Loading...
02 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