Loading...
12 December 3, 2019 Citizens advisory committee/ Social services transportation advisory council RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE/ SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL TIME: 10:30 a.m. DATE: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission March Field Conference Room A 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, CA 92502-2208  COMMITTEE MEMBERS  Vacant, Retired Citizen, Riverside Laura Hernandez, T-Now, Western Riverside County Jack Marty, Retired Citizen, Banning Priscilla Ochoa, Blindness Support Services, Western Riverside County Linda Samulski, Guide Dogs of the Desert, Coachella Valley Richard Smith, Independent Living Partnership, Riverside County Mary Venerable, Retired Citizen, Perris Riverside Transit Agency, Western Riverside County SunLine Transit Agency, Coachella Valley  RIVERSIDE COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSIT OPERATORS  City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Corona City of Riverside Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency Riverside County Transportation Commission – Commuter Rail & Coachella Valley Rail Program Riverside Transit Agency SunLine Transit Agency  STAFF  Lorelle Moe-Luna, Multimodal Services Director Eric DeHate, Transit Manager Monica Morales, Management Analyst Ariel Alcon Tapia, Management Analyst RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE/ SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 10:30 a.m. Tuesday, December 3, 2019 Riverside County Transportation Commission March Field Conference Room A 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside CA 92502-2208 Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency Main Conference Room 415 North Main Street Blythe, CA 92225 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1.CALL TO ORDER 2.WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS 3.PUBLIC COMMENTS 4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES – June 21, 2018 and July 9, 2019 5.ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) 6.BYLAWS OF THE CITIZENS AND SPECIALIZED TRANSIT ADVISORY COUNCIL Overview This item is for the Committee to approve the Citizens and Specialized Transit Advisory Council Citizens Advisory Committee/ Social Services Transportation Advisory Council December 3, 2019 Page 2 revised bylaws. 7.NEXT GENERATION RAIL CORRIDORS ANALYSIS REPORT Overview This item is for the Committee to receive and file the Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis Report. 8.COMMITTEE MEMBER / STAFF REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Committee Members , transit operators, and staff to report on attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to Committee activities. 9.ADJOURNMENT The next Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council meeting is to be determined. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COM M ISSION clTrzENs ADVTSoRY coMMTTTEE/ SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCI L Minutes )une 2L, 2OL8 1. CALLTO ORDER Josefina Clemente, Transit Manager, called the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council to order at 11:01 a.m. in March Field Conference Room at the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor, Riverside, CA 92501, 2. ROLLCALL Members Present Members Absent Pamela Brown Joe Forgiarini Priscilla Ochoa Jack Ma rty Anita Petke Linda Sa m ulski Richard Smith Maria De Los Santos Laura Hernandez Mary Venerable 3. PUBTIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes for the November 1,6,2017 meeting were approved as submitted s. ADDTTTONS/REV|S|ONS There were no additions/revisions to the agenda. 5. FtSCAt YEARS 2018/19 - 2020/21 SHORT RANGE TRANSTT PLANS Ron Profeta, Transit Manager, City of Riverside Special Transportation program, presented the 201-8/19- 2O2O/2L Short Range Transit Plan. Ron discussed changes for the upcoming fiscalyear, including a slight fare increase, which has not occurred in almost 10 years. Joe Forgiarini presented the 2018/19- 2o2o/21, short Range Transit plan for the Riverside Transit Agency. Joe reported the launch of the new RapidLink service during the past fiscal Citizens Advisory Committee/ Social Services Transportation Advisory Council June 21.2018 Page 2 7 year has been a success, and has expanded to include service to San Bernardino and Orange counties. He reported changes to routes in Southwest Riverside County to improve route reliability and increased on-time performance. Service will also be expanding on 7 routes to seven-day service. Sheldon Peterson, RCTC Rail Manager, shared Western and Eastern Rail highlights for the current fiscal year. He reported RCTC recently celebrated 25 years of Metrolink service in Riverside County. The newest line, the Perris Valley Line, has been in service for 2 years and is experiencing steady increased ridership. There is no new service planned in the next fiscal year, but RCTC is focused on special events, including the LA Rams Train and the Festival of Lights train. He reported RCTC is also currently conducting an environmental study for Coachella Rail, which is a potential Amtrak-like train that will travel from Los Angeles to the Coachella Valley. George Colangeli presented the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency 2Ol8/79- 2020/21, Short Range Transit Plan. He reported PVWA has renewed their contract with Transportation Concepts for an additional 3 years. There has also been a 10% increase in fares (approx. 10 cents) to help offset increasing operation costs. George stated there are no plans for new service routes in the upcoming fiscal year. Sudesh Paul, Transportation Planning Supervisor, City of Corona Transit Service, presented the 2018/19- 2O2O/21 Short Range Transit Plan. She reported changes to the Dial-A-Ride program over the past fiscal year. The city will be focused on marketing and promoting their bus service to increase ridership. Funding has been set aside for fixed route planning and programming. Celina Cabrera, Management Analyst, City of Beaumont presented the city's Short Range Transit Plan. She highlighted new programs, including LCTOP funding the city has received. The plan to implement free fares to increase ridership, i.e. free fares for college students, "Free Fare Friday" on the Friday immediately following Thanksgiving, and free fares for veterans. Stephanie Buriel presented the 2018/19- 2O2O/27 Short Range Transit Plan for SunLine Transit Agency. She reported SunLine is currently conducting studies for transit redesign and fares. Both studies should be completed by December 2018. SunLine is also going to use LCTOP funds to provide free transit service to college students in the SunLine service area. SPECIATIZED TRANSIT GRANT AWARDS FOR 2018 MEASURE A WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SPECIALIZED TRANSIT CALL FOR PROJECTS RCTC Management Analyst Monica Morales stated that 18 agencies were awarded Measure A funding, including 3 new recipients: Boys & Girls Club of Menifee Valley, Michelle's place, and EXCEED. Citizens Advisory Committee/ social Services Transportation Advisory Council lune 21,2018 PaBe 3 8. COMMITTEE MEMBER / STAFF REPORT Fina Clemente, Transit Manager, informed members the next meeting would take place in September/Octo ber 2018. The exact location is yet to be determined. 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Citizens Advisory Comm ittee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council, the meeting adjourned at 1:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted, f'-, U.^-"7 Fina Clemente Transit Manager RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE/ SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL Minutes July 9, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER Ariel Alcon Tapia, Management Analyst, called the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council to order at 11:02 a.m. in the March Field Conference Room at Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon St, 3rd Floor, Riverside, CA 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present Victor Duran Joe Forgiarini Jack Marty Priscilla Ochoa Linda Samulski Richard Smith Mary Venerable 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS Members Absent Laura Hernandez Linda Samulski Richard Smith Arnold San Miguel with Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) announced SCAG is preparing their draft regional transportation plan. The draft is scheduled to be released in September/October 2019. He encouraged everyone to give his or her input for the transportation plan. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes for the June 21, 2018 meeting will be approved at the next CAC Meeting. 5. PUBLIC HEARING —TRANSIT NEEDS IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY See attached transcript. 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no additions/revisions to the agenda. 7. FISCAL YEARS 2019/20 — 2021/22 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLANS Citizens Advisory Committee/ Social Services Transportation Advisory Council July 9, 2019 Page 2 Dale Reynolds from Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency presented the 2019/20 — 2021/22 SRTP. He reported the LCTOP Program has been implemented in the valley to provide free rides for K-12 students to help educate them on how to use the transit system. Art Vela from the City of Banning presented the 2019/20 — 2021/22 SRTP. He reported the Transit Division has moved to the city's Public Works Department effective July 1, 2019. He also reported the City of Beaumont and the City of Banning have entered into an Interagency Services Agreement, and as a result, there will be 2 transfer stations within their cities- one at the Wal-Mart Shopping Center and one at the San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital. Celina Cabrera from City of Beaumont presented the 2019/20 — 2021/22 SRTP. Service changes include re-routing and eliminating one bus on Route 2, adding a second bus route on CommuterLink 120. They have also added a stop to Casino Morongo. They will be completing a Comprehensive Operations Analysis to help better understand their demographic in the Pass Area. Sudesh Paul from City of Corona presented the 2019/20 — 2021/22 SRTP. She reported the city awarded a new contract for transit service on September 1, 2018. They are focusing on contract monitoring and service improvements. Ron Profeta from City of Riverside presented the 2019/20 — 2021/22 SRTP. The city plans to change the image of special transportation. They are branding their service as Riverside Connect. They are also launching electronic fare collection systemx, that will include a mobile app and the ability to set up an online account. Joe Forgiarini from Riverside Transit Agency presented the 2019/20 — 2021/22 SRTP. RTA will be increasing frequencies on routes in Perris and Hemet/San Jacinto areas. They are also testing mid -day CommuterLink service for a couple of existing routes and adding more weekend service. Victor Duran from SunLine Transit Agency presented the 2019/20 — 2021/22 SRTP. He reported their agency has experienced a 2.3% ridership increase. They attribute the increase to several new programs: the Hall Pass Program, which provides free bus rides to college students; Palm Springs bus service; and their rideshare program. They have also recently launched a mobile app. He also announced Sunline's redesign which reduced the number of fixed routes for more frequent service along the most heavily used corridors. Service changes for the redesign begin in January 2020. Ariel Alcon Tapia presented Riverside County Transportation Commission's 2019/20 — 2021/22 SRTP. He reported MetroLink is planning to launch marketing campaigns and a ridership loyalty plan in the upcoming year. RCTC also plans to partner with other transit agencies to market special trains, e.g. Angels Express, Festival of Lights. 8. REBOOT MY COMMUTE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROGRAM SUMMARY Citizens Advisory Committee/ Social Services Transportation Advisory Council July 9, 2019 Page 3 Per RCTC staffs direction, this item was removed from the agenda. 9. COMMITTEE MEMBER/STAFF REPORT Ariel Alcon Tapia reported that CAC Member Pamela Brown passed away on May 27, 2019. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council, the meeting adjourned at 12:46 p.m. in remembrance of Pamela Brown. Respectfully submitted, Lbfelle Moe -Luna Multimodal Services Director Agenda Item 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 3, 2019 TO: Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Council FROM: Eric DeHate, Transit Manager Ariel Alcon Tapia, Management Analyst THROUGH: Lorelle Moe-Luna, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: Bylaws of the Citizens and Specialized Transit Advisory Council STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1)Approve the revised bylaws of the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Council (CAC/SSTAC); 2)Rename the CAC/SSTAC to the Citizens and Specialized Transit Advisory Council (CSTAC); and 3)Forward to Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission is required to establish a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) under California Public Utilities Codes (PUC) 99238 and 130105 (d). The current CAC/SSTAC bylaws were approved by the Commission in September 2000 and includes the appointment of no more than 15 individuals. At least 9 of these members must fit one membership criterion as stated in the Transportation Development Act (TDA) PUC 99238 requirements for a Social Services Transportation Advisory Council, as listed below: 1.One representative of potential transit users who is 60 years of age or older. 2.One representative of potential transit users who is disabled. 3.Two representatives of the local social service providers for seniors, including one representative of a social service transportation provider, if one exists. 4.Two representatives of local social service providers for the disabled, including one representative of a social service transportation provider, if one exists. 5.One representative of a local social service provider for persons of limited means. 6.Two representatives from the local consolidated transportation service agency, designated pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 15975 of the Government Code, if one exists, including one representative from an operator, if one exists. Furthermore, PUC 130105 (d) requires that membership reflect a broad spectrum of interests and represent all geographic areas of the county. The CAC has been effective in reviewing transit operators’ Short-Range Transit Plans, been an integral part of the annual transit needs public hearing, and has provided valuable feedback during the Public Transit and Human Services Agenda Item 6 Coordinated Plan process that is updated every 4 years. In recent years, the active membership has declined, causing a lack of quorum for some meetings. In an effort to garner more act ive participation, staff is recommending the following changes to the current bylaws:  Rename the CAC/SSTAC to the Citizens and Specialized Transit Advisory Council (CSTAC)  Clarify the Council’s purpose, roles and responsibilities  Update membership terms and recruitment process  Add a second vice chair  Provide enhanced engagement between RCTC staff and CSTAC members These revisions also ensure that membership terms are staggered to reduce likeliness of membership relapse, causing lack of quorum. It is important the Commission have access to community feedback both to comply with Title VI Civil Rights regulation and with state TDA statues. As such, citizen appointments made to the CSTAC by Commissioners are critical to the success of the Commission and its charge to oversee transit services in Riverside County. Upon approval of the revised bylaws by the Commission, staff will begin recruiting candidates from a broad spectrum of social service providers and the general public to represent older adults, persons with disabilities, and persons of limited means. Commissioners may also nominate potential members. All candidates and nominees will be required to complete an application, which will be reviewed by staff to ensure that the membership criteria as outlined in the TDA is fulfilled. Staff will return to the Commission in spring 2020 for formal appointment of the new CSTAC membership. There is no financial impact for this item. Attachment: Citizens and Specialized Transit Advisory Council Bylaws 1 17336.00005\32490857.2 11/14/19 BYLAWS OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORYRiverside County Transportation Commission COUNCIL/CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEECitizens and Specialized Transit Advisory Council OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONBylaws Adopted [Month, Day, Year] SECTION 1.0: TITLEARTICLE I A Social Services Transportation Advisory Council shall be appointed by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (“Commission”) to advise the Commission on the subjects of special transportation needs of older adults, persons with disabilities and / or limited means. This council shall be known as the Citizens and Specialized Transit Advisory Council (“CSTAC”) and will be referred hereinafter as the “Council.” SECTION 2.0: AUTHORITYPURPOSE The establishment of the Council derives from California PUC Sections 99238 and 130105 (d) and the Administrative Code of the Riverside County Transportation Commission. . PUC Sections 99238 requires designated regional transportation planning agencies to have citizens, social services transportation providers, and transit agencies provide input into the jurisdictions’ transit needs in compliance with the Mills-Alquist-Deddeh Act of 1971 (“Transportation Development Act”). PUC Section 130105(d) requires that the Commission appoint a Citizen’s Advisory Committee, which shall reflect a broad spectrum of interest among geographic areas of the county and minority representation. SECTION 3:0: PURPOSE AND RESPONSIBLITIESRESPONSIBILITIES PUC Section 99238 identifies the Council’s responsibilities as follows: 1. Annually participate in the identification of transit needs in the jurisdiction, including unmet transit needs that may exist within the jurisdiction of the council and that may be reasonable to meet by establishing or contracting for new public transportation or specialized transportation services or by expanding existing service. 2 17336.00005\32490857.2 11/14/19 2. Annually review and recommend action by the transportation planning agency for the area within the jurisdiction of the Ccouncil which finds, by resolution, that a. There are no unmet transit needs (if applicable) or b. There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet (if applicable) c. There are unmet transit needs, including needs that are reasonable to meet (if applicable). 3. Advise the transportation planning agency on any other major transit issues, including the coordination and consolidation of specialized transportation services. According to the Commission’s Administrative Code, the Council shall also consult on, obtain, and collect public input on matters of interest and concern to the Commission , as may be assigned to the Council by the Committee for its review, comments , and recommendation. Subject to the supervision of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, hereafter COMMISSION, the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council/Citizens Advisory Committee (collectively referred to herein as the "Committee") shall consult on and obtain and collect public input on, those matters of interest and concern to the COMMISSION that may from time to time be assigned to the Committee by the COMMISSION, which the Committee perceives as important to matters under the jurisdiction of the COMMISSION, for its review, comment and recommendation, or those matters described in Public Utilities Code Section 99238. In the dispatch of its responsibilities, the Committee may conduct meetings, appoint subcommittees, and engage in such related activities as it deems necessary. The Committee shall operate in a manner consistent with the Commission's Administrative Code. ARTICLE IISECTION 4.0: MEMBERSHIP Section 4.1: Membership Guidelines 3 17336.00005\32490857.2 11/14/19 The membership in the Committee shall be determined by the Commission and in accordance to PUC Section 99238. Committee members shall serve at the will and pleasure of the Commission and without compensation. The Commission shall appoint no less than nine (9) and no more than fifteen (15) individuals to the Council. Members are to represent the broad spectrum of social service providers representing the elderly, disabled, and persons of limited means. The Council must comply with the membership requirements outlined in PUC Section 99238(a) below and include the following members: Membership Criteria under PUC Section 99238(a): 1. One representative of potential transit users who is 60 years of age or older. 2. One representative of potential transit users who is disabled. 3. Two representatives of the local social service providers for seniors, including one representative of a social service transportation provider, if one exists. 4. Two representatives of local social service providers for the disabled, including one representative of a social service transportation provider, if one exists. 5. One representative of a local social service provider for persons of limited means. 6. Two representatives from the local consolidated transportation service agency, designated pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 15975 of the Government Code, if one exists, including one representative from an operator, if one exists. Section 4.2: Quorum and Majorities A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Council members. A majority shall also be considered as at least half plus one (1) of the number of total Council members. All official and business acts of the Council shall require a quorum . Presentation of iInformation and discussion may take place if a quorum is not present at the meeting. Section 4.3: Term of Membership The Commission shall appoint individuals to the Council for three (3) year terms. Terms shall be staggered to reduce the likeliness of membership relapse. One -third (1/3) of appointments shall expire each year. (a) In order to begin a staggered membership, one third of appointees shall serve a one (1)- year term, another third shall serve a two (2)- year terms, and the last third shall serve a three (3)- year terms. (b) The initial terms will be chosen randomly by means of an internal lottery conducted by Commission staff. (c) If the number of appointees does not perfectly divide into thirds, the remaining members shall be placed into any category at Commission staff discretion. (d) Members shall serve up to threetwo (2) three (3)-year terms. 4 17336.00005\32490857.2 11/14/19 Section 4.4: Membership Recruitment Members of the Council shall be appointed by the Commission. The Commission will recruit candidates for appointment from a broad representation of social service and transit providers representing the elderly, the disabled, and persons of limited means. In appointing Council members, the Commission shall reflect a broad geographic and minority representation as well as a broad spectrum of interests among council members per PUC Section 130105(d). This will include active solicitation of applications from the three subregions of the county: western Riverside, the Coache lla Valley, and the Palo Verde Valley. Individuals with an interest in serving on the Council in one of its capacities shall request a recommendation from Commission staff to be forwarded to the Commission, for formal appointment action. Commissioners may assist in the outreach process by circulating recruitment information within their respective jurisdictions. Commissioners may also nominate potential Council members if they desire. Section 4.5: Membership Rules & Requirements In the interest of maintaining an active council, membership requirements shall be used to keep appointees accountable for Council participation. (a) Members may not use their Council affiliation to represent personal or constituency opinions. Members may not represent themselves as representatives of the Council unless given direction to do so by a majority vote of the Council. (b) Regular membership shall be defined as the attendance or participation of at least three ( 3) meetings, either in person or by conference call for long-distance members, within one (1) calendar year. Section 4.6: Membership Termination Council members may terminate their membership by notifying Commission staff in writing. The Commission has the discretion to dismiss any Council members for any reason, including if the individual fails to participate in two (2) consecutive Council meetings. Section 4.7: Conflicts of Interest When any member of the Council has a financial interest or is a member of a governing body (i.e., Board of Directors) of any organization which is involved in an issue on the agenda, such member shall immediately disclose his/her interest and shall abstain from votevoting on the issue. Section 4.8: Ethics Training 5 17336.00005\32490857.2 11/14/19 In compliance with California Government Code Sections 53234(c)(1) and Section 54952, Council appointed members must undergo ethics training directed by Commission staff. An appointed member’s failure to comply with the ethics training requirement within the prescribed deadlines shall result in dismissal from the Council. California Government Code Sections 53234(c)(1) defines “local agency official” as “[a]ny member of a local agency, legislative body or any elected local agency official who receives any type of compensation, salary, or stipend or reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of official duties” or “[a]ny employee designated by a local agency governing body to receive [ethics] training specified under this article.” California Government Code Section 54952 defines a “legislative body” as “[t]he governing body of a local agency or any other local body created by st ate or federal statute.” Section 4.98: Compensation and Reimbursement Individuals appointed to the Council shall not receive any compensation for their services regarding the conduct of Council business. Appointed Council members may be reimbursed mileage for use of private automobiles or public transportation costs required for their attendance at Council meetings. The membership in the Committee shall be determined by the Commission and in accordance to Public Utilities Code Section 99238. Committee members shall serve at the will and pleasure of the Commission and without compensation. ARTICLE Ill SECTION 5.0: ADMINISTRATION Section 5.1: OfficersA. Nominees for the positions of Chair, Vice Chair, and Second Vice Chair shall be submitted and voted on during the first meeting of the calendar year.Section 5.1: Officer Duties OFFICERS - The Committee shall elect a Chair and a Vice Chair from the members thereof, each of whom shall serve for one (1) year and thereafter until his successor is elected. Secretarial services shall be provided by the Commission staff. 6 17336.00005\32490857.2 11/14/19 (1. Duties of Chair -a) The Chair shall, if present, preside at all meetings of the Committee Council and shall exercise and perform such other powers and duties as may be from time to time assigned to him or her by the COMMISSION Commission.or prescribed herein. 2. Duties of the Vice Chair - (b) The Vice Chair shall perform the duties of the Chair in his or her absence. and when so acting, shall have all the powers of and be subject to all the restrictions upon, the Chair. (3. Chair Pro Tempore -c ) The Second (2nd ) Vice Chair shall perform the duties of the Chair and First (1st) Vice Chair in their absence. (d) In the event ofthat the Chair and both Vice Chair’s are absent or unable to act, members present at any meeting of the Council, by an order entered in the minutes, shall select one of their members to act as Chair Pro Tempore, who, during such time while in acting, shall act as Chair. Section 5.2: Election of Officers The Commission shall elect, by a majority vote, the Chair, Vice Chair and Second (2nd) Vice Chair from members of the Council, provided that he or she is first nominated by either the Commission or the Council. Nominees for the positions of Chair, Vice Chair, and Second (2nd) Vice Chair shall be submitted and voted on by the Council during the first (1st) meeting of the calendar year. All nominees shall be members of the Council. Section 5.32: Officer Terms The term of all officers shall be for one (1) year, or, up to two (2) years, upon approval of the Council. Section 5.4: Removal of Officers The Chair, the Vice Chair, and the Second (2nd) Vice Chair may be removed by the affirmative vote of a majority of the Council. Voting on removal shall take place no sooner than at the next regular meeting following the meeting at which the motion to remove officers was introduced. Section 5.53: In the event of the absence or inability to act of the Chair and Vice Chair, the members present at any meeting of the Committee, by order entered in the minutes, 7 17336.00005\32490857.2 11/14/19 shall select one of their members to act as Chair Pro Tempore, who, while so acting, shall have all of the authority of the Chair. B. Subcommittees - The Committee Council may appoint such subcommittees as it deems necessary. Unless subcommittee membership, functions, duties, responsibilities, or terms of service are specified by law or the COMMISSIONCommission, the Committee Council may determine the membership of such subcommittees, and specify the functions, duties, responsibilities, and terms of service. The Committee Council shall give due consideration to any recommendations, advice, or proposals received from subcommittees. but unless required by law to do so, shall not be bound thereby. C. BYLAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS - The Committee may, from time to time, adopt and amend bylaws, rules and regulations for the administration of its affairs and to carry out the purpose and directives of the COMMISSION and the County Transportation Commissions Act. Adoption of amendment of bylaws shall require a majority vote of the members of the Committee. SECTION 6.0: ARTICLE IV MEETINGS Section 6.1: Call for Meetings A. MEETINGS - The COMMISSION Commission staff shall call the first (1st) meeting of the Council, and may call subsequent meetings. The Commission mustmay, indicating of the Committee, settingset the time and place of said meeting(s) and designating designate the agenda for any meetings so called. The Chair reserves the right to call for meetings at theirhis or her discretion. (a) All meetings of the Council, including without limitation, regular and special meetings, shall be called, noticed, held and conducted in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, commending with Section 54950 of the Government Code. of the Committee, elected pursuant to Article Ill, Section A herein, may also call meetings of the Committee, setting the time, place, and agenda for such meetings. The Committee may also hold subcommittee meetings of any subcommittees it establishes. B. AGENDA - Matters to be placed on the agenda for any regular meeting may be filed with the COMMISSION Executive Director or his designee by any member of the 8 17336.00005\32490857.2 11/14/19 Committee. The Executive Director shall cause the agenda to be prepared and copies thereof to be mailed or delivered to each member of the Committee, the Executive Director and the General Counsel three working days prior to the regular meeting date. Formal action, other than the appointment of a subcommittee, will not ordinarily be taken with respect to any matter not included on the agenda unless a majority of the members of the Committee present at the meeting consent to such consideration. Section 6.2. Regular Meetings C. REGULAR MEETINGS - Regular meetings of the Committee Council shall be held at the time and place established of record in the minutes of the Committee Council at -its first (1st) meeting, and throughout the course of the calendar year.from time to time thereafter, unless such day is a holiday, in which case the meeting shall be held on the next business day. (a) Meetings shall be held biannually, or as needed, every calendar year. (b) The Council shall post agendas of all regular meetings. The agenda shall contain a general description of each item of business to be transacted or di scussed at the meeting, at least seventy-two (72) hours before such regular meeting. No action shall be taken on any item not appearing on such posted agendas, except as permitted by state law. (c) If needed, telephone or electronic polling of the voting membership is allowableallowed, subject to the discretion of the Chair. Section 6.32 Special Meetings The Chair, the Commission, or a quorum of Council membership may call for D. SPECIAL MEETINGS - aA special meeting may be called at any time by the Chair, the Commission, or a quorum of membership by by issuing a written statement, (both mail or electronic mail) or in his absence by the Vice Chair, or by a quorum of the members by delivering personally or by mail written notice to the Executive Director of the Commission and each member, or by the COMMISSION or by the Executive Director. Such notice shall be so delivered at least twenty-four (24) hours before the time of such meeting. The, and the notification must as specified in the notice. The call and notice shall specifyindicate the time and place of the special meeting. The notice shall and thespecify what business is being to be transacted. , an Nno other business shall be transacted outside of what was delineated in the notice. and the business to be transacted. No other business shall be transacted at such meeting. Such written notice may be dispensed with as to any member who at or prior to the time the meeting convenes files with the Executive Director a written waiver of notice. Such waiver may be given by telegram. Such written notice may also be dispensed with as to any member who is actually present at the meeting at the time it convenes. E. QUORUM - A majority of the appointed members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. All official acts of the Committee shall require the 9 17336.00005\32490857.2 11/14/19 affirmative votes of at least six (6) members of the Committee, or of a majority of the members present, whichever is greater in number. F. ADDRESSING COMMITTEEON AGENDA ITEMS - No person shall address the Committee at any meeting until first recognized by the Chair. The decision of the Chair to recognize a person may be changed by· a vote of a majority of the members of the Committee present at the meeting. The Chair, may in the interest of facilitating the business of the Committee, limit the amount of time which a person may use it addressing the CommitteeSECTION 7.0: ADDITIONS, AMENDMENTS, AND CHANGES. Section 7.1: Amendments and Regulations G. MEETING ATIENDANCE - Committee members are expected to attend all regularly scheduled meetings. Committee members unable to attend a meeting should advise the Commission staff by telephone and provide a reason for their absence. Any Committee member missing three (3) consecutive meetings without a reasonable excuse will be sent a letter by staff requesting their resignation from the Committee. If the Committee member fails either to respond in writing or to attend the next scheduled meeting, the Committee will consider at the meeting whether or not to recommend to the Commission that Committee member should be removed from the Committee. Additions, amendments, and changes to the bylaws of the Council shall reflect and be consistent with the rules and regulations governing County Transportation Commissions, Consolidated Transportation Service Agencies, Social Service Transportation Advisory Councils, and the acts, ordinances, and initiatives governing funds managed through these Agencies. Any additions, amendments, and changes to the bylaws must be adopted by majority vote of members of the Council present when the addition, amendment, or change is presented. ARTICLE V POWERS A. The Committee is created and given perpetual succession by terms of the County Transportation Act. The Committee shall, however, have no powers or existence separate or apart from that of the COMMISSION. B. The acts and determinations of the Committee shall be expressed by motion. 10 17336.00005\32490857.2 11/14/19 Judy Nieburger , CHAIR Social Services Transportation Advisory Council/Citizens Advisory Committee DATE: May 16,2001[Month, Day, Year] BYLAWS OF THE CITIZENS & SPECIALIZED TRANSIT ADVISORY COUNCIL (CSTAC) Eric DeHate, Transit Manager 1 Citizens Advisory Committee December 3, 2019 What is the CAC? DECEMBER 3, 2019 2 •Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) –Public Utilities Code (PUC) 130105(d) •Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) –PUC 99238 What is the CAC’s Purpose? DECEMBER 3, 2019 3 •PUC 130105 (d) requires a broad spectrum of interest among geographic areas of the county. •PUC 99238 requires the designated regional transportation planning agencies to have citizens, social services transportation providers, and transit agencies provide input into the jurisdictions’ transit needs in compliance with the Transportation Development Act. TDA Membership Requirements DECEMBER 3, 2019 4 1.Potential transit user who is 60 years of age or older (1). 2.Potential transit user who is disabled (1). 3.Local social service providers for seniors (2). 4.Local social service providers for the disabled (2) 5.Local social service provider for persons of limited means (1). 6.Local consolidated transportation service agency and transit operator (2). Current CAC Structure and Role DECEMBER 3, 2019 5 •CAC bylaws last revised in 2000. •Reduced membership from 20 to 15 individuals. •Represent all geographical areas. •Review transit operators’ Short-Range Transit Plans. •Hold annual transit needs public hearing. •Provide feedback during the Public Transit and Human Services Coordinated Plan. What are we looking to do? DECEMBER 3, 2019 6 •Rename the CAC/SSTAC to the Citizens and Specialized Transit Advisory Council (CSTAC) •Clarify the Council’s purpose, roles and responsibilities •Update membership terms and recruitment process •Add a second vice chair •Provide enhanced engagement between RCTC and CSTAC members Staff Recommendation 7 1.Approve the revised bylaws of the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Council (CAC/SSTAC); 2.Rename the CAC/SSTAC to the Citizens and Specialized Transit Advisory Council (CSTAC); and 3.Forward to Commission for final action. QUESTIONS 8 Agenda Item 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: December 3, 2019 TO: Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council FROM: Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for receive and file of the Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis Report. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In January 2016, the Commission approved the final recommendations from the 2016 RCTC Strategic Assessment, including direction to staff to conduct a Next Generation Rail Study (Study). This Study serves as one of the modal “building blocks” for an overall Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study and will help the Commission develop a path forward for improving high-capacity regional rail and transit in the county. The study was initiated in early 2017 with HDR as the consultant supporting the effort. The objective of the Study is to review previously identified high-capacity transit corridors, identify potential new corridors, prioritize potential future rail corridors for proceeding into project development, and develop additional information and data needed to initiate planning for the high priority corridors. The goal is also to identify what the best next step would be after the Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension opened in 2016. The Study includes two tasks: Task 1: Corridors Analysis Report – identifies corridors to be evaluated and technology options available; recommends priority corridors for potential future rail extension and further detailed analysis. Task 2: Detailed Analysis of Priority Corridors – defines the corridors in more detail including ridership estimates and capital and operating costs, a cost-effectiveness analysis, and air quality impacts. Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis Report Agenda Item 7 This item was approved by the Commission on November 13, 2019. The purpose of this report is to document the process used to identify and evaluate potential future regional transit corridors and to present the resulting recommendation of corridors to be planned for future extensions of the regional rail system. The steps of the process are identified below. Through the initial screening process, several regional transit and rail corridors were identified as potential future options.  Coachella Valley Rail – Los Angeles to Indio  Rail Extension – Perris to Temecula  Rail Extension – Perris to Hemet/San Jacinto  Rail Extension – Corona to Temecula  Rail Extension – Temecula to San Diego  Express Bus – San Jacinto to Banning/Beaumont  Express Bus – Lake Elsinore to Perris In addition to the corridors, there was an evaluation of the transportation technology options that might be available and could potentially provide the most public benefit. The various options included:  Express Bus – Limited Stops/Longer Distances  Bus Rapid Transit – High Density/High Frequency corridors  Light Rail Transit – Electric Exclusive Right of Way/High Demand/High Frequencies  Diesel Multiple Units (DMU) – Shared Rail Right of Way/High Demand  Commuter Rail – Longer Train/Longer Distances  Intercity Rail – Regional Service travels further than traditional commuter service. The potential corridors were analyzed with an initial screening using high level evaluation criteria that reviewed the big picture opportunities, which included corridor right of way (ROW), property issues, population and employment density. Several of the corridors initially identified would be good candidates for Intercity Rail or Express Bus alternatives. However, the balance of the study focused on options that would be good for commuter rail or DMU services; therefore, the San Jacinto to Banning/Beaumont and Lake Elsinore to Perris corridors were excluded for further evaluation because it was deemed more appropriate for express bus service. Three corridors (Indio to Los Angeles; Corona to Temecula; Temecula to San Diego) that would be appropriate for rail technology were not recommended for further evaluation for the following reasons: Document existing services Review previous studies Identify corridors to evaluate Evaluate technology options Identify evaluation criteria Evaluate corridor alternatives Conduct stakeholder outreach Make recommen- dations Agenda Item 7  Indio to Los Angeles (via Fullerton and Riverside) corridor was removed because the planning process for developing this corridor is underway in the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Development Plan and Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement.  Corona to Temecula corridor was recommended to be scaled back to Corona to Lake Elsinore for further analysis because of ROW challenges and lack of good alignment for the full corridor. The full corridor could still be evaluated in future studies.  Temecula to San Diego corridor was removed for further evaluation because the majority of the corridor is outside of the county limits and the corridor remains part of the future proposed High-Speed Rail alignment between Los Angeles to San Diego via the Inland Empire. The most viable corridors were narrowed down to the following options: Perris to Temecula, Perris to San Jacinto, and Corona to Lake Elsinore. The evaluation process for the three remaining corridors addressed the following criteria:  Demographics (2012 & 2040)  Travel Demand  Highway Congestion(2012 & 2040)  Land Use Intensities  Corridor Length  ROW Availability  Capital Costs  Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs  Potential Number of Stations  Number of Stations per mile  Operating Speed  Travel Time  Integration  Ridership  Transit Accessibility  Connectivity  Greenhouse Gas (GHG) and Emissions Reduction  Cost Effectiveness  Environmental Fatal Flaws  Part of an Adopted Plan  Public or Political Perception  Safety In October 2018, staff and the consultant team conducted a series of stakeholder meetings in Perris and Lake Elsinore that provided high level overviews of these three potential alignments. These meetings were well attended and comments were received from city staff, Metrolink, Riverside Transit Agency, Riverside County and other regional partners. In addition, a presentation was provided to the Commission’s September 17, 2018 Technical Advisory Committee to solicit comments and suggestions. Key Findings The comprehensive analysis identified several factors where certain alignments demonstrated advantages in comparison to others. For example, the Perris to Temecula alignment appeared to have the most ridership potential with higher travel demands and population closer to the alignment; however, there are concerns with capital costs and ROW availability. Perris to San Agenda Item 7 Jacinto stands out for the existing and available Commission-owned ROW, strong political support and high growth potential, although it does show lower ridership and population densities. Corona to Lake Elsinore has extremely high travel demand and good connectivity, yet it has significant ROW challenges and high capital costs. The table below outlines the advantages and disadvantages of these options. Perris to Temecula Perris to San Jacinto Corona to Lake Elsinore Advantages  Extension to an existing transit system  Employment centers along the corridor  High travel demand along the corridor  Larger population within a 5- mile catchment area  Highest forecasted ridership  Greater GHG and emissions reductions  Included in an adopted plan  Political support  Greater potential reductions in vehicular accidents  Extension to an existing transit system  Availability of rail ROW  Lowest capital cost per mile  Included in an adopted plan  Political support  Potential high growth corridor  Highest travel demand along the corridor  Connectivity to multiple Metrolink lines (91/PVL and IEOC) Disadvantages  Highest overall capital cost and cost per mile  Less connectivity to Metrolink lines (91/PVL only)  ROW needs to be acquired  Low forecasted population and employment density along the corridor  Lack of employment centers along the corridor  Less connectivity to Metrolink lines (91/PVL only)  Low forecasted population and employment density along the corridor  Lack of employment centers along the corridor  Lowest projected ridership  ROW needs to be acquired  Highest capital cost  Highest annual O&M cost  Not included in adopted plan Based on the findings of this evaluation, all three corridors provide viable future opportunities for rail expansion and are recommended as priority corridors for continued planning. The corridors will also be included in the Long Range Transportation Study and the Southern California Association of Governments’ Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies 2020 Update. This will be especially true as regional population growth continues and the ability to expand freeways becomes more constrained. Next Steps Task 2 of the study is underway and includes further analysis of the next generation corridors that extend from the existing 91/Perris Valley Line to both Temecula and Hemet/San Jacinto. The expanded analysis would include more detailed efforts to define the projects and alignments. The follow-up effort will develop a corridor description with Geographic Information Systems plan and profile exhibits, a ridership assessment based on industry standards, refined operating Agenda Item 7 and capital costs estimates, a cost effectiveness review, air quality assessment, and a corridor implementation schedule. These details will be needed to prepare these projects for future grant and funding opportunities. The continuation of this study is included in the FY 2019/20 budget and is anticipated to be completed before summer 2020. Upon completion, staff will return to the Commission for an update and direction. There is no financial impact for accepting the corridors analysis report. Attachment: Task 1: Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis Report Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study Riverside County Transportation Commission September 11, 2019 Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | i Contents 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Identification of Potential Regional Transit Corridors ............................................................................................................ 1 2.1 Existing Transit Corridors and Service ...................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Corridors Identified in Previous Studies .................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Additional Corridors Identified ................................................................................................................................... 8 2.4 List of Corridors for Evaluation ................................................................................................................................ 10 3 Evaluation of Technology Options ...................................................................................................................................... 13 3.1 Transit Technology Characteristics ......................................................................................................................... 13 3.2 Transit Technology Comparison ............................................................................................................................. 15 3.3 Corridor Right-of-Way ............................................................................................................................................. 16 3.4 Corridor Population and Employment Density ........................................................................................................ 18 3.5 Corridor Travel Demand ......................................................................................................................................... 19 3.6 Corridor Rail Extension ........................................................................................................................................... 20 3.7 Transit Technology by Corridor ............................................................................................................................... 21 3.8 Corridors Deemed Inappropriate for Rail Technology ............................................................................................ 22 3.9 Corridors Deemed Appropriate for Rail Technology ............................................................................................... 22 4 Evaluation Criteria and Methodologies ............................................................................................................................... 24 4.1 Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................................................................... 24 5 Evaluation of Corridors........................................................................................................................................................ 31 5.1 Corridor Characteristics .......................................................................................................................................... 31 5.2 Operational Characteristics ..................................................................................................................................... 36 5.3 Effectiveness Characteristics .................................................................................................................................. 39 5.4 Other Characteristics .............................................................................................................................................. 42 6 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................................................... 44 Tables Table 1. Existing Regional Rail/Transit Corridors ............................................................................................................................. 1 Table 2. Regional Rail/Transit Corridors Identified in Previous Studies ........................................................................................... 4 Table 3. Review of Primary Regional Travel Corridors ..................................................................................................................... 8 Table 4. Potential for Increased Passenger Service on Existing Rail Corridors ............................................................................. 10 Table 5. List of Potential Rail/Transit Corridors for Evaluation ....................................................................................................... 11 Table 6. Types of ROW Potentially Available in each Corridor ....................................................................................................... 16 Table 7. Description of ROW Ownership ........................................................................................................................................ 17 Table 8. Population Density (People per Square Mile) ................................................................................................................... 18 Table 9. Employment Density (Jobs per Square Mile) .................................................................................................................... 19 Table 10. Average Annual Daily Traffic .......................................................................................................................................... 19 Table 11. Qualitative Comparison ................................................................................................................................................... 21 Table 12. Feasible Technologies .................................................................................................................................................... 21 Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | ii Table 13. Evaluation Criteria Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 24 Table 14. Corridor Characteristics Evaluation Criteria .................................................................................................................... 24 Table 15. Operational Characteristics Evaluation Criteria .............................................................................................................. 26 Table 16. Effectiveness Characteristics Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................................... 27 Table 17. Other Characteristics Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 28 Table 18. Evaluation Criteria, Factors, and Methods ...................................................................................................................... 30 Table 19. Demographics Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................... 31 Table 20. Average Annual Daily Traffic: Perris to Temecula .......................................................................................................... 32 Table 21. Average Annual Daily Traffic: Perris to San Jacinto ....................................................................................................... 32 Table 22. Average Annual Daily Traffic: Corona to Lake Elsinore .................................................................................................. 32 Table 23. Travel Demand Results and Summary ........................................................................................................................... 33 Table 24. Highway Congestion Evaluation ..................................................................................................................................... 33 Table 25. Land Use Intensities ....................................................................................................................................................... 34 Table 26. ROW Availability ............................................................................................................................................................. 34 Table 27. Overall Corridor Characteristics ...................................................................................................................................... 35 Table 28. Capital Costs ................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Table 29. O&M Costs ...................................................................................................................................................................... 37 Table 30. Stations/Stops ................................................................................................................................................................. 37 Table 31. Operating Speeds and Transit Travel Times .................................................................................................................. 37 Table 32. Overall Operational characteristics ................................................................................................................................. 39 Table 33. Ridership ......................................................................................................................................................................... 39 Table 34. Transit Accessibility ........................................................................................................................................................ 39 Table 35. Connectivity .................................................................................................................................................................... 40 Table 36. GHG and Emissions Reductions .................................................................................................................................... 40 Table 37. Cost Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................................................... 41 Table 38. Overall Effectiveness characteristics .............................................................................................................................. 41 Table 39. Safety .............................................................................................................................................................................. 43 Table 40. Corridor Advantages and Disadvantages ....................................................................................................................... 44 Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | iii Figures Figure 1. Existing Regional Rail/Transit Service ............................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Map of Corridors from Previous Studies ............................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 3. Map of Corridors from Previous Studies ............................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 4. Potential Corridors for Evaluation .................................................................................................................................... 12 Appendices Appendix A: Derivation of Unit Cost Factors ..................................................................................................................................... A Appendix B: Task 1h ROW Memo .................................................................................................................................................... B Appendix C: Notes from Stakeholder Outreach Meetings ................................................................................................................ C Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | iv Acronyms AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic APTA American Public Transportation Association ATSF Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway BRT bus rapid transit DMU diesel multiple unit EMU electric multiple unit GHG greenhouse gas GIS geographic information system HOV high-occupancy vehicle IEOC Inland Empire-Orange County Line LAUS Los Angeles Union Station LRT light rail transit NCTD North County Transit District PVL Perris Valley Line RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission ROW right-of-way RTA Riverside Transit Agency RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments SBCTA San Bernardino County Transportation Authority SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCORE Southern California Optimized Rail Expansion SCRRA Southern California Regional Rail Authority SJBL San Jacinto Branch Line UP Union Pacific VMT vehicle miles travelled Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 1 1 Introduction The Next Generation Rail Study was identified as a follow-up action in the 2016 Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Strategic Assessment effort that identified regional transportation needs and challenges. This study will serve as one of the modal “building blocks” for an overall Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study, and will provide guidance to assist the Commission in developing a path forward for improving high-capacity regional rail and transit in the county. The objective of the Next Generation Rail Study is to review previously identified high-capacity transit corridors, identify potential new corridors, prioritize potential future rail corridors for proceeding into project development, and develop additional information and data needed to initiate planning for the high priority corridors. Although the purpose of this report is to identify corridors with the potential to support future rail lines, a future corridor alternatives analysis or environmental study would need to consider a range of transit modes. The process taken in the development of this report is illustrated by the flow chart shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Next Generation Rail & Transit Study Task 1 Process Document existing services Review previous studies Identify corridors to evaluate Evaluate technology options Identify evaluation criteria Evaluate corridor alternatives Conduct stakeholder outreach Make recommen- dations Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 1 2 Identification of Potential Regional Transit Corridors This section identifies all of the potential new regional transit corridors considered in this evaluation. These corridors represent the general travel paths of longer-distance trips through Riverside County or connecting Riverside County with adjacent counties. Potential future regional transit corridors are areas not currently served by high-capacity transit service, either bus or rail. These potential future transit corridors were identified from previous studies and consideration of future regional travel patterns. 2.1 Existing Transit Corridors and Service While the focus of this study is on future corridors and service, it is important to first understand what service is existing so that future regional transit can build on and enhance current services. Current transit operators in Riverside County are identified in the bulleted list below. Table 1 lists and Figure 2 illustrates the existing corridors and services.  Metrolink – Metrolink provides commuter rail service throughout Southern California, and is governed by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), which is funded through a joint powers authority between the transportation commissions of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties.  Amtrak – Amtrak is a federally chartered corporation (with the federal government as majority stockholder) that provides passenger rail service throughout the country. Amtrak also provides Thruway intercity bus service to connect Amtrak train stations to areas not served by its railroads.  Greyhound – Greyhound is the largest provider of intercity bus transportation in the nation. Greyhound is privately owned.  Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) – RTA provides local and regional bus service throughout the western Riverside County region. RTA is governed by a board of directors comprised of elected officials from 18 cities in western Riverside County and four members of the County Board of Supervisors.  Pass Transit– Pass Transit is operated by the Cities of Banning and Beaumont, and provides local and express bus service to the communities of Beaumont, Banning, Cherry Valley, Calimesa, and Cabazon.  SunLine Transit Agency – SunLine Transit Agency provides bus service in the Coachella Valley area. SunLine is governed by a board of directors comprised of one county supervisor and elected officials from the nine cities of the Coachella Valley. Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 1 Table 1. Existing Regional Rail/Transit Corridors Corridor Alignment Service Levels Technologies/ Service Type Perris to Riverside Metrolink 91/Perris Valley Line, parallel to I-215 6 trains operated per weekday (WB) 6 trains operated per weekday (EB) No weekend service Commuter Rail Riverside to Los Angeles Metrolink 91/Perris Valley Line, parallel to SR 91 via Fullerton 4 trains operated per weekday (WB) 5 trains operated per weekday (EB) 2 trains operated per weekend (WB) 2 trains operated per weekend (EB) Commuter Rail Metrolink Riverside Line, from Riverside to Los Angeles via Ontario 6 trains operated per weekday (WB) 6 trains operated per weekday (EB) No weekend service Commuter Rail San Bernardino to Riverside Metrolink Inland Empire – Orange County Line (IEOC Line), from San Bernardino to Riverside 4 trains operated per weekday (WB) 4 trains operated per weekday (EB) 2 trains operated per weekend (WB) 2 trains operated per weekend (EB) Commuter Rail Riverside to Orange County / Oceanside Metrolink IEOC Line from Riverside to Orange County / Oceanside 8 trains operated per weekday (WB) 8 trains operated per weekday (EB) 2 trains operated per weekend (WB) 2 trains operated per weekend (EB) Commuter Rail Los Angeles to New Orleans Amtrak Sunset Limited 3 round trips per week Intercity Rail Los Angeles to Chicago Amtrak Southwest Chief One daily round trip per day Intercity Rail Fullerton to Palm Springs Amtrak Thruway between Fullerton, Riverside, Cabazon, Palm Springs Downtown, and Palm Springs Airport One round trip per day, only connects passengers to Amtrak rail services Intercity Bus Fullerton to Indio Amtrak Thruway between Fullerton, Riverside, Cabazon, Palm Springs Downtown, Palm Springs Airport, Palm Desert, La Quinta, Indio One round trip per day, only connects passengers to Amtrak rail services Intercity Bus Indio to Los Angeles Greyhound Bus direct service between Los Angeles and Indio. Some trips include stops in Riverside, San Bernardino, Banning, Palm Springs, and Perris. 9 weekday trips from Los Angeles to Indio 8 weekday trips from Indio to Los Angeles Intercity Bus San Bernardino to Anaheim RTA CommuterLink Route 200 between San Bernardino – Riverside - Anaheim 15 AM trips and 20 PM trips per weekday 6 AM trips and 12 PM trips per weekend Express Bus (CommuterLink) Temecula to Oceanside RTA CommuterLink Route 202 between Murrieta – Temecula – Oceanside 6 AM trips and 4 PM trips per weekday No weekend service Express Bus (CommuterLink) Riverside to Montclair RTA CommuterLink Route 204 between Riverside and the Montclair Transit Center 8 AM trips and 10 PM trips per weekday No weekend service Express Bus (CommuterLink) Temecula to Orange RTA CommuterLink Route 205/206 between Temecula – Murrieta – Lake Elsinore – Corona - Orange 12 AM trips and 14 PM trips per weekday No weekend service Express Bus (CommuterLink) Temecula to Riverside RTA CommuterLink Route 208 between Temecula – Murrieta – Perris – Moreno Valley – Downtown Riverside 7 AM trips and 8 PM trips per weekday No weekend service Express Bus (CommuterLink) Riverside to Palm Desert RTA CommuterLink Route 210/SunLine Route 220 between Riverside – Beaumont – Palm Desert 6 AM trips and 4 PM trips per weekday No weekend service Express Bus (CommuterLink) San Jacinto to Riverside RTA CommuterLink Route 212 between San Jacinto – Hemet – Perris – Riverside 7 AM trips and 4 PM trips per weekday No weekend service Express Bus (CommuterLink) Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 2 Corridor Alignment Service Levels Technologies/ Service Type San Jacinto to Escondido RTA CommuterLink Route 217 between San Jacinto – Hemet – Temecula – Escondido 9 AM trips and 9 PM trips per weekday No weekend service Express Bus (CommuterLink) Beaumont to San Bernardino Beaumont Pass Transit Commuter Link 120 between Beaumont – Calimesa – Loma Linda – San Bernardino 10 AM trips and 8 PM trips per weekday 4 AM trips and 6 PM trips per Saturday Express Bus (CommuterLink) Note: does not include express bus service operated by agencies outside Riverside County Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 3 Figure 2. Existing Regional Rail/Transit Service Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 4 2.2 Corridors Identified in Previous Studies In order to compile a list of previously studied corridors and alignments, the team reviewed the following documents:  RCTC Strategic Assessment and Technical Appendices (2016)  Metrolink 10-year Strategic Plan 2015-2025  Metrolink Short Range Transit Plan 2015-2020  RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Studies (2005 and 2007)  Riverside Transit Agency Comprehensive Operations Analysis (2015)  Coachella Valley Rail Alternatives Analysis (2016)  California State Rail Plan (2013)  California High Speed Rail Business Plan (2016)  Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) (2016)  Perris Valley Line Growth Study Market Assessment (2017) Table 2 lists the 15 transit corridors identified in these studies. Color coding matches to the corridors shown on the map in Figure 3. Table 2. Regional Rail/Transit Corridors Identified in Previous Studies Corridor Alignment Technologies/ Service Type Connection / Extension Palm Springs to Indio/Coachella Along Highway 111, from Palm Springs to Indio/Coachella BRT/Express Bus Connections to:  RTA CommuterLink Route 210/SunLine Route 220 Indio to Riverside Via UP and BNSF railroad tracks Commuter Rail Connections to:  IEOC Line  Riverside Line  91/PVL Line  RTA CommuterLink o Route 200 o Route 208 o Route210/SunLine 220 o Route 212 Indio to Los Angeles (via Fullerton/Riverside) Uses UP Yuma Subdivision between Indio and Colton, then uses the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach LAUS Intercity Rail Connections to:  IEOC Line  Riverside Line  91/PVL Line Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 5 Corridor Alignment Technologies/ Service Type Connection / Extension Banning to Riverside Via UP and BNSF railroad tracks Commuter Rail Connections to:  IEOC Line  Riverside Line  91/PVL Line  RTA CommuterLink o Route 200 o Route 208 o Route 210/SunLine 220 o Route 212 Along SR 60 Express Bus Perris to San Jacinto Via RCTC-owned San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL) Commuter Rail or Intracounty Rail Extends Perris Valley Line Along SR 74 from Perris to Hemet Express Bus Connections to:  91/PVL Line  RTA CommuterLink Route 208 Perris to Temecula Via SJBL and an alignment paralleling Winchester Road Commuter Rail or Intracounty Rail Extends Perris Valley Line Via I-215 corridor Riverside to Temecula Along I-215 Express Bus TBD depending on terminus location Los Angeles to San Diego via Inland Empire or From Downtown Los Angeles to San Diego, passing through Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties. Alignment alternatives include either I-10 or SR 60 through the San Gabriel Valley, and either I-15 or I- 215 from the Inland Empire to San Diego County. High-Speed Rail, Blended Service Connections to:  RTA CommuterLink o Route 200 o Route 205/206 o Route 208 Corona to Lake Elsinore Corona to Lake Street at Lake Elsinore Commuter Rail Connections to:  IEOC Line  91/PVL Line  RTA CommuterLink o Route 200 o Route 205/206 Corona to Lake Street at Lake Elsinore, with an additional station at Dos Lagos Corona to Temecula Along Santa Fe Branch Line, entering I-15 at Nichols Road at Lake Elsinore Commuter Rail Connections to:  IEOC Line  91/PVL Line Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 6 Corridor Alignment Technologies/ Service Type Connection / Extension Along Santa Fe Branch Line, entering I-15 at Nichols Road at Lake Elsinore, with an additional station at Dos Lagos  RTA CommuterLink o Route 200 o Route 205/206 Along Santa Fe Branch Line, entering I-15 at Lake Street at Lake Elsinore I-15 corridor, from Corona to Temecula/Murrieta Express Bus San Bernardino to Temecula San Bernardino to Temecula, entering I-15 at Nichols Road at Lake Elsinore Commuter Rail Connections to:  IEOC Line  91/PVL Line San Bernardino to Temecula, entering I-15 at Nichols Road at Lake Elsinore, with an additional station at Dos Lagos Temecula to San Diego Temecula to downtown San Diego, along the alignment identified for the proposed California High-Speed Rail Commuter Rail (DMUs might be considered for this corridor) Connections to:  RTA CommuterLink Route 217 Temecula to San Jacinto Along SR 79 Express Bus TBD depending on terminus location San Jacinto to Banning/Beaumont Along SR 79 Express Bus TBD depending on terminus location Lake Elsinore to Perris Along SR 74 Express Bus TBD depending on terminus location Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 7 Figure 3. Map of Corridors from Previous Studies Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 8 2.3 Additional Corridors Identified To ensure that this study considers all corridors in Riverside County with the potential to support future rail lines, the County’s key regional travel flows were mapped in order to identify the primary travel corridors (current and future, intra- county and inter-county). The primary travel corridors are listed in Table 3 and illustrated in Figure 4. These primary travel corridors were then reviewed to determine which are already served by high-capacity rail transit (and are included in Table 1) and which have been identified as potential candidates for future high-capacity transit (and are included in Table 2). As indicated in Table 3, all of the County’s primary travel corridors either have existing Metrolink service or are on the list of potential corridors to be considered for high-capacity transit. Table 3. Review of Primary Regional Travel Corridors Inter- or Intra- County Primary Travel Corridors High Capacity Transit Existing or Potential Inter-county Riverside County – Orange County Metrolink (IEOC, 91/PVL Line) Existing Inter-county Riverside to San Bernardino Metrolink (IEOC) Existing Inter-county Riverside to Los Angeles County Metrolink (IEOC, 91/PVL, Riverside) Existing Inter-county Riverside to San Diego County Commuter Rail Potential Intra-county Corona to Riverside Metrolink (IEOC, 91/PVL Line) Existing Intra-county Riverside to Perris/Moreno Valley Metrolink (91/PVL Line) Existing Intra-county Corona to Perris/Moreno Valley Metrolink (91/PVL Line) Existing Intra-county Perris/Moreno Valley to Hemet/San Jacinto Metrolink Extension Potential Intra-county Perris/Moreno Valley to Temecula Metrolink Extension Potential Intra-county Perris/Moreno Valley to Lake Elsinore Express Bus / BRT Potential Intra-county Murrieta/Temecula to Hemet/San Jacinto Express Bus / BRT Existing Intra-county Murrieta/Temecula to Corona Express Bus / BRT or Rail Existing Intra-county Riverside to Pass Area Express Bus / BRT or Rail Existing Intra-county Hemet/San Jacinto to Pass Area Express Bus / BRT Potential Intra-county Coachella Valley to Riverside Intercity Rail Potential Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 9 Figure 4. Map of Corridors from Previous Studies Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 10 For some of the corridors with existing Metrolink service, the potential for increasing service is limited by the number of available slots for passenger trains under the operating agreements with the private railroads. Train slots are made available through a Shared Use Agreement with the host railroad BNSF Railway or Union Pacific (UP), there are currently discussions that would allow for future service expansions, potentially based on additional capital improvements. Table 4 shows the potential for increased service in the primary travel corridors with existing Metrolink service under the current terms of the shared use agreements. Additional service to Los Angeles on the BNSF will be available when the Rosecrans/Marquardt grade separation in Los Angeles County is completed, potentially in 2019. For the Riverside – San Bernardino corridor, under the current agreement terms there are only four potential new train slots. Increased service on the IEOC route in this corridor is limited without a renegotiation of RCTC’s Shared Use Agreement with BNSF. Nevertheless, Metrolink is exploring opportunities to increase rail service along existing rail lines. There is also the Southern California Optimized Rail Expansion (SCORE) program that is looking to provide funding for capital improvements needed to increase Metrolink service to 15-30 minute frequencies on certain corridors. Table 4. Potential for Increased Passenger Service on Existing Rail Corridors Primary Travel Corridors Existing Rail Service Track Owner Potential for increased passenger service? Riverside to Orange County Metrolink IEOC BNSF/OCTA There are limited slots available under the current agreement. Metrolink 91/PVL BNSF Additional slots become available with completion of the Rosecrans/ Marquardt grade separation Riverside to San Bernardino Metrolink IEOC BNSF Memorandum of understanding for Colton Crossing provides for the conversion of four non-revenue passenger train movements to revenue train movements between Riverside and San Bernardino Riverside to Los Angeles Metrolink 91/PVL BNSF Additional slots become available with completion of the Rosecrans/Marquardt grade separation Metrolink Riverside Line UP Limited to current service level of six round trips per day Corona to Riverside Metrolink 91/PVL BNSF Additional slots become available with completion of the Rosecrans/ Marquardt grade separation Riverside to Perris Metrolink 91/PVL RCTC Yes, as the Perris Valley Line is owned by RCTC 2.4 List of Corridors for Evaluation Since the primary objective of this study is to identify the next regional rail corridor(s) for development by RCTC, the overall list of 15 potential corridors was simplified and reduced down to seven corridors for evaluation.  Express Bus from Palm Springs to Indio/Coachella was removed because this corridor falls within the longer Coachella Valley Rail corridor and SunLine has existing high frequency service on the 111 route.  Commuter Rail from Indio to Riverside was removed because this corridor falls within the longer Coachella Valley Rail corridor and existing express bus service is currently available in this corridor. Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 11  Commuter Rail from Corona to Lake Elsinore as a unique corridor was removed for the initial phase of analysis and incorporated into the longer Corona to Temecula corridor.  Commuter Rail from San Bernardino to Temecula was removed because high-capacity rail already exists between San Bernardino and Corona and the rest of this corridor will be studied as the Corona to Temecula corridor.  High-Speed Rail from Los Angeles to San Diego was removed because it is a statewide service that will be implemented by another agency on a much longer timeline  Express Bus from Riverside to Temecula was removed because high-capacity rail already exists between Riverside and Perris and the rest of this corridor will be studied as the Perris to Temecula corridor.  Express Bus from San Jacinto to Temecula was removed because the service already exists.  Express Bus and Commuter Rail from Banning to Riverside were removed because the express bus service already exists, and the rail service is met by the Indio to Los Angeles Intercity Rail.  Commuter rail between Riverside and San Bernardino was removed because service already exists. The seven corridors listed in Table 5 and illustrated in Figure 5 are the corridors that will move forward for high-level evaluation. Table 5. List of Potential Rail/Transit Corridors for Evaluation Corridor Alignment Connection/Extension Indio to Los Angeles (via Fullerton/Riverside) Uses UP Yuma Subdivision between Indio and Colton, then uses the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach LAUS Connections to  IEOC Line  Riverside Line  91/PVL Line Perris to Temecula Via I-215 corridor Extends Perris Valley Line Perris to San Jacinto Via RCTC-owned SJBL Extends Perris Valley Line Corona to Temecula Along Santa Fe Branch Line, entering I-15 at Nichols Road at Lake Elsinore Connections to:  IEOC Line  91/PVL Line  RTA CommuterLink o Route 200 o Route 205/206 Temecula to San Diego Along the alignment identified for the proposed California High-Speed Rail; bi- county project Connection to:  RTA CommuterLink Route 217 Lake Elsinore to Perris SR 74 TBD depending on terminus location Hemet/San Jacinto to Banning/Beaumont SR 79 TBD depending on terminus location Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 12 Figure 5. Potential Corridors for Evaluation Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 13 3 Evaluation of Technology Options This section presents a high-level evaluation of the seven corridors to determine if rail technology is appropriate for each corridor, based on factors such as right-of-way (ROW), population and employment density, travel demand, and extension of an existing rail line. Research was performed on the key characteristics of six types of transit technology, then the factors were applied to the potential corridors. Corridors determined to be appropriate for rail technology were evaluated and prioritized in the subsequent chapters of this report. 3.1 Transit Technology Characteristics This section describes the typical characteristics of transit technologies that are appropriate for regional transit services. They include two types of bus service and four types of rail service. Express Bus Express bus is a bus-based transit service with limited stops, designed to run at high travel speeds to serve commuter trips between suburban areas and urban employment centers/schools. Express bus service operates in mixed traffic on streets and highways (including high-occupancy vehicle or HOV lanes), typically along major travel corridors, which means they can experience congestion. Express buses primarily operate on weekdays during peak commuting hours, although some express bus systems also provide off-peak and weekend service. Express bus has the lowest capital costs of the modes considered herein. A local example of express bus service is Riverside Transit Agency’s (RTA) CommuterLink Express. RTA currently operates nine CommuterLink Express routes, providing service to Riverside, Orange, San Bernardino, and San Diego Counties. CommuterLink Express primarily operates on weekdays during AM and PM peak hours. In 2016, RTA’s express bus operating cost per vehicle revenue mile was $3.58, and its operating cost per passenger trip was $13.73. In 2015, RTA’s farebox recovery ratio for CommuterLink Express service was between 14 - 28%. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) BRT is a high-quality, high-frequency bus service implemented in corridors with high travel demand, generally considered to be a cost-effective alternative to rail. Typically BRT includes specialized design elements and infrastructure (e.g., dedicated lanes or guideways, intelligent transportation systems (ITS), level boarding, etc.) which can contribute to reduced travel time and delay, and increased safety and reliability. BRT stations are spaced more widely apart than local fixed-route bus services. Because BRT often utilizes existing arterials by converting a traffic lane to a bus lane, it is typically lower in capital cost than a rail line. Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 14 A local example of BRT service is Omnitrans’ sbX Green Line, which provides service between the communities of San Bernardino and Loma Linda. Service is provided on weekdays only, with 10-minute headways during peak hours and 15- minute headways during off-peak hours. In 2015, the sbX Green Line operating cost per vehicle revenue mile was $5.38, and its operating cost per passenger trip was $5.54. Omnitrans’ 2015 farebox recovery ratio for sbX service was 15.2%. Light Rail Transit (LRT) LRT is an electrically-powered rail system, usually with two- or three-car trains, that operates on a fixed guideway in exclusive ROW and/or existing street ROW. LRT cannot operate on freight tracks. LRT service is typically provided along high- demand corridors in metropolitan areas. Due to the ROW required, as well as the infrastructure construction costs, LRT has higher capital costs than most other modes. A local example of LRT service is Los Angeles Metro’s Gold Line. The Gold Line operates along a 31-mile alignment with a total of 27 stations. Service is provided daily, with approximately 7-minute headways during peak hours on weekdays, and approximately 12-minute headways during weekends. In 2016, Los Angeles Metro’s light rail operating cost per vehicle revenue mile was $23.15, and its operating cost per passenger trip was $5.13. Metro’s 2016 farebox recovery ratio for light rail was 15%. Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) A DMU, also known as hybrid rail, is a light rail-type train powered by on-board diesel engines. DMU operates on a fixed guideway completely separated from automobile traffic. Unlike LRT, DMU can operate on corridors that also have freight-rail traffic provided that the DMU rail vehicle meets certain safety criteria. Otherwise, temporal, or time of day, separation between DMU and freight-rail traffic is required. According to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DMUs have slightly higher operating costs than other urban transit modes, primarily since DMUs tend to be newer systems. Because DMUs can utilize existing rail corridors in some cases, construction costs can be lower than those of LRT systems. A local example of DMU service is the North County Transit District (NCTD) Sprinter. The Sprinter provides daily service along a 22-mile route between Oceanside, CA and Escondido, CA with a total of 15 stations. This system utilizes temporal separation with the DMU passenger service during the day and limited freight service at night. In 2016, the Sprinter’s operating cost per vehicle revenue mile was $23.80, and its operating cost per passenger trip was $6.09. NCTD’s 2016 farebox recovery ratio for Sprinter service was 18.3%. Also a new system being developed by the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) will use DMU technology for service from San Bernardino to Redlands starting in 2020. SBCTA is also exploring electric multiple unit (EMU) trains, which are similar to DMUs but are electrically-powered and have less emissions (air quality and noise). Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 15 Commuter Rail Commuter rail is an electric- or diesel-powered railway for regional passenger rail service that primarily operates between a central urban location and the surrounding suburbs. Commuter rail service is usually provided on weekdays during peak hours, in order to serve work- or school-related trips, although some systems also provide weekend service. Commuter rail operates on a fixed guideway completely separated from automobile traffic, typically on former or current freight tracks. The shared operations with freight railroads can impact service frequency and limit the potential for increasing passenger service. Capital costs for commuter rail systems can be similar to or slightly higher than those of DMU systems. A local example of commuter rail service is the Metrolink system. The Metrolink system currently consists of seven routes operating in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and San Diego counties. The Perris Valley Line, which extends the 91 Line service from Riverside to South Perris, is a recent extension of the Metrolink system. In FY 2016, Metrolink’s operating cost per vehicle revenue mile was $17.32, and its operating cost per passenger trip was $19.57. The FY 2016 farebox recovery ratio for Metrolink was 37.4%. Intercity Rail Intercity rail is a regional passenger rail service that typically serves travel between cities, covering longer distances than commuter rail. Like both DMU and commuter rail service, intercity rail operates on a fixed guideway completely separated from automobile traffic, and can operate in freight rail corridors. Capital costs for intercity rail systems vary, depending on the potential for using existing facilities. A local example of intercity rail service is Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner. The Pacific Surfliner provides service along a 351-mile route, with a total of 31 stations across San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo counties. The Pacific Surfliner operates 23 one-way trips per day between San Diego and Los Angeles/Santa Barbara/San Luis Obispo. For FY 2015-16, Amtrak’s average unit cost per train mile for the Pacific Surfliner service was $69.66. In FY 2015-16, the operating cost per passenger trip was $34.51. Amtrak’s FY 2015-16 farebox recovery ratio for the Pacific Surfliner service was 78.8%. 3.2 Transit Technology Comparison Each transit technology discussed above offers opportunities and issues depending on the specific alignment, built environment, community, and potential users. Express, or Commuter, Bus is best suited to medium to long distance trips in peak periods for commuters. It is low cost to construct since it utilizes existing freeways and arterials, but is subject to congestion in regular traffic lanes. HOV lanes, if not congested, can increase travel speeds for commuter bus. Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 16 BRT is best suited to short to medium distance trips along arterial routes at any time of day, with stations located approximately one mile apart. In order to provide dedicated lanes and a unique BRT brand, there are construction and overhead costs above and beyond those of a typical bus route. LRT, similar to BRT, is best suited to short to medium distance trips at any time of day, with stations located at least one mile apart on an exclusive ROW. Due to the ROW needs and construction requirements, LRT is a relatively high cost system, but has the opportunity to carry higher ridership loads than the lower capacity BRT vehicles. DMU is best suited to short to medium distances with higher frequencies and smaller peak loads. It has lower operating costs compared to commuter rail and similar costs for infrastructure. Commuter rail, similar to express bus, is best suited to medium to long distance trips in peak periods. By sharing track or ROW with freight rail, infrastructure costs can be lower than LRT. Intercity rail is best suited to long distance trips at any time of day. Infrastructure costs are similar to commuter rail and DMU. 3.3 Corridor Right-of-Way As discussed in the previous section, each mode has specific ROW requirements for operations:  Exclusive Rail ROW  Shared Rail ROW  Freeway/street ROW (exclusive or shared) Table 6 illustrates the type of ROW potentially available in each corridor. In some cases, a corridor may have multiple types of ROW, such as the Corona to Temecula corridor. With the existing transportation corridors, the new services may or may not be able to fit within the current configurations and additional adjacent property may be needed. Other than the Indio route, the only corridor with a mostly complete rail alignment is the Perris to San Jacinto corridor along the San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL). Table 6. Types of ROW Potentially Available in each Corridor Corridor Alignment Right-of-Way Exclusive Rail Shared Rail Freeway/Street Indio to Los Angeles (via Fullerton/Riverside) Uses UP Yuma Subdivision between Indio and Colton, then uses the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to Los Angeles, and to reach LAUS uses the SCRRA River Subdivision X Perris to Temecula Via I-215 corridor X X Perris to San Jacinto Via RCTC-owned SJBL X X Corona to Temecula Along a former Santa Fe Branch Line, entering I-15 at Nichols Road in Lake Elsinore X X X Temecula to San Diego Along the alignment identified for the proposed California High-Speed Rail X X Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 17 Corridor Alignment Right-of-Way Exclusive Rail Shared Rail Freeway/Street Lake Elsinore to Perris Along SR 74 X X Hemet/San Jacinto to Banning/Beaumont Along SR 79 X X A key question related to ROW is ownership, and what it will take in order to begin operations on that ROW. Is it already owned or does it need to be purchased? Are rights to operate available, or do they need to be purchased/leased? In the case of freeway or street ROW, what agreements are needed in order to operate transit on the existing facility, and is ROW for new transit facilities (ramps, stations, etc.) needed? Table 7 identifies the ownership and availability for service on each of the seven corridors. Table 7. Description of ROW Ownership Corridor Alignment Description of ROW Ownership Indio to Los Angeles (via Fullerton/Riverside) Uses UP Yuma Subdivision between Indio and Colton, then uses the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to Los Angeles, and uses the River Subdivision to reach LAUS In order to accommodate additional passenger trains on the UP Yuma Subdivision, a passenger rail agreement would be required along with additional track infrastructure. BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision has existing passenger rail agreements that could allow for additional service. SCRRA River Subdivision would provide a connection from BNSF ROW to LAUS. River Subdivision ROW is owned by Metro. Perris to Temecula Via I-215 corridor A majority of the potential alignment parallels I-215. I-215 is a Caltrans facility consisting of 4-6-lane highway with one HOV lane existing or planned in each direction. A portion of the ROW is on parcels with minimal or no development. Perris to San Jacinto Via RCTC-owned SJBL The SJBL is owned by RCTC. Corona to Temecula Along a former Santa Fe Branch Line, entering I-15 at Nichols Road in Lake Elsinore The Santa Fe Branch Line is abandoned ROW, formerly part of the ATSF Railway. A portion of this old ROW is now covered by part of the Dos Lagos Golf Club, and would need to be purchased. Depending on the selected route, trackage rights may need to be acquired from BNSF for an existing, active BNSF industrial lead known as the Porphyry Spur, which is a 3.5-mile remnant of the former Santa Fe Elsinore Branch. I-15 is a Caltrans facility consisting of an approximately 4-6 lane highway. There are plans for Express Lanes to extend from the Cajalco Road interchange to SR 74 in Lake Elsinore, and then HOV lanes beyond the SR 74 interchange to the junction of I-15 and I-215 in Temecula. There is no excess median on I-15 available for rail transit. Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 18 Corridor Alignment Description of ROW Ownership Temecula to San Diego Along the alignment identified for the proposed California High-Speed Rail Potential alignment parallels I-15 but ROW does not yet exist. Most of this corridor would be in San Diego County. Lake Elsinore to Perris Along SR 74 SR 74 is a Caltrans facility consisting of a 4 lane highway. An improvement along this corridor is currently being planned as part of the proposed Ethanac Expressway Project. The Ethanac Expressway Project would provide a new east-west interregional route by extending the existing Ethanac Road westerly to connect to SR 74, thus closing the existing road gap between Ethanac Road and SR 74. There are currently concepts to solicit input on a BRT or bus facility on Ethanac Expressway in addition to consideration of light rail. As of recent public meetings there does not seem to be much local interest in light rail, but extra median area or ROW beyond the travel way may be leveraged. Hemet/San Jacinto to Banning/Beaumont Along SR 79 SR 79 is a Caltrans facility consisting of a four-lane highway. There is not sufficient area available within the median or in the outside ROW for rail transit. Based on the unique characteristics of the Corona to Temecula alignment (partly in a rail ROW, and partly on a Caltrans facility), for the purposes of this evaluation the two components will be shown separately in subsequent tables. 3.4 Corridor Population and Employment Density Existing and forecasted population and employment is a key factor that drives ridership and ultimately, the success of a new transit system. Table 8 and Table 9 show 2012 and 2040 population and employment density for the seven corridors. Year 2012 data was used to represent current conditions since 2012 is the base year for the current SCAG Regional Transportation Model and its demographic data. The data show that the highest population and employment densities are found on the Indio to Los Angeles corridor, due largely to the density of development along the corridor within Los Angeles and Orange Counties. The Temecula to San Diego corridor and Perris to Temecula corridor have the second and third highest densities. Table 8. Population Density (People per Square Mile) Corridor Population Density (ppl / sq mi) 2012 2040 Indio to Los Angeles (via Fullerton/ Riverside) 2,775 3,295 Perris to Temecula 1,600 2,308 Perris to San Jacinto 1,251 1,983 Corona to Temecula Overall corridor: 1,359 Corona to Lake Elsinore: 1,384 Overall corridor: 1,892 Corona to Lake Elsinore: 1,802 Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 19 Corridor Population Density (ppl / sq mi) 2012 2040 Lake Elsinore to Temecula: 1,328 Lake Elsinore to Temecula: 1,992 Temecula to San Diego 1,803 2,312 Lake Elsinore to Perris 1,170 1,971 Hemet/San Jacinto to Banning/Beaumont 1,106 1,785 Table 9. Employment Density (Jobs per Square Mile) Corridor Employment Density (jobs / sq mi) 2012 2040 Indio to Los Angeles (via Fullerton/ Riverside) 1,192 1,563 Perris to Temecula 369 718 Perris to San Jacinto 206 503 Corona to Temecula Overall corridor: 397 Corona to Lake Elsinore: 428 Lake Elsinore to Temecula: 361 Overall corridor: 698 Corona to Lake Elsinore: 690 Lake Elsinore to Temecula: 705 Temecula to San Diego 601 992 Lake Elsinore to Perris 190 486 Hemet/San Jacinto to Banning/Beaumont 205 493 3.5 Corridor Travel Demand Caltrans measures Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) on all of its facilities, which can serve as an indicator of the magnitude of travel demand in a particular corridor. Table 10 lists the AADT on major highways in the seven corridors. Table 10. Average Annual Daily Traffic Corridor Highway / Location AADT Indio to Los Angeles (via Fullerton/ Riverside) I-10, Indio, Monroe Street 64,000 I-10, Banning, Jct. Rte. 243 129,000 I-10, Beaumont, Jct. Rte. 79S 132,000 I-10, San Bernardino, Waterman Avenue 205,000 I-215, San Bernardino, Jct. Rte. 66W 125,000 SR 91, Riverside, Central Avenue 165,000 Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 20 Corridor Highway / Location AADT SR 91, Corona, Main Street 233,000 Perris to Temecula I-215, Perris, Nuevo Road 103,000 I-215, Murrieta, Murrieta Hot Springs Road 93,000 I-15, Temecula, Rancho California Road 169,000 Perris to San Jacinto SR 74, Hemet, State Street 29,000 SR 74, Menifee, Menifee Road 30,000 Corona to Temecula I-15, Corona, Magnolia Avenue 187,000 I-15, Lake Elsinore, Main Street 125,000 I-15, Murrieta, Murrieta Hot Springs Road 133,000 I-15, Temecula, Rancho California Road 169,000 Temecula to San Diego I-15, Temecula, Rancho California Road 169,000 I-15, San Diego/Riverside County Line 140,000 Lake Elsinore to Perris SR 74, Lake Elsinore, Jct. Rte. 15 31,500 SR 74, Perris, Seventh Street 26,500 Hemet/San Jacinto to Banning/Beaumont SR 79, San Jacinto, Gilman Springs Road 28,300 SR 79, Beaumont, California Avenue 26,500 Based on the data in Table 10, the corridors with higher travel demand include Indio to Los Angeles, Perris to Temecula, Corona to Temecula, and Temecula to San Diego. The corridors with lower travel demand include Perris to San Jacinto, Lake Elsinore to Perris, and Hemet/San Jacinto to Banning/Beaumont. 3.6 Corridor Rail Extension If a potential corridor has a connection to, or could be an extension of, an existing rail system, that corridor is likely to be appropriate for rail technology. As identified previously in Table 5, four of the seven corridors have potential connections to, or are extensions of, an existing rail system: Indio to Los Angeles, Perris to Temecula, Perris to San Jacinto, and Corona to Temecula. The Temecula to San Diego, Lake Elsinore to Perris, and Hemet/San Jacinto to Banning/Beaumont corridors do not have connections to/would not be extensions of an existing rail system. Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 21 3.7 Transit Technology by Corridor Table 11 contains a qualitative comparison of five of the key evaluation factors to determine appropriate transit technology. Table 11. Qualitative Comparison Corridor Population Density Employment Density Corridor Demand ROW Availability Rail Extension Indio to Los Angeles (via Fullerton/Riverside) High High High Yes Yes Perris to Temecula Medium Medium High Yes Yes Perris to San Jacinto Low Low Low Yes Yes Corona to Temecula Medium Corona to Lake Elsinore: Medium Lake Elsinore to Temecula: Medium Low Corona to Lake Elsinore: Low Lake Elsinore to Temecula: Low High Corona to Lake Elsinore: High Lake Elsinore to Temecula: High Yes Corona to Lake Elsinore: Yes Lake Elsinore to Temecula: No Yes Corona to Lake Elsinore: Yes Lake Elsinore to Temecula: No Temecula to San Diego Medium Medium High No No Lake Elsinore to Perris Low Low Low No No Hemet/San Jacinto to Banning/Beaumont Low Low Low No No Table 12 lists the technologies that, based on the high-level assessment of technology and alignment characteristics, are appropriate for each corridor. Table 12. Feasible Technologies Corridor Express Bus BRT LRT DMU Commuter Rail Intercity Rail Indio to Los Angeles (via Fullerton/Riverside) X X X Perris to Temecula X X X X Perris to San Jacinto X X X X Corona to Temecula X X X X Corona to Lake Elsinore X X X X Lake Elsinore to Temecula X X Temecula to San Diego X X X X Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 22 Corridor Express Bus BRT LRT DMU Commuter Rail Intercity Rail Lake Elsinore to Perris X X Hemet/San Jacinto to Banning/Beaumont X X 3.8 Corridors Deemed Inappropriate for Rail Technology The Lake Elsinore to Perris corridor and Hemet/San Jacinto to Banning/Beaumont corridor were determined to be inappropriate for rail technology for the following combinations of reasons:  Lake Elsinore to Perris corridor: o Low population and employment density along the corridor o Low corridor travel demand o ROW availability for transit service along this corridor is possible, but does not presently exist  Hemet/San Jacinto to Banning/Beaumont corridor: o Low population and employment density along the corridor o Low corridor travel demand o There are currently no plans for this segment of SR 79 to be widened to include provisions for rail services/become a transit-supporting corridor o Lack of connections to the existing rail system These corridors should be planned in coordination with RTA for possible Express Bus or BRT service to meet future regional transit needs. 3.9 Corridors Deemed Appropriate for Rail Technology The following five corridors were determined to be appropriate for rail technology from the standpoint of population/employment density, travel demand, ROW availability, and/or extending an existing rail line:  Indio to Los Angeles (via Fullerton and Riverside)  Perris to Temecula  Perris to San Jacinto  Corona to Temecula  Temecula to San Diego Although these five corridors are appropriate for rail technology, they are not recommended to be further evaluated and prioritized in this study for the following reasons:  Indio to Los Angeles (via Fullerton and Riverside) corridor o This corridor is recommended to be removed from further evaluation in this study because the planning process for developing this corridor is underway in the Coachella Valley – San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Development Plan and EIS/EIR.  Corona to Temecula corridor Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 23 o The full corridor is recommended to be removed from further evaluation in this study because of ROW challenges and lack of good alignment. o The shorter Corona to Lake Elsinore corridor is recommended for further evaluation. The Corona to Lake Elsinore corridor could potentially utilize existing and former rail ROW until it reaches Nichols Road, and end without needing to use the I-15 ROW. o The Lake Elsinore to Temecula section could be revisited in a future study.  Temecula to San Diego corridor o This corridor is recommended to be removed from further evaluation in this study because the majority of the corridor lies outside RCTC’s jurisdiction in San Diego County, and as of this time SANDAG has not indicated that this corridor is a priority for rail transit. The corridor remains part of the future High Speed Rail Phase II alignment between Los Angeles and San Diego via the Inland Empire. The following corridors are appropriate for DMU or Commuter Rail technologies due particularly to the following factors:  Perris to Temecula o Medium employment and population densities along the corridor o High corridor travel demand o Would connects to and extend the existing Perris Valley Line o Potentially available ROW  Perris to San Jacinto o Would connect to and extend the existing Perris Valley Line o ROW is available o Strong potential for future development along the corridor In summary, the corridors that appear viable for Commuter Rail/DMU service and are recommended for further evaluation and prioritization in this study include:  Perris to Temecula  Perris to San Jacinto  Corona to Lake Elsinore The next chapter describes the criteria, methods, and data sources to be used for further evaluation and prioritization. Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 24 4 Evaluation Criteria and Methodologies This section presents the evaluation criteria and methodology used for evaluating the three corridors. The evaluation criteria consider feasibility in terms of corridor-related characteristics, operational characteristics, usage and effectiveness, and other factors. The evaluation results facilitate comparison of the corridors’ benefits and costs, and feasibility and viability can be assessed. 4.1 Evaluation Criteria Four categories of criteria were identified and are shown below in Table 13. Corridor characteristics are focused around the physical corridor itself. Operational characteristics refer to the specific mode attached to the alternative, such as commuter rail, DMU, or LRT. Effectiveness characteristics address factors like ridership, connectivity, and cost effectiveness. Finally, other characteristics relate to issues like political and financial feasibility. The purpose of developing a wide range of qualitative and quantitative criteria is to ensure that each corridor is afforded a full analysis of the benefits and impacts. Each evaluation criteria is described in detail below. Table 13. Evaluation Criteria Overview Characteristics Criteria Corridor Demographics, highway congestion, travel demand, land use intensities, economic development opportunities, length, connectivity, ROW availability Operational Capacity, costs (capital, operating, maintenance), stations/stops, operating speeds, transit travel times, integration, rail network capacity, frequency Effectiveness Ridership, transit accessibility, connectivity to other existing and planned transit, GHG and emissions reductions, cost effectiveness Other Environmental fatal flaw issues, part of an adopted plan, public or political perception, safety Corridor Characteristics Corridor characteristics are centered on the physical corridor itself. Each alignment traverses different areas of the county and as such will serve and impact different communities, demographics, and travel in different ways. Table 14 illustrates the specific criteria within this category, and each criterion is further described below. Table 14. Corridor Characteristics Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Factors Demographics Population density per square mile Employment density per square mile Disadvantaged communities in corridor (census tracts, population) Travel Demand Travel demand along the corridor Highway Congestion Current and future congestion levels on primary highway Land Use Intensities Number of high-employment TAZs adjacent to a new station Corridor Length Length of the corridor ROW Availability Availability of rail ROW Demographics This criterion measures population density, employment density, and the number of disadvantaged communities along the potential rail corridor. Existing and future population and employment density were calculated using socioeconomic data from the SCAG 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Population Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 25 density is expressed in the number of people per square mile. Employment density is expressed in the number of jobs per square mile. Disadvantaged communities refers to low-income and transit-dependent populations. GIS and demographic data from the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) were utilized to analyze the number of disadvantaged communities within a one-mile buffer of the rail corridors. The disadvantaged communities are expressed in the number of households within one mile of the corridor. The results are compared between the corridors and assigned a comparative low, medium, or high ranking. Travel Demand This criterion considers existing travel demand along the potential corridors. Existing travel demand was identified using 2016 information from Caltrans. Caltrans measures average annual daily traffic (AADT) on all of its facilities, which can serve as an indicator of the relative number of people traveling in a particular corridor. Average AADT and Median AADT for each of the corridors were determined and assigned a comparative low, medium, or high ranking. Highway Congestion Corridor highway congestion is a useful indicator of potential success attracting riders to a regional transit service. This criterion identifies locations along Riverside County’s key highways which are currently over capacity/congested, or will be over capacity/congested in the future. This analysis of current and future congestion was based on the 2015 RCTC Strategic Assessment. The corridors are assigned a comparative low, medium, or high ranking for both current and future congestion levels. Land Use Intensities This criterion considers if transit-supportive land uses are adjacent to potential station areas along the transit corridors. Transportation analysis zones (TAZs) along the potential corridors were analyzed to determine total employment/ employment density adjacent to potential station locations, since transit-supportive land uses, indicated by factors such as concentrated areas of employment, facilitate greater use of public transit. Existing and future employment along each corridor were identified based on data from the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS. Corridors with a greater number of high- employment TAZs adjacent to a potential station receive a high ranking, whereas corridors with a fewer number of high- employment TAZs adjacent to a station receive a low ranking. Corridor Length This criterion identifies the approximate lengths of each of the potential rail corridors. The length of each corridor is for informational purposes and is not a part of the comparative feasibility analysis. ROW Availability This criterion focuses on whether there is ROW availability for a new rail corridor. The ROW availability is assigned a comparative low, medium, or high ranking. Operational Characteristics Operational characteristics are related to the specific mode attached to the alternative, such as commuter rail, DMU, or LRT. The study team determined that either commuter rail or DMU/hybrid rail could be appropriate rail technologies for each of the three corridors, so the evaluation was conducted for both technology options where applicable. The various transit modes have different capabilities and serve distinct types of trips (i.e., local or regional trips) based on factors such as station spacing, operating speed, and compatibility with existing services. Table 15 illustrates the specific criteria within this category, and each criterion is further described below. Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 26 Table 15. Operational Characteristics Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Factors Capacity Maximum number of passengers per hour Capital Costs Estimated total capital cost O&M Costs Estimated O&M costs Station/Stops Number of total stations/stops; Number of stations per mile Operating Speeds Estimated operating speed Transit Travel Times Transit travel time between selected locations Integration Extension of existing transit service Rail Network Capacity Availability of operating slots Frequency Estimated service frequency Capacity This criterion is measured as the maximum number of passengers that can be carried past a single point on a fixed route, in a given period of time. The most common measure of capacity is in terms of passengers per hour. For this analysis, system capacity is determined based on a typical number of seats per vehicle for the technology, combined with the number of vehicles in operation during the peak hours of operation. The mode capacity is reported as the estimated maximum number of passengers per hour, and is assigned a comparative low, medium, or high ranking. Capital Costs Capital costs include track work, signals, ROW, vehicles, and stations. These costs were estimated using information from previous corridor studies and typical unit cost factors based on recent projects in the region. The total estimated capital costs were reported as a range. Appendix A documents the basis of the unit cost factors. The cost is assigned a comparative low, medium or high ranking. Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs The purpose of this criterion is to consider ongoing operations and maintenance costs associated with each alternative. O&M costs were developed by using typical operating costs per mile for the particular mode. Appendix A documents the basis of the O&M cost factors. The O&M costs are reported as a total (annual) amount and assigned a comparative low, medium or high ranking. Stations/Stops This criterion will be developed using previous studies and reports. The total number of stations along each alignment, as well as the number of stations per mile, is reported. Operating Speeds The average system speeds for Metrolink service and NCTD Sprinter service were used for this criterion. The estimated average operating speed in miles per hour is reported. Transit Travel Times The estimated amount of time it takes to travel one way along the corridor (end-to-end trip) is calculated using the length of the corridor and the operating speeds reported above. The travel times are reported and assigned a comparative low, medium or high ranking, where lower travel times will receive a high ranking. Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 27 Integration The next generation rail corridor must be integrated with the regional rail system, so connectivity is a key component of this analysis. This criterion addresses the component of connectivity, identifying whether or not the alternative is an extension of an existing transit service. The outcome is a yes/no answer. Rail Network Capacity As some of the region’s rail corridors are privately owned and used for freight and commuter purposes, this criterion addresses the availability of operating slots for additional service. The potential for additional operating slots is dependent on ownership of each corridor (if RCTC owns the ROW) and if there is an opportunity to increase the current service levels on the corridor. The outcome is a yes/no answer. Frequency The estimated service frequency (the number of trains per peak hour or per day) is reported based on transit mode and previous reports and studies. Effectiveness Characteristics Effectiveness characteristics indicate ridership potential and the corridor’s potential to improve regional accessibility and mobility and reduce emissions. Cost-effectiveness is an especially important indicator of a corridor’s viability for proceeding into project development. Table 16 illustrates the specific criteria within this category, and each criterion is further described below. Table 16. Effectiveness Characteristics Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Factors Ridership Estimated average daily ridership; estimated total annual ridership Transit Accessibility Number of people within 0.5 miles of a transit station Connectivity Connection to other existing and planned transit GHG and Emissions Reductions Estimated GHG and emissions reductions Cost Effectiveness Cost per opening year rider Ridership The estimated average daily ridership and total annual ridership for each corridor is extracted from previous reports and studies. The ridership is reported as a range, with the projection from previous studies used for the high end of the range and, and the low end estimated by reducing the high end value by a factor of 0.1. The ridership numbers are reported and assigned a comparative low, medium, or high ranking. Transit Accessibility Transit is most successful when stations are located near where the riders live and work. This criterion identifies the number of people within 5 miles of each transit station along the corridors. GIS was utilized to determine the number of people within a 5 mile-buffer around the proposed transit stations. The total number of people is summed within each corridor and reported, and then assigned a comparative low, medium, or high ranking. Connectivity Expanding on the Integration criteria discussed previously, identifying connections to existing and planned transit reflects on systemwide networks and how riders will utilize the corridor. Specifically, the connections are listed and the number of Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 28 daily trains or buses at the connection are included. Each corridor receives a ranking of low, medium, or high based on the quality of its connections. GHG and Emissions Reductions Ridership estimates are utilized to approximate vehicle trip reduction in order to estimate GHG and emissions reductions for each corridor. The estimated GHG and emissions reductions were calculated using the following variables:  Estimated weekday ridership  APTA mode shift factor (mode shift factor of 0.47 for a large service area population),  Average vehicle occupancy rate of 1.54  Assuming 255 operating days per year  2040 baseline average work trip length of 15.1 miles from SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS  California Air Resources Board auto vehicle emissions factor (343 gCO2e for a Riverside County project with opening date 2030) Outcomes are reported as a comparative low, medium, or high ranking, where low refers to less reductions in emissions and high refers to more reductions in emissions. Cost Effectiveness The cost effectiveness of each corridor is calculated by utilizing a simple calculation of annualized capital costs, annual O&M costs, and annual trips. The estimated current-year capital costs were annualized assuming a 30-year useful life, then added to the annual O&M costs, and then divided by the number of annual trips. Annual trips were determined by multiplying daily ridership by 255 weekdays. Cost effectiveness is presented as an annualized cost per trip. Results are assigned a comparative low, medium, or high ranking, where the most cost effective corridor achieves a high ranking. Other Characteristics Other characteristics touch on more qualitative issues such as perception, environmental impacts, and grant potential, all of which can influence the overall potential for transit corridor implementation. Table 17 illustrates the specific criteria within this category, and each criteria is further described below. Table 17. Other Characteristics Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Factors Environmental Fatal Flaws Potential impacts that could undermine corridor feasibility Part of an Adopted Plan Included in an adopted plan Public or Political Perception Political support / public opinion regarding the implementation of a rail system along the corridor Safety Reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT) Environmental Fatal Flaws This qualitative criterion takes into account any known potential “fatal flaw” environmental issues that could make it infeasible or unlikely to develop a rail line within the corridor. Information is based on previous studies and reports as well as inputs provided by local stakeholders during this study’s corridor outreach meetings. The outcome is “yes” if the corridor has a known potential “fatal flaw” environmental issue, and “no” if the corridor does not have a known potential “fatal flaw” environmental issue. Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 29 Part of an Adopted Plan To be eligible for state or federal funding, new rail corridors need to be part of the current state or regional rail plan. Corridors or alternatives that are included in an adopted plan, such as the LRTP or RTP, are awarded a “yes”; if the corridor is not included in an adopted plan the outcome is “no.” Public or Political Perception This criterion is intended to gauge the level of public support for or opposition to having a rail line developed in the corridor. Information from the 2017 RCTC Transit Corridor Social Survey, public outreach meetings with stakeholders along the corridor, as well as client and team understanding of the corridors informs this analysis. If there is favorable support, the outcome is “yes”; if unfavorable, the outcome is “no.” Safety Safety benefits, measured by potential for accident reduction, is a key measurement to qualify for grant funding. Potential safety benefits can be estimated based on reduction in vehicle-miles of travel (VMT). By shifting travelers from vehicles to transit, the VMT and thus the number of potential accidents, may be decreased. The estimated VMT reductions were calculated using the following variables:  Estimated weekday ridership  American Public Transportation Association (APTA) mode shift factor (mode shift factor of 0.47 for a large service area population)  Average vehicle occupancy rate of 1.54  Assuming 255 operating days per year  2040 baseline average work trip length of 15.1 miles per SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS The reduction in potential vehicular accidents was estimated using the calculated VMT reduction and an accident rate for Riverside County (average of 0.56 accidents per million VMT per year countywide) obtained from Caltrans’ Performance Measurement System (PeMS). The outcome is reported as a comparative low, medium, or high ranking, where low refers to less estimated reduction in VMT and thus less reductions in potential vehicular accidents, and high refers to greater reductions in VMT and thus greater reductions in potential vehicular accidents. Table 18 provides a summary of the full set of evaluation criteria. Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 30 Table 18. Evaluation Criteria, Factors, and Methods Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Factors Basis/Method Evaluation Outcome Corridor Characteristics Demographics Population and employment density per square mile Number of disadvantaged communities Based on SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS and CalEPA data Population and employment density: low, medium, high; Number of disadvantaged communities Travel Demand Travel demand along the corridor Based on Caltrans AADT data Travel demand: low, medium, high Highway Congestion Current and future congestion levels on primary highways Based on 2015 RCTC Strategic Assessment Highway congestion: low, medium, high Land Use Intensities Transit-supportive land uses adjacent to potential station locations Based on SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS data Number of high-employment TAZs adjacent to a new potential station: low, medium, high Corridor Length Length of the corridor Based on previous reports and studies Length of the corridor (miles) ROW Availability Availability of rail ROW Use GIS to determine if there is ROW availability along the potential corridor Percentage of ROW availability: low, medium, high Operational Characteristics Capacity Maximum number of passengers per hour Based on the typical number of seats per vehicle for the technology, combined with the number of vehicles in operation during the peak hours of operation Estimated number of passengers per hour: low, medium, high Capital Costs Estimated per mile capital costs Based on typical unit cost factors based on recent projects in the region Capital cost range (for total cost and per mile cost): low, medium, high O&M Costs Estimated O&M costs Based on typical operating costs per mile for the technology Estimated annual O&M cost: low, medium, high Station/Stops Number of stations/stops and stations per mile Based on previous reports and studies Number of stations; number of stations divided by total length Operating Speeds Estimated operating speed Based on average system speeds for Metrolink and NCTD Sprinter service Operating speed (miles per hour) Transit Travel Times Transit travel time between selected locations Based on estimated operating speeds and a one-way trip from end-to-end of the corridor Total one-way travel time: low, medium, high Integration Extension of existing transit service Determine if the rail corridor is an extension of an existing rail service Yes/no for extension of an existing rail line(s) Rail Network Capacity Availability of operating slots Determine if the rail corridor has available operating slots, if RCTC has ownership of the ROW, or if there is an opportunity to increase service levels on the corridor Yes/no for availability of operating slots along the rail corridor Frequency Number of trains per peak hour or per day Based on previous reports and studies Service frequency in number of trains per day Effectiveness Characteristics Ridership Estimated average daily ridership Based on previous reports and studies Estimated ridership range: low, medium, high Transit Accessibility Number of people within 0.5 miles of a transit station Use GIS to determine the number of people within a 0.5 mile-buffer around the proposed transit stations Number of people within 0.5 miles of a station: low, medium, high Connectivity Connection to other existing and planned transit Identify any potential connections to existing and planned rail lines, and identify the number of daily trains that connect Connections to existing/planned rail: low, medium, high GHG and Emissions Reductions Estimated GHG and emissions reductions Use ridership estimates to approximate vehicle trip reduction GHG and emissions reductions: low, medium, high Cost Effectiveness Annualized cost per trip Takes into consideration annualized capital cost, annual O&M cost, and annual ridership Cost effectiveness: low, medium, high Other Characteristics Environmental Fatal Flaw Issues Potential impacts that could undermine corridor feasibility Based on previous studies and reports as well as inputs provided by local stakeholders during this study’s corridor outreach meetings Yes/no for known potential fatal flaw environmental issues Part of an Adopted Plan Included in an adopted plan Determine if the transit corridor is listed in any adopted plans (such as the LRTP, RTP, etc.) Yes/no, and a list of which plans the corridor is included in Political Support / Public Opinion Political support / public opinion regarding the implementation of a rail system along the corridor Determine what the political situation regarding this corridor is (i.e. is there political support, what is the public opinion, etc.) Yes/no regarding political support/public opinion Safety Potential for accident reduction Based on calculated reductions in VMT and vehicular accident rate in Riverside County Estimated reductions in VMT and potential vehicular accidents: low, medium, high Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 31 5 Evaluation of Corridors This section presents the results of the corridor evaluations developed using the evaluation criteria, methodologies, and data sources identified in Section 4. The three corridors evaluated are Perris to Temecula, Perris to San Jacinto, and Corona to Lake Elsinore. Analysis of the Perris to Temecula and Perris to San Jacinto corridors utilized information from the 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study as a baseline for evaluation, and used updated data to reflect current conditions. Analysis of the Corona to Lake Elsinore corridor utilized information from the 2007 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study as a baseline for evaluation, and used updated data to reflect current conditions. The evaluation criteria (in the categories of Corridor Characteristics, Operational Characteristics, Effectiveness Characteristics, and Other Characteristics) were applied to the three corridors, and a yes/no or comparative low, medium, and high ranking was determined for each. These are relative rankings for the purpose of this comparison only. The following symbols are used: Low Medium High The results of the evaluation are organized by category (Corridor Characteristics, Operational Characteristics, Effectiveness Characteristics, and Other Characteristics). The results are presented first by individual criteria, then in an overall category summary table at the end of each category section. 5.1 Corridor Characteristics Demographics Demographics for each corridor include calculations of current and future population and employment density, and the number of disadvantaged communities along the potential rail corridor. Table 19 shows the ranking for each of the corridors based on the demographics evaluation; low densities and a low number of disadvantaged communities have a low ranking, whereas high densities and a high number of disadvantaged communities received a high ranking. Table 19. Demographics Evaluation Evaluation Criteria Corridor Perris to Temecula Perris to San Jacinto Corona to Lake Elsinore 2012 Population Density per Square Mile (people/square mile) 1,600 1,251 1,384 2040 Forecasted Population Density per Square Mile (people/square mile) 2,308 1,983 1,802 2012 Employment Density per Square Mile (jobs/square mile) 369 206 428 Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 32 2040 Forecasted Employment Density per Square Mile (jobs/square mile) 718 503 690 Disadvantaged communities in corridor (number of census tracts designated as SB 535 disadvantaged communities within or adjacent to corridor) 1 4 6 Travel Demand Table 20 through Table 22 list the 2016 Caltrans AADT for locations along the major highway in each corridor, and Table 23 shows the average and median traffic volumes for each corridor. Table 20. Average Annual Daily Traffic: Perris to Temecula Alignment Highway / Location AADT Via I-215 corridor I-15 Temecula, North Junction Route 79 190,000 I-215 Murrieta, Junction Route 15 85,000 I-215 Murrieta, Hot Springs Road 93,000 I-215 Murrieta, Los Alamos Road 90,000 I-215 Murrieta, Antelope Road 93,000 I-215 Scott Road 85,000 I-215 Sun City, Newport Road 80,000 I-215 Sun City, McCall Boulevard 74,000 I-215 Perris, Ethanac Road 72,000 I-215 Perris, South Junction Route 74 88,000 I-215 Perris, North Junction Route 74 82,000 Table 21. Average Annual Daily Traffic: Perris to San Jacinto Alignment Highway / Location AADT Via RCTC-owned SJBL Includes volumes from SR 74, SR 79 and I-215 I-215 Perris, South Junction Route 74 88,000 I-215 Perris, North Junction Route 74 82,000 SR 74 Perris, Junction Route 215 25,000 SR 74 Perris, Ethanac Road 24,500 SR 74 Menifee, Menifee Road 30,000 SR 74 Junction Route 79 South 33,000 SR 74 Hemet, Warren Road 28,000 SR 74 Hemet, Lyon Road 30,000 SR 74 Hemet, State Street 29,000 SR 74 Hemet, Junction Route 79 North 27,000 SR 79 Hemet, Junction Route 74 16,500 SR 79 San Jacinto, Menlo Avenue/Main Street 11,800 Table 22. Average Annual Daily Traffic: Corona to Lake Elsinore Alignment Highway / Location AADT Along Santa Fe Branch Line Parallel to I-15 I-15 Lake Elsinore, Junction Route 74 117,000 I-15 Lake Elsinore, Nichols Road 119,000 I-15 Lake Elsinore, Lake Street 126,000 I-15 Indian Trail Road 132,000 Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 33 Alignment Highway / Location AADT I-15 Temescal Canyon Road 144,000 I-15 Weirick Road 159,000 I-15 Cajalco Road 169,000 I-15 El Cerrito Road 174,000 I-15 Corona, Ontario Avenue 169,000 I-15 Corona, Magnolia Avenue 187,000 I-15 Corona, Junction Route 91 158,000 The average and median highway traffic volumes are assigned a comparative low, medium, or high ranking in Table 23. Low traffic volumes received a low ranking; high traffic volumes received a high ranking. Table 23. Travel Demand Results and Summary Evaluation Criteria Corridor Perris to Temecula Perris to San Jacinto Corona to Lake Elsinore Average AADT 93,818 35,400 150,364 Median AADT 85,000 28,500 158,000 Highway Congestion Table 24 indicates the congestion level on the primary roadway in each corridor in both 2012 and 2040, which was identified using information from the 2015 RCTC Strategic Assessment. Corridors that are over capacity along the entire corridor received a high ranking since they would see the most congestion relief if a transit service option were implemented along the corridor. Table 24. Highway Congestion Evaluation Evaluation Criteria Corridor Perris to Temecula Perris to San Jacinto Corona to Lake Elsinore 2012 Congestion Over capacity along the entire corridor Over capacity on parts of the SR 74 section of the corridor Over capacity along the entire corridor 2040 Congestion Over capacity between Perris and Menifee only Over capacity on most of the SR 74 section of the corridor Over capacity along the entire corridor, except a small portion near SR 74 Land Use Intensities Existing and future employment along each corridor was identified based on data from the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS. Corridors with a greater number of high-employment TAZs adjacent to a new station received a high ranking, whereas corridors with a fewer number of high-employment TAZs adjacent to a new station received a low ranking (as shown in Table 25). Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 34 Table 25. Land Use Intensities Evaluation Criteria Corridor Perris to Temecula Perris to San Jacinto Corona to Lake Elsinore 2012 Land Use (number of adjacent TAZs with high employment) 3 0 0 2040 Land Use (number of adjacent TAZs with high employment) 4 2 0 Corridor Length As previously mentioned, the approximate lengths of each of the potential rail corridors are listed based on previously developed information, and is reported for informational purposes (not part of the comparative analysis).  Perris to Temecula: 16.4 miles  Perris to San Jacinto: 15.7 miles  Corona to Lake Elsinore: 18.3 miles ROW Availability Corridors with available ROW are typically less expensive, involve fewer property impacts, and take less time to design and construct. The percentages shown in Table 26 indicate the percentage of available ROW (excluding roadway parcels) that can be preserved for future rail transit purposes. The percentages include railroad-owned parcels with no active rail lines, parcels with minimal development and/or temporary features, and County-owned flood control corridors that may be suitable for shared use with rail transit operations. The amount of street ROW intersecting the corridors is not included in these percentages since it does not represent ROW that can potentially be preserved for future rail transit purposes. See Appendix B for further details regarding the ROW analysis. Table 26. ROW Availability Evaluation Criteria Corridor Perris to Temecula Perris to San Jacinto Corona to Lake Elsinore Percent of ROW Owned by RCTC 0% 100% 0% Percent of ROW that is not developed (includes parcels with minimal or no development and/or temporary features. Not owned by a railroad or other transportation-related entity) 79% 100% 81% Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 35 Corridor Characteristics Summary Based on the criteria evaluated for corridor characteristics, the Perris to Temecula corridor would have characteristics more conducive to rail service in terms of residential density and employment density along the corridor (see corridor characteristics summary shown in Table 27). The Perris to San Jacinto corridor has the advantage in terms of ROW availability since RCTC owns the ROW. Travel demand and highway congestion are highest along the Corona to Lake Elsinore corridor. Table 27. Overall Corridor Characteristics Evaluation Criteria Corridor Perris to Temecula Perris to San Jacinto Corona to Lake Elsinore Demographics 2012 Population Density per Square Mile (people/square mile) 2040 Forecasted Population Density per Square Mile (people/square mile) 2012 Employment Density per Square Mile (jobs/square mile) 2040 Forecasted Employment Density per Square Mile (jobs/square mile) Disadvantaged communities in corridor (number of census tracts designated as SB 535 disadvantaged communities within or adjacent to corridor) Travel Demand Average AADT Median AADT Highway Congestion 2012 Congestion 2040 Congestion Land Use Intensities 2012 Land Use (number of adjacent TAZs with high employment) 2040 Land Use (number of adjacent TAZs with high employment) ROW Availability ROW Availability Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 36 5.2 Operational Characteristics Capacity System capacity was determined based on a typical number of seats per vehicle for the technology, combined with the number of vehicles in operation during the peak hours of operation. For this analysis, system capacity was developed based on existing Metrolink and NCTD Sprinter capacity. Per the Metrolink 2015-2020 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) and 2012-2017 Metrolink Fleet Plan, Metrolink train sets generally range from four to six coaches long, and seating capacity varies from 120 to 149 seats per car, depending on fleet and generation. Per the NCTD 2017-2026 Comprehensive Strategic, Operating and Capital Plan, the Sprinter is typically a three-car train set with a maximum capacity of 90 passengers per car. The number of vehicles in operation during peak hours of operation was determined based on the previous studies reviewed. Based on these assumptions, the maximum number of passengers per hour for all corridors would range from 540 to 960 passengers, depending on transit mode. Capital Costs An estimated capital cost was developed by using typical unit cost factors from recent projects (including the Redlands Passenger Rail Project/Arrow and PVL), and is presented as a range. For the Perris to Temecula and Corona to Lake Elsinore corridors, the capital cost was estimated at $25-$35 million per mile. The estimate for the Perris to San Jacinto corridor used a lower unit cost of $21-$30 million per mile, to account for the fact that RCTC already owns the SJBL ROW along this corridor. Table 28. Capital Costs Evaluation Criteria Corridor Perris to Temecula Perris to San Jacinto Corona to Lake Elsinore Total Capital Cost (in millions) $410 - $574 $333 - $467 $458 - $641 Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 37 O&M Costs O&M costs were developed by using typical operating costs per train mile for Metrolink or hybrid rail service. The O&M costs are reported as a total annual amount. The estimated O&M cost for the commuter rail options assumes 16 daily trains (six peak-period, peak-direction trains in both the morning and evening, plus two midday round trips), whereas the costs for the hybrid rail options assume 72 daily trains (from 4:00am to 10:00pm, with 30-minute headway). Table 29. O&M Costs Evaluation Criteria Corridor Perris to Temecula Perris to San Jacinto Corona to Lake Elsinore Commuter Rail Annual O&M Cost (in millions) $2.8 $2.7 $3.1 Hybrid Rail Annual O&M Cost (in millions) $12.0 $11.5 $13.4 Stations/Stops The number of stations or stops (shown in Table 30) was determined using previous studies and reports. This count only includes new station locations. Table 30. Stations/Stops Evaluation Criteria Corridor Perris to Temecula Perris to San Jacinto Corona to Lake Elsinore Number of New Stations 3 3 3 Number of Stations per Mile One station every 5.5 miles One station every 5.2 miles One station every 6.1 miles Operating Speeds and Transit Travel Times Estimated operating speed was obtained from previous reports and studies. The estimated operating speed in miles per hour is shown in Table 31. The amount of time it takes to travel via transit between selected locations is also shown in Table 31. Table 31. Operating Speeds and Transit Travel Times Evaluation Criteria Corridor Perris to Temecula Perris to San Jacinto Corona to Lake Elsinore Operating Speed 25-36 mph 25-36 mph 25-36 mph Travel Time 27-39 minutes 26-38 minutes 31-44 minutes Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 38 Integration Both the Perris to Temecula and Perris to San Jacinto corridors would be extensions of the existing PVL commuter rail service. The Corona to Lake Elsinore corridor is not an extension of an existing transit service, but might potentially be connected as a branch of the IEOC Line or the 91/PVL Line. If DMU technology is used for these corridors, passengers would be required to transfer to the Metrolink commuter service unless DMU technology is implemented on Metrolink lines in the future. Rail Network Capacity The potential for additional operating slots is dependent on ownership of each corridor when rail service is in operation, and if there is an opportunity to increase the current service levels on the corridor. The bullet points below state whether or not RCTC would have the ability to determine future service levels along the rail corridors:  Perris to Temecula – Yes, the proposed route for this rail corridor is a new alignment parallel to I-215 and would be under RCTC purview  Perris to San Jacinto – Yes, RCTC owns the SJBL, yet BNSF does have operating rights per the original purchase agreement.  Corona to Lake Elsinore – No, depending on the selected route, a portion of this corridor could be owned by BNSF and future service levels would be subject to an operating agreement with BNSF. Frequency The estimated service frequency (number of trains per day) was established based on transit mode and previous reports and studies. As previously mentioned in the calculation of the annual O&M cost estimate, for commuter rail options, the assumption is 16 trains per day (six peak-direction trains in the AM peak-period, two midday round trips, and six peak- direction trains in the PM peak-period). For the hybrid rail options, the assumption is 72 trains per day (service every 30 minutes in both directions between 4:00am and 10:00pm). Operational Characteristics Summary Based on the criteria evaluated for operational characteristics, the Perris to San Jacinto and Perris to Temecula corridors have lower costs in terms of capital cost and annual O&M cost due to their shorter length (see operational characteristics evaluation summary shown in Table 32). Additionally, both the Perris to Temecula and Perris to San Jacinto corridors would have the benefit of potentially being extensions of an existing commuter rail service, though it might be possible for Corona to Lake Elsinore to be operated as a Metrolink extension as well. The Corona to Lake Elsinore corridor has the highest total capital cost and annual O&M cost. Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 39 Table 32. Overall Operational characteristics Evaluation Criteria Corridor Perris to Temecula Perris to San Jacinto Corona to Lake Elsinore Capital and O&M Costs Total Capital Cost (in millions) Annual O&M Cost (in millions) Commuter Rail Hybrid Rail 5.3 Effectiveness Characteristics Ridership The estimated daily ridership (in 2030) for each corridor is presented as a range in Table 33. Table 33. Ridership Evaluation Criteria Corridor Perris to Temecula Perris to San Jacinto Corona to Lake Elsinore Daily Ridership (in 2030) 295 – 2,166 182 – 1,338 126 – 921 Transit Accessibility GIS analysis of population data from the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS was used to identify the number of people within five miles of each potential transit station along the corridors. Table 34 presents the number of people within five miles of the potential corridor’s transit stations (for current and future years). Table 34. Transit Accessibility Evaluation Criteria Corridor Perris to Temecula Perris to San Jacinto Corona to Lake Elsinore Number of People within 5 miles of a transit station (2012) 432,430 337,466 361,694 Number of People within 5 miles of a transit station (2040) 623,687 534,971 470,794 Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 40 Connectivity Table 35 lists how many connections to existing rail service each of the potential corridors has, as well as the number of daily trains at the connection (which serves as an indication of the quality of the connection). Table 35. Connectivity Evaluation Criteria Corridor Perris to Temecula Perris to San Jacinto Corona to Lake Elsinore Total Number of Connections 1 Metrolink Line 1 Metrolink Line 2 Metrolink Lines Connection (# daily trains/ buses) 91/PVL 91/PVL 91/PVL 12 trains operated per weekday (six in the eastbound direction, six in the westbound direction), no weekend service 12 trains operated per weekday (six in the eastbound direction, six in the westbound direction), no weekend service 9 trains operated per weekday (four in the westbound direction, five in the eastbound direction), 4 trains operated per Saturday (two in the westbound direction, two in the eastbound direction), 4 trains operated per Sunday (two in the westbound direction, two in the eastbound direction) IEOC 16 trains operated per weekday (eight in the westbound direction, eight in the eastbound direction), 4 trains operated per Saturday (two in the westbound direction, two in the eastbound direction), 4 trains operated per Sunday (two in the westbound direction, two in the eastbound direction) GHG and Emissions Reductions Ridership estimates were used to calculate vehicle trip reduction in order to estimate GHG and emissions reductions. Table 36 shows the estimated range of emissions reductions for each corridor Table 36. GHG and Emissions Reductions Evaluation Criteria Corridor Perris to Temecula Perris to San Jacinto Corona to Lake Elsinore GHG and Emissions Reductions (in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent) 873.07 MTCO2e - 896.19 MTCO2e 539.32 MTCO2e – 553.60 MTCO2e 371.23 MTCO2e – 381.07 MTCO2e Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 41 Cost Effectiveness Estimated annualized capital costs, annual O&M costs, and annual trips were used to calculate the cost effectiveness of each corridor (shown in Table 37). The cost effectiveness is represented as an annualized cost per trip, and is presented as a range, depending on high-end/low-end cost and high-end/low-end ridership. Table 37. Cost Effectiveness Evaluation Criteria Corridor Perris to Temecula Perris to San Jacinto Corona to Lake Elsinore Cost Effectiveness (annualized capital cost plus annual O&M divided by annual trips) $29.75 – $291.09 per trip $40.29- $392.43 per rtrip $78.14- $761.00 per trip Effectiveness Characteristics Summary Based on the criteria evaluated for effectiveness characteristics, the Perris to Temecula corridor is ranked highest in ridership, transit accessibility, GHG and emissions reductions, and cost effectiveness (see effectiveness characteristics evaluation summary in Table 38). The Corona to Lake Elsinore corridor would have better connectivity to the regional rail system. Table 38. Overall Effectiveness characteristics Evaluation Criteria Corridor Perris to Temecula Perris to San Jacinto Corona to Lake Elsinore Ridership Ridership (in 2030) Transit Accessibility Number of People within 5 miles of a transit station (2012) Number of People within 5 miles of a transit station (2040) Connectivity Total number of connections to other rail transit service GHG and Emissions Reductions GHG and Emissions Reductions (in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent) Cost Effectiveness Cost Effectiveness ($/opening day rider) Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 42 5.4 Other Characteristics Environmental Fatal Flaws If there are any known potential “fatal flaw” environmental issues that could make it infeasible or unlikely to develop a rail line within the corridor, that corridor is given a “yes”, if there are no known potential “fatal flaw” environmental issues, that corridor is given a “no”. Based on previous studies and reports, as well as inputs provided by local stakeholders during this study’s corridor outreach meetings:  Perris to Temecula: No  Perris to San Jacinto: No  Corona to Lake Elsinore: No Part of an Adopted Plan As previously mentioned, corridors that are included in an adopted plan are given a “yes”, and corridors that are not included in an adopted plan are given a “no”.  Perris to Temecula – Yes, included in the 2016-2040 SCAG RTP/SCS as a major strategic plan project  Perris to San Jacinto – Yes, included in the 2016-2040 SCAG RTP/SCS as a financially-constrained RTP/SCS project  Corona to Lake Elsinore – No Public or Political Perception The level of public/political support for the three potential transit corridors was determined based on feedback gathered during targeted stakeholder outreach meetings held in the corridors. Meeting attendees included local agency Planning and Public Works staff. The main purpose of the stakeholder outreach meetings was to determine if there are any adopted local plans or ongoing planning activities that would support or conflict with future rail service (e.g. land uses that would support or conflict with rail ridership, actions that have been taken to preserve ROW for a future rail alignment, discussions at the City Council level about potential rail service, etc.). Input regarding public or political perception of the three corridors included the following:  Perris to Temecula o Residents of Temecula would oppose a rail alignment on the east side of I-15. The west side of I-15 is more industrial (less residential) and would therefore be preferred for a potential rail corridor. o The Temecula City Council would be supportive of a new rail corridor. o Murrieta would have concerns about train-related vibrations, particularly near hospitals.  Perris to San Jacinto o The City Councils of Hemet and San Jacinto have had discussions about this potential rail corridor before. Both cities also have plans for more high-density development, which could support future rail service. Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 43 o Any impacts to traffic (caused by or related to a new rail corridor) would likely be the biggest concern from the local communities.  Corona to Lake Elsinore o Residents of Lake Elsinore would have concerns about rail-related noise, air quality, and bike/pedestrian safety. o In terms of general support for rail, residents of Lake Elsinore view Metrolink as favorable, and high- speed rail as unfavorable. o Corona has some constituents who would be vocal about their opposition to rail. Additionally, all stakeholders mentioned that funding would be the greatest barrier to future implementation of a new rail corridor. Notes from the stakeholder outreach meetings are provided in Appendix C. Further public outreach would occur when the corridors are studied in more detail. Safety As previously mentioned, a primary objective in grant programs and regional plans is to improve safety. By shifting travelers from vehicles to transit, these potential transit corridors would be contributing to fewer vehicle miles traveled, thus decreasing the likelihood of vehicular accidents. The outcome of this criterion is reported as a comparative low, medium, and high based on estimated reductions in VMT and vehicular accidents. Table 39. Safety Evaluation Criteria Corridor Perris to Temecula Perris to San Jacinto Corona to Lake Elsinore Estimated VMT Reduction (annual, in miles) 2,545,381 1,572,354 877,245 Estimated Vehicular Accident Reduction (annual) 1.43 0.88 0.61 Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 44 6 Conclusions and Recommendations Key findings from the Task 1 corridor evaluation are summarized in Table 40 in terms of the advantages and disadvantages of each corridor. Table 40. Corridor Advantages and Disadvantages Perris to Temecula Perris to San Jacinto Corona to Lake Elsinore Advantages  Extension to an existing transit system  Employment centers along the corridor  High travel demand along the corridor  Larger population within a 5- mile catchment area  Highest forecasted ridership  Greater GHG and emissions reductions  Included in an adopted plan  Political support  Greater potential reductions in vehicular accidents  Extension to an existing transit system  Availability of rail ROW  Lowest capital cost per mile  Included in an adopted plan  Political support  Potential high growth corridor  Highest travel demand along the corridor  Connectivity to multiple Metrolink lines (91/PVL and IEOC) Disadvantages  Highest overall capital cost and cost per mile  Less connectivity to Metrolink lines (91/PVL only)  ROW needs to be acquired  Low forecasted population and employment density along the corridor  Lack of employment centers along the corridor  Less connectivity to Metrolink lines (91/PVL only)  Low forecasted population and employment density along the corridor  Lack of employment centers along the corridor  Lowest projected ridership  ROW needs to be acquired  Highest capital cost  Highest annual O&M cost  Not included in adopted plan Based on the findings from this evaluation, it is recommended that all three corridors be included as potential future rail corridors in RCTC’s Long Range Transportation Study. In terms of near-term potential for corridor development, the Perris to Temecula corridor appears more promising than the Perris to San Jacinto and Corona to Lake Elsinore corridors because it has greater ridership potential (based on corridor population, transit accessibility, and forecast ridership) and better overall cost-effectiveness for rail service. The next step in the corridor evaluation process should involve developing refined estimates of costs, ridership, and cost- effectiveness in order to better understand the corridors’ viability, financial feasibility, and potential to compete for federal funds for corridor development. The refined capital cost estimates need to be based on conceptual design studies and include year of expenditure (YOE) cost estimates. The ridership forecasts need to be developed specifically for each corridor and based on the specific technology and service parameters being planned for the corridor. The O&M costs need to be based on service assumptions that are consistent with the ridership forecasts. The refined estimates of cost Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | 45 and ridership can be used to develop a corridor funding and implementation strategy which will be needed when RCTC seeks funding opportunities from the state or federal government. Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | A-1 Appendix A: Derivation of Unit Cost Factors RCTC Next Generation Rail & Transit Study Appendix A ‐ Derivation of Unit Cost FactorsCapital Cost Index (from 2005 to 2018)1.43Unit Cost Estimated from 2005/2007 Studies' Cost Estimates Inflated to 20182005/2007(millions $)Miles(rounded)escalated to 2018(millions $)Cost per mile(millions $)Perris ‐ Temecula* 250 16 358 22Corona ‐ Lake Elsinore* 262 18 375 21Perris ‐ Hemet/San Jacinto** 112 16 160 10costs include engineering, construction management, contingencies, etc.*ROW, structures, and earthwork account for approximately 51% of the total cost.** ROW, structures, and earthwork account for approximately 5% of the total cost.Unit Costs of Other Projects in Southern CaliforniaCost(millions $)MilesCost per mile (millions $)Mid‐Coast  987 11 90RPRP 140 9 16PVL 250 24 10The unit cost for these corridors will be more similar to RPRP and PVL than to Mid‐Coast.With inflation increasing recently, the escalated 2018 cost per mile is likely to be conservatively low. Based on the above, assume $25 million per mile as the low‐end cost per mile for Perris‐Temecula and Corona‐ Lake Elsinore. Assume the high‐end of the range is 40% greater than the low‐end.Assume the cost range for Perris ‐ Hemet/San Jacinto is 49% of the cost for the other two corridors to account for expected lower costs for ROW, structures, and earthwork. low‐end cost per milehigh‐end cost per milelow‐end cost per milehigh‐end cost per mileCapital Cost (2018 dollars) $25 million $35 million $12 million $17 millionFor Perris ‐ Temecula and Corona ‐ Lake Elsinore corridors For Perris ‐ Hemet/San Jacinto corridor Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | B-1 Appendix B: Task 1h ROW Memo hdrinc.com 3230 El Camino Real, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602-1377 (714) 730-2300 Task 1h Technical Memorandum Date: Thursday, December 20, 2018 Project: Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Next Generation Rail & Transit Study To: Sheldon Peterson, RCTC From: JD Douglas, HDR Subject: Task 1h: Identify Potential Rights-of-Way Introduction Background The Next Generation Rail & Transit Study was identified as a follow-up action in the 2016 RCTC (Commission) Strategic Assessment effort that identified regional transportation needs and challenges. This Study will serve as one of the modal “building blocks” for an overall Riverside County Long Term County Transportation Plan, and will provide guidance to assist the Commission in developing a path forward for improving regional rail and transit in the County of Riverside. Project Objectives The objectives of the Study are to review previously identified high-capacity transit corridors, identify potential new corridors, prioritize one rail corridor for proceeding into project development, and develop additional information and data about the high priority corridor. Task Objectives Task 1 of the Study identifies potential future transit corridors in Riverside County and evaluates their costs, benefits, and impacts to identify the highest priority corridor(s) for implementation in the coming years. The top priority corridor will be defined and further evaluated in Task 2. Earlier efforts within Task 1 established a final list of four potential corridors for further study, as listed in Table 1 and depicted on Figure 1. The objective of Task 1h is to review available data to evaluate opportunities and challenges for establishing rail and/or transit service within the four corridors. Page 2 Table 1 - Corridors Evaluated for Right-of-Way Preservation Corridor Route Length Alignment Connection/Extension Corona to Lake Elsinore 18.3 miles The route that follows an existing active BNSF Railway industry lead track in Corona and continues along a historic rail corridor southward to Nichols Road in the City of Lake Elsinore. Connects with existing Metrolink service operating on the BNSF Railway San Bernardino Subdivision:  91/PVL  IEOC South Perris to San Jacinto 15.7 miles Follows the existing RCTC-owned San Jacinto Industrial Lead from Romoland to San Jacinto. Extends 91/Perris Valley Line South Perris to Temecula 16.4 miles Along the I-215 Corridor from a junction with the existing RCTC-owned Perris Valley Subdivision to a location north of Winchester Road in Temecula. Branch route from the 91/Perris Valley Line Page 3 Figure 1 - Three Rail Corridors Studied in Task 1h Page 4 Methodology The methodology for Task 1h consists of a desktop review of available geographic information systems (GIS) databases with the aim of identifying and quantifying existing and potential rights- of-way to support rail transit service within each Corridor. No onsite reviews were performed to verify the findings of this Task. The following steps comprise the methodology of Task 1h: 1. Establish Corridor Routes: Corridor routes were established as polyline features within GIS mapping software. 2. Establish Corridor Right-of-Way Limits by one of the following methods: a. Remnant parcels: select by spatial overlay the corridor line featu re with the former rail-route parcels. b. New route; no previous rail parcels: create an 80-ft. buffer polygon representing a new right of way. 3. Parcel Overlay: These corridor linear features were overlaid on the County of Riverside parcel base map. Parcels were selected from the parcel basemap based on a spatial join. 4. Parcel Classification: each intersecting parcel was classified according to its existing land use as determined by an interpretation of the aerial mapping. 5. Rail Line/Parcel intersect: using the “Intersect” GIS tool, divide the corridor line feature into segments according to the parcel overlay locations. The resulting line feature includes the right-of-way status attribute. 6. Calculate Geometry: the length of each intersect line feature in Feet (US). 7. Export Line Features Attribute Table/Calculate Route Mileage: route mileage per R/W Status Category as a pivot table in Excel. Recreating Historic Rail Lines Within two of the three corridors exist the remnants of previous rail routes. The South Perris to Temecula Route along I-215 does not follow a previous rail route. In many instances, these historic corridors were recreated by a digitizing rail line features using geo-referenced digital USGS topographic maps. The following geospatial data sources were used as sources for historical USGS topographic maps:  topoView: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/  California Department of Fish and Wildlife Map Service: https://map.dfg.ca.gov/ArcGIS/services  USGS Historical Topographic Map Explorer: http://historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/ The original route was established within the GIS software by tracing rail lines shown in historic USGS topographic maps. Existing rail lines were derived from the National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD) as downloaded from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics website: Page 5 https://www.bts.gov/geospatial/national-transportation-atlas-database. The NTAD 2017 “Rail Lines” dataset was used for this Task. Parcel Overlay County assessor records identify historic rail rights-of-way or other potential linear rights-of-way that could serve any of the corridors being studied. On the corridor GIS map s, the general location of these rights-of-way (R/W) are indicated as areas where the R/W has been developed for another use or is no longer available for other reasons. For potential corridors where available linear right-of-way constitutes a substantial majority of the corridor length, the analysis identifies the factors/circumstances under which preserving the right-of-way might be a viable strategy in the absence of funding for early acquisition Parcel Classification Those parcels that comprise the route of each corridor were classified according one of six potential statuses as summarized in Table 2. Table 2 - Parcel Classification Definitions Status Definition Examples Active Railroad Right-of-Way Rail-owned property with existing, active rail operations.  BNSF  UP  SCRRA Railroad-Owned, but No Active Rail Use Parcels with railroad ownership, but no active rail lines.  BNSF  UP  SCRRA Preservable Parcels with minimal or no development and/or temporary features. Not owned by a railroad or other transportation- related entity.  Open space  Vacant lots  Golf courses  RCTC-owned parcels  Materials storage areas  Truck trailer parking Developed Properties with permanent structures. Not owned by a railroad or other transportation-related entity.  Industrial  Commercial  Residential Flood Control County-owned flood control corridors that may be suitable for shared use with rail transit operations.  Flood control levees  Flood control maintenance roads Street Right-of-Way Intersecting the Corridor Parcels with the designation “RW” within the County database denoting active or preserved street rights of way.  Local streets  State highways Page 6 Corona to Lake Elsinore Right-of-Way Preservation Evaluation Route Description An approximately 18 mile corridor with a combination of active railroad line and well-preserved former rail rights-of-way. The Corridor consists of the northerly portion of a former Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Elsinore District, which was abandoned in 1981 and its rails removed in 1985 (Gustafson and Serpico, 1992. p 138). As per the 2007 I-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study, the intended southern terminus of this corridor would be located in the vicinity of Nichols Road. The assumption is that a further extension of rail service would be accomplished within the I-15 right-of-way. There is an additional 3 miles of the Elsinore District south of Nichols Road that extends into the downtown core area of the City of Lake Elsinore that is not a part of this evaluation. Figure 2 provides an overview of the Corona to Lake Elsinore Corridor. Route Status Summary A good majority of the route remains preservable or consists of minor developments. Table 3 provides status categories Table 3 - Corona to Lake Elsinore (Nichols Rd.) R/W Status Summary R/W Status Route Miles Percentage Active Railroad Right-of-Way 2.57 14% Developed 0.73 4% Preservable 12.77 70% Railroad-Owned But No Active Rail Use 0.89 5% Street Right-of-Way 1.31 7% Total 18.28 100% Page 7 Figure 2 - Corona to Lake Elsinore Corridor Overview Page 8 South Perris to San Jacinto Right-of-Way Preservation Evaluation Route Description This route is an approximately 16-mile corridor via the RCTC-owned San Jacinto Branch Line. This route would extend the Metrolink 91/Perris Valley Line from its current terminus at South Perris to San Jacinto, near the intersection of State Street and 7th Street (as per the 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study). Route Status Summary The route is well-preserved: 98% of the corridor can be preserved for future rail transit purposes, as summarized in Table 4. Table 4 - S. Perris to San Jacinto R/W Status Summary R/W Status Route Miles Percentage Flood Control 2.03 13% RCTC Owned But No Active Rail Use 13.31 85% Street Right-of-Way Intersecting Corridor 0.34 2% Total 15.68 100% Page 9 Figure 3 - South Perris to San Jacinto Corridor Overview Page 10 South Perris to Temecula Right-of-Way Preservation Evaluation Route Description This route provides service between Perris and Temecula along the I -215 corridor (generally on the east side of the freeway). This route would extend the Metrolink 91/Perris Valley Line from its current terminus at South Perris to Temecula, at Winchester Road (as per the 2005 RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study). Route Status Summary Much of this route is within state highway right-of-way, as summarized in Table 5. Table 5 - S. Perris to Temecula R/W Status Summary R/W Status Route Miles Percentage Developed 1.03 13% Flood Control 0.03 - Preservable 4.04 25% RCTC Owned, Active Rail Line 0.06 - Street Right-of-Way Intersecting Corridor 11.20 68% Total 16.36 100% Page 11 Figure 4 - South Perris to Temecula Corridor Overview Page 12 Comparison of Preservation Potential for Each Corridor The three corridors that were evaluated for Task 1h represent opportunities for RCTC to preserve rights-of-way for future rail transit purposes. Table 7 summarizes the availability of preservable right-of-way within each Corridor, excluding street right-of-way. Table 6 - Preservation Potential for Each Studied Corridor PRESERVATION OPPORTUNITIES Corridor Active Railroad Right-of- Way Street Right-of- Way Intersecting the Corridor Developed Railroad- Owned, but No Active Rail Use Preservable Flood Control Preservation Potential (Percentage Excluding Roadway Parcels) Corona to Lake Elsinore 14% 7% 4% 5% 70% - 81% South Perris to San Jacinto - 2% - 85% 13% 100% South Perris to Temecula - 68% 6% - 25% - 79% Page 13 References Gustafson, Lee, and Philip C. Serpico. Coast Lines Depots: Los Angeles Division. Omni Publications, 1992. Wilbur Smith Associates et. al, I-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study, June 29, 2007 Next Generation Rail Corridors Analysis: Task 1 Report Next Generation Rail Study September 11, 2019 | C-1 Appendix C: Notes from Stakeholder Outreach Meetings Meeting Notes Project: RCTC Next Generation Rail and Transit Study Subject: Task 1d Stakeholder Outreach Meetings Date: Thursday, October 25, 2018 Location: City of Perris Council Chambers (101 North D Street, Perris, CA 92750) Attendees: Sheldon Peterson (RCTC) Cheryl Donahue (RCTC) Ruby Arellano (RCTC) Cheryl Kitzerow (City of Menifee) Jonathan Smith (City of Menifee) Clara Miramontes (City of Perris) Ron Mathieu (SCRRA/Metrolink) Ron Running (City of Hemet) Rob Johnson (City of San Jacinto) JD Douglas (HDR) Gerard Reminiskey (HDR) Crystal Wang (HDR) City of San Jacinto o The City is working on its General Plan 2040 update o The Downtown Specific Plan includes the development of a high-density downtown with a casino and hotel o Mt. San Jacinto College has property available for a potential future rail station o Population density in San Jacinto is currently 2,156 people/square mile o There is currently a lot of growth in San Jacinto; the number of housing is increasing o San Jacinto City Council has had discussions about this potential rail corridor before City of Hemet o The Hemet General Plan identifies potential locations for stations o The area around SR-79 has the potential for more development o Planning for a multimodal transit center with the Riverside Transit Agency o Hemet City Council has had discussions about this potential rail corridor before City of Menifee o Menifee’s economic development corridor is potentially a good location for transit (business park, industrial) o A lot of growth is planned around Ethanac Road Traffic would likely be the biggest concern from the local community Look into consolidation to avoid having multiple consecutive grade crossings Funding is the greatest barrier to implementation of a new rail corridor Meeting Notes Project: RCTC Next Generation Rail and Transit Study Subject: Task 1d Stakeholder Outreach Meetings Date: Thursday, October 25, 2018 Location: City of Perris Council Chambers (101 North D Street, Perris, CA 92750) Attendees: Sheldon Peterson (RCTC) Cheryl Donahue (RCTC) Ruby Arellano (RCTC) Lorelle Moe-Luna (RCTC) Cheryl Kitzerow (City of Menifee) Jonathan Smith (City of Menifee) Amer Attar (City of Temecula) Dale West (City of Temecula) Brandon Rabidou (City of Temecula) Jarrett Ramaiya (City of Murrieta) Ron Mathieu (SCRRA/Metrolink) Ron Running (City of Hemet) Rob Johnson (City of San Jacinto) JD Douglas (HDR) Gerard Reminiskey (HDR) Crystal Wang (HDR)  City of Temecula o The Specific Plans identify new developments that could potentially serve as future transit stops  Uptown Temecula Specific Plan – contains plans for high-density, walkable development west of I-15  New Mt. San Jacinto College facility/campus  Old Town Temecula Specific Plan – contains plans to create a walkable, mixed- use destination  Focus on connectivity between the college campuses o The City is planning for a major general plan update in 2020 o Residents of Temecula would oppose an alignment on the east side of I-15. The west side of I-15 is more industrial, and would be more feasible for a potential rail corridor. o Temecula City Council would be supportive of a new rail corridor, with CEQA exemptions o Reach out to the tribes early on in the planning process o If the messaging for a new rail corridor stresses the vehicular traffic benefits that a train can offer, there might be more public support for the project  City of Murrieta o The City of Murrieta is in the process of their general plan update now o The City has concerns about train-related vibrations, particularly near hospitals  City of Menifee o The proposed rail corridor alignment could have a potential conflict with a planned pedestrian overpass Meeting Notes Project: RCTC Next Generation Rail and Transit Study Subject: Task 1d Stakeholder Outreach Meetings Date: Thursday, October 25, 2018 Location: Lake Elsinore Cultural Center (183 North Main Street, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530) Attendees: Sheldon Peterson (RCTC) Cheryl Donahue (RCTC) Lorelle Moe-Luna (RCTC) Richard MacHott (City of Lake Elsinore) Nicole Dailey (City of Lake Elsinore) Nelson Nelson (City of Corona) Ron Mathieu (SCRRA/Metrolink) JD Douglas (HDR) Gerard Reminiskey (HDR) Crystal Wang (HDR)  City of Lake Elsinore o Lake Elsinore has a 2040 long-range plan in the works, with an expected completion date in Spring 2019. o Plans for new development in the city are detailed in the Alberhill Villages Specific Plan  The Plan includes development of a new high-density, mixed-use community, including 8,000 new residential units, a business park, and a university complex  Development will be located just south of I-15 near Lake Street and Temescal Canyon Road  The Alberhill Villages Specific Plan development would be adjacent to the Alberhill Ranch Specific Plan residential development o Extending the rail alignment further south to the Lake Elsinore Storm baseball stadium could help with ridership o Lake Elsinore needs more bus routes to feed people into the Outlets/transit center. o Regarding the corridor alignment, there is a potential MSHCP issue at the Temescal Wash, a potential conflict with the Alberhill Substation project, and a potential conflict with Southern California Edison’s Valley-Ivyglen Project (which is waiting on approval from the CPUC) o Residents of Lake Elsinore would have concerns about rail-related sound/noise, air quality, and bike/pedestrian safety o HSR is not favorable to the residents of Lake Elsinore, but they are comfortable with Metrolink (in terms of messaging and introducing residents to the idea of potential new rail service)  City of Corona o Corona has some constituents who would be vocal about their opposition to rail o Butterfield Trail should be preserved © 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved. NEXT GENERATION RAIL STUDY Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council December 3, 2019 Identify corridors with potential for rail extension or new rail service Evaluate and prioritize corridors for near- term project development activity Perform initial planning activities for high- priority corridor PURPOSE NEXT GENERATION RAIL STUDY Action item in RCTC Strategic Assessment ORIGIN POTENTIAL CORRIDORS FOR EVALUATION Light Rail Diesel Multiple Unit Commuter Rail Intercity Rail Express Bus Bus Rapid Transit POTENTIAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR REGIONAL TRANSIT DIESEL MULTIPLE UNIT (DMU) VEHICLE SIZE COMPARISON INTER-COUNTY CORRIDORS – FOR CONSIDERATION OUTSIDE THIS STUDY •Los Angeles –Riverside –Indio (Coachella Valley Rail) CORRIDORS NOT SUITED TO RAIL TECHNOLOGY •Lake Elsinore to Perris •Hemet to Banning CORRIDORS SUITED TO RAIL TECHNOLOGY BUT REMOVED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION IN THIS STUDY •Riverside to San Bernardino (due to limited train slots) INTRA-COUNTY CORRIDORS FOR DETAILED SCREENING •Corona to Lake Elsinore •Perris to San Jacinto •Perris to Temecula RESULTS OF INITIAL SCREENING MAJOR ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES Perris to Temecula Perris to San Jacinto Corona to Lake Elsinore Advantages •Travel demand along the corridor •Ridership potential •Large population adjacent to the corridor •Existing and available RCTC-owned ROW •Strong political support •Potential high growth corridor •Travel demand along the corridor •Direct connections to multiple Metrolink lines (91/PVL and IEOC) Disadvantages •High capital cost •ROW needs to be acquired •Low ridership potential •Low population density •High capital cost •ROW needs to be acquired All three corridors should be included as potential future rail corridors in RCTC’s Long Range Transportation Study and the SCAG RTP/SCS 2020 update o Near-Term •Perris to Temecula •Perris to San Jacinto o Long-Term •Corona to Lake Elsinore RECOMMENDATIONS Develop refined estimates of costs, ridership, and cost-effectiveness for the Perris to Temecula and Perris to San Jacinto rail corridors NEXT STEPS QUESTIONS? '—''q wip7ner-4 393wc PJ'27)" / 7Y5- 11t/1/11-3 NO 3N0Hd3131 32 nivNJIS (1NRId 3S`d31d) 1S3no _ -eidol uoold lout' ) I--) IL- L. )4 � / / (L - LS L- Lib s aleHaa ou3 euni eon allaaoi lIVIN-3 130 3N0Hd3131 mini`dNJIS _ � � \ s » AJVIS 010?1 - Aoue6y iisueal eullunS Aaua6 isual a isaani �/ 1. 1 p. 2i elgweuan Alen LITPS paey0l2:I Atv4zjA6,- i)1slnweS epun eopp ell osud --- .c..; —ant trs 7c,r%cKc-A � v,.--+ � � _c _ (� _ �, , y s-2,�,� z� y e �e 4° ,k' Q CT /i 6 -21 1'34 S2 0 ' /60 (T56) t - ,-�� 0�y�r)Coo�� ! Y� / AIaeW doer zepueweH amei lI` IN-3 NO 3N0Hd3131 32inivNJIS 3Wt/N SM381A131A1 WV 0£:01, 61.0Z `£ Jeciwaaaa `Aepsenl iioNnoo AuostAad NOI1t11210dSNVN1 S301/0:13S 1`d100S/33111WWO3 ANOSIACIV SN3Z1110 NI NOIS -7,09 , 6U 114,-+ � / 7 • -0-7 -vn--yAlnv111 (3 5,—Aj nr1 51}vl� �I`dW-3 2i0 3N0Hd3131 9mni`dNJIS �1NRId 3SV31d) 1S3no 'W'd 0£:0I. 61.0Z `£ Jegweoeci `Aepsenl iioNnoo ANOSIACIV NOILVIA0dSNVNI S301A213S 1V100S/33111WW0O ANOSIACIV SN3Z1110 NI NOIS