00LF$2.41$140,758.46 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail)2386.002386.00LF$0.65$1,550.90 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail)2386.002386.00LF$2.41$5,750.26 Removal of Existing Striping (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)3870.003870.00LF$0.65$2,515.50 Thermoplastic Striping (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)3870.003870.00LF$2.41$9,326.70 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)2035.002035.00LF$0.65$1,322.75 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)2035.002035.00LF$2.41$4,904.35 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon)26170.0026170.00LF$0.65$17,010.50 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon)26170.0026170.00LF$2.41$63,069.70 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos)1491.001491.00LF$0.65$969.15 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos)1491.001491.00LF$2.41$3,593.31 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos)3290.003290.00LF$0.65$2,138.50 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos)3290.003290.00LF$2.41$7,928.90 Reconstruct Sign Structure2.00LF$200,000.00$400,000.00Indian Truck Trail Bridge Widening136.0014.001904.00 SQFT$375.00$714,000.00Temescal Canyon OC Widening PM 31.90160.0014.002240.00 SQFT$375.00$840,000.00Mayhew Wash Bridge Widening PM 31.97145.0014.002030.00 SQFT$375.00$761,250.00Temescal Canyon Road UC Widening PM 33.2562.0014.00868.00 SQFT$375.00$325,500.00Brown Canyon Wash Bridge Widening PM 34.7278.0014.001092.00 SQ FT$375.00$409,500.00Dos Lagos Bridge Widening140.0014.001960.00 SQ FT$375.00$735,000.00Bedford Wash Bridge Widening100.0014.001400.00 SQFT$375.00$525,000.00Right of Way Acquisition 150.0050.007500.00 SQFT$50.00$375,000.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$1,510,000.00$11,919,000.00$304,000.00$1,280,000.00$4,310,000.00$375,000.00$15,013,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #7, I-15 SB, from Cajalco Rd On-Ramp to Indian Truck Trail On-RampI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $191,000 SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $987,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $375,150 SECTION 4: Specialty Items $43,000 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $1,280,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $143,808 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $287,615 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $143,808 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $1,380,552 40% of Sections 1-10 BRIDGES $840,000 Right of Way Acquisition $0 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $5,671,932 SUPPORT COSTS $1,985,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $7,657,000 Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study $17,897,000.00 Amount to be reduced from Total Project Costs $7,657,000.00 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS II. STRUCTURE ITEMS Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs Project #7, I-15 SB at Temescal Canyon Subtotal I. Roadway Items Summary Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (SB On Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (West of SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (West of SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)640.00 36-70 0-2 2587.11CY$15.00$38,806.67 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)830.0014-102 0-3 5971.00CY$15.00$89,565.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon)860.0012-125 0-2 4170.44CY$15.00$62,556.67 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos)$0.00Pavement Structural Section Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 52' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 52' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 52' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)955.008.00848.89 SQYD$36.38$30,882.58 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)955.0036.00891.33CY$72.10$64,265.13 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)955.0036.00623.14TON$85.00$52,966.69 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)955.0036.001146.00CY$270.00$309,420.00 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon)1165.008.001035.56 SQYD$36.38$37,673.51 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon)1165.0034.001026.93CY$72.10$74,041.36 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon)1165.0034.00717.93TON$85.00$61,024.16 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon)1165.0034.001320.33CY$270.00$356,490.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38 with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Specialty Items Remove Retaining Wall$0.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)1300.00722.22 SQFT$60.00$43,333.33 Retaining wall height 5'Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization4.00PER CORNER $50,000.00$200,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)2035.002035.00LF$0.65$1,322.75 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)2035.002035.00LF$2.41$4,904.35 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon)26170.0026170.00LF$0.65$17,010.50 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon)26170.0026170.00LF$2.41$63,069.70 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos)$0.00 Reconstruct Sign Structure$0.00Indian Truck Trail Bridge Widening$0.00Temescal Canyon OC Widening PM 31.90160.0014.002240.00 SQFT$375.00$840,000.00Mayhew Wash Bridge Widening PM 31.97$0.00Temescal Canyon Road UC Widening PM 33.25$0.00Brown Canyon Wash Bridge Widening PM 34.72$0.00Dos Lagos Bridge Widening$0.00Bedford Wash Bridge Widening$0.00Right of Way Acquisition $0.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$191,000.00$987,000.00$43,000.00$286,000.00$840,000.00$0.00$1,507,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #7, I-15 SB at Temescal Canyon SubtotalI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $1,153,000 SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $3,814,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $857,700 SECTION 4: Speciallty Items $288,000 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $463,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $328,785 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $657,570 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $328,785 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $3,156,336 40% of Sections 1-10 BRIDGES $975,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $12,022,176 SUPPORT COSTS $4,208,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $16,230,000 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs Project #8, I-15 SB, from El Cerrito Rd Off-Ramp to Cajalco Rd Off-Ramp I. Roadway Items Summary Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Cajalco)700.000-320 0-12 61799.11 CY$15.00$926,986.67 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Cajalco)1000.000-175 0-5 10822.78 CY$15.00$162,341.67 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp El Cerrito)595.000-780-2 1750.96CY$15.00$26,264.44 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp El Cerrito)780.008-840-2 2461.04CY$15.00$36,915.56Pavment Structural Section Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)6907.0014.0010744.22 SQYD$36.38$390,874.80 Existing shoulders at 14' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)6907.0022.003939.55CY$72.10$284,041.42 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)6907.0022.002754.17 TON$85.00$234,104.13 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)6907.0022.005065.13CY$270.00$1,367,586.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Cajalco)468.0010.00520.00 SQYD$36.38$18,917.60 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Cajalco)468.0024.00291.20CY$72.10$20,995.52 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Cajalco)468.0024.00203.58TON$85.00$17,304.30 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Cajalco)468.0024.00374.40CY$270.00$101,088.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Cajalco)1225.008.001088.89 SQYD$36.38$39,613.78 Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Cajalco)1225.0040.001270.37CY$72.10$91,593.70 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Cajalco)1225.0040.00888.13TON$85.00$75,490.63 Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Cajalco)1225.0040.001633.33CY$270.00$441,000.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp El Cerrito)820.008.00728.89 SQYD$36.38$26,516.98 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp El Cerrito)820.0034.00722.81CY$72.10$52,114.95 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp El Cerrito)820.0034.00505.33TON$85.00$42,952.63 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp El Cerrito)820.0034.00929.33CY$270.00$250,920.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp El Cerrito)1060.0010.001177.78CY$36.38$42,847.56Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp El Cerrito)1060.0024.00659.56TON$72.10$47,553.96Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp El Cerrito)1060.0024.00461.10LF$85.00$39,193.50Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp El Cerrito)1060.0024.00848.00LF$270.00$228,960.00Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Speciallty Items Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)16665.004792.22 SQFT$60.00$287,533.33 Retaing wall height 5'Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization8.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00$400,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)6907.006907.00LF$0.65$4,489.55 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)13814.0013814.00 LF$2.41$33,291.74 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Cajalco)936.00936.00LF$0.65$608.40 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Cajalco)936.00936.00LF$2.41$2,255.76 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Cajalco)3215.003215.00LF$0.65$2,089.75 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Cajalco)3215.003215.00LF$2.41$7,748.15 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp El Cerrito)1440.001440.00LF$0.65$936.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp El Cerrito)1440.001440.00LF$2.41$3,470.40 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp El Cerrito)2640.002640.00LF$0.65$1,716.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp El Cerrito)2640.002640.00LF$2.41$6,362.40 Reconstruct Sign Structure0.00LF$200,000.00$0.00Cajalco Road OC Tie Back40.0016.00640.00 SQFT$375.00$240,000.00El Cerrito UC Widening140.0014.001960.00 SQFT$375.00$735,000.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavment Structural SectionSpeciallty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$1,153,000.00$3,814,000.00$288,000.00$463,000.00$975,000.00$0.00$5,718,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #8, I-15 SB, from El Cerrito Rd Off-Ramp to Cajalco Rd Off-RampI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $1,089,000 SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $806,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $316,200 SECTION 4: Speciallty Items $0 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $213,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $121,210 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $242,420 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $121,210 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $1,163,616 40% of Sections 1-10 BRIDGES $240,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $4,312,656 SUPPORT COSTS $1,509,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $5,822,000 Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study $44,257,000.00 Amount to be reduced from Total Project Costs $5,822,000.00 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs Project #8, I-15 SB at Cajalco Subtotal I. Roadway Items Summary Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Cajalco)700.000-320 0-12 61799.11 CY$15.00$926,986.67 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Cajalco)1000.000-175 0-5 10822.78 CY$15.00$162,341.67 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp El Cerrito)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp El Cerrito)$0.00Pavment Structural Section Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 14' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Cajalco)468.0010.00520.00 SQYD$36.38$18,917.60 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Cajalco)468.0024.00291.20CY$72.10$20,995.52 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Cajalco)468.0024.00203.58TON$85.00$17,304.30 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Cajalco)468.0024.00374.40CY$270.00$101,088.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Cajalco)1225.008.001088.89 SQYD$36.38$39,613.78 Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Cajalco)1225.0040.001270.37CY$72.10$91,593.70 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Cajalco)1225.0040.00888.13TON$85.00$75,490.63 Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Cajalco)1225.0040.001633.33CY$270.00$441,000.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp El Cerrito)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp El Cerrito)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp El Cerrito)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp El Cerrito)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp El Cerrito)$0.00Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp El Cerrito)$0.00Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp El Cerrito)$0.00Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp El Cerrito)$0.00Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Speciallty Items Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)$0.00 Retaing wall height 5'Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization4.00PER CORNER $50,000.00$200,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Cajalco)936.00936.00LF$0.65$608.40 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Cajalco)936.00936.00LF$2.41$2,255.76 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Cajalco)3215.003215.00LF$0.65$2,089.75 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Cajalco)3215.003215.00LF$2.41$7,748.15 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp El Cerrito)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp El Cerrito)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp El Cerrito)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp El Cerrito)$0.00 Reconstruct Sign Structure0.00LF$200,000.00$0.00Cajalco Road OC Tie Back40.0016.00640.00 SQFT$375.00$240,000.00El Cerrito UC Widening$0.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavment Structural SectionSpeciallty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$1,089,000.00$806,000.00$0.00$213,000.00$240,000.00$0.00$2,108,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #8, I-15 SB at Cajalco SubtotalI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $311,000 SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $4,621,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $935,550 SECTION 4: Speciallty Items $227,000 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $1,078,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $358,628 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $717,255 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $358,628 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $3,442,824 40% of Sections 1-10 BRIDGES $17,753,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $29,802,884 SUPPORT COSTS $10,431,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $40,234,000 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs Project #9, SR-60 EB, from Rubidoux Blvd. On-Ramp to Main St Off-Ramp I. Roadway Items Summary Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (EB on Ramp Market St)955.0017-48 0-10 10247.78 CY$15.00$153,716.67 Roadway Excavation (EB off Ramp Market St)620.007-65 0-15 10493.89 CY$15.00$157,408.33Pavment Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)11025.0010.0012250.00 SQYD$36.38$445,655.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)11025.0022.006288.33CY$72.10$453,388.83 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)11025.0022.004396.22 TON$85.00$373,678.59 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)11025.0022.008085.00CY$270.00$2,182,950.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (EB On Ramp Main St)535.008.00475.56 SQYD$36.38$17,300.71 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (EB On Ramp Main St)535.0032.00443.85CY$72.10$32,001.72 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (EB On Ramp Main St)535.0032.00310.30TON$85.00$26,375.50 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (EB On Ramp Main St)535.0032.00570.67CY$270.00$154,080.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (EB Off Ramp Main St)700.008.00622.22 SQYD$36.38$22,636.44 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (EB Off Ramp Main St)700.0020.00362.96CY$72.10$26,169.63 Lane plus shoulder at 20' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (EB Off Ramp Main St)700.0020.00253.75TON$85.00$21,568.75 Lane plus shoulder at 20' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement t (EB Off Ramp Main St)700.0020.00466.67CY$270.00$126,000.00 Lane plus shoulder at 20' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (EB on Ramp Market St)900.008.00800.00 SQYD$36.38$29,104.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (EB on Ramp Market St)900.0024.00560.00CY$72.10$40,376.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (EB on Ramp Market St)900.0024.00391.50TON$85.00$33,277.50 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (EB on Ramp Market St)900.0024.00720.00CY$270.00$194,400.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (EB off Ramp Market St)1340.008.001191.11 SQYD$36.38$43,332.62 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (EB off Ramp Market St)1340.0024.00833.78CY$72.10$60,115.38 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (EB off Ramp Market St)1340.0024.00582.90TON$85.00$49,546.50 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (EB off Ramp Market St)1340.0024.001072.00CY$270.00$289,440.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Speciallty Items$0.00 Remove Sound Wall1920.001920.00LF$27.00$51,840.00 Sound Wall1920.001920.00 SQFT$23.98$46,041.60 6' High sound wall Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)3885.002158.33 SQFT$60.00$129,500.00 Retaining wall height 5'Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization8.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00$400,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)11025.0011025.00 LF$0.65$7,166.25 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)22050.0022050.00 LF$2.41$53,140.50 Removal of Existing Striping (EB On Ramp Main St)865.00865.00LF$0.65$562.25 Thermoplastic Striping (EB On Ramp Main St)865.00865.00LF$2.41$2,084.65 Removal of Existing Striping (EB Off Ramp Main St)1400.001400.00LF$0.65$910.00 Thermoplastic Striping (EB Off Ramp Main St)1400.001400.00LF$2.41$3,374.00 Removal of Existing Striping (EB on Ramp Market St)1640.001640.00LF$0.65$1,066.00 Thermoplastic Striping (EB on Ramp Market St)1640.001640.00LF$2.41$3,952.40 Removal of Existing Striping (EB off Ramp Market St)1850.001850.00LF$0.65$1,202.50 Thermoplastic Striping (EB off Ramp Market St)1850.001850.00LF$2.41$4,458.50 Reconstruct Sign Structure3.00EA$200,000.00$600,000.00Orange St Bridge Replacement56.00220.0012320.00 SQFT$250.00$3,080,000.00Main St Bridfge Replacement72.00210.0015120.00 SQFT$250.00$3,780,000.00Fairmount Blvd Bridge Widening 115.0014.001610.00 SQFT$375.00$603,750.00Market St Bridge Widening278.0014.003892.00 SQFT$375.00$1,459,500.00Santa Ana River Bridge Widening1120.0014.0015680.00SQ FT$375.00$5,880,000.00Hall Ave Bridge Replacement40.00 295.0011800.00 SQ FT$250.00$2,950,000.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavment Structural SectionSpeciallty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$6,237,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #9, SR-60 EB, from Rubidoux Blvd. On-Ramp to Main St Off-RampI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way$311,000.00$4,621,000.00$227,000.00$1,078,000.00$17,753,000.00$0.00 ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $1,077,000 SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $4,546,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $1,244,400 SECTION 4: Specialty Items $1,369,000 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $1,304,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $477,020 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $954,040 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $477,020 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $4,579,392 40% of Sections 1-10 BRIDGES $2,546,000 Right of Way Acquisition $1,065,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $19,638,872 SUPPORT COSTS $6,874,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $26,513,000 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs Project #10, I-215 NB, from Box Springs Rd. On-Ramp to Martin Luther King Jr. On-Ramp I. Roadway Items Summary Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. III. RIGHT OF WAY Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (New Road)1891.0020.00 0-5 7016.11CY$15.00$105,241.67 Roadway Excavation (NB off Ramp Central )790.000-85 0-19 30291.63 CY$15.00$454,374.44 Roadway Excavation (NB on Ramp Central)6470-100 0-20 34520.00 CY$15.00$517,800.00Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)7570.0010.008411.11 SQYD$36.38$305,996.22 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)7570.0022.004317.70CY$72.10$311,306.44 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)7570.0022.003018.54 TON$85.00$256,575.69 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)7570.0022.005551.33CY$270.00$1,498,860.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp Central)1350.008.001200.00 SQYD$36.38$43,656.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB off Ramp Central)1350.0038.001330.00CY$72.10$95,893.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB off Ramp Central)1350.0038.00929.81TON$85.00$79,034.06 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp Central)1350.0038.001710.00CY$270.00$461,700.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp Central)755.008.00671.11 SQYD$36.38$24,415.02 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB on Ramp Central)755.0030.00587.22CY$72.10$42,338.72 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB on Ramp Central)755.0030.00410.53TON$85.00$34,895.16 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp Central)755.0030.00755.00CY$270.00$203,850.00 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp Martin Luther King)1335.008.001186.67 SQYD$36.38$43,170.93 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB off Ramp Martin Luther King)1335.0038.001315.22CY$72.10$94,827.52 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB off Ramp Martin Luther King)1335.0038.00919.48TON$85.00$78,155.91 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp Martin Luther King)1335.0038.001691.00CY$270.00$456,570.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38''with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp Martin Luther King)930.008.00826.67 SQYD$36.38$30,074.13 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB on Ramp Martin Luther King)930.0042.001012.67CY$72.10$73,013.27 Lane plus shoulder at 42' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB on Ramp Martin Luther King)930.0042.00707.96TON$85.00$60,176.81 Lane plus shoulder at 42' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp Martin Luther King)930.0042.001302.00CY$270.00$351,540.00 Lane plus shoulder at 42' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Specialty Items$0.00 Remove Sound Wall1000.001000.00LF$27.00$27,000.00 Sound Wall1000.001000.00 SQFT$23.98$23,980.00 6' High sound wall Remove Retaining Wall7430.007430.00LF$15.00$111,450.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)410.00501.11 SQFT$80.00$40,088.89 Retaining wall height 11' Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)4100.006833.33 SQFT$90.00$615,000.00 Retaining wall height 15' Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)2920.005515.56 SQFT$100.00$551,555.56 Retaining wall height 17'Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization4.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00$200,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)13560.0013560.00 LF$0.65$8,814.00 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)27120.0027120.00 LF$2.41$65,359.20 Removal of Existing Striping (NB off Ramp Central)2438.002438.00LF$0.65$1,584.70 Thermoplastic Striping (NB off Ramp Central)2438.002438.00LF$2.41$5,875.58 Removal of Existing Striping (NB on Ramp Central)1345.001345.00LF$0.65$874.25 Thermoplastic Striping (NB on Ramp Central)1345.001345.00LF$2.41$3,241.45 Removal of Existing Striping (NB off Ramp Martin Luther King)3425.003425.00LF$0.65$2,226.25 Thermoplastic Striping (NB off Ramp Martin Luther King)3425.003425.00LF$2.41$8,254.25 Removal of Existing Striping (NB on Ramp Martin Luther King)2461.002461.00LF$0.65$1,599.65 Thermoplastic Striping (NB on Ramp Martin Luther King)2461.002461.00LF$2.41$5,931.01 Reconstruct Sign Structure5.00EA$200,000.00 $1,000,000.00Central Bridge Widening150.0014.002100.00 SQFT$375.00$787,500.00Martin Luther King Widening175.0014.002450.00 SQFT$375.00$918,750.00Canyon Crest Widening160.0014.002240.00 SQFT$375.00$840,000.00Right of Way Acquisition #11950.0010.0019500.00 SQFT$50.00$975,000.00Right of Way Acquisition #2360.005.001800.00 SQFT$50.00$90,000.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$1,077,000.00$4,546,000.00$1,369,000.00$1,304,000.00$2,546,000.00$1,065,000.00$8,296,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #10, I-215 NB, from Box Springs Rd. On-Ramp to Martin Luther King Jr. On-Ramp I. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $1,434,000 SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $3,172,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $1,193,850 SECTION 4: Specialty Items $1,888,000 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $1,465,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $457,643 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $915,285 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $457,643 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $4,393,368 40% of Sections 1-10 BRIDGES $21,655,000 Right of Way Acquisition $3,768,750 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $40,800,538 SUPPORT COSTS $14,280,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $55,081,000 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs Project #10C, I-215 NB, Martin Luther King Off Ramp to SR-91 I. Roadway Items Summary Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. III. RIGHT OF WAY Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (NB off Ramp University)276.001680-18 28446.67 CY$15.00$426,700.00 Roadway Excavation (NB on Ramp University)0-4106-170 0-5 4946.67CY$15.00$74,200.00 Roadway Excavation (NB Off Ramp 3rd St)6006-340-6 5928.89CY$15.00$88,933.33 Roadway Excavation (NB On Ramp 3rd St)436.006-38 0-15 4478.89CY$15.00$67,183.33Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)5867.0010.006518.89 SQYD$36.38$237,157.18 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)5867.0022.003346.36CY$72.10$241,272.77 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)5867.0022.002339.47 TON$85.00$198,854.63 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)5867.0022.004302.47CY$270.00$1,161,666.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp University)610.008.00542.22 SQYD$36.38$19,726.04 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB off Ramp University)610.0042.00664.22CY$72.10$47,890.42 Lane plus shoulder at 42' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB off Ramp University)610.0042.00464.36TON$85.00$39,470.81 Lane plus shoulder at 42' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp University)610.0042.00854.00CY$270.00$230,580.00 Lane plus shoulder at 42' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp University)936.008.00832.00 SQYD$36.38$30,268.16 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB on Ramp University)936.0026.00630.93CY$72.10$45,490.29 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB on Ramp University)936.0026.00441.09TON$85.00$37,492.65 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp Central)936.0026.00811.20CY$270.00$219,024.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp 3rd St)850.008.00755.56 SQYD$36.38$27,487.11 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB Off Ramp 3rd St)850.0034.00749.26CY$72.10$54,021.59 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB Off Ramp 3rd St)850.0034.00523.81TON$85.00$44,524.06 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp 3rd St)850.0034.00963.33CY$270.00$260,100.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp 3rd St)610.008.00542.22 SQYD$36.38$19,726.04 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB On Ramp 3rd St)610.0034.00537.70CY$72.10$38,768.44 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB On Ramp 3rd St)610.0034.00375.91TON$85.00$31,952.56 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp 3rd St)610.0034.00691.33CY$270.00$186,660.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Specialty Items$0.00 Remove Sound Wall2633.002633.00LF$27.00$71,091.00 Sound Wall2633.002633.00 SQFT$23.98$63,139.34 6' High sound wall Remove Retaining Wall3444.003444.00LF$27.00$92,988.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)34336.0019075.56 SQFT$60.00$1,144,533.33 Retaining wall height 5' Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)3444.005740.00 SQFT$90.00$516,600.00 Retaining wall height 15'Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization8.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00$400,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)11735.0011735.00 LF$0.65$7,627.75 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)11735.0011735.00 LF$2.41$28,281.35 Removal of Existing Striping (NB off Ramp University)2110.002110.00LF$0.65$1,371.50 Thermoplastic Striping (NB off Ramp University)2110.002110.00LF$2.41$5,085.10 Removal of Existing Striping (NB on Ramp University)2810.002810.00LF$0.65$1,826.50 Thermoplastic Striping (NB on Ramp University)2810.002810.00LF$2.41$6,772.10 Removal of Existing Striping (NB Off Ramp 3rd St)2660.002660.00LF$0.65$1,729.00 Thermoplastic Striping (NB Off Ramp 3rd St)2660.002660.00LF$2.41$6,410.60 Removal of Existing Striping (NB On Ramp 3rd St)1830.001830.00LF$0.65$1,189.50 Thermoplastic Striping (NB On Ramp 3rd St)1830.001830.00LF$2.41$4,410.30 Reconstruct Sign Structure5.00EA$200,000.00 $1,000,000.00University Ave Bridge Widening108.0014.001512.00 SQFT$375.00$567,000.00Iowa Ave Bridge Replacement400.00120.0048000.00 SQFT$250.00$12,000,000.003rd St Bridge Replacement256.00142.0036352.00 SQFT$250.00$9,088,000.00Right of Way Acquisition #11075.005.005375.00 SQFT$50.00$268,750.00Right of Way Acquisition #2500.0010.00 PER HOUSE $350,000.00 $3,500,000.00 $350,000 per property I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$1,434,000.00$3,172,000.00$1,888,000.00$1,465,000.00$21,655,000.00$3,768,750.00$7,959,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #10C, I-215 NB, Martin Luther King Off Ramp to SR-91I. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $1,388,000 SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $2,919,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $836,700 SECTION 4: Specialty Items $422,000 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $849,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $320,735 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $641,470 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $320,735 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $3,079,056 40% of Sections 1-10 BRIDGES $25,566,000 Right of Way Acquisition $400,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $36,742,696 SUPPORT COSTS $12,860,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $49,603,000 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs Project #11, I-215 NB, from Center St. off-Ramp to County Line/Iowa Ave. I. Roadway Items Summary Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. III. RIGHT OF WAY Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (NB off Ramp Highgrove)0-2360+560-6 1596.67CY$15.00$23,950.00 Roadway Excavation (NB off Ramp La Cadena)646.000-260 0-12 37572.44 CY$15.00$563,586.67 Roadway Excavation (NB loop off Ramp La Cadena)260285.00 0-18 48333.33 CY$15.00$725,000.00 Roadway Excavation (NB on Ramp La Cadena)0-430'0-240 0-5 5037.41CY$15.00$75,561.11Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)5915.0010.006572.22 SQYD$36.38$239,097.44 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)5915.0022.003373.74CY$72.10$243,246.71 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)5915.0022.002358.61 TON$85.00$200,481.53 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)5915.0022.004337.67CY$270.00$1,171,170.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp Highgrove)477.008.00424.00 SQYD$36.38$15,425.12 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB off Ramp Highgrove)477.0048.00593.60CY$72.10$42,798.56 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB off Ramp Highgrove)477.0048.00414.99TON$85.00$35,274.15 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp Highgrove)477.0048.00763.20CY$270.00$206,064.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp La Cadena)1170.008.001040.00 SQYD$36.38$37,835.20 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB off Ramp La Cadena)1170.0030.00910.00CY$72.10$65,611.00 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB off Ramp La Cadena)1170.0030.00636.19TON$85.00$54,075.94 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp La Cadena)1170.0030.001170.00CY$270.00$315,900.00 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp La Cadena)885.008.00786.67 SQYD$36.38$28,618.93 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB on Ramp La Cadena)885.0024.00550.67CY$72.10$39,703.07 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB on Ramp La Cadena)885.0024.00384.98TON$85.00$32,722.88 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp La Cadena)885.0024.00708.00CY$270.00$191,160.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Specialty Items Remove Retaining Wall1020.001020.00LF$15.00$15,300.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)1020.001133.33 SQFT$80.00$90,666.67 Retaining wall height 10' Concrete Barrier (Type 60)3545.003545.00LF$82.40$292,108.00Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization8.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00$400,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)5915.005915.00LF$0.65$3,844.75 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)11830.0011830.00 LF$2.41$28,510.30 Removal of Existing Striping (NB off Ramp Highgrove)1170.001170.00LF$0.65$760.50 Thermoplastic Striping (NB off Ramp Highgrove)1170.001170.00LF$2.41$2,819.70 Removal of Existing Striping (NB off Ramp La Cadena)2340.002340.00LF$0.65$1,521.00 Thermoplastic Striping (NB off Ramp La Cadena)2340.002340.00LF$2.41$5,639.40 Removal of Existing Striping (NB on Ramp La Cadena)1770.001770.00LF$0.65$1,150.50 Thermoplastic Striping (NB on Ramp La Cadena)1770.001770.00LF$2.41$4,265.70 Reconstruct Sign Structure2.00EA$200,000.00$400,000.00Center St Bridge Replacement303.0048.0014544.00 SQFT$250.00$3,636,000.00Iowa St Bridge Replacement232.0060.0013920.00 SQFT$250.00$3,480,000.00Railroad Bridge Replacement410.00120.0049200.00 SQFT$375.00$18,450,000.00 Steel Truss Bridge- 4 track railroadRight of Way Acquisition #11600.005.008000.00 SQFT$50.00$400,000.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$1,388,000.00$2,919,000.00$422,000.00$849,000.00$25,566,000.00$400,000.00$5,578,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #11, I-215 NB, from Center St. off-Ramp to County Line/Iowa Ave.I. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $24,000 SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $300,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $142,800 SECTION 4: Specialty Items $24,000 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $604,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $54,740 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $109,480 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $54,740 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $525,504 40% of Sections 1-10 BRIDGES $3,636,000 Right of Way Acquisition $0 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $5,475,264 SUPPORT COSTS $1,916,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $7,391,000 Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study $17,897,000.00 Amount to be reduced from Total Project Costs $7,391,000.00 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS III. RIGHT OF WAY Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs Project #11, I-215 NB at Highgrove/Center Subtotal I. Roadway Items Summary Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (NB off Ramp Highgrove)0-2360+560-6 1596.67CY$15.00$23,950.00 Roadway Excavation (NB off Ramp La Cadena)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (NB loop off Ramp La Cadena)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (NB on Ramp La Cadena)$0.00Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp Highgrove)477.008.00424.00 SQYD$36.38$15,425.12 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB off Ramp Highgrove)477.0048.00593.60CY$72.10$42,798.56 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB off Ramp Highgrove)477.0048.00414.99TON$85.00$35,274.15 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp Highgrove)477.0048.00763.20CY$270.00$206,064.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp La Cadena)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB off Ramp La Cadena)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB off Ramp La Cadena)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp La Cadena)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp La Cadena)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB on Ramp La Cadena)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB on Ramp La Cadena)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp La Cadena)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Specialty Items Remove Retaining Wall$0.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)$0.00 Retaining wall height 10' Concrete Barrier (Type 60)$0.00Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization4.00PER CORNER $50,000.00$200,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (NB off Ramp Highgrove)1170.001170.00LF$0.65$760.50 Thermoplastic Striping (NB off Ramp Highgrove)1170.001170.00LF$2.41$2,819.70 Removal of Existing Striping (NB off Ramp La Cadena)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (NB off Ramp La Cadena)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (NB on Ramp La Cadena)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (NB on Ramp La Cadena)$0.00 Reconstruct Sign Structure2.00EA$200,000.00$400,000.00Center St Bridge Replacement303.0048.0014544.00 SQFT$250.00$3,636,000.00Iowa St Bridge Replacement$0.00Railroad Bridge Replacement$0.00 Steel Truss Bridge- 4 track railroadRight of Way Acquisition #1$0.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$24,000.00$300,000.00$24,000.00$604,000.00$3,636,000.00$0.00$952,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #11, I-215 NB at Highgrove/Center St Subtotal.I. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $119,000 SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $2,740,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $674,400 SECTION 4: Specialty Items $193,000 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $1,444,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $258,520 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $517,040 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $258,520 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $2,481,792 40% of Sections 1-10 BRIDGES $814,000 Right of Way Acquisition $427,500 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $9,927,772 SUPPORT COSTS $3,475,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $13,403,000 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs Project #12, I-215 SB, from Martin Luther King Blvd On-Ramp to Sycamore Canyon Rd Off-Ramp I. Roadway Items Summary Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. III. RIGHT OF WAY Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Watkins)400.0022.00 0-13 3955.85CY$15.00$59,337.78 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Watkins)450.000-32 0-13 3952.96CY$15.00$59,294.44Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)6370.0010.007077.78 SQYD$36.38$257,489.56 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)6370.0022.003633.26CY$72.10$261,957.99 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)6370.0022.002540.04 TON$85.00$215,903.19 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)6370.0022.004671.33CY$270.00$1,261,260.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Watkins)530.008.00471.11 SQYD$36.38$17,139.02 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Watkins)530.0040.00549.63CY$72.10$39,628.30 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Watkins)530.0040.00384.25TON$85.00$32,661.25 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Watkins)530.0040.00706.67CY$270.00$190,800.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Watkins)710.008.00631.11 SQYD$36.38$22,959.82 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Watkins)710.0050.00920.37CY$72.10$66,358.70 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Watkins)710.0050.00643.44TON$85.00$54,692.19 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Watkins)710.0050.001183.33CY$270.00$319,500.00 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Sec 3. DrainageSpecialty Items$0.00 Remove Retaining Wall2065.002065.00LF$15.00$30,975.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)2065.001835.56 SQFT$75.00$137,666.67 Retaining wall height 8'Sec 5.Environmental Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization4.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00$200,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)6370.006370.00LF$0.65$4,140.50 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)12740.0012740.00 LF$2.41$30,703.40 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Watkins)1319.001319.00LF$0.65$857.35 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Watkins)1319.001319.00LF$2.41$3,178.79 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Watkins)1705.001705.00LF$0.65$1,108.25 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Watkins)1705.001705.00LF$2.41$4,109.05 Reconstruct Sign Structure6.00EA$200,000.00 $1,200,000.00Watkins Dr Bridge Widening155.0014.002170.00 SQFT$375.00$813,750.00Right of Way Acquisition #1570.0015.008550.00 SQFT$50.00$427,500.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$119,000.00$2,740,000.00$193,000.00$1,444,000.00$814,000.00$427,500.00$4,496,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #12, I-215 SB, from Martin Luther King Blvd Jr. On-Ramp to Sycamore Canyon Rd Off-RampI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $2,578,000 SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $20,307,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $4,037,100 SECTION 4: Specialty Items $446,000 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $3,583,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $1,547,555 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $3,095,110 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $1,547,555 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $14,856,528 40% of Sections 1-10 BRIDGES $42,690,000 Right of Way Acquisition $360,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $95,047,848 SUPPORT COSTS $33,267,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $128,315,000 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs Project #13 I-215 SB, from Van Buren On Ramp to Case Rd Off Ramp I. Roadway Items Summary Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. III. RIGHT OF WAY Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)845.0026-85 0-15 24160.00 CY$15.00$362,400.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)480.0021-76 0-15 14576.11 CY$15.00$218,641.67 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Ramona)700.0018-100 0-11 14719.22 CY$15.00$220,788.33 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Nuevo)588.0026-95 0-15 16787.22 CY$15.00$251,808.33 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Nuevo)790.0025-102 0-15 32457.22 CY$15.00$486,858.33 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp D st)775.000-210-18 29114.00 CY$15.00$436,710.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Redlands)695.0019-80 0-15 22228.33 CY$15.00$333,425.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Redlands)778.0020-80 0-15 17835.56 CY$15.00$267,533.33Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)52230.0010.0058033.33 SQYD$36.38$2,111,252.67 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)52230.0022.0029790.44 CY$72.10$2,147,891.04 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)52230.0022.0020826.71 TON$85.00$1,770,270.56 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)52230.0022.0038302.00 CY$270.00$10,341,540.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)1450.008.001288.89 SQYD$36.38$46,889.78 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)1450.0034.001278.15CY$72.10$92,154.48 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)1450.0034.00893.56TON$85.00$75,952.81 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)1450.0034.001643.33CY$270.00$443,700.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)860.008.00764.44 SQYD$36.38$27,810.49 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)860.0032.00713.48CY$72.10$51,442.01 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)860.0032.00498.80TON$85.00$42,398.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)860.0032.00917.33CY$270.00$247,680.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona)720.008.00640.00 SQYD$36.38$23,283.20 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Ramona)720.0048.00896.00CY$72.10$64,601.60 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Ramona)720.0048.00626.40TON$85.00$53,244.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona)720.0048.001152.00CY$270.00$311,040.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo)1040.008.00924.44 SQYD$36.38$33,631.29 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Nuevo)1040.0026.00701.04CY$72.10$50,544.77 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Nuevo)1040.0026.00490.10TON$85.00$41,658.50 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo)1040.0026.00901.33CY$270.00$243,360.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo)1420.008.001262.22 SQYD$36.38$45,919.64 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Nuevo)1420.0024.00883.56CY$72.10$63,704.36 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Nuevo)1420.0024.00617.70TON$85.00$52,504.50 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo)1420.0024.001136.00CY$270.00$306,720.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st)1280.008.001137.78 SQYD$36.38$41,392.36 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp D st)1280.0038.001261.04CY$72.10$90,920.77 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp D st)1280.0038.00881.60TON$85.00$74,936.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st)1280.0038.001621.33CY$270.00$437,760.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands)1075.008.00955.56 SQYD$36.38$34,763.11 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Redlands)1075.0034.0034.00CY$72.10$2,451.40 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Redlands)1075.0034.00662.47TON$85.00$56,309.84 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands)1075.0034.001218.33CY$270.00$328,950.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands)1040.008.00924.44 SQYD$36.38$33,631.29 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Redlands)1040.0040.001078.52CY$72.10$77,761.19 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Redlands)1040.0040.00754.00TON$85.00$64,090.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands)1040.0040.001386.67CY$270.00$374,400.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Sec 3. DrainageSpecialty Items$0.00 Remove Sound Wall1020.001020.00LF$27.00$27,540.00 Sound Wall1020.001020.00 SQFT$23.98$24,459.60 Remove Retaining Wall1020.001020.00LF$15.00$15,300.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)1020.001020.00 SQFT$75.00$76,500.00 Retaining wall height 9' Concrete Barrier (Type 60)3665.003665.00LF$82.40$301,996.00Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization16.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00$800,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)60115.0060115.00LF$0.65$39,074.75 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)120230.00120230.00 LF$2.41$289,754.30 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)2900.002900.00LF$0.65$1,885.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)2900.002900.00LF$2.41$6,989.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)1720.001720.00LF$0.65$1,118.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)1720.001720.00LF$2.41$4,145.20 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona)2320.002320.00LF$0.65$1,508.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona)2320.002320.00LF$2.41$5,591.20 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo)2080.002080.00LF$0.65$1,352.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo)2080.002080.00LF$2.41$5,012.80 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo)2840.002840.00LF$0.65$1,846.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo)2840.002840.00LF$2.41$6,844.40 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands)2150.002150.00LF$0.65$1,397.50 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands)2560.002560.00LF$2.41$6,169.60 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands)3380.003380.00LF$0.65$2,197.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands)3380.003380.00LF$2.41$8,145.80 Reconstruct Sign Structure12.00EA$200,000.00 $2,400,000.00Ramona Bridge Replacement220.00125.0027500.00 0.00$250.00$6,875,000.00Harley Knox Bridge Replacement220.0082.0018040.00 SQFT$250.00$4,510,000.00Placentia Bridge Replacement215.0072.0015480.00 SQFT$250.00$3,870,000.00Nuevo Rd Bridge Replacement260.00106.0027560.00 SQFT$250.00$6,890,000.00D St Bridge Tieback260.0016.004160.00 SQFT$250.00$1,040,000.00Perris Blvd Bridge Replacement560.0090.0050400.00SQ FT$250.00$12,600,000.00Redlands Bridge Tieback125.0016.002000.00 SQ FT$250.00$500,000.00Bridge Structure 1490.0014.006860.00 SQFT$375.00$2,572,500.00Bridge Structure 2230.0014.003220.00 SQFT$375.00$1,207,500.00Bridge Structure 3500.0014.007000.00 SQFT$375.00$2,625,000.00Right of Way Acquisition #1480.0015.007200.00 SQFT$50.00$360,000.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$26,914,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #13, I-215 SB, from Van Buren On Ramp to Case Rd Off RampI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way$2,578,000.00$20,307,000.00$446,000.00$3,583,000.00$42,690,000.00$360,000.00 ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $0 SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $0 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $0 SECTION 4: Specialty Items $0 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $0 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $0 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $0 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $0 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $0 40% of Sections 1-10 BRIDGES $500,000 Right of Way Acquisition $0 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $500,000 SUPPORT COSTS $175,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $675,000 Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study $1,356,000.00 Amount to be reduced from Total Project Costs $675,000.00 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS III. RIGHT OF WAY Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs Project #13 I-215 SB at Perris Overcrossing Subtotal I. Roadway Items Summary Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Sec 3. DrainageSpecialty Items$0.00 Remove Sound Wall$0.00 Sound Wall$0.00 Remove Retaining Wall$0.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)$0.00 Retaining wall height 9' Concrete Barrier (Type 60)$0.00Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization$0.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Reconstruct Sign Structure$0.00Ramona Bridge Replacement$0.00Harley Knox Bridge Replacement$0.00Placentia Bridge Replacement$0.00Nuevo Rd Bridge Replacement$0.00D St Bridge Tieback$0.00Perris Blvd Bridge Replacement$0.00Redlands Bridge Tieback125.0016.002000.00 SQ FT$250.00$500,000.00Bridge Structure 1$0.00Bridge Structure 2$0.00Bridge Structure 3$0.00Right of Way Acquisition #1$0.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$500,000.00$0.00$0.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #13, I-215 SB at Perris Overcrossing SubtotalI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $739,000 SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $838,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $268,800 SECTION 4: Specialty Items $0 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $215,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $103,040 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $206,080 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $103,040 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $989,184 40% of Sections 1-10 BRIDGES $6,890,000 Right of Way Acquisition $0 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $10,352,144 SUPPORT COSTS $3,623,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $13,975,000 Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study $17,897,000.00 Amount to be reduced from Total Project Costs $13,975,000.00 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS III. RIGHT OF WAY Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs Project #13 I-215 SB at Nuevo Subtotal I. Roadway Items Summary Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Nuevo)588.0026-95 0-15 16787.22 CY$15.00$251,808.33 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Nuevo)790.0025-102 0-15 32457.22 CY$15.00$486,858.33 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo)1040.008.00924.44 SQYD$36.38$33,631.29 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Nuevo)1040.0026.00701.04CY$72.10$50,544.77 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Nuevo)1040.0026.00490.10TON$85.00$41,658.50 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo)1040.0026.00901.33CY$270.00$243,360.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo)1420.008.001262.22 SQYD$36.38$45,919.64 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Nuevo)1420.0024.00883.56CY$72.10$63,704.36 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Nuevo)1420.0024.00617.70TON$85.00$52,504.50 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo)1420.0024.001136.00CY$270.00$306,720.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Sec 3. DrainageSpecialty Items$0.00 Remove Sound Wall$0.00 Sound Wall$0.00 Remove Retaining Wall$0.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)$0.00 Retaining wall height 9' Concrete Barrier (Type 60)$0.00Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization4.00PER CORNER $50,000.00$200,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo)2080.002080.00LF$0.65$1,352.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo)2080.002080.00LF$2.41$5,012.80 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo)2840.002840.00LF$0.65$1,846.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo)2840.002840.00LF$2.41$6,844.40 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Reconstruct Sign Structure$0.00Ramona Bridge Replacement$0.00Harley Knox Bridge Replacement$0.00Placentia Bridge Replacement$0.00Nuevo Rd Bridge Replacement260.00106.0027560.00 SQFT$250.00$6,890,000.00D St Bridge Tieback$0.00Perris Blvd Bridge Replacement$0.00Redlands Bridge Tieback$0.00Bridge Structure 1$0.00Bridge Structure 2$0.00Bridge Structure 3$0.00Right of Way Acquisition #1$0.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$739,000.00$838,000.00$0.00$215,000.00$6,890,000.00$0.00$1,792,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #13, I-215 SB at Nuevo SubtotalI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $0 SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $0 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $0 SECTION 4: Specialty Items $0 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $0 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $0 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $0 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $0 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $0 40% of Sections 1-10 BRIDGES $3,870,000 Right of Way Acquisition $0 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $3,870,000 SUPPORT COSTS $1,355,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $5,225,000 Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study $12,354,000.00 as Mid-County Parkway Interchange Amount to be reduced from Total Project Costs $5,225,000.00 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS III. RIGHT OF WAY Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs Project #13 I-215 SB at Placentia Overcrossing Subtotal I. Roadway Items Summary Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Sec 3. DrainageSpecialty Items$0.00 Remove Sound Wall$0.00 Sound Wall$0.00 Remove Retaining Wall$0.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)$0.00 Retaining wall height 9' Concrete Barrier (Type 60)$0.00Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization$0.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Reconstruct Sign Structure$0.00Ramona Bridge Replacement$0.00Harley Knox Bridge Replacement$0.00Placentia Bridge Replacement215.0072.0015480.00 SQFT$250.00$3,870,000.00Nuevo Rd Bridge Replacement$0.00D St Bridge Tieback$0.00Perris Blvd Bridge Replacement$0.00Redlands Bridge Tieback$0.00Bridge Structure 1$0.00Bridge Structure 2$0.00Bridge Structure 3$0.00Right of Way Acquisition #1$0.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$3,870,000.00$0.00$0.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #13, I-215 SB at Placentia Overcrossing SubtotalI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $221,000 SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $452,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $132,000 SECTION 4: Specialty Items $0 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $207,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $50,600 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $101,200 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $50,600 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $485,760 40% of Sections 1-10 BRIDGES $6,875,000 Right of Way Acquisition $0 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $8,575,160 SUPPORT COSTS $3,001,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $11,576,000 Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study $5,965,000.00 Amount to be reduced from Total Project Costs $5,965,000.00 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS III. RIGHT OF WAY Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs Project #13 I-215 SB at Ramona Subtotal I. Roadway Items Summary Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Ramona)700.0018-100 0-11 14719.22 CY$15.00$220,788.33 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona)720.008.00640.00 SQYD$36.38$23,283.20 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Ramona)720.0048.00896.00CY$72.10$64,601.60 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Ramona)720.0048.00626.40TON$85.00$53,244.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona)720.0048.001152.00CY$270.00$311,040.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Sec 3. DrainageSpecialty Items$0.00 Remove Sound Wall$0.00 Sound Wall$0.00 Remove Retaining Wall$0.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)$0.00 Retaining wall height 9' Concrete Barrier (Type 60)$0.00Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization4.00PER CORNER $50,000.00$200,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona)2320.002320.00LF$0.65$1,508.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona)2320.002320.00LF$2.41$5,591.20 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Reconstruct Sign Structure$0.00Ramona Bridge Replacement220.00125.0027500.00 SQFT$250.00$6,875,000.00Harley Knox Bridge Replacement$0.00Placentia Bridge Replacement$0.00Nuevo Rd Bridge Replacement$0.00D St Bridge Tieback$0.00Perris Blvd Bridge Replacement$0.00Redlands Bridge Tieback$0.00Bridge Structure 1$0.00Bridge Structure 2$0.00Bridge Structure 3$0.00Right of Way Acquisition #1$0.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$221,000.00$452,000.00$0.00$207,000.00$6,875,000.00$0.00$880,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #13, I-215 SB at Ramona SubtotalI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $581,000 SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $1,028,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $273,450 SECTION 4: Specialty Items $0 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $214,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $104,823 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $209,645 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $104,823 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $1,006,296 40% of Sections 1-10 BRIDGES $4,510,000 Right of Way Acquisition $0 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $8,032,036 SUPPORT COSTS $2,811,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $10,843,000 Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study $7,110,000.00 Amount to be reduced from Total Project Costs $7,110,000.00 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS III. RIGHT OF WAY Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs Project #13 I-215 SB at Harley Knox Subtotal I. Roadway Items Summary Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)845.0026-85 0-15 24160.00 CY$15.00$362,400.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)480.0021-76 0-15 14576.11 CY$15.00$218,641.67 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)1450.008.001288.89 SQYD$36.38$46,889.78 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)1450.0034.001278.15CY$72.10$92,154.48 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)1450.0034.00893.56TON$85.00$75,952.81 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)1450.0034.001643.33CY$270.00$443,700.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)860.008.00764.44 SQYD$36.38$27,810.49 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)860.0032.00713.48CY$72.10$51,442.01 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)860.0032.00498.80TON$85.00$42,398.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)860.0032.00917.33CY$270.00$247,680.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Sec 3. DrainageSpecialty Items$0.00 Remove Sound Wall$0.00 Sound Wall$0.00 Remove Retaining Wall$0.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)$0.00 Retaining wall height 9' Concrete Barrier (Type 60)$0.00Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization4.00PER CORNER $50,000.00$200,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)2900.002900.00LF$0.65$1,885.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)2900.002900.00LF$2.41$6,989.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)1720.001720.00LF$0.65$1,118.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)1720.001720.00LF$2.41$4,145.20 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Reconstruct Sign Structure$0.00Ramona Bridge Replacement$250.00$0.00Harley Knox Bridge Replacement220.0082.0018040.00 SQFT$250.00$4,510,000.00Placentia Bridge Replacement$0.00Nuevo Rd Bridge Replacement$0.00D St Bridge Tieback$0.00Perris Blvd Bridge Replacement$0.00Redlands Bridge Tieback$0.00Bridge Structure 1$0.00Bridge Structure 2$0.00Bridge Structure 3$0.00Right of Way Acquisition #1$0.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$581,000.00$1,028,000.00$0.00$214,000.00$4,510,000.00$0.00$1,823,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #13, I-215 SB at Harley Knox SubtotalI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $1,454,000 SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $1,439,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $437,700 SECTION 4: Specialty Items $0 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $25,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $167,785 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $335,570 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $167,785 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $1,610,736 40% of Sections 1-10 BRIDGES $0 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $5,637,576 SUPPORT COSTS $1,973,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $7,611,000 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs Project #16, EB SR-91, I-15 SB On Ramp to I-15 NB On Ramp I. Roadway Items Summary Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (North of 15 ramp to EB 91)1250.000-600-5 12215.36 CY$15.00$183,230.42 Roadway Excavation (South of 15 ramp to EB 91)870.000-105 0-7 31370.93 CY$15.00$470,563.89Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)2366.0010.002628.89 SQYD$36.38$95,638.98 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)2366.0022.001349.50CY$72.10$97,298.68 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)2366.0022.00943.44TON$85.00$80,192.61 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)2366.0022.001735.07CY$270.00$468,468.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB 15 ramp to EB 91)1965.008.001746.67 SQYD$36.38$63,543.73 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB 15 ramp to EB 91)1965.0026.001324.56CY$72.10$95,500.46 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB 15 ramp to EB 91)1965.0026.00926.01TON$85.00$78,710.53 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB 15 ramp to EB 91)1965.0026.001703.00CY$270.00$459,810.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)2366.002366.00LF$0.65$1,537.90 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)4732.004732.00LF$2.41$11,404.12 Removal of Existing Striping (NB 15 ramp to EB 91)3930.003930.00LF$0.65$2,554.50 Thermoplastic Striping (NB 15 ramp to EB 91)3930.003930.00LF$2.41$9,471.30 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$2,918,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #16, EB SR-91, I-15 SB On Ramp to I-15 NB On RampI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way$1,454,000.00$1,439,000.00$0.00$25,000.00$0.00$0.00 ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $939,000 SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $2,094,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $573,000 SECTION 4: Specialty Items $0 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $787,000 SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $219,650 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $439,300 10% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $219,650 5% of Sections 1-6 SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $2,108,640 40% of Sections 1-10 BRIDGES $2,279,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $9,659,240 SUPPORT COSTS $3,381,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $13,040,000 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs Project #18, SR-91 EB, Pierce St Off Ramp to Magnolia On Ramp I. Roadway Items Summary Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (EB Magnolia off Ramp)260.00260.00 0-15 26576.11 CY$15.00$398,641.67 Roadway Excavation (EB Magnolia on Ramp)330.002200-8 13303.70 CY$15.00$199,555.56 Roadway Excavation (EB Pierce off Ramp)71532-78 0-15 22695.00 CY$15.00$340,425.00Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)4115.0010.004572.22 SQYD$36.38$166,337.44 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)4115.0022.002347.07CY$72.10$169,224.04 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)4115.0022.001640.86 TON$85.00$139,472.78 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)4115.0022.003017.67CY$270.00$814,770.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (EB Magnolia off Ramp)1345.008.001195.56 SQYD$36.38$43,494.31 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (EB Magnolia off Ramp)1345.0026.00906.63CY$72.10$65,368.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (EB Magnolia off Ramp)1345.0026.00633.83TON$85.00$53,875.66 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (EB Magnolia off Ramp)1345.0026.001165.67CY$270.00$314,730.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (EB Magnolia on Ramp)745.008.00662.22 SQYD$36.38$24,091.64 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (EB Magnolia on Ramp)745.0022.00424.93CY$72.10$30,637.16 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (EB Magnolia on Ramp)745.0022.00297.07TON$85.00$25,250.84 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (EB Magnolia on Ramp)745.0022.00546.33CY$270.00$147,510.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (EB Pierce off Ramp)300.008.00266.67 SQYD$36.38$9,701.33 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (EB Pierce off Ramp)300.0024.00186.67CY$72.10$13,458.67 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (EB Pierce off Ramp)300.0024.00130.50TON$85.00$11,092.50 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (EB Pierce off Ramp)300.0024.00240.00CY$270.00$64,800.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization3.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00$150,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)4112.004112.00LF$0.65$2,672.80 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)8224.008224.00LF$2.41$19,819.84 Removal of Existing Striping (EB Magnolia off Ramp)2690.002690.00LF$0.65$1,748.50 Thermoplastic Striping (EB Magnolia off Ramp)2690.002690.00LF$2.41$6,482.90 Removal of Existing Striping (EB Magnolia on Ramp)1490.001490.00LF$0.65$968.50 Thermoplastic Striping (EB Magnolia on Ramp)1490.001490.00LF$2.41$3,590.90 Removal of Existing Striping (EB Pierce off Ramp)600.00600.00LF$0.65$390.00 Thermoplastic Striping (EB Pierce off Ramp)600.00600.00LF$2.41$1,446.00 Reconstruct Sign Structure3.00EA$200,000.00$600,000.00Magnolia Bridge Widening340.0014.004760.00 SQFT$375.00$1,785,000.00Pierce Bridge Widening94.0014.001316.00 SQFT$375.00$493,500.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$939,000.00$2,094,000.00$0.00$787,000.00$2,279,000.00$0.00$3,820,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #18, SR-91 EB, Pierce St Off Ramp to Magnolia On RampI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way REGIONAL LOGISTICS FEE STUDY UPDATE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MARCH 18, 2019 Lorelle Moe-Luna, Multimodal Services Director Darren Henderson, WSP, Project Manager Outline of Topics •Background •Nexus Determination –Major Tasks –Forecast Growth –Identifying Deficiencies –Attributing Share of Impact –Estimating the Cost of Needed Improvements –Compute Logistics Impact Fee •Locational Impacts Assessment –Southern California Warehouse Distribution and Outlook –Potential Effects of Fee on Locational Decisions –Comparative Fee Costs •Stakeholder Workshops •Next Steps Background •World Logistics Center Settlement •Each party to contribute $250,000 …regional transportation study to evaluate a logistics-related regional fee... Study Participation Cities Others Nexus Determination Major Tasks Model validation Forecast logistics growth Forecast truck trips Identify capacity deficiencies Attribute deficiencies to new logistics development Estimate project costs Compute fee amount Locational Impacts Model Validation Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS Model; Caltrans PEMS 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000SCAG Model Volumes Traffic Counts I-15 SR 60 I-215 SR-91 I-10 Overestimated Underestimated Comparison of Modeled to Actual Daily Truck Volumes on Riverside County Freeways (2016) Modeled truck volumes correlated to actual counts 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000SCAG Model Volumes PeMS I-15 SR-60 I-215 SR-91 I-10 AM Peak Hour 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000SCAG Model Volumes PeMS I-15 SR-60 I-215 SR-91 I-10 PM Peak Hour 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000SCAG Model Volumes PeMS I-15 SR-60 I-215 SR-91 I-10 Overestimated Underestimated AM Peak Hour Adjusted 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000SCAG Model Volumes PeMS I-15 SR-60 I-215 SR-91 I-10 Overestimated Underestimated PM Peak Hour AdjustedModeled traffic volumes tended to be slightly overestimated and were adjusted accordingly Comparison of Modeled to Actual Peak Traffic Volumes on Riverside County Freeways (2016) Forecast Logistics Growth 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 19901992199419961998200020022004200620082010201220142016201820202022202420262028203020322034203620382040EDD Warehouse and other Transportation Employment Extrapolated Trends [Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA] Warehouse Non-Warehouse Historical Forecast Source: California Employment Development Department (EDD) Industry Employment Data for Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) EDD data was extrapolated as input to modeling freeway traffic impacts Forecast Logistics Growth •EDD warehouse employment trend forecast was used for modeling purposes Warehouse Employment Growth for Riverside County 2016 2040 Growth Employees Employees Employees SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS Employment Forecast 5,343 13,612 8,269 EDD Employment Trend Forecast 13,080 27,662 14,582 •EDD employment trend forecast was multiplied by 2,241 square feet per employee ratio from NAIOP Logistics Trends and Specific Industries that Will Drive Warehouse and Distribution Growth and Demand for Space, March 2010 Warehouse Building Area Growth for Riverside County 2016 2040 Growth SF GFA SF GFA SF GFA SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS HDT Model GFA Forecast 63,309,990 100,642,169 37,332,179 EDD Employment Trend Forecast 29,312,280 61,990,542 32,678,262 Basis to model impacts Basis to calculate fee Isolating Logistics Trips TAZs with Largest Warehousing/Logistics Growth •SCAG forecast warehouse growth was clustered around select TAZ’s •Warehouse growth was consolidated in these select TAZ’s •Other population and employment growth in the select TAZ’s was reallocated to surrounding TAZ’s to isolate warehouse growth •Select link analysis of warehouse TAZ’s allowed warehouse truck trips to be specifically identified Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS Model Forecast Truck Trips Riverside SCAG Riverside SCAG 74 1 21%93%40%99% 91 2 26%94%37%98% 71 3 21%84%28%93% 60 4 22%93%26%95% 15 5 18%90%25%92% 215 6 34%83%39%94% 10 7 33%74%41%85% 62 8 28%93%42%98% 15 9 1%1%1%1% 79 10 2%6%7%15% 86 11 27%80%32%85% 111 12 32%83%31%88% 78 13 21%43%23%47% 10 14 0%0%0%0% 95 15 13%32%23%40% 177 16 26%53%41%61% 60 17 55%78%61%88% 60 18 55%80%65%91% 215 19 52%83%60%92% 60 20 45%93%52%96% 91 21 44%91%62%98% 91 22 43%91%63%97% 215 23 48%73%66%86% 215 24 26%36%66%79% 15 25 26%37%56%74% 215 26 18%26%55%61% 10 27 43%72%55%84% 10 28 41%62%63%80% 10 29 32%41%33%39% Medium-Duty TrucksHeavy-Duty Trucks LinkState Route No. Truck Traffic O-D Distribution by Route •Model results were analyzed to identify those truck trips generated by developments within Riverside County, and those that were generated by developments elsewhere in the SCAG region (and beyond) •The O-D distribution helped to account for pass-through trips Identified Deficiencies Based on New Development Identified Deficiencies Based on New Development Attributing the Share of Impacts •Adjust for the following factors: –Existing capacity deficiency –Share of future traffic growth that is attributable to other development activity –Pass through trips that have a trip end outside Riverside County •Accomplished by comparing base model run to model run that separates warehouse and logistics uses Attributing the Share of Impacts SR-79 S Rancho California Rd 1.0 1.01 1% Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd 1.1 1.01 1% 2 Winchester Rd Lane Add south of I-15/I-215 Split 0.7 1.08 Add aux lane between the on-ramp and the lane add 1% 3 Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd 0.8 1.03 Add aux lane between the on- and off-ramps 0.3% 4 El Cerrito Rd Ontario Ave 0.2 1.03 Add aux lane between the on- and off-ramps 1% 5 Norco Dr/6th Street Limonite Ave 2.0 1.14 Add aux lane between the on- and off-ramps 1% Cantu Galeano Ranch Rd Limonite Ave 1.3 1.02 4% Limonite Ave Norco Dr/6th Street 2.0 1.04 5% 7 El Cerrito Rd Dos Lagos Dr 2.1 1.09 Widen mainline to 4 lanes 2% 8 Temescal Canyon Rd Indian Truck Trail 2.2 1.01 Add aux lane between the on- and off-ramps 1% Rubidoux Blvd Market St 0.8 1.03 31% Market St Main St 0.1 1.06 39% Box Springs Rd Central Ave 0.4 1.07 14% Watkins Dr Martin Luther King Jr 0.8 1.23 38% 10c University Ave Off-Ramp Upstream of Univ Ave On-ramp 0.4 1.04 Add aux lane upstream of the on-ramp to the off-ramp 13% 11 Center St Off-Ramp Riverside County Line/Iowa Ave 0.5 1.03 Add aux lane between the off-ramp and the county line 12% 12 Martin Luther King Jr Sycamore Canyon Rd 1.6 1.25 Add aux lane between the on- and off-ramps 57% 13 Van Buren Blvd Harley Knox Blvd 1.2 1.06 Add aux lane between the on- and off-ramps 4% Riverside County Line Green River Rd Off-Ramp 0.8 1.23 Add aux lane from the county line to Green River Rd. off-ramp 1% Green River Rd Off-Ramp SR-71 1.3 1.02 Widen mainline to 6 lanes 10% SR-71 Serfas Club Dr Off-Ramp 1.4 1.27 Widen mainline to 6 lanes 1% 15 Serfas Club Dr Off-Ramp Grand Blvd Off-Ramp 2.3 1.23 Widen mainline to 5 lanes 9% 16 On-Ramp from SB I-15 On-Ramp from NB I-15 0.3 1.07 Add aux lane 8% 17 McKinley St Off-Ramp Pierce St 1.6 1.14 Widen mainline to 4 lanes 10% 18 Magnolia Ave La Sierra Ave 0.3 1.00 Add aux lane between the ramps 8% Serfas Club Dr Off-Ramp Lane Add at SR-71 2.3 1.12 Widen mainline to 5 lanes 3% Lane Add at SR-71 Riverside County Line 1.7 1.07 Widen mainline to 6 lanes 2% 14 SR-91 NB 19 SB 9 SR-60 EB Add aux lane between the on- and off-ramps 10 I-215 NB Add aux lane between the on- and off-ramps SB 1 I-15 NB Add aux lane between the on- and off-ramps 6 SB Add aux lane between the on- and off-ramps 2040 Max V/C Recommended Improvement % Deficiency Attributable to New Logistics Trucking ID Route Name Dir Beginning End Segment Length (mi) Cost Estimation Methodology •Deficient segments were reviewed to determine project limits/logical termini for mitigation project concepts •Mitigation project concepts were compared to completed and ongoing RCTC program to determine where deficiencies have been/are being mitigated •Conceptual designs were developed using Google desktop research. –All costs and impacts based on visual analysis –No detailed engineering completed for verification Cost Estimation Methodology •Conceptual costs were developed based on the quantification of construction elements in the conceptual designs •Unit cost values based on Caltrans 2016/2017 Construction Cost Database •Various ancillary and support cost factors, and contingency factor applied •Adjusted to remove overlap with TUMF funded project elements Conceptual Design Example –I-15 SB Cajalco to Indian Truck Conceptual Cost Example –I-15 SB Cajalco to Indian Truck Total project cost estimate = $45,482,000 Conceptual Cost Example –I-15 SB Cajalco to Indian Truck Total cost estimate for project elements covered by TUMF = $7,657,000 Total Conceptual Cost Estimate Total Conceptual Cost Estimate: $385,335,000 Adjusted project cost estimate = $37,825,000 Total Logistics Cost Share Total Logistics Cost Share: $47,841,000 Logistics cost share = $820,000 Potential Logistics Impact Fee Logistics and Warehouse Impact Fee for Riverside County Logistics Cost Share of Freeway Mitigation $47,841,000 Growth in Warehouse Gross Floor Area in Square Feet 37,332,179 Fee per Square Foot of Gross Floor Area Up to $1.28 Locational Impacts Assessment Southern California Warehouse Distribution Share of Total Industrial Warehouse Building Area by County in 2014 Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Industrial Warehousing in the SCAG Region, April 2018 0 10 20 30 40 50 Ventura Riverside Orange San Bernardino Los Angeles Existing Industrial Warehouse Buildings in the SCAG Region (All Building Sizes and All Secondary Types), 2014 Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Industrial Warehousing in the SCAG Region, April 2018 Southern California Warehouse Development Outlook Regional-Level Total Occupied Warehouse Space Forecasts by Year in the SCAG Region, 2040 (millions of square feet) Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Industrial Warehousing in the SCAG Region, April 2018 1.81 billion square feet represents a 59% increase from 2014 Potential Effects of Fee on Locational Decisions Average New Construction Cost Breakdown for a 500,000-square-foot Warehouse Development costs in Los Angeles County are 55% higher than the Inland Empire Potential Effects of Fee on Locational Decisions Total Development Costs in Western Riverside County Total Development costs in Western Riverside County = $121.10 The proposed fee of $1.28 would increase the total development costs by 1.1% Source: Western Riverside Council of Governments, Updated Analysis of Development Impact Fees in Western Riverside County, 2019 Comparative Fee Costs Current Average Development Impact Fee Costs Per Square Foot and Proportions in Inland Empire Jurisdictions Current average impact fee costs are about $0.80 higher in San Bernardino County, although fees vary greatly by city Implementation of $1.28 fee would make Western Riverside average about $0.50 higher than San Bernardino Source: Western Riverside Council of Governments, Updated Analysis of Development Impact Fees in Western Riverside County, 2019 Potential Locational Impacts A potential logistics mitigation fee would likely have limited impacts on demand for warehouse development in Riverside County •It will represent a 1.1%increase in total development costs •Total development costs for Los Angeles County will continue to be much higher than for the Inland Empire. •Impact fees are generally higher in San Bernardino County compared to Riverside County,although fees vary widely •The logistics fee would make the average for Western Riverside higher than San Bernardino. •Any impacts could be affected by offsetting changes in development costs in San Bernardino County and in other regions in the Southern California. Stakeholder Outreach Stakeholder Outreach •Two stakeholder workshops were conducted –September 28, 2018 and December 7, 2018 –Provided an overview of the study purpose, tasks and findings –Accepted questions and comments from participants Next Steps Next Steps •Provide update to the RCTC Technical Advisory Committee March 18, 2019 •Seek Commission approval of the Nexus Study May 2019 –An approval of the Nexus Study does not mean that a fee program will be implemented –Provide the Commission with an overview of the locational impacts and administrative requirements should the Commission choose to pursue the development of a fee program –If direction is provided to pursue a fee program, staff will return to the Commission with an implementation plan for the development of a fee administrator and steps to formally adopt a fee AGENDA ITEM 8 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 8. AGENDA ITEM 9 Due Date (by Noon)Amendments Administrative Modifications Tuesday, July 17, 2018 Amendment #19-01 Including 2018 STIP, 2018 SHOPP, HBP and changes to address comments received on Draft 2019 FTIP only. Concurrent with 2019 FTIP base Tuesday, October 23, 2018 Administrative Modification #19-02 Thursday, November 1, 2018 2020 RTP/SCS FTIP Amendment #19-99 (will become #19-09) CONSISTENCY AMENDMENT FOR MODELING ONLY (New and updates to existing modeled projects -- only scope or completion date) Thursday, January 8, 2019 Amendment #19-03 Tuesday, February 12, 2019 Emergency Admin Mod #19-04 (SBCTA/VCTC) Tuesday, February 26, 2019 Administrative Modification #19-05 Tuesday, April 9, 2019 Amendment #19-06 Tuesday, May 21, 2019 Administrative Modification #19-07 Tuesday, July 9, 2019 Amendment #19-08 Tuesday, August 6, 2019 Administrative Modification #19-09 Tuesday, September 10, 2019 Amendment #19-10** 2020 RTP/SCS -- projects in this amendment cannot be modified until the 2020 RTP/SCS is approved in June 2020 2019 FTIP AMENDMENT/ADMINISTRATIVE MODIFICATION SCHEDULE Page | 1 California Transportation Commission 2020 Competitive Programs Kickoff Workshop Local Partnership Program Solutions for Congested Corridors Program Trade Corridor Enhancement Program Tuesday, March 12, 2019 9:00 am – 3:00 pm Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza Plaza View Room, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 Thursday, March 21, 2019 9:00 am – 3:00 pm Caltrans Building 1500 5th Street, Lassen Room Sacramento, CA 95814 Teleconference #: (877) 411-9748 Participant Code: 5283660 Questions during the workshop may be submitted to the Commission at ctc@catc.ca.gov CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION STAFF CONTACT Trade Corridor Enhancement Program - Dawn Cheser, Associate Deputy Director Dawn.Cheser@catc.ca.gov or (916) 653-7665 Solutions for Congested Corridors Program - Matthew Yosgott, Associate Deputy Director Matthew.Yosgott@catc.ca.gov or (916) 653-0220 Local Partnership Program - Christine Gordon, Assistant Deputy Director Christine.Gordon@catc.ca.gov or (916) 654-2940 Page | 2 Agenda 9:00 - 9:10 Welcome Robert Nelson, Deputy Director 9:10 - 9:40 Opening Remarks Susan Bransen, Executive Director 9:40 - 10:20 Rollout Plan • Schedule • Format for Future Workshops • Key Focus Areas for each Program Dawn Cheser, Associate Deputy Director 10:20 - 10:35 BREAK 10:35 - 11:00 State Highway Project Proposals • Inform Asset Management • Supplemental Information Matthew Yosgott, Associate Deputy Director Michael Johnson, State Asset Management Engineer, Caltrans 11:00 - 11:45 Metrics for Project Outcomes • Overview of Benefits Form • Discuss Metrics for Each Program Dawn Cheser, Associate Deputy Director 11:45 - 1:00 LUNCH 1:00 - 2:00 Metrics for Project Outcomes (Continued) • Overview of Benefits Form • Discuss Metrics for Each Program Matthew Yosgott, Associate Deputy Director Christine Gordon, Assistant Deputy Director 2:00 - 2:30 Programming Cycle Options Christine Gordon, Assistant Deputy Director 2:30 - 3:00 Action Items, Next Steps, and Closing Robert Nelson, Deputy Director *Please note: The amount of time dedicated to each topic will depend on the level of comments and discussion. Additional topics may be added or carried over to future workshops. More information about the California Transportation Commission may be found at: http://www.catc.ca.gov/ Follow the CTC on Twitter @California_CTC California Transportation Commission 2020 Competitive Programs Workshop March 12 , 2019 - Los Angeles March 21, 2019 - Sacramento Program Draft Guidelines Adopted Guidelines Applications Due Staff Recommendations Program Adoption Solutions for Congested Corridors (Cycle 2)August 2019 October 2019 January 2020 June 2020 June 2020 Local Partnership Program (Competitive, Cycle 2)August 2019 October 2019 January 2020 June 2020 June 2020 Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (Cycle 2)October 2019 January 2020 March 2020 June 2020 June 2020 Disclaimer: The schedule is subject to change through the program guidelines workshop process. * Approximate annual state funding. ** Approximate annual federal funding. Estimated 2020 Competitive Programs Implementation Schedules California Transportation Commission 2020 Competitive Programs Workshop California Department of Transportation March 12, 2019 – Los Angeles March 21, 2019 - Sacramento Measuring Condition Benefits Performance Measure Description Projects that improve the condition of major assets on the transportation system can be captured using the pre and post project change in condition. Assets to be reported include pavement lane miles, bridge area, culvert length and Transportation Management System (TMS) elements. How to Calculate The four assets included in this measure have specific criteria to define the existing (pre-project) condition of the assets. The existing units and measures as shown in the table below: Asset Class Units Condition Scale Pavement Lane Miles Good, Fair or Poor Bridges and Tunnels Deck Area (sq ft.) Good, Fair or Poor Culverts Linear Feet Good, Fair or Poor TMS Elements EA Good or Poor The condition scales for pavement and bridges are defined by the Federal Highway Administration. Conditions for culverts and TMS elements on the State Highway System in California are defined by Caltrans. Information on the condition assessment of these assets can be found using the links shown below. Post project conditions shall be estimated based on the treatments proposed in the project scope. The change in condition resulting from the project shall be documented in table similar to the following: Asset Class Units Existing Condition Post Project Condition Change in Condition Good Fair Poor Good Fair Poor Good Fair Poor Pavement Lane Miles Bridges Deck Area (SF) Culverts Linear Feet TMS Items Each Data Sources Pavement – HPMS Information can be found at the following link: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/fieldmanual/hpms_field_manual_dec2016.pdf Bridges – National Bridge Inventory information can be found at the following link: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/mtguide.pdf Culverts – Link to be determined. Culvert Inspection Program Field Manual. Transportation Management Systems – Link to determined- TMS Service Life Schedule. Existing Asset Conditions – Caltrans can provide existing condition of all of these assets on request. California Transportation Commission 2020 Competitive Programs Workshop California Department of Transportation March 12, 2019 - Los Angeles March 21, 2019 - Sacramento SB 1 - Caltrans Highway System Impact Checklist Form Overview Required for Infrastructure Projects Implemented and Delivered by Local Agencies, with Impacts to Caltrans Highway System This form is a required part of the SB 1 competitive programs (SCCP, TCEP, and LPP) project application for all candidate projects to be delivered and implemented by local agencies impacting Caltrans highway system, adjacent to the Caltrans highway system, or have any potential impacts to the Caltrans highway system. This includes, but is not limited to, impacts from Caltrans required easements, Caltrans required encroachment permits, RW acquisition or utility relocations. This form is intended to help the Implementing Agency and Caltrans to properly assess the project and the Caltrans process / procedures to be used. For SB 1 ATP competitive projects, use the ATP – Caltrans R/W Impact checklist form. To complete the form, the Implementing Agency is required to answer all questions in Part A, below. The local agency should submit the form to the local Caltrans District Division of Project Management to complete Part B of this form. Generally, most competitive projects having an impact on State Rights of Way will be a Project Delivery Oversight project and require the use of Cooperative Agreements to outline project responsibilities and funding. In some cases, where the project construction capital costs within State Right of Way is less than $3 million and the projects is considered “Non-Complex”, it may be possible to process the project as a Local Assistance project and will require a Memorandum of Understanding to secure funding grants for programmed State and Federal funds. Once completed, Caltrans returns this form to the Implementing Agency, so they may attach the form to their competitive program project application. A minimum of 2‐weeks is required for Caltrans review. (NOTE: If the agency submits an incomplete checklist and/or attachment, Caltrans will be required to return the package for correction and re‐submittal. The 2‐ week process will restart once the agency makes the corrections and resubmits.) California Transportation Commission 2020 Competitive Programs Workshop California Department of Transportation March 12, 2019 - Los Angeles March 21, 2019 - Sacramento SB 1 - Caltrans Highway System Impact Checklist Project Information Project Title: Proposed Project Improvements: Project Impact to State Highway System: PART A – Implementing Agency Section I. The following project information is to be completed by the Implementing Agency ‐ prior to submittal of project applications: (This information must be consistent with the submittal attachments) A. What is the total cost (all project phases) of the entire project? __________ dollars ‐ What is the total cost of the Construction Capital phase of the entire project? __________ dollars B. What % of the project (by area) is within Caltrans R/W? _____ whole number between 1 and 100 C. What is the total cost (all project phases) of all the project elements within Caltrans R/W? __________ dollars D. What % of the project (by total construction capital cost) is within Caltrans R/W? _____ whole number between 1 and 100 E. What is the anticipated environmental document for CEQA and NEPA? _____________________ F. To the best of your knowledge, Check all of the following Project is not in and will not discharge into an Environmentally Sensitive Area and is not expected to need an EIR/EIS Project does not require FHWA coordination or approval Project does not require R/W dedication from Caltrans Project does not require Office of Structures approval (modifications to a Caltrans structure i.e. bridges, etc.) Project does not require Design Exceptions to the mandatory design standards (Ref: Highway Design Manual, Design Information Bulletin 78) Project does not require approval for Encroachment Exceptions (Ref: Encroachment Permit Manual, Chapter 300) G. To the best of your knowledge, list all project features and/or project elements that are expected to add complexity to the delivery or construction of the proposed project: _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ California Transportation Commission 2020 Competitive Programs Workshop California Department of Transportation March 12, 2019 - Los Angeles March 21, 2019 - Sacramento II. Implementing Agency must attach to this form and verify the following: • Project Location Map (Attachment C) • Project Maps/Plans (Attachment D) • Segregated Project Construction Capital Estimate (Attachment F) The construction capital cost estimate must separate work located within State Rights of Way from work outside of State Rights of Way. These documents must be consistent with (i.e. match) the project application. These documents must identify the limits of work within the Caltrans R/W and their estimated costs. PART B – Caltrans Section 1. Review the scope of the proposed project. Does it appear consistent with Caltrans standards and/or likely to be approved for construction during the project approval process? __________ (Yes/No) This Caltrans review does not imply approval of the project, but merely acknowledges that Caltrans District staff are aware of the proposed project and upon initial review the project appear to be acceptable/constructible. 2. Determine the expected Caltrans process that will be required: Project Delivery Oversight – Cooperative Agreement Oversight Process Reviews are generally used for projects that are considered “Complex” and/or have a total construction cost within the State R/W is greater than $3 Million. Local Assistance - Memorandum of Understanding for Funding Grants “Non‐Complex” projects with a total construction cost within the State R/W is less than $3 Million. Caltrans District Staff expects the appropriate level of Caltrans process to be: (Circle expected level) Local Assistance // Project Delivery Oversight The District has made this estimation based all or partially on the following project features/elements and/or lack of detail : _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ 3. Caltrans Responsible Reviewers: Caltrans concurrence is expected for all completed Caltrans Highway System Impact Checklists: Division: Project Management Reviewer: ______________________ Date: _________ Optional Comments: _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ California Transportation Commission 2020 Competitive Programs Workshop California Department of Transportation March 12, 2019 - Los Angeles March 21, 2019 - Sacramento Provide the other District reviewers that participated in the completion of the Checklists, at minimum Environmental and Design: Division: __________________ Reviewer: ______________________ Date: _________ Optional Comments: _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ Name: _________________ Division/Office: _________________ Phone_______________ Date: _________ Optional Comments: _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ This Caltrans review does not imply approval of the project, but merely acknowledges that Caltrans District staff is aware of the proposed project, and that, upon initial review, the overall‐project appears to be acceptable. CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Local Partnership Program Benefits Forms Project Information Project Title:Date: Project Identifier (EA, PPNO, etc): Contact Information Nominating Agency:Agency Completing Form: Contact Person:Phone:Contact Person:Phone: Outcome Year Average Peak Period Vehicle Trips Time Average Daily Vehicle Trips (ADT)Each Reduction in Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay Hours Daily VMT per capita Each Average Peak Period Vehicle Trips Multiplied by the Occupancy Rate Each Average Daily Vehicle Trips Multiplied by the Occupancy Rate Each Passengers per Vehicle Revenue Hour Hours Passengers per Vehicle Revenue Mile Miles Passenger Mile per Train Mile (Intercity Rail)Miles Boardings per capita Each Other Fatalities per Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and per capita Each Fatal Collisions per VMT and per capita Each Injury Collisions per VMT and per capita Each Other Percentage of population within 1/2 mile of a rail station or bus route.Percent Average travel time to jobs or school.Time Other Jobs created Each Benefit/Cost Ratio Ratio Other Email Address: LPP Indicator Suggested Measures/Outcomes In the space below, qualitatively explain the assumptions and methodologies used for proposed throughput outcomes. If another measure(s) is entered under "Other", describe the measure and why other suggested measure(s) were not used. Email Address: Unit Projected Throughput Current In the space below, qualitatively explain the assumptions and methodologies used for proposed economic development outcomes. If another measure(s) is entered under "Other", describe the measure and why other suggested measure(s) were not used. Economic Development Safety In the space below, qualitatively explain the assumptions and methodologies used for proposed safety outcomes. If another measure(s) is entered under "Other", describe the measure and why other suggested measure(s) were not used. In the space below, qualitatively explain the assumptions and methodologies used for proposed accessibility outcomes. If another measure(s) is entered under "Other", describe the measure and why other suggested measure(s) were not used. Accessibility CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Local Partnership Program Benefits Forms Reduction in Particulate Matter (PM2.5)Tons per year Reduction in Particulate Matter (PM10)Tons per year Reduction in Carbon Dioxide (CO2)Tons per year Reduction in Volatile Organize Compounds (VOC)Tons per year Reduction in Sulphur Oxides (SOx)Tons per year Reduction in Carbon Monoxide (CO)Tons per year Reduction in Nitrogen Oxide (NOx)Tons per year Pavement lane miles Miles Condition of pavement - percentage Percent Condition of bridge - percentage Percent Other Travel Time Variability (buffer index)Time Daily vehicle hours of delay per capita Hours Daily congested highway VMT per capita Each Other Passenger Hours of Delay / Year Hours Average Peak Period Travel Time Time Average Non-Peak Period Travel Time Time Other Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Reductions In the space below, qualitatively explain the assumptions and methodologies used for proposed emissions reduction outcomes. Mobility In the space below, qualitatively explain the assumptions and methodologies used for proposed Mobility outcomes. If another measure(s) is entered under "Other", describe the measure and why other suggested measure(s) were not used. System Preservation In the space below, qualitatively explain the assumptions and methodologies used for proposed System Preservation outcomes. If another measure(s) is entered under "Other", describe the measure and why other suggested measure(s) were not used. Reliability In the space below, qualitatively explain the assumptions and methodologies used for proposed Reliability outcomes. If another measure(s) is entered under "Other", describe the measure and why other suggested measure(s) were not used. CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Solutions for Congested Corridors Program Benefits Forms Project Information Project Title:Date: Project Identifier (EA, PPNO, etc): Contact Information Nominating Agency:Agency Completing Form: Contact Person:Phone:Contact Person:Phone: Outcome Year Person throughput by mode Each Mode choices Each Dedicated rights of way for bike and transit Each Vehicle miles traveled Miles Reduction in Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay Hours Other Reduction in vehicle-involved incidents Each Reduction in train-involved incidents Each Other Enhancements to the reliability of the system Each First/last mile improvements Each Other Jobs created Each Improvements to freight throughput Each Benefit/Cost Ratio Ratio Other Email Address: SCCP Indicator Suggested Measures/Outcomes In the space below, qualitatively explain the assumptions and methodologies used for proposed congestion and throughput outcomes. If another measure(s) is entered under "Other", describe the measure and why other suggested measure(s) were not used. Email Address: Unit Projected Congestion/ Throughput Current In the space below, qualitatively explain the assumptions and methodologies used for proposed economic development outcomes. If another measure(s) is entered under "Other", describe the measure and why other suggested measure(s) were not used. Safety In the space below, qualitatively explain the assumptions and methodologies used for proposed safety outcomes. If another measure(s) is entered under "Other", describe the measure and why other suggested measure(s) were not used. In the space below, qualitatively explain the assumptions and methodologies used for proposed accessibility outcomes. If another measure(s) is entered under "Other", describe the measure and why other suggested measure(s) were not used. Economic Development Accessibility CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Solutions for Congested Corridors Program Benefits Forms Reduction in Particulate Matter (PM2.5)Tons per year Reduction in Particulate Matter (PM10)Tons per year Reduction in Carbon Dioxide (CO2)Tons per year Reduction in Volatile Organize Compounds (VOC)Tons per year Reduction in Sulphur Oxides (SOx)Tons per year Reduction in Carbon Monoxide (CO)Tons per year Reduction in Nitrogen Oxide (NOx)Tons per year Efficient Land Use In the space below, qualitatively describe how the project supports transportation-efficient land use principles, entailing the following concepts: Supports mixed-use development with multimodal choices Supports in-fill development Supports interconnected streets and corridor access management policies Addresses climate adaptation Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Reductions In the space below, qualitatively explain the assumptions and methodologies used for proposed emissions reduction outcomes. CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Trade Corridor Enhancement Program Benefits Form Project Information Project Title:Date: Project Identifier (EA, PPNO, etc): Contact Information Nominating Agency:Agency Completing Form: Contact Person:Phone:Contact Person:Phone: Outcome Year Reduction in truck-involved incidents Each Reduction in train-involved incidents Each Other Change in a average weekday speed - roadway MPH Change in a average weekday speed - train MPH Other Change in highway volume/Level of Service (LOS) Number of 5+ axle trucks Each Number of trailers Each Number of containers Each Increase in tonnage Tons per year Other Change in rail volume/Level of Service (LOS) Number of trains Each Number of containers Each Increase in tonnage Tons per year Other Change in port volume Number of containers Each Increase in tonnage Tons per year Increase in value Dollar Other Email Address:Email Address: Projected Suggested Measures/OutcomesTCEP Indicator Unit Current In the space below, qualitatively explain the assumptions and methodologies used for proposed safety outcomes. If another measure(s) is entered under "Other" describe the measure and why the suggested measure(s) were not used.Safety Velocity In the space below, qualitatively explain the assumptions and methodologies used for proposed velocity outcomes. If another measure(s) is entered under "Other" describe the measure and why the suggested measure(s) were not used. Throughput In the space below, qualitatively explain the assumptions and methodologies used for proposed throughput outcomes. If another measure(s) is entered under "Other" describe the measure and why the suggested measure(s) were not used. CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Trade Corridor Enhancement Program Benefits Form Reduction in variability in travel time, typical origin/destination pairs Minutes Person Minutes Saved During Peak Hour Minutes Other Reduction in Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay Hours Reduction in Annual Truck Trips (due to mode shift)Each Reduction in Annual Truck Miles Traveled (due to mode shift)Each Other Reduction in Particulate Matter (PM2.5)Tons per year Reduction in Particulate Matter (PM10)Tons per year Reduction in Carbon Dioxide (CO2)Tons per year Reduction in Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)Tons per year Reduction in Sulphur Oxides (SOx)Tons per year Reduction in Carbon Monoxide (CO)Tons per year Reduction in Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)Tons per year Jobs Created Each Benefit/Cost Ratio Ratio Other Air Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Reductions In the space below, qualitatively explain the assumptions and methodologies used for proposed economic development outcomes. If another measure(s) is entered under "Other" describe the measure and why the suggested measure(s) were not used.Economic Development In the space below, qualitatively explain the assumptions and methodologies used for proposed emissions reduction outcomes. In the space below, qualitatively explain the assumptions and methodologies used for proposed reliability outcomes. If another measure(s) is entered under "Other" describe the measure and why the suggested measure(s) were not used.Reliability In the space below, qualitatively explain the assumptions and methodologies used for proposed congestion reduction outcomes. If another measure(s) is entered under "Other" describe the measure and why the suggested measure(s) were not used. Congestion Reduction California Transportation Commission For Discussion Purposes Only 2020 Competitive Programs Workshop March 12, 2019 - Los Angeles March 21, 2019 - Sacramento 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 2020 STIP 2022 STIP 2024 STIP 2020 STIP 2022 STIP 2024 STIP 2020 STIP 2022 STIP 2024 STIPProgramming Cycle (Align)TCEP cycle 2 SCCP cycle 2 SCCP cycle 3 SCCP cycle 4 TCEP cycle 4 LPP cycle 3 SCCP cycle 5 LPP cycle 2 TCEP cycle 3 LPP cycle 4 LPP cycle 5 TCEP cycle 5 SCCP cycle 3 SCCP cycle 4 SCCP cycle 5 LPP cycle 5 SCCP cycle 4 SCCP cycle 5 TCEP cycle 2 TCEP cycle 3 Programming Cycle Options - STIP, TCEP, SCCP, and LPP (Competitive) LPP cycle 2 LPP cycle 3 LPP cycle 4 2020 Programming Cycle (based on existing guidelines) LPP cycle 2 TCEP cycle 2*TCEP cycle 3*TCEP cycle 4* SCCP cycle 2 Programming Cycle (Stagger) LPP cycle 3 LPP cycle 4 LPP cycle 5 SCCP cycle 3SCCP cycle 2 AGENDA ITEM 11 A presentation will be made but there is no attachment to the agenda for item 11. AGENDA ITEM 12 Indirect Cost Rate (ICR) Documentation Submission Update Effective immediately, Exhibit 10-A, “A&E Consultant Financial Document Review Request,” of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM), is modified to include the requirement of all prime and subconsultants on contracts of $150,000 or more to provide an indirect cost rate schedule and a labor cost summary. This updated Exhibit 10-A and all LAPM forms can be found on the LAPM Forms Page: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/lam/forms/lapmforms.htm Right of Way Certification Submittal Requirements (For Federal-Aid Projects) When a local agency performs R/W activities on a federally assisted local project, the local agency prepares the R/W Certification. The R/W Certification is necessary before a project can proceed to construction. The purpose of the R/W Certification is to document that any interests necessary for the project have been, or are being secured, and physical obstructions including buildings, utilities and railroads have been, or will be removed, relocated or protected as required for construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project. The R/W Certification also documents that R/W activities including the relocation of any displaced persons conducted in accordance with applicable state and federal laws and regulations. Please reference the RW Cert. Submittal Requirements PDF when requesting for “Caltrans Acceptance” of your project’s RW Certificate. A&E Architectural & Engineering Consultant Contracts: Exhibit 10-C Requirement Effective October 1, 2017, local agencies must submit a completed Exhibit 10-C for new or amended federal and/or state funded A&E consultant contracts to aeoversight@dot.ca.gov for Caltrans review and acceptance prior to contract award. The Office of Guidance and Oversight (GO) will notify the local agency and DLAE of Exhibit 10-C acceptance or rejection within 5 business days. If there are any changes to the contract after Caltrans acceptance of Exhibit 10-C, the local agency must notify the Office of GO and provide a copy of an updated Exhibit 10-C and all contract amendments to aeoversight@dot.ca.gov. Exhibit 10-C is required for all federally and/or state funded A&E consultant contracts. Execution of an A&E consultant contract without Caltrans acceptance may result in ineligibility for reimbursement. The new instructions to the LAPM Exhibit 10-C.2b (Instructions for State-Only funded A&E Consultant Contract Reviewers Checklist) have been updated (see attached) and can be found: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/lam/forms/lapmforms.htm A&E Training Materials and Recordings: http://www.localassistanceblog.com/ae-training/ A&E Resources: Consultant Selection & Procurement Webpage: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/AE/index.htm UPDATES Upcoming 2019 CTC Meeting Deadlines May 15-16 San Diego - Local Agency Submits Off System Funds Requests, Program Amendments, and Time Extensions to Caltrans Districts: Mon, Mar 18, 2018 June 26-27 Sacramento Area - Local Agency Submits Off System Funds Requests, Program Amendments, and Time Extensions to Caltrans Districts: Mon, April 29, 2019 See attachment for complete schedule 2016 Earmark Repurposing All Repurposed Earmark funds from the 2016 effort must be obligated on or before September 30, 2019. On that date, all unobligated repurposed balances will lapse. To assure processing of Requests for Authorization (RFA) from our agencies and allow for review and issuance of E-76 approvals through Caltrans and FHWA, agencies are recommended to submit RFA's to their appropriate District Local Assistance Engineer/Planner before July 1, 2019. To help you review the status of your funds and projects, we have updated the 2016 Earmark Repurposing webpage with a new section titled "2016 Repurposed Earmark Funding Set to Expire September 30, 2019" and a spreadsheet with additional details. Earmark Repurposing Homepage: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/earmark/index.htm Cooperative Work Agreements Cycle 16 Section 16304.3 of the Government Code authorizes the Department of Finance (DOF) to extend state budget authority on all Local Assistance funding from six years to a maximum of eight years from the original year of appropriation upon DOF approval. The link below contains the CWA encumbrances that the Department of Finance has approved for extension. The following bullets are reminders: • The last day for local agencies to submit invoices is April 1, 2021, to allow enough time for the District to review and approve invoices. The District should submit the approved invoices to Local Program Accounting by May 15th, to ensure final reimbursement before June 30, 2021. • There will be no ”formal” agreement for these encumbrances’ CWA approval. The CWA liaisons in the Districts will be responsible to notify the local agencies of the CWA approvals. Liaisons may also direct local agencies to the below website as well. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/CWA/cwa_dof_cycle_16.html Assembly Bill (AB) 1012 Provisions of “Use it or Lose It” for Cycle 20 AB 1012 Notification for federal-aid funds from Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2017: Under the provisions of AB 1012, Regions are required to obligate federal funds within three years of receiving apportionments. At this time, approximately $60 million of CMAQ and RSTP funds are subject to reprogramming on November 1, 2019. AB 1012 also requires Regions to submit a plan to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to obligate apportionment balances that are older than two years and to ensure that none of the balances reach three years of age. Obligation plans should be submitted in electronic form to Caltrans' District Local Assistance Engineers no later than April 1, 2019. The template and instructions are available on the Local Assistance website at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/AB1012/fy2019/ab1012-2019.html REMINDERS E-76 Pilot Program: Authorization/Adjustment Requests Caltrans Division of Local Assistance released Office Bulletin DLA-OB 18-03 on November 29, 2018, introducing a new dynamic form, LAPM-3A, Project Authorization/Adjustment Request, to request authorizations and adjustments for federal-aid projects. Form LAPM-3A was created to streamline the request process and consolidate required forms into one dynamic form, and has been piloted with 85 project sponsors. In addition to reducing preparation time and errors for project sponsors, the new form reduces Caltrans' review and processing time of requests by two weeks. Although the use of LAPM-3A continues to be optional, Local Assistance highly encourages for agencies to begin using it if they haven’t already. Beginning April 1, 2019, the use of LAPM-3A will be mandatory for all project sponsors requesting authorizations and adjustments for their non-emergency relief federal-aid projects. Requests received using the prior forms will be returned to the project sponsor for resubmittal using LAPM-3A. • For more information, please read Office Bulletin DLA-OB 18-03 - Authorization/Adjustment Requests. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/DLA_OB/2018/ob18-03.pdf • LAPM-3A can be found in the Caltrans DLA, LAPM Forms page: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/lam/forms/lapmforms.htm o Please make sure to right-click on the form, save to your computer, then open it from Adobe Acrobat/Reader. Otherwise, by just clicking the link, the form may not appear or work properly. o Submit LAPM-3A to D8.AuthorizationRequests@dot.ca.gov and copy D8 DLAE (David Lee) and your area Engineer/Planner. ATP Cycle 4 Major Milestones The funding/programming years are expected to include 19/20, 20/21, 21/22 and 22/23 funding years. Call for projects May 16, 2018 Caltrans Training on Cycle 4 and the new application forms May 21, 2018 Project applications to Caltrans (postmark date) July 31, 2018 Staff recommendation for statewide and small urban and rural portions of the program posted December 31, 2018 Commission adopts statewide and small urban and rural portions of the program January, 2019* Deadline for MPO Draft project programming recommendations to the Commission February 15, 2019 Commission adopts MPO selected projects June 2019 2019 ATP Final Adopted Programs (Statewide Component) can be found in the following link: http://www.catc.ca.gov/programs/atp/ Southern California Local Assistance Management Meeting (SCLAMM) SCLAMM will be hosted by District 8 this upcoming March. Federal Highway Administration and the Division of Local Assistance Headquarters will be presenting updates and information regarding Local Assistance to local agencies. Caltrans District 7, 11, and 12 Local Assistance will also provide updates. Wednesday, March 20, 2019 9:00a.m.—3:00pm Caltrans, District 8 464 W. 4th Street RM 805, San Bernardino, CA 92401 Reserve a Spot by March 15, 2019 at D8,Local.Assistance@dot.ca.gov See attached RSVP Flyer and Agenda. FHWA/Caltrans Acquisitions Workshop This workshop covers the importance of coordinating with realty/right-of-way specialists early in the project development process. It provides an overview of the basic appraisal requirements under the Uniform Act and applicable Federal Regulations as well as how the valuation relates to the acquisition and relocation process. The workshop also explains the basic Uniform Act acquisition requirements, addresses “global settlements” and the administrative settlement process as well as negotiations and essential documentation. In addition, this workshop provides a brief overview of the Uniform Act Relocation Program including the importance of the realty/personalty determination during the appraisal process. March 19-21, 2019 Tuesday, 8:30a-4:30p; Wednesday – Thursday, 8:00a-4:30p City of Highland Highland Police Station 26985 Base Line Highland, CA 92346 If you have any questions about the training, please contact Jennifer Wisniewski (Caltrans) Jennifer.wisniewski@dot.ca.gov | (916)653-2817 Pavement Preservation When/Where The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), as part of Every Day Counts 4 (EDC-4) is hosting a webinar on Pavement Preservation When/Where. • Be able to quantify the effects of preservation on pavement performance, starting with the definition and selection of the right performance measures and associated pavement condition metrics, triggers and thresholds. • Follow a four-step procedure to support the pavement preservation decision-making processes. • Explore ways a Pavement Management System can be used to select pavement preservation treatments as well as approaches for using pavement preservation to inform the asset management process. Webinar on Pavement Preservation When/Where March 20, 2019 11:00am to 12:30pm Pacific Learn more about this webinar and to register at: http://www.localassistanceblog.com/2019/02/21/pavement-preservation-when-where/ TRAININGS Webinar on Data Tools to Help Inform Active Transportation Decision-Making New tools are constantly being developed that help us gather and understand data and inform decision- making around walking, biking, and Safe Routes to School. On this webinar, hosted by The Safe Routes to School National Partnership, you’ll hear from a state department of transportation that has compiled and mapped Safe Routes to School data in a new tool that helps demonstrate financial transparency, encourages partnership at many levels, and provides access to information for everyone from a parent to a DOT project manager. You will also learn about StreetLight Data and how its applications can be used to better understand the walking and bicycling environment and inform decisions that support active travel investments. This webinar is scheduled for March 19, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. PST Register at: https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/4072463923081693452 EDC-5 Weather-Responsive Management Strategies Road weather data helps transportation agencies implement the most effective response plans for maintaining safety and mobility during adverse weather. Maximizing the use of this data to support operations and maintenance decisions is a goal of the Every Day Counts round five (EDC-5) initiative on weather-responsive management strategies. Many agencies use integrating mobile observations (IMO) technologies to collect weather, road condition, and vehicle data from agency fleets. IMO data provide operations and maintenance managers with a detailed view of weather and road conditions, as well as fleet locations on the highway network. IMO benefits include more efficient operations, more proactive road weather maintenance, and reduced salt and sand use. The Michigan Department of Transportation, for example, estimated a 25 percent reduction in salt use with installation of automatic vehicle location and Global Positioning System equipment and use of a maintenance decision support system. Guidelines for Deploying Connected Vehicle-Enabled Weather Responsive Traffic Management Strategies: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/31928?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery Outreach Events for the CA Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2020 – 2024 Attend one of the outreach events scheduled in Southern California for the development of the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2020 – 2024 (SHSP). Working in concert with federal, tribal, State, regional, local, and private sector safety stakeholders, the SHSP will identify key safety strategies that have the greatest potential to save lives and prevent serious injuries on all California roadways. • April 23: San Diego • April 24: Greater Los Angeles Area Register at: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/california-shsp-development-outreach-registration- 57028165779 OTHER 2019 PREPARATION SCHEDULE CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (CTC) MEETINGS AGENDA ITEM(S) DUE DATES Prepared by: OFFICE OF CTC LIAISON DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMMING CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ctcliaison.htm Effective: August 2018 Date and 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 5:00 PM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM Location:District & CTC HQ Divisions/ Funds Request email ctc.supplemental.fr @dot.ca.gov Budgets CTC Liaison CTC Liaison Jan 30 -31 - Sacramento Area Mon, Dec 3, 18 Mon, Dec 10, 18 Mon, Dec 10, 18 Mon, Dec 17, '18 Fri, Dec 21, '18 Thu, Jan 3, '19 March 13-14 - Los Angeles Mon, Jan 14, 19 Fri, Jan 18, 19 Fri, Jan 18, 19 Mon, Jan 28, '19 Wed, Feb 6, '19 Thu, Feb 14, '19 May 15-16 - San Diego Mon, Mar 18, 19 Mon, Mar 25, 19 Mon, Mar 25, 19 Fri, Mar 29, '19 Wed, Apr 10, '19 Thu, Apr 18, '19 June 26-27 - Sacramento Area Mon, Apr 29, 19 Mon, May 6, 19 Mon, May 6, 19 Mon, May 13, '19 Wed, May 22, '19 Thu, May 30, '19 August 14-15 - San Francisco Mon, Jun 17, 19 Mon, Jun 24, 19 Mon, Jun 24, 19 Mon, Jul 1, '19 Wed, Jul 10, '19 Thu, Jul 18, '19 October 9-10 - Central Valley Mon, Aug 12, 19 Mon, Aug 19, 19 Mon, Aug 19, 19 Mon, Aug 26, '19 Wed, Sep 4, '19 Thu, Sep 12, '19 December 4-5 - Riverside Mon, Oct 7, 19 Mon, Oct 14, 19 Mon, Oct 14, 19 Mon, Oct 21, '19 Wed, Oct 30, '19 Thu, Nov 7, '19 * No Scheduled Meeting in: February, April, July, September and November Conflict - MLK Conflict - MLK Moved - Ceasar Chavez Moved - Christmas Final Book Items Due from HQ Divisions to Office of CTC Liaison 2019 California Transportation Commission (CTC) Meeting Schedule Local Agency Submits Off System Funds Requests, Program Amendments, and Time Extensions to Caltrans Districts District Submits Off System and On System Requests to HQ Divisions HQ Divisions Submit Final Off System and On System Requests to Budgets Final Agenda Language Due From HQ Divisions to Office of CTC Liaison Supplement Funds Request & Signed Book Item from the Districts due to the Office of CTC Liaison . District 7 District 8 District 11 District 12 Los Angeles Ventura San Bernardino Riverside San Diego Imperial Orange LOCATION 464 W. 4th Street, Room 805 San Bernardino, CA 92401 DATE Wednesday, March 20, 2019 TIME 9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. Estimated Time Topic Presenter 9:00 a.m. – 9:15 a.m. Welcome and Introductions David Lee District 8 Local Assistance Planner Ray Desselle District 8, Division of Planning Deputy 9:15 a.m. – 9:45 a.m. FHWA Updates Paul Schneider and Miguel Ramos FHWA CA Division 9:45 a.m. – 10:15 a.m. HQ Updates John Hoole Caltrans, HQ Local Assistance 10:15 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. Break 10:30 a.m. – 11:00 p.m. Process Improvements for Program Supplemental Agreements Lisa Bacon Caltrans, HQ Local Assistance 11:00 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. Toll Credits – Funding Scenarios and Problem Areas Patrick Louie Caltrans, HQ Local Assistance 11:30 p.m. – 12:45 p.m. Lunch – ON YOUR OWN 12:45 p.m. – 1:15 p.m. Emergency Relief Program and PE>10 Miguel Ramos FHWA 1:15 p.m. – 1:45p.m. 1:45 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Dos and Don’ts Break Aaron Burton D8 Local Assistance, Senior Environmental Planner 2:00 p.m. – 2:20 p.m. DLAE/DLAP District Updates David Lee District 8 DLAP Steve Novotny District 7 DLAE Bing Luu District 11 DLAE Tifini Tran District 12 DLAE 2:20 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. 2:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. Next SCLAMM – D12, Date [TBD] Future Agenda Topics Open Panel Discussion Tifini Tran District 12 Local Assistance Engineer SCLAMM HOSTED BY: D I S T R I C T 8 Southern California Local Assistance Management Meeting P R O G R AM AR E A UN I F O R M A C T Acquisition Workshop (Federally-funded) March 19-21, 2019 California Who should attend? State and Local government employees as well as consultants who work in the transportation decision making process and who value/acquire or manage real estate for federally funded transportation projects. Topics Covered: • Essential early project coordination • Basic Uniform Act appraisal requirements • Description and the purpose of an appraisal • The valuation and its relationship to acquisition and relocation • Uniform Act Acquisition policies and requirements • Early/Advance Acquisition flexibilities and requirements • Administrative settlem ent documentation/approval requirements • Alternate acquisition procedures • Overview of Uniform Act Relocation requirements About the Workshop This workshop covers the importance of coordinating with realty/right-of- way specialists early in the project development process. It provides an overview of the basic appraisal requirements under the Uniform Act and applicable Federal Regulations as well as how the valuation relates to the acquisition and relocation process. The workshop also explains the basic Uniform Act acquisition requirements, addresses “global settlements” and the administrative settlement process as well as negotiations and essential documentation. In addition, this workshop provides a brief overview of the Uniform Act Relocation Program including the importance of the realty/personalty determination during the appraisal process. Training is provided at NO COST. Workshop Location: City of Highland Highland Police Station 26985 Base Line Highland, CA 92346 Workshop Dates: March 19-21, 2019 Workshop Times: Tuesday, 8:30a-4:30p; Wednesday – Thursday, 8:00a-4:30p To register, please contact: Jennifer Wisniewski - Caltrans jennifer.wisniewski@dot.ca.gov - (916) 653-2817 Space is limited, registration is required. When Wednesday, March 20, 2019 9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. Where District 8 Office 464 W. 4th Street, RM 805, San Bernardino, CA 92401 Attendees HQ FHWA Local Assistance Districts 7, 8, 11, and 12 SoCal Local Agencies In the Counties of: Los Angeles Ventura San Bernardino Riverside San Diego Imperial Orange Hosted By District 8 RSVP D8.Local.Assistance@dot.ca.gov Email: RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATION PACKAGE SUBMITTALS REQUIREMENTS • When it is discovered your project will require R/W you should contact the District Local Programs Coordinator representing your area. ➢ Riverside County- Shannon Smith (909) 383-1495 ➢ San Bernardino County- Paul Mim Mack (909) 806-3998 • Only Qualified Right of Way Professionals/Contractors are allowed to perform R/W activities on any Federally Funded Projects On and Off the State Highway System R/W Manual 17.06.01.01. • It is essential the local agency be familiar with the Caltrans R/W Manual for On-System projects and Chapter 13 of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual for off-system projects. ➢ Caltrans R/W Manual: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/row/rowman/ ➢ Caltrans Local Assistance Manual: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/localprograms/lam/lapm.htpm • Caltrans is charged with ensuring compliance with Federal Regulation and Departmental policies and procedures. In order to accomplish this task, we request complete and accurate documentation for all projects submitted for review. Any incomplete packages will be returned to originator. • REVIEW SUBMITTALS WILL BE ACCEPTED ELECTRONICALLY ,AND ON DISK. SUBMITTAL OF AND ACCEPTANCE OF ACTUAL CERTIFICATION PACKAGE MUST BE ON DISK AND ADHERE TO THE FOLLOWING.: • It is best practice to submit your appraisals as soon as they are completed and professionally reviewed. • Documentation required for a R/W Certification submittal MUST include but may not be limited to the following: ➢ Submittals MUST be properly labeled with Project Information, Parcel Identification, Utility Information. ➢ Complete and signed Certification specifying level 1, 2, 3 or 3 with a work around. ➢ Right of Way Mapping showing total parcel square footage, area being acquired and type of taking ➢ Fully executed copies of Contracts/Agreements and Deeds for each parcel ➢ Copies of justification and approval of Administrative Settlements ➢ Copies of Relocation Assistance Program Notices if project requires relocations ➢ All Utilities within project limits must be identified on the Certification (Please provide a separate Binder for utility information) ▪ Relocation Utility Plans must be provided for those utilities in conflict ▪ Dated copies of notices to owners to relocate ▪ Utility agreements ➢ Projects with railroad involvement ▪ copies of all railroad documentation/C&M Agreements/deeds RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATION PACKAGE SUBMITTALS REQUIREMENTS ➢ Complete, detailed, up-to-date DIARIES for each parcel, to include Appraisal/Acquisition/Relocation info/TITLE VI requirements. ➢ Approved environmental document, within 3 years, Categorical Exemption is acceptable ➢ Complete set of final project plans proposed for construction, advertisement and contractor bid ➢ Project Engineer’s Certification of Utility. (Major Projects) ➢ Copies of all cooperative agreements with other local agencies, where applicable ➢ DO NOT CHANGE the wording or meaning of any items on the certification forms. If you do not understand the question please contact your Local Programs Coordinator for assistance. ▪ All projects with Federal Funding on any phase of the project may be reviewed by FHWA at any time. DM 07/01/18 Inactive ObligationsLocal, State Administered/Locally Funded and Rail ProjectsUpdated 03/07/2019Project No.Status Agency Action RequiredState Project NoPrefixDistrict County Agency RTPAMPO6054066 Inactive Final invoice under review by Caltrans. Monitor for progress. 0800020578LHPLU21LN  8 RIV Riverside County Transportation CommissionRiverside County Transportation CommissionSouthern California Association Of Governments5464032 Inactive Carry over project. Provide status update to DLAE immediately. 0817000244LFERPL168 RIV Murrieta Riverside County Transportation CommissionSouthern California Association Of Governments5294010 Inactive Carry over project. Provide status update to DLAE immediately. 0814000005LCML8 RIV Coachella Riverside County Transportation CommissionSouthern California Association Of Governments5104046 Inactive Carry over project. Invoice returned to agency. Contact DLAE. 0817000073LSTPL8 RIV Corona Riverside County Transportation CommissionSouthern California Association Of Governments5401003 Inactive Invoice overdue. Contact DLAE. 0817000090LSTPL8 RIV Indian Wells Riverside County Transportation CommissionSouthern California Association Of Governments5412017 Inactive Project is cancelled and in the process of withdrawing. 0815000153LCML       8 RIV Rancho MirageRiverside County Transportation CommissionSouthern California Association Of Governments5460009 Inactive Carry over project. Provide status update to DLAE immediately. 0816000106LSTPL8 RIV Calimesa Riverside County Transportation CommissionSouthern California Association Of Governments5459022 Inactive Carry over project. Provide status update to DLAE immediately. 0812000238LBRLO8 RIV Temecula Riverside County Transportation CommissionSouthern California Association Of Governments5441065FutureSubmit invoice to District by 05/20/2019 0815000037L CML 8 RIV Moreno ValleyRiverside County Transportation CommissionSouthern California Association Of GovernmentsNBIL543FutureSubmit invoice to District by 05/20/2019 0818000051L BR 8 RIV Temecula Riverside County Transportation CommissionSouthern California Association Of Governments5441061FutureSubmit invoice to District by 05/20/2019 0814000253L HSIPL     8 RIV Moreno ValleyRiverside County Transportation CommissionSouthern California Association Of Governments1of4 Inactive ObligationsLocal, State Administered/Locally Funded and Rail ProjectsUpdated 03Project No.605406654640325294010510404654010035412017546000954590225441065NBIL5435441061DescriptionLatest DateAuthorization DateLast Expenditure DateLast Action DateProgram Codes Total Cost   Federal Funds    Expenditure Amount   Unexpended Balance  STATE ROUTE 71/91 INTERCHANGE, REPLACE CONNECTOR & RECONSTRUCT RAMP (TC)3/8/20181/24/2012 3/8/2018 3/8/2018 Q920,LY60,LY10,H66A,5590$15,076,129.35 $14,117,129.35 $9,083,380.44 $5,033,748.91I‐215 UNDERCROSSING AT KELLER ROAD, BR. NOS. 56 0652 L&R NEW INTERCHANGE AND REALIGNMENT OF FRONTAGE ROADS9/13/20179/13/20179/13/2017 RPS9,RPF9 $3,172,000.00 $1,602,360.00 $0.00$1,602,360.00VARIOUS ARTERIAL STREETS THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF COACHELLA CLASS II BICYCLE LANES (TC)8/24/20178/24/20178/24/2017 Z400 $500,000.00 $460,000.00 $0.00$460,000.00MAGNOLIA AVENUE OVER TEMESCAL WASH FROM EL CAMINO AVENUE TO 1,000 FEET EAST OF ALL AMERICAN WAY WIDEN BRIDGE FROM 4 TO 6 LANES12/15/201712/15/201712/15/2017 M230 $501,000.00 $443,000.00 $0.00$443,000.00COOK STREET FROM THE FORMER STATE ROUTE 111 TO FRED WARING DRIVE RUBBERIZED ASPHALT OVERLAY3/6/20183/6/20183/6/2018 Z230 $659,320.00 $135,000.00 $0.00$135,000.00BOB HOPE DR.: DINAH SHORE DR. TO AGUA CALIENTE CASINO & DINAH SHORE DR. WEST*, INSTALL FOUR‐FOOT HIGH SAND FENCING12/15/20178/11/2015 12/15/2017 12/15/2017 M40E $114,085.00 $101,000.00 $0.00$101,000.00AVENUE L FROM APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET EAST OF CALIMESA BOULEVARD TO APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET WEST OF 4TH STREET SLURRY SEAL AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS12/7/201712/7/201712/7/2017 M230 $74,100.00$54,000.00 $0.00$54,000.00MAIN STREET BRIDGE OVER MURRIETA CREEK, BR. NO. 56C‐0227 REPLACE 2‐LANE BRIDGE (TC)8/31/20178/16/2012 8/31/2017 8/31/2017 L11E,L110 $5,585,378.00 $4,746,946.00 $4,696,063.53 $50,882.47VARIOUS INTERSECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY CONSTRUCT ITS ETHERNET FIBER‐OPTIC BACKBONE SYSTEM AND INSTALL CCTV CAMERAS AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROLLERS6/15/20186/15/20186/15/2018 M0E3,M003 $2,262,000.00 $1,542,000.00 $0.00$1,542,000.00EXTENSION OF AVENIDA ALVARADO OVER MURRIETA CREEK FROM DIAZ ROAD TO OVERLAND DRIVE, LWC NO. 00L0087 REPLACE TWO‐LANE LOW WATER CROSSING WITH FOUR‐LANE BRIDGE6/15/20186/15/20186/26/2018 Z001 $350,000.00 $309,855.00 $0.00$309,855.00VARIOUS LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF MORENO VALLEY, PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN HEADS & ADA PUSHBUTTONS5/8/20188/4/2014 5/8/2018 5/8/2018 MS30 $907,000.00 $816,100.00 $546,572.29 $269,527.712of4 Inactive ObligationsLocal, State Administered/Locally Funded and Rail ProjectsUpdated 03/07/2019Project No.Status Agency Action RequiredState Project NoPrefixDistrict County Agency RTPAMPO5186015FutureSubmit invoice to District by 05/20/2019 0815000015L STPL 8 RIV Hemet Riverside County Transportation CommissionSouthern California Association Of Governments5074019FutureSubmit invoice to District by 05/20/2019 0817000236L HSIPL 8 RIV Lake ElsinoreRiverside County Transportation CommissionSouthern California Association Of Governments32L0035FutureSubmit invoice to District by 05/20/2019 0817000152L ER 8 RIV Jurupa ValleyRiverside County Transportation CommissionSouthern California Association Of Governments3of4 Inactive ObligationsLocal, State Administered/Locally Funded and Rail ProjectsUpdated 03Project No.5186015507401932L0035DescriptionLatest DateAuthorization DateLast Expenditure DateLast Action DateProgram Codes Total Cost   Federal Funds    Expenditure Amount   Unexpended Balance  GILBERT STREET FROM STETSON AVENUE TO ACACIA AVENUE ROAD REHABILITATION5/8/2018 4/5/2017 5/8/2018 5/8/2018 M23E $1,661,420.00 $443,279.00 $174,460.80 $268,818.20EIGHT INTERSECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ADVANCED DILEMMA ZONE DETECTION, FLASHING WARNING BEACONS, AND LEFT TURN PHASING6/15/2018 6/15/2018 6/15/2018 ZS30 $80,000.00 $80,000.00 $0.00 $80,000.00VAN BUREN BLVD. RESTORATION‐‐PLACEMENT OF EROSION CONTROL MEASURES, SHOULDER BACKING ON SLOPES, TRAFFIC CONTROL.5/8/20186/29/2017 5/8/2018 5/8/2018 Q240,ER11,ER10$69,598.00$67,022.00 $5,641.00 $61,381.004of4