HomeMy Public PortalAbout02 February 24, 2020 Traffic Relief Strategy
Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission,
please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board.
MEETING AGENDA
Traffic Relief Strategy Committee
Time: 11:30 a.m.
Date: February 24, 2020
Location: BOARD ROOM
County of Riverside Administration Center
4080 Lemon St, First Floor, Riverside CA 92501
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Jan Harnik, Chair / Kathleen Kelly, City of Palm Desert
Michael Naggar, Vice Chair / Maryann Edwards, City
of Temecula
Larry Smith / Linda Molina, City of Calimesa
Wes Speake / Jim Steiner, City of Corona
Scott Matas / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs
Linda Krupa / Russ Brown, City of Hemet
Dana Reed / Kimberly Muzik, City of Indian Wells
Brian Berkson / Chris Barajas, City of Jurupa Valley
Scott Vinton / Christi White, City of Murrieta
V. Manuel Perez, County of Riverside, District IV
STAFF
Anne Mayer, Executive Director
Aaron Hake, External Affairs Director
AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY
Countywide Transportation Improvement and Traffic
Relief Plan and implementation ordinance
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TRAFFIC RELIEF STRATEGY COMMITTEE
www.rctc.org
AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda
11:30 a.m.
Monday, February 24, 2020
BOARD ROOM
County of Riverside Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, First Floor
Riverside, California
In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed
72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be
available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon
Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission’s website, www.rctc.org.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Government Code Section 54954.2, and the Federal
Transit Administration Title VI, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141 if special assistance
is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, including accessibility and translation services. Assistance
is provided free of charge. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting time will assist staff in
assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide assistance at the meeting.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS – Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous
minutes or less. The Committee may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote
of the Committee, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of
items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce
the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. Also, the Committee may terminate
public comments if such comments become repetitious. In addition, the maximum time for
public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Speakers may not yield
their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be
distributed or presented to the Committee shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This
policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items.
Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss matters raised during
public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the agenda. Board members
may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent
agenda for consideration.
Traffic Relief Strategy Committee
February 24, 2020
Page 2
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. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES – NOVEMBER 13, 2019
7. PROPOSED COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULE
Page 1
Overview
This item is for the Committee to approve a revised meeting schedule and receive
information on upcoming agenda items.
8. DRAFT TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT METRICS
Page 4
Overview
This item is for the Committee to receive and file an update about the Commission’s draft
Traffic Relief Plan (Plan) public engagement metrics in Riverside County.
9. TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN – ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY – PHASE 1
Page 7
Overview
This item is for the Committee to receive and file Phase 1 of the Economic Impact Study
(Study) related to the draft Traffic Relief Plan (Plan).
10. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT
Overview
This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended
and upcoming meeting/conferences and issues related to Commission activities.
11. ADJOURNMENT
The next Traffic Relief Strategy Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 11:30 a.m.,
Monday, March 23, 2020, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080
Lemon Street, Riverside.
AGENDA ITEM 6
MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TRAFFIC RELIEF STRATEGY COMMITTEE
November 13, 2019
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Traffic Relief Strategy Meeting was called to order by Chair Jan Harnik at
11:50 a.m., in the Board Room at the Riverside County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon
Street, First Floor, Riverside, CA, 92501.
2. ROLL CALL
Members/Alternates Present Members Absent
Victoria Baca
Brian Berkson
Jan Harnik
Linda Krupa
Russell Betts
Michael Naggar
V. Manuel Perez
Larry Smith
Wes Speake
Scott Vinton
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The pledge of allegiance was led by Vice Chair Mike Naggar.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no requests to speak from the public.
5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS
There were no additions or revisions to the agenda.
6. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES – SEPTEMBER 23 AND OCTOBER 28, 2019
M/S/C (Perez/Naggar) to approve the Minutes of September 23 and October 28.
Traffic Relief Strategy Committee – Special Meeting
November 13, 2019
Page 2
Abstain: Betts
7. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single
motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled
from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
M/S/C (Naggar/Baca) to approve the Consent Calendar.
7A. PUBLIC OUTREACH APPROACH FOR COUNTYWIDE TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve the proposed Public Outreach Approach for the countywide Traffic
Relief Plan (Plan); and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
At this time, Commissioner Berkson stated he had another meeting to attend and would be leaving
the meeting, however the Executive Director would be reading into the record a request from
Jurupa Valley for additional traffic relief projects to be added to item 10.
8. PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH ON PRIORITIES FOR THE TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN
Overview
This item is for the Committee to receive and file information on public opinion research on
priorities for the Traffic Relief Plan.
Aaron Hake, External Affairs Director, provided an overview of the data RCTC has gathered
over the past year on public opinion as it pertains to priorities for a traffic relief plan.
Commissioner Vinton requested a copy of the presentation.
Commissioner Speake commented the eastern portion of Riverside seem to agree with
issues more along with Moreno Valley and Perris subregion and the western portion of
Riverside seems to agree more with the issues from the northwestern subregion and as such
perhaps the line could be re-drawn to separate the city of Riverside.
Commissioner Naggar suggested having a discussion on what the criteria will be used in
determining what projects to pick.
Commissioner Smith expressed appreciation to staff’s attention to clarity of language to the
public. He requested staff look into finding a way to communicate to the public reasons and
methodologies behind things such as drop lanes.
Traffic Relief Strategy Committee – Special Meeting
November 13, 2019
Page 3
Commissioner Betts suggested including more of the human side of the effects of things like
the February 14th flooding, how residents couldn’t get to a hospital.
Commissioner Perez discussed motivation, suggesting reminders of storms such as the
February 14 flooding, sandstorms, etc. The more relevant the Commission can be the more
the public will be motivated to support. Commissioner Perez questioned the criteria
discussion suggested by Commissioner Naggar, noting the Coachella Valley Commissioners
work through the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) to prioritize projects
and not through RCTC.
Commissioner Krupa questioned if the poll had identified commuters and if so, if they had
been asked what they would do to improve their commute. Mr. Hake responded similar
questions were asked in an effort to gauge where people are driving. Commissioner Krupa
stated as commuters leave their cities, they are then impacting neighboring cities, which is
why the issue of traffic needs to be looked at regionally as all of the residents impact other
cities.
Commissioner Harnik stated it would be helpful going forward if the supervisorial districts
the projects were located in were identified.
Commissioner Naggar stated he is not sure how the Committee is going to determine which
projects will be brought forward unless they develop a reason for them or criteria to make
the decisions. He stated there is a way to make everyone surveyed happy by developing
criteria, from the criteria the Committee can prioritize, from priorities the Committee can
create timing, and from the timing the Commission can create cost.
Chair Harnik stated Commissioner Naggar’s comments are important and tie in to the CVAG
presentation and therefore suggested the discussion be held until after item nine.
Chair Harnik stated, with the rest of the Commissioner’s concurrence, she would like to take
items 9 and 10 out of order. She suggested taking item 10 prior to item 9 so those
Commissioners who have other meetings to get to have time to make their comments on
item 10. The Commissioners concurred with taking item 10 before item 9.
9. APPROACH FOR COACHELLA VALLEY COMPONENT OF THE TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN
Overview
This item is for the Committee to receive, discuss, and provide input on the approach to
developing the Coachella Valley component of the draft Traffic Relief Plan.
This item was heard out of order, after item 10 was presented.
Tom Kirk, Executive Director of the CVAG, presented an overview of CVAG’s approach to
developing the Coachella Valley component of the draft Traffic Relief Plan.
Traffic Relief Strategy Committee – Special Meeting
November 13, 2019
Page 4
Commissioner Naggar asked about every area doing their own tax measure.
Commissioner Perez stated the Coachella Valley did consider doing their own sales tax
measure, however in the spirit of regionalism and County-wide approach they decided not
to move in that direction as they see the importance of working with their neighbors on the
west side of the County.
Commissioner Naggar asked how the money was allocated to Coachella Valley for project
allocation. Theresia Trevino, CFO, provided an overview of how the sales tax that is
generated in the Coachella Valley is allocated back to the Coachella Valley.
Ms. Mayer stated the question has come up over the past couple of decades on whether
Western Riverside County should formalize its project selection process. The answer has
typically been a process sounds good however there is a concern regarding flexibility as well
as the differences in needs between the different communities in Western Riverside County.
If this Committee would prefer to evaluate projects based upon a set process and criteria
that would be something they could bring to the Commission for consideration.
Commissioner Naggar questioned whether there was a way to take politics out of the
prioritization process.
Commissioner Betts suggested a portion of funds divided up among each jurisdiction outside
of the big projects approved. Mr. Kirk discussed the affect SB 1 funds have had on local
streets and roads.
Commissioner Smith expressed support for Coachella Valley to do their own thing as they
are an isolated region and have an entirely different transportation component, however
his only concern is he does not want to send a signal that they are looking to carve up the
county. He stated the cities of Banning and Beaumont have both approached him to have
discussions about this, which is good news. What this is beginning to do is getting the Pass
to talk a little more regionally and to tackle this together so whatever happens with the tax
measure the conversations have been started in the Pass, which will fix some of the ills that
have happened in that region.
Commissioner Vinton reiterated why the Traffic Relief Strategy Committee was formed,
which was to look regionally at the issues that are occurring with traffic and the
consideration of a measure to provide another source of funding to do these additional
projects. The list is for the measure so the voters can see what can be done should they
choose to vote for it. He noted the list is not to prioritize right now so the Committee should
focus on what they need to accomplish now.
Commissioner Naggar noted the southern county faces a challenge in showing a connection
to the voters that if they vote for the measure, they will get certain projects.
Traffic Relief Strategy Committee – Special Meeting
November 13, 2019
Page 5
Commissioner Krupa discussed the tourism component, noting when Coachella has music
festivals the hotels in the Coachella Valley fill up people stay in hotels in Hemet, which
generates tax dollars and traffic in neighboring cities.
Chair Harnik stated this measure just isn’t about transportation, it’s about quality of life.
She also commented the cost of goods movement.
Commissioner Naggar expressed appreciation for this discussion as an opportunity to learn
about the other cities within the county.
M/S/C (Perez/Smith) to approve the current approach to developing the Coachella Valley
component of the draft Traffic Relief Plan.
10. WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN INVESTMENTS
Overview
This item is for the Committee to receive, discuss, provide input on, and consider approval
of investments in projects and services to be included in a draft Western Riverside County
component of the Traffic Relief Plan.
This item was heard out of order, prior to item nine.
Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director, presented a list of transportation investments for
Riverside County as a key element of a new potential sales tax. Staff is seeking direction as
to what projects and services should be on the list. This item focuses on Western Riverside
County projects and services as part of the overall County plan, Tom Kirk from CVAG will be
presenting the approach to developing the Coachella Valley component of the plan as part
of the next agenda item, and ongoing discussions with Palo Verde Valley representatives
will shape the component for that region. Staff sought a wide range of stakeholder input
regarding transportation needs and priorities to inform the creation of this investment list.
The plan identifies investments in projects and services that would result in a desired state
of transportation in Western Riverside County. The plan is aspirational in nature, putting
forth a future vision of transportation improvements and services to meet the long-term
needs in Riverside County. The plan is comprehensive by addressing a wide range of
transportation needs, and a thirty-year horizon was used for planning, revenue projection
and cost estimation purposes. The investment list is not currently intended to be
constrained by a specific time frame or revenue projection as these details of a potential
new sales tax measure have not yet been established. Staff is seeking direction in several
areas, including specific investment list items, planning horizon timeframe of 30 years or
other, direction as to the level of fiscal constraint to the plan, and direction as to investments
in the 60, 91, and 215 corridors.
Commissioner Baca thanked the Chair for taking this item out of order so she could read a
statement into the records prior to her departure for another meeting. Commissioner Baca
Traffic Relief Strategy Committee – Special Meeting
November 13, 2019
Page 6
read into the record a statement from the Moreno Valley City Council requesting the
following projects be added to the draft Traffic Relief Plan: Heacock Street south connection
and widening with connectivity to the Mid County Parkway, SR-60 at Redlands Boulevard
interchange improvements, the widening of Redlands Boulevard from SR-60 to the northern
city limits, the addition of lanes east and west on SR-60 from the I-215 to the new truck
climbing lanes near Gilman Springs Road, and the widening of Alessandro Boulevard from
the I-215 east to Laselle. The Moreno Valley City Council is requesting RCTC staff work with
Moreno Valley City staff on the requested five projects to identify the details. The Moreno
Valley City Council requests eliminating the option to use express lanes as additional lanes
on the SR-60, as the Moreno Valley City Council is vehemently opposed to adding toll lanes
to the SR-60 if it is going to be widened and would like any motion that’s made to include
the explicit elimination of the option to use additional lanes for express lanes on the 60
through Moreno Valley.
At this time, Commissioner Baca left the meeting.
Commissioner Speake requested to add the additional lane on the I-15 between Weirick and
SR-91 to the list, perhaps with a notation that it is funded or being completed by others.
Commissioner Naggar asked if anything was addressed in the I-15 Corridor. Executive
Director Anne Mayer requested the list of projects be displayed for reference and noted the
projects being included on the I-15: French Valley Parkway Phase III, the I-15 lane addition
from SR-74 to the San Diego county line, as well as the recent addition from Commissioner
Speake of an additional lane on the I-15 from Weirick to the SR-91. She noted the projects
are numbered for identification purposes only and they do not indicate priority.
Commissioner Naggar asked when this plan is expected to go to the Commission meeting,
and Ms. Mayer replied the goal is to take the list to Commission for December for discussion
and then create a draft traffic relief plan based on that discussion for presentation to the
January Commission meeting. With the Commission’s approval of a draft plan, it would be
provided for public review and comment for a couple of months and then it would go back
to the Commission in June to finalize.
Commissioner Speake requested the addition of a lane on the SR-91 from the 215 to the
I-15 and the Buchannan bridge, stating the more we think and plan regionally the better off
the County is going to be.
Commissioner Smith stated he was tempted to give a laundry list of projects that he thinks
are important today but he thinks that is forthcoming in future meetings. He noted the
Commission needs to act locally and think regionally, and he is thankful for the opportunity
to work with this body and to insert projects that potentially can qualify that are local.
Commissioner Vinton stated every city has their pet projects, however if every project is
added it can quickly become meaningless as there will never be enough money to complete
them all.
Traffic Relief Strategy Committee – Special Meeting
November 13, 2019
Page 7
Commissioner Krupa questioned whether the General Plans of the unincorporated areas
near the Homeland/Romoland areas have been considered to see if homes are being planes.
If homes are being planned, there will be a large impact on the 74, 79, and the 215. Ms.
Mayer pointed to the 79 realignment and the Mid County projects on the plan, which were
created to address the plans for the homes in those areas.
Commissioner Naggar expressed support for neighboring projects in the region as it helps
his residents get to work. He stressed it is imperative that cities sit down with their
neighbors and find solutions to moving their residents between the cities.
Executive Director Anne Mayer read the statement provided from Commissioner Berkson
from Jurupa Valley, which requested the following projects be considered to be added to
the list: widening of Limonite from Bain to Beach, the widening of Van Buren Boulevard, and
two interchange projects on the 60: one at Rubidoux and one at Etiwanda.
Chair Harnik stated this is a representative list, not a specific list, as when things are too
specific things are left out and things are put in that go from pet projects to dogs. It is
imperative that the list is left flexible so the Commission can remain agile enough to respond
to the Community needs that are ever-changing.
Ms. Mayer summarized the comments received. First, there were no projects removed from
the list, and the projects added increased the list total from $8.8 billion in projects to $10.6
billion in projects. Second, the 30-year planning horizon was acceptable to the committee.
Third, the level of fiscal constraint seemed reasonable to the Committee. Last, investments
in the 60, 91 and 215 corridors were addressed as additional project requests by
Commissioners. Ms. Mayer stated additional direction that she heard was the importance
of establishing criteria for determining on how projects are included on the list and selected.
She asked the Committee if they felt they needed an additional meeting on November 25
to discuss the list and the Committee stated they did not need an additional meeting.
Chair Harnik requested the supervisorial districts that each project is locate in be included
on the list.
M/S/C (Speake/Smith) to approve the investments in projects and services to be included
in a draft Western Riverside County component of the Traffic Relief Plan.
The Committee then heard item 9 out of order.
11. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT
Ms. Mayer expressed her appreciation to the Commissioners for their many hours of work
and noted there are no current plans to hold a November 25 meeting.
Traffic Relief Strategy Committee – Special Meeting
November 13, 2019
Page 8
12. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Traffic Relief Strategy Committee,
the meeting was adjourned at 1:41 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Mobley
Clerk of the Board
AGENDA ITEM 7
Agenda Item 7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: February 24, 2020
TO: Traffic Relief Strategy Committee
FROM: Lisa Mobley, Clerk of the Board
Aaron Hake, External Affairs Director
THROUGH: John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT: Proposed Committee Meeting Schedule
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Traffic Relief Strategy Committee to approve a revised meeting schedule and
receive information on upcoming agenda items.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Traffic Relief Strategy Committee will meet five times in 2020 according to the schedule
adopted by the Committee on September 23, 2019.
At each meeting the Committee will review and provide input on aspects of the Draft Traffic
Relief Plan leading up to the May 21, 2020 Committee meeting when the Committee will vote on
a recommendation to the full Commission as to whether the final Traffic Relief Plan and an
implementing ordinance should be placed on the general election ballot.
Tentatively, the Committee will consider the following items at upcoming meetings:
TRS Meeting Date Tentative Items
February 24 UCR/Beacon Economic Impact Report – Phase 1
Public Engagement Dashboard, Trends & Themes
March 23 Draft Ordinance
UCR/Beacon Economic Impact Report – Phase 2
Public Engagement Dashboard, Trends & Themes
April 27 Draft Ordinance (if necessary)
Draft Final Traffic Relief Plan – Forward to 5/13/20 Commission
UCR/Beacon Final Economic Impact Report – Forward to 5/13/20 Commission
Public Engagement Dashboard, Trends & Themes
1
Agenda Item 7
May 21* Final Traffic Relief Plan – Forward to 6/10/20 Commission
Final Ordinance – Forward to 6/10/20 Commission
Tracking Survey Results – Forward to 6/10/20 Commission
Final Public Engagement Report – Forward to 6/10/20 Commission
*Note: The Committee’s adopted schedule calls for a meeting on May 21 due to the regularly
scheduled meeting falling on the Memorial Day holiday. However, the meeting time for the May
21 Committee meeting should have been noted as 1:30 p.m. This particular meeting is significant
because it is anticipated that the Committee will review the final Traffic Relief Plan, Ordinance,
survey results, public engagement report and make a recommendation to the Commission on
how to proceed.
Staff recommends approval of the revised meeting schedule.
Attachment: Revised Traffic Relief Strategy Committee Meeting Schedule
2
Traffic Relief Strategy Committee Meeting Schedule
TRAFFIC RELIEF STRATEGY COMMITTEE
MEETING SCHEDULE
Meeting Date Time Location
September 23, 2019 11:30 a.m. Board Room
October 28, 2019 11:30 a.m. Board Room
November 25, 2019 11:30 a.m. Board Room
January 27, 2020 11:30 a.m. Board Room
February 24, 2020 11:30 a.m. Board Room
March 23, 2020 11:30 a.m. Board Room
April 27, 2020 11:30 a.m. Board Room
May 21, 2020* 1:30 p.m.* Board Room
June 22, 2020 11:30 a.m. Board Room
*This meeting is being held on an alternate day and time due to it falling on a holiday.
3
AGENDA ITEM 8
Agenda Item 8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: February 24, 2020
TO: Traffic Relief Strategy Committee
FROM: Cheryl Donahue, Public Affairs Manager
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Draft Traffic Relief Plan Public Engagement Metrics
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Traffic Relief Strategy Committee to receive and file an update about the
Commission’s draft Traffic Relief Plan (Plan) public engagement metrics in Riverside County.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Commission approved its draft Traffic Relief Plan on January 8, 2020 and began soliciting
input from residents the following day about the Plan’s proposed projects and services. This
report covers January 9 to February 6, 2020.
The Commission will accept feedback from residents, business operators, and other Riverside
County stakeholders through June 10. Staff will provide similar metrics reports during the coming
months to keep committee members apprised of its public engagement efforts.
Staff is using a variety of outreach tools to direct community members to the project website,
TrafficReliefPlan.org, to read the draft Plan, view maps and fact sheets, and provide feedback
through an online survey. Current tools include email messaging, social media advertising, news
coverage, streaming audio, and presentations. Metrics for these tools are reflected in this report
and are summarized in a one-page graphic display. Future tools will include billboards,
tele-townhall meetings, community events, and postcard mailer; data for these will be shown in
future committee reports.
Draft Traffic Relief Plan Metrics: January 9 – February 6, 2020
The following is a numerical summary of the metrics for the draft Plan. Appendix A provides a
graphic display of these metrics.
1) Survey: The Commission has received 2,511 responses and 5,235 comments through its
online survey housed on the TrafficReliefPlan.org website. All responses and comments
will be compiled and reported to the Commission at the conclusion of the public
engagement period in June.
2) Website: The site has been visited 22,040 times by 20,248 unique visitors. Those who
visited spent an average of 61 seconds on the site.
4
Agenda Item 8
3) News Media: The Draft Traffic Relief Plan generated 22 instances of news coverage,
including stories in The Press-Enterprise, Desert Sun, Patch, Inland News Today,
iHeartRadio various editorials/letters to the editor.
4) Presentations: Commission staff made or is scheduled to make a total of 39 presentations
to elected officials, community organizations, and industry groups across Riverside
County.
5) The Point Subscriptions: The Commission publishes a monthly e-newsletter, The Point.
As part of the Traffic Relief Plan outreach effort, residents were encouraged to register to
receive the newsletter; 462 people subscribed by email and 338 subscribed by text
message.
6) Social Media: The Commission placed a series of targeted social media ads, including
some with videos.
a. On Facebook, there were 5,680 direct engagements, 2,049,084 impressions, and
a reach of 340,897. A total of 13,296 clicked on the ad to link to the website.
b. On Twitter, there were 451 direct engagements, 523,810 impressions, and 6,087
clicks.
c. On Instagram, there were 1,986 direct engagements, 915,306 impressions, a
reach of 217,452, and 1,288 clicks.
7) Streaming Audio: The Commission placed advertisements on Pandora streaming radio,
which generated 940,247 impressions, a reach of 122,972, and 365 clicks.
Appendix A: Graphic Display, Program Metrics
5
Agenda Item 8
APPENDIX A
6
TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT METRICS
Report 1: January 9 –February 6, 2020
Traffic Relief Strategy Committee
February 24, 2020
Cheryl Donahue, Public Affairs Manager
1
Current Feedback Tools
2
•TrafficReliefPlan.org, online survey
•Social media, digital advertising
•News coverage
•Presentations/briefings
Website & survey
3
Digital advertising
4
Totals Clicks Direct Engagements Impressions Reach
21,036 8,117 4,428,447 418,778
News Coverage
5
6
Other engagement
•37 community presentations –
completed and scheduled
•800 sign-ups for The Point –
462 by email, 338 by text
7
Future feedback tools
Following Commission-approved plan and budget
•Significant television/radio advertisements
•Tele -townhall meetings
•Billboards
•Community events
QUESTIONS
8
AGENDA ITEM 9
Agenda Item 9
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: February 24, 2020
TO: Traffic Relief Strategy Committee
FROM Matt Wallace, Procurement Manager
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Traffic Relief Plan – Economic Impact Study – Phase 1
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to receive and file Phase 1 of the Economic Impact Study (Study)
related to the draft Traffic Relief Plan (Plan).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At its November 13, 2019 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 20-19-012-00 with
the University of California, Riverside (UCR) School of Business, Center for Economic Forecasting
& Development (UCR Center) to perform an economic impacts analysis related to the investment
of an additional sales tax for transportation improvements in Riverside County.
UCR Center’s Study is comprised of four phases and is intended to provide Commissioners with
data upon which to base decisions about the contents of the Plan and whether it should be
funded through a sales tax ordinance submitted to voters. The Study considers not only the
potential benefits of investing public funds on infrastructure, but also the costs of raising a tax to
provide that investment. The four phases of the analysis include:
• Phase 1: Modeling the cumulative and project specific economic impacts (output,
employment, compensation, and revenues) on the local Riverside economy from direct
expenditures of major capital transportation projects and programmatic expenditure
categories. Staff provided estimates of recent projects to the UCR Center to model the
expenditure assessments. The examples analyzed by the UCR Center will reflect potential
projects and expenditure categories evaluated by the Commission in the development of
the Plan. Every project in the Plan cannot be analyzed due to time and cost constraints;
however, the analysis will provide illustrative data;
• Phase 2: Analyzing the longer-term community impacts from infrastructure
improvements, including development patterns, housing types, employment mix, transit
accessibility, percentage of trips by non-car modes of transportation, and vehicle miles
traveled per household. This is the analysis that speaks to the Commission’s desire to use
transportation investment as a long-term economic development tool;
• Phase 3: Analyzing the impact on consumers and businesses of raising the sales tax; and
7
Agenda Item 9
• Phase 4: Providing public information of the results and findings through public
presentations and/or facilitated discussions to the Commission, other government
agencies, community organizations, and the media.
On January 8, the Commission approved the draft Plan for public circulation and comment
through June 10, 2020. This staff report focuses on Phase 1 of the Study, and staff will be
presenting subsequent phases of the Study to this committee in the upcoming months. Staff
anticipates presented the complete Study report to the Commission in May.
SUMMARY:
The economic impact measured in Phase 1 indicates that construction resulting from additional
transportation funding would benefit the Riverside County economy. Revenue from raising the
Riverside County sales tax is projected to total $8.58 billion (real 2020 dollars) from Fiscal Year
2021/22 through 2050/51. The UCR Center calculates that $8.58 billion in tax revenues would
support $7.69 billion in construction, engineering and design spending in Riverside County. The
$7.69 billion in construction-related spending would multiply as it moved through the Riverside
County economy, generating a larger economic impact than the initial spending. After analyzing
projected construction, engineering and design spending, the UCR Center found that the
construction spending would generate $10.95 billion in economic output and support 59,710 jobs
(full and part time) and $3.47 billion in labor income in Riverside County.
• Of the $10.95 billion in economic output generated in Riverside County, $7.69 billion
would represent direct spending, and $3.26 billion would represent secondary spending
by businesses and workers down the supply chain.
• Of the 59,710 jobs supported in Riverside County, 38,040 would represent jobs directly
supported by transportation infrastructure spending, and 21,670 would be supported
through secondary spending by businesses and workers down the supply chain.
• Of the $3.47 billion in labor income generated in Riverside County, $2.46 billion would
represent wages directly supported by transportation infrastructure spending, and
$1.01 billion would come from businesses and workers down the supply chain.
UCR Center representatives will make a presentation at the Committee meeting and address the
economic impact findings.
Attachment: Draft Phase 1 Modeling the Economic and Fiscal Impact Report
8
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Phase 1 | Modeling the Economic and Fiscal Impact
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Phase 1 | Modeling the Economic and Fiscal Impact DRAFT9
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Phase 1 | Modeling the Economic and Fiscal Impact
2
CONTENTS
I.Executive Summary
II.Projected Transportation Spending
III.Economic and Fiscal Impact of Transportation Relief Plan
Investment
IV.Appendix
CONTACT INFORMATION
UC Riverside Center for Economic Forecasting & Development
Phone: +1 424 646 4656
900 University Ave
Riverside, CA 92521
ucreconomicforecast.org
Copyright 2020 by UC Riverside Center for Economic Forecasting & Development
All Rights Reserved DRAFT10
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Phase 1 | Modeling the Economic and Fiscal Impact
3
PREFACE
The following report represents Phase 1 of a multiphasal engagement between the UCR Center
for Economic Forecasting and Development and the Riverside County Transportation
Commission. Phase 1 estimates the economic and fiscal impact of major capital investments
and programmatic spending associated with the transportation improvement plan.
Phase 2 analyses the community impacts and longer term benefits to the region. Where Phase
1 estimates the impacts of infrastructure spending -- transportation improvements can also
stimulate land development, increase local business formation and activity, and generate
longer fiscal benefits. Phase 3 of the engagement will evaluate the likely impact of an add-on
sales tax for consumers and businesses in Riverside County with a particular emphasis on the
distributional effects of such a tax on the region’s residents.
The full report will be finalized in May 2020. DRAFT11
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Phase 1 | Modeling the Economic and Fiscal Impact
4
PHASE 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
It is essential for a region as large as Riverside County to have a robust transportation system.
Slow traffic can hinder economic vitality, impinging on the productivity of the County’s
population and businesses. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is
reviewing plans for major transport and highway infrastructure projects in Riverside County.
These sorts of transport upgrades generate strong local and regional economic benefits and
improve inter- and intra-County travel for both commuters and visitors.
Residents and County stakeholders understand that the status quo is not a long-term solution
to the region’s transportation needs. In this analysis, the UC Riverside School of Business Center
for Economic Forecasting and Development (“the Center”) estimates the economic benefits
that could reasonably be expected to result from the proposed transport infrastructure
improvements in Riverside County, funded by a half-cent-on-the-dollar increase in the County
sales tax.
The total economic impacts consist of the one-time increases in output, employment and labor
income in Riverside County associated with the infrastructure construction. All of the
construction projects are in Riverside County, and the impacts are estimated for Riverside
County.
Key Findings:
Revenue from raising the County sales tax is projected to total $8.58 billion (real 2020 dollars)
from fiscal year 2021-22 through 2050-51. This $8.58 billion would support $7.69 billion in
construction, engineering and design spending in Riverside County. The $7.69 billion in
spending would
•Generate $10.95 billion in economic output in Riverside County
•Support 59,710 jobs in Riverside County
•Generate $3.47 billion in labor income in Riverside County
Tax revenue generated by the infrastructure construction in Riverside County would be $1.13
billion, including $702.2 million in federal taxes and $423.2 million in state and local taxes. DRAFT12
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Phase 1 | Modeling the Economic and Fiscal Impact
5
PROJECTED TRANSPORTATION SPENDING
Spending Estimates by Prototype Projects
RCTC provided the Center with nine prototypes as sample projects that transportation funding
could support. These include local interchanges, highways, grade separations, regional arterials,
rail and bike trails. Transportation funding will also support transit-oriented projects in Riverside
County. Spending was categorized by construction, engineering/design and right of way. The
total for each prototype is detailed below.
Table 1.0: Historic Transportation Spending by Type
Prototype Expenditures ($ Millions)
Project Type Construction Engineering
and Design
Right of
Way Total Net Total1
I-15 Railroad Canyon Local
Interchanges 40.9 6.5 1.7 49.1 47.4
I-15 Limonite Ave. Local
Interchanges 48.4 5.5 13.9 67.8 53.9
I-15 French Valley (Phase 2) Highways 101.4 20.7 15.1 137.2 122.2
I-15 Express Lanes - Southern Extension Highways 470.0 66.0 8.0 544.0 536.0
SR-79 Realignment (all segments) Highways 898.5 112.9 280.3 1,291.7 1,011.3
Magnolia Grade
Separation 45.4 4.3 1.9 51.6 49.7
Clinton-Keith Regional
Arterial 79.2 9.6 12.2 101.0 88.8
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail
Corridor Rail 853.9 116.4 0.0 970.3 970.3
Whitewater Bike Trail Trails 3.0 0.2 0.0 3.2 3.2
Source: RCTC
Note: Totals may not be exact due to rounding
Projected Revenue From Sales Tax Measure
Revenue from raising the County sales tax by a half-cent on the dollar would total an estimated
$8.58 billion (real 2020 dollars) from 2022 through 2051.
Projected Total Spending From Sales Tax Measure
Based on the prototypes and the projected revenue from raising the County sales tax, the
Center projects $7.69 billion would become available for construction, engineering and design
in Riverside County. These funds were allocated to construction, engineering/design and right of
way based on historic transportation infrastructure prototype expenditures provided by RCTC.
1 Net total includes Construction and Engineering/Design, and excludes Right of Way fees. Right of Way was excluded from the economic impact
analysis because Right of Way largely consist of land purchases, which do not have any economic impact.DRAFT13
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Phase 1 | Modeling the Economic and Fiscal Impact
6
Table 2.0: Estimated Total Traffic Relief Plan Spending2
Projected Spending Summary ($ Billions)
Source Construction Engineering
and Design Right of Way Total Spending Net
Spending3
Projected 6.78 0.91 0.89 8.58 7.69
Sources: UCR Center, RCTC
2 FY 2021-22 through 2050-51.
3 Net spending includes Construction and Engineering/Design, and excludes Right of Way fees. Right of Way was excluded from the economic
impact analysis because Right of Way largely consist of land purchases, which do not have any economic impact. DRAFT14
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Phase 1 | Modeling the Economic and Fiscal Impact
7
METHODOLOGY
Impact studies assume any increases in spending will have three effects. First, a direct effect
from the expenditures on goods or services in the industry itself. Second, indirect effects from
local industries buying goods and services from other local industries (these purchases are also
known as intermediate expenditures). And third, induced effects arise when labor income
increases and household spending rises. These impacts follow from the additional income
earned in producing this output, both by employees in the target industry and by those
supplying it. Using the IMPLAN modeling system, the Center estimates the direct, indirect and
induced economic impact of the construction of the transportation infrastructure in Riverside
County.
FIGURE 1.0: OVERVIEW OF RCTC INPUT-OUTPUT ANALYSIS
Tax Revenue
Construction,
Engineering,
and Design
Employee
Compensation
Household
Expenditures
Purchases of
Goods and
Servives
Business-to-
Business
Spending
Household
Expenditures
Total
Economic
Impacts
Direct Impacts
Indirect Impacts
Induced Impacts
Total ImpactsDRAFT
15
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Phase 1 | Modeling the Economic and Fiscal Impact
8
ECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACT OF TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN
INVESTMENT
The construction supported by the additional transportation funding would be a significant
benefit to the economy of Riverside County. The $7.69 billion in construction, engineering and
design costs would multiply as it moved through the Riverside County economy, generating a
far larger economic impact than the initial spending. After analyzing projected construction,
engineering and design spending, the Center found that the infrastructure spending would
generate a one-time increase of $10.95 billion in economic output and support 59,710 jobs (full
and part time) and $3.47 billion in labor income in Riverside County.
• Of the $10.95 billion in economic output generated in Riverside County, $7.69 billion
would represent direct spending, and $3.26 billion would represent secondary
spending by businesses and workers down the supply chain.
• Of the 59,710 jobs supported in Riverside County, 38,040 would represent jobs directly
supported by transportation infrastructure spending, and 21,670 would be supported
through secondary spending by businesses and workers down the supply chain.
• Of the $3.47 billion in labor income generated in Riverside County, $2.46 billion would
represent wages directly supported by transportation infrastructure spending, and $1.01
billion would come from businesses and workers down the supply chain.
Table 3.0: Estimated Total Economic Impact
Economic Impact Summary
Impact Output
($ Billions) Employment Labor Income
($ Billions)
Direct 7.69 38,040 2.46
Indirect 1.61 9,920 0.51
Induced 1.65 11,750 0.50
Total 10.95 59,710 3.47
Sources: UCR Center, RCTC, IMPLAN
Note: Totals may not be exact due to rounding
The economic benefits highlighted above are one-time effects and are thus temporary in
nature. However, because these projects will take place over several decades the projects
supported by the transportation funding would, in effect, be able to support permanent
positions in Riverside County. Indeed, because of the long-term impacts from the
transportation funding, local businesses are likely to grow and accommodate the demand that
is created by the additional transportation funding. This will in-turn lead to hiring of local
workers, who will then spend their earnings on housing, medical care, restaurants, and stores in
Riverside County.
The Riverside County transportation projects would generate significant state, local and federal
tax revenue. Income taxes would be collected on the earnings of workers, both direct and
indirect, as would unemployment insurance and disability insurance taxes. Sales taxes would be DRAFT16
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Phase 1 | Modeling the Economic and Fiscal Impact
9
generated on the purchases of materials by the construction contractors and of goods and
services by all the workers whose earnings would be sustained by the transportation projects.
Table 4.0: Estimated Fiscal Impact Summary
Fiscal Impact by Source and Type ($ Millions)
Type Local State Federal Total
Income Tax4 0.0 106.8 288.8 395.6
Sales Taxes5 27.9 96.5 N/A 124.5
Property Tax6 118.5 4.8 N/A 123.3
Social Insurance7 0.0 14.9 348.6 363.5
Corporate Profits8 0.0 23.6 46.3 69.9
Other Taxes 14.0 16.1 18.5 48.6
Total 160.5 262.7 702.2 1,125.4
Sources: UCR Center, RCTC, IMPLAN
Note: Totals may not be exact due to rounding
Tax revenue generated by the infrastructure construction in Riverside County would total $1.13
billion, including $702.2 million in federal taxes and $262.7 million in state taxes, and $160.5
million local taxes.
4 Alternative Minimum, capital gain, dividend, income, individual income, interest income, Kiddie Tax (Tax on a Child's Investment and Other
Unearned Income), personal income, rental income, wage income, withholding.
5 Includes Alcohol, amusement, bed, cigarettes, consumption, fuel, gasoline, general sales, gross receipts, local general, liquor, luxury, meals,
occupancy, recycling, sin tax, state general, sewer, ticket, tobacco, transfer, occupancy, resort, sin, use, utilities, waste management, value added
(VAT).
6 Includes Boats, business personal property, intangible property, machinery and equipment, property, real estate, school.
7 Includes Disability, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Unemployment, and other taxes paid at the place of employment.
8 Includes Corporate profits tax, corporate income tax, private enterprise tax, profits tax DRAFT17
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Phase 1 | Modeling the Economic and Fiscal Impact
10
ECONOMIC IMPACT BY INDUSTRY
The economic impacts for output, employment and labor income in Riverside County would be
generated across a wide range of industries. These consist of the jobs that are directly
supported by the construction and the economic activity from businesses and workers down
the supply chain. The table below lists the top 25 industries that would be impacted by the
infrastructure projects.
Table 5.0: Estimated Economic Impact by Industry
Economic Impact by Industry
Industry Output
($ Millions) Employment Labor Income
($ Millions)
Construction of highways and streets 6,781.2 32,587 2,087.3
Architectural, engineering and related services 983.4 5,872 406.2
Owner-occupied dwellings 316.5 0 0.0
Other real estate 195.4 1,026 23.7
Commercial and industrial machinery and equip. rental and
leasing 166.2 567 33.9
Wholesale - Other durable goods merchant wholesalers 134.9 594 39.2
Truck transportation 123.4 680 57.4
Employment services 107.5 1,185 40.1
Wholesale - Petroleum and petroleum products 83.5 36 3.7
Hospitals 77.4 399 36.9
Wholesale - Household appliances and electronic goods 72.8 167 13.3
Other local government enterprises 72.5 240 22.7
Limited-service restaurants 71.1 880 21.6
Full-service restaurants 58.6 802 23.6
Monetary authorities and depository credit intermediation 54.2 147 10.4
Offices of physicians 52.5 310 27.7
Retail - Building material and garden equip. and supplies 49.5 398 16.9
Automotive repair and maintenance, except carwashes 48.7 455 29.7
Legal services 38.4 252 13.0
Asphalt paving mixture and block manufacturing 37.8 43 6.6
Accounting, tax preparation, bookkeeping and payroll services 35.4 389 15.0
Wholesale - Other nondurable goods merchant wholesalers 33.5 115 6.7
Retail - General merchandise stores 30.7 376 12.4
Commercial and ind. machinery and equip. repair and
maintenance 29.7 207 16.6
Retail - Food and beverage 28.9 327 13.4
Other industries 1,268.4 11,655 494.1 DRAFT18
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Phase 1 | Modeling the Economic and Fiscal Impact
11
Total All Industries 10,952.1 59,709 3,472.1
Sources: UCR Center, RCTC, IMPLAN
Note: Totals may not be exact due to rounding
Unsurprisingly, much of the impact would be in the construction sector, particularly the
construction of highways and streets. Indeed, road construction would account for over 60% of
the economic output generated and over half of the jobs supported by the projects.
Engineering and design would also get a sizable boost in economic output and employment
levels from the projects. Other industries with big gains include real estate, health care, retail
trade, wholesale trade and restaurants. Each of these industries would gain output and jobs as
the effects of the increased construction move through the Riverside County economy.
DRAFT19
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Phase 1 | Modeling the Economic and Fiscal Impact
12
ECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACT BY PROJECT TYPE
The economic activity in Riverside County generated by the transportation infrastructure
prototypes:
Table 6.0: Economic Impact by Project Type9
Economic Impact by Project Type
Project Net Spending
($ Millions)
Output
($ Millions) Jobs
Labor
Income ($
Millions)
Local Interchanges 101.3 144.3 786 45.7
Highways 1,669.5 2,376.7 12,961 753.7
Grade Separations 49.7 70.4 380 22.1
Regional Arterials 88.8 126.2 685 39.9
Rail 970.3 1,381.4 7,535 438.1
Trails 3.2 4.5 24 1.4
Sources: UCR Center, RCTC, IMPLAN
Note: Totals may not be exact due to rounding
The fiscal impacts generated in Riverside County by the transportation infrastructure
prototypes:
Table 7.0: Economic Impact per $1 Million in Total Spending by Project Type
Economic Impact per $1 Million in Total Spending by Project Type
Project Output
($) Jobs Labor Income
($)
Local Interchanges 1,233,690 6.7 391,102
Highways 1,204,658 6.6 382,006
Grade Separations 1,363,173 7.4 428,176
Regional Arterials 1,248,775 6.8 394,719
Rail 1,423,665 7.8 451,508
Trails 1,406,076 7.5 439,854
Transit 1,642,577 31.2 689,281
Sources: UCR Center, RCTC, IMPLAN
Note: Totals may not be exact due to rounding
9 In order to conservatively estimate future project-type expenditures the Center utilized recent spending profiles for the following projects: (1)
Local Interchanges: 1-15 Railroad Canyon, 1-15 Limonite Ave.; (2) Highways: 1-15 French Valley (Phase 2). I-15 Express Lanes – Southern Extension, SR-
79 Realignment (all segments), (3) Grade Separations: Magnolia; (4) Regional Arterials: Clinton-Keith; (5) Rail: Coachella Valley- San Gorgonio Pass
Rail Corridor; (6) Trails: Whitewater Bike Trail. DRAFT20
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Phase 1 | Modeling the Economic and Fiscal Impact
13
Table 8.0: Estimated Fiscal Impact by Project Type
Fiscal Impact by Project ($ Millions)
Project Local State Federal Total
Local Interchanges 2.1 3.5 9.2 14.8
Highways 34.8 57.0 152.4 244.2
Grade Separations 1.0 1.7 4.5 7.2
Regional Arterials 1.9 3.0 8.1 12.9
Rail 20.2 33.1 88.6 142.0
Trails 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5
Sources: UCR Center, RCTC, IMPLAN
Note: Totals may not be exact due to rounding
DRAFT21
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Phase 1 | Modeling the Economic and Fiscal Impact
14
APPENDIX
Input-Output Methodology and IMPLAN
This report is based on an economic analysis technique known as input-output (I-O) analysis,
which is a means of examining interindustry relationships in an economy. In essence, I-O
analysis captures all monetary market transactions among industries in a given period, within a
specified region. The results of the analysis allow for examinations of the effects of a change in
one or several economic activities on an entire economy.
IMPLAN expands upon the traditional I-O approach to include transactions among industries
and institutions, and among institutions themselves, thereby capturing all monetary market
transactions in a given period. This specific report uses the IMPLAN V3 model. For more
information on the IMPLAN modeling process, visit IMPLAN.com.
Although IMPLAN provides an excellent framework for conducting impact analysis, the Center
takes nothing for granted. For each economic impact analysis it conducts, the Center carefully
leverages its decades of experience to adapt the model to the project at hand. Procedures and
assumptions are thoroughly and systematically inspected for validity and project
appropriateness before any analysis is performed.
Glossary
Direct Effects/Impacts: The set of expenditures made by the producers and/or consumers of an
event, activity or policy. These expenditures are applied to the industry multipliers in an IMPLAN
model, which result in further, secondary expenditures (known as the indirect and induced
effects).
Expenditures: The amount paid for goods or services.
Indirect Effects/Impacts: The set of expenditures made by local industries on goods and services
from other local industries as a result of the direct effects. This cycle of spending works its way
backward through the supply chain until all money “leaks” from the local economy.
Induced Effects/Impacts: The set of expenditures made by local households on local goods and
services as a result of increased labor income generated by the direct and indirect effects.
Input-Output Analysis: A type of applied economic analysis that tracks the interdependence
among various producing and consuming sectors of an economy.
Jobs (Employment): A job in IMPLAN is equal to the annual average of monthly jobs in that
industry (this is the definition used by the Bureau of Labor Statistic and the Bureau of Economic
Analysis, federal statistical agencies that provide authoritative U.S. economic data). Thus, one job
lasting 12 months is equal to two jobs lasting six months each, which is equal to three jobs
lasting four months each. A job can be either full or part time.
Labor Income: All forms of employment income, including employee compensation (wages
and benefits) and proprietor income.
DRAFT22
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Phase 1 | Modeling the Economic and Fiscal Impact
15
Leakages: Expenditures, income, resources or capital outside the region of study. Because
leakages do not affect local industries, they are not included in the economic impact results.
Multiplier Effect: In simple terms, the phenomenon of final increased spending resulting from
some initial amount of spending.
Output: The value of industry production. In IMPLAN, these are annual production estimates for
the year of the data set and are in producer prices. For manufacturers, this is sales plus/minus
change in inventory. For service sectors, production is equal to sales. For retail and wholesale
trade, output is equal to gross margin (not gross sales).
Total Effect/Impact: The entire economic impact of an event, activity or policy, found by
combining the direct, indirect and induced impacts.
Fiscal Impact: Tax revenue generated at the federal, state and local level. These expenditures
are included in the total impact as government expenditures. DRAFT23
UCR Center for Economic Forecasting and Development | ucreconomicforecast.org
Robert Kleinhenz, Ph.D.
Executive Director of Research
UCR School of Business Center for Economic Forecasting and Development
Beacon Economics LLC
Adam J. Fowler
Director of Research, UCR School of Business Center for Economic
Forecasting and Development
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Phase 1: Modeling the Economic and Fiscal Impact
UCR Center for Economic Forecasting & Development
Key Findings
Background
Methodology
Economic and Fiscal Impact
Economic and Fiscal Impact by Project Type
Appendix
Outline
UCR Center for Economic Forecasting & Development
Revenue from the County sales tax is projected to total $8.58 billion from fiscal
year 2021-22 through 2050-2051
This amount would support $7.69 billion in construction, engineering and design
spending in Riverside County
Economic and Fiscal Impacts
In Riverside County, this spending would:
—Generate $10.95 billion in economic output
—Support 59,710 jobs
—Generate $3.47 billion in labor income
—Generate $1.13 billion in tax revenue
Key Findings
UCR Center for Economic Forecasting & Development
Background
UCR Center for Economic Forecasting & Development
Historic Transportation Spending by Type
Source: RCTC
Project Type Construction Engineering
and Design
Right of
Way Total Net
Total*
I-15 Railroad Canyon Local Interchanges 40.9 6.5 1.7 49.1 47.4
I-15 Limonite Ave.Local Interchanges 48.4 5.5 13.9 67.8 53.9
I-15 French Valley (Phase 2)Highways 101.4 20.7 15.1 137.2 122.2
I-15 Express Lanes –Southern Expansion Highways 470.0 66.0 8.0 544.0 536.0
SR-79 Realignment (all segments)Highways 898.5 112.9 280.3 1,291.7 1,011.3
Magnolia Grade Separation 45.4 4.3 1.9 51.6 49.7
Clinton-Keith Regional Arterial 79.2 9.6 12.2 101.0 88.8
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Rail 853.9 116.4 0.0 970.3 970.3
Whitewater Bike Trail Trail 3.0 0.2 0.0 3.2 3.2
Note: Totals may not be exact due to rounding
*ROW not included
Prototype Expenditures ($ Millions)
UCR Center for Economic Forecasting & Development
Revenue from raising the County sales tax by a half-cent on the dollar would
total an estimated $8.58 billion from 2022 through 2051
Based on prototypes and the projected revenue from raising the County sales
tax, the Center projects $7.69 billion would become available for construction,
engineering and design in Riverside County
Estimated Total Traffic Relief Plan Spending
FY 2021-22 through 2050-51
Sources: UCR Center, RCTC
Source Construction Engineering and
Design Right of Way Total Spending Net Spending*
Projected 6.78 0.91 0.89 8.58 7.69
Note: Totals may not be exact due to rounding
*ROW not included
Projected Spending Summary ($ Billions)
UCR Center for Economic Forecasting & Development
Methodology
UCR Center for Economic Forecasting & Development
Methodology
Impact studies assume any increase in spending will have three effects. First, a direct effect from the expenditures on goods or services in the industry itself. Second, indirect effects from local industries buying goods and services from other local industries (also known as intermediate expenditures or business-to-business spending). And third, induced effects arise when labor income increases and household spending rises. These impacts follow from the additional income earned in producing this output, both by employees in the target industry and by those supplying it.
Using the IMPLAN modeling system, the Center estimates the direct, indirect and induced economic impact of the construction of the transportation infrastructure in Riverside County
UCR Center for Economic Forecasting & Development
Economic and Fiscal Impact
UCR Center for Economic Forecasting & Development
The construction supported by the additional transportation funding would:
—generate a one-time increase of $10.95 billion in economic output
—support 59,710 jobs (full time and part time)
—generate $3.47 billion in labor income in Riverside County.
Riverside County Economic Impact Summary
UCR Center for Economic Forecasting & Development
The construction supported by the additional transportation funding would
generate a one-time increase of $10.95 billion in total economic output in
Riverside County, which includes $7.69 billion resulting from direct spending,
and $3.26 billion from secondary spending by businesses and workers down
the supply chain.
Riverside County Economic Impact
Sources: UCR Center, RCTC, IMPLAN
Impact Type Output ($ Billions)Employment Labor Income
($ Billions)
Direct Effect 7.69 38,040 2.46
Indirect Effect 1.61 9,920 0.51
Induced Effect 1.65 11,750 0.50
Total Effect 10.95 59,710 3.47
Note: Totals may not be exact due to rounding
UCR Center for Economic Forecasting & Development
The construction supported by the additional transportation funding would
support 59,710 jobs in Riverside County, which includes 38,040 jobs resulting
from direct spending, and 21,670 jobs from secondary spending by businesses
and workers down the supply chain.
Riverside County Economic Impact
Sources: UCR Center, RCTC, IMPLAN
Impact Type Output ($ Billions)Employment Labor Income
($ Billions)
Direct Effect 7.69 38,040 2.46
Indirect Effect 1.61 9,920 0.51
Induced Effect 1.65 11,750 0.50
Total Effect 10.95 59,710 3.47
Note: Totals may not be exact due to rounding
UCR Center for Economic Forecasting & Development
The construction supported by the additional transportation funding would
generate $3.47 billion in labor income in Riverside County, which includes $2.46
billion resulting from direct spending, and $1.01 billion from secondary
spending by businesses and workers down the supply chain.
Riverside County Economic Impact
Sources: UCR Center, RCTC, IMPLAN
Impact Type Output ($ Billions)Employment Labor Income
($ Billions)
Direct Effect 7.69 38,040 2.46
Indirect Effect 1.61 9,920 0.51
Induced Effect 1.65 11,750 0.50
Total Effect 10.95 59,710 3.47
Note: Totals may not be exact due to rounding
UCR Center for Economic Forecasting & Development
Type*Local ($ Millions)State ($ Millions)Federal ($ Millions)Total ($ Millions)
Income Tax 0.0 106.8 288.8 395.6
Sales Taxes 27.9 96.5 N/A 124.5
Property Tax 118.5 4.8 N/A 123.3
Social Insurance 0.0 14.9 348.6 363.5
Corporate Profits 0.0 23.6 46.3 69.9
Other Taxes 14.0 16.1 18.5 48.6
Total 160.5 262.7 702.2 1,125.4
Riverside County Fiscal Impact
Sources: UCR Center, RCTC, IMPLAN
Tax revenue generated by the infrastructure construction in Riverside County
would total $1.13 billion, including $702.2 million in federal taxes, $262.7
million in state taxes, and $160.5 million in local taxes.
Note: Totals may not be exact due to rounding
*Please see appendix for information on tax types
UCR Center for Economic Forecasting & Development
Economic Impact by Industry –Top 10 Industries
Sources: UCR Center, RCTC, IMPLAN
Industry Output
($ Millions)Emp.Labor Income
($ Millions)
Construction of highways and streets 6,781.2 32,587 2,087.3
Architectural, engineering & related services 983.4 5,872 406.2
Owner-occupied dwellings 316.5 0 0.0
Other real estate 195.4 1,026 23.7
Commercial & industrial machinery & equip. rental 166.2 567 33.9
Wholesale –Other durable goods merchant wholesalers 134.9 594 39.2
Truck transportation 123.4 680 57.4
Employment services 107.5 1,185 40.1
Wholesale –Petroleum & petroleum products 83.5 36 3.7
Hospitals 77.4 399 36.9
Note: Totals may not be exact due to rounding
UCR Center for Economic Forecasting & Development
Much of the impact would be in the construction sector, particularly the
construction of highways and streets.
—Road construction would account for over 60% of the economic output generated and over
half of jobs supported by the projects.
Engineering and design would also get a sizable boost in economic output and
employment levels from projects
Other industries with big gains include real estate, health care, retail trade,
wholesale trade and restaurants
Each of these industries would gain output and jobs as the effects of the
increased construction move through the Riverside County economy.
Economic Impact by Industry
UCR Center for Economic Forecasting & Development
Economic and Fiscal Impact by Project
Type
UCR Center for Economic Forecasting & Development
Project Net Spending
($ Millions)Output ($ Millions)Jobs Labor Income
($ Millions)
Local Interchanges 101.3 144.3 786 45.7
Highways 1,669.5 2,376.7 12,961 753.7
Grade Separations 49.7 70.4 380 22.1
Regional Arterials 88.8 126.2 685 39.9
Rail 970.3 1,381.4 7,535 438.1
Trails 3.2 4.5 24 1.4
Economic Impact by Project Type
Sources: UCR Center, RCTC, IMPLAN
Note: Totals may not be exact due to rounding
UCR Center for Economic Forecasting & Development
Economic Impact per $1 Million in Total
Spending by Project Type
Project Output ($)Jobs Labor Income ($)
Local Interchanges 1,233,690 6.7 391,102
Highways 1,204,658 6.6 382,006
Grade Separations 1,363,173 7.4 428,176
Regional Arterials 1,248,775 6.8 394,719
Rail 1,423,665 7.8 451,508
Trails 1,406,076 7.5 439,854
Transit 1,642,577 31.2 689,281
Note: Totals may not be exact due to rounding
Sources: UCR Center, RCTC, IMPLAN
UCR Center for Economic Forecasting & Development
Fiscal Impact by Project Type
Project Local ($ Millions)State ($ Millions)Federal ($ Millions)Total ($ Millions)
Local Interchanges 2.1 3.5 9.2 14.8
Highways 34.8 57.0 152.4 244.2
Grade Separations 1.0 1.7 4.5 7.2
Regional Arterials 1.9 3.0 8.1 12.9
Rail 20.2 33.1 88.6 142.0
Trails 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5
Note: Totals may not be exact due to rounding
Sources: UCR Center, RCTC, IMPLAN
UCR Center for Economic Forecasting & Development
Appendix
UCR Center for Economic Forecasting & Development
Income Tax: Alternative Minimum, capital gain, dividend, income, individual income, interest income, Kiddie Tax (Tax on a Child's Investment and Other Unearned Income), personal income, rental income, wage income, withholding.
Sales Tax: Includes Alcohol, amusement, bed, cigarettes, consumption, fuel, gasoline, general sales, gross receipts, local general, liquor, luxury, meals, occupancy, recycling, sin tax, state general, sewer, ticket, tobacco, transfer, occupancy, resort, sin, use, utilities, waste management, value added (VAT).
Property Tax: Includes Boats, business personal property, intangible property, machinery and equipment, property, real estate, school.
Social Insurance: Includes Disability, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Unemployment, and other taxes paid at the place of employment.
Corporate Profits: Includes Corporate profits tax, corporate income tax, private enterprise tax, profits tax
Glossary -Taxes
UCR Center for Economic Forecasting & Development
The UC Riverside School of Business Center for Economic Forecasting and
Development is the first world-class university forecasting center located in Inland
Southern California and represents a major initiative for economic research and
collaboration in one of the state’s most vital growth regions. The Center draws
from the business expertise, public policy experience, and deep academic training
of its seasoned economists to conduct path breaking research on the regional,
state, and national economies—producing economic forecasts, public policy
analysis, and economic impact studies for institutions, events, and public and
private investments.
UCR Center for Economic Forecasting and
Development
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TRAFFIC RELIEF STRATEGY COMMITTEE SIGN -IN SHEET
FEBRUARY 24, 2020
NAME
6 co-tr \L,3
j4t.N. I
AGENCY
r<iiv
04,1'IA-05P-1
-
E_MAIL ADDRESS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TRAFFIC RELIEF STRATEGY COMMITTEE
ROLL CALL
FEBRUARY 24, 2020
Present Absent
County of Riverside, District IV 0 0
City of Calimesa 25 0
City of Corona 0 0
City of Desert Hot Springs .21 0
City of Hemet 71. 0
City of Indian Wells 0 0
City of Jurupa Valley 0 0
City of Murrieta fii 0
City of Palm Desert 0 0
City of Temecula 0 0
Tara Byerly
From: Tara Byerly
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 6:58 AM
To: Tara Byerly
Cc: Lisa Mobley; Anne Mayer; John Standiford
Subject: RCTC: Traffic Relief Strategy Committee Agenda - February 24, 2020
Good morning Committee Members:
Attached is the link to the Traffic Relief Strategy Committee Agenda for the meeting scheduled @ 11:30 a.m. on
Monday, February 24.
https://www. rctc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/February-TRS-Agenda.pdf
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.
Respectfully,
Tara Byerly
Deputy Clerk of the Board
Riverside County Transportation Commission
951.787.7141 W 951.787.7906 F
4080 Lemon St. 3rd Fl. I P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502
rctc.org
f V in 0
1