Loading...
09 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 “There is no specific format that a CMCP must meet. Plans are unique to the region in which they are prepared” (page 8, CTC 2018 CMCP Guidelines) 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 