HomeMy Public PortalAbout09 September 28, 2020 Western Riverside County Programs and ProjectsTime:
Date:
MEETING AGENDA
Western Riverside County Programs and
Projects Committee
1:30 p.m.
September 28, 2020
Pursuant to Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20, (March 18, 2020), the meeting
will only be conducted via video conferencing and by telephone.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Michael Vargas, Chair/Rita Rogers, City of Perris
Clint Lorimore, Vice Chair /Todd Rigby, City of Eastvale
Wes Speake/Jim Steiner, City of Corona
Brian Berkson/Chris Barajas, City of Jurupa Valley
Bill Zimmerman/Dean Deines, City of Menifee
Yxstian Gutierrez/Carla Thornton, City of Moreno Valley
Scott Vinton/Christi White, City of Murrieta
Berwin Hanna/Ted Hoffman, City of Norco
Andrew Kotyuk/Russ Utz, City of San Jacinto
Ben J. Benoit/Joseph Morabito, City of Wildomar
Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside, District I
Jeff Hewitt, County of Riverside, District V
STAFF
Anne Mayer, Executive Director
John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director
AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY
Air Quality, Capital Projects, Communications and
Outreach Programs, Intermodal Programs, Motorist
Services, New Corridors, Regional Agencies/Regional
Planning, Regional Transportation Improvement Program
(RTIP), Specific Transit Projects, State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP)
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
Program, and Provide Policy Direction on
Transportation Programs and Projects related to
Western Riverside County and other areas as may
be prescribed by the Commission.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE
www.rctc.org
AGENDA*
*Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda
1:30 p.m.
Monday, September 28, 2020
Pursuant to Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20, (March 18, 2020), the Western Riverside
County Programs and Projects Committee meeting will only be conducted via video conferencing and
by telephone. Please follow the instructions below to join the meeting remotely.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION
Join Zoom Meeting
https://rctc.zoom.us/j/81737640492
Meeting ID: 817 3764 0492
One tap mobile
+16699006833,,81737640492# US (San Jose)
Dial by your location
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
Meeting ID: 817 3764 0492
For members of the public wishing to submit comment in connection with the Western Riverside
County Programs and Projects Committee Meeting please email written comments to the Clerk of
the Board at lmobley@rctc.org prior to September 25, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. and your comments will be
made part of the official record of the proceedings. Members of the public may also make public
comments through their telephone or Zoom connection when recognized by the Chair.
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 on the Commission’s website,
www.rctc.org.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Government Code Section 54954.2, Executive Order
N-29-20, 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 Committee 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.
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
September 28, 2020
Page 2
1.CALL TO ORDER
2.ROLL CALL
3.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.
4.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.)
5.APPROVAL OF MINUTES – AUGUST 24, 2020
6.INLAND EMPIRE COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR PLAN ADOPTION
Page 1
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1)Adopt and confirm the Inland Empire Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan
(CMCP) is consistent with California Transportation Commission guidelines for CMCPs;
2)Authorize staff to make minor changes as needed to keep the document current and
accurate; and
3)Forward to the Commission for final action.
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
September 28, 2020
Page 3
7.AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RIVERSIDE
DOWNTOWN LAYOVER FACILITY EXPANSION PROJECT
Page 318
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1)Approve the increase in the contingency for Agreement No. 19-33-029-00 with Reyes
Construction, Inc., for the construction of the Riverside Downtown Layover Facility
Expansion Project (Project) in the amount of $455,000, for a revised contingency of
$875,142, and a total amount not to exceed $5,255,000;
2)Approve an increase of $300,000 in the FY 2020/21 budget for construction
expenditures related to the Project; and
3)Forward to the Commission for final action.
8.AMENDMENT TO CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE LA SIERRA
STATION EXPANSION PROJECT
Page 322
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1)Approve Agreement No. 16-24-080-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement 16-24-080-
00, with S2 Engineering, Inc. (S2) to complete construction management (CM) services,
materials testing, and construction survey services for the La Sierra Station Expansion
Project, for an additional amount of $102,069 and a total amount not to exceed
$940,469;
2)Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to finalize
and execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and
3)Forward to the Commission for final action.
9.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.
10.ADJOURNMENT
The next Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee meeting is scheduled
to be held at 1:30 p.m., Monday, October 26, 2020, Board Chambers, First Floor, County
Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside.
AGENDA ITEM 5
MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE
Monday, July 27, 2020
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee was called to
order by Chair Michael Vargas at 1:31 p.m. via Zoom https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87578464483
Meeting ID: 875 7846 4483. Pursuant to Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20, (March
18, 2020), the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee meeting will only be
conducted via video conferencing and by telephone.
2. ROLL CALL
Members/Alternates Present Members Absent
Ben Benoit Yxstian Gutierrez
Brian Berkson Andrew Kotyuk
Berwin Hanna
Jeff Hewitt
Kevin Jeffries*
Clint Lorimore
Wes Speake*
Michael Vargas
Scott Vinton*
Bill Zimmerman
*arrived after meeting was called to order
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no requests to speak.
4. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS
There were no additions or revisions at this time.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – FEBRUARY 24, 2020
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
July 27, 2020
Page 2
M/S/C (Hanna/Berkson) to approve the minutes as submitted.
6. AGREEMENT WITH BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY FOR RAIL SIGNAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR
THE RIVERSIDE DOWNTOWN METROLINK STATION TRACK AND PLATFORM EXPANSION
PROJECT
David Lewis, Capital Projects Manager, presented the scope of the agreement with BNSF
Railway Company for rail signal design services for the Riverside Downtown Metrolink
Station track and platform expansion project.
M/S/C (Zimmerman/Hewitt) to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 21-31-001-00, with BNSF Railway Company
(BNSF) for rail signal design services for the Riverside Downtown
Metrolink Station Track and Platform Expansion Project for a total
amount not to exceed $150,000;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to execute the agreement; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
At this time, Commissioners Wes Speake and Scott Vinton arrived.
7. 2020 STATE ROUTE 91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
David Thomas, Toll Project Manager, presented the scope of the 2020 State Route 91
Implementation Plan.
M/S/C (Speake/Hanna) to:
1) Approve the 2020 State Route 91 Implementation Plan; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
8. AWARD OF SR-91 CORRIDOR OPERATIONS PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT TO
OHL USA
David Thomas, Toll Project Manager presented the details of the SR-91 Corridor
Operations Project construction agreement with OHL USA.
Mr. Thomas described Phase II in greater detail for Commissioner Wes Speake.
In response to Commissioner Berkson’s question regarding the disparity between the
engineers estimate and the actual bids, Mr. Thomas stated the contractor posts their
performance bonds for the amount of the bid, not the engineers estimate.
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
July 27, 2020
Page 3
Mr. Thomas clarified for Commissioner Scott Vinton that the Committee is approving this
item to go to the Commission pending the review of the DBE good faith effort.
Commissioner Lorimore asked if the DBE protest challenge is a common.
Anne Mayer, Executive Director, explained that protests are not uncommon and that the
Commission is waiting for the Caltrans response to see if the recommendation needs to
change. If there are any changes or revisions, they will go straight to the Commission
unless this Committee would like to review it again.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked if OHL USA has demonstrated that they can do a project
like this and if staff are confident in their abilities.
Mr. Thomas responded that they are currently working with Caltrans on the 405 design-
build project in Orange County. They have worked on many large-scale projects in
Southern California. The Commission is confident they can handle the project.
Ms. Mayer added that this is strictly a low bid situation. They have provided all the
necessary documentation.
M/S/C (Speake/Lorimore) to:
1) Pending final results of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE)
Good Faith Efforts review, award Agreement No. 20-31-069-00 to OHL
USA to construct the SR-91 Corridor Operations Project (91 COP), in the
amount of $18,886,963, plus a contingency amount of $1,888,696,
supplemental work in the amount of $406,900, and an incentive payment
in the amount of $472,500, for a total amount not to exceed $21,655,059;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel
review, to finalize and execute the agreement on behalf of the
Commission;
3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to approve contingency
work, supplemental work and incentive payments as may be required for
the 91 COP; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
At this time, Commissioner Kevin Jeffries arrived.
9. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT
9A. Commissioner Hewitt presented an update on the County’s press release
regarding Covid-19 antibody testing.
10. ADJOURNMENT
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
July 27, 2020
Page 4
There being no further business for consideration by the Western Riverside County
Programs and Projects Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Mobley
Clerk of the Board
AGENDA ITEM 6
Agenda Item 6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: September 28, 2020
TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
FROM: Jillian Guizado, Planning and Programming Manager
Jenny Chan, Senior Management Analyst
THROUGH: Lorelle Moe-Luna, Multimodal Services Director
SUBJECT: Inland Empire Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan Adoption
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1)Adopt and confirm the Inland Empire Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (CMCP)
is consistent with California Transportation Commission guidelines for CMCPs;
2)Authorize staff to make minor changes as needed to keep the document current and
accurate; and
3)Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In 2017, the California state legislature approved Senate Bill (SB 1), which created and funded a
new competitive grant program: Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP), among
others. SB 1 requires that SCCP funding be available for projects that make specific performance
improvements and are part of a comprehensive corridor plan designed to reduce congestion in
highly traveled corridors by providing more transportation choices for residents, commuters, and
visitors to the area of the corridor while preserving the character of the local community and
creating opportunities for neighborhood enhancement projects. SB 1 dictates that the California
Transportation Commission (CTC) will develop guidelines for the programs the legislation
created. The SCCP guidelines the CTC adopted requires that projects awarded funding be
included in a CMCP. The CTC adopted guidelines for CMCPs in 2018. As such, regional
transportation planning agencies and county transportation commissions throughout California
have begun developing CMCPs to ensure their projects’ eligibility in upcoming rounds of SCCP
grant funding.
DISCUSSION:
In partnership with San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA), Caltrans District 8,
and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Commission staff applied for a
Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant to prepare the Inland Empire Comprehensive
1
Agenda Item 6
Multimodal Corridor Plan (IE CMCP). The team received a $500,000 grant and SCAG, as the lead
for the project, awarded a contract to Cambridge Systematics.
Staff has been developing the IE CMCP since July 2019 in coordination with Cambridge
Systematics as the lead consultant. The IE CMCP is intended to go beyond traditional freeway
planning efforts and identify potential multimodal infrastructure opportunities within Western
Riverside County and the valley-area of San Bernardino County. In the future, Commission staff
can work with Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) on developing a multimodal
corridor plan for the Coachella Valley or to update the IE CMCP to include the Coachella Valley.
Completing the IE CMCP is required for regional transportation planning agencies to compete for
SCCP funding in the current cycle and thereafter. Projects proposed for SCCP funding need to be
identified in a multimodal corridor plan to be eligible.
The project team developed the IE CMCP in accordance with the adopted CMCP Guidelines. As
specified in the guidelines, “There is no specific format that a CMCP must meet. Plans are unique
to the region in which they are prepared.” By the same token, the definition of a corridor is also
context sensitive. “A corridor can be defined as a linear geographic area with one or more modes
of transportation … Origins and destinations, land use, place types and existing and future
developments that surround the transportation infrastructure influences how the corridor and its
limits are defined.”
The CMCP guidelines require that a number of topics be discussed in the plan, such as:
• Clear demonstration of collaboration amongst stakeholders;
• Short, medium, and long-term planning horizon;
• Specific corridor objectives;
• Multimodal consideration for, and approaches to, addressing transportation issues;
• Identification and evaluation of performance measures for recommended projects and
strategies; and
• Consistency with the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan, the California Transportation
Plan, and other regional or local planning documents.
The IE CMCP was originally structured as two very large corridors: north-south from Temecula to
Victorville and east-west, from Banning/Beaumont to Los Angeles and Orange counties. It was
realized during the study process that these very large corridors contain within them a great deal
of diversity, so much so that it was becoming difficult to define the problems and analyze the
solutions in an effective, multimodal way. Variations include: terrain/geography, land uses,
congestion levels, community composition and needs, existing multimodal networks, and
strategies and solutions. As such, it was determined the problems and strategies could be more
clearly identified by breaking down the two corridors into sub-corridors. The study team engaged
in a collaborative process for determining local geographic sub-corridors. Ultimately, five sub-
corridors were identified for each of the two large corridors. The sub-corridors are described as
areas between cities or geographically definable points, such as county lines, and are identified
below:
2
Agenda Item 6
North-South Sub-Corridors (Figure 1)
1. Victorville to San Bernardino
2. San Bernardino to Riverside
3. Cajon Pass to Eastvale
4. Riverside to Temecula
5. Beaumont to Temecula
Figure 1. North-South IE CMCP Sub-Corridors
East-West Sub-Corridors (Figure 2)
1. Apple Valley to LA County Line
2. Banning to Rialto
3. Riverside/Rialto to LA County Line
4. Riverside to Orange County Line
5. Hemet to Corona
3
Agenda Item 6
Figure 2. East-West IE CMCP Sub-Corridors
The final draft IE CMCP (Attachment 1) provides a review of the characteristics, future growth
potential, problems, opportunities, strategic issues, and approaches that may apply to each of
the ten identified sub-corridors.
To illustrate such strategies intended to define future multimodal investments, consider the
Riverside to Orange County Line Sub-Corridor (starting on IE CMCP page 5-116) which contains
the State Route (SR) 71/91 Interchange Improvement Project for which the Commission recently
submitted an SCCP grant application to fully fund the construction phase of the project. After
defining the sub-corridor and identifying: key transportation facilities, land use and
socioeconomic factors, travel patterns, congestion/delay and vehicle miles traveled, transit
usage, and projected future conditions, each IE CMCP sub-corridor analysis results in a list of
problems to be addressed and the strategies for doing so. In summary, the problems to be
addressed in this sub-corridor are:
• SR-91 being heavily congested by long commute and freight trips connecting multiple
counties;
• Lack of adequate alternate routes due to topography;
• Jobs-housing imbalance due to the affordable housing dichotomy between Riverside
County and Los Angeles and Orange counties.
4
Agenda Item 6
Strategies identified for addressing these problems, include (exhaustive list on page 5-129 of the
IE CMCP):
• Complete the SR-71/91 connector and SR-241/91 connector to facilitate commute and
goods movement from Orange County to Riverside and San Bernardino counties;
• Build on substantial transit assets. Invest in Metrolink rail expansion for the IE/OC line and
construct accessibility improvements and station improvements to existing Metrolink
stations; and
• Explore policies and methods to increase work at home to decrease commute trips.
Each sub-corridor may have features in common with other sub-corridors, as well as features
that are unique to that sub-corridor. Thus, the strategies will be tailored accordingly to the
problems identified in each sub-corridor. The intent is to capture the themes or strategies that
define the future investments in multimodal improvements in each sub-corridor while being
responsive to its environmental and community characteristics.
Over the last 15 months, the project team has been working diligently to complete the IE CMCP
by October 1, the date the team committed to completing the plan. Some of the more recent
activities completed include: identifying corridor characteristics, engaging with local agencies,
reviewing existing transportation plans, and defining specific sub-corridor strategies within the
study area. Staff presented elements of the IE CMCP to the Commission’s Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) in both March and May 2020. The TAC also approved in concept the final draft
IE CMCP on September 21, 2020. Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the final draft IE
CMCP and authorize staff to make minor updates as necessary to keep the plan current.
Once the IE CMCP is finalized, the study team will continue collaborating to make minor revisions
as needed. The study team envisions updating the IE CMCP every few years.
There is no financial impact for this item.
Attachment: IE CMCP Final Draft
5
Front Cover Placeholder
6
7
i
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction/Overview ....................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Solutions for Congestion Corridors Guidelines .......................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Area Covered by the Inland Empire CMCP ............................................................................... 1-2
1.2.1 Land Use....................................................................................................................... 1-7
1.2.2 Disadvantaged Communities, Communities of Concern, and CalEnviroScreen
Scores ........................................................................................................................... 1-7
1.2.3 Home to Work Mode Share .......................................................................................... 1-8
1.2.4 Transit ........................................................................................................................... 1-9
1.2.5 Vehicle Miles Traveled on Freeway Versus Non-Freeway Facilities.......................... 1-11
1.2.6 Trip Origin-Destination and Length Characteristics .................................................... 1-11
1.2.7 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Per Service Population ............................................... 1-12
1.2.8 Future Growth Projections .......................................................................................... 1-12
2.0 Inland Empire’s Strategic Approach to the CMCP: Transportation Planning Sustainability,
Land Use Integration, and Project Evaluation ................................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Multimodal Planning, Community, and Environmental Initiatives .............................................. 2-1
2.2 Multimodal Transportation Programs ........................................................................................ 2-4
2.3 Inland Empire CMCP Goals, Objectives and Performance Metrics .......................................... 2-7
3.0 Corridor Characteristics .................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Socioeconomic and Land Use Assessment .............................................................................. 3-2
3.1.1 Socioeconomic Characteristics..................................................................................... 3-2
3.1.2 Land Use....................................................................................................................... 3-8
3.2 Corridor Trip Characteristics .................................................................................................... 3-13
3.2.1 Trip Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 3-14
3.2.2 Journey-to-Work ......................................................................................................... 3-16
3.2.3 Rideshare.................................................................................................................... 3-19
3.3 Safety ....................................................................................................................................... 3-19
3.3.1 Freeway Safety Assessment ...................................................................................... 3-20
3.3.2 Arterial Safety Assessment ......................................................................................... 3-23
3.3.3 High Frequency Collision Locations ........................................................................... 3-25
3.4 Active Transportation ............................................................................................................... 3-28
3.4.1 Active Transportation .................................................................................................. 3-28
3.5 Transit ...................................................................................................................................... 3-29
3.5.1 Metrolink ..................................................................................................................... 3-29
3.5.2 Bus Transit Service ..................................................................................................... 3-31
8
ii
3.5.3 High Quality Transit Area ............................................................................................ 3-48
3.6 Freeway and Arterial Assessment ........................................................................................... 3-50
3.6.1 Freeway Assessment ................................................................................................. 3-50
3.6.2 Arterial Assessment .................................................................................................... 3-57
3.7 Freight Network........................................................................................................................ 3-65
3.7.1 Ground ........................................................................................................................ 3-65
3.7.2 Air Cargo ..................................................................................................................... 3-65
3.7.3 Rail .............................................................................................................................. 3-65
3.8 Future Growth and Projected Changes ................................................................................... 3-68
3.8.1 Future Growth ............................................................................................................. 3-68
3.8.2 High Quality Transit Area ............................................................................................ 3-68
4.0 Stakeholder Outreach ........................................................................................................................ 4-1
4.1 RCTC Reboot My Commute Campaign Summary .................................................................... 4-3
4.2 San Bernardino County CMCP Survey ..................................................................................... 4-5
4.3 Comparison of Riverside and San Bernardino County Outreach Responses ........................... 4-9
5.0 Sub-Corridor Definitions and Strategic Approaches ..................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Sub-Corridor Analysis Summary ............................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Victorville to San Bernardino ..................................................................................................... 5-2
5.2.1 Sub-Corridor Definition ................................................................................................. 5-2
5.2.2 Strategic Approach for Victorville to San Bernardino Sub-Corridor ............................ 5-15
5.3 San Bernardino to Riverside Sub-Corridor .............................................................................. 5-16
5.3.1 Sub-Corridor Definition ............................................................................................... 5-16
5.3.2 Strategic Approach for San Bernardino to Riverside Sub-Corridor ............................ 5-30
5.4 Cajon to Eastvale Sub-Corridor ............................................................................................... 5-31
5.4.1 Sub-Corridor Definition ............................................................................................... 5-31
5.4.2 Strategic Approach for Cajon to Eastvale Sub-Corridor ............................................. 5-44
5.5 Riverside to Temecula Sub-Corridor ....................................................................................... 5-44
5.5.1 Sub-Corridor Definition ............................................................................................... 5-45
5.5.2 Strategic Approach for Riverside to Temecula Sub-Corridor ..................................... 5-58
5.6 Beaumont to Temecula Sub-Corridor ...................................................................................... 5-59
5.6.1 Sub-Corridor Definition ............................................................................................... 5-59
5.6.2 Strategic Approach for Beaumont to Temecula Sub-corridor:.................................... 5-73
5.7 Apple Valley to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor .......................................................... 5-74
5.7.1 Sub-Corridor Definition ............................................................................................... 5-74
5.7.2 Strategic Approach for Apple Valley to LA County Line Sub-corridor: ....................... 5-83
5.8 Banning to Rialto Sub-Corridor ................................................................................................ 5-87
9
iii
5.8.1 Sub-Corridor Definition ............................................................................................... 5-87
5.8.2 Strategic Approach for Banning to Rialto Sub-Corridor ............................................ 5-100
5.9 Riverside to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor ............................................................. 5-101
5.9.1 Sub-Corridor Definition ............................................................................................. 5-101
5.9.2 Strategic Approach for Riverside to LA County Line Sub-Corridor .......................... 5-115
5.10 Riverside to Orange County Line Sub-Corridor ..................................................................... 5-116
5.10.1 Sub-Corridor Definition ............................................................................................. 5-116
5.10.2 Strategic Approach for Banning to Rialto Sub-Corridor ............................................ 5-129
5.11 Hemet to Corona Sub-Corridor .............................................................................................. 5-129
5.11.1 Sub-Corridor Definition ............................................................................................. 5-130
5.11.2 Strategic Approach for Hemet to Corona Sub-Corridor ............................................ 5-143
6.0 Multimodal Transportation Projects................................................................................................. 6-1
7.0 Implementation and Funding Plan ................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Federal Funding Sources .......................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Project Type ............................................................................................................................... 7-4
7.2.1 Transit-oriented Development Projects ........................................................................ 7-5
7.2.2 Rural Infrastructure Projects ......................................................................................... 7-5
7.2.3 Local Infrastructure Projects ......................................................................................... 7-5
7.2.4 State Funding Sources ................................................................................................. 7-5
7.2.5 Local Funding Sources ................................................................................................. 7-7
10
11
v
List of Tables
Table 1.1 | Land Use and Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Sub-Corridors ........................................... 1-8
Table 1.2 | Transportation Characteristics of the Sub-Corridors .................................................................. 1-10
Table 1.3 | Projected Growth by Sub-Corridor ............................................................................................. 1-13
Table 2.1 | Areawide Multimodal Programs (not specific to a sub-corridor) ................................................... 2-6
Table 3.1 | SCAG Designated Communities of Concern in Study Area ......................................................... 3-7
Table 3.2 | Land Use Type by Share of Study Area ....................................................................................... 3-9
Table 3.3 | 2016 Daily Trips by Type ............................................................................................................ 3-14
Table 3.4 | Regional Statistical Area by Cities.............................................................................................. 3-15
Table 3.5 | County-to-County Commuting Flows ......................................................................................... 3-17
Table 3.6 | Journey-to-Work Model Share by RSA (ACS) ........................................................................... 3-18
Table 3.7 | Journey-to-Work Travel Time Distribution .................................................................................. 3-18
Table 3.8 | Metrolink Daily Ridership (2018–19) .......................................................................................... 3-29
Table 3.9 | Study Area Managed Lane Network—Existing in April 2017 ..................................................... 3-50
Table 3.10 | Top Bottlenecks in the Study Area (2018) ................................................................................ 3-51
Table 3.11 | Arterial Level of Service ............................................................................................................ 3-63
Table 5.1 | Internal and External Trips Victorville to San Bernardino Sub-Corridor ....................................... 5-7
Table 5.2 | Vehicle Miles of Travel by Facility Type Victorville to San Bernardino Sub-Corridor ................. 5-11
Table 5.3 | Internal and External Trips San Bernardino to Riverside Sub-Corridor ..................................... 5-21
Table 5.4 | Vehicle Miles of Travel by Facility Type San Bernardino to Riverside Sub-Corridor ................. 5-26
Table 5.5 | Internal and External Trips Cajon to Eastvale Sub-Corridor ...................................................... 5-35
Table 5.6 | Vehicle Miles of Travel by Facility Type Cajon to Eastvale Sub-Corridor ................................. 5-39
Table 5.7 | Internal and External Trips Riverside to Temecula Sub-Corridor ............................................... 5-49
Table 5.8 | Vehicle Miles of Travel by Facility Type Riverside to Temecula Sub-Corridor .......................... 5-53
Table 5.9 | Internal and External Trips Beaumont to Temecula Sub-Corridor ............................................. 5-64
Table 5.10 | VMT by Facility Type Beaumont to Temecula Sub-Corridor .................................................... 5-68
Table 5.11 | Internal and External Trips Apple Valley to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor .............. 5-78
Table 5.12 | VMT by Facility Type Apple Valley to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor ....................... 5-82
Table 5.13 | Internal and External Trips Banning to Rialto Sub-Corridor ..................................................... 5-91
Table 5.14 | Vehicle Miles of Travel by Facility Type Banning to Rialto Sub-Corridor ................................. 5-95
Table 5.15 | Internal and External Trips Riverside to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor .................. 5-106
Table 5.16 | Vehicle Miles of Travel by Facility Type Riverside to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor5-110
Table 5.17 | Internal and External Trips Riverside to Orange County Line Sub-Corridor .......................... 5-120
Table 5.18 | Vehicle Miles of Travel by Facility Type Riverside to Orange County Line Sub-Corridor ...... 5-124
Table 5.19 | Internal and External Trips Helmet to Corona Sub-Corridor .................................................. 5-134
Table 5.20 | Vehicle Miles of Travel by Facility Type Helmet to Corona Sub-Corridor .............................. 5-138
12
vi
Table 6.1 | Recommended Projects By Sub-Corridor .................................................................................... 6-2
Table 7.1 | Relevant Federal Funding Sources .............................................................................................. 7-2
Table 7.2 | Relevant State Funding Sources .................................................................................................. 7-6
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 | North-South Oriented Sub-Corridors ........................................................................................... 1-4
Figure 1.2 | East-West Oriented Sub-Corridors.............................................................................................. 1-5
Figure 3.1 | Overall Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 3-2
Figure 3.2 | Household Income Below Poverty Levels ................................................................................... 3-3
Figure 3.3 | Labor Force Age Distribution ....................................................................................................... 3-4
Figure 3.4 | Senior Population Density ........................................................................................................... 3-5
Figure 3.5 | Youth Population Density ............................................................................................................ 3-6
Figure 3.6 | CalEnviroScreen and SCAG Communities of Concern .............................................................. 3-8
Figure 3.7 | Study Area Land Use .................................................................................................................. 3-9
Figure 3.8 | Employment Density ................................................................................................................. 3-11
Figure 3.9 | Population Density .................................................................................................................... 3-12
Figure 3.10 | Population-Employment Ratio ................................................................................................. 3-13
Figure 3.11 | Existing Daily Auto Trips in and to/from Study Area ............................................................... 3-15
Figure 3.12 | Trip Patterns by Regional Statistical Area ............................................................................... 3-16
Figure 3.13 | Study Area Journey-to-Work Mode Share for Study Area ...................................................... 3-17
Figure 3.14 | Journey-to-Work Travel Time Distribution by RSA ................................................................. 3-18
Figure 3.15 | Freeway Collisions per Million VMT, 2018 .............................................................................. 3-20
Figure 3.16 | Study Area Freeway Collisions by Severity, 2016–2018 ........................................................ 3-21
Figure 3.17 | Study Area Freeway Collisions Involving Bicycles by Severity, 2016 –2018 ........................... 3-21
Figure 3.18 | Study Area Freeway Collisions Involving Pedestrians by Severity, 2016 –2018 ..................... 3-22
Figure 3.19 | Study Area Freeway Collisions Involving Trucks by Severity, 2016 –2018 ............................. 3-22
Figure 3.20 | Primary Collision Factors for Freeway Collisions in the Study Area ....................................... 3-23
Figure 3.21 | Arterial Collisions by Severity, 2016–2018 .............................................................................. 3-23
Figure 3.22 | Arterial Collisions Involving Bicyclists by Severity, 2016–2018 .............................................. 3-24
Figure 3.23 | Arterial Collisions Involving Pedestrians by Severity, 2012–2016 .......................................... 3-24
Figure 3.24 | Arterial Collisions Involving Trucks by Severity, Total 2016 –2018 ......................................... 3-25
Figure 3.25 | Primary Collision Factors for Arterial Collisions ...................................................................... 3-25
Figure 3.26 | Location of Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions, 2016–2018 .................................................... 3-26
Figure 3.27 | Location of Truck Collisions, 2016–2018 ................................................................................ 3-27
Figure 3.28 | Bicycle Facilities in the Study Area ......................................................................................... 3-29
Figure 3.29 | Metrolink Service in Study Area .............................................................................................. 3-30
13
vii
Figure 3.30 | Bus Routes .............................................................................................................................. 3-46
Figure 3.31 | Bus Transit Ridership .............................................................................................................. 3-47
Figure 3.32 | Existing High-Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) ........................................................................... 3-49
Figure 3.33 | Number of Existing Freeway Mainline Lanes .......................................................................... 3-52
Figure 3.34 | Existing Managed Lane Network............................................................................................. 3-53
Figure 3.35 | PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................... 3-54
Figure 3.36 | PM Peak Hour Volume/Capacity Ratio ................................................................................... 3-55
Figure 3.37 | Top Bottlenecks ....................................................................................................................... 3-56
Figure 3.38 | WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional System of Highways and
Arterials (RSHA) ................................................................................................................. 3-58
Figure 3.39 | SBCTA Nexus of Highways and Arterials ............................................................................... 3-59
Figure 3.40 | Arterial AM Peak Hour Level of Service .................................................................................. 3-61
Figure 3.41 | Arterial PM Peak Hour Level of Service .................................................................................. 3-62
Figure 3.42 | Existing Daily Arterial VMT per Service Population (Residents + Employees) ....................... 3-64
Figure 3.43 | Truck Network and Warehouse ............................................................................................... 3-66
Figure 3.44 | Freight Rail Network ................................................................................................................ 3-67
Figure 3.45 | Future High-Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) ............................................................................. 3-69
Figure 5.1 | Sub-Corridor Study Area Victorville to San Bernardino Sub-Corridor......................................... 5-3
Figure 5.2 | Land Use Types Victorville to San Bernardino Sub-Corridor ...................................................... 5-5
Figure 5.3 | Land Use Map Victorville to San Bernardino Sub-Corridor ......................................................... 5-6
Figure 5.4 | Journey to Work Mode Share Victorville to San Bernardino Sub-Corridor ................................ 5-8
Figure 5.5 | Existing AM Peak Hour Freeway Conditions Victorville to San Bernardino Sub-Corridor .......... 5-9
Figure 5.6 | Existing PM Peak hour Freeway Congestion Victorville to San Bernardino Sub-Corridor ....... 5-10
Figure 5.7 | Collisions Victorville to San Bernardino Sub-Corridor .............................................................. 5-12
Figure 5.8 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—AM Victorville to San Bernardino Sub-Corridor .................... 5-13
Figure 5.9 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—PM Victorville to San Bernardino Sub-Corridor .................... 5-14
Figure 5.10 | Sub-Corridor Study Area San Bernardino to Riverside Sub-Corridor .................................... 5-17
Figure 5.11 | Land Use Types San Bernardino to Riverside Sub-Corridor .................................................. 5-19
Figure 5.12 | Land Use Map San Bernardino to Riverside Sub-Corridor ..................................................... 5-20
Figure 5.13 | Journey to Work Mode Share San Bernardino to Riverside Sub-Corridor ............................. 5-22
Figure 5.14 | Existing AM Peak Hour Freeway Conditions San Bernardino to Riverside Sub-Corridor ..... 5-24
Figure 5.15 | Existing PM Peak Hour Freeway Congestion San Bernardino to Riverside Sub-Corridor ..... 5-25
Figure 5.16 | Collisions San Bernardino to Riverside Sub-Corridor ............................................................. 5-27
Figure 5.17 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—AM San Bernardino to Riverside Sub-Corridor ................... 5-28
Figure 5.18 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—PM San Bernardino to Riverside Sub-Corridor ................... 5-29
Figure 5.19 | Sub-corridor Study Area Cajon to Eastvale Sub-Corridor ...................................................... 5-32
Figure 5.20 | Land Use Types Cajon to Eastvale Sub-Corridor ................................................................... 5-33
14
viii
Figure 5.21 | Land Use Map Cajon to Eastvale Sub-Corridor ...................................................................... 5-34
Figure 5.22 | Journey to Work Mode Share Cajon to Eastvale Sub-Corridor .............................................. 5-36
Figure 5.23 | Existing AM Peak Hour Freeway Conditions Cajon to Eastvale Sub-Corridor ...................... 5-37
Figure 5.24 | Existing PM Peak hour Freeway Congestion Cajon to Eastvale Sub-Corridor ...................... 5-38
Figure 5.25 | Collisions Cajon to Eastvale Sub-Corridor ............................................................................. 5-41
Figure 5.26 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—AM Cajon to Eastvale Sub-Corridor ................................... 5-42
Figure 5.27 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—PM Cajon to Eastvale Sub-Corridor ................................... 5-43
Figure 5.28 | Sub-Corridor Study Area Riverside to Temecula Sub-Corridor ............................................. 5-46
Figure 5.29 | Land Use Types Riverside to Temecula Sub-Corridor............................................................ 5-47
Figure 5.30 | Land Use Map Riverside to Temecula Sub-Corridor ............................................................. 5-48
Figure 5.31 | Journey to Work Mode Share Riverside to Temecula Sub-Corridor ....................................... 5-50
Figure 5.32 | Existing AM Peak Hour Freeway Conditions Riverside to Temecula Sub-Corridor ............... 5-51
Figure 5.33 | Existing PM Peak Hour Freeway Congestion Riverside to Temecula Sub-Corridor ............. 5-52
Figure 5.34 | Collisions Riverside to Temecula Sub-Corridor ..................................................................... 5-55
Figure 5.35 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—AM Riverside to Temecula Sub-Corridor ............................ 5-56
Figure 5.36 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—PM Riverside to Temecula Sub-Corridor ............................ 5-57
Figure 5.37 | Sub-Corridor Study Area Beaumont to Temecula Sub-Corridor ............................................. 5-61
Figure 5.38 | Land Use Types Beaumont to Temecula Sub-Corridor .......................................................... 5-62
Figure 5.39 | Land Use Map Beaumont to Temecula Sub-Corridor ............................................................. 5-63
Figure 5.40 | Journey to Work Mode Share Beaumont to Temecula Sub-Corridor ..................................... 5-65
Figure 5.41 | Existing AM Peak Hour Freeway Conditions Beaumont to Temecula Sub-Corridor .............. 5-66
Figure 5.42 | Existing PM Peak hour Freeway Congestion Beaumont to Temecula Sub-Corridor .............. 5-67
Figure 5.43 | Collisions Beaumont to Temecula Sub-Corridor ..................................................................... 5-70
Figure 5.44 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—AM Beaumont to Temecula Sub-Corridor ........................... 5-71
Figure 5.45 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—PM Beaumont to Temecula Sub-Corridor ........................... 5-72
Figure 5.46 | Sub-Corridor Study Area Apple Valley to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor ................. 5-75
Figure 5.47 | Land Use Types in Sub-Corridor Apple Valley to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor..... 5-76
Figure 5.48 | Land Use Map Apple Valley to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor ................................. 5-77
Figure 5.49 | Journey to Work Mode Share Apple Valley to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor ........ 5-79
Figure 5.50 | Existing AM Peak Hour Freeway Conditions Apple Valley to Los Angeles County Line Sub-
Corridor ............................................................................................................................... 5-80
Figure 5.51 | Existing PM Peak Hour Freeway Congestion Apple Valley to Los Angeles County Line Sub-
Corridor ............................................................................................................................... 5-81
Figure 5.52 | Collisions Apple Valley to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor ......................................... 5-84
Figure 5.53 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—AM Apple Valley to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor 5-85
Figure 5.54 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—PM Apple Valley to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor 5-86
Figure 5.55 | Sub-Corridor Study Area Banning to Rialto Sub-Corridor ...................................................... 5-88
Figure 5.56 | Land Use Types Banning to Rialto Sub-Corridor .................................................................... 5-89
15
ix
Figure 5.57 | Land Use Map Banning to Rialto Sub-Corridor ...................................................................... 5-90
Figure 5.58 | Journey to Work Mode Share Banning to Rialto Sub-Corridor ............................................... 5-92
Figure 5.59 | Existing AM Peak Hour Freeway Conditions Banning to Rialto Sub-Corridor ........................ 5-93
Figure 5.60 | Existing PM Peak Hour Freeway Congestion Banning to Rialto Sub-Corridor ...................... 5-94
Figure 5.61 | Collisions Banning to Rialto Sub-Corridor ............................................................................... 5-96
Figure 5.62 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—AM Banning to Rialto Sub-Corridor..................................... 5-98
Figure 5.63 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—PM Banning to Rialto Sub-Corridor..................................... 5-99
Figure 5.64 | Sub-Corridor Study Area Riverside to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor .................... 5-103
Figure 5.65 | Land Use Types in Sub-Corridor Riverside to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor ........ 5-104
Figure 5.66 | Land Use Map Riverside to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor .................................... 5-105
Figure 5.67 | Journey to Work Mode Share Riverside to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor ............ 5-107
Figure 5.68 | Existing AM Peak Hour Freeway Conditions Riverside to Los Angeles County Line Sub-
Corridor ............................................................................................................................. 5-108
Figure 5.69 | Existing PM Peak Hour Freeway Congestion Riverside to Los Angeles County Line Sub-
Corridor ............................................................................................................................. 5-109
Figure 5.70 | Collisions Riverside to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor ............................................ 5-111
Figure 5.71 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—AM Riverside to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor .. 5-113
Figure 5.72 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—PM Riverside to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor .. 5-114
Figure 5.73 | Sub-Corridor Study Area Riverside to Orange County Line Sub-Corridor ............................ 5-117
Figure 5.74 | Land Use Types Riverside to Orange County Line Sub-Corridor ......................................... 5-118
Figure 5.75 | Land Use Map Riverside to Orange County Line Sub-Corridor ............................................ 5-119
Figure 5.76 | Journey to Work Mode Share Riverside to Orange County Line Sub-Corridor .................... 5-121
Figure 5.77 | Existing AM Peak Hour Freeway Conditions Riverside to Orange County Line Sub-Corridor5-122
Figure 5.78 | Existing PM Peak Hour Freeway Congestion Riverside to Orange County Line Sub-Corridor5-123
Figure 5.79 | Collisions Riverside to Orange County Line Sub-Corridor .................................................... 5-126
Figure 5.80 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—AM Riverside to Orange County Line Sub-Corridor.......... 5-127
Figure 5.81 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—PM Riverside to Orange County Line Sub-Corridor.......... 5-128
Figure 5.82 | Sub-Corridor Study Area Helmet to Corona Sub-Corridor ................................................... 5-131
Figure 5.83 | Land Use Types in Sub-Corridor Helmet to Corona Sub-Corridor ........................................ 5-132
Figure 5.84 | Land Use Map Helmet to Corona Sub-Corridor .................................................................... 5-133
Figure 5.85 | Journey to Work Mode Share Helmet to Corona Sub-Corridor ............................................ 5-135
Figure 5.86 | Existing AM Peak Hour Freeway Conditions Helmet to Corona Sub-Corridor ..................... 5-136
Figure 5.87 | Existing PM Peak Hour Freeway Congestion Helmet to Corona Sub-Corridor ................... 5-137
Figure 5.88 | Collisions Helmet to Corona Sub-Corridor ............................................................................ 5-140
Figure 5.89 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—AM Helmet to Corona Sub-Corridor ................................. 5-141
Figure 5.90 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—PM Helmet to Corona Sub-Corridor ................................. 5-142
16
17
1-1
1.0 Introduction/Overview
The Inland Empire Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (IE CMCP) has multiple uses that will benefit local,
regional, and state agencies as they deal with the balancing of infrastructure, livability, economic, and sustainability
needs. The CMCP also is specifically created to address the intent of California SB 1 Solutions for Congested
Corridors Program (SCCP) by:
• Promoting the integration of transportation, land use, environmental, economic, and other sustainability
projects and initiatives.
• Identifying a set of principles for better integrating transportation, development, and environmental decisions .
• Identifying projects for potential funding that are consistent with the SCCP guidelines.
• Incorporating principles, goals, policies, and objectives of the key stakeholder agencies, including the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), San Bernardino County Transportation Authority
(SBCTA), Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), Western Riverside Council of Governments
(WRCOG), and Caltrans.
The development of the IE CMCP closely incorporates recent planning efforts in the Inland Empire . Riverside and
San Bernardino County transportation and planning agencies have been engaged in multimodal transportation,
land use, and sustainability projects and programs o ver many years, ranging in geographic level from countywide
to local, from subareas to linear corridors. This activity has accelerated with the statewide emphasis on greenhouse
gas reduction with the passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act in AB 32 and subsequent legislation such as
SB 375, SB 743, SB 32, as well as several Executive Orders. The IE CMCP captures these initiatives to leverage
all of the progress that already has been made in both counties. One of the purposes of the Comprehensive
Multimodal Corridor Plans is to synthesize all of these prior and ongoing efforts and to build on these initiatives.
1.1 Solutions for Congestion Corridors Guidelines
The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, or Senate Bill (SB) 1 (Beall, Statutes of 2017) crea ted the SCCP
and continuously appropriates two hundred and fifty million dollars ($250,000,000) annually to be allocated by the
California Transportation Commission (CTC) to projects designed to achieve a balanced set of transportation,
environmental, and community access improvements within highly congested travel corridors throughout the state.
The CTC has established guidelines which describe the policy, standards, criteria and procedures for the
development, adoption, and management of the SCCP. The guidelines were developed in consultation with the
California Air Resources Board, Department of Housing and Community Development, California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans), Regional Transportation Planning Agencies, advocacy groups , and other transportation
stakeholders.
18
1-2
The primary objective of the SCCP is to fund projects designed to reduce congestion in highly traveled and highly
congested corridors through performance improvements that balance transportation and community impacts, and that
provide environmental benefits. Ultimately, all projects nominated for the SCCP must be included in a multimodal
corridor plan. All multimodal corridor plans are to be prepared in accordance with the Comprehensive Multimodal
Corridor Plan (Corridor Plan) Guidelines adopted by the CTC. As such, the IE CMCP follows the CTC guidelines.
1.2 Area Covered by the Inland Empire CMCP
The IE CMCP was originally structured as two very large corridors: North /South, from Victorville to Temecula, and
East/West, from the Banning/Beaumont area to the LA and Orange County lines. This approach was logical ,
because so much travel in the Inland Empire is interconnected. In the east/west direction, for example, one could
find reasons to use any one of the four major east/west freeways (I-10, SR-60, SR-91, or SR-210) to travel to Los
Angeles, and many people and logistics firms make those tradeoffs by looking at real-time traffic and routing
information.
But it was recognized during the study process that within these corridors there also was a great deal of diversity,
so much so that it would have been challenging to define the problems and analyze solutions in an effective,
multimodal way. The terrain varies, the land uses vary, the congestion levels vary, the community needs vary, the
existing multimodal network varies, and the strategies/solutions vary.
It was therefore determined that the problems and strategies could be more clearly identified by breaking down the
two major corridors into ten sub-corridors. The study team then engaged in a collaborative process for determining
logical geographic sub-corridors, and defined five sub-corridors for each of the two major corridors. The sub-corridors
are defined as areas between cities or geographically definable points (like county lines) and include the following:
• North/South Sub-corridors:
1. Victorville to San Bernardino
2. San Bernardino to Riverside
3. Cajon to Eastvale
4. Riverside to Temecula
5. Beaumont to Temecula
• East/West Sub-corridors:
1. Apple Valley to LA County Line
2. Banning to Rialto
3. Riverside/Rialto to LA County Line
4. Riverside to Orange County Line
5. Hemet to Corona
19
1-3
Figure 1.1 illustrates the north-south oriented sub-corridors and Figure 1.2 illustrates the eas-west woriented
sub-corridors.
20
1-4
Figure 1.1 | North-South Oriented Sub-Corridors
21
1-5
Figure 1.2 | East-West Oriented Sub-Corridors
22
1-6
A description of each sub-corridor has been prepared which includes data and analysis within each sub -corridor,
including the following types of descriptive information:
• Which jurisdictions are included entirely or partially within the sub-corridors.
• Key transportation facilities, including freeways, major arterials, major transit routes, and active transportation
in each sub-corridor.
• Key socioeconomic characteristics, including:
– Land use patterns.
– CalEnviroScreen scores.
– SCAG Communities of Concern.
• Travel Patterns:
– Total trips generated and internal versus external trips in the sub-corridor and IE CMCP area.
– Average trip length.
– Journey to work mode share.
• Congestion, Delay, and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), including:
– Recurrent freeway congestion locations.
– Daily VMT by facility type (freeway general purpose lanes, freeway HOV lanes, major arterial roadways).
• Transit usage.
• Safety data, including crash concentrations on the freeways, bicycle and pedestrian crash concentrations ,
and truck crash concentrations.
• Future growth in population, employment, travel demand, and VMT.
Each sub-corridor synopsis also includes a description of the strategic approach to addressing the transportation
challenges in that sub-corridor, based on the identified problems, issues , and opportunities. Finally, a list of
proposed transportation projects also is included for each sub-corridor.
23
1-7
Tables 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 provide comparisons of the key characteristics of each sub-corridor, including
socioeconomic data, transportation characteristics, and projected growth. A summary and comparison of the sub-
corridors is provided in this Section. These comparisons help to identify the key characteristics of each sub-corridor
and the key transportation issues in each area. This helps in the subsequent identification of the best projects and
improvements to recommend in each corridor.
1.2.1 Land Use
The top three land uses in each sub-corridor are noted in Table 1.1 along with the percentage of the sub-corridor
that consists of that land use. The land use type that appears as the most common type is rural residential, which
accounts for up to 40 percent of the land uses in two corridors .1 The other two most common land use types are
open space and single family residential, followed by agricult ure. Most of the sub-corridors have some type of
residential use as their predominant land use type while two have more open space than any other type of use.
1.2.2 Disadvantaged Communities, Communities of Concern, and CalEnviroScreen Scores
Disadvantaged communities indicators relate to the need for transportation services , among other needs. Areas
with lower income and other related disadvantages, such as higher pollution burdens, often have lower auto
ownership and less access to transportation to get res idents to places of employment, shopping, doctors’ offices ,
and other destinations. The CalEnviroScreen is a tool that helps identify California communities that are most
affected by many sources of pollution, especially those vulnerable to pollution effects.
CalEnviroScreen uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic information to pr oduce scores for every census
tract in the state. The scores are mapped so that different communities can be compared. An area with a high score
is one that experiences a much higher pollution burden than areas with low scores. CalEnviroScreen ranks
communities based on data that are available from state and Federal Government sources. CalEnviroScreen scores
range up to 100, with higher scores indicating more impacted communities. For the IE CMCP, any areas with scores
in the 75 to 100 range are reported.
The sub-corridors with the highest CalEnviroScreen scores include San Bernardino to Riverside with 64 percent of
the area experiencing a score of 75 to 100, Riverside to the LA County line, with 46 percent and Cajon to Eastvale
with 44 percent. All of the remaining areas are under 40 percent, with the Beaumont to Temecula having the lowest
percentage of area with a high score, at only 7 percent.
In terms of low income communities, as shown in Table 1.1, the corridors with the most area considered low income
are the Victorville to San Bernardino and San Bernardino to Riverside corridors, at nearly 50 percent of the area
1 Rural Residential units include ranches, farmsteads, single mobile homes, and residences located in rural setting. Rural
residential density varies from one (1) unit per acre to one (1) unit per 10 acre.
24
1-8
with low income.2 The areas with the lowest percentage of low income areas include Cajon to Eastvale, Riverside
to Orange County Line, Beaumont to Temecula and Riverside to Temecula, each with under 27 percent low income
area.
Another measure of need is the SCAG Communities of Concern. Communities of Concern are Census Designated
Places that fall in the upper third for their concentration of minority population households in poverty. This
designation is significant in severity due to the degree of poverty. The sub-corridor that has the most area included
in the Communities of Concern is the San Bernardino to Riverside corridor, with 44 percent of the area designated
as a Community of Concern. Other sub-corridors have much lower percentage of their area considered Communites
of Concern, mostly below 15 percent.
Table 1.1 | Land Use and Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Sub-Corridors
Sub-Corridor
Predominant Land Uses (top three land
use by %) % of CalEnviro
Disadvantage
Communities
Low Income
Communities
SCAG
Communities
of Concern 1st 2nd 3rd
Victorville to San
Bernardino OS (38%) RR (23%) SFR (13%) 31% 47% 13%
San Bernardino to
Riverside OS (26%) SFR (24%) Fac (10%) 64% 47% 44%
Cajon to Eastvale SP (30%) OS (24%) Ind (11%) 44% 13% 3%
Riverside to
Temecula RR (32%) SFR (17%) SP (13%) 36% 27% 10%
Beaumont to
Temecula RR (23%) AGR (22%) SP (17%) 7% 26% 0%
Apple Valley to LA
County Line RR (40%) SFR (19%) OS (19%) 13% 41% 3%
Banning to Rialto SFR (24%) AGR (24%) RR (9%) 32% 38% 14%
Riverside to LA
County Line SFR (26%) SP (20%) Ind (11%) 46% 31% 14%
Riverside to Orange
County Line SFR (26%) AGR (17%) RR (11%) 35% 21% 2%
Hemet to Corona RR (34%) AGR (17%) SP (13%) 39% 34% 12%
Source: SCAG 2012 Land Use; CalEPA CalEnviroScreen 3.0; SCAG 2016 RTP.
Note: OS—Open Space; RR—Rural Residential, SFR—Single Family Residential; Fac—Facilities;
SP—Specific Plan; Ind—Industrial; AGR—Agriculture.
1.2.3 Home to Work Mode Share
Table 1.2 displays how people travel to work, including whether they drive alone, carpool, or use transit. The method
of travel from home to work does not vary considerably among the ten sub -corridors. All of the ten sub-corridors
have between 75 to 80 percent of residents who drive themselves to work in a single occupant vehicle (SOV). Two
2 “Low-income communities” are census tracts with median household incomes at or below 80 percent of the statewide
median income or with median household incomes at or below the threshold designated as low-income by Department of
Housing and Community Development’s State Income Limits adopted pursuant to Section 50093.
25
1-9
of the ten sub-corridors are at 80 percent SOV, including Cajon to Eastvale and Apple Valley to LA County line.
Similarly, the rate of carpooling is relatively consistent and ranges from 12 to 14 percent of all home to work trips in
each sub-corridor. Finally, the transit percentage throughout the entire area is very low at only 1 or 2 percent in
each sub-corridor.
1.2.4 Transit
Table 1.2 also displays whether the sub-corridors include High Quality Transit. High Quality Transit service is
defined as bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service
interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. Four of the ten sub-corridors
have high-quality transit service, including Victorville to San Bernardino, San Bernardino to Riverside, Banning to
Rialto and Riverside to LA County line. The remaining six sub-corridor areas have transit service but do not qualify
as High Quality Transit.
26
1-10
Table 1.2 | Transportation Characteristics of the Sub-Corridors
Sub-
Corridor
Home-Work Trips High Quality
Transit Percent of VMT
on Freeways
Total (HOV)
Percent of VHT
on Freeways
Total (HOV)
Percent
Trips
Internal to
CMCP
Avg. Trip
Length
External to
CMCP
VMT per
Service
Population
SOV
(%)
Carpool
(%)
Transit
(%) Corridor Stop
Victorville
to San
Bernardino
78% 14% 1% Yes No 70% (1%) 63% (1%) 86% 35.4 29.7
San
Bernardino
to
Riverside
75% 14% 2% Yes Yes 61% (3%) 60% (3%) 92% 43.7 29.4
Cajon to
Eastvale 80% 12% 2% No Yes 70% (2%) 61% (1%) 85% 32.5 34.2
Riverside
to
Temecula
77% 14% 1% No Yes 60% (2%) 50% (2%) 88% 41.5 27.1
Beaumont
to
Temecula
77% 13% 1% No No 41% (0%) 30% (0%) 90% 41.8 26.9
Apple
Valley to
LA County
Line
80% 12% 1% No No 49% (0%) 45% (0%) 86% 44.4 26.8
Banning to
Rialto 78% please s 2% Yes Yes 64% (2%) 42% (1%) 91% 44.8 25.6
Riverside
to LA
County
Line
78% 12% 2% Yes Yes 65% (5%) 56% (4%) 79% 27.0 26.6
Riverside
to Orange
County
Line
76% 13% 2% No Yes 70% (3%) 68% (2%) 80% 27.6 30.6
Hemet to
Corona 77% 14% 1% No Yes 53% (1%) 45% (1%) 88% 40.0 30.8
Source: SCAG Model 2016; ACS 2017, 5-year estimates.
27
1-11
1.2.5 Vehicle Miles Traveled on Freeway Versus Non-Freeway Facilities
The percent of trips made on freeways in each sub-corridor is an indicator of the demand for freeway travel versus
other modes (arterial, transit, or active transportation). The percent of VMT on the freeway system versus other
modes is shown in Table 1.2 and it ranges from a low of 41 percent in the Beaumont to Temecula sub-corridor up
to 70 percent in three other sub-corridors (Victorville to San Bernardino, Cajon to Eastvale, and Riverside to Orange
County line). In the areas with the higher freeway VMT, opportunities to reduce VMT and shift some VMT to other
modes would be desirable.
1.2.6 Trip Origin-Destination and Length Characteristics
The percentage of internal vs. external trips, defined below, as well as average length of trips made by residents
and employees of each sub-corridor, contributes to vehicle miles traveled and consequently vehicle hours of travel
(VHT) or time spent on the road. These statistics, which are shown in two separate columns in Table 1.2 reveal
certain characteristics about travel patterns, mix of land uses, and strategic location of the sub-corridor and is
generally independent of transportation facilities supply and choice of mode.
• Percent Trips Internal to IE CMCP. These numbers describe what percentage of trips originating or destined
to the particular sub-corridor are entirely to and from points within the Inland Empire CMCP study Area. The
larger the percentage, generally the more “self-sufficient” the sub-corridor is and the people have to travel
shorter distances for employment and services. The percentages vary in a relatively narrow range from a high
of 92 percent to a low of 79 percent. As seen, the three sub-corridors with the highest percentage of internal
trips are San Bernardino to Riverside (92 percent), Banning to Rialto (91 percent), and Beaumont to
Temecula (90 percent). These higher percentages also are consistent with the fact that these three sub-
corridors are generally on the eastern end of the IE CMCP Study Area with less travel to outside the IE
CMCP. On the opposite end, the three sub-corridors with the lowest percentage of internal trips are Riverside
to Los Angeles County line (79 percent), Riverside to Orange County line (80 percent) and Cajon to Eastvale
(85 percent). Consistent with the previous trend, but in the opposite direction, these three sub -corridors are all
generally on the west side of the IE CMCP Study Area and have a higher interaction of trips to and from Los
Angeles and Orange Counties. Furthermore, it also is intuitive that the two east/west corridors connecting
Riverside to Los Angeles and Orange counties have the lowest percentage of “trip retention” and is an
indication of the traditional heavy traffic demand on highways and transit corridors connecting these counties
and emphasizes the need for mobility improvements.
• Average Trip Length External to IE CMCP. These average trip lengths in miles describe the distances that
people travel between each sub-corridor and points outside the overall IE CMCP Study Area. The longer the
average trip length, the more VMT and vehicle hours of delay and indicates the demand for people to travel
outside the IE CMCP for work or services. The range of these average external trip lengths is quite wide,
varying from a low of 27 miles to a high of almost 45 miles. Since the majority of external trips are to/from
points west of the IE CMCP, intuitively, the two lowest average external trip lengths are to/from Riverside to
28
1-12
Los Angeles County Line (27 miles) and Riverside to Orange County Line (27.6 miles) sub -corridors, both of
which are close to the western boundary of the IE CMCP Study Area. The next lowest average external trip
lengths belong to Cajon to Eastvale (32.5 miles) and Victorville to San Bernardino (35.4 miles) sub -corridors,
again both on the western side of the IE CMCP. Conversely, the longest average external trip lengths are for
Banning to Rialto (44.8 miles), Apple Valley to Los Angeles County Line (44.4 miles), and San Bernardino to
Riverside (43.7 miles). Again, intuitively, these are the farthest sub-corridors from the western boundaries of
the IE CMCP area, indicating longer average travel distances from the external areas . These numbers
provide a generalized picture of average trip lengths that have to be served for people in various sub -
corridors, when traveling to/from external points. This emphasize the need for types of mobility improvements.
• VMT and VHT on Freeways. All sub-corridors have a larger share of VMT on freeways than VHT on
freeways. This suggests that traffic using freeways has less delay in comparison to the arterials. VMT on
freeways within sub-corridors varies from 70% to 41% and VHT on freeways varies from 68% to 30%.
Beaumont to Temecula sub-corridor has only 41% of VMT on the freeway and 30% of VHT on the freeway.
1.2.7 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Per Service Population
VMT per service population measures total VMT in the sub-corridor against the service population, which consists
of the total number of residents plus workers in the area, and is shown in Table 1.2. The VMT per service population
ranges from a low of 25.6 vehicle miles traveled in the Banning to Rialto sub-corridor to a high of 34.2 in the Cajon
to Eastvale sub-corridor. Low VMT per service population happens in sub-corridors with either low travel markets
or those with high service populations, or both. The two lowest VMT/service populations (Banning to Rialto and
Riverside to Los Angeles County line) have high service populations due to their relative urbanization and better
balance in jobs and housing creating low levels of VMT . Additionally, these two sub-corridors have metrolink lines
connecting them to Los Angeles and Orange County, However, the third lowest (Apple Valley to Los Angeles County
line) has a low level of travel market due to fewer transportation facilities. High VMT per service population happens
in sub-corridors with either high travel markets or those with low service populations or both. The highest VMT
numbers belong to the Cajon to Eastvale sub-corridor with a high travel market along I-15 and a relatively low
service population due to it being a small sub-corridor. The same is true for the next-highest, Riverside to Orange
County line, which has high travel market along SR-91 and a relatively low service population due to the small sub-
corridor. However, the Hemet to Corona sub-corridor, which is the third highest, has both a large area with high
travel markets along I-215 and SR-91 but a low service population due to its generally low population and
employment density. The significance of these analys es is that it provides better understanding of the travel
characteristics and needs in each sub-corridor as future mobility investments are prioritized.
1.2.8 Future Growth Projections
Potential future growth has been assessed using the SCAG regional model data to project growth in population,
employment, total trips, and average speed, as shown on Table 1.3. The forecast reduction in speed is shown as
a metic to assess future growth in congestion levels.
29
1-13
Table 1.3 | Projected Growth by Sub-Corridor
Sub-Corridor
Expected Growth to 2040 (%)**
Pop. Emp. Trips Speed
Victorville to San Bernardino 43% 40% 34% -29%
San Bernardino to Riverside 16% 37% 24% -19%
Cajon to Eastvale 17% 33% 22% -16%
Riverside to Temecula 22% 49% 28% -19%
Beaumont to Temecula 33% 42% 34% -13%
Apple Valley to LA County Line 50% 33% 39% -28%
Banning to Rialto 22% 39% 23% -16%
Riverside to LA County Line 19% 31% 20% -10%
Riverside to Orange County Line 13% 51% 27% -15%
Hemet to Corona 34% 52% 31% -21%
Source: SCAG Model 2016.
• Population. The overall population growth for the entire Inland Empire Study Area is projected to be 16
percent by 2040, which represents an increase of 647,000 residents. Within the sub-corridors, the increase in
population ranges from a low of 13 percent (Riverside t o Orange County line) to 50 percent (Apple Valley to
LA County line).
• Employment. The overall employment growth for the entire Inland Empire Study Area is projected to be 35
percent by 2040, which represents an increase of 452,000 jobs. Within the sub-corridors, the increase in
employment ranges from a low of 31 percent (Riverside to LA County line) to 52 percent (Hemet to Corona).
• Trips. The overall trip growth for the entire Inland Empire Study Area is projected to be 33 percent by 2040,
which represents an increase of 3 million daily trips. The growth in the sub corridors ranges from a low of 20
percent (Riverside to Los Angeles line) to a high of 39 percent (Apple Valley to LA County line).
• Speed. The change in speed measures average daily speeds on the freeways within each sub-corridor. The
changes range from speed reduction of 10 percent in the Riverside to LA County line sub -corridor to a
reduction in speed of 29 percent in the Victorville to San Bernardino sub-corridor. Most of the sub-corridors
experience speed reductions of 20 percent or lower..
The following five sub-corridors fall in the top five in growth in at least two and up to four o f the growth measures:
• Victorville to San Bernardino. This sub-corridor has the highest projected growth in VHT, the second
highest growth in population and trip making, and the fifth highest growth in employment
• Riverside to Temecula. This sub-corridor has the fourth highest projected growth in employment, the fifth
highest growth in trips, and the fourth highest growth in VHT.
30
1-14
• Beaumont to Temecula. This sub-corridor has the second highest projected growth in trips and the fourth
highest growth in population and employment.
• Appley Valley to LA County line. This sub-corridor has the highest projected growth in both population and
trips and the second highest growth in VHT.
• Hemet to Corona. This sub-corridor has the highest projected growth in employment, third highest projected
growth in VHT and the third highest growth in population.
31
2-1
2.0 Inland Empire’s Strategic Approach to the
CMCP: Transportation Planning Sustainability,
Land Use Integration, and Project Evaluation
As noted in Chapter 1, a strategic approach to the develoment of the IE CMCP has been crafted for each sub-
corridor. There also are some overarching strategic initiatives and programs which are countywide or Inland Empire-
wide in nature, that relate to the overall Study Area and related sub-corridors. Planning and decision-making within
the sub-corridors would be influenced and/or enhanced through these larger -area strategies. A brief description of
these areawide initiatives and programs is provided below, prior to addressing the sub-corridor-specific strategic
approaches.
Initiatives focus primarily on planning efforts, especially in the environmental arena, that will lead to implementation
by countywide or regional agencies. Programs refer to ongoing areawide investments in operational activities (i.e.,
are not corridor-specific) that are part of the multimodal implementation process. For example, Riverside and San
Bernardino counties have a robust rideshare program called IE Commuter. In effect, this program promotes trip-
reduction in every sub-corridor. And rather than repeat all of these programs in the lists of multimodal strategies
and projects in every sub-corridor, a table has been provided to highlight each program and its geographic extent.
The initiatives are presented first, followed by the programs.
2.1 Multimodal Planning, Community, and Environmental Initiatives
1. Inland Empire Initiatives:
a. Climate Adaptation Partnership between San Bernardino Council of Governments (SBCOG) and Western
Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) “Resilient IE” —This plan has been prepared to address the
potential effects of climate change in Riverside and San Bernardino counties and identify ways to work
together to address the challenges. A completed climate adaptation report has been prepared and can be
found here: https://wrcog.us/285/Resilient-IE.. Resilient IE was developed in collaboration with the San
Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) with funding from Caltrans. Resilient IE works to
support regional and local efforts to prepare for and mitigate risks associated with climate adaptation on
the region's transportation infrastructure with five primary project components:
i. A newly established regional climate collaborative, the Inland Southern California Climate Collaborative
(ISC3)
ii. Subregional vulnerability assessments and adaptation strategies;
iii. City-level, climate-related transportation hazards and evacuation maps;
iv. A regionally-tailored climate resilient transportation infrastructure guidebook; and
v. A regional climate adaptation and resiliency element template.
32
2-2
b. Healthy Communities and Healthy Economies: A Toolkit for Goods Movement (2009)—This effort was
completed jointly by RCTC, SBCTA, and LA Metro to provide practical tools for minimizing and mitigating
the impacts of goods movement activities on local communities while also recognizing the economic
benefits that the logistics industry brings.
c. Inland Empire Next Generation Shared Ride and Virtual Travel Study—This effort will be an Inland Empire-
wide look at ways to increase use of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies such as
shared-ride systems and virtual travel opportunities like work -at-home and digital business. The
Coronavirus has forced the entire country to quickly adapt to virtual travel wherever possible and the study
would examine how to capture some of these opportunities long-term.
d. Managed Lanes Study led by Caltrans District 8 in partnership with RCTC and SBCTA. The purpose of this
ongoing study is to assess viability of conversion, addition, and implementation of managed lanes (High
Occupancy Vehicle, High Occupancy Toll, and Toll lanes) within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties
for the next 20 years. Currently, Caltrans District 8 has planned 56-lane miles of managed lane systems in
the region and the study will identify the potential for additional managed lanes. The study will complement
other long-range regional studies and plans. As part of this effort, Caltrans is coordinating with local a nd
regional transportation agencies to gather input on identifying and evaluating potential corridors to
implement managed lanes. The study is expected to be completed in late 2021.
e. Caltrans District-level Active Transportation Plan—This is an upcoming effort and will identify many
strategies and improvements needed for advancing non-motorized travel in the Inland Empire. Every district
will develop a plan under the HQ contract in place. This plan will complement existing county -level and
local-level plans.
2. San Bernardino County Initiatives:
a. Countywide Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Plan—The Countywide GHG Plan and Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) were prepared in 2014 to address 2020 GHG reduction goals. Individual jurisdictions
have prepared their own Climate Adaptation Plans (CAPs) based on the countywide plan and EIR. The
Countywide GHG Reduction Plan is now being updated to address 2030 goals.
b. Countywide Zero Emission Bus Initiative (2020)—Infrastructure and funding needs are being identified for
the five transit operators in the County in response to the California Air Resources Board Innovative Clean
Transit (ICT) regulation.
c. Countywide SB 743 VMT Implementation Study (2020)—Lead agencies throughout California have been
transitioning from use of level of service (LOS) analysis for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
documents to the use of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). This countywide effort is providing guidance to local
jurisdictions for adoption and implementation of their local processes governing VMT analysis.
33
2-3
d. Zero-Emission Vehicle Readiness and Implementation Plan (2019)—This was a countywide effort to
identify, prioritize, and implement electric vehicle charging stations to facilitate the attainment of the State’s
vehicle electrification goals in San Bernardino County.
e. Healthy Communities Best Practices Toolkit—The San Bernardino County Department of Public Health
created a strategic plan for the implementation of Healthy Communities policies. The toolkit, a collaboration
between SBCOG and the County, will contain sample policies, resolutions, processes, organizational
structure, and lessons learned from agencies that have implemented he alth-related policies.
f. Habitat Conservation—San Bernardino County and SBCOG are collaborating on an effort to create a
Regional Conservation Investment Strategy (RCIS) through the process established by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife under AB 2087. A first draft plan was submitted to CDFW in late 2018 and
will be developed further in conjunction with resource agencies and a range of stakeholder groups . Habitat
connectivity is an important consideration.
3. Western Riverside County:
a. Western Riverside County Climate Action Plan (CAP)—The subregional CAP was prepared in 2014 to
address 2020 and 2035 GHG reduction goals. The subregional CAP is now being updated to address 2030
and 2045 goals.
b. WRCOG SB 743 VMT Implementation Study—Lead agencies throughout California have been transitioning
from use of LOS analysis for CEQA documents to the use of VMT. This Western Riverside County effort is
providing guidance to local jurisdictions for adoption and implementation of their local processes governing
VMT analysis.
c. Sustainability Framework for Western Riverside County—The framework is a blueprint that serves as a
beginning point to establish, implement, and refine a subregional sustainability plan. It provides an
integrated approach to sustainability which consists of six core components: economic de velopment;
education; health; transportation; water, wastewater, and energy; and the environment.
d. Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP —in place since 2002)—A comprehensive, multi-
jurisdictional conservation plan focusing on maintaining biological and ecological diversity within the
urbanizing region. The MSHCP captures approximately 1.26 million acres covering multiple species and
multiple habitats within a diverse landscape, from urban centers to undeveloped foothills and montane
forests, and many bioregions like the Santa Ana Mountains, Riverside Lowlands, San Jacinto Foothills , and
San Bernardino Mountains.
e. Park and Ride Strategy and Toolkit—In partnership with San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG), RCTC completed the Park and Ride Strategy and Toolkit in 2019. It identifies strategies and
34
2-4
tools to help improve the planning, operation, and management of site-specific lots and the regional network
as a whole.
4. County or City-level Initiatives:
a. Riverside County’s Good Neighbor Policy—The Policy provides a framework for how logistics centers or
warehouses greater than 250,000 square feet are designed, constructed, and operated to lessen impacts
on surrounding communities and the environment. One such requirement is establishing a 300 -foot
minimum buffer between truck bays and loading docks and surrounding homes.
b. San Bernardino Countywide Vision—The Countywide Vision Statement, approved in 2011 by
SBCTA/SBCOG, its member cities, and the County of San Bernardino, was a bold step toward a
sustainable future, setting the County on a sustainable course for nine distinct sectors or elements. The
Vision states that: “We envision a sustainable system of high-quality education, community health, public
safety, housing, retail, recreation, arts and culture, and infrastructure, in which development complements
our natural resources and environment.”
c. Inclusion of transportation-efficient land use policies and other sustainability policies in local general plans
and specific plans corridor-wide. See SCAG Local Profiles at https://www.scag.ca.gov/DataAndTools/
Pages/LocalProfiles.aspx for additional information on characteristics of each Inland Empire jurisdiction.
2.2 Multimodal Transportation Programs
As indicated earlier, there are programs underway at the Inland Empire level or at the County level that are very
much a part of the multimodal transportation strategy but do not fall neatly into the individual sub -corridors. As the
sub-corridor strategies are presented, it is important to remember that these programs serve as ove rlays to the lists
of strategies or projects listed at the sub-corridor level. So if a certain sub-corridor does not seem as multimodal
as others, it is important to remember that these program -level activities are still at work to reduce GHGs
and VMT as well as to improve system safety, efficiency, and operations. Many of these involve partnerships
across state, regional, and local agencies.
The programs are generally categorized as follows:
• Active Transportation (AT). While some AT activities are project-specific, others are programmatic, such as
Safe Routes to School or local/regional funding programs, like the Transportation Development Act (TDA) that
funds local active transportation projects through a competitive call for project s every odd numbered years.
• Intelligent Transportation System/Incident Management (ITS/IM). Examples include signal coordination
and freeway service patrols.
35
2-5
• Rail. Regional improvements and funding programs are in place that benefit upgrades in the Metrolink
commuter rail system.
• Safety. Caltrans sponsors ongoing transportation funding initiatives to maintain and provide safety upgrades
to local and state highways.
• Transit (other than rail). Each transit agency has its own investment plan for improving the customer
experience and customer/driver safety.
• Transportation Demand Management (TDM). A wide array of TDM strategies is promoted through IE
Commuter, from ridesharing to vanpooling to alternative work schedules.
• Zero Emission Vehicles and Alternative Fuel Programs (ZEV/AF). There are numerous statewide and
regional programs for funding and incentivizing more rapid turnover of auto and truck fleets to benefit air
quality and GHG reduction.
A listing of relevant areawide programs is provided in Table 2.1.
36
2-6
Table 2.1 | Areawide Multimodal Programs (not specific to a sub-corridor)
Program
Type Project Title/Description Partners Status Source
AT Safe Routes to School/for Seniors—
Education, Encouragement,
Enforcement
RCTC, SBCTA and
cities/counties
Ongoing RCTC Traffic Relief
Plan, WRCOG Active
Transportation Plan,
and SBCo Non-
Motorized/AT Plan
AT Transportation Development Act Article
3 Funding (bike/ped infrastructure,
transit operations)
RCTC, SBCTA,
cities/counties, transit
agencies
Ongoing TDA
ITS/IM Freeway Traffic Management
System/TMC
Caltrans Ongoing Caltrans Planning for
Operations
ITS/IM Interchange and arterial signal
coordination and local TMCs
Caltrans
Local Jurisdiction TMC
Ongoing Caltrans Planning for
Operations
ITS/IM Freeway Service Patrols RCTC, SBCTA, Caltrans,
CHP
Ongoing RCTC/SBCTA FSP
Programs
Rail Ongoing maintenance and schedule
upgrades
SCRRA, RCTC, SBCTA Ongoing SCRRA SRTP
Rail Southern California Optimized Rail
Expansion (SCORE) Program
SCRRA, SCAQMD, RCTC,
SBCTA
Ongoing SCORE
Rail Acquisition of clean locomotives SCRRA, SCAQMD, RCTC,
SBCTA
Ongoing TRP
Safety State Highway Operation and Protection
Program (SHOPP)
Caltrans Ongoing SHOPP
Safety Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP)—Competitive program for local
safety projects
Cities/counties Ongoing HSIP Guidelines
Transit Ongoing route and schedule upgrades RTA, Omnitrans, VVTA,
and other transit agencies
Ongoing SRTPs
Transit Expansion of express and regional bus
network with improved frequencies
RTA Ongoing SRTPs, RCTC Traffic
Relief Plan
Transit Transit agency responses to CARB
Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) rule
RTA, Omnitrans, VVTA,
and other transit agencies,
and CTCs
Ongoing Transit Agencies/
SRTPs
Transit Fare equipment and ITS technology
upgrades to improve operations
RTA, Omnitrans, other
transit agencies, and CTCs
Ongoing SRTPs
TDM Design and construction of Park and
Ride Facilities
Caltrans, RCTC, SBCTA,
Cities
Ongoing TRP/CTP
TDM IE Commuter Rideshare Program and
Telework Initiative
RCTC, SBCTA Ongoing TRP/CTP
TDM Vanclub—Riverside County Vanpool
Program
RCTC Ongoing TRP/CTP
TDM Loop and VVTA Vanpool Programs SBCTA, VVTA Ongoing TRP/CTP
VE/AF CARB funding programs (e.g., AQIP) CARB Ongoing
VE/AF Electric vehicle and charging
infrastructure rebates/incentives
State, Utility Cos. Ongoing
37
2-7
2.3 Inland Empire CMCP Goals, Objectives and Performance Metrics
The CTC Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan Guidelines (2018), the CTC Solutions for Congestion Corridor
Program (SCCP) Guidelines (2020) and the Caltrans Corridor Planning Process Guide (2020) are all guiding
documents which contain corridor planning goals, objectives, performance metrics and evaluation criteria for
assessing transportation improvement projects at the corridor level. In addition, many other state, regional and local
transportation plans include transportation system improvement goals, objectives and performance metrics, such
as the Caltrans Smart Mobility Framework, the Regional Transportation Plan, the San Bernardino County
Countywide Plan, Transportation and Mobility Element and the Riverside County Draft Long Range Transportation
Plan.
The CTC Solutions for Congested Corridors Program guidelines also state that “the pri mary objective of the
Congested Corridors Program is to fund projects designed to reduce congestion in highly traveled and highly
congested corridors through performance improvements that balance transportation improvements, community
impacts, and that provide environmental benefits.”
Based on the CTC and Caltrans guidance, objectives of the comprehensive multimodal corridor planning process
may include but are not necessarily limited to:
• Define multimodal transportation deficiencies and opportunities for optimizing system operations.
• Identify the types of projects necessary to reduce congestion, improve mobility, and optimize multimodal
system operations along highly traveled corridors.
• Identify funding needs.
• Further state and Federal ambient air standards and greenhouse gas emissions reduction standards pursuant
to the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Division 25.5, commencing with Section 38550, of the
Health and Safety Code) and Senate Bill 375 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008).
• Preserve the character of local communities and create opportunities for neighborhood enhancement .
• Identify projects that achieve a balanced set of transportation, environmental, and community access
improvements.
As noted, a key element of the CMCP is to reduce congestion in highly traveled and highly congested corridors
through performance improvements. To measure projects or groups of projects which result in performance
improvements in the study area and sub-corridors, a set of transportation performance metrics is applied. Some of
these are metrics can be assessed using quantitative data such as transportation model output, while others are
qualitatively evaluated based on project type, project location and other factors . This is consistent with the CTC
guidelines which state “in recognition that data availability and modeling capabilities vary by agency based on
available resources, the Commission expects agencies to address plan and project performance qualitatively and
38
2-8
quantitatively to the degree reasonable given technical and financial resources available during the planning
process. As part of the comprehensive multimodal corridor planning process, a plan -level corridor performance
assessment must be conducted and documented to clearly outline system performance and trends.” The
evaluations provided in this plan clearly document the conditions, including congestion levels, in the overall study
area and sub-corridors.
Per the CTC and Caltrans corridor guidelines, it is critical to create the multimodal corridor plan that closely match
the local and regional goals and objectives for transportation planning. With that in mind, a summary of the goals
an objectives of Riverside County and San Bernardino County from the lates t transportation plans include:
Riverside County:3
• Provide a first class transportation system and supports a vibrant, dynamic and livable county;
• A multimodal system that will promote sustainability, access, safety, economic opportunities, public health,
environmental stewardship and balanced job/housing ratio;
• Utilize best available technology;
• Provide reliable and efficient mobility for people goods and services;
• Preserve values of Riversides County's communities.
San Bernardino County:4
• Consolidate and integrate countywide transportation and land use planning to provide consistent input to the
RTP/SCS.
• Improve safety and mobility for all modes of travel.
• Deliver transportation projects and services to promote economic competitiveness, affordable housi ng,
environmental quality and overall sustainability.
• Promote stewardship of public resources through cost effective delivery, maintenance and operations of
projects.
• Promote the planning and funding of sustainable transportation systems via collaboration with local, regional,
state, Federal and private stakeholders.
3 Draft Riverside County Long Range Transportation Plan, July 2019.
4 San Bernardino County Countywide Plan, Transportation and Mobility Element, May 2019 .
39
2-9
Based on a combination of state, regional and local plans, goals and objectives, the following key performance
measures were discussed and chosen by the Inland Empire CMCP Project Management Te am to assess the sub-
corridor improvements:
• VMT Reduction.
• Person Delay Reduction.
• Safety Improvement.
• Mode Shift.
• Person Throughput.
• Improve Accessibility.
• Reduce GHG and Improve Air Quality.
• Improve System Reliability.
• Project Deliverability.
• Congestion Relief.
These performance metrics are used to assess the potential transportation system improvements in each sub -
corridor. The intent is not to rank the improvements or measure them against each other, but rather to inform the
CMCP and SCCP process regarding how the projects address the overall goals and objectives related to state,
regional and local plans. It is also recognized that the county -level plans and Caltrans plans have carefully
developed short range, ten year and long range improvement plans with sets of projects that have been reviewed
by residents, system users and elected officials. Those plans are used as a backbone for the sub -corridor
recommendations, with additional analysis related specifically to the CMCP.
40
41
3-1
3.0 Corridor Characteristics
This section provides a baseline assessment of existing travel characteristics and transportation conditions in the
overall IE CMCP Study Area. The analysis includes key information needed to understand the flows of people and
goods in the Study Area and the mobility deficiencies within the corridors. Transportation choices are a primary
theme, but community characteristics and sustainability are major themes of the IE CMCP analysis as well.
Information in this section includes commute and non-commute trip characteristics, transportation facility and
operational characteristics (all modes), corridor demographics, existing and forecast flows of people and goods,
safety, congestion levels, and bottlenecks.
The Corridor Characteristics assessment presents an assessment of land use, demographics, and multimodal
transportation conditions in the corridors and provides a baseline assessment upon which future projected
conditions will be compared. The section includes the following key sub -sections describing the Study Area:
• Socioeconomic and Land Use.
• Corridor Trip Characteristics.
• Safety.
• Active Transportation.
• Freeway and Arterials.
• Transit.
• Freight Network.
• Future Growth and Projected Changes.
Figure 3.1 illustrates the overall Study Area, which
includes substantial portions of the urbanized Inland
Empire of the Southern California region (excluding
the Coachella Valley area), which is defined generally
as the western portions of the counties of Riverside
and San Bernardino. As mentioned elsewhere in this
report, the Study Area is further disaggregated into
ten sub-corridors for strategic planning, assessments,
and project recommendations. However, this section
of the report describes conditions throughout the
overall Study Area, and the ten sub-corridors are
discussed in detail in Chapter 5.
42
3-2
Figure 3.1 | Overall Study Area
3.1 Socioeconomic and Land Use
Assessment
This section presents an assessment of the
socioeconomic and land use characteristics of the
Study Area, to help understand transportation
conditions and choices. This assessment examines
characteristics about the population living and
working in the corridors, including population density,
employment density, income, and other
characteristics that influence travel behavior. The
assessment is based on SCAG’s 2016 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy (RTP/SCS) data and data from the U.S.
Census Bureau’s American Community Survey
(ACS) 2015 5-year estimates.
3.1.1 Socioeconomic Characteristics
Income and Poverty Levels
Household income is a key measurement of the
Study Area’s residents’ financial well-being, and the
region’s standard of living. In addition to salary or
wage increases, household income grows when
additional household members join the rank of
workers—which often aligns with times of economic
prosperity, just as it typically shrinks when household
members retire or remove themselves from the
workforce. Income also is directly related to travel
choices. Those who can afford to own a car often
choose to not ride transit. Recent studies indicate that
rising incomes, combined with lower interest rates
and longer terms for new and used cars, have made
auto ownership more affordable in recent years. This
has resulted in reduced transit ridership in the SCAG
region as well as throughout the country. The Study
Area’s highest-income households are generally
concentrated in communities on the western portion
43
3-3
of the Study Area such as neighborhoods in the cities
of Corona, Chino, Chino Hills, Eastvale, Upland,
Rancho Cucamonga, and Fontana. Figure 3.2
illustrates the locations within the Study Area with
income levels below poverty level, by percentile. The
residents in these areas would be expected to be
more transit dependent than the rest of the Study
Area.
The Study Area has low- and moderate-income
households that are dispersed in various areas. As
housing costs are rising in other parts of the Southern
California region, many low- and middle-income
households are relocating to the Study Area. Areas
with relatively lower income and higher poverty rates
include neighborhoods in portions of San Bernardino,
Riverside, Hemet, Moreno Valley, Adelanto, and
others. Related to transportation corridors, some of
the lowest income areas are located at the junction of
the SR-91/I-215/SR-60, along the I-215 and SR-210,
SR-74, as well as to the far northern end of the Study
Area near the communities of Apple Valley,
Victorville, and Adelanto.
Figure 3.2 | Household Income Below
Poverty Levels
Source: ACS 2018, 5-year estimates.
44
3-4
Labor Force Population
Around 2.1 million people make up the labor force of
San Bernardino and Riverside counties. The average
age of the labor force is around 40.5 years old.
Detailed distribution of labor force by age is shown in
Figure 3.3. Breaking the workforce down by race and
ethnicicty, approximatly 52 percent—the majority—of
the labor force is Hispanic or Latino. The second
largest racial group is non-Hispanic white. Other
significant population groups are Black (7 percent)
and Asian (7 percent).
Figure 3.3 | Labor Force Age Distribution
Source: ACS 2018, 1-year estimates.
Senior and Youth Population Density
Neighborhoods with high senior and youth
populations require different transportation solutions
compared to the general population. The senior
population typically faces greater challenges for
getting around due to their fixed income, age, and
disabilities. The population under the driving age also
has more limited access to mobility due to cost,
limited access to vehicles, and restrictions to
obtaining a driver’s license. The driving age in
California is 16. Enhancements to transit and active
transportation may be some of the appropriate
solutions that help seniors and youths get around
independently to meet everyday needs.
Senior Population
Around 421,000 residents in the Study Area are age
65 and older, representing nearly 11 percent of the
population. Figure 3.4 illustrates the population
density of the senior population. The neighborhoods
with the highest share of senior population are in the
eastern edge of the Study Area in Banning/Beaumont
and the southern section of the Study Area in
Menifee/Temecula. The Inland Empire, particularly in
the eastern and southern portion of the Study Area, is
an attractive location for seniors to live in Southern
California where housing is more affordable. The
highest concentration of seniors can be found in
retirement communities in Beaumont and Menifee
where there is a 55+ age minimum for residents.
Youth Population
Around 1,044,800 residents in the Study Area are
under the age of 18, representing nearly 27 percent
of the population. Figure 3.5 illustrates the population
density of the youth population. The neighborhoods
with the highest shares of population under 18 can be
found throughout the Study Area. At the northern
edge of the Study Area, some neighborhoods in
Adelanto, Victorville, and Hesperia have
neighborhoods with one in three residents under 18.
Along the I-10/SR-210 corridor, the cities of Rialto
and San Bernardino have significant populations
under 18. North of SR-91, neighborhoods in Jurupa
Valley have high shares of youth residents. In the
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
San Bernardino and Riverside Counties
16 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 44
45
3-5
southern portion of the Study Area, neighborhoods in
Murrieta, Lake Elsinore, and Perris have a large
share of population under age 18.
Figure 3.4 | Senior Population Density
Source: 2017 5-year ACS.
46
3-6
Figure 3.5 | Youth Population Density
Source: 2017 5-year ACS.
47
3-7
Environmental Justice Measures
Communities of Concern
SCAG maintains a list of “Communities of Concern”
(COC), which are Census Designated Places (CDP)
that represent the top 33 percent of minority and low-
income residents. SCAG tracks changes to the
composition of these areas as part of their Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategies (RTP/SCS) updates. Out of the 80 COCs
in the six-county SCAG region, portions of nine COCs
are within the Study Area (see Table 3.1).
Table 3.1 | SCAG Designated
Communities of Concern in
Study Area
Community of Concern
Mead Valley Adelanto
Perris Bloomington
Muscovy Colton
Montclair San Bernardino
Rialto
Source: SCAG 2016.
CalEnviroScreen
The California Environmental Protection Agency
(CalEPA) and the Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) developed
CalEnviroScreen to compare the relative pollution
burden for communities across the state. Based on
20 pollution and socioeconomic indicators, the tool
ranks each census tract based on the population’s
vulnerability to environmental pollution. Various
statewide funding programs, including the Cap and
Trade and Active Transportation Programs, use the
CalEnviroScreen definition of “disadvantaged
community.” This definition includes the Census
Tracts with the top 25 percent most disadvantaged
scores in the state. Most of these Disadvantaged
Communities are represented by the orange and red
colored census tracts illustrated in Figure 3.6.
The Study Area’s combination of pollution burden and
population characteristics give it high
CalEnviroScreen scores in some areas, meaning
there are many pollution-burdened and vulnerable
communities throughout the Study Area. In general,
many census tracts in the Study Area are more likely
to have a high CalEnviroScreen score compared to
the Southern California region as a whole, and the
Study Area has comparatively higher concentrations
of air pollutants (ozone + particulate matter) and
higher poverty rates than the region as a whole.
Communities of concern are located along the I-10
corridor, Jurupa Valley, Riverside, Moreno Valley,
Perris, Corona, Temescal Valley, and San Jacinto
Valley. There are generally no Disadvantaged
Communities in the areas south of SR-74 and south
of the communities of Lake Elsinore, Perris, and
Hemet. This is likely attributed to higher household
incomes and lower poverty rates for census tracts in
the southern portion of the Study Area which is more
proximate to San Diego County.
48
3-8
Figure 3.6 | CalEnviroScreen and SCAG
Communities of Concern
Source: CalEPA CalEnviroScreen 3.0; SCAG 2016
RTP.
3.1.2 Land Use
The Study Area covers over 1.2 million acres of land
in the Inland Empire. Development in the Study Area
is spread over two dozen jurisdictions and
unincorporated areas. In the region’s early history,
development began as vacant land was converted to
agricultural use. Farming plays a less prominent role
in the Study Area today, but large swaths of
undeveloped, vacant, open space/recreation, and
agriculture lands still exist between urbanized areas
as presented in Figure 3.7 and Table 3.2. These
types of land represent over half (53 percent) of the
Study Area. Agriculture land is primarily located in the
Temecula Valley, Menifee Valley, Perris Valley, and
San Jacinto Valley in the southern portion of the
Study Area, as well as in Chino and southern Ontario
in the western portion of the Study Area.
49
3-9
Figure 3.7 | Study Area Land Use
Source: SCAG 2012 Land Use.
Table 3.2 | Land Use Type by Share of
Study Area
Land Use Type Acreage
Vacant 367,000
Single-Family Residential 208,573
Open Space/Recreation 175,702
Agriculture 93,439
Other/Mixed Residential 86,558
Unknown 66,448
Industrial 49,630
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 44,411
Commercial 22,436
Water 17,860
Facilities 16,155
Education 15,546
Multifamily Residential 15,467
Undevelopable or Protected Land 9,977
Military 8,110
Under Construction 6,233
Office 5,052
Mixed Commercial/Industrial 2,395
Specific Plan 418
Mixed Residential/Commercial 176
Grand Total 1,211,587
Source: SCAG 2012 Land Use.
The region also has a long history of industrial and
commercial land use. During World War II, military
installations—such as March Air Reserve Base,
which is still active today—brought manufacturing
and steel production to the region. While the
manufacturing industry has declined in the Inland
Empire, it has been superseded by a booming
logistics industry which is characterized by enormous
warehouse and distribution facilities. So much so that
Amazon Air currently operates six flights a day out of
the March Air Base, in addition to Ontario
International Airport. Warehouse and distribution
centers have large footprints and require big parce ls
of land with access to transportation facilities.
Abundant and more affordable land adjacent to a
strong regional transportation system has made the
50
3-10
Inland Empire a particularly attractive location for
companies to position their distribution facilities.
Today, industrial and commercial land use represents
6 percent of the land in the Study Area. The greatest
concentration of industrial and commercial land use
is along the I-10 and I-15 corridors stretching from
Ontario to San Bernardino. This land is proximate to
trucking corridors that transport goods from the ports
of Los Angeles and Long Beach to the rest of the
country and Ontario International and San Bernardino
International airports, both of which are major cargo
hubs. The southern edge of Moreno Valley and
northern edge of Perris along the I-215 has another
concentration of industrial land use for warehousing.
The cities of Corona (along the SR-91), Murrieta (near
I-15), and Temecula (near I-15) also have industrial
and commercial centers.
Of the remaining land in the Study Area, the vast
majority is single-family residential land use
representing 17 percent of the Study Area. Rising
home and land prices in neighboring coastal zones
have brought housing booms to the region.
Developers have converted large vacant or
agriculture lands into new single-family residential
subdivisions attracting homeowners seeking more
affordable housing. Concentrations of single-family
subdivisions can be found from the Victor Valley area
in the most northern edge of the Study Area, through
the SR-210/Foothill Boulevard (SR-66) corridor
between Upland and Highland, in Chino and Chino
Hills at the western edge of the Study Area, Jurupa
Valley, along SR-91 corridor, Moreno Valley,
Redlands, and Murrieta/Temecula in the south
portions of the Study Area.
5 https://www.visittemeculavalley.com/about/.
The Temecula Valley area in the southern most
region of the Study Area is an international resort
destination with nearly 3 million visitors each year.5
Major destinations in Temecula Valley include Wine
Country, the Historic Old Town Temecula, and
Pechanga Resort & Casino.
Employment Density
1.2 million workers are employed in the Study Area,
representing over 80 percent of the total jobs in San
Bernardino and Riverside counties. The industries
with the most jobs include: health care and social
assistance, retail trade, accommodations, food
services, educational services, and transportation
and warehousing. Since the end of the Great
Recession, the Inland Empire has had one of the
fastest growing economies of large metro areas in the
country, with job growth in San Bernardino and
Riverside counties outpacing the growth statewide.
Job growth in the Study Area has been fueled by new
transportation and warehousing, construction, health
care, accommodation, and food services jobs.
Between 2010 and 2019, transportation and
warehousing industry added 74,600 jobs (115%
growth), construction industry added 43,000 jobs
(73% growth), health care and social assistance
indutry added 79,900 jobs (55% growth), and
accommdation/food service industry added 47,100
jobs (45% growth) in Sanbernardino and Riverside
counties.
Existing jobs are dispersed throughout the urbanized
areas of the Study Area and, unlike most metropolitan
areas, there are no typical dense urban job core
areas, as only a handful of census tracts have
employment density of greater than 5,000 jobs per
51
3-11
square mile as shown in Figure 3.8. The areas with
relatively dense concentrations of jobs can be found
in the cities of Riverside, San Bernardino, and
Ontario, primarily along the I-10, SR-60 and SR-91
corridors.
Figure 3.8 | Employment Density
52
3-12
Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS.
Population Density
The areas with the greatest population density
generally fall along the SR-210/I-10 and SR-91
corridors in a number of cities, with population density
greater than 5,000 persons per square mile, as
shown in Figure 3.9. Some additional concentrations
of higher population density also occur in the
southern area along I-15 in Murrieta and Temecula,
as well as in the Hemet/San Jacinto areas. Note that
areas of higher population density also generally
correlate with areas of higher employment density,
with the exception of the southern portion of the Study
Area which has higher population density but fewer
jobs.
Figure 3.9 | Population Density
Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS.
53
3-13
Population to Employment Ratio
Recent job growth in the region has helped move the
needle in reducing the population to employment ratio
imbalance in the Study Area. Overall, there are 3.1
persons per job in the Study Area which is high
compared to the SCAG region’s 2.3 persons per job.
The population to employment ratios are lowest along
the I-10 corridor and SR-91 corridors, ranging from
2.4 to 3.1 person per job as shown in Figure 3.10. The
Jurupa Valley, SR-74 corridor, and Victor Valley
areas have the highest population to employment
ratios where there are fewer jobs. This means many
residents in these areas must commute long
distances to other areas inside or outside the Study
Area for work.
Figure 3.10 | Population-Employment
Ratio
Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS.
3.2 Corridor Trip Characteristics
This section identifies trip origins and destinations
and other trip characteristics in the Study Area to
convey an understanding of the nature of travel
activities that may be directly addressed by
54
3-14
complementarily transportation improvements. The
analysis of the origins and destinations of travelers is
primarily based on SCAG’s regional travel demand
model data, as well as American Community Survey
census data.
3.2.1 Trip Characteristics
There are over nine million daily auto trips made by
residents and employees in the Study Area. These
trips represent most of the travel in the Study Area as
it is heavily auto-centric with 92 percent of commute
activities occurring by car. Daily auto trips were
examined to gain insight into the daily activity patterns
of travelers in the region. As illustrated in Table 3.3,
about eight out of 10 of those trips are internal-internal
trips, meaning they start and end within the Study
Area. Internal-internal trips include commute travel for
workers who live and work in the Study Area, as well
as local trips for daily activities such as grocery
shopping, school drop-off/ pick-up, and leisure which
are often proximate to home.
The remaining trips travel to or originate from outside
of the Study Area (internal-external or external-
internal trips). Around one million trips are made
between the Study Area and Los Angeles County
every day, representing around six percent of all trips.
Around 400,000 daily trips are made between the
Study Area and Orange County as well as 150,000
daily trips between the Study Area and San Diego
County.
Table 3.3 | 2016 Daily Trips by Type
Trip Type Number of Trips Percentage
Internal—Internal Trips 7,299,000 81%
Internal—External and External—Internal Trips 1,713,000 19%
Study Area—Los Angeles County Trips 997,000 11%
Study Area—San Bernardino County Trips 55,000 1%
Study Area—Orange County Trips 448,000
Study Area—Riverside/Imperial County Trips 84,000
Study Area—San Diego Trips 129,000
Total Trips 9,012,000
Source: SCAG Model 2016.
Figure 3.11 shows both internal and external trips. As
shown, the following trip patterns are observed for the
external trips (19 percent of all trips):
• Eleven percent of the trips or about 1 million
daily trips (equaling almost two thirds of the
external trips) are to/from the Los Angeles
County area to the west.
• Five Percent of the trips or about 400,000 daily
trips (equaling about a quarter of the external
trips) are to/from Orange County to the
southwest.
• Approximately 1 percent of the trips are to/from
areas to the south, east and north.
55
3-15
Figure 3.11 | Existing Daily Auto Trips in
and to/from Study Area
Source: SCAG Model, 2016.
The study area is divided into areas called Regional
Statstical Areas (RSAs) as defined by SCAG . RSAs
are based on census blocks and provide a common
ground for transportation analysis. Table 3.4 lists the
RSA by Study Area cities. The daily distribution of
trips at the level of the RSA is illustrated in
Figure 3.12. As shown, for trips within the Study Area,
many of the internal-external trips originate from
places in the Study Area along the I-10 and SR-91
corridors. In those corridors, there is approximately a
50-50 split for trips that stay within their RSA and
those that go elsewhere. In the Victor Valley,
Temecula Valley/Lake Elsinore, and Hemet RSAs,
more trips stay within their RSA. Conversely, in the
Jurupa Valley, Perris/Moreno Valley, and Banning
RSAs, more trips leave than stay within their RSA.
Areas which have a higher share of trips that leave
the RSA likely have residents that must commute
longer distances for work.
Table 3.4 | Regional Statistical Area by
Cities
RSA City
28 Chino
28 Chino Hills
28 Fontana
28 Montclair
28 Ontario
28 Rancho Cucamonga
28 Upland
29 Colton
29 Grand Terrace
29 Highland
29 Loma Linda
29 Redlands
29 Rialto
29 San Bernardino
29 Yucaipa
45 Eastvale
45 Jurupa Valley
46 Corona
46 Norco
46 Riverside
47 Canyon Lake
47 Menifee
47 Moreno Valley
47 Perris
48 Hemet
48 San Jacinto
49 Lake Elsinore
49 Murrieta
49 Temecula
49 Wildomar
50 Banning
56
3-16
50 Beaumont
50 Calimesa
The largest RSA-to-RSA flow of trips is between the
Ontario and San Bernardino areas. The second
largest RSA-to-RSA flows are between the Ontario
and Riverside/Corona areas and the San Bernardino
and Riverside/Corona areas. There are also a sizable
number of trips from Perris/Moreno Valley to the
Murrieta/Temecula areas and the Riverside/Corona
areas.
Figure 3.12 | Trip Patterns by Regional
Statistical Area
Source: SCAG Model, 2016.
3.2.2 Journey-to-Work
Table 3.5 shows the county-to-county commuting
flows and indicate that a fair number of residents in
57
3-17
the Study Area work in neighboring counties. 17
percent of workers living in San Bernardino County
and 6 percent of workers living in Riverside County
commute to jobs in Los Angeles County. Eight
percent of workers who live in Riverside County
commute to Orange County and four percent of
workers who live in San Bernardino County commute
to Orange County. Five percent of workers who live
in Riverside County and 0.3 percent of workers who
live in San Bernardino County commute to jobs in
San Diego. Housing costs in the coastal counties
continue to rise and many workers in adjacent
counties either choose or are forced to live in the
Study Area where housing is more affordable.
Table 3.5 | County-to-County Commuting
Flows
County of Residence Place of Employment Percentage of Workers
Riverside County Riverside County 69%
San Bernardino County 11%
Orange County 8%
Los Angeles County 6%
San Diego County 5%
Other 1%
San Bernardino County San Bernardino County 70%
Los Angeles County 16%
Riverside County 8%
Orange County 4%
San Diego County 0.3%
Other 1%
Source: ACS 2012-2016 via CTPP (Census
Transportation Planning Products) County
to County Flows.
Note: This data includes all Riverside County
(including outside of the Study Area).
Journey to work mode share is shown in Figure 3.13.
Overall, 92 percent of commute trips in the Study
Area are completed by car. High auto use is often
found in suburban and rural areas with lower-density
land use patterns such as the Inland Empire. Transit
accounts for just one percent of commutes, while 5
percent of residents work at home.
Notably, when examining the group that commutes by
car, there is a sizeable portion of commuters that
carpool. In the Study Area, 78 percent of workers
drive alone and 14 percent carpool. The share of
commuters that carpool is higher in the Study Area as
compared to California as a whole (14 percent in the
Study Area compared to 10 percent in California).
Carpooling is particularly popular in
Hemet/Perris/Moreno Valley areas where 16-17
percent of residents in the Study Area carpool to
work.
Work at home is the third most popular option in the
Study Area after drive alone and carpool as
presented in Table 3.6. Five percent of workers in the
Study Area work at home. It is particularly popular in
the Murrieta/Temecula area where six percent of
workers work from home.
Figure 3.13 | Study Area Journey-to-
Work Mode Share for Study
Area
Source: ACS 2017, 5-year estimates.
Carpool, 14%
Transit, 1%
Non-Motorized, 2%Work At Home, 5%
58
3-18
Table 3.6 | Journey-to-Work Model Share
by RSA (ACS)
RSA
Drive
Alone Carpool Transit
Non-
Motorized
Work at
Home
28—Chino, Chino Hills, Fontana, Montclair, Ontario,
Rancho Cucamonga, Upland
79% 13% 2% 1% 5%
29—Colton, Grand Terrace, Highland, Loma Linda,
Redlands, Rialto, San Bernardino, Yucipa
78% 14% 2% 2% 4%
45—Eastvale, Jurupa Valley 77% 14% 2% 0% 6%
46—Corona, Norco, Riverside 76% 15% 2% 3% 5%
47—Canyon Lake, Menifee, Moreno Valley, Perris 78% 16% 1% 1% 4%
48—Hemet, San Jacinto 75% 17% 1% 3% 4%
49—Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Temecula, Wildomar 78% 14% 0% 1% 6%
50—Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa 80% 11% 1% 2% 4%
All 78% 14% 1% 2% 5%
Source: ACS 2017, 5-year estimates.
Except for individuals who work at home, nearly 95
percent of workers in the Study Area must find a way
to travel to their jobs each workday. Their choice of
transportation mode, departure time, trip origin, and
destination all play key roles in determining door-to-
door travel time. The collective result of these daily
decisions is reflected in the commute times for the
Study Area as presented in Figure 3.14 and
Table 3.7. Nine percent of workers in the Study Area
commute less than 10 minutes while nearly half (46
percent) of all workers’ commute are between 10 to
30 minutes.. Thirty-two percent have a 30 to 60
minute commute and 13 percent commute over one
hour.
Commuting time varies based on place of residence,
place of employment, and mode of travel. Typically,
in metro areas, commute time distribution skews
toward shorter commutes. In the Study Area,
however, only RSA 29 (Colton, Grand Terrace,
Highland, Loma Linda, Redlands, Rialto, San
Bernardino, Yucaipa) for the San Bernardino area
has commute time distribution that is skewed toward
shorter commutes. The other RSAs have commute
times which skew toward long commutes (over 30
minutes). When it comes to long commutes, RSA 45
(Jurupa Valley) stands out for having particularly long
commutes with the plurality of commuters traveling
over 30 minutes to work and about 25 percent
commuting over one hour. Jurupa Valley is primarily
a bedroom community with many residents having to
travel outside of the RSA for work. In addition to long
distances, congestion on highways in the Study Area
also lengthens door-to-door commute times.
Figure 3.14 | Journey-to-Work Travel
Time Distribution by RSA
Source: ACS 2017, 5-year estimates
Table 3.7 | Journey-to-Work Travel Time
Distribution
RSA
28—Chino, Chino Hills, Fontana, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Upland
29—Colton, Grand Terrace, Highland, Loma Linda, Redlands, Rialto, San
Bernardino, Yucipa
45—Eastvale, Jurupa Valley
46—Corona, Norco, Riverside
47—Canyon Lake, Menifee, Moreno Valley, Perris
48—Hemet, San Jacinto
49—Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Temecula, Wildomar
50—Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa
59
3-19
RSA
<10
mins
10 to 30
mins
30-60
mins
>60
mins
Average 9% 46% 32% 13%
Source: ACS 2017, 5-year estimates
3.2.3 Rideshare
Rideshare programs provide the flexibility to improve
the overall commuting experience and provide a
broad range of benefits by helping to match
commuters with similar origins and destinations.
These programs encourage commuters to carpool,
vanpool, use public transit, cycle, or walk to work by
working directly with large and small employers to
provide support to commuters that are candidates for
using alternative forms of transportation.
RCTC and SBCTA provide rideshare program
assistance in the Study Area through the IE
Commuter program. The IE Commuter Program
assists San Bernardino and Riverside County
employers of all sizes with their rideshare programs.
IE Commuter also assists employers with
development and maintenance of rideshare programs
by providing information and support services free of
charge to San Bernardino and Riverside County
employers.
Based on SCAG model data shown in the prior
section, the share of work trips made by carpools is
14 percent. However, the ability to effectively carpool
is reduced due to the degradation in speeds and
operating conditions throughout much of the freeway
system both in general purpose lanes and HOV
lanes. An HOV lane is considered degraded if the
average traffic speed during the morning or evening
weekday peak commute hour is less than 45 miles
per hour for more than 10 percent of the time over a
consecutive 180-day period.
Based on the “2017 California High-Occupancy
Vehicle Lane Degradation Report,” HOV lane
degradation in Caltrans District 8 increased from 93
lane-miles to 110 lane-miles between the first and
second halves of 2016, respectively. Significant
portions of SR-210, I-10, and SR-91 HOV lanes are
considered degraded. Only [check line return here]
I-215 HOV lanes between SR-60 and SR-210, and
SR-91 HOV lanes between I-15 and I-215 are
operating well. In reviewing the degradation trend
from 2010 to 2016, several locations experienced
notable changes in degradation. Most notably,
eastbound SR-210 in San Bernardino County (from
postmile 0.000 to postmile 4.933) experienced an
increase in degradation from slightly degraded to
extremely degraded between 2012 and 2013. The
changes may be attributable to changes in traffic
patterns and increased traffic demand from Los
Angeles and the Inland Empire, as well as higher
automobile usage overall.
3.3 Safety
This section presents a generalized assessment of
transportation system safety for the Study Area. This
assessment examines recent trends in collisions
involving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and trucks;
highlights key statistics; identifies areas of high
collision frequency; and highlights areas for
improvement throughout the corridor.
This assessment utilizes data from the Statewide
Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS),
obtained from Transportation Injury Mapping System
(TIMS), and the Caltrans Performance Measurement
System (PeMS).
60
3-20
3.3.1 Freeway Safety Assessment
Collision Rates on Freeways and Ramps
Figure 3.15 compares Study Area freeway collision
rates to those of other freeways, the Riverside County
average, San Bernardino County average, and the
Caltrans District 8 average. Data is taken from
January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018 from PeMS.
The PeMS system receives incident information from
the Traffic Accident and Surveillance Analysis
System (TASAS) (i.e., number of collisions and types
of collisions) and California Highway Patrol (i.e.,
incident data from its computer-aided dispatch
system).
The average for Riverside County freeway collisions
is 2.5 collisions per million VMT, while the average for
San Bernardino County is 2.14 collisions per million
VMT. Freeways in Caltrans District 8 (Riverside and
San Bernardino counties combined) have an average
of 2.32 collisions per million VMT. As shown, the
highest collision rates by facility occur on SR-91
eastbound, SR-91 westbound, I-215 southbound, and
I-10 eastbound, which all have collision rates greater
than 4.0 per million VMT.
Figure 3.15 | Freeway Collisions per
Million VMT, 2018
Source: Caltrans PeMS.
Collision Breakdown by Severity and Mode
Freeway Collisions Involving All Modes
Figure 3.16 shows freeway collisions by severity type:
Fatal, Severe, Other Visible Injury, and Minor Injury.
In the three-year period between January 1, 2016 and
December 31, 2018, there were 17,048 collisions
along the Study Area freeway mainline or ramps that
resulted in injury. Of these collisions, approximately 2
percent (309 fatal collisions) resulted in fatalities, 6
percent in severe injuries, 27 percent in other visible
injuries, and 65 percent in minor injuries. While fatal
collisions remained relatively consistent from year to
year, the number of severe injuries has steadily
increased. By 2018, severe injury collisions had risen
over 50 percent compared to 2016.
61
3-21
Figure 3.16 | Study Area Freeway
Collisions by Severity,
2016–2018
Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System
(TIMS), Safe Transportation Research and
Education Center, University of California,
Berkeley. 2019.
Collisions Involving Bicyclists
Figure 3.17 shows the severity type of freeway
collisions involving bicycles. In the three-year period
between 2016 and 2018, there were 54 reported
collisions along the Study Area freeway mainline or
ramps involving bicyclists that resulted in injury. Of
these collisions, three resulted in fatalities, five in
severe injuries, 22 in other visible injuries, and 27 in
minor injuries. Collisions involving bicyclists make up
0.3 percent of all collisions along the Study Area
freeways, and 1 percent of fatal collisions along the
Study Area freeways.
Figure 3.17 | Study Area Freeway
Collisions Involving
Bicycles by Severity, 2016–
2018
Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System
(TIMS), Safe Transportation Research and
Education Center, University of California,
Berkeley. 2019.
Collisions Involving Pedestrians
Figure 3.18 shows the severity type of freeway
collisions involving pedestrians. In the three-year
period between 2016 and 2018, there were 248
collisions along the Study Area freeway mainline or
ramps involving pedestrians that resulted in injury. Of
the injury collisions, approximately 27 percent
resulted in fatalities, 24 percent in severe injuries, 31
percent in other visible injuries, and 18 percent in
minor injuries. Over the three-year period there were
68 fatal collisions. Fatal collisions involving
pedestrians have been on the rise since 2016 and,
not surprisingly, represent a disproportionally large
percentage of injury collisions. Collisions involving
bicyclists make up 1.5 percent of all collisions along
the Study Area freeways, and 22 percent of fatal
collisions along the Study Area freeways.
62
3-22
Figure 3.18 | Study Area Freeway
Collisions Involving
Pedestrians by Severity,
2016–2018
Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System
(TIMS), Safe Transportation Research and
Education Center, University of California,
Berkeley. 2019.
Collisions Involving Trucks
Figure 3.19 shows the severity type of freeway
collisions involving trucks. In the three-year period
between 2016 and 2018, there were 1,599 collisions
along the Study Area freeway mainline or ramps
involving trucks that resulted in injury. Of the injury
collisions, approximately 4 percent resulted in
fatalities, 8 percent in severe injuries, 29 percent in
other visible injuries, and 59 percent in minor injuries.
Over the three-year period there were 60 fatal
collisions. Collisions involving trucks make up 9.4
percent of all collisions along the Study Area
freeways, and 19 percent of fatal collisions along the
Study Area freeways.
Figure 3.19 | Study Area Freeway
Collisions Involving Trucks
by Severity, 2016–2018
Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System
(TIMS), Safe Transportation Research and
Education Center, University of California,
Berkeley. 2019.
Factors Influencing Safety on Study Area
Freeways
The TIMS database categorizes each injury collision
by its Primary Collision Factor (PCF). It should be
noted that the PCF is a subjective determination and
there are often multiple factors that may lead to a
collision. Based on these designations, the most
common factors causing injury collisions along the
Study Area freeways mainline or ramps are Unsafe
Speed (55 percent), Improper Turning (18 percent),
Unsafe Lane Change (10 percent), and Driving or
Bicycling under the influence (9 percent). Figure 3.20
displays the freeway collision factors.
63
3-23
Figure 3.20 | Primary Collision Factors
for Freeway Collisions in
the Study Area
Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System
(TIMS), Safe Transportation Research and
Education Center, University of California,
Berkeley. 2019.
3.3.2 Arterial Safety Assessment
Collision Breakdown by Severity and Mode
on Arterial Roadways
Collisions Involving All Modes
Figure 3.21 shows the severity type of arterial
collisions involving all modes. In the three-year period
between 2016 and 2018, there were 15,684 collisions
on arterials in the Study Area which resulted in injury.
Of these collisions, approximately 2 percent resulted
in fatalities, 6 percent in severe injuries, 28 percent in
other visible injuries, and 63 percent in minor injuries.
Over the three-year period there were 386 fatal
collisions that resulted in deaths. Overall, total injury
collisions increased each year between 2016 and
2018, with other visible injuries and minor injuries
showing a steady upward trend.
Figure 3.21 | Arterial Collisions by
Severity, 2016–2018
Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System
(TIMS), Safe Transportation Research and
Education Center, University of California,
Berkeley. 2019.
Collisions Involving Bicyclists
Figure 3.22 shows the severity type of arterial
collisions involving bicyclists. In the three-year period
between 2016 and 2018 on arterials in the Study
Area, there were 774 collisions involving bicyclists
that resulted in injury. Of the injury collisions,
approximately 2 percent resulted in fatalities, 9
percent in severe injuries, 47 percent in other visible
injuries, and 43 percent in minor injuries. Collisions
involving bicyclists make up 4.9 percent of all
collisions along the Study Area arterials, and 4
64
3-24
percent of fatal collisions along the Study Area
arterials. Over the three-year period, the number of
collisions involving bicyclists increased steadily.
Figure 3.22 | Arterial Collisions Involving
Bicyclists by Severity,
2016–2018
Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System
(TIMS), Safe Transportation Research and
Education Center, University of California,
Berkeley. 2019.
Collisions Involving Pedestrians
Figure 3.23 shows the severity type of arterial
collisions involving pedestrians. In the three-year
period between 2016 and 2018, there were 1,128
collisions involving pedestrians that resulted in injury.
Of the injury collisions, around 11 percent resulted in
fatalities, 15 percent in severe injuries, 38 percent in
other visible injuries, and 36 percent in minor injuries.
Collisions involving pedestrians make up 7.2 percent
of all collisions along the Study Area arterials and 31
percent of fatal collisions.
Figure 3.23 | Arterial Collisions Involving
Pedestrians by Severity,
2012–2016
Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System
(TIMS), Safe Transportation Research and
Education Center, University of California,
Berkeley. 2019.
Collisions Involving Trucks
Figure 3.24 shows the severity type of arterial
collisions involving trucks. In the three-year period
between 2016 and 2018, there were 463 collisions
involving trucks that resulted in injury. Of the injury
collisions, around 3 percent resulted in fatalities, 8
percent in severe injuries, 27 percent in other visible
injuries, and 62 percent in minor injuries. Collisions
involving trucks make up 3 percent of all collisions
along the Study Area arterials and 4 percent of fatal
collisions.
65
3-25
Figure 3.24 | Arterial Collisions Involving
Trucks by Severity, Total
2016–2018
Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System
(TIMS), Safe Transportation Research and
Education Center, University of California,
Berkeley. 2019.
Factors Influencing Safety on Study Area
Arterials
The TIMS database categorizes each injury collision
by its PCF. It should be noted that the PCF is a
subjective determination and there are often multiple
factors that may lead to a collision. Based on these
designations, the most common factors causing injury
collisions along the Study Area arterials are Unsafe
Speed (25 percent), Automobile Right-of-Way (20
percent), Improper Turning (16 percent), Traffic
Signals and Signs (13 percent), and Driving or
Bicycling under the influence (8 percent). Figure 3.25
displays the arterial collision factors.
Figure 3.25 | Primary Collision Factors
for Arterial Collisions
Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System
(TIMS), Safe Transportation Research and
Education Center, University of California,
Berkeley. 2019.
3.3.3 High Frequency Collision Locations
Collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians are
spread throughout the Study Area, however, the
highest density of collisions in the Study Area
generally occur in certain neighborhoods of cities of
Riverside, Colton, Rialto, San Bernardino, Moreno
Valley, Hemet, and San Jacinto (See Figure 3.26).
The highest concentration of truck collisions occurs
along SR-60 and I-10 near I-15 and I-215 freeway
interchanges (See Figure 3.27). Other high
concentration areas for truck collisions are I-15 near
Cajon Pass and I-215 near City of San Bernardino.
(see Figure 3.27)
66
3-26
Figure 3.26 | Location of Bicycle and
Pedestrian Collisions,
2016–2018
67
3-27
Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System
(TIMS), Safe Transportation Research and
Education Center, University of California,
Berkeley. 2019.
Figure 3.27 | Location of Truck
Collisions, 2016–2018
68
3-28
Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System
(TIMS), Safe Transportation Research and
Education Center, University of California,
Berkeley. 2019.
3.4 Active Transportation
3.4.1 Active Transportation
Active transportation generally refers to bicycle and
pedestrian transportation but also can include other
wheeled devices such as scooters, wheelchairs, and
skateboards. Active transportation is an important
mode of transportation for short trips as well as
connecting to other modes, most notably transit,
providing first-mile/last-mile connections.
Additionally, bicycle and pedestrian accommodation
is often central to complete streets discussions due to
the vulnerability of those modes. This section outlines
the availability of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and
data on active transportation trips in the Study Area.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Figure 3.28 illustrates the bicycle routes in the Study
Area. In San Bernardino County, the bike plan is part
of the County’s active transportation network. As of
2011, there were 468 miles of bicycle lanes and trails
with an additional 1,282 future miles planned in the
overall program (2013 SBCTA Active Transportation
Vision Update).
In Riverside County, most jurisdictions have
established bikeway and/or trails plans. Due to the
rural nature of parts of the County, there are many
multi-use trails in addition to an assortment of Class
I, Class II, and Class III bike lanes. WRCOG’s
Western Riverside Active Transportation Plan is a
“network of 24 distinct regional routes spanning more
than 440 miles” (WRCOG Active Transportation Plan,
2018). The plan includes 24 Class I/II/III regional
routes that connect local jurisdictions and provide
access to transit stations/centers.
69
3-29
Figure 3.28 | Bicycle Facilities in the
Study Area
Source: 2013 SBCTA Active Transportation Vision
Update; WRCOG Active Transportation
Plan, 2018.
3.5 Transit
The transit assessment examines the public
transportation network in the Study Area, including
Metrolink commuter trains and regional bus systems.
This assessment includes an evaluation of the
ridership, and coverage of public transportation in the
Study Area.
3.5.1 Metrolink
The Southern California Regional Rail Authority
operates the region’s commuter rail service,
Metrolink, which serves the counties of Los Angeles,
Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Ventura.
There are 17 Metrolink stations in the Study Area:
Corona-North Main, Corona-West, Fontana, Jurupa
Valley-Pedley, Montclair, Moreno Valley/March Field,
Ontario-East, Perris-South, Perris-Downtown,
Rancho Cucamonga, Rialto, Riverside-Downtown,
Riverside-Hunter Park/UCR, Riverside-La Sierra,
San Bernardino, San Bernardino Downtown, and
Upland.
The Study Area is served with four Metrolink lines:
Inland Empire-—Orange County, Riverside, San
Bernardino, and 91/Perris Valley. The San
Bernardino line, serving San Bernardino to LA Union
Station, has the highest daily riders of any line in the
Metrolink system as shown in Table 3.8. Figure 3.29
illustrates the Metrolink Lines and stations in the
Study Area.
Table 3.8 | Metrolink Daily Ridership
(2018–19)
Line Weekday Saturday
Antelope Valley Line 5,729 2,282
70
3-30
Inland Empire—Orange County Line 4,501 542 373 15
Orange County Line 8,699 2,331 1,794 15
Riverside Line 4,251 n/a n/a 7
San Bernardino Line 9,736 3,794 2,332 14
Ventura County Line 3,639 n/a n/a 12
91/Perris Valley Line 2,934 799 548 13
Source: Metrolink Q3 ’18-19 Fact Sheet.
Figure 3.29 | Metrolink Service in Study
Area
71
3-31
Source: Metrolink
3.5.2 Bus Transit Service
Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and
Omnitrans are the regional
bus transit providers in the
Study Area.
Figure 3.30 shows their transit routes in the Study Area. RTA serves western Riverside County and provides
regional connections to Orange, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties. RTA operates 39 fixed-route local
services, eight Commuter Link express routes, and on-demand Dial-a-Ride service throughout its 2,500 square mile
service area. In fiscal year 2019, RTA had ridership of 8.7 million, with average weekday boarding s of 28,900 and
average weekend boardings of 12,200.
Omnitrans serves San Bernardino valley with a service area of 480 square miles, covering 15 cities and portions of
the unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County. Omnitrans operates 30 local and express bus routes, as well
as sbX bus rapid transit service, OmniGo hometown shuttle service, and Access, a paratransit service for the
disabled. In fiscal year 2018-2019, Omnitrans had ridership of 11.1 million from fixed routes.
Figure 3.31 shows the bus transit stops in the Study Area. This figure also shows the high ridership bus stops, with
more than 300 daily boardings/alightings. Some of the high ridership bus stops are as follows:
• San Bernardino Transit Center.
• Canyon Crest at Bannockburn Village.
• Moreno Valley Mall.
• Perris Transit Center.
• Galleria @ Tyler.
• University Market.
• Corona Transit Center.
72
3-46
Figure 3.30 | Bus Routes
Source: RTA and Omnitrans.
73
3-47
Figure 3.31 | Bus Transit Ridership
Source: RTA and Omnitrans.
74
3-48
3.5.3 High Quality Transit Area
SCAG defines High Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) as an area within one-half mile from major transit stops and high-
quality transit corridors. A major transit stop is defined as a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry
terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a
frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. A high-
quality transit corridor is a corridor with fixed-route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes
during peak commute hours.
Figure 3.32 shows the HQTA in the Study Area. The Study Area has both major transit stops and high -quality transit
corridors. The cities of San Bernardino, Fontana, Rialto, Colton, and Loma Linda have high quality transit corridors.
Major transit stops are generally located at Metrolink stations.
75
3-49
Figure 3.32 | Existing High-Quality Transit Areas (HQTA)
Source: SCAG.
76
3-50
3.6 Freeway and Arterial Assessment
3.6.1 Freeway Assessment
Figures 6.1 to 6.5 display key characteristics of the freeway system, including number of lanes on the freeway
system, PM peak hour traffic volumes, PM peak hour volume to capacity ratios, the managed lane network , and the
truck network.
Key findings for the freeway network include:
• Nearly all the freeway system provides 3 to 4 lanes in each direction, with a few higher-volume areas
consisting of more than four lanes (particularly along I-10 and SR-91) in each direction and some limited
areas with two lanes per direction (SR-60 and portions of I-215 and SR-71).
• Managed lanes, including High Occupancy Vehicle ( HOV) lanes and Express lanes cover approximately 211
lane miles, with 178 HOV lane miles and 33 Express lane miles as shown in Table 3.8. Figure 3.34 shows the
managed lanes network in the Study Area.
Table 3.9 | Study Area Managed Lane Network—Existing in April 2017
Route Counties Served
Total Managed Lane
Miles HOV Lane Miles Express Lane Miles
I-10 San Bernardino 17 17 0
I-15 Riverside, San Bernardino 0 0 0
SR-60 Riverside, San Bernardino 59 59 0
SR-71 San Bernardino 14 14 0
SR-91 Riverside 45 12 33
SR-210 San Bernardino 43 43 0
I-215 Riverside, San Bernardino 33 33 0
Total 211 211 33
Source: District System Management Plan, District 8, June 2017.
• The HOV system covers portions of SR-91, SR-60, SR-71, I-10, and SR-210.
• Much of the freeway system, including the entire Interstate freeway system and portions of the State Highway
System is designated as the National Highway Freight Network and several local jurisdictions have
designated truck networks, which serve trucks and goods movement.
• During the PM peak hour, the freeways with the highest vehicle throughput (over 6,000 vehicles per hou r)
include the following: SR-91 between the Orange County line and I-15, I-10 between the Los Angeles County
line and I-210, and portions of I-210 and I-215.
• Freeways that carry between 4,000 to 6,000 vehicle throughput during the PM peak hour include muc h of
I-15, SR-60 west of I-215, and SR-91 east of I-15. Relatively lower volume throughput facilities include SR-60
east of I-215, SR-71, portions of I-215, and I-10 on the eastern limits of the Study Area. Figure 3.35 shows the
PM peak hour volume in 2018.
77
3-51
• Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratio is one indication of the operating conditions along a freeway or arterial facility.
Higher V/C ratios mean that a facility is operating closer to its maximum possible throughput. Very high V/C
can sometimes indicate a facility that experiences poor operating conditions, slower speeds, more
congestion, and more delay to travelers. In the Study Area, the freeways with the highest V/C ratios generally
match the facilities with the highest throughput, and they include SR-91 from the Orange County line to I-15,
SR-60 from the Los Angeles County line to I-15, I-10 from the Los Angeles County line to I-15, I-210 through
the western edge of the Study Area, I-15 south of SR-91 and SR-60 between SR-91 and I-215. In general,
SR-91 and I-215 exhibit the most lengthy and continuous segments with over-capacity conditions. Figure 3.36
illustrates the V/C ratio during PM peak hour.
• In the Study Area, the delay contributed by the top 10 bottlenecks in 2018 was 6,449 vehicle hours. The
biggest bottleneck occurs during the peak morning commute on SR-91 westbound near Green River Road,
just east of Orange County line. Table 3.10 and Figure 3.37 show the top bottlenecks in 2018 during AM and
PM peak period in the Study Area.
Table 3.10 | Top Bottlenecks in the Study Area (2018)
Rank Freeway Segment
Time
Period
# Days
Active
Average
Extend
(miles)
Average
Delay
(Vehicle-
hrs)
Average
Duration
(hrs)
1 SR-91 WB at Green River Road AM 260 4.21 2,490 3.6
2 I-15 SB at Cajalco Road PM 233 3.22 680 2.4
3 SR-71 SB north of SR-91 IC AM 227 3.13 590 3.3
4 I-15 NB at 4th Street on-ramp PM 310 1.25 540 3.7
5 I-10 EB east of Cherry Avenue PM 261 2.33 470 3.1
6 SR-91 WB at Lincoln Avenue AM 193 0.99 390 2.7
7 I-15 NB south of Cajalco Road AM 122 2.74 340 2.8
8 I-210 EB at Milliken Avenue on-ramp PM 203 4.02 340 1.5
9 I-15-SB north of SR-60 IC PM 131 2.34 310 2.0
10 SR-60 WB west of Main Street AM 220 3.25 300 2.2
Source: Caltrans PeMS, 2018.
Generally, the freeway segments through the western end of the Study Area are more congested and carry higher
volumes than those to the east, correlating with the areas of higher population and employment dens ity, as well as
reflecting the abundance of trip connections between the Study Area and points in Los Angeles and Orange
counties to the west.
78
3-52
Figure 3.33 | Number of Existing Freeway Mainline Lanes
Source: SCAG Model, 2016.
79
3-53
Figure 3.34 | Existing Managed Lane Network
Source: SCAG Model, 2016.
80
3-54
Figure 3.35 | PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Source: Caltrans PeMS, 2018.
81
3-55
Figure 3.36 | PM Peak Hour Volume/Capacity Ratio
Source: SCAG Model, 2016.
82
3-56
Figure 3.37 | Top Bottlenecks
Source: Caltrans PeMS, 2018.
83
3-57
3.6.2 Arterial Assessment
WRCOG, which represents 18 incorporated cities and portions of unincorporated Riverside County , in collaboration
with other regional agencies, has developed and administers the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. The TUMF is a funding program for “critical transportation infrastructure to
accommodate the traffic created by new population growth and commercial development throughout western
Riverside County” (2018 TUMF Program Annual Report, WRCOG). The TUMF program collects fees from new
residential and non-residential projects and funds improvements on the Regional System of Highways and Arterials
(RSHA).
The RSHA, as illustrated in Figure 3.38, is the set of roads, bridges, interchanges, and railroad grade separations
that the member agenciesin Western Riverside County have identified as being impacted by further development.
As of 2018, the TUMF program has collected $780 million and has been used to fund 98 projects on the RSHA.
There are 58 TUMF-funded projects in the pipeline.
SBCTA, which represents the entirety of San Bernardino County, has developed and administers the Measure I
Nexus Study to identify “fair share contributions from new development for regional transportation improvements
(freeway interchanges, railroad grade separations, and regional arterial highways)” (2018 SBCTA Development
Mitigation Nexus Study Appendix G, SBCTA). The Nexus Study identifies a Nexus Study Network as illustrated in
Figure 3.39. The Nexus Study network are the arterial roadways that satisfy a set of criteria which involve “functiona l
classification, propensity to carry inter-jurisdictional traffic, connection to freeway system, etc.” Improvement
projects in the Nexus Study Network are qualified to receive funds from the Nexus Study, Measure I, 2010 -2040
Valley Freeway Interchanges, and Valley Major Streets.
84
3-58 Figure 3.38 | WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional System of Highways and Arterials
(RSHA)
Source: WRCOG TUMF.
85
3-59 Figure 3.39 | SBCTA Nexus of Highways and Arterials
Source: 2018 SBCTA Development Mitigation Nexus Study.
86
3-60
Level of Service Analysis
Figure 3.40 and Figure 3.41 illustrate the levels of service on the arterial system for the AM and PM peak hours,
respectively, based on the SCAG model. That data shows that the plurality of arterials is operating below capacity
(LOS A to LOS D), but there is congestion on arterials throughout the Study Area during AM and PM peak hours in
various locations. During the AM Peak Hour, 90 percent of arterials are under capacity, 4 percent are near capacity
(LOS E), and 7 percent are over capacity (LOS F). Congestion is slightly worse during the evening peak. During
the PM Peak Hour, 88 percent of arterials are under capacity, 4 percent are near capacity, and 8 percent are over
capacity. Many of the arterials which are near or over capacity are adjacent to Study Area freeways, parallel the
freeways, and act as alternative routes or connect to major freeway interchanges and mov e traffic to and from the
freeway system. Arterials which are at the western side of the Study Area, closer to Los Angeles County and Orange
County, are more likely to be over capacity, similar to the patterns shown for the freeway system. Table 3.11 shows
the levels of service on the arterial system as well as arterial lane miles under, near , and over capacity on the
system.
87
3-61
Figure 3.40 | Arterial AM Peak Hour Level of Service
Source: SCAG Model, 2016.
88
3-62
Figure 3.41 | Arterial PM Peak Hour Level of Service
Source: SCAG Model, 2016.
89
3-63
Table 3.11 | Arterial Level of Service
Table Header
AM Peak Hour
(Lane Miles)
PM Peak Hour
(Lane Miles)
< 10 % or more under capacity 5,070 90% 4,970 88%
Near Capacity 220 4% 230 4%
Over Capacity 370 7% 460 8%
Total 5,660 100% 5,660 100%
Source: SCAG Model, 2016.
Vehicle-Miles-Traveled (VMT)
Federal Highway Administration Highway Statistics Series data for 2017 shows that VMT per capita in the Riverside-
San Bernardino, CA urbanized area (UZA) which includes areas outside of the Study Area is 24.8 daily VMT per
capita. This is slightly higher than the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim UZA (23.1 daily VMT per capita) and on
par with the San Diego UZA (24.7 daily VMT per capita). Within the Study Area, areas with higher than SCAG
regional average VMT per service population (residents + employees) ar e generally in predominantly residential
areas such as Jurupa Valley or in industrial/commercial areas such as those south of the I-10 freeway where there
is a high concentration of warehousing.
Figure 3.42 illustrates the Existing Daily Arterial VMT per Service Population (Residents + Employees). The graphic
displays traffic analysis zones with VMT per service population as follows:
• Higher than the SCAG regional average VMT.
• Zero to 15% below the SCAG regional average VMT.
• Greater than 15% below the SCAG regional average VMT.
The areas with higher than the SCAG regional average VMT are the area’s most in need of measures which reduce
VMT. As shown, the areas with the highest VMT are predominantly the central, eastern, and northern portions of
the Study Area.
90
3-64
Figure 3.42 | Existing Daily Arterial VMT per Service Population
(Residents + Employees)
Source: SCAG Model, 2016.
91
3-65
3.7 Freight Network
Goods movement plays an important role in both the circulation network and the economy of a region. Due to the
location of the Study Area between the Los Angeles metropolitan area and destinations in the remainder of the
country, the Study Area serves as an important path for goods movement via airports, railways, and roadways.
Goods movement in the Study Area is accommodated by an extensive rail network and set of designated truck
routes.
This section outlines the freight network, including ground, air, and rail in the Study Area.
3.7.1 Ground
Close to 40 percent of the Nation’s goods travel through the Inland Empire and . are stored in warehouses.6 Within
the Study Area, there are six primary goods movement routes, which are integral to the distribution of goods to the
rest of the state and Nation. The primary goods movement routes are Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA)
routes and considered the priority freight corridors. The six Primary Goods Movement Routes are I-10, I-15, SR-60,
SR-91, SR-210, and I-215. Figure 3.43 shows Study Area truck network and warehouse locations.
Intermodal freight facilities, major freight generators, and warehouse distribution centers are significant contributors
to goods movement in the Study Area. Warehousing and logistics facilities are major employment and trip
generators, with many facilities located along the State Highway System. Many logistics companies, as well as retail
and online vendors, have warehouses in the Inland Empire region. Among the largest facilities throughout the Study
Area, Amazon has multiple distribution and fulfillment centers in various cities and uses the March Air Reserve
Base, Ontario International Airport, and the San Bernardino International Airport for goods movement.
3.7.2 Air Cargo
The Ontario International Airport currently handles an average of 454,800 tons of air cargo a year, making it the
second largest air cargo operation in the state after Los Angeles International and the fifth largest air cargo port in
the United States.7
3.7.3 Rail
Rail network terminals in Southern California are mainly located at the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports, with
intermodal terminals, freight, and rail maintenance yards located throughout the SCAG region. There are several
rail yards owned by both BNSF Railway (BNSF) and Union Pacific Railroad (UP) located primarily in southwestern
San Bernardino and western Riverside counties that handle rail-to-truck transfers, vehicle, and cargo shipments.
Figure 3.44 shows the freight rail network in the Study Area.
6 Riverside County Long Range Transportation Study, RCTC, December 2019.
7 District System Management Plan, Caltrans District 8, June 2017.
92
3-66
Figure 3.43 | Truck Network and Warehouse
Source: SCAG
93
3-67
Figure 3.44 | Freight Rail Network
Source: Caltrans (2013).
94
3-68
3.8 Future Growth and Projected Changes
This section presents the future growth in the Study Area and the projected changes in terms of socioeconomics,
trips, and VMT. Future growth projections are calculated from SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS. The 2016 RTP/SCS has
detailed and disaggregated data for the base year (2016) and a horizon year (2040). Data assessed includes growth
in population and employment, as well as growth in number of total trips and VMT.
3.8.1 Future Growth
Potential future growth has been assessed using the SCAG regional model data, including projected growth in
population, employment, total trips, and VMT.
• Population: The overall population growth for the entire Inland Empire Study Area is projected to be 16
percent by 2040, which represents an increase of 647,000 residents. Within the sub -corridors, the increase in
population ranges from a low of 13 percent (Riverside to LA County line) to 50 percent (Apple Valley to LA
County line).
• Employment: The overall employment growth for the entire Inland Empire Study Area is projected to be 35
percent by 2040, which represents an increase of 452,000 jobs. Within the sub -corridors, the increase in
employment ranges from a low of 31 percent (Riverside to LA County line) to 42 percent (Beaumont to
Temecula).
• Trips: the overall trip growth for the entire Inland Empire Study Area is projected to be 33 percent by 2040,
which represents an increase of 3 million daily trips. The growth in the sub corridors ranges from a low of 22
percent (Cajon to Eastvale) to a high of 39 percent (Apple Valley to LA County line).
• Vehicle Miles Traveled: The overall VMT growth for the entire Inland Empire Study Area is projected to be
17 percent by 2040, which represents an increase in VMT of 17.9 millions. The growth in VMT in the sub-
corridors ranges from a low of 10 percent (Riverside to La County line) to 34 percent (Beaumont to
Temecula).
3.8.2 High Quality Transit Area
Figure 3.45 shows the future HQTA in the Study Area. There are several new corridors identified as HQTC in 2045
including Perris Boulevard, Magnolia Avenue, and Main Street in Riverside County, and Euclid Avenue, Holt
Boulevard, Foothill Boulevard and Riverside Avenue in San Bernardino County.
95
3-69
Figure 3.45 | Future High-Quality Transit Areas (HQTA)
Source: SCAG.
96
97
4-1
4.0 Stakeholder Outreach
This chapter provides a summary of outreach efforts conducted for the IE CMCP project, including the Project
Management Team (Team) meetings with key stakeholder agencies, other meetings with agencies, separate public
surveys conducted in Riverside and San Bernardino counties and attendance at technical meetings conducted in
each county. The Team is at the core of the stakeholder outreach and it includes the following key agencies:
• Caltrans, both District 8 and Headquarters representatives
• San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA)
• Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC)
• Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG)
• Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
Project Management Team meetings were an important component of the stakeholder outreach process as they
included all of the key agencies involved in transportation planning in the study area. held regularly throughout the
IE CMCP development effort. At those meetings, key project tasks were discussed, including, but n ot limited to, the
following:
• Overall project purpose, goals, and objectives;
• Unique goals and objectives of each stakeholder agency;
• Define the basic structure of CMCPs;
• CMCP Study Area and ten sub-corridor areas;
• Corridor characteristics, including travel patterns, socioeconomic data, and facility condition and
characteristics;
• Project evaluation framework and performance measures;
• Key project lists for each county;
• Integration of multimodal project needs;
• Outline of CMCP report; and
• Project schedule and progress.
In addition to the Team meetings described above, the Team sought feedback from representatives from the cities
and counties and transit operators in the Study Area through the following advisory committees:
98
4-2
:
July 8, 2019
• SBCTA Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
August 8, 2019
• Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG)—Planning Directors Committee
August 8, 2019
• Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG)—Public Works Directors Committee
October 8, 2019
• San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA)—Public and Specialized Transportation Advisory
and Coordinating Council (PASTACC)
April 1, 2020
• Caltrans Headquarters and District briefing
May 4, 2020
• SBCTA Transportation Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
May 18, 2020
• RCTC Technical Advisory Committee Meeting
At these meetings, the Team provided an overview of the IE CMCP and requested comments. Most comments
were related to specific projects to ensure that they were included. These comments were then incorporated into
the project list.
Another key part of the stakeholder outreach effort was to obtain opinions and information from residents, workers,
and commuters that use the transportation system. Separate public outreach efforts for the two counties were
conducted, as described in the following sections. The public comments have been used to help assess the current
conditions assessment as well as during the process of developing the recommended improvement projects. In
general, the public concerns and comments about existing transportation problems and future solutions correlate
with the results of the analysis in the CMCP and the recommended projects address many of the congested
locations to the extent feasible given funding, environemental and other constraints.
99
4-3
4.1 RCTC Reboot My Commute Campaign Summary
In Riverside County, public feedback was received through RCTC’s Reboot My Commute Campaign
(#RebootMyCommute). #RebootMyCommute enabled residents, workers, and commuters to provide open-ended
ideas and feedback on how to create a better transportation system in Riverside County. The program offered
opportunities for the public to tell their stories and to recommend how and where RCTC's limited transportation
dollars should be spent. Using the theme, “We are Listening,” #RebootMyCommute acknowledged the public’s
desire to address issues such as traffic congestion, late trains, potholed streets, and how long it takes for
improvements to happen. RCTC accepted comments from March 6 to June 3, 2019, a 90-day period.
For Riverside County, public feeback on transportion issues and solutions was recently received through the
County’s #RebootMyCommute campaign. The County’s #RebootMyCommute outreach effort included opportunity
for residents and users of the transportatoin system to provide their opinions on transportatoin issues, challenges
and solutions. As that effort was recently completed, it was used as a key compnent of the public comment and
input for the CMCP for Riverside County. Multiple channels were available for residents and commuters to learn
about #RebootMyCommute and share feedback, as follows:
1. RebootMyCommute.org website: the site had 19,556 unique visitors; nearly half of comments received were
submitted via the site.
2. Social media advertising with videos.
3. Tele-townhall meetings on March 19 and 20 attracted 7,539 participants.
4. Community booths at six community events publicized the effort.
5. News media: ten news stories featured the #RebootMyCommute program; advertisements were placed with
several news outlets.
6. The Point (RCTC’s monthly newsletter) promoted the effort.
7. Helpline: a toll-free number was provided for residents who wished to express their views by telephone.
8. Presentations were made to several agencies and City Councils.
9. Text messaging was offered to subscribers of The Point.
10. Brochures and postcards: More than 5,500 brochures in English and Spanish were distributed.
RCTC received comments from 948 individuals via the website, social media , and other sources. Since some
commenters addressed more than one topic, a total of 1,150 comments were tallied. Following is a summary of
comments received, as organized by RCTC staff under seven topics.
100
4-4
1. Active Transportation—53 Comments Received: Most of these comments focused on the need to complete
the Santa Ana River Trail between Riverside County and Orange County and improvements to CV Link, the
transportation route and recreational pathway in the Coachella Valley . A number of comments noted the need
for more bike lanes, walkable communities, sidewalk improvements, ADA signs for pedestrians, and motorized
scooters.
2. Economy and Jobs—81 Comments Received: Many comments noted the need to bring higher-paying jobs
to Riverside County to reduce the need to commute to other counties, to offer incentives to businesses or
employees who work from home, to provide more incentives for ridesharing, and to allow tax breaks for
employers who hire local. A number of people were concerned about the high volume of residential and
commercial development in Riverside County and the impact to traffic. Several individuals voiced concerns
about any possible new taxes and suggested that gas tax revenue should fund only freeway and roadway
improvements.
3. Highways and Traffic—383 Comments Received: The Commission received wide-ranging comments about
increasing traffic congestion on highways throughout Riverside County. Frequently mentioned were the need
to improve the State Route 91 corridor, including the area between Green River Road and SR-241, the 71/91
interchange, 91 Express Lanes access, and the need for an alternate route between Riverside County and
Orange County. A large number of residents voiced the need to widen and improve I-15 between Riverside
County and San Diego County, particularly near the 15/215 split. The number of comments increased greatly
following an “I-15 Traffic Crisis” video posted on Facebook by the City of Temecula in mid-May. Other residents
mentioned the need for traffic congestion relief along I-10 through the San Gorgonio Pass. Residents also
expressed concerns about increasing congestion along I-215 in Perris and Moreno Valley. Some motorists
suggested removing express lanes, expanding carpool lanes, using reversible lanes, building double -decked
highways, and limiting travel times for big-rig vehicles.
4. Streets and Local Issues—207 Comments Received: Many comments in the category focused on the need
to fix potholes, repave roads, improve timing and coordination of traffic signals, add left -turn phases to traffic
signals, and add left-turn lanes. Other comments addressed the need for more sidewalks, the effectiveness of
roundabouts, the need to install more stop signs, and the need for red -light cameras for traffic enforcement. A
number of comments noted specific streets that require repair, widening, and extension.
5. Public Transportation and Specialized Services—318 Comments Received: Comments centered on the
need for more rail and bus options throughout Riverside County, although some comments noted that p ublic
transit is ineffective in Southern California. Many comments supported establishing daily train service to and
from the Coachella Valley. A number of residents requested the Metrolink or a light rail service for southwestern
Riverside County and into San Diego County, to the San Gorgonio Pass, and to the Hemet-San Jacinto area.
Others asked for greater train frequency, free weekend rides for families, discounted train tickets, weekend
service on the 91/Perris Valley Line (PVL), and extending the 91/PV L to San Bernardino. Residents asked for
101
4-5
more bus options between the Coachella Valley and Riverside, greater bus frequency, 24-hour bus systems, more
station amenities, improved bus stop safety, bus-only lanes, more compressed natural gas buses, and greater
assistance for veterans, seniors, and riders with disabilities. Riders also voiced the need for better on -time
performance for trains and buses and additional ridesharing/vanpooling incentives.
6. Safety—38 Comments Received: Comments noted the need for more police presence on roadways with
larger fines for texting and driving, more stop signs, diagonal parking spaces, buses to enhance safety during
the Coachella festivals, Park & Ride lot security, and the removal of homeless individuals from bus shelters.
Other comments noted the need for improvements to the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road/Diamond Drive
interchange, Alessandro Boulevard, and Columbia Avenue, and the need to reopen Pigeon Pass Road, San
Timoteo Canyon Road, and the connector between Watkins Drive and Poarch Road. Residents also questioned
the effectiveness of a planned raised median on Florida Avenue in Hemet.
7. Express Lanes—70 Comments Received: A significant number of comments suggested removing the 91
Express Lanes or stopping construction of new express lanes. Some suggested replacing the express lanes
with general-purpose lanes, carpool lanes, or a light rail system. Others noted the high cost of using the express
lanes, accused RCTC of profiteering, questioned various design features of the 91 Express Lanes, expressed
concerns about using taxpayer funds to pay for express lanes, and advocated for an additional lane on
westbound 91 between Green River Road and SR-241. Additional comments noted the need to extend the 15
Express Lanes past Lake Elsinore, the lack of access to the 91 Express Lanes from mid-city Corona, improving
the 71/91 Interchange, and adding highways below ground.
The campaign successfully collected more public feedback from the general public than ever before . The volume
and variety of feedback received was significant, as well as the overall constructive nature of the comments.
Moreover, the extensive outreach channels improved RCTC’s rapport and standing with its stakeholders and
provided a platform for name recognition. Overa ll, the outreach effort revealed that the public has a good
understanding of where transportation investment is needed and is willing to recommend potential solutions.
4.2 San Bernardino County CMCP Survey
In San Bernardino County, a new public survey was des igned and conducted specifically for the IE CMCP project.
The survey was conducted using Survey Monkey software, and it was advertised to people on SANBAG's contact
list through email with a link to the survey included in the email , and further circulated via links on various city and
community websites as well as through Facebook and other social media. SBCTA advertised the survey using its
email database comprised of members of the public who have signed up at various times to be informed of SBCTA
activities. Because the survey was conducted on a public website, there were a few non-residents of San Bernardino
County who participated and provided responses.
102
4-6
The survey for this effort was completed in fall 2019. Questions and responses included in the surv ey are provided
below. A total of 337 responses to all questions were received as part of the San Bernardino County IE CMCP
survey.
Question 1: Please identify the community where you live.
The respondents lived in the following areas:
• 18 different San Bernardino County cities.
• 12 different San Bernardino County unincorporated communities.
103
4-7
Question 1: Freeway Congestion
• Critical Problem: 36%
• Definite Problem: 36%
• Moderate Problem: 19%
• Slight Problem: 7%
• No Problem: 2%
Question 2: Surface Street Congestion
• Critical Problem: 12%
• Definite Problem: 29%
• Moderate Problem: 36%
• Slight Problem: 16%
• No Problem: 7%
Question 2: Lack of Bus/Train Service
• Critical Problem: 40%
• Definite Problem: 14%
• Moderate Problem: 15%
• Slight Problem: 14%
• No Problem: 17%
Question 2: Lack of Bike Lanes
• Critical Problem: 27%
• Definite Problem: 13%
• Moderate Problem: 17%
• Slight Problem: 17%
• No Problem: 26%
Question 2: Inadequate Sidewalks
• Critical Problem: 25%
• Definite Problem: 16%
• Moderate Problem: 16%
• Slight Problem: 17%
• No Problem: 16%
Question 3: Rate Improvements (% who rated the improvements extremely important)
• Freeway Lanes: 48%
• Transit: 45%
• Freeway Interchanges/Ramps: 39%
• Sidewalks: 35%
• Bike Routes: 29%
• Surface Street Lanes: 21%
104
4-6
Question 4: Most significant transportation problem in San Bernardino County?
• Traffic Congestion—125
• Lack of bus/train service—70
• Other (including truck traffic, road conditions,
emissions, construction, more carpools)—60
• No Answer—10
• Enforcement—5
• People who work too far from where they live—5
Question 5: Most significant transportation problem in your community?
• Traffic Congestion—104
• Lack of bus/train service—73
• Other (including truck traffic, road conditions,
emissions, construction, more carpools)—67
• No Answer—25
• Enforcement—10
Question 6: What specific improvements would you like to see?
• Freeway Lanes—51
• Increased Transit /Mass Transit—45
• Light Rail/Metrol Link—37
• Road Conditions—27
• Bicycle Lanes—17
• Pothole Repair—16
• Express Lanes—15
• Transit Service Times—13
• Sidewalks—13
• Surface Street Lanes—13
• Van Pools/Commuter Buses—5
• Better Signal Timing/Synchronization—5
• Better/Cleaner Buses—3
• Toll Roads—3
• Traffic Enforcement—3
• Bus System Safety—2
• More Ramps—2
• Crosswalks—2
• Flying Cars—1
• Pick-up Passenger Lane Parking—1
• Traffic Calming—1
• Second Story Freeway—1
• Sound Walls—1
Question 7: Do you have anything else to suggest?
• Similar answers to previous questions. • Other various responses.
105
4-7
The following transportation issues were identified by the respondents.
Priority Transportation Issues
• Reducing highway traffic congestion.
• Maintaining local roads and filling potholes.
• Expanding Metrolink and Amtrak rail services.
• Expanding local bus services.
High Priority Types of Transportation Improvements
• Widen congested highways and roadways.
• Increase transit lines and frequency.
• Fix potholes, resurface roads, and road maintenance.
• More light rail and Metrolink options.
• Adding bike lanes and bike paths.
Key needs and desires identified include:
• More freeway and roadway lanes.
• Improved accessibility to public transit, including extended hours of service, more routes and improved
frequency, better/easier connections, and improved access to schedules and availability info rmation.
• Safer sidewalks, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible curb ramps, and first and last mile access ,
including access for seniors.
• Ensure better connectivity between rural and urban area.
Active Transportation
• Add bike lanes.
• Create more walkable communities.
• Improve sidewalks and ADA signs for pedestrians .
Economy and Jobs
• Reduce the need to commute, bring higher-paying jobs to the county.
• Provide more incentives for ridesharing.
106
4-8
• Allow tax breaks for employers who hire local.
• Concerns about the high volume of residential and commercial development and the impact to traffic .
Express Lanes
• Add new express lanes.
• Replace express lanes with general-purpose lanes, carpool lanes, or a light rail system.
Highways and Traffic
• Widen and improve freeways.
• Additional suggestions included:
– Remove express lanes.
– Expand carpool lanes.
– Build double-decked highways.
– Limit travel times for big-rig vehicles.
Safety
• More police presence.
• Larger fines for texting and driving.
• More signals.
• Park and Ride lot security.
• Remove homeless individuals from bus shelters.
Streets and Local Issues
• Fix potholes.
• Repave, widen, and extend roads.
• Improve timing and coordination of traffic signals.
• Add left-turn lanes and left-turn phases to traffic signals.
• More sidewalks.
• Install more stop signs.
107
4-9
• More enforcement.
Public Transportation
• More rail and bus options.
• Establish daily train service to and from the Coachella Valley.
• Provide more Metrolink or light rail service.
• Greater train frequency.
• Build the Gold Line to Montclair.
• Greater bus frequency.
• Improved bus stop safety.
• Bus-only lanes.
• Better on-time performance for trains and buses.
• Additional ridesharing/vanpooling incentives.
• Regional highway/local streets network connectivity, maintenance, and operations.
• Transit and paratransit system and service providers’ connectivity, maintenance, and operations.
In general, the respondents indicated a heavy focus on traffic congestion and better transit service as key issues,
along with a number of other responses that point to the need for a multimodal transportation network.
4.3 Comparison of Riverside and San Bernardino County Outreach Responses
Although they were two separate efforts to solicit outreach from the residents and system users in each county, the
questions asked were closely correlated and the public responses also reflected similar and shared visions of both
exisiting transportation system problems as well as recommended solutions.
Under Highways, common themes of the responses in both counties included frustration with significant congestion.
In terms of improvements, in both counties there were suggestions to widen and improve freeways, expand carpool
lanes, double deck freeways, limit times for large trucks and limit express lane expansion were mentioned. While
all of these may not all be feaasible due to funding constraints, environmental impacts or othe r reasons, all have
been noted as resposnes from the public. For streets and local issues, common themes included fixing potholes,
improving signal timing and coordination and adding left turn lanes at key locations . For public transportation,
comment themes included adding more bus and rail services, greater bus frequency in key areas, adding rail
service to the Coachella Valley, adding bus-only lanes and improving bus stop safety. For active transportation
(bike and pedestrian), common themes included adding bike lanes/routes, improving walkable communities and
108
4-10
improving ADA signs for pedestrians. For the economy and jobs, common themes included bringing higher paying
jobs to both counties to reduce the need for commuting and providing more incentives for employers to encourage
employee ridesharing.
109
5-1
5.0 Sub-Corridor Definitions and Strategic
Approaches
5.1 Sub-Corridor Analysis Summary
The purpose of this section is to present a review of the characteristics, future growth potential, problems,
opportunities, strategic issues, and approaches that may apply to each of the ten identified sub-corridors in the IE
CMCP. Each sub-corridor may have features in common with other sub-corridors, as well as features that are
unique to that sub-corridor. The intent is to capture the themes or strategies that define “where each sub-corridor
is headed,” in terms of how we should invest in its multimodal improvement and be responsive to its environmental
and community characteristics. For each corridor discussion, there is an i ntroduction to each corridor and a brief
bullet list of “Problems to be Addressed,” followed by a listing of strategies that may be appropriate to guide the
overall development of the sub-corridor. This is followed by a more detailed review of the demographic and land
use characteristics of each sub-corridor, various attributes of the transportation system, and forecasts of what the
sub-corridor may look like in the future. At the end of each sub-corridor discussion, a listing is presented of proposed
multimodal improvements, with an emphasis on the near-term (generally the next 10 years), and with some longer-
term projects identified, as well.
In developing the strategic approach for each sub -corridor, the classes of strategies considered are highly
multimodal in nature, and they also consider the types of “customers” that will be served: 1) passenger travel and
freight; 2) trips by purpose: for work, school, business, shopping, recreation, social interaction; and 3) specific
activity centers: airports, downtowns, hospitals, educational institutions, commercial clusters, mixed-use clusters,
and transit hubs.
Overlaying the strategies are the statewide and regional goals to: reduce VMT, criteria pollutants, and GHG
emissions; improve mobility and accessibility; enhance the quality of life in our local communities; and protect
habitat and aquatic resources. This requires integrated, multi -pronged approaches that consider all modes of
transportation and complementary strategies for land use, environment, and pr otection of community character.
The transportation modes reflect an emphasis on public transportation, non -motorized travel, shared-ride
(carpool/vanpool), and virtual travel (i.e., work-at-home, web-based business, teleconferencing, etc.); a highway
network focused on effective management and operations (e.g., through HOV/managed lanes, traveler information,
and signal coordination); as well as accommodation of freight and logistics through strategic access improvements.
There is a large pool of existing and emerging multimodal options to draw from and build on in the Inland Empire:
commuter rail (Metrolink IEOC, 91/Perris Valley, Riverside, and San Bernardino lines), light rail (with the
Gold Line extension to Pomona by 2025), regional Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) rail (with self-powered zero-
emission trainsets), and high speed rail (California High-Speed Rail Phase 2, Virgin Rail from Apple Valley
to Las Vegas). Efficient and frequent local bus, express bus, and BRT options also exist and are being expanded
with the forthcoming West Valley Connector BRT. Lyft is now providing an important connection to Ontario
110
5-2
International Airport from the Riverside and San Bernardino Metrolink lines, and first/last mile connections are
being advanced linking transit and key destinations. Regional bike networks are creating a backbone that
provides the regional connectivity needed to service those wh o can take these modes for daily commutes. Land
use and housing are intertwined with the regional transportation network in a way that, because of much higher
costs in coastal counties, has historically produced longer commutes and travel times for inland residents. The
challenge before us now is to encourage better balance in jobs and housing regionally for the sake of livability, cost,
and VMT/GHG reduction.
5.2 Victorville to San Bernardino
The Victorville to San Bernardino sub-corridor is one of five north/south oriented sub-corridors within the Inland
Empire Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan. Figure 5.1 illustrates the boundaries of the sub-corridor Study
Area.
5.2.1 Sub-Corridor Definition
This important north/south sub-corridor is entirely within San Bernardino County and is a key connection betw een
the County’s High Desert, Mountain, and Valley subregions, passing through the Cajon Pass. This sub-corridor also
is an important link connecting points north and east in the U.S., including Las Vegas, to other parts of Southern
California. The corridor addresses flows of people and freight within and through portions of unincorporated San
Bernardino County and the cities of Adelanto, Apple Valley, Victorville, Hesperia, San Bernardino, Rialto, and
Fontana. This sub-corridor includes parts of RSAs 32, 30, 28, and 29, all within San Bernardino County. The sub-
corridor is generally 40 miles in length north to south and between 5 to 20 miles wide east to west.
Key Transportation Facilities
Key north/south oriented transportation facilities within the sub-corridor include:
Freeways: I-15, SR-395, SR-138, I-215, and SR-259.
Arterials: Key north/south arterial facilities that run through significant portions of the sub -corridor include: Citrus
Avenue, Sierra Avenue, Ayala Drive, Riverside Avenue, Pepper Avenue, State Street, Medical Center Drive, Mt.
Vernon Avenue, Escondido Avenue, Cottonwood Avenue, Amethyst Road, Arrowhead Drive, Hesperia Road, El
Evado Road, Amargosa Road, Adelanto Road, and Bellflower Street.
Freight: I-15 is a major goods movement corridor. Union Pacific Railroad and BNSF pass through the sub-corridor,
carrying significant volumes of freight between Southern California and the U.S. There are many warehousing and
distribution facilities in the sub-corridor in the cities of San Bernardino, Rialto, and Victorville.
Transit: There are only a limited number of bus routes in this sub-corridor, which are operated by Victor Valley
Transit Authority and Omnitrans. There is no north/south SCRRA (Metrolink) service in this sub-corridor.
111
5-3
Figure 5.1 | Sub-Corridor Study Area
Victorville to San Bernardino Sub-Corridor
112
5-4
Active Transportation: There are many municipal bicycle routes within the sub-corridor, including Class I, II, III,
and IV facilities.
Existing Characteristics of the Sub-Corridor
Socioeconomic and Land Use: Figure 5.2 illustrates the land use types and Figure 5.3 shows the land use
patterns in the sub-corridor. As illustrated in these figures, the subarea includes large portions of National Forest,
open space, and recreational land, at 38 percent of the total land area. Other predominant land uses in the sub-
corridor are residential, including single family residential at 13 percent of the area and rural residential at 23
percent. In terms of employment-generating land uses, the area has 3 percent industrial, 3 percent commercial and
services, and over 2 percent mixed-use designated zones.
The CalEnviroScreen scores for this sub-corridor include higher scores in the southern (Valley) portion of the sub-
corridor in San Bernardino, Rialto, and Fontana and the northern (High Desert) portion in Adelanto, Victorville, and
Hesperia. Most portions of Apple Valley have lower scores. Higher scores indicate greater exposure indicators,
greater environmental effects indicators, higher sensitive population indicators, higher socioeconomic f actor
indicators, or a combination of these. Areas with a high score generally experience a much higher pollution burden
than areas with lower scores. SCAG “Communities of Concern” also occur in the community of Muscoy and cities
of San Bernardino and Adelanto in the sub-corridor.
113
5-5
Figure 5.2 | Land Use Types
Victorville to San Bernardino Sub-Corridor
Source: SCAG 2012 Land Use
114
5-6
Figure 5.3 | Land Use Map
Victorville to San Bernardino Sub-Corridor
Source: SCAG 2012 Land Use.
115
5-7
Employment density is relatively low in much of the sub-corridor, especially in the Cajon Pass and in unincorporated
parts of the High Desert. Employment density is highest in the Valley cities, south of the Cajon Pass and on parcels
directly adjacent to I-15, SR-395, and SR-18 in the High Desert. There is little employment density outside of these
areas. Population is spread across single-family residential and rural residential lands that is primarily in the cities
of San Bernardino, Victorville, Hesperia, and Apple Valley, and Unincorporated San Bernardino County. Given the
predominance of residential land uses, the the sub-corridor has a population-to-employment statistical ratio of 4.6,
which is relatively high compared to some of the other areas of the overall IE CMCP Study Area, indicating a need
for residents to commute longer distances to work.
Travel Patterns: Daily auto trips were examined to gain insight into the daily activity patterns of travelers in the
region. Table 5.1 displays the magnitude and average sizes of trips within and external to the subarea. There are
nearly 1.3 million daily auto trips made by residents and employees in the sub-corridor. As illustrated in Table 5.1,
39 percent of those trips are internal-internal trips, meaning they start and end within the sub-corridor. These sub-
corridor internal trips include commute travel for workers who live and work in the sub-corridor as well as local trips
for daily activities such as shopping, school, recreation, and other, which are often proximate to home. Around half
of the trips have one end in the sub-corridor and the other end either inside or outside the IE CM CP area and 14
percent are to or from outside the IE CMCP area. The average trip lengths for trips with one end in the Study Area
and the other either inside or outside of IE CMCP area are 2.6 and 7.4 times the length of the internal-internal trips,
respectively.
Table 5.1 | Internal and External Trips
Victorville to San Bernardino Sub-Corridor
Sub-corridor
Internal Trips
Sub-corridor Trips to/
from CMCP Study Area
Sub-corridor Trips
to/from Rest of Region
Daily Auto Trips 501,000 593,000 182,000
39% 46% 14%
Average Trip Length (Miles) 4.8 12.6 35.4
Source: SCAG Model 2016
Commute trips were examined to better understand the peak period travel patterns. Figure 5.4 illustrates the journey
to work mode share for the sub-corridor. Overall, 92 percent of commute trips in the sub-corridor are made by
automobile. Notably, when examining the group that commutes by car, 14 percent of workers carpooled. The share
of carpoolers is higher in this sub-corridor compared to California as a whole (10 percent). This is reflective of the
relatively longer commute trips from the sub -corridor either to other job locations in San Bernardino or Southern
California and lack of Metrolink services in this sub-corridor. Transit accounts for just one percent of commute trips,
while five percent of residents work at home. Non-motorized trips account for just one percent of commute trips.
116
5-8
Figure 5.4 | Journey to Work Mode Share
Victorville to San Bernardino Sub-Corridor
Source: ACS 2017, 5-year estimates
Except for individuals who work at home, nearly 95 percent of the workers in the sub-corridor must find a way to
travel to their jobs each workday. Their choice of transportation mode, departure time, trip origin , and destination
all play key roles in determining door-to-door travel time. The collective result of these daily decisions is reflected
in the commute times for the sub-corridor. Nearly 54 percent of all workers commute less than 30 minutes to work.
28 percent commute 30 to 60 minutes, 18 percent commute over one hour.
Congestion, Delay, and Vehicle Miles Traveled: Figure 5.5 and Figure 5.6 illustrate the AM and PM peak hour
conditions, respectively, on the freeway system from Google traffic data. The most significant recurring congestion
and delay on the freeway system occurs on the I-15/SR-210 junction, I-15 in the Cajon Pass, and SR-395 between
I-15 and SR-18. At the I-15/SR-210 area during the AM peak, westbound SR-210 and southbound I-15 are
congested and during the PM peak, eastbound SR-210 is heavily congested. I-15 in the Cajon Pass is congested
during the PM peak in both directions. SR-395 is congested during the PM peak. Other small segments that are
congested are around the SR-210/I-215 interchange and the I-15/SR-18 interchange.
Drove Alone, 78%
Carpool, 14%
Transit, 1%
Non-Motorized, 1%
Work at Home, 5%
Other, 1%
117
5-9
Figure 5.5 | Existing AM Peak Hour Freeway Conditions
Victorville to San Bernardino Sub-Corridor
Source: Google Maps (Typical Wednesday Traffic)—accessed on March 6, 2020
118
5-10
Figure 5.6 | Existing PM Peak hour Freeway Congestion
Victorville to San Bernardino Sub-Corridor
Source: Google Maps (Typical Wednesday Traffic)—accessed on March 6, 2020
119
5-11
Daily VMT, including local trips and through traffic in the sub-corridor, are mainly carried on freeways and major
arterial roadways. Table 5.2 shows the VMT in the sub-corridor by facility type. As shown, the arterial network
carries 30 percent of the daily VMT. Daily VHT is nearly split 60/40 between freeways and arterial network. Average
speeds on arterials are nearly as a fast as speeds on freeways. As compared to the other sub-corridors, this area
has relatively more VMT per service population and it ranks fourth out of the ten sub-corridors for highest VMT per
service population.
Table 5.2 | Vehicle Miles of Travel by Facility Type
Victorville to San Bernardino Sub-Corridor
Vehicle Miles of Travel Vehicle Hours of Travel
Freeway 10,424,000 69% 189,000 62%
HOV 79,000 1% 1,000 0%
Arterials 4,505,000 30% 113,000 37%
Total 15,008,000 100% 303 000 100%
Source: SCAG Model 2016
Transit Usage: In this sub-corridor 1 percent of commute trips use transit. This sub-corridor does not have high
quality transit corridors or stops.
Safety: Figure 5.7 illustrates the report crashes by type for 2018. In terms of safety, the collision rates for I-15 are
higher than the County average and Caltrans District 8 averages. There is a relatively high concentration of bicycle
and pedestrian collisions in the southern portion of the sub-corridor in San Bernardino and Rialto, possibly reflecting
higher rates of walking and bicycling in the Valley area. Truck collisions occur throughout the Study Area but mostly
along I-15 with the largest concentrations along portions between I-215 and the Cajon Pass.
Future Conditions
The sub-corridor is expected to experience the following growth rates by 2040 according to SCAG projections:
• Population—43 percent increase.
• Employment—40 percent increase.
Commensurate with these projected relatively high rates of growth for the area’s demographics, total trip making in
the sub-corridor is expected to increase by 436,000 daily trips, representing a 34 percent increase. VMT are
expected to increase by 18 percent and VHT are projected to increase by 65 percent. The disproportionate increase
in VHT over VMT indicate increasing delay and congestion in the future due to the projected relatively high growth
rates for this sub-corridor.
The congestion levels are expected to increase on the freeway and arterial systems by 2040. Figure 5.8 and
Figure 5.9 illustrate the AM and PM peak hour conditions, respectively, on the freeway system based on SCAG
2040 model.
120
5-12
Figure 5.7 | Collisions
Victorville to San Bernardino Sub-Corridor
121
5-13
Figure 5.8 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—AM
Victorville to San Bernardino Sub-Corridor
122
5-14
Figure 5.9 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—PM
Victorville to San Bernardino Sub-Corridor
123
5-15
5.2.2 Strategic Approach for Victorville to San Bernardino Sub -Corridor
Problems to Be Addressed
• Substantial “down-the-hill” commuting from the Victor Valley to San Bernardino, Riverside, and LA, with
residents motivated to endure the commutes as a result of more affordable housing in the High Desert.
• I-15 is a nationally significant freight corridor, but travel through the Cajon Pass is congested and unreliable.
• High number of serious traffic accidents and incidents on State Routes: I-15 in Cajon Pass, U.S.-395, and
SR-138.
• Significant weekend congestion, not just weekday.
• Lack of adequate alternate routes when the regionally significant corridor shuts down as a result of incidents.
Strategy
1. Enhance the ease and reliability of freight and passenger travel in the Cajon Pass and High Desert through the
addition of express lanes on I-15, consistent with the SCAG Regional Express Lane Network in the RTP/SCS,
with toll discounts/exemptions for transit, vanpools, and 3+ carpools.
2. Conduct operational studies on I-15 in the Cajon Pass geared toward improving safety and reducing the
frequency and severity of traffic incidents. Also conduct operational studies on alternate routes to I-15 for use
in the event of extended I-15 closures. Program operational improvements into the Caltrans SHOPP. If crashes
are associated to the long routes, weather, and fatigue, perhaps rest areas could also be added to allow drivers
to take a break before continuing their destination.
3. Pursue multimodal solutions. Continue growth of vanpool and carpool formation from the High Desert to
employment centers in the Valley and greater LA Basin and monitor express bus operation from Victorville to
San Bernardino for evidence of expansion opportunity .Consider extension of XpressWest down the Cajon Pass
to Rancho Cucamonga to provide an additional privately funded solution to peak hour and weekend congestion.
4. Through economic development and other strategies, increase employment oppo rtunities in the High Desert
for High Desert residents to reduce jobs-to-housing imbalance and reduce long commutes from the High Desert
to San Bernardino / Los Angeles / Riverside.
5. Complete Mojave Riverwalk, the principal north/south Class I trail in the High Desert.
6. Consider developing a comprehensive signal synchronization network for the High Desert and prioritize arterial
corridors for early implementation.
7. Complete the widening of 2-lane segments on SR-138 west of I-15 for safety purposes.
124
5-16
8. Complete widening of U.S.-395 for safety and operational purposes and as a significant north/south freight and
recreational route connecting to the Tehachapi Mountains via SR-58 and to the eastern Sierra Mountains.
9. Implement policies and methods to increase work at home to decrease commute trips.
5.3 San Bernardino to Riverside Sub-Corridor
The San Bernardino to Riverside sub-corridor is one of five north/south oriented sub-corridors within the Inland Empire
Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan. Figure 5.10 illustrates the boundaries of the sub-corridor Study Area.
5.3.1 Sub-Corridor Definition
This sub-corridor is primarily centered on I-215 and SR-91, serving as a key north/south link (on the eastern side
of the urbanized valley), between San Bernardino and Riverside counties connecting their respective urban centers.
This sub-corridor addresses north/south flows of people and freight within and through portions of the cities of San
Bernardino, Colton, Loma Linda, Grand Terrace, Riverside, and portions of unincorporated San Bernardino and
Riverside counties. This sub-corridor encompasses parts of RSAs 46, 45, 29, and 30. The sub-corridor is
approximately 25 miles in length north to south and six miles wide east to west.
Key Transportation Facilities
Key north/south-oriented transportation facilities within the sub-corridor include:
Freeways: I-215 is the primary north/south freeway facility, with its extension/connection to SR-91 in the south and
I-15 in the north.
Arterials: Key north/south arterial facilities that run through significant portions of the Study Area include: Pepper
Avenue, La Cadena Drive, Main Street, Chicago Avenue, Iowa Avenue, Mt. Vernon Avenue, Reche Canyon Road,
E Street, Waterman Avenue, Tippecanoe Avenue, Route 66, and Kendal Drive.
Freight: I-215 is a major goods movement corridor. UP Railroad, BNSF and SCRRA pass through the sub-corridor.
There are major warehousing facilities in the sub-corridor along I-215 in the cities of Riverside, Colton, and San
Bernardino.
Transit: This sub-corridor includes portions of Metrolink’s Inland Empire/Orange County line and San Bernardino
line. The San Bernardino line terminates in Downtown San Bernardino within this sub -corridor. The Redlands
extension will provide additional service to the east from Downtown San Bernardino. The OmniTrans sbX Green
Line, a bus rapid transit route, runs primarily within the area serving major north/south movements. This key BRT
facility is the first service with exclusive bus lanes in the Inland Empire. The RTA Commuterlink route 200 and
Omnitrans connect Riverside and San Bernardino.
Active Transportation: There are many municipal bicycle routes within the sub-corridor, including Class I, II, III,
and IV facilities.
125
5-17
Figure 5.10 | Sub-Corridor Study Area
San Bernardino to Riverside Sub-Corridor
126
5-18
Existing Characteristics of the Sub-Corridor
Socioeconomic and Land Use: Figure 5.11 illustrates the land use type in the sub-corridor and Figure 5.12 shows
the land use patterns. As illustrated in these figures, this sub-corridor includes a wide variety of land uses depending
on location, with significant amounts of open space at the northern end, while urban land uses are most prevalent
in the middle and southern portions. Predominant land uses in the sub-corridor include single family residential at
24 percent, followed by open space and recreation at 26 percent, facilities at 10 percent , and industrial at 9 percent.
Where is the 31% oF land use?In terms of employment-generating land uses, the Study Area has 9 percent
industrial, 5 percent commercial and services, and some mixed-use designated zones. This sub-corridor includes
important Government centers for both San Bernardinoo and Riverside counties, including county halls of
administrations, courts, transportation agencies, State agencies, and world-class high education institutions UC-
Riverside and CSU–San Bernardino.
The CalEnviroScreen scores for this sub-corridor are high in the central portion of the area in downtown San
Bernardino and Colton areas with some areas of higher scores also located in Riverside and Jurupa Valley . The
farthest north, south, and eastern portions of the corridor have much lower CalEnviroScreen scores indicating better
overall economic and environmental conditions in those areas. A significant portion of the sub-corridor area is
designated as a SCAG “Community of Concern,” including portions of San Bernardino, Colton, Grand Terrace, and
Riverside.
127
5-19
Figure 5.11 | Land Use Types
San Bernardino to Riverside Sub-Corridor
Source: SCAG 2012 Land Use.
Single Family
Residential
24%
Multi Family
Residential
4%
Commercial and
Services
5%Facilities
10%
Industrial
9%
Mixed Commercial and
Industrail
4%
Mixed Residential and
Commerical
3%
Open Space and
Recreation
26%
Agriculture
5%
Specific Plan
7%
128
5-20
Figure 5.12 | Land Use Map
San Bernardino to Riverside Sub-Corridor
Source: SCAG 2012 Land Use.
129
5-21
Employment density is relatively high in the middle and southern portion of this subarea which include downtown
San Bernardino and Riverside, respectively, while density is much lower in the northern portion of the Study Area.
Overall employment density for the sub-corridor is 2.48 employees per acre. Population density follows a similar
pattern to employment density, with relatively high densities throughout much of the middle portion of the sub -
corridor. Overall population density for the sub-corridor is 5.71 residents per acre. Given the higher employment
opportunities, the the sub-corridor has a population-to-employment statistical ratio of 2.3, which is relatively low
compared to some of the other areas of the overall IE CMCP Study Area, indicating a relatively better balance of
jobs and population.
Travel Patterns: Daily auto trips were examined to gain insight into the daily activity patterns of travelers in the
region. Table 5.3 displays the magnitude and average length of trips within and external to the subarea. There are
nearly 1.5 million daily auto trips made by residents and employees in the corridor Study Area. As illustrated, in the
table below, just over a third of the trips stay within the sub-corridor and well over half of the trips are to and from
outside of the sub-corridor but within the overall Inland Empire Study Area. Less than ten percent of the trips go
outside of the Inland Empire Study Area, emphasizing the attractiveness and importance of this sub-corridor’s travel
destinations in serving trip origins within the Inland Empire in general. The average trip lengths for trips with one
end in the study and the other either inside or outside of IE CMCP area are more than three times and ten times
the length of the internal-internal trips, respectively. The relatively shorter length (12.8 miles) of the large volume of
sub-corridor to IE CMCP trips is again an indication of a good jobs/housing balance within the sub-corridor.
Table 5.3 | Internal and External Trips
San Bernardino to Riverside Sub-Corridor
Source: SCAG Model 2016.
Commute trips were examined to better understand the peak period travel patterns. Figure 5.13 illustrates the
journey to work mode share for the sub-corridor. Overall, 89 percent of commute trips in the Study Area are made
by automobile. Transit accounts for just two percent of commute trips, while four percent of residents work at home .
Notably, when examining the group that commutes by car, 14 percent carpooled. The share of commuters who
carpool is higher in the sub -corridor compared to California as a whole (10 percent). Non-motorized trips account
for four percent of commute trips.
Except for individuals who work at home, nearly 96 percent of the workers in the Study Area must find a way to
travel to their jobs each workday. Their choice of transportation mode, departure time, trip origin , and destination
all play key roles in determining door-to-door travel time. The collective result of these daily decisions are reflected
in the commute times for the Study Area. Over 60 percent of all workers commute less than 30 minutes to work,
Sub-corridor
Internal Trips
Sub-corridor Trips to/from
CMCP Study Area
Sub-corridor Trips to/from
Rest of Region
Daily Auto Trips 535,000 837,000 121,000
35% 57% 8%
Average Trip Length (Miles) 3.9 12.8 43.7
130
5-22
while 25 percent commute 30 to 60 minutes, 11 percent commute over one hour . Again, these figures reflect a
better jobs/housing balance in this sub-corridor, which result in relatively shorter commute times compared to
others.
Figure 5.13 | Journey to Work Mode Share
San Bernardino to Riverside Sub-Corridor
Source: ACS 2017, 5-year estimates
Congestion, Delay, and VMT: Figure 5.14 and Figure 5.15 illustrate the AM and PM peak hour conditions,
respectiveley, on the freeway system for 2018 from Google traffic data. In general, the most consistent congestion
patterns occur on the I-215 segment between I-10 and SR-60 in both peak periods. More specifically, the traffic
data indicate that during the AM peak, there is congestion on I-215 on the entire segment from I-10 to SR-60. The
level of congestion is approximately the same in both directions in this area. There also is congestion on I-215
southbound south of SR-210 as well as I-215 southbound south of the I-15/I-215 interchange. During the PM peak,
the southbound direction of the segment between I-10 and SR-60 is significantly congested and a portion of the
same segment is congested in the northbound direction. Also the segment of I-215 north of I-10 up to 5th Street in
San Bernardino is congested. There also is congestion along I-215 north of SR-210 in the northbound direction
during the PM peak as well as north of the I-15/I-215 interchange, again in the northbound direction.
Daily VMT, including local trips and through traffic in the Study Area are mainly carried on freeways and major
arterial roadways. Table 5.4 shows the VMT in the sub-corridor by facility type. As shown, the freeway system
carries 71 percent and the arterial network carries 29 percent of the daily VMT. The significantly higher share of
freeway VMT is a reflection of the importance of the freeways in mobility and county -to-county connectivity in this
sub-corridor. The proportion of VHT is somewhat different than VMT, with freeways (including HOV lanes) carrying
60 percent of the VHT and arterial network carrying 40 percent of the VHT, reflecting lower speeds on the arterials .
Drive Alone, 75%
Carpool, 14%
Transit, 2%
Walk, 3%Work At Home, 4%
131
5-23
As compared to the other sub-corridors, this area has relatively more VMT per service population and it ranks
number five highest VMT out of the ten sub-corridors.
132
5-24
Figure 5.14 | Existing AM Peak Hour Freeway Conditions
San Bernardino to Riverside Sub-Corridor
Source: Google Maps (Typical Wednesday Traffic)—accessed on March 6, 2020.
133
5-25
Figure 5.15 | Existing PM Peak Hour Freeway Congestion
San Bernardino to Riverside Sub-Corridor
Source: Google Maps (Typical Wednesday Traffic)—accessed on March 6, 2020.
134
5-26
Table 5.4 | Vehicle Miles of Travel by Facility Type
San Bernardino to Riverside Sub-Corridor
Vehicle Miles of Travel Vehicle Hours of Travel
Freeway 8,053,242 68% 151,538 57%
HOV 397,166 3% 6,737 3%
Arterials 3,451,905 29% 104,039 40%
Total 11,902,313 100% 262,314 100%
Source: SCAG Model 2016
Transit Usage: This sub-corridor has several high-quality transit services, including the Metrolink Commuter Rail
as well as other transit services , including bus rapid transit (BRT) sbX between C SU-San Bernardino and Loma
Linda University and Medical Center. This sub-corridor also includes portions of the Inland Empire-Orange County
Metrolink stations providing north/south service.
Safety: Figure 5.16 illustrates the reported crashes by type for 2018. In terms of safety, I-215 experiences some of
the highest collision rates for the IE CMCP Study Area’s freeways. There is a relatively high concentration of bicycle
and pedestrian collisions in the southern portion of the sub-corridor in and around University of California at
Riverside (UCR) and in the central portion near the city of San Bernardino. This possibly reflects relatively higher
rates of walking and bicycling in these areas. Truck collisions occur throughout the Study Area but mostly along
freeways with the largest concentration along I-215 between SR-60 and SR-210.
Future Conditions
The sub-corridor is expected to experience the following growth rates by 2040:
• Population—16 percent increase.
• Employment—37 percent increase.
This subcorridor will experience the lowest level of population increase compared to the other nine sub -corridors,
likely reflecting the built out nature of much of the Study Area. However, the higher rate of employment to population
growth suggests a further improvement to future jobs/housing ratios. Total trip making in the sub -corridor is
projected to increase by 362,000 daily trips, representing a 24 percent increase. VMT is expected to increase by
22 percent and VHT is projected to increase by 51 percent. The disproportionate increase in VHT over VMT suggest
increasing delay and congestion in the future due to the projected growth rates and increased congestion.
The congestion levels are expected to increase on the freeway and arterial syst ems by 2040. Figure 5.17 and
Figure 5.18 illustrate the AM and PM peak hour conditions, respectively, on the freeway system projected for 2040
from the SCAG model.
135
5-27
Figure 5.16 | Collisions
San Bernardino to Riverside Sub-Corridor
136
5-28
Figure 5.17 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—AM
San Bernardino to Riverside Sub-Corridor
137
5-29
Figure 5.18 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—PM
San Bernardino to Riverside Sub-Corridor
138
5-30
5.3.2 Strategic Approach for San Bernardino to Riverside Sub -Corridor
Problems to Be Addressed
• Large off-campus university student and employee populations that make daily commutes to and from
schools, creating congestion at entry points to universities.
• Specific bottleneck locations: (southbound I-215 at Orange Show Road, southbound I-215 at SR-60 junction,
northbound I-215 at merge with SR-60 on-ramps).
• Nationally significant freight corridor and large concentration of warehousing and logis tics centers.
• Antiquated interchange designs.
• Large concentration of bike and pedestrian collisions in the Riverside and San Bernardino urban centers.
• Generally difficult environment for walking and cycling
• Truck congestion and air quality challenges in San Bernardino and Riverside with convergence of rail lines
intermodal facilities.
Strategies
1. Build on existing multimodal strategy to enhance rail, transit and shared-ride access to and from California State
University San Bernardino (CSUSB) and UCR.
2. Coordinate express transit/rail service between San Bernardino and Riverside County cities.
3. Focus on north/south arterial operations and safety improvements for parallel facilities such as Ri verside
Avenue, Mt. Vernon Avenue, and Reche Canyon Road.
4. Complete Divergent Diamond Interchange (DDI) at the I-215/University Avenue interchange to accommodate
continued CSUSB growth.
5. Make strategic operational improvements to and/or reconstruct interchanges on I-215 between SR-60 and
Orange Show Road to address bottlenecks.
6. Implement managed-lane system on SR-91 in downtown Riverside.
7. Build on substantial existing transit assets (e.g., move forward with SCORE program on multiple Metrolink
lines—increasing frequency and improving service).
8. Implement first/last mile transit connections (particularly from major destinations to Metrolink stations).
9. Work with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and California Air Resources Board
(CARB) to provide incentives for accelerating turnover of the truck fleets.
139
5-31
10. Explore policies and methods to increase work at home to decrease commute trips.
5.4 Cajon to Eastvale Sub-Corridor
The Cajon to Eastvale sub-corridor is one of five north/south oriented sub-corridors within the Inland Empire
Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan. Figure 5.19 illustrates the boundaries of the sub-corridor Study Area.
5.4.1 Sub-Corridor Definition
This sub-corridor is primarily centered on I-15, serving as a key north/south link (on the western side of the urbanized
valley), between San Bernardino and Riverside count ies. This sub-corridor addresses north/south flows of people
and freight within and through portions of the cities of San Bernardino, Rialto, Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga,
Ontario, Eastvale and Norco, and portions of county unincorporated areas. This sub-corridor encompasses portions
of both Riverside and San Bernardino counties and includes parts of RSAs 28, 45, 29, and 30. The sub-corridor is
approximately 26 miles in length north to south and six miles wide east to west.
Key Transportation Facilities
Key north/south oriented transportation facilities within the sub-corridor include:
Freeways: I-15 is the primary north/south freeway facility.
Arterials: Key north/south arterial facilities that run through significant portions of the Study Area include Glen
Hellen Parkway, Sierra Avenue, Etiwanda Avenue, Hamner Avenue and Milliken Avenue.
Freight: I-15 is a major goods movement corridor. UP Railroad, BNSF, and SCRRA pass through the sub-corridor.
Some of the most significant warehousing facilities in the Inland Empire are in this sub-corridor along I-15 in the
cities of Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, and Eastvale.
Transit: There is no transit connectivity along I-15 in this sub-corridor.
Active Transportation: There are many municipal bicycle routes within the sub-corridor, including Class I, II, III,
and IV facilities.
140
5-32
Figure 5.19 | Sub-corridor Study Area
Cajon to Eastvale Sub-Corridor
141
5-33
Existing Characteristics of the Sub-Corridor
Socioeconomic and Land Use: Figure 5.20 illustrates the land use types in the sub-corridor and Figure 5.21
shows the land use patterns. As illustrated in these figures, this sub-corridor includes a wide variety of land uses
depending on location, with significant amounts of open space at the northern end, while urban land uses are most
prevalent in the middle and southern portions. A significant distinguishing characteristic of this sub-corridor is the
predominance of specific plans (mostly in Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga, and Ontario) at 30 percent of the total
land area. Other predominant land uses include open space at 24 percent, Iindustrial at 11 percent, agriculture at
10 percent, and relatively lower single family residential at 9 percent. The CalEnviroScreen scores are high in the
central portion of the sub-corridor, including parts of Rialto and Ontario. Overall CalEnviro Screen scores for this
sub-corridor are among the highest of the ten sub-corridors.
Figure 5.20 | Land Use Types
Cajon to Eastvale Sub-Corridor
Source: SCAG 2012 Land Use
Employment density is relatively low in the northern and southern portion of the sub-corridor and moderate to high
employment density in portions between SR-210 and SR-60. The population/employment ratio is mixed with high
ratios in the northern and southern portion and a low ratio in middle of the sub-corridor between SR-210 and SR-
60. Overall, the sub-corridor has a relatively lower population-to-employment statistical ratio of 1.8 compared to
some of the other areas of the overall IE CMCP s Study Area, indicating a need for residents to commute shorter
distances to work.
Single Family
Residential
9%
Industrial
11%
Mixed Residential and
Commerical
4%
Open Space and
Recreation
24%
Agriculture
10%
Specific Plan
30%
142
5-34
Figure 5.21 | Land Use Map
Cajon to Eastvale Sub-Corridor
Source: SCAG 2012 Land Use
Travel Patterns: Daily auto trips were examined to gain insight into the daily activity patterns of travelers in the
region. Table 5.5 displays the magnitude and average length of trips within and external to the subarea. There are
143
5-35
over 1.3 million daily auto trips made by residents and employees in the Study Area. As illustrated in the table
below, just over a quarter of those trips are internal-internal trips, meaning they start and end within the sub-corridor
Study Area. These sub-corridor internal trips include commute travel for workers who live and work in the Study
Area, as well as local trips for daily activities such as shopping, school , recreation, and other, which are often
proximate to home. The remaining trips are evenly split between having one end in the Study Area and the other
end either inside or outside the IE CMCP area. Approximately 60 percent of the trips have one end in the sub-
corridor and other end in the IE CMCP Study Area. The remaining trips end outside the IE CMCP s Study Area.
With 85 percent of the trips within the IE CMCP area, this reflects the attractiveness and importance of this sub-
corridor’s travel destinations in serving trip origins within the Inland Empire in general.
The average trip lengths for trips with one end in the Study Area and the other either inside or outside of IE CMCP
area are three times and eight times the length of the internal-internal trips, respectively. The relatively shorter
length (almost 12 miles) of the large volume of sub-corridor to IE CMCP trips is again an indication of a good
jobs/housing balance within the sub-corridor.
Table 5.5 | Internal and External Trips
Cajon to Eastvale Sub-Corridor
Sub-corridor
Internal Trips
Sub-corridor Trips to/from
CMCP Study Area
Sub-corridor Trips to/from
Rest of Region
Daily Auto Trips 361,000 787,000 203,000
27% 58% 15%
Average Trip Length (Miles) 4.1 11.9 32.5
Source: SCAG Model 2016
Commute trips were examined to better understand the peak period travel patterns. Figure 5.22 illustrates the
journey to work mode share for the sub-corridor. Overall, 92 percent of commute trips in the Study Area are made
by automobile. Transit accounts for just two percent of commute trips, while five percent of residents work at home.
Notably, when examining the group that commutes by car, 1 2 percent carpooled. The share of commuters who
carpool is higher in the sub -corridor compared to California as a whole (10 percent). Non-motorized trips account
for less than one percent of commute trips.
144
5-36
Figure 5.22 | Journey to Work Mode Share
Cajon to Eastvale Sub-Corridor
Source: ACS 2017, 5-year estimates
Except for individuals who work at home, nearly 95 percent of the workers in the Study Area must find a way to
travel to their jobs each workday. Their choice of transportation mode, departure time, trip origin, and destination
all play key roles in determining door-to-door travel time. The collective result of these daily decisions are reflected
in the commute times for the Study Area. Nearly half of all workers commute less than 30 minutes to work, 31
percent commute 30 to 60 minutes, and 19 percent commute over one hour. These are a reflection of relatively
high availability of jobs to serve the population in this sub-corridor.
Congestion, Delay, and VMT: Figure 5.23 and Figure 5.24 show the snapshot of Google traffic conditions during
a typical Wednesday AM and PM peak hour, respectively . In general, the most consistent congestion patterns occur
on the I-15 segment from I-10 to the southern end of the sub-corridor in both peak periods. More specifically, the
traffic data indicate that during the AM peak hour there is significant congestion on I-15 in both directions south of
I-10 to the southern edge of the sub-corridor and it is the heaviest in the northbound direction during the morning
period. On I-15, both north and south of I-10, there is significant congestion in the northbound direction during the
AM peak hour. There also is congestion at the I-10/SR-210 interchange. The PM peak hour experiences similar
patterns along I-15 but the congestion extends further north of I-10 and again extends all the way to the southern
boundary of the sub-corridor.
Drive Alone, 80%
Carpool, 12%
Transit, 2%
Walk, 0%Work At Home, 5%
145
5-37
Figure 5.23 | Existing AM Peak Hour Freeway Conditions
Cajon to Eastvale Sub-Corridor
Source: Google Maps (Typical Wednesday Traffic)—accessed on March 6, 2020
146
5-38
Figure 5.24 | Existing PM Peak hour Freeway Congestion
Cajon to Eastvale Sub-Corridor
Source: Google Maps (Typical Wednesday Traffic)—accessed on March 6, 2020.
147
5-39
Daily VMT, including local trips and through traffic in the Study Area are mainly carried on freeways and major
arterial roadways. Table 5.6 shows the VMT in the sub-corridor by facility type. As shown, the freeways carry 70
percent of the daily VMT and the arterials 30 percent. The significantly higher share of freeway VMT is a reflection
of the importance of the freeways in mobility and county -to-county connectivity in this sub-corridor. However, daily
VHT is about 60/40 between freeways (including HOV lanes) and arterial network, reflecting lower speeds on the
arterials. As compared to the other sub-corridors, this area has the highest VMT per service population and it ranks
number one out of the ten sub-corridors.
Table 5.6 | Vehicle Miles of Travel by Facility Type
Cajon to Eastvale Sub-Corridor
Vehicle Miles of Travel Vehicle Hours of Travel
Freeway 9,089,517 68% 172,414 60%
HOV 245,953 2% 3,935 1%
Arterials 3,984,639 30% 487,000 39%
Total 13,320,109 100% 663,349 100%
Source: SCAG Model 2016.
Transit Usage: This sub-corridor also has some high-quality transit stops at Metrolink stations in Rancho
Cucamonga and Ontario. In this sub-corridor, only 2 percent of commute trips use transit.
Safety: Figure 5.25 illustrates the reported crashes by type for 2018. In terms of safety, I-15 has higher collision
rates than the County average and Caltrans District 8 averages. Bicycle and pedestrian collisions are sparsely
spread across the sub-corridor, possibly reflecting lower rates of bicycling and walking in these areas. Truck
collisions occur throughout the Study Area but mostly along freeways with the largest concentrations along portions
of I-15 between SR-210 and SR-60.
Future Conditions
The sub-corridor is expected to experience the following growth rates by 2040:
• Population—17 percent increase.
• Employment—33 percent increase.
These are among the lowest levels of projected increase in population of all ten sub-corridors, likely reflecting the
built out nature of much of the Study aArea. However, the higher rate of employment to population growth suggests
a further improvement to future jobs/housing ratios. Total trip making in the sub -corridor is projected to increase by
293,000 daily trips, representing a 22 percent increase. VMT is projected to increase by 17 percent and VHT is
projected to increase by 39 percent. The disproportionate increase in VHT over VMT indicate increasing delay and
congestion in the future due to the relatively high growth rates that are projected.
148
5-40
The congestion levels are expected to increase on the freeway and arterial systems by 2040. Figure 5.26 and
Figure 5.27 illustrate the AM and PM peak hour conditions , respectively, on the freeway system projected for 2040
from the SCAG model.
149
5-41
Figure 5.25 | Collisions
Cajon to Eastvale Sub-Corridor
150
5-42
Figure 5.26 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—AM
Cajon to Eastvale Sub-Corridor
151
5-43
Figure 5.27 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—PM
Cajon to Eastvale Sub-Corridor
152
5-44
5.4.2 Strategic Approach for Cajon to Eastvale Sub-Corridor
Problems to Be Addressed
• I-10/I-15 interchange is 12th on American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI)’s national list of the top
100 truck bottlenecks.
• Nationally significant freight corridor, with heavy congestion on I-15 between SR-60 and SR-210.
• Southern end of the corridor houses some of the largest and most intense logistics activitie s in the Nation,
with attendant local traffic and environmental impacts.
• Lack of north/south transit service and need for improved transit service to Ontario International Airport.
• Large population and housing growth with a large number of master planned communities.
Strategies
1. Implement managed-lane system on I-15, with toll discounts or exemptions for transit, vanpools, and 3+
carpools.
2. Complete the West Valley Connector BRT, Phase 1. The north/south portion parallels I-15 from Victoria
Gardens to Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station, through Ontario employment centers, to Ontario
International Airport (ONT). Integrate with potential new zero-emission tunnel connection from Metrolink San
Bernardino Line to ONT.
3. Coordinate operational strategies for managed lanes between Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
4. Grow vanpool and carpool formation from the High Desert to employment centers in the Valley, Riverside
County, and greater LA Basin.
5. Implement “Healthy Communities and Healthy Economies Toolkit for Goods Movement” (given continued
warehouse/distribution facility development).
6. Work with SCAQMD and CARB to provide incentives for accelerating turnover of truck fleets .
7. Implement San Sevaine Class I Trail System, running north/south along I-15.
8. Explore policies and methods to increase work at home to decrease commute trips.
5.5 Riverside to Temecula Sub-Corridor
The Riverside to Temecula sub-corridor is one of five north/south oriented sub-corridors within the Inland Empire
Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan. Figure 5.28 illustrates the boundaries of the sub-corridor Study Area.
153
5-45
5.5.1 Sub-Corridor Definition
This sub-corridor is located entirely within Riverside County, covering a significant portion of the Western Riverside
County subregion. This is an important intercounty corridor traversing through Riverside County and linking San
Bernardino County to San Diego County via I-15 and I-215 and other connecting routes. This sub-corridor
addresses north/south flows of people and freight within and through portions of unincorporated Riverside County
and the cities of Eastvale, Jurupa Valley, Norco, Riverside, Corona, Moreno Valley, Perris, Menifee, Canyon Lake,
Lake Elsinore, Wildomar, Murrieta, and Temecula. This sub-corridor includes parts of RSAs 29, 45, 46, 47, and 49.
It is generally 45 miles in length north to south and 20 miles wide east to west at the northern edge of the sub-
corridor narrowing to about five miles wide east to west at the southern edge of the sub-corridor, as I-15 and I-215
merge.
Key Transportation Facilities
Key north/south oriented transportation facilities within the sub-corridor include:
Freeways: I-15, I-215, SR-91and SR-79.
Arterials: Key north/south arterial facilities that run through significant portions of the sub-corridor include: Ynez
Road, Margarita Road/Redhawk Parkway, Meadows Parkway, Whitewood Road/Menifee Road, California Oaks
Road, Clinton Keith Road, Grand Avenue, Temescal Canyon Road/Ontario Avenue, Foothill Parkway , Hamner
Avenue/Main Street, La Sierra Avenue, Van Buren Boulevard, Sycamore Canyon Boulevard, Central
Avenue/Alessandro Boulevard, and Perris Boulevard.
Freight: I-15 and I-215 SR-91are major goods movement corridors. UP Railroad, BNSF Railway, and SCRRA pass
through the sub-corridor. There are many warehousing and distribution centers in the sub-corridor in the cities of
Corona, Jurupa Valley, Riverside, Moreno Valley, Perris, and Temecula.
Transit: This sub-corridor includes portions of Metrolink route 91/Perris Valley line, which runs through a portion of
the area and it transitions from an east/west route to a north/south route. There are several bus routes in this sub -
corridor operated by RTA, including communter link service 208 connecting Temecula, Murrieta, Perris, Moreno
Valley and Downtown Riverside.
Active Transportation: There are many municipal bicycle routes within the sub-corridor, including Class I, II, III,
and IV facilities. In addition, there are several proposed Regional Routes. These rou tes would cross multiple
jurisdictions and consist of different types of facilities and classes.
154
5-46
Figure 5.28 | Sub-Corridor Study Area
Riverside to Temecula Sub-Corridor
155
5-47
Existing Characteristics of the Sub-Corridor
Socioeconomic and Land Use: Figure 5.29 illustrates the land use by type in the sub-corridor and Figure 5.30
shows the land use patterns. As illustrated in these figures, the predominant land use in the sub-corridor is
residential at 49 percent of the total land area, comprised of single family residential at 17 percent, and rural
residential at 32 percent. Other key land uses include agriculture at 12 percent, and open space and recreational
at 38 percent. In terms of employment-generating land uses, the area has five percent industrial, two percent
commercial and services, and over two percent mixed-use designated zones.
The CalEnviroScreen scores for this sub-corridor include higher scores in the eastern portion of the area in Moreno
Valley, Perris, Canyon Lake, northern portion of Menifee, and nort h-west edge of Lake Elsinore. There also are
higher scores along SR-91 in Riverside and Corona. There are moderate scores in western Lake Elsinore, small
portions of Murrieta, and western Temecula. The sub-corridor has lower scores outside of those areas. Higher
scores indicate greater exposure indicators, greater environmental effects indicators, higher sensitive population
indicators, higher socioeconomic factor indicators, or a combination of these. Areas with a high score generally
experience a much higher pollution burden than areas with lower scores. SCAG “Communities of Concern” also
occur in the sub-corridor in the county unincorporated communities of Home Gardens, Mead Valley, and Good
Hope and city of Perris.
Figure 5.29 | Land Use Types
Riverside to Temecula Sub-Corridor
Source: SCAG 2012 Land Use
Single Family
Residential
17%
Rural Residential
32%
Industrial
5%
Open Space and
Recreation
6%
Agriculture
12%
Specific Plan
13%
156
5-48
Figure 5.30 | Land Use Map
Riverside to Temecula Sub-Corridor
Source: SCAG 2012 Land Use
157
5-49
Employment density is concentrated along freeways in the incorporated areas of the sub -corridor. The highest
employment density is along SR-91 in the cities of Corona and Riverside. Other pockets of higher density
employment are in Moreno Valley, Perris, Menifee, Murrieta, and Temecula. Population is spread across single -
family residential and rural residential land. Single-family residential neighborhoods are along SR-91 in the cities of
Corona and Riverside; north of the Santa Ana River in the cities of Eastvale and Jurupa Valley; and in the southern
portion of the sub-corridor in the cities of Perris, Menifee, Canyon Lake, Murrieta, and Temecula. Given the
predominance of residential land uses, the sub-corridor has a population-to-employment statistical ratio of 2.9,
which is relatively low compared to some of the other areas of the overall IE CMCP Study Area, indicating a need
for fewer residents to commute longer distances to work.
Travel Patterns: Daily auto trips were examined to gain insight into the daily activity patterns of travelers in the
region. Table 5.7 displays the magnitude and average length of trips within and extern al to the sub-corridor area.
Due to the large size of the sub-corridor area, there are high volumes of travel, at nearly 3.7 million daily auto trips
made by residents and employees. As illustrated in the table below, the majority of these trips, or 60 per cent, are
internal-internal trips, meaning they start and end within the sub-corridor. These sub-corridor internal trips include
commute travel for workers who live and work in the sub-corridor as well as local trips for daily activities such as
shopping, school, recreation, and other, which are often proximate to home. Twenty-eight percent of trips have one
end in the sub-corridor and the other end inside the IE CMCP area and 12 percent of trips have one end in the sub -
corridor and the other end outside the sub-corridor. The average trip lengths for trips with one end in the Study Area
and the other either inside or outside of the IE CMCP area are 2.6 and 6.8 times the length of the internal-internal
trips, respectively.
Table 5.7 | Internal and External Trips
Riverside to Temecula Sub-Corridor
Source: SCAG Model 2016
Commute trips were examined to better understand the peak period travel patterns. Figure 5.31 illustrates the
journey to work mode share for the sub-corridor. Overall, 91 percent of commute trips in the sub-corridor are made
by automobile. Notably, when examining the group that commutes by car, 14 percent of workers carpooled. The
share of carpoolers is higher in the sub-corridor compared to California as a whole (10 percent). This is reflective
of the relatively longer commute trips from the sub-corridor either to other job locations in San Bernardino and San
Diego and general lack of north/south commuter rail services in this sub-corridor. Transit accounts for just one
percent of commute trips, while five percent of residents work at home. Non -motorized trips account for just two
percent of commute trips.
Sub-corridor Internal
Trips
Sub-corridor Trips to/from
CMCP Study Area
Sub-corridor Trips to/from
Rest of Region
Daily Auto Trips 2,247,000 1,038,000 447,000
60% 28% 12%
Average Trip Length (Miles) 6.1 16.1 41.5
158
5-50
Figure 5.31 | Journey to Work Mode Share
Riverside to Temecula Sub-Corridor
Source: ACS 2017, 5-year estimates.
Except for individuals who work at home, nearly 95 percent of the workers in the sub-corridor must find a way to
travel to their jobs each workday. Their choice of transportation mode, departure time, trip origin , and destination
all play key roles in determining door-to-door travel time. The collective result of these daily decisions are reflected
in the commute times for the sub-corridor. Forty-nine percent of all workers commute less than 30 minutes to work,
30 percent commute 30 to 60 minutes, and 21 percent commute over one hour.
Congestion, Delay, and VMT: Figure 5.32 and Figure 5.33 show the snapshot of Google traffic conditions during
a typical Wednesday AM and PM peak hour, respectively . The most significant recurring congestion and delay on
the freeway system occurs around the I-15/SR-91 junction, SR-91I-215/SR-60 junction, and I-215/I-15 south of
Menifee. The most congested portions of I-15 are between SR-91 and I-215 during both AM and PM peaks,
northbound during the AM peak at Temescal Valley, southbound during the PM peak south of SR-91, and
northbound during the PM peak in Temecula. The most congested portions of I-215 are northbound north of I-15
during the PM peak, southbound north of I-15 during the AM peak, and near the SR-60 junction during AM and PM
peaks.
Drove Alone, 77%
Carpool, 14%
Transit, 1%
Non-Motorized, 2%
Work at Home, 5%
Other, 1%
159
5-51
Figure 5.32 | Existing AM Peak Hour Freeway Conditions
Riverside to Temecula Sub-Corridor
Source: Google Maps (Typical Wednesday Traffic)—accessed on March 6, 2020
160
5-52
Figure 5.33 | Existing PM Peak Hour Freeway Congestion
Riverside to Temecula Sub-Corridor
Source: Google Maps (Typical Wednesday Traffic)—accessed on March 6, 2020.
161
5-53
Daily VMT, including local trips and through traffic in the sub -corridor, are mainly carried on freeways and major
arterial roadways. Table 5.8 shows the VMT in the sub-corridor by facility type. As shown, the arterial network
carries 58 percent of the daily VMT. Daily VHT is nearly split 50/50 between freeways (including HOV lanes) and
arterial network. Average speeds on the freeway and arterials are similar. As compared to the other sub-corridors,
this area has relatively more VMT per service population and ranks seventh out of the ten sub -corridors for most
VMT per service population.
Table 5.8 | Vehicle Miles of Travel by Facility Type
Riverside to Temecula Sub-Corridor
Vehicle Miles of Travel Vehicle Hours of Travel
Freeway 19,883,000 58% 388,000 49%
HOV 800,000 2% 15,000 2%
Arterials 13,613,000 40% 396,000 50%
Total 34,296,000 100% 799,000 101?%
Source: SCAG Model 2016.
Transit Usage: This sub-corridor has several high-quality transit stops along Metrolink lines at Corona, Riverside,
Jurupa Valley, Moreno Valley, and Perris. It also has some of the highest ridership bus stops in the overall IE CMCP
Study Area, which are located at Corona Transit Center, Galleria at Tyler, Moreno Valley Mall, University Market
(UCR), UCR Campus, and Perris Transit Center. In this sub-corridor, one percent of commute trips use transit.
Safety: Figure 5.34 illustrates the reported crashes by type for 2018. In terms of safety, SR-91 and I-215 experience
some of the highest collision rates for the IE CMCP Study Area freeways. The collision rates for I-15 are higher
than the County average and Caltrans District 8 averages, but less than the rates for I-215 and SR-91, in general.
There is a relatively high concentration of bicycle and pedestrian collisions in the northern portion of the sub -corridor,
possibly reflecting higher rates of walking and bicycling in these areas. Truck collisions occur througho ut the Study
Area but mostly along freeways with the largest concentrations near I-215/SR-91/SR-60 interchange.
Future Conditions
The sub-corridor is expected to experience the following growth rates by 2040:
• Population—22 percent increase.
• Employment—49 percent increase.
As seen, population growth is expected to be lower than employment growth, suggesting better jobs/housing
balance and possibly shorter trips in the future. Total trip making in the sub-corridor is projected to increase by 1.0
million daily trips, representing a 28 percent increase. VMT are projected to increase by 25 percent and VHT are
projected to increase by 55 percent. The disproportionate increase in VHT over VMT indicate increasing delay and
congestion in the future due to the projected relatively high growth rates for this sub-corridor.
162
5-54
The congestion levels are expected to increase on the freeway and arterial systems by 2040. Figure 5.35 and
Figure 5.36 illustrate the AM and PM peak hour conditions on the freeway system projected for 2040 from the SCAG
model.
163
5-55
Figure 5.34 | Collisions
Riverside to Temecula Sub-Corridor
164
5-56
Figure 5.35 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—AM
Riverside to Temecula Sub-Corridor
165
5-57
Figure 5.36 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—PM
Riverside to Temecula Sub-Corridor
166
5-58
5.5.2 Strategic Approach for Riverside to Temecula Sub-Corridor
Problems to Be Addressed
• Significant and growing congestion in both directions at the I-215/SR-60 junction in Riverside.
• Significant and growing congestion at the I-15/I-215 merge/diverge in Temecula and on I-15 northbound and
southbound in Corona.
• Congestion at critical interchanges on I-15 and I-215 (e.g., Newport Road, Railroad Canyon Road, SR-74,
etc.).
• Lack of parallel facilities to I-15 and I-215 throughout the corridor (due largely to topography).
• Nationally significant freight corridor and large concentration of warehousing and logistics centers.
• Large amount of housing development concentrated along the corridor; exacerbating the job -housing
imbalance.
Strategies
1. Extend the managed-lane system on I-15 southerly from Cajalco Road in Corona to SR-74 (Central Avenue) in
Lake Elsinore (underway), with toll discounts for transit, vanpools, and 3+ carpools.
2. Continue commuter bus operations on I-15 and I-215 to Metrolink stations and continue express bus service
utilizing managed lanes.
3. Make strategic operational improvements to and/or reconstruct interchanges on I-15 and I-215, such as Franklin
Street and French Valley Parkway.
4. Improve the north/south arterial network along I-15 and I-215, where possible, to better accommodate local
short-distance trips that are now occurring on the freeway system, such as Temescal Canyon Road.
5. Enhance marketing and incentives for ridership on the Perris Valley Line to Riverside .
6. Grow vanpool and carpool formation from southwest Riverside County to employment centers in Riverside,
Corona, and San Bernardino County.
7. Deploy new technologies to proactively manage traffic and improve roadway conditions .
8. Build on substantial transit assets. Invest in Metrolink rail expansion for t he 91/Perris Valley Line, construct
accessibility improvements to existing 91/Perris Valley Metrolink stations.
9. Work with SCAQMD and CARB to provide incentives for accelerating turnover of truck fleets .
167
5-59
10. Invest in grade separation projects to improve goods movement efficiency and passenger rail movement.
11. Provide an additional east west regional arterial extending east from the City of Perris that will run parallel to
SR-74, serving as an alternative route to better connect the cities within the region.
12. Explore policies and methods to increase work at home to decrease commute trips.
5.6 Beaumont to Temecula Sub-Corridor
The Beaumont to Temecula sub-corridor is one of five north/south oriented sub-corridors within the Inland Empire
Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan. Figure 5.37 illustrates the boundaries of the sub-corridor Study Area.
5.6.1 Sub-Corridor Definition
This sub-corridor is located entirely within Riverside County, is generally centered along the conventional SR-79,
which provides a vital link in absence of north/south freeways in the area. Although the sub-corridor does not have
a freeway that covers its entire length, it includes a portion of I-215 between SR-74 and I-15 that parallels SR-79 in
the southern area and I-10. This sub-corridor addresses north/south flows of people and freight within and through
portions of the cities of Temecula, Murrieta, Menifee, Hemet, San Jacinto, and Beaumont. This sub-corridor
encompasses portions of Riverside County and includes parts of RSAs 49, 47, 48, and 50. The sub-corridor is
generally 30-35 miles in length north to south and about 15-20 miles wide east to west in Riverside County.
Key Transportation Facilities
Key north/south oriented transportation facilities within the sub-corridor include:
Freeways / Highways: SR-79, section of I-15 and I-215.
Arterials: Key north/south arterial facilities that run through significant portions of the Study Area include:
Sanderson Avenue, Whitewood Road and Warren Road.
Freight: I-215 is s major goods movement corridor. This sub-corridor has some warehouses in the southern portion
near Temecula.
Transit: There are few bus routes in the sub-corridor including RTA commuter link service 217 connecting San
Jacinto, Hemet and Temecula. There is no Metrolink service in this sub-corridor.
Active Transportation: There are many municipal bicycle routes within the sub-corridor including Class I, II, III,
and IV facilities. In addition, there are several proposed Regional Routes. These routes would cross multiple
jurisdictions and consist of different types of facilities and classes.
168
5-60
Existing Characteristics of the Sub-Corridor
Socioeconomic and Land Use: Figure 5.38 illustrates the land use by type in the sub-corridor and Figure 5.39
shows the land use pattern. As illustrated in these figures, due to the generally rural nature of this sub-corridor, the
predominant land use in the sub-corridor includes rural residential at 23 percent and agriculture at 22 percent.
However, there is a sizeable percentage of specific plan at 17 percent, as well as single family residential at 13
percent. Despite the mostly rural nature, open space and recreational uses are only 6 percent. In terms of
employment-generating land uses, the area has seven percent industrial, 2 percent commercial and services, and
some mixed-use designated zones.
169
5-61
Figure 5.37 | Sub-Corridor Study Area
Beaumont to Temecula Sub-Corridor
170
5-62
The CalEnviroScreen scores for this sub-corridor are generally low, with a moderate score in the San Jacinto area.
Low score areas include Temecula, Murrieta, Menifee , and Hemet.
Low scores indicate less exposure indicators, less environmental effects indicators, less sensitive population
indicators, less socioeconomic factor indicators , or a combination of these. Areas with a high score generally
experience a much higher pollution burden than areas with lower scores. There are no SCAG “Communities of
Concern” in this sub-corridor.
Figure 5.38 | Land Use Types
Beaumont to Temecula Sub-Corridor
Source: SCAG 2012 Land Use.
Employment density is relatively low in much of the sub-corridor. Employment density is highest in the southern
portion, near Temecula and Murrieta, and in the central portion, near Hemet and San Jacinto. Population density
follows a similar pattern to employment density, with relatively lower densities throughout the sub -corridor and
higher densities along the southern and central portion of the sub-corridor. The population-to-employment statistical
ratio of the sub-corridor is 3.3, which is relatively low compared to some of the other areas of the overall IE CMCP
Study Area, reflecting the rural nature and indicating a need for residents to commute longer distances to work.
Single Family
Residential
13%
Mixed Residential
2%
Rural Residential
23%
Commercial and
Services
2%
Industrial
7%
Open Space and
Recreation
6%
Agriculture
22%
Specific Plan
17%
171
5-63
Figure 5.39 | Land Use Map
Beaumont to Temecula Sub-Corridor
Source: SCAG 2012 Land Use.
172
5-64
Travel Patterns: Daily auto trips were examined to gain insight into the daily activity patterns of tra velers in the
region. Table 5.9 displays the magnitude and average length of trips within and external to the subarea. There are
over 1.2 million daily auto trips made by residents and employees in the Study Area. As illustrated, in the table
below, slightly over half of those trips are internal-internal trips, meaning they start and end within the sub-corridor
Study Area. These sub-corridor internal trips include commute travel for workers who live and work in the Study
Area as well as local trips for daily activities such as shopping, school, recreation , and other, which are often
proximate to home. Just over one-third of trips are between the sub-corridor and the rest of the IE CMCP area. The
remaining low 10 percent of the trips are between the sub-corridor area and outside the IE CMCP area, indicating
the relative lower density and remoteness of this area. The average trip lengths for trips with one end in the Study
Area and the other either inside or outside the IE CMCP area are, intuitively, more than three times and eight times
the length of the internal-internal trips, respectively.
Table 5.9 | Internal and External Trips
Beaumont to Temecula Sub-Corridor
Sub-corridor Internal
Trips
Sub-corridor Trips to/from
CMCP Study Area
Sub-corridor Trips to/from
Rest of Region
Daily Auto Trips 683,000 446,000 120,000
55% 36% 10%
Average Trip Length (Miles) 4.6 16.5 41.8
Source: SCAG Model 2016.
Commute trips were examined to better understand the peak period travel patterns. Figure 5.40 illustrates the
journey to work mode share for the sub-corridor. Overall, 90 percent of commute trips in the Study Area are made
by automobile. Transit accounts for just one percent of commute trips, while a relatively high six percent of residents
work at home, which is likely an indication of the more rural and remote nature of the area. Notably, when examining
the group that commutes by car, 13 percent carpool. The share of commuters who car pool is higher in the sub-
corridor compared to California as a whole (10 percent). Non-motorized trips account for just two percent of
commute trips.
173
5-65
Figure 5.40 | Journey to Work Mode Share
Beaumont to Temecula Sub-Corridor
Source: ACS 2017, 5-year estimates.
Except for individuals who work at home, nearly 94 percent of the workers in the Study Area must find a way to
travel to their jobs each workday. Their choice of transportation mode, departure time, trip origin, and destination
all play key roles in determining door-to-door travel time. The collective result of these daily decisions are reflected
in the commute times for the Study Area. Nearly half of all workers commute less than 30 minutes to work , 28
percent commute 30 to 60 minutes, and 24 percent commute over one hour.
Congestion, Delay, and VMT: The most significant recurring congestion and delay on the freeway system occurs
on I-215 in the southern portion of the sub-corridor, between Menifee and I-15. Much of this segment of I-215 is
congested with level of service F conditions and high delay during AM peak hour in the southbound direction and
during PM peak hour in the northbound direction. The segments of SR-79 between I-215 and Scott Road in the
south of the sub-corridor and between SR-74 and Ramona Expressway experience poor operating conditions.
Figure 5.41 and Figure 5.42 show a snapshot of Google traffic conditions during a typical Wednesday AM and PM
peak hour, respectively.
Drive Alone, 77%
Carpool, 13%
Transit, 1%
Walk, 2%Work At Home, 6%
174
5-66
Figure 5.41 | Existing AM Peak Hour Freeway Conditions
Beaumont to Temecula Sub-Corridor
Source: Google Maps (Typical Wednesday Traffic)—accessed on March 6, 2020.
175
5-67
Figure 5.42 | Existing PM Peak hour Freeway Congestion
Beaumont to Temecula Sub-Corridor
Source: Google Maps (Typical Wednesday Traffic)—accessed on March 6, 2020.
176
5-68
DailyVMT), including local trips and through traffic in the Study Area are mostly carried on major arterial roadways
and a relatively smaller part on the freeways. This is a reflection of the previously mentioned lack of major freeway
facilities in the sub-corridor. Table 5.10 shows the VMT in the sub-corridor by facility type. As shown, the arterial
network carries 59 percent of the daily VMT. However, daily VHT is nearly split 30/70 between freeways (including
HOV lanes) and arterial network, reflecting lower speeds on the arterials and further underscoring the lack of
freeways in the sub-corridor. As compared to the other sub-corridors, this area has relatively less VMT per service
population and it ranks seven out of the ten sub-corridors.
Table 5.10 | VMT by Facility Type
Beaumont to Temecula Sub-Corridor
Vehicle Miles Traveled Vehicle Hours Traveled
Freeway 3,509,000 41% 57,263 30%
HOV - - - -
Arterials 5,095,231 59% 131,740 70%
Total 8,604,231 100% 189,003 100%
Source: SCAG Model 2016.
Transit Usage: Due to its mostly rural nature, this sub-corridor has very little transit services. There is limited RTA
bus service but no rail service.
Safety: Figure 5.43 illustrates the reported crashes by type for 2018. Collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians
are spread throughout the Study Area, however, some of the highest density of collisions in the Study Area occur
in certain neighborhoods of Hemet and San Jacinto.
Future Conditions
The sub-corridor is expected to experience the following growth rates by 2040:
• Population—33 percent increase.
• Employment—42 percent increase.
The relatively comparable rate of employment to population growth suggests that the jobs/housing ratio of this sub-
corridor is expected to remain similar to the current conditions, reflecting the mostly rural nature of the sub -corridor.
Total trip making in the sub-corridor is projected to increase by 421,000 daily trips, representing a 34 percent
increase, commensurate with the expected increase in population. VMT is projected to increase by 34 percent and
VHT is projected to increase by 54 percent. The higher increase in VHT over VMT indicates increasing delay and
congestion and likely and increase in congestion on arterials and conventional State routes (SR-79 and SR-74) due
to the lack of major freeways through this sub-corridor.
177
5-69
The congestion levels are expected to increase on the freeway and arterial systems by 2040. Figure 5.44 and
Figure 5.45 illustrate the AM and PM peak hour conditions, respectively, on the freeway system projected for 2040
from the SCAG model.
178
5-70
Figure 5.43 | Collisions
Beaumont to Temecula Sub-Corridor
179
5-71
Figure 5.44 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—AM
Beaumont to Temecula Sub-Corridor
180
5-72
Figure 5.45 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—PM
Beaumont to Temecula Sub-Corridor
181
5-73
5.6.2 Strategic Approach for Beaumont to Temecula Sub-corridor:
Problems to Be Addressed:
• Overall lack of north/south mobility, particularly in the Hemet/San Jacinto Area. Local traffic gets mixed with
regional traffic.
• Major bottlenecks at the I-10/SR-79 interchange and the northbound I-15/SR-79 interchange.
• Lack of north/south transit service.
• Major tourism destinations result in travel at all times and on all days.
Strategy
1. Fund and implement the SR-79 realignment project.
2. Make operational improvements on existing north/south arterials from San Jacinto to Temecula.
3. Grow vanpool and carpool formation to reduce vehicle flows connecting Beaumont, San Jacinto, Hemet, and
Temecula.
4. Examine ways to improve north/south transit connectivity.
5. Deploy new technologies to proactively manage traffic and improve roadway conditions.
6. Make strategic operational improvements to and/or reconstruct interchanges on the I-10/Highland Springs,
I-215/Keller Road, and Garbani Road interchanges.
7. Investment in grade separation projects to improve goods movement efficiency.
8. Work with Tribal governments to facilitate employee commute options and explore funding opportunities for
regional improvements.
9. Build on substantial transit assets. Invest in Metrolink rail expansion for the 91/Perris Valley Line, and construct
accessibility improvements and station improvements at existing Metrolink stations. Additionally, support rapid
bus services between Hemet to San Jacinto and Perris to Moreno Valley/Riverside.
10. Explore policies and methods to increase work at home to decrease commute trips.
182
5-74
5.7 Apple Valley to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor
The Apple Valley to Los Angeles County Line sub-corridor is one of five east/west oriented sub-corridors within the
Inland Empire Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan. Figure 5.46 illustrates the boundaries of the sub-corridor
Study Area.
5.7.1 Sub-Corridor Definition
This sub-corridor is located entirely within the High Desert subregion of San Bernardino County, but provides
intercounty connection to Los Angeles County. There are no east-west freeways in the sub-corridor; however, the
High Desert Corridor (located at the northern edge of the sub-corridor) through its Draft EIR, is considering
alternatives for the construction of a high capacity multimodal facility between SR-14 in Los Angeles County and
I-15 in San Bernardino County. This sub-corridor addresses east/west flows of people and freight within and through
portions of unincorporated San Bernardino County and the cities of Adelanto, Apple Valley, Victorville, and
Hesperia. This sub-corridor encompasses portions of San Bernardino County and includes parts of RSAs 32 and
30. The sub-corridor is generally 30 miles wide east to west and 20 miles long north to south.
Key Transportation Facilities
Key east/west oriented transportation facilities within the sub-corridor include:
Freeways: There are no freeways.
Arterials: Key east-west arterial facilities that run through significant portions of the sub-corridor include: Bear
Valley Road, Palmdale Road, Main Street, Eucalyptus Street, Ranchero Road , and Mesquite Street.
Freight: I-15 is a major goods movement corridor. UP Railroad and BNSF Railway pass through the sub-corridor.
Transit: There are some bus routes in this sub-corridor operated by Victor Valley Transit Authority. There is no
Metrolink service in this sub-corridor.
Active Transportation: There are many municipal bicycle routes within the sub-corridor, including Class I, II, III,
and IV facilities.
183
5-75 Figure 5.46 | Sub-Corridor Study Area
Apple Valley to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor
184
5-76
Existing Characteristics of the Sub-Corridor
Socioeconomic and Land Use: Figure 5.47 illustrates the land use by type in the sub-corridor and Figure 5.48
shows the land use pattern. As illustrated in these figures, the predominant land use in the sub-corridor is residential
at 59 percent of the total, comprised of single family residential at 19 percent and rural residential at 40 percent.
Other significant land uses include open space and recreational at 19 percent. In terms of employment-generating
land uses, the area has three percent industrial, five percent commercial and services, and over three percent
agricultural.
The CalEnviroScreen scores for this sub-corridor include high scores in portions of Adelanto, Victorville, and
Hesperia. The southern portion of Hesperia, Apple Valley, and most unincorporated areas have lower scores.
Higher scores indicate greater exposure indicators, greater environmental effects indicators, higher sensitive
population indicators, higher socioeconomic factor indicators , or a combination of these. Areas with a high score
generally experience a much higher pollution burden than areas with lower scores. SCAG “Communities of
Concern” also occur in the city of Adelanto.
Figure 5.47 | Land Use Types in Sub-Corridor
Apple Valley to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor
Source: SCAG 2012 Land Use.
Single Family
Residential
19%
Rural Residential
40%
Commercial and Services
5%
Industrial
3%
Open Space and
Recreation
19%
Agriculture
3%
Specific Plan
4%
185
5-77 Figure 5.48 | Land Use Map
Apple Valley to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor
Source: SCAG 2012 Land Use.
186
5-78
Employment density is relatively low in much of the sub-corridor especially in the Cajon Pass and in unincorporated
parts of the county. Employment density is highest in cities south of the Cajon Pass and on parcels directly adjacent
to I-15, U.S.-395, SR-18, Main Street, and Bear Valley Road. There is little employment density outside of these
areas. Population is spread across single-family residential and rural residential lands that are primarily in the cities
of San Bernardino, Victorville, Hesperia, Adelanto, and Apple Valley, and unincorporated San Bernardino County.
Given the predominance of residential land uses,, the population-to-employment statistical ratio of the sub-corridor
is 4.8, which is high compared compared to some of the other areas of the overall Inland Empire CMCP Study Area,
indicating a need for residents to commute very long distances to work.
Travel Patterns: Daily auto trips were examined to gain insight into the daily activity patterns of travelers in the
region. Table 5.11 displays the magnitude and average size of trips within and external to the sub-corridor area.
There are nearly 800,000 daily auto trips made by residents and employees in the sub -corridor. As illustrated, in
the table below, 75 percent of those trips are internal-internal trips, meaning they start and end within the sub-
corridor. These sub-corridor internal trips include commute travel for workers who live and work in the sub-corridor,
as well as local trips for daily activities such as shopping, school, recreation, and other, which are often proximate
to home. The relatively high number of internal trip-making is a reflection of the relative remoteness and separation
of the sub-corridor area from more urbanized parts of the Inland Empire. Around 12 percen t of the trips have one
end in the sub-corridor and the other end either inside or outside the IE CM CP area and 14 percent are to or from
outside the IE CMCP area. The average trip lengths for trips with one end in the Study Area and the other either
inside or outside of IE CMCP area are 6.2 and 8.2 times the length of the internal-internal trips, respectively.
Table 5.11 | Internal and External Trips
Apple Valley to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor
Sub-corridor Internal
Trips
Sub-corridor Trips to/from
CMCP Study Area
Sub-corridor Trips to/from
Rest of Region
Daily Auto Trips 594,000 93,000 108,000
75% 12% 14%
Average Trip Length (Miles) 5.4 33.5 44.4
Source: SCAG Model 2016.
Commute trips were examined to better understand the peak period travel patterns. Figure 5.49 illustrates the
journey to work mode share for the sub-corridor. Overall, 92 percent of commute trips in the sub-corridor are made
by automobile. Notably, when examining the group that commutes by car, 12 percent of workers carpooled. The
share of carpoolers is higher in the sub-corridor compared to California as a whole (10 percent), but less than other
areas in the IE CMCP area, perhaps reflective of a lack of HOV facilities. Transit accounts for just one percent of
commute trips, while six percent of residents work at home. Non-motorized trips account for just one percent of
commute trips.
187
5-79
Figure 5.49 | Journey to Work Mode Share
Apple Valley to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor
Source: ACS 2017, 5-year estimates.
Except for individuals who work at home, nearly 94 percent of the workers in the sub-corridor must find a way to
travel to their jobs each workday. Their choice of transportation mode, departure time, trip origin , and destination
all play key roles in determining door-to-door travel time. The collective result of these daily decisions are reflected
in the commute times for the sub-corridor. Nearly 51 percent of all workers commute less than 30 minutes to work,
27 percent commute 30 to 60 minutes, and 22 percent commute over one hour.
Congestion, Delay, VMT: The most significant recurring congestion and delay on the freeway system occurs on
I-15 in the Cajon Pass, U.S.-395 between I-15 and SR-18, and SR-14 east of I-15. I-15 in the Cajon Pass is
congested during the PM peak is both directions. U.S.-395 is congested during the PM peak. SR-18 at the I-15/SR-
18 interchange is congested during both the AM and PM peaks. Figure 5.50 and Figure 5.51 show a snapshot of
Google traffic conditions during a typical Wednesday AM and PM peak hour, r espectively.
Drove Alone, 80%
Carpool, 12%
Transit, 1%
Non-Motorized, 1%Work at Home, 6%Other, 1%
188
5-80 Figure 5.50 | Existing AM Peak Hour Freeway Conditions
Apple Valley to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor
Source: Google Maps (Typical Wednesday Traffic)—accessed on March 6, 2020
189
5-81 Figure 5.51 | Existing PM Peak Hour Freeway Congestion
Apple Valley to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor
Source: Google Maps (Typical Wednesday Traffic)—accessed on March 6, 2020
190
5-82
Daily VMT, including local trips and through traffic in the sub -corridor, are mainly carried on freeways and major
arterial roadways. Table 5.12 shows the VMT in the sub-corridor by facility type. As shown, the arterial network
carries 51 percent of the daily VMT. Daily VHT is nearly split 45/55 between freeways and the arterial network,
reflecting lower speeds on the arterials. As compared to the other sub -corridors, this area has relatively less VMT
per service population compared to other sub-corridors and ranks sixth out of the ten sub-corridors for highest VMT
per service population.
Table 5.12 | VMT by Facility Type
Apple Valley to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor
Vehicle Miles of Travel Vehicle Hours of Travel
Freeway 4,363,000 49% 90,000 45%
HOV
Arterials 4,468,000 51% 109,000 55%
Total 8,831,000 100% 199,000 100%
Source: SCAG Model 2016
Transit Usage: In this sub-corridor, one percent of commute trips use transit. This sub-corridor does not have high
quality transit corridor or stops.
Safety: Figure 5.52 illustrates the reported crashes by type for 2018. In terms of safety, the collision rates for I-15
are higher than the County average and Caltrans District 8 averages. Bicycle and pedestrian collisions are sparsely
spread out in the sub-corridor, possibly reflecting low rates of walking and bicycling in these areas. Truck collisions
occur throughout the Study Area but mostly along I-15.
Future Conditions
The sub-corridor is expected to experience the following growth rates by 2040:
• Population—50 percent increase.
• Employment—33 percent increase.
The higher rate of population to employment growth suggests that the jobs/housing ratio of this sub -corridor is
expected to worsen, resulting in longer commute trips in the future.
Commensurate with these projected relatively high rates of growth for the area’s demographics, total trip -making in
the sub-corridor is projected to increase by 309,000 daily trips, representing a 39 percent increase. VMT is expected
to increase by 23 percent and VHT is projected to increase by 72 percent. The disproportionate increase in VHT
over VMT indicate increasing delay and congestion in the future due to the projected relatively high growth rates.
The congestion levels are expected to increase on the freeway and arterial systems by 2040. Figure 5.53 and
Figure 5.54 illustrate the AM and PM peak hour conditions, respectively, on the freeway system projected for 2040
from the SCAG model.
191
5-83
5.7.2 Strategic Approach for Apple Valley to LA County Line Sub-corridor:
Problems to Be Addressed
• Lack of east/west connectivity between the High Desert and Antelope Valley.
• Lack of east/west connectivity within the High Desert, constrained by limited crossings of the Mojave River
and the BNSF Railway rights-of-way.
• Congestion at arterial junctions with I-15 interchanges.
Strategy
1. Enhance east/west access by completing improvements in the Greentree Corridor, linking Apple Valley,
Victorville, and I-15.
2. Work with Virgin Trains and the State to facilitate High Speed Rail connectio n to the Antelope Valley Metrolink
line.
3. Conduct necessary studies to improve the operations and safety of SR -18 from U.S.-395 to SR-138 and
potentially program its widening.
4. Look for opportunities to fund the High Desert Corridor but recognize SR -18 widening as a partial solution to
improve east/west mobility between the Antelope Valley and High Desert.
5. Fund and implement strategic I-15 interchange improvements as identified in the Measure I Strategic Plan.
6. Fund and implement other improvements identified in the Victor Valley portion of the SBCTA 10-Year Delivery
Plan.
7. Explore policies and methods to increase work at home to decrease commute trips.
192
5-84 Figure 5.52 | Collisions
Apple Valley to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor
193
5-85 Figure 5.53 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—AM
Apple Valley to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor
194
5-86 Figure 5.54 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—PM
Apple Valley to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor
195
5-87
5.8 Banning to Rialto Sub-Corridor
The Banning to Rialto sub-corridor is one of five east/west oriented sub-corridors within the Inland Empire
Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan. Figure 5.55 illustrates the boundaries of the sub-corridor Study Area.
5.8.1 Sub-Corridor Definition
This sub-corridor is located in both San Bernardino and Riverside counties and generally connects the eastern and
central parts of the urbanized areas of the Inland Empire, acting essentially as the eastern extension of the Riversid e
to LA County line sub-corridor (#6), with a small overlap. It is worth noting that this sub-corridor has three major
generally parallel freeway corridors (SR-60, I-10 and SR-210) that frequently serve as effective alternate routes for
east/west travel within the Inland Empire and to and from Los Angeles County. This sub-corridor addresses
east/west flows of people and freight within and through portions of the cities of Riverside, Fontana, Rialto, San
Bernardino, Loma Linda, Colton, Moreno Valley, Beaumont, Jurupa Valley, Rancho Cucamonga, Calimesa,
Yucaipa, Banning and Beaumont. The sub-corridor includes parts of RSAs 29, 45, 46, 47 and 50. The sub-corridor
is generally 30-40 miles in length east to west and 20 miles wide north to south in San Bernardino County, narrowing
to about 5 miles wide in Riverside County.
Key Transportation Facilities
Key east/west-oriented transportation facilities within the sub-corridor include:
Freeways: SR-60, I-10, and SR-210
Arterials: Key east/west arterial facilities that run through significant portions of the Study Area include: Highland
Avenue, Foothill Boulevard, Baseline Street, Rialto Avenue, San Bernardino Avenue, Mill Street, Barton Road,
Colton Avenue, Redlands Boulevard, Wildwood Canyon Road, Wilson Street, Ramsey Street, 1st Street, Oak Valley
Parkway, and San Timoteo Canyon Road.
Freight: I-10, SR-60, and SR-210 are major goods movement corridors. UP Railroad, BNSF Railway, and SCRRA
pass through the sub-corridor.
Transit: This sub-corridor includes portions of several Metrolink commuter rail routes. The 91/Perris Valley route
runs through a portion of the area and it transitions from an east/west route to a north/south route. The sbX Green
Line, a bus rapid transit route, r uns within the area but primarily serves north/south movements. A Sunline transit
line has commuter lines connecting Coachela Valley to Beaumont to Riverside/ San Bernardino.
Active Transportation: There are many municipal bicycle routes within the sub-corridor, including Class I, II, III,
and IV facilities. In addition, within the Riverside County portion of the sub-corridor there are several proposed
east/west Regional Routes. These routes would cross multiple jurisdictions and consist of different types of facilities
and classes.
196
5-88 Figure 5.55 | Sub-Corridor Study Area
Banning to Rialto Sub-Corridor
197
5-89
Existing Characteristics of the Sub-Corridor
Socioeconomic and Land Use: Figure 5.56 illustrates the land use by type in the sub-corridor and Figure 5.57
shows the land use pattern. As illustrated in these figures, the predominant land use in the sub-corridor is residential
at a total of 36 percent which includes single family residential at 24 percent , multifamily residential at three percent,
and rural residential at nine percent of the total. Agriculture is still a major land use at 24 percent, and open space
and recreational land uses are at eight percent. The area also has nine percent of the land use designated as
Specific Plans. In terms of employment-generating land uses, the area has six percent industrial, four percent
commercial and services, and some mixed-use designated zones.
The CalEnviroScreen scores for this sub-corridor include higher scores in the western portion of the area in Colton
and San Bernardino, with moderate scores in the Moreno Valley/Grand Terrace, Redlands, and Yucaipa areas and
lower scores in the Calimesa area and throughout the western portion of the sub -corridor. Higher scores indicate
greater exposure indicators, greater environmental effects indicators, higher sensitive population indicators, higher
socioeconomic factor indicators, or a combination of these. Areas with a high score generally experience a much
higher pollution burden than areas with lower scores. SCAG “Communities of Concern” also occur i n the cities of
San Bernardino and Colton in the western portion of the Study Area.
Figure 5.56 | Land Use Types
Banning to Rialto Sub-Corridor
Source: SCAG 2012 Land Use.
Single Family
Residential
24%
Multi Family
Residential
3%
Mixed Residential
2%
Rural Residential
9%
Commercial and
Services
4%Facilities
5%Industrial
6%
Mixed Commercial and
Industrail
3%
Mixed Residential and
Commerical
3%
Open Space and
Recreation
8%
Agriculture
24%
Specific Plan
9%
198
5-90 Figure 5.57 | Land Use Map
Banning to Rialto Sub-Corridor
Source: SCAG 2012 Land Use.
199
5-91
Employment density is relatively low in much of the Study Area, especially in Moreno Valley and the areas to the
east. Generally in the central portion of the sub-corridor, including San Bernardino, Loma Linda, and Redlands, the
employment density is the highest. Population density follows a similar pattern to employment density, with relatively
lower densities in the southern and eastern portions of the sub -corridor and higher densities along central, more
urbanized portions of the sub-corridor. The population-to-employment statistical ratio of the sub-corridor is 3.1,
which is relatively high compared to some of the other areas of the overall Inland Empire CMCP Study Area,
indicating a need for residents to commute longer distances to work.
Travel Patterns: Daily auto trips were examined to gain insight into the dail y activity patterns of travelers in the
region. Table 5.13 displays the magnitude and average length of trips within and external to the subarea. There are
over 4.3 million daily auto trips made by residents and employees in the Study Area. As illustrated in the table
below, slightly over half of those trips are internal-internal trips, meaning they start and end within the sub-corridor
Study Area. These sub-corridor internal trips include commute travel for workers who live and work in the Study
Area, as well as local trips for daily activities such as shopping, school , recreation, and other, which are often
proximate to home. The remaining trips are evenly split between having one end in the Study Area and the other
end either inside or outside the IE CMCP area. This relatively good balance is an indication of the central location
of this sub-corridor and its importance in serving both internal and external trips, as well as commute trips, and all
trip purposes in the Inland Empire. The average trip lengths for trips with one end in the Study Area and the other
either inside or outside of IE CMCP area are, intuitively, more than twice and four times the length of the i nternal-
internal trips, respectively; however, due to the size and location of the sub-corridor, it shows a better balance than
most other sub-corridors.
Table 5.13 | Internal and External Trips
Banning to Rialto Sub-Corridor
Sub-corridor
Internal Trips
Sub-corridor Trips to/from
CMCP Study Area
Sub-corridor Trips
to/from Rest of Region
Daily Auto Trips 2,611,000 1,042,000 1,083,000
55% 22% 23%
Average Trip Length (Miles) 9.0 21.2 37.6
Source: SCAG Model 2016
Commute trips were examined to better understand the peak period travel patterns. Figure 5.58 illustrates the
journey to work mode share for the sub-corridor. Overall, 90 percent of commute trips in the Study Area are made
by automobile. Transit accounts for just two percent of commute trips, while four percent of residents work at home.
Notably, when examining the group that commutes by car, 14 percent carpooled. The share of commuters who
carpool is higher in the sub-corridor compared to California as a whole (10 percent). This could be an indicator of
the existence of HOV lanes on major portions of all east/west freeways. Non-motorized trips account for just two
percent of commute trips.
200
5-92
Figure 5.58 | Journey to Work Mode Share
Banning to Rialto Sub-Corridor
Source: ACS 2017, 5-year estimates.
Except for individuals who work at home, nearly 94 percent of the workers in the Study Area must find a way to
travel to their jobs each workday. Their choice of transportation mode, departure time, trip origin , and destination
all play key roles in determining door-to-door travel time. The collective result of these daily decisions are reflected
in the commute times for the Study Area . Nearly 60 percent of all workers commute less than 30 minutes to work,
28 percent commute 30 to 60 minutes, and 12 percent commute over one hour. The larger percentage of short trips
is an indication of a relatively better balance between jobs and housing in this sub -region.
Congestion, Delay, VMT: The most significant recurring congestion and delay on the freeway system occurs on
SR-60 in the western portion of the sub-corridor, from east of I-215 to the SR-60/I-215 junction. Much of this segment
of SR-60 is highly congested with level of service F conditions and high delay during both AM and PM peak hours.
SR-60 east of the I-215 junction operates well except for the segment approaching the I-10 junction near Banning,
which experiences congestion. Along I-10 there are smaller segments of congestion, but much of I-10 within this
sub-corridor operates at acceptable levels of service. Most of the east/west arterial system in this sub -corridor
operates acceptably with limited segments or intersections experiencing poor operating c onditions. Figure 5.59 and
Figure 5.60 show the snapshot of Google traffic conditions during typical Wednesday AM and PM peak hour,
respectively.
Drive Alone, 77%
Carpool, 13%
Transit, 1%
Walk, 2%Work At Home, 6%
201
5-93 Figure 5.59 | Existing AM Peak Hour Freeway Conditions
Banning to Rialto Sub-Corridor
Source: Google Maps (Typical Wednesday Traffic)—accessed on March 6, 2020.
202
5-94 Figure 5.60 | Existing PM Peak Hour Freeway Congestion
Banning to Rialto Sub-Corridor
Source: Google Maps (Typical Wednesday Traffic)—accessed on March 6, 2020.
203
Daily VMT, including local trips and through traffic in the Study Area, are mainly carried on freeways and major
arterial roadways. Table 5.14 shows the VMT in the sub-corridor by facility type. As shown, the arterial network
carries 37 percent of the daily VMT. However, daily VHT is nearly split 50/50 between freeways (including HOV
lanes) and arterial network, reflecting lower speeds on the arterials. As compared to the other sub -corridors, this
area has relatively less VMT per service population and it ranks ten out of the ten sub-corridors.
Table 5.14 | Vehicle Miles of Travel by Facility Type
Banning to Rialto Sub-Corridor
Vehicle Miles of Travel Vehicle Hours of Travel
Freeway 26,511,000 58% 499,000 48%
HOV 2,547,000 6% 46,000 4%
Arterials 16,823,000 37% 487,000 47%
Total 45,881,000 101% 1,032,000 99%
Source: SCAG Model 2016.
Transit Usage: This sub-corridor has some high-quality transit services, including the Metrolink Commuter Rail
services, as well as other services in cities of San Bernardino, Fontana, Rialto, Colton, and Loma Linda. High-
quality transit services include bus rapid trans it (BRT) sbX between CSUSB and Loma Linda University & Medical
Center; and Omnitrans bus services in downtown San Bernardino and along Foothill Boulevard. This sub -corridor
also has some high-quality transit stops at Metrolink stations in Fontana, Rialto, San Bernardino, San Bernardino
downtown, Riverside-Hunter Park/UCR, and Moreno Valley. It also has some of the highest ridership bus stops in
the overall IE CMCP Atudy Area, which are located at San Bernardino Transit center, Moreno Valley Mall, and
University Market (UCR).
Safety: Figure 5.61 illustrates the reported crashes by type for 2018. In terms of safety, I-10 experiences some of
the highest collision rates for the IE CMCP Study Area freeways. Conversely, SR-210 has the lowest collision rate
of all the IE CMCP Study Area freeways. The collision rates for SR-60 are higher than the Riverside County average
and Caltrans District 8 averages, but fall between the rates for SR-210 and I-10. There is a relatively high
concentration of bicycle and pedestrian collisions in the western portion of the sub-corridor in San Bernardino and
Rialto, as well as the area around the SR-60/I-215 junction, possibly reflecting higher rates of walking and bicycling
in these areas. Truck collisions occur throughout the Study Area but mostly along freeways with the largest
concentrations along portions of I-10 and SR-60.
204
5-96 Figure 5.61 | Collisions
Banning to Rialto Sub-Corridor
205
5-97
Future Conditions
The sub-corridor is expected to experience the following growth rates by 2040:
• Population—22 percent increase.
• Employment—39 percent increase.
The higher rate of employment to population growth suggests that the jobs/housing ratio of this sub-corridor is
expected to improve, resulting in possibly shorter commute trips in the future.
Total trip making in the sub-corridor is projected to increase by 730,000 daily trips, representing a 23 percent
increase. VMT is projected to increase by 20 percent and VHT is projected to increase by 43 percent. The
disproportionate increase in hours of travel over miles of travel indicate increasing delay and congestion in the
future due to the relatively high growth rates and the strategic location of this corridor which serves internal traffic
and a significant amount of through traffic.
The congestion levels are expected to increase on the freeway and arterial systems by 2040. Figure 5.62 and
Figure 5.63 illustrate the AM and PM peak hour conditions, respectively, on the freeway system projected for 2040
from the SCAG model. As shown, the SCAG traffic projections indicate that during the AM pe ak hour significant
portions of I-10 and SR-60 in the eastern portion of the sub-corridor area will become highly congested. Some
additional points of congestion will occur along SR-210 as well during the AM peak. During the PM peak , similar
patterns are projected to occur with increased congestion on I-10 and SR-60. In addition, segments that already
are congested will experience greater delay and longer peak periods.
206
5-98 5-98 Figure 5.62 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—AM
Banning to Rialto Sub-Corridor
207
5-99 Figure 5.63 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—PM
Banning to Rialto Sub-Corridor
208
5-100
5.8.2 Strategic Approach for Banning to Rialto Sub-Corridor
Problems to Be Addressed
• Several significant bottlenecks on I-10: eastbound and westbound merge/diverge with I-215, eastbound
merge with SR-210, eastbound upgrade in Yucaipa, and I-10/SR-60 junction.
• Significant and growing congestion in both directions at the I-215/SR-60 junction in Riverside and I-10/SR-60
junction in Beaumont due to population and housing increases.
• Multiple congested interchanges: I-10/SR-79 interchange in Beaumont and interchanges on I-10 at Mountain
View Avenue, California Street, Alabama Street, and University Avenue.
• Ongoing congestion on SR-210 westbound north of I-10 and eastbound at Highland Avenue.
• Nationally significant freight corridor and large concentration of warehousing and logistics centers.
• Metrolink San Bernardino line and Riverside line are well-used, but capacity limitations limit substantial
additional growth.
• Cities with Metrolink stations would like to take advantage of those locations for transit-oriented development
(TOD), but parcel assembly/development costs are high and train frequencies are not always conducive to
the mid-day and bi-directional mobility needed to support TOD type uses.
Strategy
1. Construct Redlands Passenger Rail Project from University of Redlands to downtown San Bernardino, including
use of zero-emission multiple unit (ZEMU) trainsets.
2. Implement managed lane systems on SR-60 from downtown Riverside to Moreno Valley and on I-10 from
Redlands westerly.
3. Make strategic operational improvements to and/or reconstruct interchanges on SR-60/Potrero Blvd, SR-
60/Gilman Springs Road, and I-10 interchanges at SR-79, County Line Road, University Avenue, Alabama
Street, and California Street.
4. Implement I-10 Eastbound Truck Climbing Lane in Yuciapa, addressing one of the most serious freight
bottlenecks in the Inland Empire.
5. Invest in grade separation projects to improve goods movement efficiency and passenger rail movement.
6. Accelerate truck fleet turnover for air quality improvement.
209
5-101
7. Implement “Healthy Communities and Healthy Economies Toolkit for Goods Movement” (given continued
warehouse/distribution development).
8. Build on substantial transit assets. Invest in Metrolink rail expansion for the IE/OC, San Bernardino, and
Riverside lines as described in the SCRRA SCORE Program; construct accessibility improvements and station
improvements to existing Metrolink stations.
9. Explore policies and methods to increase work at home to decrease commute trips.
5.9 Riverside to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor
The Riverside to Los Angeles County Line sub-corridor is one of five east/west oriented sub-corridors within the
Inland Empire Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan. Figure 5.64 illustrates the boundaries of the sub-corridor
Study Area.
5.9.1 Sub-Corridor Definition
This sub-corridor is located mostly in San Bernardino County with a small portion in Riverside County and generally
connects the western and central parts of the urbanized areas of the Inland Empire, acting essentially as the western
extension of the Banning to Rialto sub-corridor (#5), with a small overlap. It is worth noting that this sub-corridor
has three major parallel freeway corridors (SR-60, I-10, and SR-210) that frequently serve as effective alternate
routes for east/west travel within the Inland Empire and to and from Los Angeles County . This sub-corridor
addresses east/west flows of people and freight within and through portions of the cities of Riverside, Fontana,
Rialto, San Bernardino, Colton, Jurupa Valley, Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, Chino, Montclair, and Upland. The
sub-corridor encompasses portions of both Riverside and San Bernardino counties and includes parts of RSAs 28,
45, 29 and 46. The sub-corridor is generally 25-30 miles in length east to west and 12 miles wide north to south in
both Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
Key Transportation Facilities
Key east/west oriented transportation facilities within the sub-corridor include:
Freeways: SR-60, I-10, and SR-210.
Arterials: Key east/west arterial facilities that run through significant portions of the Study Area include: Foothill
Boulevard, Holt Avenue, Mission Boulevard, Riverside Drive, and Baseline Road.
Freight: I-10 and SR-60, are major goods movement corridors. UP Railroad, BNSF Railway, and SCRRA pass
through the sub-corridor. There are several warehouses in this sub-corridor, with the majority of them located
between SR-60 and I-10.
Transit: This sub-corridor includes portions of several Metrolink commuter rail routes . The 91/Perris Valley route
runs through a portion of the area and it transitions from an east/west route to a north/south route . The Inland
210
5-102
Empire/Orange County and San Bernardino lines both run within the sub-corridor and terminate in Downtown San
Bernardino. The Riverside line is an east/west route with three stops in the sub-corridor. The sbX Green Line, a bus
rapid transit route, runs within the area but primarily serves north/south movements.
Active Transportation: There are many municipal bicycle routes within the sub-corridor including Class I, II, III,
and IV facilities. In addition, within the Riverside County portion of the sub-corridor there are several proposed
east/west Regional Routes. These routes would cross multiple jurisdictions and consist of different types of f acilities
and classes.
211
5-103 5-103 Figure 5.64 | Sub-Corridor Study Area
Riverside to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor
212
5-104
Existing Characteristics of the Sub-Corridor
Socioeconomic and Land Use: Figure 5.65 illustrates the land use by type in the sub-corridor and Figure 5.66
shows the land use pattern. As illustrated in these figures, the predominant land use in the sub-corridor is residential
at a total of over 37 percent, including single family residential at the highest 2 6 percent of the area. Specific plans
at 20 percent still have a major share of the land uses, and agriculture at eight percent is a noticeable part of the
land use development patterns in this sub-corridor. In terms of employment generating land uses, the area has 11
percent industrial, four percent commercial and services, and some mixed-use designated zones. The subarea has
a relatively low percentage of open space at only five percent of the total. This is generally due to this sub-corridor
being in the most urbanized area of the Inland Empire.
The CalEnviroScreen scores for this sub-corridor are generally high, with a low score in the Rancho Cucamonga-
area. Moderate-to-high score areas include neighborhoods of Ontario, Fontana, Colton, and San Bernardino. Low
scores indicate less exposure indicators, less environmental effects indicators, less sensitive population indicators,
less socioeconomic factor indicators , or a combination of these. Areas with a high score generally experience a
much higher pollution burden than areas with lower scores. SCAG “Communities of Concern” also occur in the
cities of San Bernardino and Colton in the eastern portion of the Study Area.
Figure 5.65 | Land Use Types in Sub-Corridor
Riverside to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor
Source: SCAG 2012 Land Use.
Single Family
Residential
26%
Mixed Residential
4%
Rural Residential
4%
Commercial and
Services
4%Facilities
4%Industrial
11%
Mixed Residential and
Commerical
4%
Open Space and
Recreation
5%
Agriculture
8%
Specific Plan
20%
213
5-105 Figure 5.66 | Land Use Map
Riverside to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor
Source: SCAG 2012 Land Use.
214
5-106
Employment density is relatively high in this sub -corridor compared to the IE CMCP Study Area due to its higher
urbanization. In general, north of SR-60 has high employment density especially in Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga,
Fontana, San Bernardino, and Riverside. Population density follows a similar pattern to employment density, with
relatively lower densities south of SR-60 in the sub-corridor and higher densities along the northern portion of the
sub-corridor. The population/employment ratio is mixed with a high ratio south of SR-60 in Jurupa Valley area and
low ratio in the rest of the sub-corridor. Overall, this sub-corridor has low population-to-employment statistical ratio
of 2.5 compared to some of the other areas of the overall Inland Empire CMCP Study Area, indicating a need for
residents to commute shorter distances to work .
Travel Patterns: Daily auto trips were examined to gain insight into the daily activity patterns of travelers in the
region. Table 5.15 displays the magnitude and average length of trips within and external to the subarea. Daily auto
trips are relatively high with over 5.1 million daily auto trips made by residents and employees in the Study Area.
As illustrated in the table below, over half of those trips are internal-internal trips, meaning they start and end within
the sub-corridor Study Area. These sub-corridor internal trips include commute travel for workers who live and work
in the Study Area, as well as local trips for daily activi ties such as shopping, school, recreation, and other, which
are often proximate to home. The remaining trips are evenly split between having one end in the Study Area and
the other end either inside or outside the IE CMCP area. This relatively good balance is an indication of the central
location of this sub-corridor, its higher level of urbanization, and its importance in serving both internal and external
trips, as well as commute trips, and all trip purposes in the Inland Empire. The average trip lengths for trips with
one end in the Study and the other either inside or outside of IE CMCP area are, intuitively, more than twice and
four times the length of the internal-internal trips, respectively; however, due to the size and location of the sub -
corridor, it shows a better balance than most other sub-corridors.
Table 5.15 | Internal and External Trips
Riverside to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor
Sub-corridor Internal
Trips
Sub-corridor Trips to/from
CMCP Study Area
Sub-corridor Trips to/from
Rest of Region
Daily Auto Trips 2,896,000 1,168,000 1,104,000
56% 23% 21%
Average Trip Length (Miles) 5.9 15.9 27.0
Source: SCAG Model 2016.
Commute trips were examined to better understand the peak period travel patterns. Figure 5.67 illustrates the
journey to work mode share for the sub-corridor. Overall, 90 percent of commute trips in the Study Area are made
by automobile. Transit accounts for just two percent of commute trips, while five percent of residents work at home.
Notably, when examining the group that commutes by car, 1 2 percent carpooled. The share of commuters who
carpool is higher in the sub-corridor compared to California as a whole (10 percent). This could be an indicator of
the existence of HOV lanes on all east/west freeways in this sub-corridor. Non-motorized trips account for just two
percent of commute trips.
215
5-107
Figure 5.67 | Journey to Work Mode Share
Riverside to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor
Source: ACS 2017, 5-year estimates.
Except for individuals who work at home, nearly 95 percent of the workers in the Study Area must find a way to
travel to their jobs each workday. Their choice of transportation mode, departure time, trip origin , and destination
all play key roles in determining door-to-door travel time. The collective result of these daily decisions are reflected
in the commute times for the Study Area. About 55 percent of all workers commute less than 30 minutes to work.
29 percent commute 30 to 60 minutes, 15 percent commute over one hour.
Congestion, Delay, VMT: The most significant recurring congestion and delay on the freeway system occurs on
SR-60, I-10, and SR-210 in the eastern portion of the sub-corridor, east of I-15. Figure 5.68 and Figure 5.69 show
the snapshot of Google traffic conditions during typical Wednesday AM and PM peak hour, respectively.
This subarea has the majority of top bottlenecks of the entire IE CMCP Study Area. The majority of the top
bottlenecks in the sub-corridor occur along the SR-60, I-10, and SR-210 in the western portion of the sub-corridor,
east of I-15 and on SR-60/I-215 in the eastern portion of the sub-corridor.
Drive Alone, 78%
Carpool, 12%
Transit, 2%
Walk, 2%
Work At Home, 5%
216
5-108 Figure 5.68 | Existing AM Peak Hour Freeway Conditions
Riverside to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor
Source: Google Maps (Typical Wednesday Traffic)—accessed on March 6, 2020.
217
5-109 Figure 5.69 | Existing PM Peak Hour Freeway Congestion
Riverside to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor
Source: Google Maps (Typical Wednesday Traffic)—accessed on March 6, 2020.
218
5-110
Daily VMT, including local trips and through traffic in the Study Area are mainly carried on freeways and major
arterial roadways. Table 5.16 shows the VMT in the sub-corridor by facility type. As shown, the arterial network
carries 35 percent of the daily VMT. However, daily VHT is nearly split 55/45 between freeways (including HOV
lanes) and the arterial network, reflecting lower speeds on the arterials. As compared to the other sub -corridors,
this area has relatively less VMT per service population and it ranks nine out of the ten sub-corridors.
Table 5.16 | Vehicle Miles of Travel by Facility Type
Riverside to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor
Vehicle Miles of Travel Vehicle Hours of Travel
Freeway 28,605,615 60% 580,301 52%
HOV 2,560,121 5% 46,553 4%
Arterials 16,988,325 35% 495,679 44%
Total 48,154,061 100% 1,122,533 100%
Source: SCAG Model 2016.
Transit Usage: This sub-corridor has some high-quality transit services including Metrolink Commuter Rail services
as well as other services in the cities of San Bernardino, Fontana, Rialto, Colton, and Loma Linda. High-quality
transit services include bus rapid transit (BRT) sbX between CSUSB and Loma Linda University & Medical Center;
and Omnitrans bus services in downtown San Bernardino and along Foothill Boulevard. This sub-corridor also has
some high-quality transit stops at Metrolink stations in Fontana, Rialto, San Bernardino, San Bernardino downtown,
Riverside-Hunter Park/UCR, and Moreno Valley. It also has some of the highest ridership bus stops in the overall
IE CMCP Study Area, which are located at San Bernardino Transit center, UCR campus , and University Market
(UCR).
Safety: Figure 5.70 illustrates the reported crashes by type for 2018. Collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians
are spread throughout the Study Area, however, some of the highest density of collisions in the Study Area occur
in certain neighborhoods of Hemet and San Jacinto.
In terms of safety, I-10 experiences some of the highest collision rates for the IE CMCP Study Area freeways.
Conversely, SR-210 has the lowest collision rate of all the IE CMCP Study Area freeways. The collision rates for
SR-60 are higher than the county average and Caltrans District 8 averages, but fall between the rates for SR-210
and I-10. There is a relatively high concentration of bicycle and pedestrian collisions in the eastern portion of the
sub-corridor in San Bernardino and Rialto, as well as the area around the SR-60/I-215 junction, possibly reflecting
higher rates of walking and bicycling in these areas. Truck collisions occur throughout the Study Area but mostly
along freeways with the largest concentrations along portions of I-10 and SR-60 near I-15 and I-215.
219
5-111 Figure 5.70 | Collisions
Riverside to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor
220
5-112
Future Conditions
The sub-corridor is expected to experience the following growth by 2040:
• Population—19 percent increase.
• Employment—31 percent increase.
The higher rate of employment to population growth suggests that the jobs/housing ratio of this sub -corridor is
expected to improve, resulting in possibly shorter commute trips in the future.
Total trip making in the sub-corridor is projected to increase by one million daily trips, representing a 20 percent
increase. VMT is projected to increase by 10 percent and VHT is projected to increase by 22 percent. The
disproportionate increase in hours of travel over miles of travel indicate increasing delay and congestion in the
future due to the relatively high growth rates. Also, the strategic location of this corridor which serves internal as
well as a significant amount of through traffic and connections to Los Angeles County .
The congestion levels are expected to increase on the freeway and arterial systems by 2040. Figure 5.71 and
Figure 5.72 illustrate the AM and PM peak hour conditions on the freeway system projected for 2040 from the SCAG
model.
221
5-113 Figure 5.71 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—AM
Riverside to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor
222
5-114 Figure 5.72 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—PM
Riverside to Los Angeles County Line Sub-Corridor
223
5-115
5.9.2 Strategic Approach for Riverside to LA County Line Sub -Corridor
Problems to be Addressed
• I-10 and SR-60 are nationally significant freight corridors, with heavy congestion on I-10 between the LA
County Line and Sierra Interchange and throughout SR-60.
• I-10/I-15 interchange is 12th on ATRI’s national list of the top 100 truck bottlenecks.
• Metrolink stations represent some of the Inland Empire’s best opportunities for TOD, but need to increase
train frequency over time and make it easier for jurisdictions/developers to build on infill sites (limited
capabilities since loss of redevelopment funding).
• Lack of good transit connection to Ontario International Airport.
• Major housing and population increases, especially in parts of the corridor south of SR-60 and north of
SR-210.
Strategy
1. Build on substantial existing transit assets (e.g., move forward with SCORE program on the multiple Metrolink
lines—increasing frequency and improving service on Riverside, San Bernardino, and IE/OC lines).
2. Build West Valley Connector BRT connecting Pomona, Montclair, Ontario, and Rancho Cucamonga, with
significant destinations in each jurisdiction, including Ontario International Airport.
3. Implement first/last mile transit connections (particularly from major destinations to Metrolink stations).
4. Enhance transit access to Ontario International Airport (complete ONT Rail Access Alternatives Analysis).
5. Enhance freight access at freeway interchanges to improve first/last mile efficiency (list key interchanges for
freight access).
6. Implement managed lane system on I-10 from LA County line to Ford Street; and SR-60 from I-15 to
Moreno Valley.
7. Accelerate truck fleet turnover for air quality improvement.
8. Implement “Healthy Communities and Healthy Economies Toolkit for Goods Movement” (given continued
warehouse/distribution development).
9. Encourage TOD and affordable housing at transit stations.
10. Implement “next-generation” shared-ride and virtual travel systems.
224
5-116
11. Build out regional active transportation network.
12. Explore policies and methods to increase work at home to decrease commute trips.
5.10 Riverside to Orange County Line Sub-Corridor
The Riverside to Orange County Line sub-corridor is one of five east/west oriented sub-corridors within the Inland
Empire Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan. Figure 5.73 illustrates the boundaries of the sub-corridor Study
Area.
5.10.1 Sub-Corridor Definition
This very important east/west sub-corridor is almost entirely within Riverside County but provides the primary and
critical inter-county connections between Riverside/San Bernardino counties and Orange County. This sub-corridor
has historically been one of the most highly traveled and congested corridors in Southern California and subject of
many studies and improvements. The sub-corridor addresses flows of people and freight within and through portions
of unincorporated Riverside County and the cities of Chino Hills, Corona, Norco, Riverside, Eastvale, and Jurupa
Valley. Across the Orange County line, it also immediately serves the cities of Anaheim Hills and Yorba Linda. This
sub-corridor encompasses portions of San Bernardino and Riverside counties and includes parts of RSAs 45, 46,
and 29. The sub-corridor is generally 30 miles in length east to west and 7 miles north to south.
Key Transportation Facilities
Key east/west oriented transportation facilities within the sub-corridor include:
Freeways: SR-91 and SR-60. SR-91 has a major multilane express lane facility in the freeway median interoperable
with other FasTrak facilities in the state.
Arterials: Key east/west arterial facilities that run through significant portions of the sub-corridor include: 6th
Street/Magnolia Avenue, Ontario Avenue, Foothill Parkway, Victoria Avenue, Indiana Avenue, Arlington Avenue,
Jurupa Avenue, Central Avenue, and Hidden Valley Parkway.
Freight: SR-91 is a major goods movement corridor. BNSF Railway and Union Pacific Railroad pass through the
sub-corridor. There are numerous warehousing facilities in the sub-corridor near interchanges of SR-91/I-15 and
SR-91/SR-60/I-215.
Transit: This sub-corridor includes portions of several Metrolink commuter rail routes. The 91/Perris Valley and
Inland Empire/Orange County line route runs through this corridor with multiple stops in Corona and Riverside.
There are several bus routes in this sub-corridor operated by RTA, including the Commuter Route Express 200.
Active Transportation: There are many municipal bicycle routes within the sub-corridor, including Class I, II, III,
and IV facilities. In addition, there are several proposed Regional Routes, including east/west route SR-91 corridor
via Magnolia Avenue. These routes cross multiple jurisdictions and consist of different types of facilities an d classes.
225
5-117 5-117 Figure 5.73 | Sub-Corridor Study Area
Riverside to Orange County Line Sub-Corridor
226
5-118
Existing Characteristics of the Sub-Corridor
Socioeconomic and land use: Figure 5.74 illustrates the land use patterns in the sub-corridor and Figure 5.75 shows
the land use by type. As illustrated in these figures, the predominant land use type in the sub-corridor is residential,
including single family residential at 28 percent of the area and rural residential at 12 percent. Other key land uses
include agriculture at 18 percent and open space and recreational at nine percent. In terms of employment-
generating land uses, the area has nine percent industrial, four percent commercial and services, and over four
percent mixed-use designated zones.
The CalEnviroScreen scores for this sub-corridor are high throughout the sub-corridor. Areas with higher scores
include areas near the SR-91/I-15 interchange in Corona and near the SR-91/SR-60 interchange in Riverside.
Areas with low scores are in Chino Hills, Norco, and portions of Riverside where there is open space. Higher scores
indicate greater exposure indicators, greater environmental effects indicators, higher sensitive population indicators,
higher socioeconomic factor indicators , or a combination of these. Areas with a high score generally experience a
much higher pollution burden than areas with lower scores. SCAG “Communities of Concern” also occur in the
community of Home Gardens near the city of Corona in the sub-corridor.
Figure 5.74 | Land Use Types
Riverside to Orange County Line Sub-Corridor
Source: SCAG 2012 Land Use.
Single Family
Residential
28%
Rural Residential
12%
Facilities
6%
Industrial
9%
Open Space and
Recreation
9%
Agriculture
18%
Specific Plan
5%
227
5-119 5-119 Figure 5.75 | Land Use Map
Riverside to Orange County Line Sub-Corridor
Source: SCAG 2012 Land Use.
228
5-120
Employment and population is dense in the sub-corridor compared to the IE CMCP Study Area as a whole. Higher
employment densities are primarily adjacent to the SR-91 and I-15 corridors in the cities of Corona and Riverside.
Population is concentrated in single-family residential neighborhoods in the cities of Corona and Riverside. Given
the predominance of residential land uses, the population-to-employment statistical ratio of the sub-corridor is 2.4,
which is is relatively low compared to some of the other areas of the overall Inland Empire CMCP Study Area,
indicating a need for residents to commute longer distances to work.
Travel Patterns: Daily auto trips were examined to gain insight into the daily activity patterns of travelers in th e
region. Table 5.17 displays the magnitude and average length of trips within and external to the subarea. There are
nearly 1.9 million daily auto trips made by residents and employees in the sub-corridor. As illustrated in the table
below, 39 percent of those trips are internal-internal trips, meaning they start and end within the sub-corridor. These
sub-corridor internal trips include commute travel for workers who live and work in the sub-corridor, as well as local
trips for daily activities such as shopping, school, recreation and other, which are often proximate to home. Forty-
one percent of trips have one end in the sub-corridor and the other end inside the IE CMCP area and 20 percent of
trips have one end in the sub-corridor and the other end outside the IE CMCP area. The average trip lengths for
trips with one end in the study and the other either inside or outside of IE CMCP a rea are 3.8 and 7.1 times the
length of the internal-internal trips, respectively.
Table 5.17 | Internal and External Trips
Riverside to Orange County Line Sub-Corridor
Sub-corridor
Internal Trips
Sub-corridor Trips to/from
CMCP Study Area
Sub-corridor Trips to/from
Rest of Region
Daily Auto Trips 757,000 784,000 377,000
39% 41% 20%
Average Trip Length (Miles) 3.9 14.7 27.6
Source: SCAG Model 2016.
Commute trips were examined to better understand the peak period travel patterns. Figure 5.76 illustrates the
journey to work mode share for the sub-corridor. Overall, 89 percent of commute trips in the sub-corridor are made
by automobile. Notably, when examining the group that commutes by car, 13 percent of workers carpooled. The
share of carpoolers is higher in the sub-corridor compared to California as a whole (10 percent). This is reflective
of the relatively longer commute trips using the sub -corridor to other job locations in Orange County and the
existence of express lanes. Transit accounts for two percent of commute trips, which could be reflective of the
existence of two Metrolink lines. Five percent of residents work at home and non -motorized trips account for just
three percent of commute trips.
229
5-121
Figure 5.76 | Journey to Work Mode Share
Riverside to Orange County Line Sub-Corridor
Source: ACS 2017, 5-year estimates
Except for individuals who work at home, nearly 95 percent of the workers in the sub-corridor must find a way to
travel to their jobs each workday. The generally lower (compared to other sub-corridors) drive alone percentage is
likely due to the robust express lane and Metrolink services in this sub-corridor. Their choice of transportation mode,
departure time, trip origin, and destination all play key roles in determining door-to-door travel time. The collective
result of these daily decisions are reflected in the commute times for the sub -corridor. Nearly 51 percent of all
workers commute less than 30 minutes to work, 32 percent commute 30 to 60 minutes, and 17 percent commute
over one hour.
Congestion, Delay, VMT: As stated before, this is one of the highest traveled and congested regional corridors in
Southern California. Nearly all freeways in the sub-corridor experience reoccurring congestion during the AM and
PM peak periods. Figure 5.77and Figure 5.78 illustrate the AM and PM peak hour conditions on the freeway system
for 2018 from Google traffic data, respectively. During the AM peak, high levels of congestion occurs on southbound
SR-71, westbound SR-91 from I-15 to 241, eastbound SR-91 in Riverside, I-215, eastbound SR-60 before I-215
interchange, and westbound SR-60 before I-215 interchange. During the PM peak, congestion occurs on eastbound
SR-60 before SR-71, southbound SR-71, NB 241, southbound I-15 after SR-91 interchange, northbound I-15 after
SR-91 interchange, SR-91 between Corona and Riverside, I-215, and eastbound SR-60.
Drove Alone, 76%
Carpool, 13%
Transit, 2%
Non-Motorized, 3%
Work at Home, 5%
Other, 1%
230
5-122 Figure 5.77 | Existing AM Peak Hour Freeway Conditions
Riverside to Orange County Line Sub-Corridor
Source: Google Maps (Typical Wednesday Traffic)—accessed on March 6, 2020.
231
5-123 Figure 5.78 | Existing PM Peak Hour Freeway Congestion
Riverside to Orange County Line Sub-Corridor
Source: Google Maps (Typical Wednesday Traffic)—accessed on March 6, 2020.
232
5-124
Daily VMT, including local trips and through traffic in the sub -corridor, are mainly carried on freeways and major
arterial roadways. Table 5.18 shows the VMT in the sub-corridor by facility type. As shown, the freeway carries 67
percent of the daily VMT. Daily VHT is split almost 70/30 between freeways (including HOV and express lanes) and
arterial network, reflecting lower speeds on the arterials. As compared to the other sub -corridors, this area has
relatively more VMT per service population and it ranks third out of the ten sub-corridors for highest VMT per service
population.
Table 5.18 | Vehicle Miles of Travel by Facility Type
Riverside to Orange County Line Sub-Corridor
Vehicle Miles of Travel Vehicle Hours of Travel
Freeway 11,441,000 67% 315,000 66%
HOV/Express lanes 560,000 3% 10,000 2%
Arterials 5,081,000 30% 152,000 32%
Total 17,083,000 100% 478,000 100%
Source: SCAG Model 2016.
Transit Usage: With two Metrolink lines and connecting bus services, this sub -corridor is relatively well served in
the Inland Empire. This sub-corridor has some high-quality transit stops at Metrolink stations in Corona and
Riverside. It also has some of the highest ridership bus stops in the overall IE CMCP Study Area, which are located
at Corona Transit Center, Galleria at Tyler, University Market (UCR), and UCR campus. In this sub-corridor two
percent of commute trips use transit.
Safety: Figure 5.79 illustrates the reported crashes by type for 2018. In terms of safety, the collision rates for I-15
are higher than the County average and Caltrans District 8 averages. Bicycle and pedestrian collisions are sparsely
spread in the sub-corridor, possibly reflecting low rates of walking and bicycling in these areas. Truck collisions
occur throughout the Study Area but mostly along I-15.
Future Conditions
The sub-corridor is expected to experience the following growth rates by 2040:
• Population—13 percent increase.
• Employment—51 percent increase.
It is notable that employment growth is expected to be far greater than population growth, potentially suggesting
better jobs/housing balance and shorter average commuter trip lengths in the future. Total trip making in the sub -
corridor is projected to increase by 522,000 daily trips, representing a 27 percent increase. VMT is projected to
increase by 15 percent and VHT is expected to increase by 36 percent. The disproportionate increase in hours of
travel over miles of travel indicate increasing delay and congestion in the future due to the projected relatively high
growth rates for this sub-corridor.
233
5-125
The congestion levels are expected to increase on the freeway and arterial systems by 2040. Figure 5.80 and
Figure 5.81 illustrate the AM and PM peak hour conditions, respectively, on the freeway system projected for 2040
from the SCAG model.
234
5-126 Figure 5.79 | Collisions
Riverside to Orange County Line Sub-Corridor
235
5-127 Figure 5.80 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—AM
Riverside to Orange County Line Sub-Corridor
236
5-128 Figure 5.81 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—PM
Riverside to Orange County Line Sub-Corridor
237
5-129
5.10.2 Strategic Approach for Banning to Rialto Sub-Corridor
Problems to Be Addressed
• SR-91 connects Riverside County to Orange and San Bernardino counties and results in one of the most
congested freeways in Southern California. SR-91 is a nationally significant freight corridor that connects the
Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to the vast array of warehousing and distribution centers in the Inland
Empire. However, with heavy congestion along the corridor goods movement is significantly impacted. SR -91
• Lack of adequate alternate routes into Orange County; largely due to topography. SR-91 is the only route into
Orange County from Riverside County and San Bernardino County. SR-60/57 is the highest capacity
alternate, but is also highly congested. SR-74 provides a low-capacity highway alternative which is available
to south Orange County.
• Job-housing imbalance; Riverside County provides more affordable housing options compared to Orange
County and Los Angeles County, but less job opportunities.
Strategy
1. Complete Santa Ana River trail.
2. Complete the SR-71/91 connector and SR-241/91 connector to facilitate commute and goods movement from
Orange County to Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
3. Build on substantial transit assets. Invest in Metrolink rail expansion for the IE/OC line and construct
accessibility improvements and station improvements to existing Metrolink stations.
4. Implement first/last mile transit connections (particularly from major destinations to Metrolink stations).
5. Continue multimodal investment into the managed lane system on SR-91; continue collaborating with OCTA
on 91 Express Lanes.
6. Continue express bus service utilizing managed lanes for time and cost savings on shared rides.
7. Explore policies and methods to increase work at home to decrease commute trips.
5.11 Hemet to Corona Sub-Corridor
The Hemet to Corona sub-corridor is one of five east/west oriented sub-corridors within the Inland Empire
Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan. Figure 5.82 illustrates the boundaries of the sub-corridor Study Area.
238
5-130
5.11.1 Sub-Corridor Definition
This east/west sub-corridor is entirely within Riverside County and currently does not have a major freeway facility
traversing its entire length; however, due to its orientation and abundance of housing on the east and jobs on the
west, there are major east/west flows of traffic on the key arterial system such as Ramona Expressway, Cajalco
Road, El Sobrante Road, and others. In addition, future new and improved facilities such as the Mid County Parkway
and improvements on Cajalco Road are planned in this sub-corridor. This sub-corridor addresses east/west flows
of people and freight within and through portions of unincorporated Riverside County and the cities of Corona,
Norco, Riverside, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Perris, Menifee, San Jacinto, Hemet, and Beaumont. This sub-
corridor includes parts of RSAs 46, 47, 50, 48, and 49 all within Riverside County. The sub-corridor is generally 45
miles in length east to west and about 15 miles wide north to south.
Key Transportation Facilities
Key transportation facilities within the sub-corridor include:
Freeways: SR-74 and SR-91.
Arterials: Key east/west arterial facilities that run through significant portions of the sub-corridor include: Foothill
Parkway, Ontario Avenue, Sixth Street, Magnolia Avenue, Cajalco Road, Indiana Avenue, Victoria Avenue, Van
Buren Boulevard, El Sobrante Road, Domenigoni Parkway, Simps on Road, Nuevo Road, Ramona Expressway,
Esplanade Avenue, and Stenson Avenue.
Freight: SR-91 is a major goods movement corridor. BNSF Railway passes through the sub-corridor.
Transit: Metrolink commuter rail routes passes through this sub-corridor connecting passengers to Los Angeles
and Orange County. The 91/Perris Valley route runs through a portion of the area as it transitions from an east/west
route to a north/south route in Riverside with three stops in Moreno Valley and Perris, terminating in South P erris.
The Inland Empire/Orange County ine runs within the sub-corridor with stops in Corona and Riverside. There are
several bus routes operated by RTA in the sub-corridor.
Active Transportation: There are many municipal bicycle routes within the sub-corridor, including Class I, II, III,
and IV facilities. In addition, within the Riverside County portion of the sub-corridor there are several proposed
east/west regional routes. These routes would cross multiple jurisdictions and consist of different types of facilities
and classes.
239
5-131 5-131 Figure 5.82 | Sub-Corridor Study Area
Helmet to Corona Sub-Corridor
240
5-132
Existing Characteristics of the Sub-Corridor
Socioeconomic and Land Use: Figure 5.83 illustrates the land use patterns in the sub-corridor and Figure 5.84
shows the land use by type. As shown, the predominant land use in the sub-corridor is rural residential, at 34 percent
of the entire area, single family residential at 12 percent, agriculture at 17 percent, and open space and recreational
at eight percent. In terms of employment-generating land uses, the area has six percent industrial and two percent
commercial and services. March Air Reserve Base, a major employment area, is in the central part of this sub -
corridor and there are very large warehousing and distribution centers located in the general vicinity. The area
includes Lake Mathews and Lake Perris (Reservoir), two large bodies of water that are major water recreation areas
and large portions of open space with habitats for sensitive species.
The CalEnviroScreen scores for this sub-corridor are high throughout most of the area. Areas with higher scores
are in Corona, Moreno Valley, Perris, and north /east portions of Lake Elsinore. Areas with low scores are around
Sun City. Higher scores indicate greater exposure indicators, greater en vironmental effects indicators, higher
sensitive population indicators, higher socioeconomic factor indicators , or a combination of these. Areas with a high
score generally experience a much higher pollution burden than areas with lower scores. SCAG “Commu nities of
Concern” also occur in the communities of Home Gardens, Mead Valley, Perris, and Good Hope in the sub-corridor.
Figure 5.83 | Land Use Types in Sub-Corridor
Helmet to Corona Sub-Corridor
Source: SCAG 2012 Land Use.
Single Family
Residential
12%
Rural Residential
34%
Industrial
6%
Open Space and
Recreation
8%
Agriculture
17%
Specific Plan
13%
241
5-133 Figure 5.84 | Land Use Map
Helmet to Corona Sub-Corridor
Source: SCAG 2012 Land Use.
242
5-134
Employment density is relatively low in much of the sub-corridor, especially in unincorporated areas. Employment
density is highest in Corona and Riverside at SR-91. There also are minor employment concentrations in Moreno
Valley, Perris, Menifee, and Hemet. Population concentrations are in single-family residential land that is primarily
in Corona and Riverside. Population also is concentrated in single-family neighborhoods in Perris, Menifee, San
Jacinto, and Hemet. Given the predominance of residential land uses, the population-to-employment statistical ratio
of the sub-corridor is 3.6, which is relatively high compared to some of the other areas of the overall Inland Empire
CMCP Study Area, indicating a need for residents to commute longer distances to work.
Travel Patterns: Daily auto trips were examined to gain insight into the daily activity patterns of travelers in the
region. Table 5.19 displays the magnitude and average sizes of trips within and external to the subarea. There are
nearly 2.15 million daily auto trips made by residents and employees in the sub-corridor. As illustrated in the table
below, 45 percent of those trips are internal-internal trips, meaning they start and end within the sub-corridor. These
sub-corridor internal trips include commute travel for workers who live and work in the sub-corridor, as well as local
trips for daily activities such as shopping, school, recreation, and other, which are often proximate to home. Forty-
two percent of trips have one end in the sub-corridor and the other end inside the IE CMCP area and 12 percent of
trips have one end in the sub-corridor and the other end outside the sub-corridor. The average trip lengths for trips
with one end in the Study Area and the other either inside or outside of IE CMCP area are 2.9 and 7.9 times the
length of the internal-internal trips, respectively.
Table 5.19 | Internal and External Trips
Helmet to Corona Sub-Corridor
Sub-corridor
Internal Trips
Sub-corridor Trips to/from
CMCP Study Area
Sub-corridor Trips to/from
Rest of Region
Daily Auto Trips 976,000 911,000 263,000
45% 42% 12%
Average Trip Length (Miles) 5.0 14.8 40.0
Source: SCAG Model 2016.
Commute trips were examined to better understand the peak period travel patterns . Figure 5.85 illustrates the
journey to work mode share for the sub-corridor. Overall, 91 percent of commute trips in the sub-corridor are made
by automobile. Notably, when examining the group that commutes by car, 14 percent of workers carpooled. The
share of carpoolers is higher in the sub-corridor compared to California as a whole (10 percent). This is reflective
of the relatively longer commute trips from the sub-corridor either to other job locations in Riverside County or
Southern California and low levels of transit use, despite the presence of Metrolink services in this sub-corridor.
Transit accounts for just one percent of commute trips, while five percent of residents work at home. Non -motorized
trips account for just two percent of commute trips.
243
5-135
Figure 5.85 | Journey to Work Mode Share
Helmet to Corona Sub-Corridor
Source: ACS 2015, 5-year estimates.
Except for individuals who work at home, nearly 95 percent of the workers in the sub-corridor must find a way to
travel to their jobs each workday. Their choice of transportation mode, departure time, trip origin , and destination
all play key roles in determining door-to-door travel time. The collective result of these daily decisions are reflected
in the commute times for the sub-corridor. Nearly 44 percent of all workers commute less than 30 minutes to work,
33 percent commute 30 to 60 minutes, and 23 percent commute over one hour, which is a reflection of a lack of
major employment centers in the area.
Congestion, Delay, VMT: Figure 5.86 and Figure 5.87 show a snapshot of Google map traffic conditions during
typical Wednesday AM and PM peak hour, respectively. As shown, the traffic data indicates that there is congestion
on SR-74 between SR-79 and I-215 during both AM and PM peak hours.
Drove Alone, 77%
Carpool, 14%
Transit, 1%
Non-Motorized, 2%
Work at Home, 5%
Other, 1%
244
5-136 Figure 5.86 | Existing AM Peak Hour Freeway Conditions
Helmet to Corona Sub-Corridor
Source: Google Maps (Typical Wednesday Traffic)—accessed on March 6, 2020.
245
5-137 Figure 5.87 | Existing PM Peak Hour Freeway Congestion
Helmet to Corona Sub-Corridor
Source: Google Maps (Typical Wednesday Traffic)—accessed on March 6, 2020.
246
5-138
Daily VMT, including local trips and through traffic in the sub -corridor, are mainly carried on freeways and major
arterial roadways. Table 5.20 shows the VMT in the sub-corridor by facility type. As shown, the arterial network
carries 47 percent of the daily VMT. Daily VHT is nearly split 45/55 between freeways (including HOV lanes) and
arterial network, reflecting slightly lower speeds on the arterials. As compared to the other sub -corridors, this area
has relatively more VMT per service population and it ranks two out of the ten sub-corridors for highest VMT per
service population.
Table 5.20 | Vehicle Miles of Travel by Facility Type
Helmet to Corona Sub-Corridor
Vehicle Miles of Travel Vehicle Hours of Travel
Freeway 8,657,000 52% 170,000 44%
HOV 168,000 1% 3,000 1%
Arterials 7,981,000 47% 216,000 55%
Total 16,806,000 100% 389,000 100%
Source: SCAG Model 2016.
Transit Usage: This sub-corridor also has some high-quality transit stops at Metrolink stations in Corona, Riverside,
and Perris. It also has some of the highest ridership bus stops in the overall IE CMCP Study Area, which are located
at Corona Transit Center, Perris Transit Center, and Galleria at Tyler. Despite these transit facilities, in this sub -
corridor only one percent of commute trips use transit.
Safety: Figure 5.88 illustrates the reported crashes by type for 2018. In terms of safety, SR-91 experiences the
highest collision rates for the IE CMCP Study Area freeways. There is a relatively high concentration of bicycle and
pedestrian collisions in this sub-corridor compared to other sub-corridors. High concentrations are along SR-91
between La Sierra Avenue and I-215/SR-60 interchange, possibly reflecting higher rates of walking and bicycling
in these areas. Truck collisions occur throughout the Study Area but mostly along SR-91 with the largest
concentrations near I-215/SR-91/SR-60 interchange.
Future Conditions
The sub-corridor is expected to experience the following growth rates by 2040:
• Population—34 percent increase.
• Employment—52 percent increase.
Commensurate with these projected relatively high rates of growth for the area’s demographics, total trip making in
the sub-corridor is expected to increase by 676,000 daily trips, representing a 31 percent increase . VMT is expected
to increase by 25 percent and VHT is projected to increase by 58 percent. The disproportionate increase in hours
of travel over miles of travel indicate increasing delay and congestion in the future due to the projected relatively
247
5-139
high growth rates for this sub-corridor. Figure 5.89 and Figure 5.90 illustrate the AM and PM peak hour conditions,
respectively, on the freeway system projected for 2040 from the SCAG model.
248
5-140 Figure 5.88 | Collisions
Helmet to Corona Sub-Corridor
249
5-141 Figure 5.89 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—AM
Helmet to Corona Sub-Corridor
250
5-142 Figure 5.90 | Future 2040 Traffic Conditions—PM
Helmet to Corona Sub-Corridor
251
5-143
5.11.2 Strategic Approach for Hemet to Corona Sub-Corridor
Problems to Be Addressed
• Lack of good east/west routes. No adequate east/west routes to connect communities.
• Need to preserve environmentally sensitive areas and habitats.
• SR-74 is an east-west principal arterial that transects the cities of Perris and Hemet. It functions as the cities’
main street with a large concentration of local business es and retailers but lacks adequate driveway access
control, safe sidewalks and bike lanes, and traffic signals .
• High number of traffic incidents on east/west roadways.
Strategy
1. Complete regional Salt Creek Trail
2. Complete Mid-County Parkway to provide an additional regional east/west corridor, minimize use of local roads,
and shift traffic away from SR-74.
3. Build on substantial transit assets. Invest in Metrolink rail expansion for the 91/Perris Valley Line and construct
accessibility improvements and station improvements at existing Metrolink stations.
4. Implement first/last mile transit connections, particularly from major destinations to Metrolink stations.
5. Complete SR-79 realignment; improve access to SR-74.
6. Extend I-15 Express Lanes to SR-74 with new express lanes to improve trip relaibility for commuters and transit
riders and provide additional incentives for carpool and vanpoolers.
7. Explore policies and methods to increase work at home to decrease commute trips.
252
253
6-1
6.0 Multimodal Transportation Projects
The Inland Empire CMCP effort included significant outreach to key corridor stakeholders, as described previously
in this report. The stakeholders each have their own transportation plans and programming initiatives which are
aimed at bringing forth and implementing multimodal transportation improvements in their respective jurisdictions.
These include transportation plans of Caltrans, RCTC, WRCOG, SBCTA and the corridor’s local agencies including
counties and cities. For the CMCP, all of the currently available plans were reviewed in detail by the stakeholder
agencies and a master list of potential projects was developed for the CMCP which would address the expected
transportation challenges described in this plan. Each stakeholder agency also assisted with identifying the projects
from their respective plans in the ten sub-corridors.
Due to two key reasons, the project team determined that it was not feasible to measure the benefits of each of the
projects using quantitative methods, such as the results of travel demand models or simulation models for the IE
CMCP. This is because: 1) the area of the CMCP is extremely large (almost two entire counties and ten sub -
corridors); and 2) each stakeholder agency has completed their own detailed analysis of the potential improvements
and benefits of the improvement projects, and thus the projects have already been screened for various
performance metrics at the local, county and subregional levels. However, to supplement the agency’s own
evaluations, a second level of qualitative performance metric evaluation was completed for the IE CMCP for each
project, utilizing the performance measures described in this section. Furthermore, data and findings from all
quantitative sources such as the regional travel models, t he Census American Community Survey and other
sources were used to inform the evaluations.
As discussed in Section 2.3, a series of performance measures are used to assess the list of projects based on a
combination of state, regional and local plans, goals and objectives. The following key performance measures were
discussed and chosen by the Inland Empire CMCP Project Management Team to assess the sub -corridor
improvements:
• VMT Reduction.
• Person Delay Reduction.
• Safety Improvement.
• Mode Shift.
• Person Throughput.
• Improving Accessibility.
• Reducing GHG and Improving Air Quality.
• Improving System Reliability.
• Congestion Relief.
These performance metrics are used to assess the potential transportation sys tem improvements in each sub-
corridor. The intent is not to rank the improvements or measure them against each other, but rather to inform the
CMCP and SCCP process regarding how the projects address the overall goals and objectives related to state,
regional and local plans, and how they help move people and goods in congested corridors. It is also recognized
254
6-2
that the county-level plans and Caltrans plans have carefully developed short range, ten year and long range
improvement plans with sets of projects that have been reviewed by residents, system users and elected officials.
Those plans are used as a backbone for the sub -corridor recommendations, with additional analysis related
specifically to the CMCP.
A set of rules were applied by project type for each performance metric to determine if that project type has a greater
or lesser benefit. For example, some types of transportation improvements may significantly improve safety but not
necessarily reduce congestion, while others may reduce VMT but not sig nificantly affect system reliability.
Additionally, for each performance metric category, a set of rules were established to identify if the improvement
would result in a Low, Medium, or High score for each metric based on known characteristics and attributes of each
type of improvement. The list of performance measures, project types and how each project type scores for each
metric is included in Appendix A.
Many of the projects are located entirely within one sub-corridor, while others, such as freeway projects, longer
distance arterial improvement projects and longer distance active transportation projects are located in more than
one sub-corridor. The number of recommended projects in each sub-corridor is shown in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1 | Recommended Projects By Sub-Corridor
Sub-Corridor
Number of
Recommended
Projects
Victorville to San Bernardino 42
San Bernardino to Riverside 33
Cajon to Eastvale 38
Riverside to Temecula 76
Beaumont to Temecula 23
Apple Valley to LA County Line 23
Banning to Rialto 68
Riverside to LA County Line 78
Riverside to Orange County Line 29
Hemet to Corona 35
Appendix A includes the entire list of recommended projects for the entire IE CMCP study area as well as for each
of the ten sub-corridors. The Low, Medium, and High scores for each project are shown for each of the performance
metrics. As noted above, the intent is not to rank or compare the projects, but rather to identify how each project
will provide benefit to the transportation system based on the key metrics. A total of 421 highway, arterial, transit
and goods movement projects are included, plus an additional 1,134 bikeway projects, in the following modal
categories:
• Highway:
– HOV/HOT/Express Lanes—42 projects
– ITS/Operational Improvements—13 projects
– Auxiliary Lane—5 projects
255
6-3
– Capacity Enhancement—21 projects
– Interchange Enhancement—74 projects
– New Interchange—17 projects
– Rehabilitation and Safety Improvement—64 projects
• Arterial:
– Corridor Improvements—2 projects
– Capacity Enhancement—8 projects
– Intersection Improvement—1 project
– Bridge and Grade Separation—36 projects
• Goods Movement:
– Truck Climbing Lane—8 projects
– Bridge and Grade Separation—2 projects
• Transit:
– New Bus—28 projects
– Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)—11 projects
– New Rail—6 projects
– New Rapid Transit—3 projects
– Bus Replacement/Transit Maintenance/Transit Operations —17 projects
– Transit Centers/Park and Ride/Bus Stations/Bus Stops—12 projects
• Active Transportation:
– Bikeways Class I, II, II and IV—1,134 projects (note due to the lage number of active transportatoin
projects, many of which are local bikeway iniatives, they are not listed in the master project list)
256
257
7-1
7.0 Implementation and Funding Plan
Funding for transportation improvements is available through a series of Federal, state, and local sources.
Depending on the source of funding, eligible projects vary by mode, scope, and project phase. Some funding
programs allocate resources through competitive grant proce sses or other discretionary means, while other funds
are distributed by formula to state, regional, or local governments. This chapter summarizes some of the relevant
funding sources available for projects in the IE CMCP Study Area.
7.1 Federal Funding Sources
Federal transportation funding is administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) and authorized
by Federal transportation bills. The most recent transportation funding bill, Fixing America’s Surface Transportation
Act (FAST Act), was signed into law in 2015.
Much of the funding available through the U.S. DOT’s Highway Trust Fund is allocated to California based on the
state’s population. The State of California, in turn, distributes those funds to local agencies by formula o r through
competitive grant programs. For instance, the majority of the federally funded Surface Transportation Program
funding in California is programmed through the STIP (Statewide Transportation Improvement Program).
Additionally, California’s Active Transportation Program consolidated most of the Federal and state funding sources
for bicycle and pedestrian projects.
There are two Federal discretionary grant programs available for local agencies to apply for funding. These inc lude
the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development program (BUILD—formerly TIGER) and the Infrastructure
for Rebuilding America program (INFRA—formerly FASTLANE). Highlighted below in Table 7.1, these programs
provide opportunities for the Inland Empire CMCP cities and regional entities to apply for substantial funding
amounts for regionally significant projects.
258
7-2 Table 7.1 | Relevant Federal Funding Sources
Name Funding Type Eligible Modes/Description
INFRA Discretionary A Federal discretionary grant program reviewed by U.S. DOT. Emphasis on highway and goods
movement projects.
BUILD Discretionary A Federal discretionary grant program reviewed by U.S. DOT. Emphasis on multimodal projects.
New Starts and Small Starts
(FTA Section 5309)
Discretionary Funds light rail, heavy rail, commuter rail, streetcar, and bus rapid transit projects.
Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP)
Discretionary Federally allocated to the State by formula, the HSIP program is available for roadway safety projects
through a competitive program administered by Caltrans.
Congestion Mitigation Air
Quality (CMAQ)
Formula Federally designated air quality containment areas receive funding by formula to program local and
regional projects.
Rail-Highway Crossings
(Section 130) Program
Discretionary Safety improvements to reduce the number of fatalities, injuries and crashes at public railway-highway
crossings.
Grade Separation
(Section 190) Program
Discretionary This competitive grant program provides $15 million each year to local agencies for the construction
grade separation projects.
National Highway Freight
Program
Discretionary The FAST Act established National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) to improve the efficient movement
of freight on the National Highway Freight Network (NHFN).
National Highway
Performance Program
Discretionary The NHPP provides support for the condition and performance of the National Highway System (NHS),
for the construction of new facilities on the NHS.
Nationally Significant Federal
Lands and Tribal Projects
Discretionary The Nationally Significant Federal Lands and Tribal Projects (NSFLTP) program provides funding for
constructing, reconstructing, and rehabilitating nationally significant projects on Federal or Tribal lands.
National Significant Freight
and Highway Projects
(NSFHP)
Discretionary The Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects (NSFHP) provides financial assistance—
competitive grants or credit assistance—to nationally and regionally significant freight and highway
projects that align with the program goals to: improve safety, efficiency, and reliability of the movement of
freight and people; generate national or regional economic benefits and an increase in U.S. global
economic competitiveness; reduce highway congestion and bottlenecks; Improve connectivity between
modes of freight transportation; enhance the resiliency of critical highway infrastructure and help protect
the environment; improve roadways vital to national energy security; address the impact of population
growth on the movement of people and freight, mitigate impacts of freight movements on communities.
Surface Transportation Block
Grant Program
Formula STBG provides flexible funding that states and local governments may use for projects on any Federal-
aid highway, including the National Highway System; bridge projects on any public road; transit capital
projects and; public bus terminals and facilities.
Federal Transit
Administration
Sections 5303, 5304, 5305
Discretionary Provides procedural and funding requirements for multimodal transportation planning in States and
metropolitan areas. Planning must to be cooperative, continuous, and comprehensive leading to long -
range plans and short-range programs that reflect transportation investment priorities . Funds are
available to States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) for planning activities.
Federal Transit
Administration Section 5307
Formula The Urbanized Area Formula Funding program provides Federal resources to urbanized areas and to
governors for transit capital and operating assistance and for transportation related planning.
Federal Transit
Administration Section 5311
Formula This program provides formula-based funding for capital and/or operating assistance to rural areas with a
population fewer than 50,000 where many residents rely on public transit to reach their destinations.
Federal Transit
Administration Section 5312
Discretionary This program supports research activities that improve the safety, reliability, efficiency, and sustainability
of public transportation by investing in the development, testing, and deployment of innovative
technologies, materials, and processes.
259
7-3 Name Funding Type Eligible Modes/Description
Federal Transit
Administration Section 5337
Formula The State of Good Repair program is dedicated to repairing and upgrading the Nation’s rail transit
systems along with high-intensity motor bus systems that use high-occupancy vehicle lanes, including
bus rapid transit.
Federal Transit
Administration Section 5339
Formula The Bus and Bus Facilities Infrastructure Investment Program (49 U.S.C. 5339) provides Federal
resources to states and direct recipients to replace, rehabilitate and purchase buses and related
equipment. This programs also allows for the construction of bus-related facilities, including technological
changes or innovations to modify low or no emission vehicles or facilities.
Federal Transit
Administration Transit-
Oriented Development
Planning Pilot
Discretionary Provides funding to advance planning efforts that support transit-oriented development (TOD) associated
with new fixed-guideway and core capacity improvement projects. TOD focuses growth around transit
stations to promote ridership, affordable housing near transit, revitalized downtown centers and
neighborhoods, and encourage local economic development.
Recreational Trails Program Discretionary The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) provides funds annually for recreational trails and trails -related
projects. The RTP is administered at the Federal level by the Federal Highway Administration. It is
administered at the state level by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR).
Sources: United States Department of Transportation; California Department of Transportation; RCTC; SBCTA; Cambridge Systematics.
260
7-4
In addition to these Federal funding sources, the FAST Act continues the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act (TIFIA) Program, which provides Federal credit assistance to elig ible surface transportation projects,
including highway, transit, intercity passenger rail, some types of freight rail, intermodal freight transfer facilities,
and some modifications inside a port terminal.
The FAST Act continues the authority of the TIFIA program to provide to States, localities, or other public authorities,
as well as private entities undertaking projects sponsored by public authorities, three distinct types of financial
assistance:
• Secured loans are direct Federal loans to project sponsors offering flexible repayment terms and providing
combined construction and permanent financing of capital costs.
• Loan guarantees provide full-faith-and-credit guarantees by the Federal Government to institutional investors,
such as pension funds, that make loans for projects.
• Lines of credit are contingent sources of funding in the form of Federal loans that may be drawn upon to
supplement project revenues, if needed, during the first 10 years of project operations. [23 U.S.C. 603 and
604]
7.2 Project Type
The FAST Act continues all prior TIFIA eligibilities and makes two new activities TIFIA -eligible: 1) transit-oriented
development projects (as defined below); and 2) the capitalization of a rural projects fund within a State
infrastructure bank. [23 U.S.C. 601(a)(12)]
As a general rule, to receive TIFIA credit assistance under the FAST Act, a project must have costs that equal or
exceed either:
• $50 million.
• 1/3 of the most recently-completed fiscal year’s formula apportionments for the State in which the proj ect is
located.
Specified project types have a lower cost threshold under TIFIA, including :
• For an intelligent transportation system (ITS) project, $15 million.
• For a transit-oriented development project (as defined below), $10 million.
• For a rural infrastructure project (as defined below) or for capitalizing a rural project fund (as described
below), $10 million (but not exceeding $100 million).
• For a local infrastructure project (as defined below), $10 million. [23 U.S.C. 602(a)(5)]
261
7-5
7.2.1 Transit-oriented Development Projects
The FAST Act makes eligible for TIFIA credit assistance a project to improve or construct public infrastructure that
is located within walking distance of, and accessible to, one of a specified list of transit facilities. [23 U.S.C.
601(a)(12)(E)]
7.2.2 Rural Infrastructure Projects
The FAST Act modifies the definition of “Rural Infrastructure Project” for TIFIA purposes. The new definition is a
surface transportation infrastructure project located in an area that is outside of an urbanized area with a population
greater than 150,000 individuals, as determined by the Bureau of the Census. [23 U.S.C. 601(a)(15)]
7.2.3 Local Infrastructure Projects
To qualify as a “local infrastructure project” for the lower ($10 million) minimum project cost thresh old:
• The applicant for the project (or program of projects) must be a local Government, public authority, or
instrumentality of local Government.
• The project (or program of projects) must be located on a facility owned by a local Government.
• The Secretary must determine that a local Government is substantially involved in the development of the
project (or program of projects). [23 U.S.C. 602(a)(5)(B)(iv)]
7.2.4 State Funding Sources
With the passage of California Senate Bill 1 (SB1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, the State of
California has additional transportation funding for local and regional projects. SB1 augmented existing sources of
funding, such as the Active Transportation Program and State Highway Operation and Protection Program, and
created entirely new funding programs, such as the Solutions for Congested Corridors and Trade Corridor
Enhancement programs. Table 7.2 highlights the state funding sources that are most relevant to the IE CMCP
projects.
262
7-6 Table 7.2 | Relevant State Funding Sources
Name Funding Type Eligible Mode/Notes
Local Streets and Roads Formula Cities and counties receive funds for road maintenance, safety projects, railroad grade separations,
complete streets, and traffic control devices.
Solutions for Congested
Corridors (SCCP)
Discretionary Regional transportation authorities and Caltrans may nominate projects for funding to achieve a
balanced set of transportation, environmental, and community access improvements to reduce
congestion.
Trade Corridor
Enhancement (TCEP)
Discretionary Caltrans and regional entities can be project sponsors. Funding is available for infrastructure
improvements in theBay Area, Central Valley, Central Coast, LA/Inland Empire, and San Diego/Border .
Local Partnership Program
(LPP)
60% Discretionary
40% Formula
Eligible funding for “self-help” counties.1 Most transportation improvements are eligible.
Active Transportation
Program (ATP)
Discretionary Eligible projects include bicycle and pedestrian improvements and planning. SB1 augmented the ATP
with an extra $100M annually to the program.
State Highway Operation
and Protection Program
(SHOPP)
Formula Projects are selected by Caltrans and adopted by the CTC. Projects included in the program are limited
to capital improvements relative to the maintenance, safety, operation, and rehabilitation of the state
highway system that do not add new capacity to the system.
State Transportation
Improvement Program
(STIP)
Formula Projects are proposed by regional transportation agencies and approved by the CTC on a bi-annual
basis. The majority of the STIP funding comes from Federal sources.
Transit and Intercity Rail
Capital Program (TIRCP)
Discretionary Discretionary program administered by Caltrans and the California State Transportation Agency
(CalSTA). Funds transformative capital improvements that will modernize California’s intercity,
commuter, and urban rail systems, and bus and ferry transit systems, to significantly reduce emissions
of greenhouse gases, vehicle miles traveled, and congestion.
SB 821 Bicycle and
Pedestrian Facilities
Program
Discretionary Each year 2 percent of the LTF revenue is made available for use on bicycle and pedestrian facility
projects. RCTC allocates SB 821 funds through a biennial Call for Projects . All of the cities and the
County of Riverside are notified of available funding and are requested to submit project proposals.
Eligible projects include sidewalks, access ramps, bicycle facilities, and bicycle plan development .
1 Counties that have passed local option sales tax measures to fund transportation improvements.
Source: California Department of Transportation, California Transportation Commission.
263
7-7
7.2.5 Local Funding Sources
Riverside County
Toll Revenue
Congestion-pricing involves charging varying tolls or fees to transportation system users. Implementation of express
lanes is a strategy of congestion pricing. Routinely, service demands exhibit a peakin g characteristic related to the
time of day or seasonal time of the year. The 91 Express Lanes currently applies a time of day pricing policy, which
charges higher tolls in the peak period allowing for a more reliable trip in the express lanes during the m ost
congested hours of the day.
RCTC’s venture into tolling expanded the agency’s funding and financing options for the design and construction
of the currently operational 91 Express Lanes and the future 15 Express Lanes, currently in construction . Toll
revenue is a new funding source in addition to Measure A and traditional state and Federal funding sources.
As a result of the financing successes from the 91 Express Lanes and 15 Express Lanes, RCTC will continue to
use toll revenue in the following ways:
1. Borrow against future toll revenue to help fund capital costs of new express lane facilities (e.g., project
financings for the 91 and 15 Express Lanes).
2. Pay annual Operation and Maintenance (O&M) expenses on express lanes facilities, debt service and fi nancing
reserves, and life-cycle repair and rehabilitation of the toll system and roadway.
3. Construct RCTC-approved transportation projects in the corridor from which the surplus toll revenue was
generated (statutorily mandated).
Local Transportation Revenue Funds
Several transportation funding sources have their origins in city or county revenues. These include general fund
revenues used for street purposes at the city level, development impact fees, gas tax shares, proceeds from bond
sales for street purposes, street assessment levies, and traffic safety fund revenues.
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) are an important part of the Measure A extension. The TUMF
programs for the Western Riverside County subregion and the Coachella Valley subregion ensure that future
development contributes its fair share toward infrastructure costs to mitigate new growth’s cumulative, indirect , and
regional transportation impacts consistent with the State’s Mitigation Fee Ac t. The fees help fund improvements to
maintain target levels of service in the face of higher traffic volumes that new developments bring.
264
7-8
Riverside County Local Sales Tax—Measure A Funds
Measure A was first approved by Riverside County voters in 1988 and was in effect for 20 years from 1989 to 2009.
It was extended for an additional 30 years in 2002. Measure A is administered by RCTC for the purpose of collecting
a half-cent local transaction and use tax for transportation. Measure A was enacted to fill the funding shortfall to:
implement necessary highway, commuter rail, and transit projects; secure new transportation corridors through
environmental clearance and right-of-way purchases; provide adequate maintenance and improvements on the
local street and road system; promote economic growth throughout the County; and provide specialized programs
to meet the needs of commuters and the specialized needs of the growing senior and disabled population .
Approximately $4.662 billion will be collected over the 30-year period between 2009 and 2039 for a variety of
transportation mode improvements and programs in Riverside County.
San Bernardino County Financial Strategy
Revenue sources in San Bernardino County include Measure I (cash and bond), local contributions, and state and
Federal funds as described in this chapter. Measure I is the half-cent sales tax collected throughout San Bernardino
County for transportation improvements. San Bernardino County voters first approved the measure in 1989 and in
2004 approved the extension through 2040.
SBCTA administers Measure I revenue and is responsible for ensuring that funds are used in accordance with
various plans and policies. Measure I funds are allocated based o n the Measure I-2010-2040 Ordinance and
Expenditure Plan and the Strategic Plan policies that define the framework for the programs and projects referenced
in the measure. The 10-Year Delivery Plan outlines the near-term strategy.
The administration of Measure I is different between the Valley and the Mountain/Desert areas. The County is
divided into six “subareas” with distinct expenditure plans and policies. Additionally, Measure I has a return-to-
source provision so that revenue collected within a subar ea can only be used in that subarea.
The financial strategy used in the development of the 10-Year Delivery Plan includes:
• Apply ordinance and policy criteria.
• Preserve existing grants.
• Maximize available funds.
The 10-Year Delivery Plan is built off of the Measure I Ordinance and Board Policies.
Key Ordinance requirements are:
• Measure I revenues shall be allocated by formula to subareas and programs.
• State and Federal funds shall be allocated proportionally to subareas over time.
265
7-9
Key Board Policies are:
• State and Federal funds shall be allocated to maintain geographic equity.
• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds for the San Bernardino Valley shall be allocated in the
following priority: 1) regional programs; 2) transit capital projects; and 3) freeway HOV projects. There is no
established policy for the Mountain/Desert Subareas.
• Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds for the San Bernardino Valley shall be allocated to the Freeway
Projects Program. There is no established policy for the Mountain/Desert Subareas.
• A Measure I Program that benefits from bonding shall accommodate the debt service within the Program’s
revenue.
Numerous existing grants have to be used by a certain date or the grant is rescinded. The 10 -Year Delivery Plan is
developed to ensure these funds are not lost. This strategy is critical in the development of each 10 -Year Delivery
Plan to allow SBCTA to meet the delivery deadlines and make full use of grant awards that have allocation and
award deadlines, like many of the competitive SB1 programs.
With SBCTA facing transportation funding challenges, maximizing all available funds is critical. State and Federal
funds are subject to rescission if the funds are not used in a timely manner. The 10 -Year Delivery Plan allows for
better management of all funds across programs and subareas, minimizing the potential for funds to be rescinded.
266
Victorville to San Bern
Project Type Project Title/Description Lead Agency/Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment
Major Local
Highways
Apple Valley Road and SR-18 Realignment, realign and
construct intersection improvements at Apple Valley
Road and SR 18 in the Town of Apple Valley
Town of Apple
Valley/SBCTA
PS&E $9,637 2021 10 Year Delivery Plan
Major Local
Highways
Green Tree Blvd Extension (City Share), final segment
of the Yucca Loma Corridor and will construct Green
Tree Boulevard from Hesperia Road to Ridgecrest
Road/Yates Road, a new four-lane road including a
bridge over the BNSF railroad
City of
Victorville/County of
San Bernardino, SBCTA
ROW $44,689 2021 10 Year Delivery Plan Apple Valley to LA
County Line
Interchange I-15 / Sierra Avenue project signalized and widened the
northbound and southbound ramp intersections at
Sierra Avenue, widened Sierra Avenue from Riverside
Avenue to north of the southbound I-15 off-ramp, and
constructed drainage improvements
Caltrans/SBCTA Complete $2,750 2015 10 Year Delivery Plan Cajon Pass to Eastvale
Interchange I-215 / University Parkway, reconfiguration of the
existing tight diamond interchange with a Diverging
Diamond Interchange (DDI) configuration.
SBCTA PA/ED $15,278 2022 10 Year Delivery Plan Banning to Rialto (SE
to NW); San
Bernardino to
Riverside; Riverside to
LA County Line
Freeway Project I-215 Landscaping Project Seg 2, along I-215 from the
5th Street overcrossing north to just south of the
Muscupiabe Drive overcrossing and also includes a
portion along SR 259 from Baseline Street to Highland
Avenue overcrossing
SBCTA Construction $5,626 2019 10 Year Delivery Plan
Highway Project I-215 Landscaping Project Seg 5, along I-215 from just
south of the Muscupiabe Drive overcrossing north to just
south of the I-215/SR 210 Junction
SBCTA PS&E $2,889 2022 10 Year Delivery Plan
Major Local
Highways
Main Street Widening – US 395 to 11th Avenue Ph1,
widen the Main Street Bridge over the California
Aqueduct from four to six lanes
City of Hesperia/SBCTA PS&E; ROW $12,340 2025 10 Year Delivery Plan Apple Valley to LA
County Line
Major Local
Highways
Main Street Widening – US 395 to 11th Avenue Ph2,
widen and reconstruct Main Street at various locations
from four lanes to six lanes with a center median
City of Hesperia/SBCTA Planning $30,222 2032 10 Year Delivery Plan Apple Valley to LA
County Line
Major Local
Highways
Phelan Road, widen from two to five lanes, including
one continuous left turn lane and will mill and overlay the
exitng pavement with asphalt concrete, from SR-138 to
Hesperia city limits
County of San
Bernardino/SBCTA
Planning $56,035 2024 10 Year Delivery Plan Apple Valley to LA
County Line
Major Local
Highways
Ranchero Road Corridor improvements, widen and
reconstruct Ranchero Road from four to six lanes with a
center median from 0.3 miles east of Mariposa to 7th
Street at various locations. Improvements include
widening of the bridge over the California Aqueduct and
at-grade UPRR railroad crossing improvements
City of Hesperia and
County of San
Bernardino/SBCTA
ROW; CONST $44,636 2021 10 Year Delivery Plan Apple Valley to LA
County Line
Major Local
Highways
US 395 Widening Phase 1, from two to four lanes
between SR 18 and Chamberlaine Way in the City of
Adelanto
Caltrans and SBCTA/City
of Adelanto
Construction $58,004 2021 10 Year Delivery Plan Apple Valley to LA
County Line
Bike Power Line Easement Trail SBCTA Planning $19,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Apple Valley to LA
County Line
Bike Mojave Riverwalk-Stoddard Wells SBCTA Partially Complete $16,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Apple Valley to LA
County Line
IE CMCP Project List - Victorville to San Bernardino
267
Victorville to San Bern
Bike California Aqueduct Gap Closure SBCTA Planning $11,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Apple Valley to LA
County Line
Bike Ranchero-Cajon Pass SBCTA Partially Complete $18,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Apple Valley to LA
County Line
Bike Lytle Creek-Santa Ana River SBCTA Planning $11,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 San Bernardino to
Riverside; Cajon to
Eastvale; Banning to
Rialto; Riverside to LA
County Line
Bike SCE Utility North Trail SBCTA Partially Complete $7,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Cajon to Eastvale;
Banning to Rialto;
Riverside to LA County
Line
Bike San Sevaine Trail SBCTA Partially Complete $9,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Cajon to Eastvale;
Riverside to LA County
Line
Bike Pacific Electric Trail SBCTA Complete $21,000 2015 NMTP June 2018 San Bernardino to
Riverside; Cajon to
Eastvale; Banning to
Rialto; Riverside to LA
County Line
268
San Bern to Riverside
Inland Empire CMCP Priority Project List - San Bernardino to Riverside
Project Type Project Title/Description Lead Agency/
Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
Eligible
Highway 215 Ultimate Widening, from SR-60 to San
Bernardino County Line
RCTC/
Caltrans
Riverside
Planning 1,000,000 10 Year Plan Riverside to Orange
County
Banning to Rialto
Riverside to LA County
Highway 91 Downtown Riverside Managed Lanes, from I-
15 to I-215/SR-60 Interchange
RCTC/
Caltrans
Riverside
Norco
Planning 219,000 10 Year Plan Banning to Rialto
Riverside to LA County
Line
Riverside to Temecula
Riverside to Orange
County
Y
Highway 60 Jurupa Valley Riverside Managed Lanes,
from I-15 to I-215/SR-91 Interchange
RCTC/
Caltrans
Jurupa Valley
Riverside
Planning 51,000
(Enviornmnetal
Only)
10 Year Plan Cajon to Eastvale
Riverside to Temecula
Riverside to LA County
Riverside to Orange
County
Banning to Rialto
Y
Highway 60/215 Riverside-Moreno Valley Managed
Lanes, from SR-60/I-215 interchange to SR-60
Gilman Springs Road
RCTC/
Caltrans
Riverside
Moreno Valley
Planning 380,000 10 Year Plan San Bernardino to
Riverside
Riverside to Temecula
Riverside to LA County
Riverside to Orange
County
Banning to Rialto
Y
Rail Riverside Downtown track and platform
expansion with pedestrian access.
RCTC/
Metrolink
Enviornmental 26
(Enviornmental
Only)
2024 2021 FTIP Riverside to Los
Angeles County
Riverside to Orange
County
Hemet to Corona
Riverside to Temecula
Y
Rail Increase frequency of Metrolink Trains for
Inland Empire-Orange County Line
RCTC/
Metrolink
Planning TRP Riverside to Orange
County
Y
269
San Bern to Riverside
Project Type Project Title/Description Lead Agency/
Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
Eligible
Rail Parking Structure at Corona North Main,
Corona West, Riverside Downtown, Riverside-
La Sierra.
RCTC/
Corona
Riverside
Planning TRP Riverside to Los
Angeles County
Riverside to Orange
County
Hemet to Corona
Riverside to Temecula
San Bernardino to
Riverside
Y
Rail Increase frequency of Metrolink Trains for
Inland Empire-Orange County Line
RCTC/
Metrolink
TRP Riverside to Orange
County
Riverside to Los
Angeles County
Riverside to Temecula
Y
Transit Vine Street Mobility Hub - multimodal
transportation hub close to a Metrolink station,
major employment centers, county and city
government centers, University of California
Riverside (UCR), Riverside Community College
(RCC), Riverside Convention Center, multiple
entertainment venues, and urban housing
complexes within the downtown Riverside core
area
RTA/
Riverside
Enviornmental 4
(Enviornmental
Only)
2025 2021 FTIP Riverside to LA County
Riverside to Temecula
Riverside to Orange
County
Interchange I-10 / Mount Vernon Avenue lane additions,
restriping, signal retiming, and the widening of
the overcrossing in order to better
accommodate additional modes of travel
SBCTA/City of Colton PA/ED $54,931 2024 10 Year Delivery Plan Banning to Rialto (SE
to NW)
Freeway
Program
I-215 / Barton Road Interchange reconstruction
will involve the replacement of the bridge,
realignment and widening of ramps, and
reconfiguration of some local streets. The
project includes a roundabout at La Crosse
Avenue/Barton Road and southbound ramps to
preserve ingress and egress
SBCTA and Caltrans CONST $110,573 2020 10 Year Delivery Plan Banning to Rialto (SE
to NW)
Freeway
Program
I-215 / Mt Vernon Ave/Washington St Bridge
corrects the substandard vertical clearance of
the Washington Street Bridge over I-215 and
provides sufficient width to span the ultimate I-
215 freeway configuration. Additional traffic
operational improvements will lengthen the dual
left turn pockets and extend one of the left turn
pockets over the bridge. This improvement
widens the structure to 108 feet and increases
the storage capacity on the local street to
provide an acceptable level of service for the
projected traffic volumes expected in the year
2040
Caltrans/SBCTA PS&E; ROW $2,411 2022 10 Year Delivery Plan Banning to Rialto (SE
to NW); Riverside to LA
County Line
270
San Bern to Riverside
Project Type Project Title/Description Lead Agency/
Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
Eligible
Interchange I-215 / University Parkway, reconfiguration of
the existing tight diamond interchange with a
Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI)
configuration.
SBCTA PA/ED $15,278 2022 10 Year Delivery Plan Victorville to San
Bernardino; Banning to
Rialto (SE to NW);
Riverside to LA County
LineFreeway
Program
I-215 Bi-County Landscaping follows bi-county
HOV gap closure completed in 2015
SBCTA PS&E; CONST $10,955 2023 10 Year Delivery Plan Banning to Rialto (SE
to NW); Riverside to
OC County Line (EW);
Riverside to LA County
LineFreeway
Project
I-215 Landscaping Project Seg 2, along I-215
from the 5th Street overcrossing north to just
south of the Muscupiabe Drive overcrossing
and also includes a portion along SR 259 from
Baseline Street to Highland Avenue
overcrossing
SBCTA Construction $5,626 2019 10 Year Delivery Plan Banning to Rialto (SE
to NW); Riverside to LA
County Line
Highway
Project
I-215 Landscaping Project Seg 5, along I-215
from just south of the Muscupiabe Drive
overcrossing north to just south of the I-215/SR
210 Junction
SBCTA PS&E $2,889 2022 10 Year Delivery Plan Banning to Rialto (SE
to NW); Riverside to LA
County Line
Transit San Bernardino Line Double Track from Lilac to
Rancho Double Track (3 mi.) including ten at-
grade crossings, quiet zone ready safety
enhancements, and the addition of a second
platform and underpass at the Rialto Metrolink
Station. Once constructed, this project will
provide for increased service reliability, support
future expansion of service, and make it more
feasible to run peak hour express service as
stipulated by the Metrolink Strategic Plan
SBCTA/SCRRA PS&E $75,143 TBD 10 Year Delivery Plan Banning to Rialto (SE
to NW); Riverside to LA
County Line
Grade
Seperation
Mt. Vernon Avenue Viaduct will replace the
Mount Vernon Avenue Bridge over the BNSF
tracks and intermodal facility and Metrolink
tracks from Rialto Avenue to 5th Street in the
City of San Bernardino
SBCTA/SCRRA and the
City of San Bernardino
Procurement $209,332 2022 10 Year Delivery Plan Banning to Rialto (SE
to NW); Riverside to LA
County Line
Transit Redlands Passenger Rail Project includes
construction of approximately nine miles of rail
improvements with use of Diesel Multiple Unit
(DMU) rail vehicles, also known as Hybrid-rail
vehicles, to implement the Arrow commuter rail
service from the San Bernardino Transit Center
at Rialto Avenue and E Street in the City of San
Bernardino to the University of Redlands in the
City of Redlands. Metrolink will also provide up
to two round-trip express trains serving the
Downtown Redlands Station during
th t h
SBCTA/ESRI, City of
Redlands
COSNT-Capital $452,459 2021 10 Year Delivery Plan Banning to Rialto (SE
to NW)
Bike Lytle Creek-Santa Ana River SBCTA Partially Complete $11,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Cajon to Eastvale;
Banning to Rialto;
Riverside to LA County
Line
271
San Bern to Riverside
Project Type Project Title/Description Lead Agency/
Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
Eligible
Bike Mid City Connector Trail SBCTA Planning $7,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Banning to Rialto;
Riverside to LA County
Line
Bike Pacific Electric Trail SBCTA Complete $21,000 2015 NMTP June 2018 Cajon to Eastvale;
Banning to Rialto;
Riverside to LA County
Line
Bike Pacific Electric Trail-Mid City/Inland Center SBCTA Planning $5,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Banning to Rialto;
Riverside to LA County
Line
Bike Santa Ana River Trail SBCTA Partially Complete $20,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Banning to Rialto;
Riverside to LA County
Line; Riverside to
Temecula; Riverside to
Orange County LineBikeInland Center-Mid City SBCTA Planning $1,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Banning to Rialto;
Riverside to LA County
Line
Bike Orange Blossom Trail SBCTA Partially Complete $8,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Banning to Rialto
Bike San Timoteo Creek Trail SBCTA Partially Complete $8,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Banning to Rialto;
Riverside to LA County
Line
Bike Jurupa-SCE Utility South-Santa Ana River Gap
Closure
SBCTA Partially Complete $5,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Banning to Rialto;
Riverside to LA County
Line; Riverside to
Temecula; Riverside to
Orange County LineInterchangeReconfigure SR-60 Rubidoux Avenue
interchange ramps, reconstruct Rubidoux Blvd.
overpass from Rubidoux Blvd from 29th Street
to ap
Jurupa Valley Enviornmental $3
(Enviornmental
Only)
2028 TRP
2021 FTIP
Banning to Rialto
Riverside to Orange
County
Riverside to Temecula
San Bernardino to
Riverside
Riverside to LA County
Y
Grade
Separation
Spruce Street crossing over BNSF rail line Riverside Planning TRP Banning to Rialto
Riverside to Orange
County
Riverside to Temecula
Y
272
San Bern to Riverside
Project Type Project Title/Description Lead Agency/
Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
Eligible
ATP SR-91 Corridor via Magnolia Avenue -
construct east-west regional facility connecting
Riverside, Corona, and Jurupa Valley via
Magnolia Avenue through a network of Class I
and II bike lanes via Magnolia Avenue for a
total of 19.7 miles
Riverside
Corona
Jurupa Valley
Planning $10,000 WRCOG ATP Riverside to Temecula
San Bernardino to
Riverside
ATP Cajalco - San Bernardino County Line -
construct north-south regional facility
connecting Jurupa Valley, Riverside, Riverside
County through a network of Class I, and II bike
lanes via Van Buren Boulevard for a total of
18.9 miles
Riverside
Eastvale
Jurupa Valley
Planning 20,000 WRCOG ATP Riverside to Temecula
Cajon to Eastvale
ATP I-15 Corridor via Temescal Canyon Road -
construct north-south regional facility
connecting Norco, Corona, Lake Elsinore, and
Eastvale through a network of Class I, II, III and
IV via Temescal Canyon for a total of 21 miles
Norco
Eastvale
Corona
Lake Elsinore
Temescal Canyon
Planning 29,000 WRCOG ATP Hemet to Corona
Riverside to Temecula
273
Cajon to Eastvale (NS)
Inland Empire CMCP Priority Project List - Cajon Pass to Eastvale
Project Type Project Title/Description Lead Agency/Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
Eligible
Highway 60 Jurupa Valley Riverside Managed Lanes, from
I-15 to I-215/SR-91 Interchange
RCTC/
Caltrans
Jurupa Valley
Riverside
Planning 51,000 (Enviornmnetal
Only)
10 Year Plan San Bernardino to
Riverside
Riverside to Temecula
Riverside to LA County
Riverside to Orange
County
Banning to Rialto
Y
Transit West Valley Connector BRT, Pomona to Rancho
Cucamonga - Includes connection from RC
Metrolink Station to ONT
SBCTA Environmentally Cleared.
In Design.
$287,000 2023 10-Year Delivery Plan Y
Bike/ped San Sevaine Trail, a north south trail along the
Etiwanda Flood Control Channel from Foothill
Blvd. connecting to additional Riverside County
trail at the San Bernardino/Riverside County
border
City of Fontana/SBCTA,
City of Rancho
Cucamonga, County of
San Bernardino'
$4,810 NMTP June 2018 Environmentally
Cleared
Freeway
Program
I-15 Express Lanes from San Bernardino County
Line to Cajalco
RCTC/Caltrans
Freeway
Program
I-15 Corridor (Contract 1), Riverside County Line
to Foothill Boulevard, two toll express lanes in
each direction plus aux lanes
SBCTA/Caltrans PS&E; ROW $251,439 2025 10 Year Delivery Plan Riverside to LA County
Line
Freeway
Program
I-10 Corridor (Contract 1), provide two express
lanes in each direction for ten miles from the
Los Angeles County
line to just east of I-15 in Ontario
SBCTA/Caltrans ROW & DESIGN-BUILD $928,975 2023 10 Year Delivery Plan Riverside to LA County
Line
Freeway
Program
I-10 Corridor (Contract 2A), provide two express
lanes in each direction from just east of I-15 to
Sierra Avenue in Fontana, connecting to the I-10
Corridor Contract 1 express lanes
SBCTA/Caltrans Project Development $700,000 2029 10 Year Delivery Plan Banning to Rialto (SE
to NW); Riverside to LA
County Line
Interchange I-15 / Baseline Road, widened Base Line Road
from four to six lanes (including bridges),
widened East Avenue from two to four lanes,
realigned and widened southbound and
northbound diamond ramps from one to two
lanes, added a southbound loop on-ramp, and
constructed auxiliary lanes on I-15
SBCTA/City of Rancho
Cucamonga
Close-out $48,974 2016 10 Year Delivery Plan Riverside to LA County
Line
Interchange I-15 / Sierra Avenue project signalized and
widened the northbound and southbound ramp
intersections at Sierra Avenue, widened Sierra
Avenue from Riverside Avenue to north of the
southbound I-15 off-ramp, and constructed
drainage improvements
Caltrans/SBCTA Complete $2,750 2015 10 Year Delivery Plan Victorville to San
Bernardino
Interchange SR- 60 / Archibald Avenue, improve Archibald
Avenue between East Oak Hill Drive and
Monticello Place in order to relieve congestion
and improve traffic flow
SBCTA/City of Ontario PS&E; ROW; CONST $22,540 2021 10 Year Delivery Plan Riverside to LA County
Line
274
Cajon to Eastvale (NS)
Bike Lytle Creek-Santa Ana River SBCTA Partially Complete $11,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Victorville to San
Bernardino; San
Bernardino to
Riverside; Banning to
Rialto; Riverside to LA
County Line
Bike SCE Utility North Trail SBCTA Partially Complete $7,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Victorville to San
Bernardino; Banning to
Rialto; Riverside to LA
County LineBikeSan Sevaine Trail SBCTA Partially Complete $9,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Victorville to San
Bernardino; Riverside
to LA County Line
Bike Day Creek Channel-6th Gap Closure SBCTA Planning $4,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Riverside to LA County
Line
Bike Deer Creek Channel Trail SBCTA Partially Complete $4,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Riverside to LA County
Line
Bike Pacific Electric Trail SBCTA Complete $21,000 2015 NMTP June 2018 Victorville to San
Bernardino; San
Bernardino to
Riverside; Banning to
Rialto; Riverside to LA
County LineBikeLA County Line-6th-San Sevaine SBCTA Planning $13,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Riverside to LA County
Line
Bike SCE Utility South Trail SBCTA Partially Complete $6,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Banning to Rialto;
Riverside to LA County
Line
Bike Haven-Mission-Milliken Gap Closure SBCTA Partially Complete $6,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Riverside to LA County
Line; Riverside to
Temecula
Bike Edison Ave.SBCTA Planning $4,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Riverside to LA County
Line; Riverside to
TemeculaBikeMerrill Ave.SBCTA Planning $4,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Riverside to Temecula
Bike San Antonio Creek-Pine-SCE Easement-Harrison
Gap Closure
SBCTA Planning $6,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Riverside to Temecula
ATP Cajalco - San Bernardino County Line - construct
north-south regional facility connecting Jurupa
Valley, Riverside, Riverside County through a
nework of Class I, and II bike lanes via Van Buren
Boulevard for a total of 18.9 miles
Riverside
Eastvale
Jurupa Valley
Planning $20,000 WRCOG ATP San Bernardino to
Riverside
Riverside to Temecula
275
Riverside to Temecula SD (NS)
Inland Empire CMCP Priority Project List - Riverside to Temecula SD (NS)
Project Type Project Title/Description Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)Source Comment SCCP
Eligible
Highway 91 Downtown Riverside Managed
Lanes, from I-15 to I-215/SR-60
Interchange
RCTC/
Caltrans
Riverside
Norco
Planning 219,000 10 Year Plan San Bernardino to
Riverside
Banning to Rialto
Riverside to LA County
Line
Riverside to Orange
County
Y
Highway 60 Jurupa Valley Riverside Managed
Lanes, from I-15 to I-215/SR-91
Interchange
RCTC/
Caltrans
Jurupa Valley
Riverside
Planning 51,000
(Enviornmnetal
Only)
10 Year Plan San Bernardino to
Riverside
Cajon to Eastvale
Riverside to LA County
Riverside to Orange
County
Banning to Rialto
Y
Highway 60/215 Riverside-Moreno Valley
Managed Lanes, from SR-60/I-215
interchange to SR-60 Gilman Springs
Road
RCTC/
Caltrans
Riverside
Moreno Valley
Planning 380,000 10 Year Plan San Bernardino to
Riverside
Riverside to LA County
Riverside to Orange
County
Banning to Rialto
Y
Highway I-215 Gap Project RCTC/
Murrieta
Enviornmenta 18,000 10 Year Plan N
Highway I-15 Corridor - lane addition from I-215
to San Diego County Line
RCTC/
Temecula
Murrieta
Planning Environmental)10 Year Plan Beaumont to
Temecula
N
Highway I-15 Corridor - lane addition from SR-
74/Central to I-215
RCTC/
Lake Elsinore
Wildomar
Planning Environmental)10 Year Plan Riverside to Temecula
Hemet to Corona
N
276
Riverside to Temecula SD (NS)
Project Type Project Title/Description Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)Source Comment SCCP
Eligible
Highway I-15 Express Lanes Southern Extension
Project - extend two toll lanes in each
direction from Cajalco Road in Corona
to SR-74/Central Avenue in Lake
Elsinore
RCTC/
Corona
Temescal Valley
Lake Elsinore
Environmenta 527,000 10 Year Plan Hemet to Corona Y
Highway I-15 Express Lanes Southern Extension
Project Advanced Operations - construct
one southbound auxiliary lane from
Cajalco Road to Weirick Road, extend
one express lane northbound south of
Bedford Canyon Wash to Cajalco Road
RCTC/
Corona
Temescal Valley
Environmenta 28,000 10 Year Plan Hemet to Corona
Highway Smart Freeway pilot on I-15 in city of
Temecula. Utilize technology to open
and close traffic lanes in the event of an
incident and/or adjust speed limits to
improve operation during peak periods
RCTC/
Temecula
Caltrans
Planning Beaumont to
Temecula
Interchange French Valley Parkway Interchange
Phase 3 - construct six lane overcrossing
from Jefferson to Ynez, construct
northbound and southbound auxiliary
lanes and modify Winchester Road
interchange
Temecula/
Caltrans
Planning 140,000 10 Year Plan
2021 FTIP
TRP
Beaumont to
Temecula
Y
Interchange French Valley Parkway Phase 2 -
construct two northbound connectors
north of Winchester interchange on-
ramps to I-15/I-215, and one
northbound auxiliary lane
Temecula/
Caltrans
Right of Way 137,000 10 Year Plan
2021 FTIP
TRP
Beaumont to
Temecula
Y
277
Riverside to Temecula SD (NS)
Project Type Project Title/Description Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)Source Comment SCCP
Eligible
Interchange I-215/Keller Road Interchange - widen
underpass from 2 to 4 lanes, add
auxiliary lane at the southbound off-
ramp and northbound off-ramp, add
two traffic circles at the ramp termini
and realign Anelope Road
Murreita/
Caltrans
Environmenta 56,000 2021 FTIP
TRP
Hemet to Corona
Beaumont to
Temecula
Y
Interchange I-215/Garbani interchange - Construct
new diamond interchange from
Antelope Road to Haun Road
Menifee in environme ornmental only)2021 FTIP
TRP
Hemet to Corona
Beaumont to
Temecula
Riverside to Temecula
Y
Interchange I-15/SR-74 (Central Avenue) Interchange
- add northbound entry ramp, realign
northbound entry and exit ramps,
widen SR-74 from Riverside Drive to
Central Avenue and from Collier Avenue
to Cambren Avenue and construct new
Riverside Avenue overcrossing
Lake Elsinore Right of way 58,000 2021 FTIP Hemet to Corona Y
Interchange I-15/Main Street Interchange - widen
northbound Main Street under I-15, add
additional lane to the northbound
entrance and exit ramps, widen
southbound off-ramp, add traffic signals
at the on/off ramps and Camino Del
Norte/Main Street intersection
Lake Elsinore Design 5,000 2021 FTIP Riverside to Temecula Y
278
Riverside to Temecula SD (NS)
Project Type Project Title/Description Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)Source Comment SCCP
Eligible
Regional
Arterial
Cajalco Road Widening - widen and
realign Cajalco Road between Temescal
Canyon Road to I-215, approximately 16
miles. Project would widen the roadway
to four lanes between Harvill Avenue
and Temescal Canyon Road, and to six
lanes between the I-215 southbound
ramps and Harvill Avenue.
Riverside County/
Corona
Environmenta 452,000 TRP
10 Year Plan
2021 FTIP
Hemet to Corona
Riverside to Temecula
N
Grade
Separation
Jackson Street grade separation over
BNSF railroad line
Riverside Planning TRP Riverside to Orange
County
Grade
Separation
Mary Street grade separation over BNSF
railroad line
Riverside Planning TRP Riverside to Orange
County
Grade
Separation
Tyler Street grade separation over BNSF
railroad line
Riverside Planning TRP Riverside to Orange
County
Grade
Separation
Spruce Street crossing over BNSF
railroad line
Riverside Planning TRP Banning to Rialto
Riverside to Orange
County
Riverside to LA County
Riverside to Temecula
San Bernardino to
Riverside
Y
Rail Riverside Downtown track and platform
expansion with pedestrian access.
RCTC/
Metrolink
Enviornmenta ornmental Only)2021 FTIP San Bernardino to
Riverside
Riverside to Los
Angeles County
Riverside to Orange
County
Hemet to Corona
Y
279
Riverside to Temecula SD (NS)
Project Type Project Title/Description Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)Source Comment SCCP
Eligible
Rail Increase frequency of Metrolink Trains
for 91/Perris Valley Line
RCTC/
Metrolink
TRP Riverside to Orange
County
Banning to Rialto
Hemet to Corona
Y
Rail New 2nd main line track from Moreno
Valley to Perris for 91/Perris Valley Line
Metrolink TRP Riverside to Temecula
Hemet to Corona
Banning to Rialto
Rail Parking Structure at Corona North Main,
Corona West, Riverside Downtown,
Riverside-La Sierra, Perris.
RCTC/
Riverside
Perris
Corona
TRP Riverside to Los
Angeles County
Riverside to Orange
County
Hemet to Corona
Riverside to Temecula
San Bernardino to
Riverside
Rail Increase frequency of Metrolink Trains
for Inland Empire-Orange County Line
RCTC/
Metrolink
TRP Riverside to Orange
County
San Bernardino to
Riverside
Riverside to Los
Angeles County
Riverside to Temecula
Y
Rail Moreno Valley/March Field Station
Rehab Platform - construction of rail
upgrades to improve operational
efficiency and passenger platform
upgrades
RCTC/
Metrolink
Design 16 2021 FTIP Riverside to Temecula Y
Rail Perris South station track and layover
facility
RCTC/
Metrolink
Planning TRP Riverside to Temecula Y
280
Riverside to Temecula SD (NS)
Project Type Project Title/Description Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)Source Comment SCCP
Eligible
Transit Vine Street Mobility Hub - multimodal
transportation hub close to a Metrolink
station, major employment centers,
county and city government centers,
University of California Riverside (UCR),
Riverside Community College (RCC),
Riverside Convention Center, multiple
entertainment venues, and urban
housing complexes within the
downtown Riverside core area
RTA/
Riverside
Enviornmenta ornmental Only)2021 FTIP Riverside to LA County
San Bernardino to
Riverside
Riverside to Orange
County
Freeway
Program
I-15 Express Lanes SBCTA PS&E; ROW 251,439 10 Year Plan
Freeway
Program
I-215 Bi-County Landscaping SBCTA PS&E; CONST 10,955 10 Year Plan
ATP Santa Ana River Trail South Side -
construct east-west regional facility
connecting Riverside to Orange County
through a nework of Class I, II, III, and IV
bike lanes for a total of 11 miles
Norco
Riverside
Corona
Jurupa Valley
Planning 17,000 WRCOG ATP Riverside to Orange
County
ATP SR-91 Corridor via Magnolia Avenue -
construct east-west regional facility
connecting Riverside, Corona, and
Jurupa Valley via Magnolia Avenue
through a network of Class I and II bike
l i M li A f t t l f
Riverside
Corona
Jurupa Valley
Planning 10,000 WRCOG ATP San Bernardino to
Riverside
Interchange Reconfigure SR-60 Rubidoux Avenue
interchange ramps, reconstruct
Rubidoux Blvd. overpass from Rubidoux
Blvd from 29th Street to ap
Jurupa Valley Enviornmenta ornmental Only)TRP
2021 FTIP
Banning to Rialto
Riverside to Orange
County
San Bernardino to
Riverside
Riverside to LA County
Y
281
Riverside to Temecula SD (NS)
Project Type Project Title/Description Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)Source Comment SCCP
Eligible
Bike Santa Ana River Trail SBCTA Partially Com 20,000 NMTP June
2018
San Bernardino to
Riverside; Banning to
Rialto; Riverside to LA
County Line; Riverside
to Orange County Line
Bike Jurupa-SCE Utility South-Santa Ana
River Gap Closure
SBCTA Partially Com 5,000 NMTP June
2018
San Bernardino to
Riverside; Banning to
Rialto; Riverside to LA
County Line; Riverside
to Orange County Line
Bike Haven-Mission-Milliken Gap Closure SBCTA Partially Com 6,000 NMTP June
2018
Cajon to Eastvale;
Riverside to LA County
Line
Bike Edison Ave.SBCTA Planning 4,000 NMTP June
2018
Cajon to Eastvale;
Riverside to LA County
Line
Bike Merrill Ave.SBCTA Planning 4,000 NMTP June
2018
Cajon to Eastvale
Bike San Antonio Creek-Pine-SCE Easement-
Harrison Gap Closure
SBCTA Planning 6,000 NMTP June
2018
Cajon to Eastvale
Grade
Separation
Bellegrave Avenue grade separation
over Union Pacific line
Jurupa Valley TRP Riverside to Los
Angeles County
Banning to Rialto
Interchange SR-91 Adams Street Interchange
reconstruction, including reconstruction
of Adams Street overpass from Auto
Center Drive to Briarwood Drive and
Indiana Avenue from Vance Street to
Detroit Drive
Riverside/
Caltrans
Enviornmenta 113,000 TRP
2021 FTIP
Riverside to Orange
County
Y
Grade
Separation
Mickinley Street crossing over BNSF
railroad crossing
Corona Right of Way 91,000 2021 FTIP Riverside to Orange
County
Riverside to Temecula
Y
282
Riverside to Temecula SD (NS)
Project Type Project Title/Description Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)Source Comment SCCP
Eligible
Rail New 4th main track West Corona to La
Sierra Station to increase tracking for
Inland Empire-Orange County line and
station improvements.
Metrolink TRP Riverside to Orange
County
Riverside to Temecula
Y
ATP Butterfield Overland Trail Project, link
Murreita Creek corridor trail ending in
Wildomar to the south and Santa Ana
River trail to the north
Riverside County/
Corona
Lake Elsinore
Temescal Valley
Planning TRP Hemet to Corona
Riverside to Orange
County Line
Riverside to Temecula
Y
Env. Mitigation Mid County Parkway - Sweeney
Mitigation Site
construction 40,000 10 Year Plan Hemet to Corona
Riverside to Temecula
Beaumont to
Temecula
Y
Highway Mid County Parkway Package 3 -
construct 16 mile east west corridor
between Perris and San Jacinto
RCTC/
Perris
San Jacinto
Planning 800,000 10 Year Plan
TRP
Hemet to Corona
Beaumont to
Temecula
N
Highway Mid County Parkway Package 2 - widen
11 mile section of I-215 from Nuevo
Road in Perris to the SR-60/I-215
Interchange. One carpool lane on I-215
in both directions and a westbound
auxiliary lane to improve merging onto
SR-60
RCTC/
Perris
Moreno Valley
Riverside
Design 84,000 10 Year Plan
TRP
Hemet to Corona
Banning to Rialto
N
283
Riverside to Temecula SD (NS)
Project Type Project Title/Description Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)Source Comment SCCP
Eligible
Regional
Arterial
Cajalco Road Widening - widen and
realign Cajalco Road between Temescal
Canyon Road to I-215, approximately 16
miles. Project would widen the roadway
to four lanes between Harvill Avenue
and Temescal Canyon Road, and to six
lanes between the I-215 southbound
ramps and Harvill Avenue.
Riverside County/
Corona
Env to Constr 452 TRP
10 Year Plan
2021 FTIP
Hemet to Corona N
Transit Rapid transit system between Hemet-
San Jacinto Valley and Perris/Moreno
Valley/Riverside
RTA/
Hemet
San Jacinto
Perris
Moreno Valley
Riverside
Planning TRP Hemet to Corona
Beaumont to
Temecula
Y
Transit Rapid transit system between Hemet-
San Jacinto Valley and Perris/Moreno
Valley/Riverside
RTA/
Hemet
San Jacinto
Perris
Moreno Valley
Riverside
Planning TRP Hemet to Corona
Beaumont to
Temecula
Banning to Rialto
Y
Transit Rapid transit system between Hemet-
San Jacinto Valley and
Temecula/Menifee/Murrieta
RTA/
Hemet
San Jacinto
Temecula
Menifee
Murrieta
Planning TRP Hemet to Corona
Beaumont to
Temecula
Y
ATP Cajalco - San Bernardino County Line -
construct north-south regional facility
connecting Jurupa Valley, Riverside,
Riverside County through a nework of
Class I, and II bike lanes via Van Buren
Boulevard for a total of 18.9 miles
Riverside
Eastvale
Jurupa Valley
Planning 20,000 WRCOG ATP San Bernardino to
Riverside
Cajon to Eastvale
284
Riverside to Temecula SD (NS)
Project Type Project Title/Description Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)Source Comment SCCP
Eligible
ATP I-15 Corridor via Temescal Canyon Road -
construct north-south regional facility
connecting Norco, Corona, Lake
Elsinore, and Eastvale through a
network of Class I, II, III and IV via
Temescal Canyon for a total of 21 miles
Norco
Eastvale
Corona
Lake Elsinore
Temescal Canyon
Planning 29,000 WRCOG ATP Hemet to Corona
Riverside to Temecula
San Bernardino to
Riversie
ATP East Corona - Lake Perris - construct a
east-west regional facility connecting
East Corona and Lake Perris through a
network of Class II, and IV via El
Sobrante Road or Cajalco Road for a
total of 19 miles
Corona
Perris
Riverside County
Planning 16,000 - 17,000 WRCOG ATP Hemet to Corona
ATP Bautista Creek - construct a east-west
regional route connecting Hemet, San
Jacinto, and Perris through a network of
Class II via San Jacinto River for a total of
25.8 miles
Hemet
San Jacinto
Perris
Planning 31,000 WRCOG ATP Hemet to Corona
ATP San Timoteo Canyon - construct a north-
south regional route connecting
Moreno Valley and Perris through a
network of Class II and IV bike lanes via
San Timoteo Canyon Road and Ramona
Expressway for a total of 13.3 miles
Perris
Moreno Valley
Planning 11,000 WRCOG ATP Hemet to Corona
Banning to Rialto
Riverside to Temecula
ATP Bautista Creek - construct a east-west
regional route connecting Lake Elsinore,
Menifee, and Hemet through a network
of Class II, III and paved trail via Salt
Creek/Lost Road/ and Lemon Street for
a total of 31 miles
Lake Elsinore
Menifee
Hemet
Planning 23,000 WRCOG ATP Riverside to Temecula
Beaumont to
Temecula
Hemet to Corona
285
Riverside to Temecula SD (NS)
Project Type Project Title/Description Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)Source Comment SCCP
Eligible
ATP Murrieta Creek - construct a north-
south regional route connecting Lake
Elsinore, Wildomar, and Murrieta
through a network of Class I, II, III and IV
bike lanes for a total of 24.9 miles
Lake Elsinore
Wildomar
Murrieta
Planning 19,000 WRCOG ATP Riverside to Temecula
ATP Aberhill Ranch - construct a north-south
regional route connecting Lake Elsinore
and Perris through a network of Class I,
II, III, and IV bike lanes via northern
Perris Boulevard for a total of 18 miles
Lake Elsinore
Perris
Planning 18,000 WRCOG ATP Hemet to Corona
ATP Jefferson Avenue - construct a east-west
regional route connecting Murrieta to
unincorporated Riverside County
through a network of Class I, and II bike
lanes via Clinton Keith Road for a total
of 9.9 miles
Murrieta
Riverside County
Planning 5,000 WRCOG ATP
ATP 215 South Corridor - construct a north-
south regional route connecting Perris,
Menifee, and Murrieta through a
network of Class I, and II bike lanes via
Warm Springs Creek for a total of 14.1
miles
Perris
Menifee
Murrieta
Planning 10,000 WRCOG ATP
ATP 215 Central Corridor - construct a north-
south regional route connecting
Riverside, Perris and Menifee through a
network of Class I, II, and III bike lanes
via routes such as Sycamore Canyon
Boulevard, and Meridian Parkway for a
total of 19.4 miles
Riverside
Perris
Menifee
Planning 12,000 WRCOG ATP Riverside to Temecula
Banning to Rialto
286
Riverside to Temecula SD (NS)
Project Type Project Title/Description Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)Source Comment SCCP
Eligible
ATP Lake Skinner - construct a north-south
regional route connecting Temecula to
unincorproated Riverside County
through a network of Class I and IV bike
lanes via Rainbow Canyon Road for a
total of 11.6 miles
Temecula Planning 15,000 WRCOG ATP
ATP Riverside Downtown - construct a east-
west regional route connecting
Riverside and Moreno Valley through a
network of Class II bike lanes via Central
Avenue for a total of 6.4 miles
Riverside
Moreno Valley
Planning 2,000 WRCOG ATP Banning to Rialto
Riverside to Los
Angeles
ATP Lake Mathews Loop - construct a
circular route around Lake Mathews
reservior for a total of 7.8 miles of off-
street shared use path around the
reservior and an additional 0.9 miles of
Class II buffered bike lanes along La
Sierra Avenue for a total of 8.7 miles
Riverside County Planning 10,000 WRCOG ATP Hemet to Corona
ATP Lake Elsinore Loop - construct a circula
route around Lake Elsinore for a total of
3.9 miles of off-street shared use path
along the lake, 6.3 miles of Class II
buffered bicycle lanes along Riverside
Drive/Grand Avenue and 0.5 miles of
other bicycles facilities for a total of
10.7 miles
Lake Elsinore Planning 6,000 WRCOG ATP Hemet to Corona
ATP Murreita Creek - construct a east-west
regional facility connecting the City of
Temecula through a Class I bike lane via
Temecula Creek for a total of 5.4 miles
Temecula 7,000 WRCOG ATP Beaumont to
Temecula
287
Beaumont to Temecula (NS)
Inland Empire CMCP Priority Project List - Beaumont to Temecula (NS)
Project Type Project Title/Description Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
Highway SR-79 Realignment - realign SR-79
between Domenigoni Parkway and
Gilman Springs Road
RCTC/
Hemet
San Jacinto
Design 1,300,000 10 Year Plan Beaumont to
Temecula
N
Interchange I-215/Keller Road Interchange - widen
underpass from 2 to 4 lanes, add
auxiliary lane at the southbound off-
ramp and northbound off-ramp, add two
traffic circles at the ramp termini and
realign Anelope Road
Murreita/
Caltrans
Environmental 56000 2027 2021 FTIP
TRP
Hemet to Corona
Riverside to Temecula
Y
Interchange I-215/Garbani interchange - Construct
new diamond interchange from Antelope
Road to Haun Road
Menifee/
Caltrans
in environmental 360
(enviornmental
only)
2030 2021 FTIP
TRP
Hemet to Corona
Beaumont to
Temecula
Riverside to Temecula
Y
Interchange Reconstruct I-10 Highland Springs
Interchange for westbound on/off ramp
Beaumont and Banning/
Caltrans
Planning $48,000 2029 TRP
2021 FTIP
Banning to Rialto Y
Grade
Separation
Pennsylvania Ave grade separation over
UP railroad line
Beaumont Environmental 2000
(environmental
only)
TRP Banning to Rialto
Highway Smart Freeway pilot on I-15 in city of
Temecula. Utilize technology to open
and close traffic lanes in the event of an
incident and/or adjust speed limits to
improve operation during peak periods
RCTC/
Temecula
Caltrans
Planning Riverside to Temecula
Interchange New I-10/SR-60 Interchange RCTC/
Banning
Beaumont
Planning $500,000 10 Year Plan Beaumont to
Temecula
Y
Interchange Reconstruct I-10/SR-79 Interchange in
Beaumont
Beaumont
Caltrans
Planning TRP Banning to Rialto Y
Interchange Reconstruct I-10 Pennsylvania Ave
interchange for westbound and
eastbound on-ramp, new westbound
and eastbound off-ramp
Beaumont Enviornmental $6,000 2030 TRP
2021 FTIP
Beaumont to
Temecula
Y
Env. Mitigation Mid County Parkway - Sweeney
Mitigation Site
construction complete -
monitoring ongoing until
2024
40000 10 Year Plan Hemet to Corona
Riverside to Temecula
Beaumont to
Temecula
Y
288
Beaumont to Temecula (NS)
Project Type Project Title/Description Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
Highway Mid County Parkway Package 3 -
construct 16 mile east west corridor
between Perris and San Jacinto
RCTC/
Perris
San Jacinto
Planning 800000 10 Year Plan
TRP
Hemet to Corona
Riverside to Temecula
N
Rail Metrolink extension to Hemet and San
Jacinto
RCTC/
Metrolink
Planning TRP Hemet to Corona
Beaumont to
Temecula
Y
Rail New Metrolink station at Ramona
Expressway
RCTC/
Metrolink
Planning TRP Hemet to Corona
Beaumont to
Temecula
Y
Transit Rapid transit system between Hemet-
San Jacinto Valley and Perris/Moreno
Valley/Riverside
RTA/
Hemet
San Jacinto
Perris
Moreno Valley
Riverside
Planning TRP Hemet to Corona
Riverside to Temecula
Banning to Rialto
Y
Transit Rapid transit system between Hemet-
San Jacinto Valley and
Temecula/Menifee/Murrieta
RTA/
Hemet
San Jacinto
Temecula
Menifee
Murrieta
Planning TRP Hemet to Corona
Riverside to Temecula
Y
Highway I-15 Corridor - lane addition from I-215
to County Line
RCTC/
Temecula
Murrieta
Planning 35000 (Planning
&
Environmental)
10 Year Plan Riverside to Temecula N
Interchange French Valley Parkway Interchange
Phase 3 - construct six lane overcrossing
from Jefferson to Ynez, construct
northbound and southbound auxiliary
lanes and modify Winchester Road
interchange
Temecula/
Caltrans
Planning 140000 2028 10 Year Plan
2021 FTIP
TRP
Riverside to Temecula
Interchange French Valley Parkway Phase 2 -
construct two northbound connectors
north of Winchester interchange on-
ramps to I-15/I-215, and one
northbound auxiliary lane
Temecula/
Caltrans
Right of Way 137000 2022 10 Year Plan
2021 FTIP
TRP
Riverside to Temecula
289
Beaumont to Temecula (NS)
Project Type Project Title/Description Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
ATP
San Jacinto River Park - Diamond Valley
Lake - construct a north-south regional
route connecting San Jacinto and
Hemet through a network of Class I and
II bike lanes via the abandoned rail lines
and North State Street for a total of
11.6 miles
Hemet
San Jacinto Planning 19,000 WRCOG ATP
Beaumont to
Temecula
Hemet to Corona
Banning to Rialto
Transit Rapid transit system between Hemet-
San Jacinto Valley and Perris/Moreno
Valley/Riverside
RTA/
Hemet
San Jacinto
Perris
Moreno Valley
Riverside
Planning TRP Hemet to Corona
Riverside to Temecula
Beaumont to
Temecula
Banning to Rialto
Y
ATP Bautista Creek - construct a east-west
regional route connecting Lake Elsinore,
Menifee, and Hemet through a network
of Class II, III and paved trail via Salt
Creek/Lost Road/ and Lemon Street for
a total of 31 miles
Lake Elsinore
Menifee
Hemet
Planning 23,000 WRCOG ATP Riverside to Temecula
Hemet to Corona
ATP
Gilman Springs Road - construct a north-
south regional route connecting
Beaumont and unincorporated
Riverside County through a network of
Class I, II and IV bike lanes via Jack
Rabbit Trail and Gilman Springs Road
for a total of 11.4 miles
11,000 WRCOG ATP
ATP
Diamond Valley Lake Lakeview Trail -
construct a circular route around the
Diamond Valley reservior and 13.1
miles of off-street shared used path and
creates a connection directly to
Domenigon Parkway
Hemet 16,000 WRCOG ATP
ATP
Murreita Creek - construct a east-west
regional facility connecting the City of
Temecula through a Class I bike lane via
Temecula Creek for a total of 5.4 miles
Temecula 7,000 WRCOG ATP Riverside to Temecula
290
Apple Valley to LA County Line
Inland Empire CMCP Priority Project List - Apple Valley to LA County Line
Project Type Project Title/Description Lead Agency/Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
Major Local
Highways
Apple Valley Road at SR-18 Realignment will realign
and construct intersection improvements at Apple Valley
Road and SR 18 in the Town of Apple Valley
Town of Apple
Valley/SBCTA
PS&E $9,637 2021 10 Year Delivery Plan
Major Local
Highways
Bear Valley Bridge over Mojave River, rahabilitation and
replacement
Town of Apple
Valley/SBCTA
PS&E $40,571 2021 10 Year Delivery Plan
Major Local
Highways
Green Tree Blvd Extension (City Share), final segment
of the Yucca Loma Corridor and will construct Green
Tree Boulevard from Hesperia Road to Ridgecrest
Road/Yates Road, a new four-lane road including a
bridge over the BNSF railroad
City of
Victorville/County of
San Bernardino, SBCTA
ROW $44,689 2021 10 Year Delivery Plan Victorville to San
Bernardino
Major Local
Highways
Main Street Widening – US 395 to 11th Avenue Ph1,
widen the Main Street Bridge over the California
Aqueduct from four to six lanes
City of Hesperia/SBCTA PS&E; ROW $12,340 2025 10 Year Delivery Plan Victorville to San
Bernardino
Major Local
Highways
Main Street Widening – US 395 to 11th Avenue Ph2,
widen and reconstruct Main Street at various locations
from four lanes to six lanes with a center median
City of Hesperia/SBCTA Planning $30,222 2032 10 Year Delivery Plan Victorville to San
Bernardino
Major Local
Highways
Phelan Road, widen from two to five lanes, including
one continuous left turn lane and will mill and overlay
the exitng pavement with asphalt concrete, from SR-138
to Hesperia city limits
County of San
Bernardino/SBCTA
Planning $56,035 2024 10 Year Delivery Plan Victorville to San
Bernardino
Major Local
Highways
Ranchero Road Corridor improvements, widen and
reconstruct Ranchero Road from four to six lanes with a
center median from 0.3 miles east of Mariposa to 7th
Street at various locations. Improvements include
widening of the bridge over the California Aqueduct and
at-grade UPRR railroad crossing improvements
City of Hesperia and
County of San
Bernardino/SBCTA
ROW; CONST $44,636 2021 10 Year Delivery Plan Victorville to San
Bernardino
Major Local
Highways
Rock Springs Road Bridge over Mojave River replace
an existing two-lane low-water crossing with a new two-
lane bridge
SBCTA/County of San
Bernardino
PS&E; ROW; CONST $20,235 2022 10 Year Delivery Plan
Major Local
Highways
US 395 Widening Phase 1, from two to four lanes
between SR 18 and Chamberlaine Way in the City of
Adelanto
Caltrans and SBCTA/City
of Adelanto
Construction $58,004 2021 10 Year Delivery Plan Victorville to San
Bernardino
Major Local
Highways
Yucca Loma Widening- Apple Valley Rd-Rincon Rd
from two to four lane
Town of Apple
Valley/SBCTA
ROW $6,349 2023 10 Year Delivery Plan
Bike Power Line Easement Trail SBCTA Planning $19,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Victorville to San
Bernardino
Bike Mojave Riverwalk-Stoddard Wells SBCTA Partially Complete $16,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Victorville to San
Bernardino
Bike California Aqueduct Gap Closure SBCTA Planning $11,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Victorville to San
Bernardino
Bike Ranchero-Cajon Pass SBCTA Partially Complete $18,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Victorville to San
Bernardino
291
Banning to Rialto (SE to NW)
Inland Empire CMCP Priority Project List - Banning to Rialto (SE to NW)
Project Type Project Title/Description Lead Agency/Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
Highway 91 Downtown Riverside Managed Lanes, from I-
15 to I-215/SR-60 Interchange
RCTC/
Caltrans
Riverside
Norco
Planning 219,000 10 Year Plan San Bernardino to
Riverside
Riverside to LA County
Line
Riverside to Temecula
Riverside to Orange
County
Y
Highway 60 Jurupa Valley Riverside Managed Lanes,
from I-15 to I-215/SR-91 Interchange
RCTC/
Caltrans
Jurupa Valley
Riverside
Planning 51,000
(Enviornmnetal
Only)
10 Year Plan San Bernardino to
Riverside
Cajon to Eastvale
Riverside to Temecula
Riverside to LA County
Riverside to Orange
County
Y
Highway I-10 Truck Climbing Lanes - add eastbound
truck climbing lane from I-10 to San Bernardino
County Line to the City of Beaumont
RCTC/
Calimesa
Beaumont
Planning $75,000 10 Year Plan N
Highway 60/215 Riverside-Moreno Valley Managed
Lanes, from SR-60/I-215 interchange to SR-60
Gilman Springs Road
RCTC/
Caltrans
Riverside
Moreno Valley
Planning 380,000 10 Year Plan San Bernardino to
Riverside
Riverside to Temecula
Riverside to LA County
Riverside to Orange
County
Y
Highway 215 Ultimate Widening, from SR-60 to San
Bernardino County Line
RCTC/
Caltrans
Riverside
Planning 1,000,000 10 Year Plan Riverside to Orange
County
San Bernardino to
Riverside
N
Interchange New I-10/SR-60 Interchange RCTC/
Banning
Beaumont
Planning $500,000 10 Year Plan Beaumont to
Temecula
Y
Interchange Reconfigure SR-60 Rubidoux Avenue
interchange ramps, reconstruct Rubidoux
Blvd. overpass from Rubidoux Blvd from 29th
Street to approx 1000 feet west of the
interchange.
Riverside County/
Jurupa Valley
Caltrans
Enviornmental $3
(Enviornmental
Only)
2028 TRP
2021 FTIP
Banning to Rialto
Riverside to Orange
County
San Bernardino to
Riverside
Riverside to Temecula
San Bernardino to
Riverside
Riverside to LA County
Y
Interchange Reconstruct SR-60 Redlands Boulevard
interchange. Widen overcrossings from 2 to 6
thru lanes, widen exit and entry ramps, and
add aux lanes in each direction
Moreno Valley/
Caltrans
Planning $62 2030 TRP
2021 FTIP
Y
292
Banning to Rialto (SE to NW)
Project Type Project Title/Description Lead Agency/Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
Interchange New interchange on SR-60 Potrero Boulevard.
New on/off eastbound and westbound ramps
Beaumont/
Caltrans
Planning TRP
2021 FTIP
Y
Interchange Reconstruct I-10 Highland Springs Interchange
for westbound on/off ramp
Beaumont/
Banning
Caltrans
Planning $48,000 2029 TRP
2021 FTIP
Beaumont to
Temecula
Y
Interchange Reconstruct I-10 Pennsylvania Ave interchange
for westbound and eastbound on-ramp, new
westbound and eastbound off-ramp
Beaumont/
Caltrans
Enviornmental $6,000 2030 TRP
2021 FTIP
Beaumont to
Temecula
Y
Interchange Reconstruct I-10 Cherry Valley Boulevard
interchange - realign Calimesa Blvd and ramp
realignment for all four ramps, replace exisiting
curved overcrossings from Roberts Rd to
Calimesa Blvd
Calimesa/
Caltrans
Enviornmental $72 2030 TRP
2021 FTIP
Y
Interchange Reconstruct SR-60 World Logistics Center
Parkway interchange - widen overcrossing
from 2 to 4 lanes, widen eastbound and
westbound exit/entry ramps, add aux lanesin
both directions
Moreno Valley/
Caltrans
Enviornmental $107 2028 2021 FTIP Y
Grade Separation Spruce Street crossing over BNSF rail line Riverside Planning TRP Banning to Rialto
Riverside to Orange
County
Riverside to LA County
Riverside to Temecula
San Bernardino to
Riverside
Y
Regional Arterial SR-79 Bypass Extension - extend Potrero Blvd
from SR-60/Potrero Interchange to Oak Valley
Parkway, and install Class I multi-purpose
Beaumont in design $22 2030 2021 FTIP N
Rail Moreno Valley/March Field Station Rehab
Platform - construction of rail upgrades to
improve operational efficiency and passenger
platform upgrades
RCTC/
Metrolink
Design 16 2024 2021 FTIP Riverside to Temecula Y
Interchange I-10 / Alabama Street on/off-ramp and
Alabama improvements between Orange Tree
Lane and Industrial Park Avenue to enhance
traffic operation and alleviate traffic
SBCTA/City of Redlands PS&E $15,687 2021 10 Year Delivery Plan
Interchange I-10 / Cedar Avenue, improvements to Cedar
Avenue generally between Slover Avenue and
Bloomington Avenue, including left and right
turn lanes, and modify the existing entrance
and exit ramps
County of San
Bernardino and SBCTA
PS&E $111,350 2024 10 Year Delivery Plan
293
Banning to Rialto (SE to NW)
Project Type Project Title/Description Lead Agency/Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
Interchange I-10 / Mount Vernon Avenue lane additions,
restriping, signal retiming, and the widening of
the overcrossing in order to better
accommodate additional modes of travel
SBCTA/City of Colton PA/ED $54,931 2024 10 Year Delivery Plan San Bernardino to
Riverside
Interchange I-10 / Riverside Avenue (Phase 2) includes
widening of the existing bridge structure over
the UPRR railway
City of Rialto/SBCTA PS&E $23,089 2023 10 Year Delivery Plan Riverside to LA County
Line
Interchange I-10 / University Street reconfigure travel lanes
on University Street, install traffic signals on
University Street at the eastbound I-10 off-
ramp and westbound I-10 on-ramp
intersections, and modify the signal at the
intersection of University Street and Citrus
Avenue
SBCTA/City of Redlands PS&E $5,439 2020 10 Year Delivery Plan
Freeway Program I-10 EB Truck Climbing Lane on eastbound I-10
from west of the 16th Street Bridge in
the City of Yucaipa through east of County Line
Road Bridge at the San Bernardino and
Riverside County line
SBCTA/Caltrans PA/ED $30,180 2022 10 Year Delivery Plan
Freeway Program I-10 Corridor (Contract 2A), provide two
express lanes in each direction from just east
of I-15 to Sierra Avenue in Fontana, connecting
to the I-10 Corridor Contract 1 express lanes
SBCTA/Caltrans Project Development $700,000 2029 10 Year Delivery Plan Cajon Pass to Eastvale;
Riverside to LA County
Line
Freeway Program I-215 / Barton Road Interchange reconstruction
will involve the replacement of the bridge,
realignment and widening of ramps, and
reconfiguration of some local streets. The
project includes a roundabout at La Crosse
Avenue/Barton Road and southbound ramps
to preserve ingress and egress
SBCTA and Caltrans CONST $110,573 2020 10 Year Delivery Plan San Bernardino to
Riverside
Freeway Program I-215 / Mt Vernon Ave/Washington St Bridge
corrects the substandard vertical clearance of
the Washington Street Bridge over I-215 and
provides sufficient width to span the ultimate I-
215 freeway configuration. Additional traffic
operational improvements will lengthen the
dual left turn pockets and extend one of the
left turn pockets over the bridge. This
improvement widens the structure to 108 feet
and increases the storage capacity on the local
street to provide an acceptable level of service
for the projected traffic volumes expected in
the year 2040.
Caltrans/SBCTA PS&E; ROW $2,411 2022 10 Year Delivery Plan San Bernardino to
Riverside; Riverside to
LA County Line
294
Banning to Rialto (SE to NW)
Project Type Project Title/Description Lead Agency/Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
Interchange I-215 / University Parkway, reconfiguration of
the existing tight diamond interchange with a
Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI)
configuration.
SBCTA PA/ED $15,278 2022 10 Year Delivery Plan Victorville to San
Bernardino; Riverside
to LA County Line; San
Bernardino to
RiversideFreeway Program I-215 Bi-County Landscaping follows bi-county
HOV gap closure completed in 2015
SBCTA PS&E; CONST $10,955 2023 10 Year Delivery Plan San Bernardino to
Riverside; Riverside to
OC County Line (EW);
Riverside to LA County
LineFreeway Project I-215 Landscaping Project Seg 2, along I-215
from the 5th Street overcrossing north to just
south of the Muscupiabe Drive overcrossing
and also includes a portion along SR 259 from
Baseline Street to Highland Avenue
overcrossing
SBCTA Construction $5,626 2019 10 Year Delivery Plan San Bernardino to
Riverside; Riverside to
LA County Line
Highway Project I-215 Landscaping Project Seg 5, along I-215
from just south of the Muscupiabe Drive
overcrossing north to just south of the I-215/SR
210 Junction
SBCTA PS&E $2,889 2022 10 Year Delivery Plan San Bernardino to
Riverside; Riverside to
LA County Line
Transit San Bernardino Line Double Track from Lilac to
Rancho Double Track (3 mi.) including ten at-
grade crossings, quiet zone ready safety
enhancements, and the addition of a second
platform and underpass at the Rialto Metrolink
Station. Once constructed, this project will
provide for increased service reliability,
support future expansion of service, and make
it more feasible to run peak hour express
service as stipulated by the Metrolink Strategic
SBCTA/SCRRA PS&E $75,143 TBD 10 Year Delivery Plan San Bernardino to
Riverside; Riverside to
LA County Line
Grade Seperation Mt. Vernon Avenue Viaduct will replace the
Mount Vernon Avenue Bridge over the BNSF
tracks and intermodal facility and Metrolink
tracks from Rialto Avenue to 5th Street in the
City of San Bernardino
SBCTA/SCRRA and the
City of San Bernardino
Procurement $209,332 2022 10 Year Delivery Plan San Bernardino to
Riverside; Riverside to
LA County Line
295
Banning to Rialto (SE to NW)
Project Type Project Title/Description Lead Agency/Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
Transit Redlands Passenger Rail Project includes
construction of approximately nine miles of rail
improvements with use of Diesel Multiple Unit
(DMU) rail vehicles, also known as Hybrid-rail
vehicles, to implement the Arrow commuter
rail service from the San Bernardino Transit
Center at Rialto Avenue and E Street in the City
of San Bernardino to the University of
Redlands in the City of Redlands. Metrolink will
also provide up to two round-trip express
trains serving the Downtown Redlands Station
during
SBCTA/ESRI, City of
Redlands
COSNT-Capital $452,459 2021 10 Year Delivery Plan San Bernardino to
Riverside
Interchange SR-210 / Base Line iden the Base Line
overcrossing and improve interchange ramps
and locally impacted streets
SBCTA PS&E and ROW $32,618 2022 10 Year Delivery Plan
Freeway Program SR-210 Widening add one mixed-flow lane in
each direction from Highland Avenue (San
Bernardino) to San Bernardino Avenue
(Redlands), auxiliary lanes between Base Line
and 5th Streets, and an acceleration lane at the
5th Street eastbound ramp
SBCTA PS&E and ROW $188,587 2022 10 Year Delivery Plan
Bke Lytle Creek-Santa Ana River SBCTA Partially Complete $11,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Victorville to San
Bernardino; San
Bernardino to
Riverside; Cajon to
Eastvale; Riverside to
LA County LineBkeSCE Utility North Trail SBCTA Partially Complete $7,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Victorville to San
Bernardino; Cajon to
Eastvale; Riverside to
LA County Line
Bke Mid City Connector Trail SBCTA Planning $7,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 San Bernardino to
Riverside; Riverside to
LA County Line
Bke Pacific Electric Trail SBCTA Complete $21,000 2015 NMTP June 2018 Victorville to San
Bernardino; San
Bernardino to
Riverside; Cajon to
Eastvale; Riverside to
LA County LineBkePacific Electric Trail-Mid City/Inland Center SBCTA Planning $5,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 San Bernardino to
Riverside; Riverside to
LA County Line
296
Banning to Rialto (SE to NW)
Project Type Project Title/Description Lead Agency/Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
Bke Santa Ana River Trail SBCTA Partially Complete $20,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 San Bernardino to
Riverside; Riverside to
LA County Line;
Riverside to Temecula;
Riverside to Orange
County Line
Bke Inland Center-Mid City SBCTA Planning $1,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 San Bernardino to
Riverside; Riverside to
LA County Line
Bke Orange Blossom Trail SBCTA Partially Complete $8,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 San Bernardino to
Riverside
Bke San Timoteo Creek Trail SBCTA Partially Complete $8,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 San Bernardino to
Riverside; Riverside to
LA County Line
Bke Jurupa-SCE Utility South-Santa Ana River Gap
Closure
SBCTA Partially Complete $5,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 San Bernardino to
Riverside; Riverside to
LA County Line;
Riverside to Temecula;
Riverside to Orange
County Line
Bke SCE Utility South Trail SBCTA Partially Complete $6,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Cajon to Eastvale;
Riverside to LA County
Line
Grade Separation Bellegrave Avenue grade separation over
Union Pacific line
Jurupa Valley TRP Riverside to Los
Angeles County
Riverside to Temecula
Rail Increase frequency of Metrolink Trains for
91/Perris Valley Line
RCTC/
Metrolink
TRP Riverside to Orange
County
Hemet to Corona
Riverside to Temecula
Y
Highway Mid County Parkway Package 2 - widen 11 mile
section of I-215 from Nuevo Road in Perris to
the SR-60/I-215 Interchange. One carpool lane
on I-215 in both directions and a westbound
auxiliary lane to improve merging onto SR-60
RCTC/
Perris
Moreno Valley
Riverside
Design 145000 10 Year Plan
TRP
Hemet to Corona
Banning to Rialto
Riverside to Temecula
N
Transit Rapid transit system between Hemet-San
Jacinto Valley and Perris/Moreno
Valley/Riverside
RTA/
Hemet
San Jacinto
Perris
Moreno Valley
Riverside
Planning TRP Hemet to Corona
Riverside to Temecula
Beaumont to
Temecula
Y
297
Banning to Rialto (SE to NW)
Project Type Project Title/Description Lead Agency/Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
Grade Separation Pennsylvania Ave grade separation over UP
railroad line
Beaumont Environmental 2000
(environmental
only)
TRP Beaumont to
Temecula
Grade Separation San Gorgonio Ave grade separation over UP
railroad line
Banning Planning TRP
Rail New 2nd main line track from Moreno Valley
to Perris for 91/Perris Valley Line
Metrolink TRP Riverside to Temecula
Hemet to Corona
Banning to Rialto
ATP San Timoteo Canyon - construct a north-south
regional route connecting Moreno Valley and
Perris through a network of Class II and IV bike
lanes via San Timoteo Canyon Road and
Ramona Expressway for a total of 13.3 miles
Perris
Moreno Valley
Planning 11,000 WRCOG ATP Hemet to Corona
Riverside to Temecula
ATP San Bernardino County I-10 Pass Area -
construct a east-west regional route
connecting Cabazon and Banning through a
network of Class I, II, III and IV bike lanes via
Timoteo Canyon Road for a total of 29.3 miles
Banning
Beaumont
Calimesa
Planning 26,000 WRCOG ATP
ATP
San Jacinto River Park - Diamond Valley Lake -
construct a north-south regional route
connecting San Jacinto and Hemet through a
network of Class I and II bike lanes via the
abandoned rail lines and North State Street for
a total of 11.6 miles
Hemet
San Jacinto Planning 19,000 WRCOG ATP
Beaumont to
Temecula
Hemet to Corona
ATP 215 Central Corridor - construct a north-south
regional route connecting Riverside, Perris and
Menifee through a network of Class I, II, and III
bike lanes via routes such as Sycamore Canyon
Boulevard, and Meridian Parkway for a total of
19.4 miles
Riverside
Perris
Menifee
Planning 12,000 WRCOG ATP Riverside to Temecula
Hemet to Corona
ATP
Gilman Springs Road - construct a north-south
regional route connecting Beaumont and
unincorporated Riverside County through a
network of Class I, II and IV bike lanes via Jack
Rabbit Trail and Gilman Springs Road for a total
of 11.4 miles
11,000 WRCOG ATP Beaumont to
Temecula
298
Banning to Rialto (SE to NW)
Project Type Project Title/Description Lead Agency/Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
ATP Riverside Downtown - construct a east-west
regional route connecting Riverside and
Moreno Valley through a network of Class II
bike lanes via Central Avenue for a total of 6.4
miles
Riverside
Moreno Valley
Planning 2,000 WRCOG ATP Riverside to Temecula
Riverside to Los
Angeles
ATP Eastern Riverisde - construct a east-west
regional route connecting Riverside and
Moreno Valley through a network of Class II
and IV via Ironwood Avenue for a total of 7
miles
Riverside
Moreno Valley
Planning 3,000 WRCOG ATP
299
Riverside to LA County Line
Inland Empire CMCP Priority Project List - Riverside to LA County Line
Project Type Project Title/Description Lead Agency/Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
Highway 91 Downtown Riverside Managed
Lanes, from I-15 to I-215/SR-60
Interchange
RCTC/
Caltrans
Riverside
Norco
Planning 219,000 10 Year Plan San Bernardino to
Riverside
Banning to Rialto
Riverside to Temecula
Riverside to Orange
County
Y
Highway 215 Ultimate Widening, from SR-60 to
San Bernardino County Line
RCTC/
Caltrans
Riverside
Planning 1,000,000 10 Year Plan Riverside to Orange
County
Banning to Rialto
San Bernardino to
Riverside
N
Highway 60 Jurupa Valley Riverside Managed
Lanes, from I-15 to I-215/SR-91
Interchange
RCTC/
Caltrans
Jurupa Valley
Riverside
Planning 51,000
(Enviornmnetal
Only)
10 Year Plan San Bernardino to
Riverside
Cajon to Eastvale
Riverside to Temecula
Riverside to Orange
County
Banning to Rialto
Y
Highway 60/215 Riverside-Moreno Valley
Managed Lanes, from SR-60/I-215
interchange to SR-60 Gilman Springs
Road
RCTC/
Caltrans
Riverside
Moreno Valley
Planning 380,000 10 Year Plan San Bernardino to
Riverside
Riverside to Temecula
Riverside to Orange
County
Banning to Rialto
Y
Interchange Reconfigure SR-60 Rubidoux Avenue
interchange ramps, reconstruct
Rubidoux Blvd. overpass from Rubidoux
Blvd from 29th Street to ap
Jurupa Valley Enviornmental $3
(Enviornmental
Only)
2028 TRP
2021 FTIP
Banning to Rialto
Riverside to Orange
County
San Bernardino to
Riverside
Riverside to Temecula
San Bernardino to
Riverside
Y
Grade
Separation
Bellegrave Avenue grade separation
over Union Pacific line
Jurupa Valley TRP Banning to Rialto
Riverside to Temecula
Y
300
Riverside to LA County Line
Project Type Project Title/Description Lead Agency/Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
Grade
Separation
Spruce Street crossing over BNSF rail
line
Riverside Planning TRP Banning to Rialto
Riverside to Orange
County
Riverside to Temecula
San Bernardino to
Riverside
Y
Rail Riverside Downtown track and platform
expansion with pedestrian access.
RCTC/
Metrolink
Enviornmental 26
(Enviornmental
Only)
2024 2021 FTIP San Bernardino to
Riverside
Riverside to Temecula
Riverside to Orange
County
Y
Rail Add line to address service increase and
increase frequency of Metrolink Trains
for Riverside Line
RCTC/Metrolink TRP Y
Rail Parking structure at Riverside
Downtown
RCTC/
Riverside
TRP Riverside to Los
Angeles County
Riverside to Orange
County
Hemet to Corona
Riverside to Temecula
San Bernardino to
Riverside
Y
Transit Vine Street Mobility Hub - multimodal
transportation hub close to a Metrolink
station, major employment centers,
county and city government centers,
University of California Riverside (UCR),
Riverside Community College (RCC),
Riverside Convention Center, multiple
entertainment venues, and urban
housing complexes within the
downtown Riverside core area
RTA/
Riverside
Enviornmental 4
(Enviornmental
Only)
2025 2021 FTIP San Bernardino to
Riverside
Riverside to Temecula
Riverside to Orange
County
Banning to Rialto
Transit Gold Line Extension to Montclair
includes a 0.67 mile extension of the
Metro Gold Line from the Los Angeles
County line to the Montclair Metrolink
h f l
SBCTA DESIGN-BUILD-Capital $100,594 2028 10 Year Delivery Plan
301
Riverside to LA County Line
Project Type Project Title/Description Lead Agency/Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
Major Street
Projects
I-10 / 4th-Grove Ave will reconstruct
undercrossing bridge structure, provide
related roadway, drainage, and
operational improvements to widen
Fourth Street for an additional lane in
each direction, including traffic signal
SBCTA/City of Ontario ROW and Design-Build $22,336 2023 10 Year Delivery Plan
Interchange I-10 / Cedar Avenue improve Cedar
Avenue generally between Slover
Avenue and Bloomington Avenue,
including left and right turn lanes, and
modify the existing entrance and exit
ramps
SBCTA and County of
San Bernardino
PS&E $111,350 2024 10 Year Delivery Plan
Interchange I-10 / Euclid Avenue widen the existing
ramps, widen Euclid Avenue,
reconstruct the Euclid Avenue
overcrossing structure, and provide
additional turn lanes to accommodate
the interchange, ramp, and local street
SBCTA/City of Upland
and City of Ontario
ROW and Design-Build $8,974 2023 10 Year Delivery Plan
Interchange I-10 / Monte Vista Avenue widens the
eastbound and westbound on/off-
ramps, Monte Vista Avenue, and Palo
Verde Street as well as reconstructing
the bridge ndercrossing str ct re
SBCTA/City of Montclair ROW and Design-Build $33,145 2023 10 Year Delivery Plan
Interchange I-10 / Mount Vernon Avenue
improvements include lane additions,
restriping, signal retiming, and the
widening of the overcrossing, which will
accommodate additional modes of
SBCTA/City of Colton PA/ED $54,931 2024 10 Year Delivery Plan
Interchange I-10 / Riverside Avenue (Phase 2)
includes widening of the existing bridge
structure over the UPRR railway
City of Rialto/SBCTA PS&E $23,089 2023 10 Year Delivery Plan Banning to Rialto (SE
to NW)
Interchange I-10 / Vineyard Avenue widen portions
of Vineyard Avenue, including left and
right turn lanes and modify the existing
entrance and exit ramps
SBCTA/City of Ontario ROW and Design-Build $3,008 2023 10 Year Delivery Plan
Freeway
Program
I-10 Corridor (Contract 1), provide two
express lanes in each direction for ten
miles from the Los Angeles County
line to just east of I-15 in Ontario
SBCTA/Caltrans ROW & DESIGN-BUILD $928,975 2023 10 Year Delivery Plan Cajon Pass to Eastvale
302
Riverside to LA County Line
Project Type Project Title/Description Lead Agency/Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
Freeway
Program
I-10 Corridor (Contract 2A), provide two
express lanes in each direction from
just east of I-15 to Sierra Avenue in
Fontana, connecting to the I-10
Corridor Contract 1 express lanes
SBCTA/Caltrans Project Development $700,000 2029 10 Year Delivery Plan Cajon Pass to Eastvale;
Banning to Rialto (SE
to NW)
Interchange I-15 / Baseline Road, widened Base Line
Road from four to six lanes (including
bridges), widened East Avenue from
two to four lanes, realigned and
widened southbound and northbound
diamond ramps from one to two lanes,
added a southbound loop on-ramp, and
constructed auxiliary lanes on I 15
SBCTA/City of Rancho
Cucamonga
Close-out $48,974 2016 10 Year Delivery Plan Cajon Pass to Eastvale
Freeway
Program
I-15 Corridor (Contract 1), Riverside
County Line to Foothill Boulevard, two
toll express lanes in each direction plus
aux lanes
SBCTA/Caltrans PS&E; ROW $251,439 2025 10 Year Delivery Plan Cajon Pass to Eastvale
Interchange I-215 / University Parkway,
reconfiguration of the existing tight
diamond interchange with a Diverging
Diamond Interchange (DDI)
configuration.
SBCTA PA/ED $15,278 2022 10 Year Delivery Plan Banning to Rialto (SE
to NW); San
Bernardino to
Riverside; Victorville
to San Bernardino
Freeway
Program
I-215 / Mt Vernon Ave/Washington St
Bridge corrects the substandard vertical
clearance of the Washington Street
Bridge over I-215 and provides
sufficient width to span the ultimate I-
215 freeway configuration. Additional
traffic operational improvements will
lengthen the dual left turn pockets and
extend one of the left turn pockets over
the bridge. This improvement widens
the structure to 108 feet and increases
the storage capacity on the local street
to provide an acceptable level of
service for the projected traffic volumes
expected in the year 2040
Caltrans/SBCTA PS&E; ROW $2,411 2022 10 Year Delivery Plan San Bernardino to
Riverside; Banning to
Rialto (SE to NW)
Freeway
Program
I-215 Bi-County Landscaping follows bi-
county HOV gap closure completed in
2015
SBCTA PS&E; CONST $10,955 2023 10 Year Delivery Plan San Bernardino to
Riverside; Riverside to
OC County Line (EW);
Banning to Rialto (SE
to NW)
303
Riverside to LA County Line
Project Type Project Title/Description Lead Agency/Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
Freeway
Project
I-215 Landscaping Project Seg 2, along I-
215 from the 5th Street overcrossing
north to just south of the Muscupiabe
Drive overcrossing and also includes a
portion along SR 259 from Baseline
Street to Highland Avenue overcrossing
SBCTA Construction $5,626 2019 10 Year Delivery Plan San Bernardino to
Riverside; Banning to
Rialto (SE to NW)
Highway
Project
I-215 Landscaping Project Seg 5, along I-
215 from just south of the Muscupiabe
Drive overcrossing north to just south
of the I-215/SR 210 Junction
SBCTA PS&E $2,889 2022 10 Year Delivery Plan San Bernardino to
Riverside; Banning to
Rialto (SE to NW)
Transit San Bernardino Line Double Track from
Lilac to Rancho Double Track (3 mi.)
including ten at-grade crossings, quiet
zone ready safety enhancements, and
the addition of a second platform and
underpass at the Rialto Metrolink
Station. Once constructed, this project
will provide for increased service
reliability, support future expansion of
service, and make it more feasible to
run peak hour express service as
stipulated by the Metrolink Strategic
SBCTA/SCRRA PS&E $75,143 TBD 10 Year Delivery Plan Banning to Rialto (SE
to NW)
Grade
Seperation
Monte Vista Avenue construct a grade
separation on Monte Vista Avenue over
the Union Pacific Railroad
City of Montclair/SBCTA Construction $24,814 2019 10 Year Delivery Plan
Grade
Seperation
Mt. Vernon Avenue Viaduct will
replace the Mount Vernon Avenue
Bridge over the BNSF tracks and
intermodal facility and Metrolink tracks
from Rialto Avenue to 5th Street in the
City of San Bernardino
SBCTA/SCRRA and the
City of San Bernardino
Procurement $209,332 2022 10 Year Delivery Plan San Bernardino to
Riverside; Banning to
Rialto (SE to NW)
Interchange SR- 60 / Archibald Avenue, improve
Archibald Avenue between East Oak Hill
Drive and Monticello Place in order to
relieve congestion and improve traffic
flow
SBCTA/City of Ontario PS&E; ROW; CONST $22,540 2021 10 Year Delivery Plan Cajon Pass to Eastvale
304
Riverside to LA County Line
Project Type Project Title/Description Lead Agency/Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
Interchange SR- 60 / Central Avenue widen the
Central Avenue overcrossing to improve
left turn movment for vehicles entering
SR 60 from Central Avenue and add
standard
shoulders and sidewalks along the
Central Avenue overcrossing
SBCTA PS&E and ROW $31,765 2021 10 Year Delivery Plan
Interchange SR- 60 / Euclid Avenue widened the
westbound off-ramp from two to three
lanes at the SR 60/Euclid Avenue
Interchange. Additionally the project
included landscape improvements;
median island reconstruction; and
traffic signal,
signing, and striping modifications
City of Ontario/SBCTA Complete $1,000 2013 10 Year Delivery Plan
Bike Lytle Creek-Santa Ana River SBCTA Partially Complete $11,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Victorville to San
Bernardino; San
Bernardino to
Riverside; Cajon to
Eastvale; Banning to
RialtoBikeSCE Utility North Trail SBCTA Partially Complete $7,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Victorville to San
Bernardino; Cajon to
Eastvale; Banning to
RialtoBikeMid City Connector Trail SBCTA Planning $7,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 San Bernardino to
Riverside; Banning to
Rialto
Bike Euclid Ave.SBCTA Partially Complete $14,000 TBD NMTP June 2018
Bike San Sevaine Trail SBCTA Partially Complete $9,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Cajon to Eastvale
Bike Day Creek Channel-6th Gap Closure SBCTA Planning $4,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Cajon to Eastvale
Bike Deer Creek Channel Trail SBCTA Partially Complete $4,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Cajon to Eastvale
Bike Pacific Electric Trail SBCTA Complete $21,000 2015 NMTP June 2018 Victorville to San
Bernardino; San
Bernardino to
Riverside; Cajon to
Eastvale; Banning to
RialtoBikePacific Electric Trail-Mid City/Inland
Center
SBCTA Planning $5,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 San Bernardino to
Riverside; Banning to
Rialto
Bike San Antonio Creek Channel Gap Closure SBCTA Planning $11,000 TBD NMTP June 2018
305
Riverside to LA County Line
Project Type Project Title/Description Lead Agency/Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
Bike Santa Ana River Trail SBCTA Partially Complete $20,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 San Bernardino to
Riverside; Banning to
Rialto; Riverside to
Temecula; Riverside to
Orange County Line
Bike Inland Center-Mid City SBCTA Planning $1,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 San Bernardino to
Riverside; Banning to
Rialto
Bike LA County Line-6th-San Sevaine SBCTA Planning $13,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Cajon to Eastvale
Bike San Timoteo Creek Trail SBCTA Partially Complete $8,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 San Bernardino to
Riverside; Banning to
Rialto
Bike Jurupa-SCE Utility South-Santa Ana
River Gap Closure
SBCTA Partially Complete $5,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 San Bernardino to
Riverside; Banning to
Rialto; Riverside to
Temecula; Riverside to
Orange County Line
Bike SCE Utility South Trail SBCTA Partially Complete $6,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Cajon to Eastvale;
Banning to Rialto
Bike Haven-Mission-Milliken Gap Closure SBCTA Partially Complete $6,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Cajon to Eastvale;
Riverside to Temecula
Bike Edison Ave.SBCTA Planning $4,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 Cajon to Eastvale;
Riverside to Temecula
Bike Edison-Central-Eucalyptus SBCTA Partially Complete $4,000 TBD NMTP June 2018
Bike SANTA ANA RIVER TRAIL - SOUTH SIDE RCTC
Bike METROLINK/SAMSON AV./MAGNOLIA
AV./MARKET ST.
RCTC
Bike METROLINK/VAN BUREN
BL./MOCKINGBIRD CYN./EL SOBRANTE
RCTC
Bike LASSELLE - PERRIS VALLEY CHANNEL RCTC
Bike RIVERSIDE HUNTER PARK -
DOWNTOWN MENIFEE
RCTC
Bike Hamner Bikeway RCTC
Bike Jurupa/Olivewood RCTC
Bike Vine/Mission Inn RCTC
Bike Van Buren Boulevard RCTC
Bike MLK Bike Path RCTC
Bike Canyon Crest RCTC
Bike Ironwood Ave RCTC
Bike Gage Canal RCTC
Bike Bellegrave Ave RCTC
306
Riverside to LA County Line
Project Type Project Title/Description Lead Agency/Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
Bike Jurupa Rd Corridor RCTC
Bike Holmes Ave/Limonite Ave RCTC
Rail Riverside Downtown track and platform
expansion with pedestrian access.
RCTC/
Metrolink
Enviornmental 26
(Enviornmental
Only)
2024 2021 FTIP San Bernardino to
Riverside
Riverside to Orange
County
Hemet to Corona
Riverside to Temecula
Y
Rail Increase frequency of Metrolink Trains
for Inland Empire-Orange County Line
RCTC/
Metrolink
TRP Riverside to Orange
County
San Bernardino to
Riverside
Riverside to Temecula
Y
ATP Riverside Downtown - construct a east-
west regional route connecting
Riverside and Moreno Valley through a
network of Class II bike lanes via Central
Avenue for a total of 6.4 miles
Riverside
Moreno Valley
Planning 2,000 WRCOG ATP Riverside to Temecula
Banning to Rialto
307
Riverside to OC County Line (EW
Inland Empire CMCP Priority Project List - Riverside to OC County Line (EW)
Project Type Project Title/Description Lead Agency/Partners Phase/Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
ATP Santa Ana River Trail, complete the 12.8
portion of the trail, along Prado Dam
RCTC/
Riverside
Orange County
Environmental TRP Y
Highway 60 Jurupa Valley Riverside Managed
Lanes, from I-15 to I-215/SR-91
Interchange
RCTC/
Caltrans
Jurupa Valley
Riverside
Planning 51,000
(Enviornmnetal
Only)
10 Year Plan San Bernardino to
Riverside
Cajon to Eastvale
Riverside to Temecula
Riverside to LA County
Banning to Rialto
Y
Highway 60/215 Riverside-Moreno Valley
Managed Lanes, from SR-60/I-215
interchange to SR-60 Gilman Springs
Road
RCTC/
Caltrans
Riverside
Moreno Valley
Planning 380,000 10 Year Plan San Bernardino to
Riverside
Riverside to Temecula
Riverside to LA County
Riverside to Orange
County
Banning to Rialto
Y
Highway 91 Downtown Riverside Managed
Lanes, from I-15 to I-215/SR-60
Interchange
RCTC/
Caltrans
Riverside
Norco
Planning 219,000 10 Year Plan Banning to Rialto
Riverside to LA County
Line
Riverside to Temecula
Y
Highway 91 Corridor Ultimate Project: 15 to
Pierce Street, widening SR-91 with one
general purpose lane in each direction
RCTC/
Corona
Caltrans
Planning 25000 10 Year Plan N
Highway 71 Widening - widen to three lanes in
each direction from SR-91 to the San
Bernardino County Line
RCTC/
SBCTA
Chino Hills
Caltrans
Planning 100000 10 Year Plan N
Highway 71/91 Interchange - construct direct
connectors from eastbound SR-91 to
northbound SR-71, improve connection
between eastbound SR-91 Green River
Road on-ramp and the 71/91
Interchange. Construct eastbound road
south and parallel to SR-91 between
Green River Road and the 71/91
Interchange
RCTC/
Corona
Chino Hills
Caltrans
Right of Way 128000 10 Year Plan Y
308
Riverside to OC County Line (EW
Project Type Project Title/Description Lead Agency/Partners Phase/Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
Highway 91 COP - add an additional lane on
westbound SR-91 from Green River
Road on-ramp to the southbound SR-
241 connector
RCTC/
Corona
OCTA
Caltrans
Construction 40000 10 Year Plan N
Highway 215 Ultimate Widening, from SR-60 to
San Bernardino County Line
RCTC/
Caltrans
Riverside
Planning 1,000,000 10 Year Plan San Bernardino to
Riverside
Banning to Rialto
N r
Interchange SR-91 Adams Street Interchange
reconstruction, including reconstruction
of Adams Street overpass from Auto
Center Drive to Briarwood Drive and
Indiana Avenue from Vance Street to
Detroit Drive
Riverside/
Caltrans
Enviornmental 113,000 2031 TRP
2021 FTIP
Riverside to Temecula Y
Grade Separation Spruce Street crossing over BNSF
railroad crossing
Riverside Planning TRP Banning to Rialto
Riverside to LA County
Riverside to Temecula
San Bernardino to
Riverside
Y
Grade Separation Mickinley Street crossing over BNSF
railroad crossing
Corona Right of Way 91000 2023 2021 FTIP Riverside to Orange
County
Riverside to Temecula
Y
Rail Increase frequency of Metrolink Trains
for 91/Perris Valley Line
RCTC/
Metrolink
TRP Banning to Rialto
Hemet to Corona
Riverside to Temecula
Y
Rail Increase frequency of Metrolink Trains
for Inland Empire-Orange County Line
RCTC/
Metrolink
TRP San Bernardino to
Riverside
Riverside to Los
Angeles County
Riverside to Temecula
Y
Rail New 3rd track Riveride to Fullerton to
increase tracking for Inland Empire-
Orange County Line
RCTC/
Metrolink
TRP Y
Rail New 4th main track West Corona to La
Sierra Station to increase tracking for
Inland Empire-Orange County line and
station improvements.
RCTC/
Metrolink
TRP Riverside to Orange
County
Riverside to Temecula
Y
309
Riverside to OC County Line (EW
Project Type Project Title/Description Lead Agency/Partners Phase/Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
Rail Parking Structure at Corona North
Main, Corona West, Riverside
Downtown, Riverside-La Sierra, Perris.
RCTC/
Corona
Riverside
Perris
Planning TRP Riverside to Los
Angeles County
Riverside to Orange
County
Hemet to Corona
Riverside to Temecula
San Bernardino to
Riverside
Y
Rail Riverside Downtown track and platform
expansion with pedestrian access.
RCTC/
Metrolink
Enviornmental 26
(Enviornmental
Only)
2024 2021 FTIP San Bernardino to
Riverside
Riverside to Los
Angeles County
Hemet to Corona
Riverside to Temecula
Y
Transit Vine Street Mobility Hub - multimodal
transportation hub close to a Metrolink
station, major employment centers,
county and city government centers,
University of California Riverside (UCR),
Riverside Community College (RCC),
Riverside Convention Center, multiple
entertainment venues, and urban
housing complexes within the
downtown Riverside core area
RTA/
Riverside
Enviornmental 4
(Enviornmental
Only)
2025 2021 FTIP Riverside to LA County
Riverside to Temecula
San Bernardino to
Riverside
Freeway Program I-215 Bi-County Landscaping follows bi-
county HOV gap closure completed in
2015
SBCTA PS&E; CONST $10,955 2023 10 Year Delivery Plan Banning to Rialto (SE
to NW); San
Bernardino to
Riverside; Riverside to
LA County LineInterchangeReconfigure SR-60 Rubidoux Avenue
interchange ramps, reconstruct
Rubidoux Blvd. overpass from Rubidoux
Blvd from 29th Street to ap
Jurupa Valley Enviornmental $3
(Enviornmental
Only)
2028 TRP
2021 FTIP
Banning to Rialto
San Bernardino to
Riverside
Riverside to Temecula
San Bernardino to
Riverside
Riverside to LA County
Y
Bike Santa Ana River Trail SBCTA Partially Complete $20,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 San Bernardino to
Riverside; Banning to
Rialto; Riverside to LA
County Line; Riverside
to Temecula
310
Riverside to OC County Line (EW
Project Type Project Title/Description Lead Agency/Partners Phase/Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment SCCP
Bike Jurupa-SCE Utility South-Santa Ana
River Gap Closure
SBCTA Partially Complete $5,000 TBD NMTP June 2018 San Bernardino to
Riverside; Banning to
Rialto; Riverside to LA
County Line; Riverside
to Temecula
ATP Butterfield Overland Trail Project, link
Murreita Creek corridor trail ending in
Wildomar to the south and Santa Ana
River trail to the north
Riverside County/
Corona
Lake Elsinore
Temescal Valley
Planning TRP Hemet to Corona
Riverside to Temecula
Y
Grade Separation Jackson Street grade separation over
BNSF railroad line
Riverside Planning TRP Riverside to Temecula
Grade Separation Mary Street grade separation over BNSF
railroad line
Riverside Planning TRP Riverside to Temecula
Grade Separation Tyler Street grade separation over BNSF
railroad line
Riverside Planning TRP Riverside to Temecula
ATP Santa Ana River Trail South Side -
construct east-west regional facility
connecting Riverside to Orange County
through a nework of Class I, II, III, and IV
bike lanes for a total of 11 miles
Norco
Riverside
Corona
Jurupa Valley
Planning $17,000 WRCOG ATP Riverside to Orange
County
Riverside to Temecula
311
Hemet to Corona (EW)
Inland Empire CMCP Priority Project List - Hemet to Corona (EW)
Project Type Project Title/Description Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment
ATP Butterfield Overland Trail Project, link
Murreita Creek corridor trail ending in
Wildomar to the south and Santa Ana
River trail to the north
Riverside County/
Corona
Lake Elsinore
Temescal Valley
Planning TRP Hemet to Corona
Riverside to Orange
County Line
Riverside to Temecula
ATP Salt Creek Trail - construct a 16 mile
regional trail connecting cities of
Menifee and Hemet through the Salt
Creek flood control channel between
Goetz Road and Antelope Road, and
along the existing north parkway of
Domenigonia Parkway between
Sanerson Avenue and Searl Parkway.
Riverside County/
Menifee
Hemet
Planning TRP
Env. Mitigation Mid County Parkway - Sweeney
Mitigation Site
RCTC constructio
n complete
-
monitoring
ongoing
until 2024
40000 10 Year Plan Hemet to Corona
Riverside to Temecula
Beaumont to
Temecula
Highway SR-79 Realignment - realign SR-79
between Domenigoni Parkway and
Gilman Springs Road
RCTC/
Hemet
San Jacinto
Design 1,300,000 10 Year Plan Beaumont to
Temecula
Highway Mid County Parkway Package 3 -
construct 16 mile east west corridor
between Perris and San Jacinto
RCTC/
Perris
San Jacinto
Planning 800000 10 Year Plan
TRP
Riverside to Temecula
Beaumont to
Temecula
Highway Mid County Parkway Package 2 - widen
11 mile section of I-215 from Nuevo
Road in Perris to the SR-60/I-215
Interchange. One carpool lane on I-215
in both directions and a westbound
auxiliary lane to improve merging onto
SR-60
RCTC/
Perris
Moreno Valley
Riverside
Design 145000 10 Year Plan
TRP
Banning to Rialto
Riverside to Temecula
312
Hemet to Corona (EW)
Project Type Project Title/Description Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment
Interchange I-15/SR-74 (Central Avenue)
Interchange - add northbound entry
ramp, realign northbound entry and exit
ramps, widen SR-74 from Riverside
Drive to Central Avenue and from
Collier Avenue to Cambren Avenue and
construct new Riverside Avenue
overcrossing
Lake Elsinore/
Caltrans
Right of
way
58000 2026 2021 FTIP Riverside to Temecula
Interchange I-15/Main Street Interchange - widen
northbound Main Street under I-15, add
additional lane to the northbound
entrance and exit ramps, widen
southbound off-ramp, add traffic signals
at the on/off ramps and Camino Del
Norte/Main Street intersection
Lake Elsinore/
Caltrans
Design 5000 2026 2021 FTIP Riverside to Temecula
Interchange I-215/Garbani interchange - Construct
new diamond interchange from
Antelope Road to Haun Road
Menifee/
Caltrans
Environme
ntal
360
(enviornmental
only)
2030 2021 FTIP
TRP
Beaumont to
Temecula
Riverside to Temecula
Interchange I-215/Keller Road Interchange - widen
underpass from 2 to 4 lanes, add
auxiliary lane at the southbound off-
ramp and northbound off-ramp, add two
traffic circles at the ramp termini and
realign Anelope Road
Murreita/
Caltrans
Environme
ntal
56000 2027 2021 FTIP
TRP
Beaumont to
Temecula
Riverside to Temecula
Regional
Arterial
Cajalco Road Widening - widen and
realign Cajalco Road between Temescal
Canyon Road to I-215, approximately 16
miles. Project would widen the roadway
to four lanes between Harvill Avenue
and Temescal Canyon Road, and to six
lanes between the I-215 southbound
ramps and Harvill Avenue
Riverside County/
Corona
Env to Const 452 TRP
10 Year Plan
2021 FTIP
Riverside to Temecula
Rail Metrolink extension to Hemet and San
Jacinto
RCTC/
Metrolink
Planning TRP Beaumont to
Temecula
Rail New Metrolink station at Ramona
Expressway
RCTC/
Metrolink
Planning TRP Beaumont to
Temecula
Rail Perris South station track and layover
facility
RCTC/
Metrolink
Planning TRP Riverside to Temecula
313
Hemet to Corona (EW)
Project Type Project Title/Description Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment
Transit Rapid transit system between Hemet-
San Jacinto Valley and Perris/Moreno
Valley/Riverside
RTA/
Hemet
San Jacinto
Perris
Moreno Valley
Riverside
Planning TRP Riverside to Temecula
Beaumont to
Temecula
Banning to Rialto
Transit Rapid transit system between Hemet-
San Jacinto Valley and
Temecula/Menifee/Murrieta
RTA/
Hemet
San Jacinto
Temecula
Menifee
Murrieta
Planning TRP Hemet to Corona
Riverside to Temecula
Beaumont to
Temecula
Rail Riverside Downtown track and platform
expansion with pedestrian access.
RCTC/
Metrolink
Enviornmen 26
(Enviornmental
Only)
2024 2021 FTIP San Bernardino to
Riverside
Riverside to Los
Angeles County
Riverside to Orange
County
Riverside to Temecula
Rail Increase frequency of Metrolink Trains
for 91/Perris Valley Line
RCTC/
Metrolink
TRP Riverside to Orange
County
Banning to Rialto
Riverside to Temecula
Highway I-15 Corridor - lane addition from SR-
74/Central to I-215
RCTC/
Lake Elsinore
Wildomar
Planning 35000 (Planning
&
Environmental)
10 Year Plan Riverside to Temecula
Highway I-15 Express Lanes Southern Extension
Project - extend two toll lanes in each
direction from Cajalco Road in Corona
to SR-74/Central Avenue in Lake
Elsinore
RCTC/
Corona
Temescal Valley
Lake Elsinore
Environme
ntal
527000 2027 10 Year Plan Riverside to Temecula
314
Hemet to Corona (EW)
Project Type Project Title/Description Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment
Highway I-15 Express Lanes Southern Extension
Project Advanced Operations -
construct one southbound auxiliary lane
from Cajalco Road to Weirick Road,
extend one express lane northbound
south of Bedford Canyon Wash to
Cajalco Road
RCTC/
Corona
Temescal Valley
Environme
ntal
28000 2026 10 Year Plan Hemet to Corona
Rail New 2nd main line track from Moreno
Valley to Perris for 91/Perris Valley Line
Metrolink TRP Riverside to Temecula
Banning to Rialto
ATP I-15 Corridor via Temescal Canyon Road -
construct north-south regional facility
connecting Norco, Corona, Lake
Elsinore, and Eastvale through a
network of Class I, II, III and IV via
Temescal Canyon for a total of 21 miles
Norco
Eastvale
Corona
Lake Elsinore
Temescal Canyon
Planning 29,000 WRCOG ATP Riverside to Temecula
San Bernardino to
Riverside
ATP East Corona - Lake Perris - construct a
east-west regional facility connecting
East Corona and Lake Perris through a
network of Class II, and IV via El
Sobrante Road or Cajalco Road for a
total of 19 miles
Corona
Perris
Riverside County
Planning 16,000 - 17,000 WRCOG ATP Riverside to Temecula
ATP Bautista Creek - construct a east-west
regional route connecting Hemet, San
Jacinto, and Perris through a network of
Class II via San Jacinto River for a total
of 25.8 miles
Hemet
San Jacinto
Perris
Planning 31,000 WRCOG ATP Hemet to Corona
315
Hemet to Corona (EW)
Project Type Project Title/Description Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment
ATP San Timoteo Canyon - construct a north-
south regional route connecting
Moreno Valley and Perris through a
network of Class II and IV bike lanes via
San Timoteo Canyon Road and Ramona
Expressway for a total of 13.3 miles
Perris
Moreno Valley
Planning 11,000 WRCOG ATP Banning to Rialto
Riverside to Temecula
ATP
San Jacinto River Park - Diamond Valley
Lake - construct a north-south regional
route connecting San Jacinto and
Hemet through a network of Class I and
II bike lanes via the abandoned rail lines
and North State Street for a total of
11.6 miles
Hemet
San Jacinto Planning 19,000 WRCOG ATP
Beaumont to
Temecula
Banning to Rialto
ATP Bautista Creek - construct a east-west
regional route connecting Lake Elsinore,
Menifee, and Hemet through a network
of Class II, III and paved trail via Salt
Creek/Lost Road/ and Lemon Street for
a total of 31 miles
Lake Elsinore
Menifee
Hemet
Planning 23,000 WRCOG ATP Riverside to Temecula
Beaumont to
Temecula
ATP Murrieta Creek - construct a north-
south regional route connecting Lake
Elsinore, Wildomar, and Murrieta
through a network of Class I, II, III and IV
bike lanes for a total of 24.9 miles
Lake Elsinore
Wildomar
Murrieta
Planning 19,000 WRCOG ATP Riverside to Temecula
ATP Aberhill Ranch - construct a north-south
regional route connecting Lake Elsinore
and Perris through a network of Class I,
II, III, and IV bike lanes via northern
Perris Boulevard for a total of 18 miles
Lake Elsinore
Perris
Planning 18,000 WRCOG ATP Riverside to Temecula
316
Hemet to Corona (EW)
Project Type Project Title/Description Partners Status Cost
(1,000s)
Completion
Year Source Comment
ATP 215 Central Corridor - construct a north-
south regional route connecting
Riverside, Perris and Menifee through a
network of Class I, II, and III bike lanes
via routes such as Sycamore Canyon
Boulevard, and Meridian Parkway for a
total of 19.4 miles
Riverside
Perris
Menifee
Planning 12,000 WRCOG ATP Riverside to Temecula
Banning to Rialto
ATP Lake Mathews Loop - construct a
circular route around Lake Mathews
reservior for a total of 7.8 miles of off-
street shared use path around the
reservior and an additional 0.9 miles of
Class II buffered bike lanes along La
Sierra Avenue for a total of 8.7 miles
Riverside County Planning 10,000 WRCOG ATP Riverside to Temecula
ATP Lake Elsinore Loop - construct a circular
route around Lake Elsinore for a total of
3.9 miles of off-street shared use path
along the lake, 6.3 miles of Class II
buffered bicycle lanes along Riverside
Drive/Grand Avenue and 0.5 miles of
other bicycles facilities for a total of
10.7 miles
Lake Elsinore Planning 6,000 WRCOG ATP Riverside to Temecula
Hemet to Corona
ATP Perris Reservior Loop - construct a
circular route around Perris reservior
for 3.5 miles of off-street shared use
path, 2.6 miles of Class II bike lanes on
Alta Calle Road for a total of 9 miles
Perris Planning 5,000 WRCOG ATP
317
presented to
presented by
Inland Empire Comprehensive
Multimodal Corridor Plan (CMCP)
WRC Programs and Projects Committee
September 28, 2020
Gary Hamrick, Cambridge Systematics
CTC and Caltrans
Multi-Modal Corridor Plan Guidelines
2
CTC Comprehensive Multi-Modal Corridor Plan Guidelines
•California Transportation Commission guidelines for eligibility of
plans and projects under Solutions for Congested Corridors
Program created by SB 1
•Agencies creating CMCPs now for Cycles 2 and 3
Caltrans Corridor Planning Guide
•Final February 2020
T h e r e i s n o s p e c i f i c f o r m a t t h a t a
C M C P m u s t m e e t . P l a n s a r e u n i q u e
t o t h e r e g i o n i n w h i c h t h e y a r e
p r e p a r e d ( p a g e 8 , C T C 2 0 1 8 C M C P G u i d e l i n e s )
3
CTC and Caltrans Corridor Planning
Process Workflow
Scope Effort Gather
Information
Conduct
Performance
Assessment
Identify
Potential
Projects and
Strategies
Analyze
Improve-ments
Select and
Prioritize
Solutions
Publish
Corridor Plan
Monitor and
Evaluate
Progress
8-step process to create CMCP
IE CMCP North South Extent
5
IE CMCP East West Extent
6
Ten Sub-Corridors
7
Five North/South Sub-Corridors
8
Five East/West Sub-Corridors
9
Stakeholder Engagement
Project Development Team:
»Caltrans
»SBCTA
»RCTC
»WRCOG
»SCAG
Presented to regional meetings:
»RCTC Technical Advisory Committee
»WRCOG Planning and Public Works Committees
»SCAG Transportation Committee
Focused one-on-one meetings
Leverage Public Outreach Efforts from Current/Ongoing
Projects –RCTC “Reboot My Commute”
10
Stakeholder Input
Data Types Analyzed
Demographic and Land Use Assessments
Corridor Trip Characteristics
Safety Assessment
Active Transportation Assessment
Freeway and Arterial Assessment
Transit Assessment
Freight
11
Population Density
12
Greatest population density
generally falls along the
I-210/I-10 and SR-91
corridors in a number of
cities
Higher population density
also occurs in the southern
areas along I-15 in Murrieta
and Temecula as well as in
the Hemet/San Jacinto
areas
Population-Employment (PE) Ratio
13
Overall, there are 3.1
persons per job in the Study
Area
Lowest PE ratios -along the
I-10 corridor and SR-91
corridors
Highest PE ratios -Jurupa
Valley, SR-74 corridor, and
Victor Valley areas
Journey to Work Mode Share
14
Carpooling
»Study Area has higher
share of carpool (14%)
compared to California
(10%).
»Work at home is second
highest “other mode”.
Freeway Collisions per Million VMT
15
Highest collision rates -SR-91 EB, SR-91 WB, I-215 SB, and I-10 EB
DETAILED CORRIDOR CONDITIONS
ANALYSIS
16
Beaumont to Temecula
Total Collisions
17
Beaumont to Temecula
Existing Traffic Conditions –AM
18
Beaumont to Temecula
Existing Traffic Conditions –PM
19
Improvement Project Sources
SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan
2021 FTIP
RCTC Long Range Transportation Study
WRCOG Active Transportation Plan
RCTC 10-Year Highway Delivery Plan
Traffic Relief Plan for Riverside County
SBCTA Long Range Transportation Plan
SBCTA Non-motorized
Transit Agency Short and Long Range Plans
Caltrans MONSTER Project List
20
PRINCIPLES, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
21
Regional Agency Visions and Goals
Riverside County (summarized from Long Range Transportation
Study):
Provide a first-class transportation system that supports a vibrant, dynamic
and livable county;
A multimodal system that will promote sustainability, access, safety,
economic opportunities, public health, environmental stewardship and
balanced job/housing ratio;
Utilize best available technology;
Provide reliable and efficient mobility for people, goods and services;
Preserve values of Riversides County's communities.
22
Caltrans Smart Mobility Framework
23
Project Evaluation
Over 420 Roadway, Freeway and Transit Projects Identified
Hundreds of Active Transportation Projects Identified
Strategic project and program lists created for each sub-corridor utilizing
planned state, regional, and local projects, including projects listed in
RCTC’s 10-Year Highway Delivery Plan
24
Schedule
Project Kick Off –July 2019
Draft CMCP –May 2020
Final CMCP –October 2020
25
QUESTIONS?
GARY HAMRICK, PRINCIPAL
CAMBRIDGE SYSTEMATICS, INC.
GHAMRICK@CAMSYS.COM
26
AGENDA ITEM 7
Agenda Item 7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: September 28, 2020
TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
FROM: Bryce Johnston, Capital Projects Manager
THROUGH: Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director
SUBJECT: Amendment to Agreement Related to the Construction of the Riverside
Downtown Layover Facility Expansion Project
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve the increase in the contingency for Agreement No. 19-33-029-00 with Reyes
Construction, Inc., for the construction of the Riverside Downtown Layover Facility
Expansion Project (Project) in the amount of $455,000, for a revised contingency of
$875,142, and a total amount not to exceed $5,255,000;
2) Approve an increase of $300,000 in the FY 2020/21 budget for construction expenditures
related to the Project; and
3) Forward to Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On June 12, 2019, the Commission approved the award of Agreement No. 19-33-029-00 for the
construction of the Project to Reyes Construction in the amount of $4,379,858, plus a
contingency amount of $420,142 to fund potential change orders and supplemental work, for a
total amount not to exceed $4.8 million.
The Project will accommodate projected near term and future increase in Metrolink ridership by
adding three storage tracks with an overall storage capacity of three six-car train sets and make
needed upgrades to the existing maintenance facilities. The existing layover facility can
accommodate only one six-car train set and has limited maintenance facilities. The Project is
located at the north end of the existing Riverside-Downtown station on right of way owned by
the Commission (Figure 1).
318
Agenda Item 7
Figure 1: Project Location Map
The work includes installation of a lap switch which required approximately 10 months to
procure. Therefore, staff issued a limited Notice to Proceed to the Contractor on July 30, 2019,
for procurement of the lap switch. A full notice to proceed with construction was issued on April
6, 2020.
The Project is located in an old rail yard. During the environmental and design phase, it was
identified that there was a possibility of contaminated soil at the site; therefore, at the start of
construction, after the site was cleared, extensive soil testing was initiated. This testing revealed
that a greater amount of soil was contaminated than originally anticipated. The cost to dispose
of this contaminated soil is the primary reason for the need to increase the authorized
contingency.
Staff recommends approval of the increase in contingency for Agreement No. 19-33-029-00 with
Reyes Construction, Inc., for the construction of the Project by $455,000, for a total not to exceed
amount of $5,255,000. Approximately $155,000 of the increase is included in the FY 2020/21
budget; however, a budget adjustment of $300,000 is required. Accordingly, staff recommends
a budget adjustment of $300,000 to increase construction expenditures for the Project.
319
Agenda Item 7
Funding for this increase is available from an existing Federal Transit Administration Section 5309
grant approved in 2012. The current grant has savings from other projects that can be used for
reprogramming to the Project.
The Project is expected to be completed in April of 2021.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: No Year: FY 2020/21 Amount: $455,000
Source of Funds: FTA Section 5309 Grant CA-05-0268 Budget Adjustment: Yes
($300,000)
GL/Project Accounting No.: 653822 81301 00000 0000 26 5 33 81301
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 09/21/2020
Attachment: Change Order Log
320
Riverside County Transportation CommissionCONTRACT CHANGE ORDER and CONTINGENCY BALANCE LOGINTERNAL USE ONLY(Updated: 8/7/2020)Ball InTO FROM TO FROM TO FROM CourtBillings Paid Balance Remain*CONTINGENCY & SUPPLEMENTAL WORK BUDGET>>> $437,985.80 Contract Bid Amount>>>$4,379,858.00ITEM A0 $71,764.00CF$71,764.001.64% $366,221.80 4/27/2020 12/6/2019APLS D0 $5,889.91CF$5,889.910.13% $360,331.89 5/19/2020 5/17/2020 5/18/2020 12/17/2019 1/7/2020 5/20/2020 6/4/2020NCNC C30 $0.00CF$0.000.00% $360,331.89 5/19/2020 5/17/2020 5/18/2020 NA NA 5/20/2020 6/5/2020APLS A0 $4,329.00CF$4,329.000.10% $356,002.89 5/19/2020 5/18/2020 5/19/2020 NA NA 5/20/2020 6/4/2020ITEM C0 $5,754.00CF$5,754.000.13% $350,248.89 5/19/2020 5/18/2020 5/19/2020 NA NA 5/20/2020 6/4/2020EWFA C0 $35,000.00CF$35,000.000.80% $315,248.89 6/23/2020 6/23/2020 6/23/2020 NA NA 6/24/2020 7/15/2020EWFA C0 $15,000.00CF$15,000.000.34% $300,248.89 6/23/2020 6/23/2020 6/23/2020 NA NA 6/24/2020 7/15/2020EWFA E0 $122,378.49CF$122,378.492.79% $177,870.40 8/7/2020 NA NAAPLS C0 $140,681.00EWFA$15,000.00CF$155,681.003.55% $22,189.4030 $415,796.40 9.49% $22,189.40-$ $22,189.40006S1MANMADE BURIED OBJECTSNA RCI7/15/20EXECUTED$349,823.49$65,972.91$415,796.40SEWER REDESIGNPending CCOs>>TOTAL TO DATE >>>ITEM & CCO BALANCE: OVERRUN(-)/UNDERRUN(+) >>>>>>>>>>>Approved CCOs>>Total CCO>><<< Balance Inclusive of Item & CCO Overrun008DESCRIPTION007CCO NO.R.E. SIGNHAZARDOUS MATERIAL HANDLINGREMOVAL OF ADDITIONAL TRACK%CCO AMOUNTTIM. EXT.PAY MTDCHG TYPETO DATE AMOUNTCONTINGENCY BALANCE003COVID-19 TIME IMPACT005001AMBIDEXTROUS SEWER004SALVAGE RAIL TRANSPORT002FLUSHING MANHOLE CONTROL WIRING006MANMADE BURIED OBJECTSPrior Approval6/4/20NA6/5/20CONTRACTOR METROLINKRCINANARCTC APPROVALNA6/4/20DATE APPROVED STATUS/ REMARKSPENDINGEXECUTEDPENDINGPENDING6/4/20EXECUTED7/15/20EXECUTEDEXECUTEDEXECUTEDDESIGNRCINA RCIPage 1 of 1321
RIVERSIDE LAYOVER FACILITY ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION FUNDS
1
•Construction Contract Awarded June 2019
•Triples storage capacity at station
•Adds utilities -allows for overnight
servicing of trains
Riverside Layover Facility
Construction Impacts
2
•Extent of Contaminated Soil larger than
•anticipated-largest impact
•Sewer redesign for utility avoidance
Riverside Layover Facility
Additional Funds Needed for Construction
3
•Original bid amount = $ 4,379,858
•Original Contingency = $ 420,142
•Original Total Authorized = $ 4,800,000
•Additional needed to complete = $ 455,000
•Proposed Total Authorized = $ 5,255,000
Anticipated completion: April 2021
AGENDA ITEM 8
Agenda Item 8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: September 28, 2020
TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
FROM: Bryce Johnston, Capital Projects Manager
THROUGH: Marlin Feenstra, Projects Delivery Director
SUBJECT: Amendment to Construction Management Agreement for the La Sierra Station
Expansion Project
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 16-24-080-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement 16-24-080-00,
with S2 Engineering, Inc. (S2) to complete construction management (CM) services,
materials testing, and construction survey services for the La Sierra Station Expansion
Project, for an additional amount of $102,069 and a total amount not to exceed $940,469;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to finalize and
execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The La Sierra Parking Lot Expansion project, located in the city of Riverside, expanded the existing
parking lot at the La Sierra Station for both regional and commuter rail and bus passengers by
providing approximately 495 additional parking spaces, six bus bays for Riverside Transit Agency
service, a new signalized access/driveway onto Indiana Avenue, landscaping, and a small storage
building and restroom facility for the transit operators and station security personnel.
In January 2017, the Commission awarded the CM contract for the La Sierra Station Expansion
Project to S2 in the amount of $544,000, plus a contingency amount of $54,400, for a total
amount not to exceed $598,400.
In November 2017, the Commission awarded a construction contract for expansion of the La
Sierra Metrolink Station to Los Angeles Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $4,095,100, plus a
contingency amount of $614,265, for a total amount of $4,709,365.
During construction, two amendments, listed in the table below, were executed to compensate
S2 for additional effort needed to resolve utility conflicts and numerous plan changes resulting
in additional inspection. Subsequently, additional engineering and permit issues arose. Prior to
closing out the project, three claims were filed by the contractor which required further effort.
322
Agenda Item 8
All construction claims have now been resolved, and S2 is 100% complete with all work and the
contract is ready to close out.
In summary, S2 took the lead on permit issues, resolved incomplete design matters, coordinated
utility relocations, and assisted in resolution of the construction claims. This work extended the
S2’s period of performance and increased its costs. This amendment will provide final
compensation for completion of CM services.
Staff recommends a $102,069 increase to the authorized amount for the construction
management agreement with S2. The additional compensation increases the project support to
capital ratio to 20 percent, which staff considers reasonable for smaller projects such as this one
that have numerous bid items of work and claims resolution. 2009 Measure A Western County
Rail funds are available to cover these the cost increases.
A history of the agreement and amendments is below.
Agreement Authorization Date Authorization
Amount
Agreement
Amount
Original Agreement January 11, 2017 $ 598,400 $ 480,433
Amendment No. 1 November 30, 2018* 150,000 266,000
Amendment No. 2 January 31, 2019 90,000 87,944
Subtotal 838,400 834,377
Amendment No. 3 (proposed) 102,069 106,092
Totals $ 940,469 $ 940,469
*Authorized through Executive Director’s single signature authority
Staff also recommends authorization for the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal
counsel review, to finalize and execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. A draft of
the amendment is attached.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2020/21 Amount: $106,092
Source of Funds: 2009 Measure A Western County Rail Budget Adjustment: No
GL/Project Accounting No.: 653826 81302 00000 0000 265 33 81301
Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 09/21/2020
Attachment: Draft Amendment No. 3
323
WD 2018940
Agreement No. 16-24-080-03
AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO AGREEMENT WITH
S2 ENGINEERING INC.
FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE
LA SIERRA STATION PARKING LOT EXPANSION PROJECT
1. PARTIES AND DATE
This Amendment No. 3 to the Agreement for Construction Management
Services is made and entered into as of _____________, 2020, by and between
the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (“Commission”)
and S2 ENGINEERING, INC. ("Consultant"), a California corporation.
2. RECITALS
2.1 The Commission and Consultant have entered into that certain
Professional Services Agreement for Construction Management
Services, dated May 1, 2017, for the purpose of providing construction
management services for the La Sierra Station Parking Lot Expansion
Project (the "Master Agreement").
2.2 The Commission and Consultant have entered into Amendment No. 1,
dated November 30, 2018, for the purpose of providing additional
compensation to Consultant for continued construction management
services.
2.3 The Commission and Consultant have entered into Amendment No. 2,
dated March 4, 2019, for the purpose of providing additional
compensation to Consultant for continued construction management
services to coordinate with utilities (AT&T & Riverside Public Utilities-
Electric) and the City of Riverside for traffic signal permits; additional
administration of change orders (fencing along Indiana Ave, Closed
Circuit Security Camera, etc.) and an extension of the construction
contract time.
324
2
2.4 The parties now desire to amend the Master Agreement in order to
provide final compensation to Consultant to complete construction
management services including coordination of final permit issues,
ADA correction inspection, remedial work and support for construction
claims resolution.
3. TERMS
3.1 The term of the Master Agreement shall be extended for an additional
term of eight months ending August 31, 2020 unless earlier terminated
as provided in the Master Agreement.
3.2 The maximum compensation for Services performed pursuant to this
Amendment No. 3 shall not exceed One Hundred Six Thousand
Ninety-two Dollars ($106,092.00) as further detailed in Exhibit “A”
attached to this Amendment and incorporated herein by reference.
3.3 The total contract value of the Master Agreement, as amended by this
Amendment No. 3, shall be Nine Hundred and Forty Thousand Four
Hundred Sixty-Nine Dollars ($940,469.00).
3.3 Except as amended by this Amendment No. 3, all provisions of the
Master Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 1, including
without limitation the indemnity and insurance provisions, shall
remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the
parties under this Amendment.
3.4 This Amendment No. 3 shall be governed by the laws of the State of
California. Venue shall be in Riverside County.
3.5 This Amendment No. 3 may be signed in counterparts, each of which
shall constitute an original.
[Signatures on following page]
325
3
SIGNATURE PAGE
TO
AGREEMENT NO. 16-24-080-03
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment
on the date first herein above written.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY S2 ENGINEERING INC.
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
By: _____________________________ By: _________________________
Anne Mayer, Executive Director Signature
Sagar Pandey
Principal Engineer
APPROVED AS TO FORM: Attest:
By: _____________________________ By: ________________________
Best Best & Krieger LLP S Pandey
Counsel to the Riverside County Its: Treasurer
Transportation Commission
* A corporation requires the signatures of two corporate officers.
One signature shall be that of the chairman of board, the president or any vice president and the
second signature (on the attest line) shall be that of the secretary, any assistant secretary, the chief
financial officer or any assistant treasurer of such corporation.
If the above persons are not the intended signators, evidence of signature authority shall be
provided to the Commission.
326
Exhibit A
S2 ENGINEERING INC.
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT 16-24-080
AMENDMENT 3
EXHIBIT A
JUSTIFICATION FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES AND COMPENSATION TERMS
Construction management costs were higher than originally anticipated due to the
following factors:
1. Continued coordination with the City of Riverside for building revisions, American
with Disabilities Act compliance, and traffic signal permits
2. Coordination, analysis, and assistance n resolution of construction contract claims
3. Prolonged project accounting to process contract change orders and final payment
to the contractor resulting from claims.
CONTRACT SUMMARY
Original Contract Amount $ 480,432.07
Amendment 1 $ 266,000.49
Amendment 2 $ 87,943.40
Total Amended Contract Amount $ 834,375.96
INVOICE SUMMARY
Charges to Date $ 940,467.82 (including Draft Invoice
This Amendment Request
Charges to Date $ 940,467.82
Contract Summary To date $ 834,375.96
Amendment 3 Request: $ 106,091.86
327
Exhibit A
8608 Utica Avenue 100
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
To:Project
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Attention: Accounts Payable Subconsultant Number:16-24-080-00
P.O. Box 12008 17 DRAFT
Riverside, CA 92502
March 1-October 11
DIRECT LABOR COST
Unit QNTY Rate Reg Rate
Hours 108.00 99.00$ $ 10,692.00
Hours 11.00
Feb-20 Hours 14.00
Mar-20 Hours 3.00
Apr-20 Hours 22.00
May-20 Hours 12.0
Jun-20 Hours 29.0
Jul-20 Hours 17.0
Hours 374.00 $ 66.41 $ 24,837.34
Hours 14.00
Hours 10.00
Hours 13.00
Hours 25.00
Hours 34.00
Hours 54.00
Hours 50.00
Hours 26.00
Hours 66.00
Hours 2.00
Hours 6.00
Hours 72.00
Hours 2.00
Hours 72.00
Hours 26.00 $ 44.00 $ 1,144.00
Hours 26.00
$36,673.34
Add 127.07% Fringe Benefit & Overhead $46,600.81
SUBTOTAL $83,274.15
Add 10% Markup $8,327.42
TOTAL LABOR AMOUNT $91,601.57
OTHER DIRECT COST
Unit QNTY Rate Total
Sagar Pandey month 0.583 $1,200.000 $700.00
Houshang Habibi month 0.262 $1,200.000 $314.28
$13,524.48
TOTAL ODC AMOUNT $14,538.76
TOTAL INVOICE AMOUNT $106,140.33
Invoice Period:
S2 Engineering, Inc.
Contract Administrator
Billing Number:
Invoice Number:
Invoice Date: 10-Oct-19
16RCTC1910
CM Services for the La Sierra Station Parking Lot
Expansion Project
Name
June
Sagar R Pandey, P.E.
Title Project No
Project Manager/RE
May
Houshang Habibi Inspector Various
Mar-19
Mar-20
April
DEA invoices Attached
Description
Vehicle
Vehicle
prorated for 98 hours at 168
hours per month
prorated for 374 hours at 168 hours
per month
Name
AdministrationPatricia Rosales
Aug-19
Various
Various
Jan-20
Oct-19
Nov-19
Dec-19
Apr-19
May-19
Jun-19
Jul-19
Aug-19
Sep-19
328
LA SIERRA STATION EXPANSION PROJECT
•Added 495 parking spaces
•6 new bus bays
•Constructed in 2018-19
•Construction cost: $4.7M
1
La Sierra Station
Project Complications
2
•Resolution of Numerous Claims, satisfactorily
resolved
•Final City acceptance of city permit
•Incomplete Design issues
La Sierra Station
3
•Previously Authorized Amount: $838,400
•Proposed Amendment: $102,069
•Total: $940,469
Total Payment to S2 Engineering will be $940,469
and contract will be closed.
Construction Management Contract
From:Alexandra Rackerby
To:Alexandra Rackerby
Subject:RCTC Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee agenda
Date:Wednesday, September 23, 2020 2:47:49 PM
Attachments:Conflict of Interest Form.pdf
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Conflict of Interest Memo Rev July 2018.pdf
Good afternoon Commissioners of the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee:
The September 28, 2020 Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee agenda is
posted on the website. https://www.rctc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/September-WRC-
agenda.pdf
Also, attached are the Conflict of Interest Memo and Form for your information.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Allie Rackerby
Records Technician
Riverside County Transportation Commission
951.787.7141 W
4080 Lemon St. 3rd Fl.| P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502
rctc.org
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
COMMITTEE
ROLL CALL
SEPTEMBER 28, 2020
Present Absent
County of Riverside, District I X
County of Riverside, District V X
City of Corona X
City of Eastvale X
City of Jurupa Valley X
City of Menifee X
City of Moreno Valley X
City of Murrieta X
City of Norco X
City of Perris X
City of San Jacinto X
City of Wildomar X