HomeMy Public PortalAbout04 April 25, 2022 Western Riverside County Programs and Projects
MEETING AGENDA
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Date: April 25, 2022
Location: This meeting is being conducted virtually in accordance with AB 361 due to state or local officials
recommending measures to promote social distancing.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Ben J. Benoit, Chair/Joseph Morabito, City of Wildomar
Brian Berkson, Vice Chair/Guillermo Silva, City of Jurupa Valley
Wes Speake/Jim Steiner, City of Corona
Clint Lorimore/Todd Rigby, City of Eastvale
Linda Krupa/Malcolm Lilienthal, City of Hemet
Bill Zimmerman/Dean Deines, City of Menifee
Yxstian Gutierrez/Edward Delgado, City of Moreno Valley
Ted Hoffman/Katherine Aleman, City of Norco
Michael Vargas/Rita Rogers, City of Perris
Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside, District I
Karen Spiegel, County of Riverside, District II
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, April 25, 2022
This meeting is being conducted virtually in accordance with AB 361 due to state or local officials
recommending measures to promote social distancing.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION
Join Zoom Meeting
https://rctc.zoom.us/j/86512115068
Meeting ID: 865 1211 5068
One tap mobile
+16699006833,,86512115068# US (San Jose)
Dial by your location
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
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 and your comments will be made part of the official record of the
proceedings as long as the comment is received before the end of the meeting’s public comment
period. 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.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
April 25, 2022
Page 2
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS – Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss
matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the
agenda. Board members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be
placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. Each individual speaker is limited to speak
three (3) continuous minutes or less.
5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a
finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to
the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an
item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the
Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote.
Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.)
6. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion
unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the
Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.
6A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – MARCH 28, 2022
Page 1
7. 91 EASTBOUND CORRIDOR OPERATIONS PROJECT
Page 14
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Authorize staff to proceed with the Project Approval and Environmental Document
(PA/ED) phase for the 91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
8. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AMENDMENT FOR BI-COUNTY
RIDESHARE PROGRAM SERVICES AND COMMUTER ASSISTANCE UPDATE
Page 189
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 20-41-090-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement
No. 20-41-090-00 with the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA)
for a two-year term to reimburse the Commission for an additional amount of
$2.4 million, and a total amount not to exceed of $4,800,000, for commuter/employer
rideshare (IE Commuter) programs and vanpool program support administered by the
Commission, on behalf of both agencies;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute
the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
April 25, 2022
Page 3
9. MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT STATUS AND REPROGRAMMING OF FUNDS
Page 194
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file an update on negotiations with the city of Perris (City) regarding Mid
County Parkway (MCP) since the March 28, 2022 Western Riverside County Programs
and Projects Committee meeting;
2) Direct staff to defer work on the Mid County Parkway Construction Package 2 from
Redlands Avenue to Ramona Expressway (MCP2) as currently scoped within the city;
3) Direct staff to work with the county of Riverside (County) to scope a different
construction package within County jurisdiction, along Ramona Expressway, to
address ongoing safety issues and continue progress on the overall MCP project;
4) Direct staff to return to the Commission at a future date with recommendations to
reprogram funds currently committed to MCP2 onto the newly scoped package, and;
5) Forward to the Commission for final action.
10. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
11. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Overview
This item provides the opportunity for brief announcements or comments on items or matters
of general interest.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The next Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee meeting is scheduled
to be held at 1:30 p.m., Monday, May 23, 2022.
AGENDA ITEM 6A
MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE
Monday, March 28, 2022
MINUTES
1.CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee was
called to order by Chair Ben J. Benoit at 1:30 p.m. via Zoom Meeting ID: 894 9531 4861.
This meeting was conducted virtually in accordance with AB 361 due to state or local
officials recommending measures to promote social distancing.
2.ROLL CALL
Members/Alternates Present Members Absent
Ben Benoit
Edward Delgado
Jeff Hewitt
Ted Hoffman
Kevin Jeffries
Linda Krupa
Clint Lorimore
Guillermo Silva
Wes Speake
Karen Spiegel
Michael Vargas
Bill Zimmerman
3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Clint Lorimore led the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects
Committee in a flag salute.
4.PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no requests to speak from the public.
5.ADDITIONS/REVISIONS
There were no additions or revisions to the agenda.
1
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
March 28, 2022
Page 2
M/S/C (Hewitt/Lorimore) to approve the minutes as submitted.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – FEBRUARY 28, 2022
7. FISCAL YEAR 2021/22 LOW CARBON TRANSIT OPERATIONS PROGRAM RESOLUTION
Beatris Megerdichian, Management Analyst, presented the FY 2021/22 Low Carbon
Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) allocation application, highlighting the following:
• About LCTOP
Provide operating and capital assistance for transit agencies and regional
entities.
Goal to reduce GHG emissions, with a priority on serving disadvantaged
communities.
Funds are allocated by formula based on population and transit revenue.
Administered by Caltrans
• FY 2021/22 LCTOP allocation
FY 21-22 Allocation: $2,406,486
Program: Riverside County Free Rail Pass Program
Serves Disadvantaged Community, Low-Income Communities, and Low-
Income communities within ½ mile of a Disadvantaged Community
• Program overview
Provide FREE Metrolink passes to residents and students in Riverside
County (for up to three months)
Partnership with IE Commuter and SBCTA
o Both San Bernardino and Riverside County residents will be offered
free passes
Expands current IE Commuter Rideshare Incentives
Program timeframe: Minimum of 2-years
Beginning in Fall 2022
• How will this work and Program marketing
In response to Vice Chair Brian Berkson’s question about how to get involved in the
program and about advertising for this program, Beatris Megerdichian replied they will
go to the IE Commuter Website, iecommuter.org. This program expands the current
incentives so just like how current incentives work they go to the IE Commuter Website
sign up for an account and receive the current incentive, which is $2 per day. This will be
promoted on the website they will use a portion of the funds for marketing and
administering the program.
Vice Chair Berkson asked if the marketing will solely go through the IE Commuter Website,
will there be any mailers, or any other types of billboard advertising. He is trying to gauge
the depth of this program and the depth of how people will be notified of it.
2
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
March 28, 2022
Page 3
Beatris Megerdichian replied those are certainly some options in terms of marketing to
campaign the program. The details have not been worked out as they are collaborating
with San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) and Metrolink to come up
with the best marketing solutions. She asked if Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager, had any
more insight as to the marketing.
Sheldon Peterson expressed appreciation to Ms. Megerdichian for a good job. He stated
they have not yet fully defined the marketing, but they had coordinated a call last week
with Metrolink to give an update to the marketing team so they will collaborate and do
some geofencing marketing just for Inland Empire to make sure their residents are aware
of the program, and they need to get the word out as soon as possible. The plan is to start
in the fall, so they will have a little bit of time to work through this.
Vice Chair Berkson asked about the dollar amount that they are looking to approve if that
includes any money for advertising or is it solely for the discounted fares.
Sheldon Peterson replied it does include funding for advertising and administration so
they will try to have some funds available to do that and they can supplement it with other
funds they have in the program to make sure they get the word out.
Commissioner Linda Krupa expressed appreciation for a good presentation and asked if
they are considering some joint marketing with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA),
because they have some discounted ride programs and free ride programs for students.
She suggested cross marketing with RTA would be a good way to get this information out.
Sheldon Peterson replied they can coordinate with RTA they just want to make sure that
they get the message out appropriately, these are for rail tickets they are not apparently
for bus tickets to this point, but that could be something they could look at in the future.
M/S/C (Berkson/Krupa) to:
1) Adopt Resolution No. 22-008 “Authorization for the Execution of the
Certifications and Assurances and Authorized Agent Forms for the Low
Carbon Transit Operations Program for the Riverside County Free Rail
Pass Program in the amount of $2,406,486”; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
8. MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT STATUS AND REPROGRAMMING OF FUNDS
Anne Mayer, Executive Director, expressed appreciation to Commissioner Michael Vargas
and Clara Miramontes, City of Perris City Manager, for their assistance this past month as
there were a whole series of conversations with RCTC staff, city of Perris staff, and the
city council. She presented the Mid County Parkway (MCP) Project update, highlighting
the following areas:
3
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
March 28, 2022
Page 4
• Perris letter with concerns
• March 8 Perris City council meeting/presentation
• March 11 RCTC letter to Perris committing to:
1. Bridge undercrossing at El Nido
2. Maintain San Jacinto trail
3. Direct truck traffic to the City’s desired routes, mitigate impacts of
traffic on Placentia
• March 23 Perris letter: prohibit trucks
• Project background
1998 - Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process
(CETAP) selected the corridor
EIR/EIS process started in 2003
Project Report and Environmental Document approved in 2015
Environmental mitigation lands & permits acquired
2016 Strategic Assessment – staff directed to study fundable/buildable
packages
First part: I-215 Placentia Ave Interchange under construction
City widening Placentia Avenue, Indian Avenue to Redlands Avenue
MCP part 2: new 3-mile roadway, Redlands Avenue to Ramona
Expressway
Including a map of the alignment
• Project scope
Ultimate environmentally cleared MCP footprint in light blue
MCP part 2 in dark red: consistent with and allows for ultimate facility
Not connected to the State Highway System
2 lanes Redlands Ave to Wilson; 4 lanes Wilson to Ramona Expressway
(steeper section)
Preliminary construction cost estimate: $142 million (2022 prices)
A map of the general alignment between Ramona Expressway and
Redlands Boulevard
• MCP funding planned and programmed total
Anne Mayer expressed this is a difficult recommendation for their staff to make, this is a
project that many of them have been working on for nearly 20 years and significant
resources for the Commission have been invested in the project. At this point she does
not see a path forward given the city of Perris’ requirements and issues related to truck
traffic. It is a difficult recommendation and not one that they make lightly, but they do
not believe that they should continue to expend funds on the project if there is not going
to be support within the community for it.
Chair Benoit expressed appreciation to Anne Mayer for that update and stated he is sorry
to hear that this is where they are at today.
Commissioner Kevin Jeffries stated this is a significant change and it sort of admits the
defeat of an east west corridor going forward as an important corridor for the western
4
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
March 28, 2022
Page 5
half of the County and shifts the burden to Ramona Expressway as the potential
permanent solution, focusing all traffic to Ramona Expressway which pushes it to Cajalco
Road, which is two lanes to Interstate 15. He stated the California Highway Patrol (CHP)
designated that as one of their highest deadly roads from the Riverside CHP station in the
unincorporated territories. Commissioner Jeffries noted to Anne Mayer that they are
going to have to evaluate these new priorities and make sure they address the shifts that
are going to come from this. He stated in District 1, which is Mead Valley through Lake
Matthews down to Corona, they are already in dire straits with a two-lane road handling
traffic it was never designed to handle, and this will raise the issue further up on the
priority plate for 1st District.
Commissioner Jeff Hewitt expressed appreciation to Anne Mayer for being brutally
honest on the situation they have here. He stated the MCP was going to certainly facilitate
traffic in and out of Nuevo and Lake View, it was a critical link to San Jacinto Valley, which
has been off kind of by itself for a long time. Commissioner Hewitt explained getting
either west or north or south there has always been a lot of stop signs and a lot of one or
two-lane roads. The Placentia Interchange is already 70 percent done and they cannot
leave something undone, that is a big fancy interchange that was in this first plan, and it
is a shame that it is getting built and they will not be able to finish the entire project. He
expressed the critical nature of getting people in and out of San Jacinto Valley and the SR-
79 Realignment does get to I-10 and down south to Winchester Road, but certainly they
need to look into that. It is going to be a good robust conversation hopefully something
will come in to be able to fix this, but they need to see what they can do.
Commissioner Karen Spiegel expressed frustration as there is so much needed in Riverside
County and the fact that this began in 1998 and even the last six or seven years has been
so much energy and money expended and they do not hear concerns till so late in the
game. This now affects so many cities and how does San Jacinto feel about it, granted it
goes through Perris, and she understands there is a large chunk of warehouses for their
tax revenue for Perris and these are the trucks that they are not wanting to go through
the city. She expressed if they are building warehouses where are those trucks supposed
to be and then to push that onto Ramona Expressway, which eventually goes to Cajalco
Road. The impact on this region is huge and it is really frustrating and particularly the
dollars when talking about $153 million on Placentia Interchange has already been spent
and is the city of Perris going to have to reimburse for a project that they have already
expended money that they supported up until the very last minute. Commissioner
Spiegel expressed concern this is a lot of money that is being given to an entity or a city
and they should hold them accountable at some level. She stated they all know these
projects take a long time as she went through it an awful lot with the city of Corona. She
expressed it is very frustrating for a project that is not just for the city and she is aware
the city gets hurt and harmed in some ways, but if there was not the warehouses, if there
was not already the Ramona Expressway, and if there was not already $200 million spent,
she understands, but it has been six or seven years just recently let alone the fact that
this started in 1998.
5
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
March 28, 2022
Page 6
Chair Benoit noted it is very frustrating.
Commissioner Clint Lorimore expressed appreciation to staff for working diligently on
their previous direction to communicate with the city on this issue. He expressed
frustration is an understatement as they need east west corridors in this county, they
need to have planning, which they have been doing and they spent $160 million on this
that now they are being asked to walk away from. He realizes these are sunken costs but
this truck traffic they have in the Inland Empire is not going anywhere, and to not build
what they have already spent this amount of money on is crazy. Those trucks are still
going to be there, and that traffic is going to continue to grow, and they are going to be
going onto less than adequate infrastructure. He expressed being beside himself and he
is hoping that they do not have to take action today on staff’s recommendations as he
would like to see another attempt at working with city of Perris staff and elected officials
with a deadline that they are going to come back next month and hopefully have a
solution that is amenable to everybody involved. Commissioner Lorimore noted his
motion is that they postpone making a decision until the April committee meeting and
that they direct staff to continue to engage in further conversations, because this is so
critical to Riverside County, and it is unconscionable to walk away from the investment of
$150 million of taxpayer money.
Vice Chair Brian Berkson concurred with Commissioner Lorimore’s comments and stated
he would second his motion. He explained Perris, like every city in Riverside County has
a representative that sits on this Commission and from his prospective it is his job to bring
back comments to his council meetings about what is going on at RCTC and if there are
questions or comments, he is hearing about it all the time and he can bring that stuff back.
He expressed apparently this is the big punch in the eyeball to come back at this stage
$150 million into it and decide now is the time to raise a bunch of issues. Vice Chair
Berkson asked staff and legal counsel if they need approval by the city of Perris to move
forward with this project, because it is not about the city of Perris it is about the east and
west cities on both sides of that. He is uncertain if staff reached out to the city of San
Jacinto and any other cities that are in that general area that would benefit from the MCP,
but he would have hoped that staff had spoken to the other cities and found out if they
also felt the same sort of issues. Obviously way down the pike here it is too late to say
before they spent the money, that due diligence should have done a long time ago and
any of those questions should have already been raised. If they could move forward
without the city of Perris’ permission that would be one option he would like to hear
about, how would it work, and what would be the fruitful outcome of all the money that
has been spent to date. Vice Chair Berkson noted as Commissioner Lorimore commented,
he would prefer to see this maybe wait for another month presuming that does not cost
RCTC a fortune of money for the next month. If things could be put on pause for 30 days
and give staff a chance and the city of Perris. Maybe the city of Perris will have some time
to think about it and settle down and say this is what they could really live with. He stated
that is a question between city of Perris counsel and RCTC staff, but he would be
interested to see it come back to the committee next month with something better than
just eliminating all the money that was just spent. Vice Chair Berkson noted as
6
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
March 28, 2022
Page 7
Commissioner Spiegel commented if this does become the case that this project is
squashed because of the city of Perris’ request that RCTC’s legal team holds the city of
Perris accountable in some fashion for the money that was spent.
Anne Mayer stated the question regarding repayment, they do not have any mechanisms
for repayment, when RCTC proceeds with a project they do so in good faith with their
member agencies and they do not have any agreements in place that would trigger a
reimbursement. She is not aware of any opportunity to reclaim any of the funds and the
phases that they have built have been in conjunction with the city of Perris resolution that
was adopted in 2013 that gave RCTC the sequence of events within their city. Ms. Mayer
explained this goes back to the question of can they move forward if the city of Perris is
opposing the project, they probably could but would that be productive at some point.
Eventually RCTC would need permits from the city of Perris to enter into their roadways
or to connect to their intersection so at some point they would be in a situation where
although they have an approved environmental document and building a phase that is a
smaller footprint, they do need cooperation and partnership of their member agency
because they need permits. Ms. Mayer stated from a practical standpoint with this level
of opposition it would be very difficult to proceed without the city of Perris’ support. She
explained with respect to will they get anywhere in another month, the things that they
have been asked to do so far related to trucks and truck traffic are not things that are
within their control. She expressed not being aware the RCTC team has recommended to
the Commissioners to abandon a project. She stated if this committee wants staff to try
again, they will certainly do that, but she is not real optimistic.
Commissioner Linda Krupa stated everybody probably knows that anytime the SR-79
Realignment issue comes up she is 100 percent in favor of it, however the MCP is also
extremely important to the San Jacinto Valley. Economically it would benefit San Jacinto
probably more than Hemet, the safety of their residents who commute using the MCP or
Ramona Expressway is also extremely important. She expressed this comes as a real
shock, because moving forward they do need increased access and safer access traffic
into the San Jacinto Valley, it affects all of them out there. They are growing and
everything that is happening in Winchester, Menifee, Hemet, and San Jacinto all brings
more traffic onto two-lane roads. She expressed anything they can do to get this going
such as having more conversations, but absolutely the MCP is important to them.
Commissioner Ted Hoffman stated coming from a city in the 1970s and 1980s that fought
I-15 and how it was going to take their town and cut it in half. All those years of fighting
it, they lost an off ramp, and it was very costly to their city and the freeway got built, so
no matter how much their local residents and people try to fight it, it did not happen. He
explained progress was if that interstate did not exist today there would be a mess, which
is important to bring up because it was done, it was engineered, the environmental
impacts were done, it just needed to be built. Commissioner Hoffman explained being a
retired sheriff’s deputy that worked in San Jacinto/Hemet area, the Perris Station, and
Southwest County and if there is an emergency to respond to it is tough making Ramona
Expressway from one end of the County to the east to SR-79 and then going the other
7
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
March 28, 2022
Page 8
way the roads are limited. He stated taking SR-60 or maybe going down Sanderson or
going up those roads, they do not cut it when being in a hurry, or if there is a firetruck, or
emergency vehicles to respond. Commissioner Hoffman stated what is going to happen
is that traffic, which this is an impact that is going to be felt further down south is if there
is no easy way all that traffic will end up going through Menifee down Newport Road that
will be the cross over. If they do not continue the east west to I-15 to the western part of
the County, there is either Bundy Canyon Road to go a crossed to hook up at Scott Road
or take Newport to go in through Canyon Lake to Lake Elsinore. Those roads are impacted
now, and they need to take some of that impact off and share it going all the way a
crossed. Commissioner Hoffman stated those are his three points, they have to think
about the traffic as this MCP was planned for a long time and it should have been looked
at in all the building they have done. They learned that in Norco as they could not fight
the state and the federal government when they want to put it through, they will put it
through.
Chair Benoit concurred with Commissioner Hoffman’s comments especially the part
about Bundy Canyon Road as he can see that traffic coming right down this way especially
through the city of Wildomar and they have a project that needs funding for that.
Commissioner Michael Vargas expressed appreciation for all the Commissioners
comments and noted it is a tough place to be in right now. He supports the mission of
the RCTC and understands what their mission is, what they are supposed to do here, it is
a regional Commission, and they are improving traffic not just for a city, but for
everybody’s benefit. He expressed appreciation for the Commission’s direction at the
February 28 Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee meeting to
direct staff to come back to the city of Perris to try to work things out. They were able to
accomplish two of the three items, which he appreciates. Commissioner Vargas stated to
Vice Chair Berkson that he always comes back and forth to his city and let them know
what is going on. He explained this has been in the talks for a while, but it just came to
this last final decision where they had to move forward, and this project did start a long
time ago with three other council persons and a different mayor. He stated times have
changed and there is a high school now in place, although they were able to mitigate that
issue and they are basically stumped with the trucks. He reiterated expressing
appreciation for everyone’s comments and he fully supports Commissioner Lorimore’s
recommendation for staff to go back and have more discussions with the city of Perris
and see if they can come to a compromise as this is an important project. Commissioner
Vargas stated if they do vote today, he will respectfully abstain in an effort to support the
consensus of the city of Perris. They work together as a team and just because no matter
what the number of the vote is, they have to support the mission when it comes to the
majority and would respectfully request another opportunity speaking to his council
again. Commissioner Vargas expressed appreciation to Anne Mayer for all the hard work
she has done and meeting with him, his city council, and staff.
Commissioner Bill Zimmerman expressed appreciation for Commissioner Vargas’
willingness to continue the conversation, it is a good motion by this committee to see if
8
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
March 28, 2022
Page 9
they could come to terms and that this Commission would encourage Commissioner
Vargas to rally his council members to reconsider the truck requirement, as it seems like
it is a deal breaker and should be reconsidered. He asked Anne Mayer about some of the
money that has been spent already for the environmental on the MCP, the Sweeney
parcel, and the San Timoteo parcel should this project end up being cancelled or moved
away from if credits would be applied or has it already been paid for and purchased as far
as the mitigation purchases Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP) wise.
Anne Mayer replied they did not have to make any additional MSHCP purchases, because
this was covered. There were very specific species issues that were not covered that had
to do the Sweeney property, the restoration, and now they are in management and
monitoring of that. She is not aware if that would count for any other project, they would
have to check into that. There is very little overlap between the extra mitigation they
needed to do for the MCP and that of SR-79, as an example SR-79 extra mitigation was
related to fairy shrimp, and this was for a different coverage. Anne Mayer stated they
would have to check but more than likely it just now become mitigation land in
perpetuity, and they will have to figure out what they will do with that.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked if there was a way to apply credits or receive credits for
a project not done in place be it given those credits for something else maybe for a
proposed Scott Road to Bundy Canyon project. Anne Mayer replied staff will check on
that.
Vice Chair Berkson stated if the motion that is on the table goes through and they hold
this for another 30 days, it might be important if staff and Commissioner Vargas can at
least provide to the city of Perris city council the information if this project would get
pulled, the amount of money that has already been spent on it, the environmental that
has already been done, and aside from RCTC and Caltrans that has worked on this for
many years that this project has been in the works. He emphasized if this project gets its
plug pulled it will be very difficult to get it re-energized.
Anne Mayer stated to Vice Chair Berkson’s last comment, stopping all work on this project
likely means it is stopped and not to be resurrected. The reason she noted that is they
have an approved environmental document that survived both a state and federal court
lawsuit. They are required to maintain progress on this project and if it goes dormant and
they have done that with the Sweeney Mitigation project, and the Placentia Interchange
is under construction, and they were going to be under construction with this phase of
the MCP and they have to maintain progress to keep their environmental document alive.
She explained if they let that environmental document lapse, she is uncertain where this
Commission or any other governmental body would have enough money to start over
again. In terms of consequences and why they have been trying to make sure they keep
something moving because if they wait until they have all the money for the ultimate
facility the environmental document will no longer be sufficient, and they will be in a
different situation environmentally.
9
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
March 28, 2022
Page 10
Commissioner Krupa stated regarding those last comments that were brought up, if it is
possible to finish the Placentia Interchange and then do the construction on the east end
of the MCP to make that into the four lanes that it is supposed ultimately be built out.
Anne Mayer replied when they were saying they would go back and evaluate what could
be done instead of this segment, they would go back to the east end of MCP as well as
SR-79 to look at what could be done. The original deal with the city of Perris was that
they would start on the west end and move east and if it comes to pass, they can certainly
look at the east end to see if they can do east end work and find a way to transition it
back to maybe Ramona Expressway.
Chair Benoit recommended having some assurances when they do get back to the city of
Perris to allow them to build there so he would be cautious as well.
Commissioner Vargas stated that Ramona Expressway is a no truck route, which are some
of the issues they are dealing with in the city of Perris.
Commissioner Edward Delgado stated he concurred with the majority that they should
certainly take it back to the city of Perris, because this is the 11th hour, and they have to
try a little harder for Commissioner Vargas to allow the Commission to get back in there
to have these discussions.
Commissioner Wes Speake stated as a city that suffered through the impacts for the
greater good there is benefits and there are detractions, but in the end, they need to think
regionally and he hoped to find a way to make this work and to continue because it is a
huge impact for all of them. Being the city that is downstream in a lot of ways they suffer
and benefit at the same time, and if for some reason this does not go forward to look at
all the other impacts especially the ones that Commissioners Jeffries and Spiegel
highlighted, because the ripple effect will be seen far and wide. Commissioner Speake
noted hopefully they can work this out and he understands the trepidation as a city who
has suffered through this that the greater good is something that they have to proceed
with.
In response to Commissioner Spiegel clarification to Commissioner Vargas that the
Ramona Expressway does not allow trucks right now, Commissioner Vargas replied yes, it
is part of their no truck route. Commissioner Spiegel asked where trucks go in their city.
Commissioner Vargas replied he cannot take the time right now to lay it all out, but there
are corridors that are east of Perris Boulevard and west of Perris Boulevard that does lead
them up to Harley Knox and then Harley Knox over to the freeway. The trucks cross
Ramona Expressway but they are not allowed to be on Ramona Expressway.
In response to Commissioner Spiegel’s inquiry to Commissioner Vargas if they are still
building warehouses, Commissioner Vargas replied there is about 15 percent left on the
northern end and on the southern end they have about 35 percent of the land still
10
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
March 28, 2022
Page 11
available. He explained all these projects were dormant way before he got here when
the economy crashed and now that things are going great, they are all coming back to
fruition now.
Commissioner Spiegel asked Commissioner Vargas where all those trucks are going to go
if they are limiting access. Commissioner Vargas reiterated if they are on east or west of
Ramona Expressway there are corridors that will take them up to Harley Knox, which is
their main truck route.
Anne Mayer expressed this is such an important conversation and she was not aware of
Ramona Expressway as also not a truck route. She does want this committee to be aware
about the other extensive conversation they had with city staff, and she is not sure there
is a map, but once the interim MCP hits Redlands Boulevard there was a request that they
turn the trucks to the north. She explained they were asked to ensure the trucks made it
to one of the city’s trucks routes and the route from the MCP up Redlands Boulevard to
Harley Knox is almost five miles. She was not able to commit RCTC to improvements along
a five-mile stretch, as they are building a three-mile stretch and she could not commit
RCTC’s involvement in any capacity improvements along another five-mile stretch. She
believes there was another potential truck route that was a couple of miles long, so they
have had extensive conversations about how to route trucks through the city of Perris.
Ms. Mayer stated from her perspective the routing throughout the city of trucks is not
part of the MCP project, was not cleared environmentally, and would significantly
increase the financial contribution of the Commission, which is why she did not agree to
that.
Chair Benoit asked Anne Mayer about having trucks go that much further into the city
with stop and go traffic would increase the environmental impacts, which would be
significant as opposed to just going down and getting on an interchange that was just
built. Anne Mayer replied yes.
Chair Benoit expressed appreciation for Commissioner Vargas’ input, and he understands
that the city made these decisions to send trucks north and from an air quality prospective
he would wonder about those decisions especially the added impact the mileage and
everything else. He stated when there is an investment like this being made by RCTC with
dollars that could go to other cities respectfully it is hard to then take those dollars and
say bring that investment but do not allow certain traffic on that investment and to send
it a different way it is very difficult for all of them to muster. Chair Benoit concurred with
Anne Mayer that making that further investment north does not make much sense.
Commissioner Vargas stated the concern with the council is the ultimate project was
going to connect straight to the freeway and this interim project is not doing that. This
interim is going to dump traffic onto Redlands and that was the concern that trucks
coming through from the east west corridor they are going to all be coming into the city
limits crossing through some residential areas. Commissioner Vargas stated basically
when they get off at Redlands, they can make a left turn or a right turn off Placentia and
11
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
March 28, 2022
Page 12
then take it across Ramona to get to the freeway. That is where a lot of the issues came
about with truck traffic is that the ultimate project that would not have happened
because it would have been a straight connect to the freeway, now it is being directed
into the community itself so that is the challenges they have been dealing with.
Anne Mayer discussed an updated city of Perris truck route adopted in February and the
east west truck routes are San Jacinto, Ellis, and Ethanac on the south end of the city. She
wanted the committee to have a visual of what is being discussed and she will have Lisa
Mobley, Administrative Services Manager/Clerk of the Board, send this out to the
Committee Members after the meeting. Philip Kang, RCTC, then displayed the city of
Perris Truck Routes map for Committee Members to view. The city is building Placentia
and MCP comes in just north of Placentia on Redlands Boulevard and the requested
rerouting is up Redlands Boulevard to Harley Knox or up Redlands Boulevard to Morgan
Street heading west on Morgan to Indian, south on Indian past the high school to
Placentia and then get on the freeway; those are the two requested routes.
Chair Benoit clarified the motion is to postpone for 30 days to have additional
conversations and see if there is anything else that can be done.
M/S/C (Lorimore/Berkson) postpone this item until the April Western Riverside
County Programs and Projects Committee meeting and that they direct staff
continue to engage further conversations with the city of Perris.
9. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
There were no reports from the Executive Director.
10. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
10A. Commissioner Vargas expressed appreciation for trying to work with the city of
Perris and his city council and he hopes that they come to a resolution. Chair
Benoit replied let them know where they can help.
10B. Commissioner Hoffman announced on March 29 is National Vietnam War
Veterans Day and make sure to thank a Vietnam Vet or thank all Veterans.
• There was mention about surplus land, the city of Norco came across a
group called Homeless for Families and they do low-cost Veterans’ housing
in their cities, and they take small parcels of land and develop them into
homes for Veterans. Please contact him if anyone is interested as they are
going to try to put one together in the city of Norco. He has met with a
group in Los Angeles and spoke to one of the veterans that lives in one and
it is a great program.
Commissioner Speake noted he would like to register an aye vote for Agenda Item 8.
12
RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes
March 28, 2022
Page 13
10C. Commissioner Hewitt expressed appreciation for Commissioner Hoffman’s
comments and announced in the city of Menifee on March 30 at 4:00 p.m. at
Paloma Valley High School they will be honoring the Vietnam Vets.
Commissioner Zimmerman expressed appreciation to Commissioner Hewitt for
his comments and stated everyone is invited not just veterans. It will be in the
performing arts room at Paloma Valley High School it is called Welcome Home
Vietnam Vets.
11. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Western Riverside County
Programs and Projects Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:41 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Mobley
Administrative Services Manager/
Clerk of the Board
13
AGENDA ITEM 7
Agenda Item 7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: April 25, 2022
TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects and Committee
FROM: David Thomas, Toll Project Delivery Director
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: 91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Authorize staff to proceed with the Project Approval and Environmental Document
(PA/ED) phase for the 91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The PA/ED for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (CIP), from SR-241 to Pierce
Street, was completed in 2012. Due to funding constraints, a Project Phasing Plan was developed
to allow an Initial Phase (as identified below) to move forward as scheduled, with the remaining
ultimate improvements to be completed later. The approved project included the following
scope:
• Fifth general purpose lane in each direction from SR-71 to I-15 (Initial Phase)
• Westbound operational lane from SR-241 to SR-71 (partially completed with 91 Corridor
Operations Project)
• Eastbound operational lane from SR-241 to SR-71 (subject of this staff report)
• Auxiliary lanes at various locations (Initial Phase)
• Collector-distributor lanes at the Interstate 15/SR-91 interchange (Initial Phase)
• Extension of the 91 Express Lanes from the Orange County line to I-15 (Initial Phase)
• Express Lanes median direct connector to and from I-15 South (Initial Phase)
• Express Lanes median direct connector to and from I-15 North (under construction with
15/91 Express Lanes Connector project)
• One Express Lane and one operational lane in each direction from I-15 easterly to east of
McKinley Street (Future Phase)
The segment of SR-91 in the eastbound direction between SR-241 and SR-71 continues to
experience operational deficiencies, particularly in the afternoon hours. The 91 Eastbound
Corridor Operations Project (the subject of this staff report) is a component of the SR-91 CIP that
was not constructed with the Initial Phase (refer to Figure 1) and would help to improve traffic
operations along eastbound SR-91 between SR-241 and SR-71.
14
Agenda Item 7
Figure 1: 91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project
Senate Bill 1316, signed into law in September 2008, authorized the Commission to extend the
91 Express Lanes into Riverside County and instituted systematic coordination of projects on the
91 corridor in Orange and Riverside counties. This was established through the development of
the annual 91 Implementation Plan and the creation of the 91 Advisory Committee with specific
responsibilities composed of board members from the Commission and the Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA) as well as the Caltrans District 8 and 12 Directors. The 91
Advisory Committee has expressed concern with the delay of the 91 eastbound operational lane
from SR-241 to SR-71, which has been included as a project in the 91 Implementation Plan since
2018.
In May 2020, OCTA, in coordination with RCTC, the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA),
Caltrans, and the cities of Anaheim, Yorba Linda, and Corona initiated a 91 Eastbound Corridor
Operations Project Alternative Analysis study. The purpose of the study was to identify feasible
alternatives and range of cost for adding the 91 eastbound operational lane from SR-241 to
SR-71 as identified with the SR-91 CIP PA/ED effort. The Alternative Analysis study report
(attached) was completed on April 1, 2022 and recommends four feasible design variations that
range in total cost from $49 million to $154 million.
15
Agenda Item 7
DISCUSSION:
The Eastbound 91 Corridor Operations Project is a component of the SR-91 CIP Ultimate Project
that was approved in the 2012 EIR/EIS. This component is not currently in the Commission’s
10-year delivery plan, though it is a Measure A project. The Alternative Analysis study has
identified new alternatives that will require environmental revalidation and an updated scoping
document to identify the preferred alternative. As noted above, these alternatives would
improve operations on eastbound SR-91 between SR-241 and SR-71. It is estimated that this
effort will take approximately two to three years and cost approximately $5 million. Project
coordination will be required with multiple agencies including Caltrans, OCTA, TCA, city of
Corona, and environmental resource agencies. Caltrans District 8 concurs with moving forward
in Fiscal Year 2022/23 with the PA/ED phase as the lead agency for the environmental
revalidation. Procurement of an engineering and environmental consultant would occur in
FY 2022/23.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends proceeding with the PA/ED phase for the 91 Eastbound Corridor Operations
Project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This item is to authorize staff to proceed with the PA/ED phase of the project. Staff time to be
incurred for the PA/ED contract (Contract) procurement is estimated to be $100,000.
Preliminarily, staff has identified Federal Formula Highway Infrastructure Program and Surface
Transportation Block Grant funds as well as Measure A Western County Highways or 91 Surplus
Toll Revenue (local match) as the funding sources for the Contract. Once an engineering and
environmental consultant has been procured, staff will return to the Commission with a request
for action to award the Contract. At that time, the fiscal impact will be known and the detailed
funding sources will be provided.
Attachment: Final 91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project Alternative Analysis Report
16
Final Alternative Analysis Report
State Route 91 Eastbound Corridor
Operations Project from State Route
241 to State Route 71
Prepared for
Orange County Transportation Authority
April 2022
6 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 450
Santa Ana, CA 92707
17
Vicinity Map
18
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 1
2. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 1
2A. Existing Facility ........................................................................................ 1
2B. Stakeholder Input .................................................................................... 2
3. PURPOSE AND NEED ....................................................................................... 4
4. CORRIDOR AND SYSTEM COORDINATION ....................................................... 5
4A. Federal and State Systems ....................................................................... 5
4B. State Planning .......................................................................................... 5
4C. Regional Planning .................................................................................... 6
4D. Local Planning .......................................................................................... 7
5. SCREENING AND EVALUATION APPROACH ..................................................... 7
5A. Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................... 7
5B. Measurement of Evaluation Criteria ....................................................... 8
5C. Evaluation Framework ............................................................................. 9
6. ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................................. 10
6A. No-Build Alternative .............................................................................. 10
6B. Build Alternatives .................................................................................. 10
6C. Alternative Concept Plan Development ................................................ 12
6D. Informal Value Analysis Workshop ........................................................ 13
7. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS .................................................... 15
7A. Nonstandard Mandatory and Advisory Design Features ....................... 15
7B. Traffic Assessment ................................................................................. 15
7C. Right-of-Way ......................................................................................... 18
7D. Geotechnical Analysis ............................................................................ 18
7E. Structures Evaluation ............................................................................ 20
7F. Environmental Compliance .................................................................... 20
7G. Cost Assessment .................................................................................... 21
8. SCREENING EVALUATION RESULTS ................................................................ 22
9. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 23
10. PROJECT PERSONNEL.................................................................................... 26
11. ATTACHMENTS ............................................................................................. 26
19
Alternative Analysis Report
SR-91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project from SR-241 to SR-71
1
1. INTRODUCTION
The State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) (EA 0F540_) was approved in
2012. Consistent with the Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
(EIR/EIS), implementation of the project will be phased over a 20-year period, beginning
with an Initial Phase and culminating with completion of the Ultimate Project by 2035.
Separate phases were anticipated to be identified and programmed to incorporate the
components of the improvements on SR-91 and Interstate 15 (I-15) between the Initial
Phase and completion of the Ultimate Project by 2035, as funding becomes available. This
Alternative Analysis Report (AAR) analyzes a component of the Ultimate Project for the SR-
91 CIP along eastbound SR-91 between State Route 241 (SR-241) and State Route 71 (SR-
71).
This AAR analyzes options for the addition of a 6th general purpose (GP) lane in the
eastbound (EB) direction from SR-241 to SR-71. The project improvements addressed in this
AAR are entirely within the Ultimate SR-91 CIP footprint.
This AAR includes options for implementing the following components of the Ultimate SR-91
CIP:
• Adding a GP lane approximately 2 miles in length in the EB direction of SR-91 from
the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/SR-71 interchange. This would involve
adding approximately 10 to 20 feet of outside pavement widening to SR-91 at some
locations and restriping in others.
• Widening Coal Canyon Undercrossing (UC).
• Widening County Line Creek UC.
• Constructing new retaining walls approximately 3,500 to 6,500 feet in length and
approximately 6 to 40 feet in height on the south side of EB SR-91.
• Adding an auxiliary lane to the EB off-ramp at Green River Road.
• Replacing overhead signs.
2. BACKGROUND
2A. Existing Facility
The SR-91 freeway is a major east-west access-controlled corridor for commuters traversing
between Northern Orange and Riverside Counties and is the only significant highway
transportation facility connecting the two counties. In the project study area, which includes
the SR-91/SR-241 and SR-91/SR-71 interchanges, the SR-91 corridor generally consists of
five GP lanes in both the EB and westbound (WB) directions and is geographically
constrained by the Santa Ana River to the north and the Mindeman Landslide complex to
the south.
The 91 Express Lanes is a two-lane toll facility on SR-91 in each direction from State Route
55 (SR-55) to the Orange/Riverside County line (east of the SR-91/SR-241 interchange). This
toll facility was extended under the Initial Phase of the SR-91 CIP to extend the two lanes to
20
Alternative Analysis Report
SR-91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project from SR-241 to SR-71
2
McKinley Street and southbound (SB) I-15 in Riverside County. The 91 Express Lanes are
owned and operated by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the
Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC).
The 91 Express Lanes require all drivers to have a FasTrak transponder to pay for the toll. In
the EB direction, an egress point exists for the Orange County segment of the express lanes
near the County line (around Coal Canyon). Additionally, there is an ingress point serving the
Riverside segment available to the west of the SR-91/Green River Road interchange. A toll
station exists for the Orange County segment at the SR-91/Weir Canyon Road interchange,
and a similar station exists in Riverside County just east of the SR-91/SR-71 interchange. Toll
rates vary by day-of-week and time-of-day, are set in advance by OCTA and RCTC, and use
historical traffic patterns. These rates remain the same for several months. The toll rates
are analyzed and updated every 12 weeks using congestion management pricing, as
described on OCTA and RCTC’s toll policies (https://www.91expresslanes.com/toll-policies).
Vehicles with three or more persons can use the 3+ lane toll-free (although they still are
required to have a transponder), except when traveling EB on Monday through Friday
between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. During that peak time, when traveling
through the 3+ lane, drivers receive a 50% discount on the posted toll. The discount policy
also applies to zero emission vehicles (ZEVs), motorcycles, vehicles with disabled plates and
disabled veterans, though these vehicles are not allowed to travel in the 3+ lane. (The
discounts are handled by the type of account, rather than using the 3+ lane.)
SR-241, the westerly boundary of the project vicinity, is a toll highway that connects
southerly portions of Orange County with SR-91 near the west end of the Santa Ana River
Canyon (commonly referred to as “Santa Ana Canyon”). SR-241 was constructed and is
operated by the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (F/ETCA) and is currently
owned and maintained by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as an
element of the state highway system. F/ETCA is a public agency representing Orange County
and 11 cities within the county and operates the toll system on SR-241.
SR-71 lies just east of the Orange/Riverside County Line. Primarily a four-lane freeway and
expressway facility, SR-71 provides a connection between the eastern end of the Santa Ana
Canyon and Eastern Los Angeles County/Western San Bernardino County and the cities of
Chino, Chino Hills, Ontario, and Pomona.
2B. Stakeholder Input
Early in the project, interviews were held with representatives from corridor agencies to
discuss issues along the corridor and their views on how best to incorporate the addition of
the proposed 6th GP lane along the EB SR-91 mainline between the SR-241 and SR-71. The
individuals listed in Table 1 were present for these virtual conference call meetings.
21
Alternative Analysis Report
SR-91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project from SR-241 to SR-71
3
Table 1: Stakeholder Interview Summary
Entity Representatives Date of Interview
RCTC Mark Firger
Michael Blomquist
Mark Lancaster
David Thomas
June 9, 2020
Foothill/Eastern
Transportation Corridor
Agency (F/ETCA)
Juliet Su
David Speirs
Kelsie Anderson
June 15, 2020
City of Anaheim David Kennedy June 15, 2020
Caltrans District 12 Brian Santos June 19, 2020
Caltrans District 8 Daniel Ciacchella
Emad Makar
Mindy Bui
Karen Adame
Manual Farias
July 6, 2020
City of Corona Tom Koper July 27, 2020
City of Yorba Linda Tony Wang July 28, 2020
Stakeholders were interviewed to solicit their opinions on the following discussion
questions:
• Were you previously involved with RCTC’s SR-91 CIP project development effort?
o If so, how extensive was your involvement?
o If not, how much do you know about this project?
• Are you aware of other SR-91 projects that are underway such as: the SR-91
Corridor Operations Project (COP); SR-241/SR-91 Tolled Express Lanes Connector;
SR-71/SR-91 Interchange Improvements; and 15/91 Express Lanes Connector?
o If so, are you aware there was consensus amongst OCTA, RCTC, Caltrans
Districts 8 & 12, and F/ETCA to implement these projects in a sequential
manner in order to minimize construction impacts to the SR-91 corridor?
• Are there other planned improvements that could affect the outcome of this study?
• Given the limited information we have on this project at this time, are there
opportunities and challenges that you foresee with respect to implementing this
project?
• What are the specific constraints (e.g., right-of-way, geotechnical, traffic, etc.) that
must be considered for this project?
A summary of stakeholder feedback on the discussion questions is as follows:
• In general, the stakeholders interviewed agreed that improvements are warranted
along this stretch of the SR-91 corridor. Some stakeholders were concerned about
the impact to the Mindeman Landslide area. Another area of concern also includes
impact to the existing retaining walls and potential geotechnical challenges.
Suggestions were made to follow original SR-91 CIP layout and avoid widening to
the south. Many of the stakeholders noted the potential conflict with the ongoing
planning and design projects within the corridor and focused on the need for
coordination.
22
Alternative Analysis Report
SR-91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project from SR-241 to SR-71
4
• Stakeholders suggested a few environmental items that must be monitored during
the development of the project alternatives. The most discussed environmental
item was potential impacts to the Coal Canyon UC. Stakeholders identified this area
as a critical environmental item that must be resolved in the early phases of the
alternative developments. The other environmental consideration discussed was
the need to monitor impacts to the Santa Ana River Trail, located on the northerly
side of SR-91 within the project limits.
• Stakeholders identified a variety of critical issues in the corridor. In particular, there
was general consensus that traffic operations at freeway and local interchanges was
one of the most critical issues. Close coordination with on-going projects and
determining a baseline for this study was identified as a concern.
• Many stakeholders wanted to make sure that the following planned projects be
considered and coordinated with closely during this study:
o The SR-91 COP.
o The 15/91 Express Lanes Connector.
o The SR-241/SR-91 Tolled Express Lanes Connector.
o The SR-71/SR-91 Interchange Improvements.
• Stakeholders identified staging, traffic handling, and construction duration as
potential challenges during the development of the project alternatives. It was also
mentioned that coordination with overlapping projects must be ongoing to avoid
construction waste and minimize potential throwaway. Construction fatigue was
identified as a potential challenge. No major right-of-way issues were identified.
• Some stakeholders requested that design exceptions be avoided. If exceptions are
required, the approval period would have a major impact on the schedule.
• In addition to the various criteria that were considered and presented to the
stakeholders, an evaluation of construction impacts was added to the list.
• Opportunities suggested by stakeholders include the sequencing of overlapping
projects to avoid construction waste and progress projects on schedule. Another
opportunity presented was the utilization of approved project documents from the
SR-91 CIP to support development of project alternatives.
Project Development Team
OCTA, RCTC, F/ETCA, Caltrans Districts 12 and 8, and the cities of Anaheim, Yorba Linda, and
Corona are the major stakeholders in the development of this project. Each party has
identified SR-91 as a major transportation route that must be consistently improved to meet
forecasted growth in the region. All parties have attended Project Development Team (PDT)
and geometric review meetings to develop and understand the alternative concepts (ACs).
3. PURPOSE AND NEED
Because the proposed EB 6th lane addition is a component of the Ultimate Phase of the SR-
91 CIP, this section restates the purpose and need statement from the previously approved
Project Report (PR).
The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion and improve mobility within the project
segments of SR-91 (between the SR-241 interchange and Pierce Street) and I-15 (between
23
Alternative Analysis Report
SR-91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project from SR-241 to SR-71
5
the Cajalco Road interchange and the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange). The proposed
improvements would facilitate movement of people and goods along SR-91 in Riverside and
Orange Counties by improving travel conditions for work, recreation, school, commerce, and
other trip purposes. The proposed project will accomplish the following objectives:
• Improve the vehicle, person, and goods movement within the SR-91 corridor to
more effectively serve existing and future travel demand between and within
Riverside and Orange Counties.
• Provide improvements along the SR-91 and I-15 transportation corridors as well as
to related local roads and to reduce diversion of regional traffic from the freeways
into the surrounding communities.
Current average daily traffic on SR-91 is 280,000 vehicles (based on 2007 traffic data) at the
Orange/Riverside County line with recurring congestion experienced on a daily basis during
weekday peak periods and frequently on weekends. Anticipated continuing growth in
commuter traffic and goods movement along the corridor indicates a projected traffic
growth of 50% by the year 2035. The proposed Build Alternatives would implement a GP
lane and other operational improvements to alleviate the congestion that exists now and is
projected to increase in the future.
Average daily traffic on SR-241 is 51,000 (based on 2007 traffic data) vehicles at SR-91,
slightly less than SR-71 which has an average daily traffic volume of 57,000 (based on 2007
traffic data) vehicles, but still 18% of the 280,000 daily vehicles at the Orange/Riverside
County line. The similarity of volumes between SR-241 and SR-71 is notable in that SR-241 is
entirely a toll facility while SR-71 is not. Additional traffic demand on SR-241 may exist due
to the absence of free-flow conditions on SR-91.
4. CORRIDOR AND SYSTEM COORDINATION
4A. Federal and State Systems
SR-91 is part of the Freeway and Expressway System and the National Highway System
(NHS). However, SR-91 is not within the Interregional Road System. Other designations that
apply to SR-91 are the National Network for Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA)
Trucks and the 12 Foot Wide Arterial System.
4B. State Planning
The Caltrans District 12 SR-91 Route Concept Report (RCR), prepared in 1999, classifies the
segment of SR-91 from SR-241 to SR-71 as Other Freeway or Expressway throughout Orange
County. The ultimate transportation concept for this segment of SR-91 calls for eight mixed
flow lanes and two HOV lanes.
24
Alternative Analysis Report
SR-91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project from SR-241 to SR-71
6
4C. Regional Planning
RCTC, OCTA, and F/ETCA commissioned the Riverside County-Orange County Major
Investment Study (RC-OC MIS) in 2004, which was completed in 2005. The RC-OC MIS
identified a Locally Preferred Strategy (LPS) for improvement to or development of major
corridors to improve mobility between Orange County and Riverside County. The highest
priority need identified in the RC-OC MIS was improvement of SR-91 to the maximum
feasible cross-section of seven lanes in each direction.
The SR-91 Implementation Plan, required to be updated annually by OCTA, provides a
framework for providing a range of freeway improvement projects and transit concepts for
the SR-9 corridor. This implementation plan is required by Assembly Bill 1010 (AB 1010) as
part of the legislation that enabled OCTA to purchase the ten-mile toll facility from a private,
for-profit company and convert it to public ownership. The current plan divides
improvements into the following groups: Planned Projects (further divided into Orange
County Projects, Riverside County Projects, and Bi-County Projects), Concept Projects, and
Completed Projects. Many of the highway projects and concepts identified in the plan are
based on the RC-OC MIS.
The County of Riverside General Plan (last revised July 7, 2020) identifies SR-91 as a freeway.
The proposed improvements have taken into account planned regional projects, including
the SR-91 COP, SR-241/SR-91 Tolled Express Lanes Connector Project, SR-71/SR-91
Interchange Improvements Project, 15/91 Express Lanes Connector, and the I-15 Express
Lanes South Extension, which are summarized below.
4.C.1. SR-91 Corridor Operations Project
This project proposes to add a 6th lane to WB SR-91 between SR-241 and Green River Road.
Similar to the 6th EB lane addition, this project was a component of the Ultimate Phase of
the SR-91 CIP but also included extension to SR-71. The project sponsor is RCTC and it is
currently under construction.
4.C.2. SR-241/SR-91 Tolled Express Lanes Connector Project
This project proposes to construct a tolled median-to-median connector from SR-241 to the
91 Express Lanes. The project sponsor is F/ETCA and it is currently in the PS&E (final design)
phase.
4.C.3. SR-71/SR-91 Interchange Improvements Project
This project proposes to improve the SR-91/SR-71 interchange by adding a flyover connector
ramp from EB SR-91 to northbound (NB) SR-71. The slip on-ramp to EB SR-91 from Green
River Road would provide access to SR-71 by adding a third lane to the connector before
merging back to a two-lane section. Access will also be provided to EB SR-91 from the
Green River Road EB on-ramp. The project sponsor is RCTC and it is currently anticipated to
begin construction in 2022.
25
Alternative Analysis Report
SR-91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project from SR-241 to SR-71
7
4.C.4. 15/91 Express Lanes Connector
This project proposes to construct a tolled connector between the 91 Express Lanes and the
15 Express Lanes that will connect the EB 91 Express Lanes to the NB 15 Express Lanes and
the SB 15 Express Lanes to the WB 91 Express Lanes. The project sponsor is RCTC and the
project is currently under construction.
4.C.5. I-15 Express Lanes South Extension
This project proposes to extend the existing 15 Express Lanes from the current terminus at
Cajalco Road by 14.5 miles to the south, extending the terminus to State Route 74 (SR-74) in
Lake Elsinore. The project sponsor is RCTC and the project is currently in the PA/ED
(environmental) phase.
4D. Local Planning
The City of Corona, in the Circulation Element of their General Plan for 2020-2040 (Updated
2020), identifies SR-91 as a freeway. The proposed improvements have taken into
consideration local land development projects. These projects include several commercial
and residential developments planned for the undeveloped land along the westernmost
edge of SR-91 as well as transitioning areas including the southeast corner of SR-91/I-15
interchange, and north of SR-91.
The City of Anaheim categorizes SR-91 as a freeway in the Circulation Element of their
General Plan published in 2020. The Circulation Element states that the number of trips
made between the counties of Orange and Riverside are forecast to double over the next
twenty years.
The City of Yorba Linda classifies SR-91 as a freeway in the Circulation Element of their
General Plan, which was last updated in 2016.
5. SCREENING AND EVALUATION APPROACH
The goal of this study was to scope out the options for the addition of the 6th GP lane on EB
SR-91 between SR-241 and SR-71 to improve mobility along the SR-91 corridor. This goal
was accomplished through the development of several Alternative Concepts (ACs) for
various locations along the corridor and identification of which can be carried forward into
the next phase of the project development process. Evaluations of these ACs needed to be
completed to ensure that they meet the needs of the stakeholders along the corridor.
5A. Evaluation Criteria
Based on input from the stakeholder interviews, a list of evaluation criteria was developed
for application on the Alternative Analysis Report (AAR). These criteria were applied to
individual ACs, as described in Section 8. These evaluation criteria include:
1. Construction Impacts: Does the AC increase or decrease traffic on arterials? Does the
AC improve or degrade operations on the surface streets (including ramp terminal
26
Alternative Analysis Report
SR-91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project from SR-241 to SR-71
8
intersections)? How will the AC create residual construction impacts affecting the
adjacent tolled facilities? Does the AC reduce cut-through traffic? Will the proposed
alternative result in a shorter or longer construction duration?
2. SR-91 Corridor Impacts: How will the AC impact the SR-91 GP lanes? How will the AC
impact users of the 91 Express Lanes?
3. Cost and Right-of-Way Constraints: Is the cost of the AC consistent with available
funding in the region? Cost includes the capital construction, right-of-way, utilities,
and project development costs. Can the AC be built to avoid major right-of-way
impacts including costly utility relocation? Can the alternative be constructed
generally within the State right-of-way?
4. Design Standards: Can the AC be built to Caltrans standards with minimal
exceptions?
5. Environmental Impacts: Will the AC result in potentially significant environmental
impacts? How will the project AC impact the Santa Ana River Trail? Will the AC widen
the Coal Canyon UC? How will the AC impact the Mindeman Landslide?
6. Planned Projects: Will the proposed AC be compatible with proposed projects along
the SR-91 corridor in the short term (based on timing for implementation)? How will
the proposed ACs integrate with the current and future corridor cross-section?
7. Schedule: How long would the AC take to implement, both during project delivery
and construction?
5B. Measurement of Evaluation Criteria
Potential ACs will be assessed using the following scale for each evaluation criterion:
Significant benefit (two solid green circles)
Measurable benefit (one solid green circle)
Neutral (black bullseye)
Measurable disbenefit (one open orange circle)
Significant disbenefit (two open orange circles)
Fatal flaw (red “x”)
Note, that while the evaluation framework will use available data and engineering
judgment, the application of the criteria will be both quantitative and qualitative. The
evaluation will be performed by professionals with expertise in the applicable areas (e.g.,
traffic, environmental, geotechnical, cost estimates), but the final screening level
evaluations will be based on professional judgment of the PDT.
Table 2 provides a listing of a generic interpretation of the assessments (benefits or
disbenefits) for the evaluation criteria.
27
Alternative Analysis Report
SR-91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project from SR-241 to SR-71
9
Table 2: Interpretation of Evaluation Criteria
Assessment
Evaluation Criterion Benefit Disbenefit Fatal Flaw
Construction Impacts Reduce construction staging
impacts. Cut-through traffic will be
minimal. Minimize construction
throwaway costs and potential
construction fatigue.
Extended construction
impacts and duration.
Additional delay on SR-91.
Minor construction waste.
Minor construction fatigue.
Add significant delay to
construction time. Increase
local impact from construction
activities. Major construction
waste. Major construction
fatigue.
SR-91 Corridor Impacts Alternative concept conforms with
existing corridor with minimal to
no impact. Only restriping impacts
to the 91 Express Lanes.
Alternative concept conforms
with existing corridor with
minor impact. Minimal impact
to the 91 Express Lanes.
Alternative concept does not
conform with existing corridor.
Major impact to the 91
Express Lanes.
Cost and Right-of-Way
Constraints
Manageable cost and good cost-
benefit ratio. Construct
improvements within available
public right-of-way and minimal
utility impacts.
High cost or low cost-benefit
ratio. Moderate right-of-way
and utility impacts.
Very high cost. Cannot be
built without significant right-
of-way and utilities impact.
Design Standards Can be built to Caltrans standards
with a few nonstandard features.
Moderate to high number of
nonstandard features will be
needed.
Unobtainable nonstandard
features will be needed.
Environmental Impacts Minimal impacts or constraints
related to physical and
environmental elements. Minimal
to no impact to Santa Ana River
Trail. Minimal impact to Coal
Canyon UC. Minor to no impact to
Mindeman Landslide area.
Moderate physical and/or
environmental constraints that
require some mitigation.
Minimal to major impact to
Santa Ana River Trail.
Minimal to major impact to
Coal Canyon UC. Minor
impact to Mindeman
Landslide area.
Physical and/or environmental
constraints that are
unmitigable. Major impact to
Santa Ana River Trail. Major
impact to Coal Canyon UC.
Significant impacts to
Mindeman Landslide,
reconstruct all existing
retaining walls.
Planned Projects Good compatibility with proposed
projects. Alternative integrates to
existing facility with minimal
construction cost.
Compatibility with most
proposed projects. Alternative
concept requires moderate
reconstruction of recently built
facilities.
Not compatible with proposed
and recently built projects.
Alternative concept requires
major reconstruction activities
of recently built facilities.
Schedule Minimal schedule/timeframe for
completing environmental, design
and construction phases, based
on complexity of design features.
Moderate schedule/timeframe
for completing environmental,
design and construction
phases.
Very lengthy schedule
duration for completing
environmental, design and
construction phases.
5C. Evaluation Framework
A screening process was conducted to assess the relative performance of several ACs and to
identify those alternatives that have sufficient merit to warrant further analyses. Once the
ACs were developed, the criteria described above was used to conduct more detailed
analysis. To conduct the evaluation, a matrix of ACs and the screening criteria was
prepared. Table 3 shows a sample evaluation.
In this example, Alternative 4 would be screened out because of the fatal flaw in cost and
significant disbenefit to SR-91 corridor operations. Note that Alternative 6 was evaluated
highly for most of the criteria, but the fatal flaw for impact to the SR-91 corridor would rule
it out. Alternative 1 would also likely be screened out, because of the large number of
28
Alternative Analysis Report
SR-91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project from SR-241 to SR-71
10
significant construction-related disbenefit assessments. Alternatives 2, 3 and 5 would likely
be considered for further evaluation.
Table 3: Sample Evaluation Framework
Alternative Concepts
Evaluation Criterion 1 2 3 4 5 6
Construction Impacts
SR-91 Corridor Impacts
Cost & Right-of-Way Constraints
Design Standards
Environmental Impacts
Planned Projects
6. ALTERNATIVES
Upon development of the evaluation criteria, the technical team conducted a workshop to
brainstorm and develop ACs for screening and evaluation. The team reviewed background
information on the project, including previous and ongoing studies within the study area,
and issues identified during the stakeholder interviews. The team also reviewed evaluation
criteria to focus the development of concept on the key issues identified by the stakeholders
and by the technical team. Based on this approach, the team identified four ACs, in addition
to the no-build alternative, that best reflect the needs and input of the stakeholders and
meet the goals of this study.
6A. No-Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative would maintain the current configuration of SR-91 in the project
area. Under this alternative, there would be no additional 6th GP lane. Continuing congestion
with degraded levels of service would be expected under this alternative.
The No-Build Alternative provides a baseline for comparing the impacts associated with the
Build Alternatives since environmental reviews must consider the effects of not
implementing the proposed project.
6B. Build Alternatives
Four ACs are proposed, each of which implement a 6th EB GP lane on SR-91 between SR-241
and SR-71. When developing each AC, it should be noted that when the SR-91 alignment
was shifted to avoid features such as the Mindeman Landslide or Santa Ana River Trail, this
shift was maintained until the potential impact has been avoided. The westerly portion of
the project (from the westerly project limit to Coal Canyon UC) is similar between all ACs
because there were no features avoided in this area. Design variations were also identified
in several of the ACs that can be incorporated in a future phase.
29
Alternative Analysis Report
SR-91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project from SR-241 to SR-71
11
6.B.1. Alternative Concept 1: Constrained Cross-Section (4 variations)
AC 1 proposes to add the 6th EB GP lane utilizing nonstandard lane and shoulder widths,
limiting the widening to the outside while avoiding impacts to the Mindeman Landslide. The
existing centerline (and median barrier) for SR-91 is to remain at the existing location.
Approximately 8-10 feet of pavement widening to the south will be required to
accommodate the additional lane. Retaining walls anticipated to be 8-10 feet in height may
need to be constructed at several locations. The EB bridge structure for the Coal Canyon
Road UC would need to be widened to the inside. After the first ingress east of Coal Canyon
UC, the buffer area will be reduced to 2 feet where possible, this occurs at the EB mainline
between Sta 550+00 to Sta 575+00. Reducing this buffer width allows utilization of the
existing pavement area to reduce outside widening. For all design variations under AC 1, the
lane widths would be 11 feet for all express lanes, 11 feet for inside GP lanes, and 12 feet for
the two outside GP lanes. The buffer width is set at 2 feet. Four different design variations
will be considered for this alternative, a description of each variation is provided below:
• Design Variation A (Alternative Concept 1A): Existing median concrete barrier and
left shoulder to remain mostly as-is with minimal widening to the south. Utilize
nonstandard right shoulder widths.
• Design Variation B (Alternative Concept 1B): Widen right shoulder to standard 10-
foot width at all locations.
• Design Variation C (Alternative Concept 1C): This design variation uses the same
lane and shoulder widths proposed under Design Variation B and adds a two-lane
exit at the Green River Road off-ramp along with a 1,300-foot auxiliary lane.
• Design Variation D (Alternative Concept 1D): This design variation uses the same
lane and shoulder widths proposed under Design Variation B and moves the express
lane ingress to the west. This design variation also adds a two-lane exit at the Green
River Road off-ramp along with a 1,300-foot auxiliary lane.
6.B.2. Alternative Concept 2: Full-Standard Cross-Section, Widen South
AC 2 proposes to add the 6th EB GP lane utilizing standard lane and shoulder widths. The
existing centerline (and median barrier) for SR-91 is to remain at the existing location. All
pavement widening would take place to the south, which would result in impacts to the
Mindeman Landslide. The ultimate cross-section includes standard lane widths, standard
shoulders, and a 4-foot buffer for the 91 Express Lanes. Retaining walls on the south side of
the freeway would require reconstruction while taking into consideration the stability of the
Mindeman Landslide. The EB bridge structure for the Coal Canyon Road UC would need to
be widened to the outside. At Green River Road, a two-lane exit would be provided along
with a 1,300-foot auxiliary lane upstream of the off-ramp. This auxiliary lane would require a
tie-back wall anticipated to be approximately 40 feet in height.
30
Alternative Analysis Report
SR-91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project from SR-241 to SR-71
12
6.B.3. Alternative Concept 3: Full-Standard Cross-Section, Widen North (2
variations)
AC 3 proposes to add the 6th EB GP lane utilizing standard lane and shoulder widths,
consistent with the proposed ultimate cross-section of the SR-91 CIP. The EB edge of
shoulder would be held at the existing location and all pavement widening would take place
to the north, resulting in impacts to the parking lot, cul-de-sac, and access points for the
Santa Ana River Trail. Widening to the north would avoid impacts to the Mindeman
Landslide and the retaining walls to the south of the freeway. Because the centerline would
be shifted to the north, the WB SR-91 lanes would also be impacted under this alternative.
For this reason, two design variations are considered:
• Design Variation A (Alternative Concept 3A): Provides the full standard cross-
section for the WB lanes, consistent with the proposed ultimate cross-section in the
SR-91 CIP.
• Design Variation B (Alternative Concept 3B): Provides the same cross-section for
the WB lanes that would be in place following construction of the SR-91 COP.
The EB bridge structure for the Coal Canyon Road UC would be widened. At Green River
Road, a two-lane exit would be provided along with a 1,300-foot auxiliary lane upstream of
the off-ramp, consistent with the SR-91 CIP ultimate cross-section. This auxiliary lane would
require a tie-back wall anticipated to be 40 feet in height.
6.B.4. Alternative Concept 4: Hybrid Cross-Section (Limited Widen South)
AC 4 proposes to add the 6th EB GP lane utilizing standard lanes and upgrading inside
shoulder widths to standard where feasible, while minimizing impacts to the Mindeman
Landslide area. This alternative maintains the existing median barrier and widens EB SR-91
to the south. The intent of this alternative is to limit nonstandard features to primarily
shoulder reductions and, if needed, fewer lane width reductions. This alternative improves
the stopping sight distance at two locations. Additional retaining walls may be required
south of SR-91 to accommodate the pavement widening. The EB bridge structure for the
Coal Canyon Road UC would need to be widened. At Green River Road, a two-lane exit
would be provided along with a 1,300-foot auxiliary lane upstream of the off-ramp,
consistent with the SR-91 CIP ultimate cross-section. This auxiliary lane would require a tie-
back wall anticipated to be 40 feet in height.
6C. Alternative Concept Plan Development
Detailed roadway geometrics were developed for each of the ACs and associated design
variations, referencing the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. Topographic mapping was
available from recent project efforts and used as the base map. The plans in Attachment A
show the proposed roadway alignments and associated improvements, including structures,
right-of-way, retaining walls, barriers, and striping. Geometry for adjacent project efforts
planned to be constructed ahead of the EB 6th lane addition are also included.
31
Alternative Analysis Report
SR-91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project from SR-241 to SR-71
13
6D. Informal Value Analysis Workshop
Once the preliminary ACs for the EB 6th lane addition were developed, an informal Value
Analysis (VA) workshop was conducted, generally using the principles of the Caltrans VA
process that typically takes place during the PA/ED phase. The purpose of the workshop was
to identify potential efficiencies that could be incorporated into the project to reduce cost
and impacts in the alternatives developed. All stakeholder agencies and independent
reviewers for multiple disciplines participated in the workshop. A technical memorandum
(Informal Value Analysis Workshop Summary) was written to summarize the discussions of
the workshop. This memo explores 10 ideas that originated from the workshop, all of which
aim to reduce costs and impacts of the ACs developed for this project. These 10 ideas are
briefly summarized in Table 4 below.
Table 4: Summary of VA Ideas
Idea No. Description
Idea No. 1 Provide 4 lanes at terminus of Green River Road Off-Ramp
Idea No. 2 Use 2 foot buffer throughout between GP lanes and Express Lanes and 11 foot
lanes
Idea No. 3 Shorten entrance merge for 91 Express Lane ingress area west of Green River
Road
Idea No. 4 Avoid widening Coal Canyon UC by shifting the Express Lane egress west and
utilizing existing reduced lane widths
Idea No. 5 Utilize median area (turnaround) to reduce widening around Coal Canyon UC
Idea No. 6 Move express lane ingress/egress to west side of project (Variation A, B, and C)
Idea No. 7 Build 6th lane addition at same time as SR-241/SR-91 Tolled Express Lane
Connector
Idea No. 8 Reject all north side widening concepts
Idea No. 9 Maintain existing pavement structural section in median
Idea No. 10 Ensure that retaining walls are constructed to SR-91 CIP Ultimate to eliminate
throwaway
Based on the evaluation of the VA alternatives, the following next steps were proposed to
be taken:
• VA alternative idea 1 showed mostly neutral performance but could result in major
cost savings. For this reason, this VA alternative is proposed to be further evaluated
in a future phase to determine if traffic operations justify the incorporation of this
concept.
• VA alternative ideas 2 and 4 both had improved performance over the baseline and
require geometric changes to the ACs. For this reason, both were incorporated into
all ACs moving forward. This includes 11 foot Express Lanes, 2 foot buffer, four 11
foot GP lanes, and two 12 foot GP lanes on the outside. Additionally, the existing
Coal Canyon UC may be utilized and widening can be avoided dependent on the
final design of the SR-241/SR-91 Tolled Express Lane Connector.
32
Alternative Analysis Report
SR-91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project from SR-241 to SR-71
14
• VA alternative idea 3 showed mostly neutral performance, but was included in the
baseline, so was incorporated across the ACs for consistency. Traffic
microsimulation analysis would need to be conducted in a future phase to
determine the validity of the concept.
• VA alternative idea 5 did not show an improved performance over the baseline, so
has been included for documentation purposes but is not proposed to be evaluated
any further.
• VA alternative idea 6A showed an improved performance over the baseline,
however, it may impact work to be done by the SR-241/SR-91 Tolled Express Lanes
Connector project. There is an opportunity to reduce throwaway cost where
coordination with the SR-241/SR-91 Tolled Express Lanes Connector project might
be feasible. A traffic analysis will be required in a future phase to determine if this
idea may result in potential impacts to the express lanes (reducing speeds below the
minimum operating speed of 55 mph) or general purpose lanes. The traffic analysis
will also be required to analyze if this option will have a impacts to the OCTA 91
Express Lanes operations as it may reduce the value to the user by approximately 1
mile.
• VA alternative idea 6B showed an improved performance over the baseline,
however, a traffic analysis will be required in a future phase to determine if this idea
may result in potential impacts to the express lanes (reducing speeds below the
minimum operating speed of 55 mph) or general purpose lanes.
• VA alternative idea 6C did not show an improved performance over the baseline,
however, it does provide an opportunity for reduced cost. For this reason, it was
incorporated as Design Variation D in Alternative Concept 1 and carried forward. A
traffic microsimulation analysis would need to be conducted in a future phase to
determine the validity of the concept.
• VA alternative idea 7 showed an improved performance over the baseline but has a
fatal flaw in that it would result in delays to the SR-241/SR-91 Tolled Express Lanes
Connector project, which is currently in the final design phase. For that reason, this
idea has been included for documentation purposes but is not proposed to be
evaluated any further.
• VA alternative idea 8 had the most positive performance change over the baseline.
This concept proposes to reject the ACs that would widen SR-91 to the north. For
this reason, Alternative Concepts 3A and 3B are not recommended to move
forward, due to the extensive impacts associated with each.
• VA alternative idea 9 had some improved performance over the baseline and is
recommended for further evaluation during a future phase to determine if the
existing pavement section can be utilized. For this phase, it is proposed to assume
that the existing pavement is acceptable. It should also be noted that by accepting
VA alternative idea 8, there would be no more ACs that would shift the SR-91
centerline, so VA alternative idea 9 would no longer be applicable.
• VA alternative idea 10 had no change over the baseline since the baseline already
included the SR-91 CIP ultimate cross-section. In all other ACs, this would affect the
efficiency trying to be achieved to make them more cost effective, so this concept is
33
Alternative Analysis Report
SR-91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project from SR-241 to SR-71
15
not proposed to be evaluated any further. It has been included for documentation
purposes.
Full details on the ideas and evaluation criteria used during the workshop can be found in
the VA Memo (Attachment B).
7. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS
After developing the preliminary plans for the four ACs, the next step was to complete a
series of focused evaluations on each AC. Details of these evaluations are summarized in
the following sections.
7A. Nonstandard Boldfaced and Underlined Design Features
As shown in Attachment C, the nonstandard design features for Segment 1 of the SR-91 CIP
(included in the Project Report) cover the limits for the 6th EB lane addition. The 3rd
Supplemental Design Standard Decision Document for the SR-91 CIP project was approved
by Caltrans Districts 8 and 12 for design features within their jurisdictions. It is assumed that
the nonstandard features that have already been approved will not require approval again
(unless they are modified), since the lane addition is part of the Ultimate Phase of the SR-91
CIP. Additional nonstandard features associated with the ACs would require approval. Key
additional or modified nonstandard features include horizontal stopping sight distance along
the median barrier and reduced outside shoulders, all of which are introduced to minimize
impacts to the Mindeman landslide area. (These nonstandard features are shown in
magenta text on the exhibits in Attachment A.) The approach for approval of nonstandard
design features will be coordinated with Caltrans during the next project development
phase.
7B. Traffic Assessment
The Traffic Assessment provides a high-level assessment for each AC. The assumed horizon
year is 2045. More detailed traffic modeling and analysis will be required as the project
proceeds. OCTA provided forecasts for the SR-91 corridor using the Orange County
Transportation Analysis Model (OCTAM), on the TransCAD software platform. Post-
processing of the forecast data was used to compare the Build vs. No-Build alternatives at a
high-level. The full traffic assessment is included as Attachment D.
Four ACs were explored, each of which include varied design features that allow for the
addition of the 6th EB lane.
• AC#1 – Constrained Cross-Section (Design Variations A, B, C, and D)
• AC#2 – Full-Standard Cross-Section, Widen South
• AC#3 – Full-Standard Cross-Section, Widen North (Design Variations A and B)
• AC#4 – Hybrid Cross-Section (Limited Widening South)
34
Alternative Analysis Report
SR-91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project from SR-241 to SR-71
16
The operational assessment focused on approximately 8 miles of EB SR-91. Because OCTAM
does not provide tangible differentiation for cross-sectional widths or short auxiliary lanes,
two basic model runs were completed: “Build” and “No-Build.” The Build scenarios include
the six GP lanes from SR-241 to SR-71 and represent ACs 1 to 4. Both scenarios include the
SR-241/SR-91 Express Lane connector. Neither scenario includes the braided configuration
for Green River Road/SR-71 that is part of the Ultimate CIP as the model would not be
sensitive to those changes.
OCTAM was run for four periods in the 2045 horizon year; AM peak (6 to 9 AM), midday (9
AM to 3 PM), PM peak (3 to 7 PM) and overnight. Separate data summaries were created
for the Orange County portion of the model capture area (subregion), plus a more focused
assessment of the EB freeway (the Express Lanes, GP lanes, and ramps). For the EB SR-91
corridor, the OCTAM demonstrated reductions in delay by approximately 20% (mostly in the
AM and PM peak periods), with a corresponding increase in average speed. While
congestion on the corridor is forecasted in 2045, there will be clear improvements in the
overall traffic flow and quality. Table 5 shows a summary comparison between the Build and
No-Build scenarios from the lens of the EB SR-91 corridor in the horizon year of 2045. Data
are reported on vehicle miles traveled (VMT), delay, vehicle hours traveled (VHT), and
speed. For the subregion, effects on performance were modest because of the relatively
large area. There is a negligible increase in daily VMT (0.003%), mostly associated with the
AM and PM peak periods. There are also modest decreases in congested VMT (0.2%) and
hours of delay (0.3%). Table 6 shows a summary comparison between the Build and No-
Build scenarios effect on the surrounding subregion for the horizon year of 2045.
Table 5: EB SR-91 Model Summary – 2045 Horizon Year
Period Scenario VMT Congested VMT Hours of Delay
AM Build 20,852,383 703,132 179,352
No-Build 20,857,678 703,554 179,700
Midday Build 21,474,931 536,553 24,858
No-Build 21,476,699 536,708 24,941
PM Build 27,358,503 868,580 176,996
No-Build 27,348,495 870,549 179,162
Overnight Build 15,452,354 356,991 2,701
No-Build 15,452,743 357,018 2,709
Total Build 85,138,171 4,058,831 1,977,482
No-Build 85,135,614 4,065,695 1,984,378
Table 6: Subregion OCTAM Model Summary – 2045 Horizon Year
Period Scenario VMT VHT Hours of Delay Average Speed
(mph)
AM Build 307,722 7,452 2,575 41
No-Build 314,761 7,928 2,954 40
Midday Build 333,985 5,664 364 59
No-Build 334,299 5,781 478 58
PM Build 531,427 21,323 12,967 25
No-Build 529,508 24,841 16,533 21
Overnight Build 317,708 5,044 34 63
No-Build 317,858 5,060 48 63
35
Alternative Analysis Report
SR-91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project from SR-241 to SR-71
17
Total Build 1,490,842 39,482 15,940 38
No-Build 1,496,427 43,610 20,013 34
A focused evaluation was conducted at the SR-241/SR-91 interchange. Table 7 is a summary
of the volume changes on SR-91, immediately east of SR-241. The data indicate that while
overall cross-section volumes on SR-91 increase, there is a much larger increase on the GP
lanes, and a reduction on the Express Lanes, both from SR-91 and on the planned SR-241
Express Lanes connector.
Table 7: SR-91 Traffic Volumes (at SR-241)
Period Scenario GP Lanes east
of SR-241
Express Lanes
from SR-91
Express Lane
Connector from SR-241
Total
AM Peak No-Build 26,761 5805 3375 35,941
Build 28,975 4442 2767 36,184
Change 8.3% -23.5% -18.0% 0.7%
PM Peak No-Build 46,623 10,565 4516 61,704
Build 50,468 9443 3670 63,581
Change 8.2% -10.6% -18.7% 3.0%
Daily No-Build 154,876 17,846 7892 180,614
Build 161,176 15,192 6438 182,806
Change 4.1% -14.9% -18.4% 1.2%
Table 8 is a similar summary for SR-241, immediately south of SR-91. The overall cross-
section volumes on SR-241 increase, by approximately 3.0% on a daily basis. There is a much
larger increase on the GP connector to SR-91 (9% daily) and a reduction on the Express
Lanes connector.
Table 8: SR-241 Traffic Volumes (at SR-91)
Period Scenario GP Connector
to EB SR-91
GP Connector
to WB SR-91
Express Lane
Connector to SR-241
Total (south
of SR-91)
AM Peak No-Build 6754 824 3375 10,953
Build 7466 823 2767 11,056
Change 10.5% -0.1% -18.0% 0.9%
PM Peak No-Build 11,396 1358 4516 17,270
Build 13,269 1361 3670 18,300
Change 16.4% 0.2% -18.7% 6.0%
Daily No-Build 28,967 2594 7892 39,453
Build 31,585 2594 6438 40,617
Change 9.0% 0.0% -18.4% 3.0%
A preliminary assessment of traffic operations and safety was conducted, focusing on
differences between the variations. The assessments were based on professional judgment,
and not on specific data or modeling. All ACs are anticipated to reduce the VMT, Vehicle
Hours Traveled, and Hours of Delay on the GP lanes, particularly at the NB SR-241/EB SR-91
connector merge, which is a major constraint in the existing operations. While the short
auxiliary lane at the Green River Road off-ramp will be beneficial, the 6th lane is a larger
36
Alternative Analysis Report
SR-91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project from SR-241 to SR-71
18
improvement, so the overall traffic operations benefit of adding the auxiliary lane at Green
River Road is minor. All the ACs are expected to provide improved traffic operations.
7C. Right-of-Way
Right-of-Way Acquisition
Right-of-way acquisition along SR-91 is required to accommodate widening for the proposed
6th GP lane addition, either on the north side (AC 3) or the south side (AC 1, AC 2, and AC 4)
of the freeway. Final right-of-way acquisition needs and property ownership will be
determined in the next phase of the project.
Utilities
A list of existing utilities in and around the proposed project was created by review of
Caltrans as-built plans. In the next phase of this project, a DigAlert search will be conducted
to verify whether the utilities listed are within the project limits. Utility companies will also
be contacted to provide facility maps. The potential utilities within the SR-91 corridor are
shown in Table 9.
Table 9: Existing Utilities
Utility Owner
Water City of Corona
Electric Southern California Edison
Telephone AT&T (PT&T)
Gas Southern California Gas
Oil Four Corners Pipeline
Television Time Warner Cable
Fiber Optic Sprint
Sewer City of Corona
It should also be noted that there is an existing Caltrans fiber optic line serving the 91
Express Lanes within the project limits.
Coordination with the identified utility companies and determination of which lines need to
be relocated will take place during future project phases. Anticipated impacts are to be
determined, pending continued coordination with utility owners.
7D. Geotechnical Analysis
The District Preliminary Geotechnical Report (DPGR) evaluates if conditions associated with
the Mindeman Landslide complex have changed significantly since publication of the original
SR-91 CIP Preliminary Geotechnical Information Report and Updated Preliminary
Geotechnical Design Report.
Aside from the areas where walls are proposed in areas of existing landslides, the ACs are
considered to be feasible from a geotechnical perspective. The design considerations for the
ACs include debris flow hazards, constructability challenges, depth to groundwater level,
37
Alternative Analysis Report
SR-91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project from SR-241 to SR-71
19
liquefaction and liquefaction induced settlement and lateral movement, depth to bedrock,
etc.
All of the ACs include (either inside or outside) widening of the EB bridge for the Coal
Canyon Road UC. This widening is considered geotechnically feasible. A foundation report
will be required for the bridge widening as the project proceeds.
To evaluate the factor of safety of the Mindeman Landslide complex, an accurate model of
the landslide mass is needed. A significant amount of additional subsurface data would be
required to develop the model, including a plethora of borings drilled on the landslide mass
(private property), in the Santa Ana River plain (including the SR-91 corridor), as well as on
the Green River Golf Club property. Even if this thorough investigation were to be
conducted, there is a possibility that an accurate model would not be able to be developed.
Considering this uncertainty and the significant cost of a thorough investigation, the
preliminary geotechnical report recommends that EB SR-91 widening encroaching on the
Mindeman Landslide be avoided.
7.D.1. Future Exploration and Investigations:
Geologic
A significant effort would be required to develop the investigation plan needed to accurately
model the Mindeman Landslide complex. In general, the investigation would include many
rock core borings drilled to depths of 100 to 300 feet or more below ground surface. The
borings would need to be drilled on the landslide mass (private property), in the Santa Ana
River plain (including the SR-91 corridor) as well as on the Green River Golf Club property.
For cut retaining walls proposed in shallow slump areas and outside of the Mindeman
Landslide complex limits along EB SR-91, further investigation would be required to verify
the subsurface conditions. This should consist of detailed geologic mapping of the slide area
and surrounding hillsides. Test pits and borings may be needed as well, dependent on the
findings of the field mapping.
Geotechnical
Subsurface data will be required where new retaining walls and overhead sign structures
and embankment fills are planned. Geotechnical borings should be drilled as needed for the
proposed retaining walls and overhead sign structures. Laboratory tests may be required
depending upon the nature of the soils and bedrock encountered during the investigation.
Geotechnical reports should be prepared in accordance with Caltrans guidelines. These
reports will provide recommendations to address potential impacts due to the geologic
conditions and potential hazards which may affect the project. Standalone Structure
Preliminary Geotechnical Reports, Preliminary Foundation Reports, and Foundation Reports
will need to be prepared for nonstandard walls and bridge structures.
38
Alternative Analysis Report
SR-91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project from SR-241 to SR-71
20
7E. Structures Evaluation
There are several key factors that need to be considered early in the design process for the
proposed retaining walls including right-of-way constraints, construction access,
maintenance access to slopes, knowledge of obstructions, overhead utility constraints,
landscaping, drainage facilities, and wall aesthetics to maintain a consistent feel with other
aesthetic treatments along the SR-91 corridor. Choosing the right wall type for the various
wall heights and configurations is a key consideration for this project.
The structures team reviewed all ACs to determine the retaining walls required for each.
Based on cut/fill condition and referencing the DPGR, an initial wall type was selected for
each wall segment.
Careful consideration was also taken for critical retaining walls that were determined to be
in a landslide area. Furthermore, based on the DPGR, this corridor has high spectral
accelerations anticipated approaching 0.73g. Accordingly, nonstandard retaining walls will
be required. Standard retaining walls from the Caltrans Standard Plans cannot be utilized
without full structural analysis and modification.
For the “fill condition” retaining walls, Type 1 Modified (both spread footing and on pile)
and mechanically stabilized embankment retaining walls were recommended. For the “cut
condition,” Type 1 Modified on Pile and Soil Nail retention systems are ideal.
Within this corridor, there are two bridges which also would need to be widened depending
on the build AC. Coal Canyon Road UC (Widen) is a single-span 127’-9” cast-in-place pre-
stressed (CIP/PS) concrete box girder bridge which was widened in 2010 using precast pre-
stressed (PC/PS) bulb-tee girders. A similar widening strategy will also be incorporated on
this project to widen the current bridge by 24 feet depending on the alternative.
The other structure to be widened is County Line Creek Bridge (Extension). This is a
reinforced concrete frame that was extended by about 40’-0” in 2010. Depending on the
alternative, it will also be extended by 8 feet to 18 feet. At this preliminary project phase,
widening is anticipated to match the existing reinforced concrete slab moment frame.
7F. Environmental Compliance
The EB SR-91 6th lane addition was included as part of the environmental documentation
prepared for the SR-91 CIP. It is expected that an Environmental Re-Validation would be
prepared for the SR-91 EB Corridor Operations Project to confirm the validity of the findings
included in the previously adopted CEQA and NEPA documents for the SR-91 CIP. Caltrans
will act as the CEQA and NEPA lead agency for all improvement projects on the State
Highway System.
The final determination regarding the applicable CEQA and NEPA compliance
documentation will be made by Caltrans in conjunction with completion of the required
technical studies (see Attachment E, PEAR-E Environmental Studies Checklist) for this
39
Alternative Analysis Report
SR-91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project from SR-241 to SR-71
21
proposed project. The required permits from resource agencies, construction window
restrictions, biological or Native American monitoring, or compensatory mitigation, if
necessary, will be determined during completion of the pertinent supplemental technical
studies and memoranda. An Environmental Commitments Record will ensure
implementation of all avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures required to
address impacts resulting from the proposed project.
The Environmental Re-Validation timeline could require approximately 14 to 20 months,
from the start of the environmental studies to approval of the Environmental Re-Validation
document (an additional 6 to 10 months should be assumed for obtaining regulatory
permits). The schedule for the project is highly dependent on the findings of the
supplemental technical studies and memoranda and the information in the SR-91 CIP
adopted Final EIR/EIS. If a supplemental or subsequent EIR and/or supplemental EIS is
determined to be necessary, then this would extend the duration identified for achieving
CEQA and NEPA compliance.
7G. Cost Assessment
Preliminary project cost estimates were tabulated for each of the four ACs. Attachment F
includes a detailed summary of the cost estimates. The cost estimates included earthwork,
structural sections (pavement), drainage, specialty items (e.g., barriers, retaining walls,
soundwalls, environmental mitigation, permits, etc.), traffic items, roadway mobilization,
and other minor items.
Table 10 is a summary of the overall cost estimates for the four ACs. The ranges were
determined using two different assumptions for contingencies for roadway and structures
(35% and 60%).
Table 10: Cost Estimate Summary ($ millions)
AC Roadway/Structures Right-of-Way/Utilities
Design, Construction
Management and
Oversight
Total
AC#1A $27.2 to $32.2 $3.1 to $3.6 $12.1 to $14.3 $42.3 to $50.2
AC#1B $52.7 to $62.5 $5.9 to $7.0 $23.5 to $27.8 $82.1 to $97.3
AC#1C $59.6 to $70.6 $6.7 to $8.0 $26.5 to $31.4 $92.8 to $110.0
AC#1D $31.7 to $37.5 $3.6 to $4.2 $14.1 to $16.7 $49.3 to $58.4
AC#2 $74.6 to $88.4 $8.4 to $10.0 $33.2 to $39.4 $116.3 to $137.8
AC#3A $292.5 to $346.6 $33.0 to $39.1 $130.2 to $154.3 $455.6 to $540.0
AC#3B $136.2 to $161.4 $15.4 to $18.2 $60.6 to $71.8 $212.2 to $251.5
AC#4 $83.2 to $98.7 $9.4 to $11.1 $37.1 to $43.9 $129.7 to $153.7
40
Alternative Analysis Report
SR-91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project from SR-241 to SR-71
22
8. SCREENING EVALUATION RESULTS
ACs and design variations were analyzed, discussed, and excluded from further
consideration based on the screening and evaluation criteria defined in Section 5. In this
screening process, the assessment was based on available data using engineering judgment.
Table 11 is a summary of the screening evaluation framework that was used for the various
ACs developed. The assessment in Table 11 is based on input from the PDT, the experience
of the project team, and project objectives. A detailed discussion of each concept and
associated evaluation was conducted at a PDT meeting held on February 7th, 2022.
Table 11: Summary of Screening Evaluation Results
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
1
A
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
1
B
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
1
C
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
1
D
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
2
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
3
A
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
3B
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
4
Evaluation
Criterion
Construction
Impacts
SR-91 Corridor
Impacts
Cost & Right-of-
Way Constraints
Design Standards
Environmental
Impacts
Planned Projects
Schedule
LEGEND
Significant benefit
Measurable benefit
Neutral
Measurable disbenefit
Significant disbenefit
Fatal flaw
Based on the screening evaluation in Table 11 and discussion with the stakeholders, the PDT
agreed to carry forward AC#1 (including all design variations) and AC#4 for more detailed
evaluation in a future phase.
41
Alternative Analysis Report
SR-91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project from SR-241 to SR-71
23
9. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the assessment of the ACs (summarized in Table 12), AC#1 (including Design
Variations B, C and D) and AC#4 address the objectives of the project and are feasible design
alternatives. With these options, the next step in the project development process will be
further evaluating the alternatives in the PA/ED phase. Because the improvements are a
phase of the SR-91 CIP, it is assumed that a Project Initiation Document is not needed, but
this is an alternate path that could be considered if needed. During the next phase,
additional engineering of feasible alternatives should be explored.
AC#1 would allow for the addition of the EB 6th lane using limited nonstandard features to
avoid impacts to the Mindeman Landslide area. Design variations are included for optional
features that can be included as part of the alternative in a future phase if they are
determined to be needed/feasible through traffic analysis. Detailed traffic analysis would be
especially important for Alternative Concept 1D because it proposes to shift the existing
ingress from the current location on the easterly project limit in Riverside County to the
west and provide a combined ingress/egress in the area of the existing egress in Orange
County. With the introduction of the SR-241/SR-91 connector merge in the same area,
detailed weaving analysis will be conducted in a future phase to ensure adequate operations
for the express lanes and general purpose lanes prior to moving the ingress location.
Implementation of this Alternative Concept would also require concurrence from OCTA and
RCTC tolling operations and management due to the access change for the express lanes
and potential bond repayment/covenant implications.
As a result of the constrained cross-section, costs are lower with this AC and the physical
and environmental impacts will be relatively minimal, especially with AC#1D. This AC is also
compatible with other planned future improvements within and adjacent to the project
limits.
AC#4 limits widening for the EB 6th lane to the south side of SR-91 but limits nonstandard
features to shoulder reductions while providing improvements to stopping sight distance.
While this requires additional widening over AC#1 and ultimately additional costs, it does
allow for optimization of the EB SR-91 cross-section to meet the objectives of the Ultimate
Phase of the SR-91 CIP for this area. This AC is also compatible with other planned future
improvements within and adjacent to the project limits.
AC#2 proved to be infeasible. While this AC would provide a full standard cross-section for
EB SR-91, extensive impacts to the Mindeman Landslide area would result in the need to
construct several large retaining walls, increasing the cost for this option. It would also have
more geotechnical issues and would impact the EB 91 Express Lanes during construction.
Considering all the impacts associated with this AC, it is anticipated to result in more
environmental concerns as well. For these reasons, it does not meet the project objectives
and is considered infeasible.
AC#3 proved to be infeasible. While this AC would provide a full standard cross-section for
both EB and WB SR-91 and avoid impacts to the Mindeman Landslide, the impacts on the
42
Alternative Analysis Report
SR-91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project from SR-241 to SR-71
24
north side of SR-91 would be extensive, requiring right-of-way acquisition and
reconstruction outside of the highway. Additionally, it is not compatible with the
improvements currently being constructed under the SR-91 COP. The reconstruction
associated with this AC results in high construction cost. For these reasons, it does not meet
the project objectives and is considered infeasible.
Table 12: Summary Alternative Concept Assessment
AC Summary of Assessment
AC#1 • Recommended for further evaluation
• Includes design variations for optional features that can be
included in a future phase
• Lower cost
• Minimal physical and environmental impacts
• Compatible with planned future improvements
AC#2 • Infeasible, not recommended for further evaluation
• Extensive impacts to Mindeman Landslide area
• Large, costly retaining walls with geotechnical issues
• Additional environmental concerns
AC#3 • Infeasible, not recommended for further evaluation
• Extensive impacts to north side of SR-91
• Significant right-of-way acquisition and reconstruction outside
of highway
• Not compatible with SR-91 COP
• High construction cost
AC#4 • Recommended for further evaluation
• Limited nonstandard features
• Improvements to stopping sight distance
• Compatible with planned future improvements
Based on these assessments, it is recommended that AC#1 with the design variations and
AC#4 be carried forward into a future phase for further study. During the next phase,
variations on these alternatives can be evaluated in further detail with the additional
analysis recommended in this report, with the goal of developing a viable alternative that
will be consistent with the 91 CIP purpose and need, can be environmentally cleared, and
ultimately constructed.
The study recommends not to carry forward AC#2 and AC#3 as both alternatives are
anticipated to have extensive impacts on the Mindeman Landslide area and the Santa Ana
River. Per the Project Development Procedures Manual (PDPM) Chapter 10 Section 4
(Criteria for Rejecting Alternatives), AC#2 and AC#3 are likely to be rejected per criteria
listed below:
• Excessive construction cost
• Unacceptable adverse social, economic, or environmental impacts
43
Alternative Analysis Report
SR-91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project from SR-241 to SR-71
25
An assessment is to be done in the next phase of the project to evaluate proposed
alternative concepts to be carried forward and document rejected design alternatives in the
environmental document per PDPM requirements.
44
Alternative Analysis Report
SR-91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project from SR-241 to SR-71
26
10. PROJECT PERSONNEL
NAME PHONE
Jamal Salman
Project Manager
Advanced Civil Technologies
(714) 662-2288
Ali Salman
Project Personnel
Advanced Civil Technologies
(714) 253-3565
Dan Phu
Project Manager
OCTA
(714) 560-5907
Alison Army
Principal Transportation Analyst
OCTA
(714) 560-5537
David Thomas
Toll Project Delivery Director
RCTC
(951) 787-7920
Brian Santos
Project Manager
Caltrans District 12
(949) 279-9363
Emad Makar
Project Manager
Caltrans District 8
(909) 383-4978
11. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Alternative Concept Plans
Attachment B Value Analysis Memorandum
Attachment C Nonstandard Design Features for Developed Alternatives
Attachment D Traffic Assessment
Attachment E PEAR-E Environmental Studies Checklist
Attachment F Preliminary Cost Estimates
45
Attachment A
Alternative Concept Plans
46
Attachment B
Value Analysis Memorandum
87
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
91 Alternative Analysis from SR-241 to SR-71
Interchange Area
Technical Memorandum
Informal Value Analysis Workshop Summary
March 3, 2021
Introduction
This technical memorandum summarizes the discussion of the informal Value Analysis
(VA) workshop that was conducted for the SR-91 Alternative Analysis Project, generally
using the principles of the Caltrans VA process. The purpose of this informal VA workshop
was to identify potential efficiencies that could be incorporated into the project to reduce
cost and impacts in the alternatives developed.
Project Scope
The project is considering alternatives to add a sixth eastbound (EB) general purpose lane to
SR-91 from SR-241 to SR-71. The sixth lane was originally included as part of the ultimate
SR-91 Capital Improvement Project (CIP) cross-section and is intended to fulfill the
commitment made as part of that project. The CIP project is currently in the feasibility
study/alternative analysis phase.
The 91 Alternative Analysis is coordinating with other ongoing projects within this segment
of the SR-91 corridor that include:
• SR-241/SR-91 Median-to-Median Connector: This project will construct a tolled
median-to-median connector from SR-241 to the 91 Express Lanes. It includes
modifications to SR-91 from SR-241 to the Coal Canyon undercrossing (UC). The
project is being led by TCA and is currently in the PS&E phase.
• SR-91 Corridor Operations Project (COP): This project will construct a sixth
westbound (WB) general purpose lane on SR-91 from Green River Road to SR-241.
The scope is very similar in nature to what is proposed under the SR-91 Alternative
Analysis Project, as this lane addition was also part of the ultimate SR-91 CIP cross-
section. The project is being led by RCTC and PS&E has been completed.
Construction is anticipated to be complete in late 2021.
• SR-91/SR-71 Interchange Improvements: This project will construct a new
connector at the SR-91/SR-71 interchange. The project is being led by RCTC and is
currently in the PS&E phase.
88
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
Four preliminary alternative concepts (ACs) have been developed for the addition of the
sixth EB lane. These ACs have been developed to meet the original intent of the ultimate
SR-91 CIP cross-section while avoiding impacts to existing constraints. Existing constraints
include the Mindeman landslide to the south and the Santa Ana River and trail to the north.
The four ACs presented to the VA team are:
• Alternative Concept 1: This AC has the most constrained cross-section in order to
minimize impacts as much as possible. This would require the use of nonstandard
lane and shoulder widths to minimize impacts to existing retaining walls and the
Mindeman landslide. Under this AC, the SR-91 centerline would remain the same
and minimal outside widening would be required.
Three design variations are being considered under AC 1. Design Variation A would
keep the inside shoulder width nonstandard as-is and use a nonstandard outside
shoulder. Design Variation B would be the same, except that the outside shoulder
would be widened to 10’ throughout the project limits. Design Variation C would be
the same as Design Variation B, except it would add a two-lane exit at the Green
River off-ramp along with a 1,300’ auxiliary lane.
• Alternative Concept 2: This AC proposes a full-standard cross-section for EB SR-91
by widening to the south into the Mindeman landslide area. This would require
construction of several retaining walls along the south side of the freeway. This AC
also includes a two-lane exit and a 1,300’ auxiliary lane at the Green River off-ramp.
• Alternative Concept 3: This AC proposes a standard cross-section for EB SR-91 but
would shift the SR-91 centerline and widen to the north. This avoids impacts to the
Mindeman landslide but includes impacts to the Santa Ana River Trail. It also
results in impacts to the SR-91 WB lanes.
Two design variations are being considered under AC 3. Design Variation A
provides a standard cross-section for the WB lanes, while Design Variation B
provides the same cross-section for the WB lanes that is proposed with the SR-91
COP.
• Alternative Concept 4: This AC proposes to maintain the existing SR-91 centerline,
like AC 1, but widens the inside shoulder wherever possible while minimizing
impacts to the Mindeman landslide. This will limit the nonstandard features that
would require approval.
Workshop Schedule
The informal VA workshop was held over a two-day period from Monday, November 9 to
Tuesday, November 10, 2020. All sessions took place virtually using Zoom. The workshop
was a condensed version of the Caltrans VA process that typically takes place during the
Project Approval/Environmental Documentation (PA/ED) phase. The schedule for the
workshop over the two days was as follows:
89
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 3 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
Time Topic
Day 1 – Monday, November 9
1:00PM to 2:00PM Introductions/Process Overview/Project Overview/Stakeholder
Concerns
2:00PM to 2:30PM Break
2:30PM to 4:00PM Brainstorming of Qualitative Cost-Saving Ideas
4:00PM to 4:30PM Summarize Ideas
Day 2 – Tuesday, November 10
1:00PM to 2:00PM Evaluation of Ideas/VA Alternative Development
2:00PM to 2:15PM Break
2:15PM to 3:15PM Prepare Summary of VA Alternatives
3:15PM to 3:30PM Break
3:30PM to 4:30PM Presentation of VA Alternatives/Group Review and Ranking of VA
Alternatives
Participants
All stakeholder agencies, including OCTA, RCTC, TCA, Caltrans District 8, Caltrans District
12, and the Cities of Anaheim, Corona, and Yorba Linda, were invited to the workshop.
Additionally, independent reviewers for multiple disciplines were included to participate in
the brainstorming and development of VA alternatives. The participants that attended each
session are listed in the table below:
Name Agency Da
y
1
–
In
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
on
s
/
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
Da
y
1
–
Br
a
i
n
s
t
o
r
m
i
n
g
Se
s
s
io
n
Da
y
2
-
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
V
A
Al
t
e
r
n
a
ti
v
es
Da
y
2
-
Pr
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
io
n
/
Ra
n
k
i
n
g
o
f
V
A
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
Dan Phu OCTA X X X
Alison Army OCTA X X X
Sam Sharvini OCTA X X X X
Archie Tan OCTA X
Josue Vaglienty OCTA X X
Rose Casey OCTA X
David Thomas RCTC X X X X
Mark Firger RCTC/Parsons X X X X
Michael Blomquist RCTC X
90
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
Name Agency Da
y
1
–
In
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
on
s
/
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
Da
y
1
–
Br
a
i
n
s
t
o
r
m
i
n
g
Se
s
s
io
n
Da
y
2
-
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
V
A
Al
t
e
r
n
a
ti
v
es
Da
y
2
-
Pr
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
io
n
/
Ra
n
k
i
n
g
o
f
V
A
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
Juliet Su TCA X X
Kelsie Anderson TCA X X X X
David Speirs TCA X X
Valarie McFall TCA X X
Brian Santos Caltrans District 12 – PM X X X
Ali Jassim Caltrans District 12 – Traffic X X
Gamini Weeratunga Caltrans District DES X X
Emad Makar Caltrans District 8 – PM X
David Kennedy City of Anaheim X X X X
Tom Koper City of Corona X
Tony Wang City of Yorba Linda X
Jamie Lai City of Yorba Linda X
Karen Cohoe Advanced Civil Technologies X X X X
Jamal Salman Advanced Civil Technologies X X X X
Alex Sanchez Advanced Civil Technologies X X X X
Haoyuan (Tim) Liu Advanced Civil Technologies X X X X
Ayman Salama TranSystems X X X X
Andre Issa TranSystems X X X X
Jesus Paez Advanced Civil Technologies X X X X
David Shen Advanced Civil Technologies X X X X
Emily Czaban ICF X X X X
Joe Sawtelle TranSystems X X X X
Isaac Alonso Rice Advanced Civil Technologies X X X X
Ali Salman Advanced Civil Technologies X X X X
Stakeholder Concerns/Evaluation Criteria
Traditionally, the VA study includes a session with the project stakeholders to identify their
concerns related to the project, which are in turn used as criteria to evaluate the
performance of the VA alternatives developed. Because the informal VA workshop was
conducted within a short timeframe, the VA team utilized the stakeholder concerns and
evaluation criteria developed as a result of interviews held with the stakeholders in June
and July 2020. The final criteria included:
• Construction impacts
Does the alternative concept increase or decrease traffic on arterials? Does the alternative
concept improve or degrade operations on the surface streets (including ramp terminal
intersections)? How will the alternative concept create residual construction impacts
91
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 5 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
affecting the adjacent tolled facilities? Does the alternative concept reduce cut-through
traffic? Will proposed alternative result in a shorter or longer construction duration?
• SR-91 corridor impacts
How will the alternative concept impact the SR-91 general-purpose lanes? How will the
alternative concept impact users of the 91 Express Lanes?
• Cost and right-of-way (R/W) constraints
Is the cost of the alternative concept consistent with available funding in the region? Cost
includes the capital construction, R/W, utilities, and project development costs. Can the
alternative concept be built to avoid major R/W impacts, including costly utility relocation?
Can the alternative be constructed generally within the State R/W?
• Design standards
Can the alternative concept be built to Caltrans standards with minimal exceptions?
• Environmental impacts
Will the alternative concept result in potentially significant environmental impacts? How
will the project alternative concept impact the Santa Ana River Trail? Will the alternative
concept widen the Coal Canyon undercrossing? How will the alternative concept impact the
Mindeman Landslide?
• Planned projects
Will proposed alternative concept be compatible with proposed projects along the SR-91
corridor in the short term (based on timing for implementation)? How will proposed
alternative concepts integrate with current and future corridor cross-section?
• Schedule
How long would the alternative concept take to implement, both during project delivery and
construction?
Brainstorming Session for VA Alternatives
A brainstorming session was held to review the alternative concepts already developed and
to look for opportunities to refine them and to reduce impacts. The core VA team included
a diverse group of disciplines, including roadway, traffic, structures, constructability,
drainage, environmental, R/W and utilities, and geotechnical. Additional attendees were
also present from OCTA, RCTC, TCA, and Caltrans District 12. Participants were split into
two breakout rooms to review the alternative concepts. A facilitator in each breakout room
reviewed the geometry for the alternative concepts and filled out a VA Alternative Form to
capture the ideas generated. The two groups reconvened at the end of the brainstorming
session to review the ideas and consolidate any similar concepts.
Between the two groups, a total of 10 ideas were generated, including three variations for
Idea No. 6. The VA Alternative Forms documenting these ideas are included on the
following pages, which include a discussion of the revised concept, advantages and
92
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 6 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
disadvantages, and justification for the idea. A sketch of the proposed refinement is also
included for each idea (where applicable).
93
SR-91 AA_VA WORKSHOP TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM_2021-3-11 7
VALUE ANALYSIS ALTERNATIVE
SR-91 Alternative Analysis Study OCTA
Function: Increase capacity at Green River EB off-ramp Idea
No. 1
Alternative No.
1C, 2, 3A, 3B, 4
Title: Provide 4 lanes at terminus of Green River Road Off-Ramp (in lieu of auxiliary
lane)
Original Concept:
The original concept for listed alternatives proposes to add an auxiliary lane at the Green
River EB off-ramp. This would potentially increase the ramp capacity and reduce future
traffic queuing back onto the SR-91 mainline.
Revised Concept:
The revised concept would build a fourth lane at the EB ramp termini at Green River. By
increasing intersection capacity and adjusting the signal timing, more cars can be moved
through the intersection to also avoid traffic queuing back onto the SR-91 mainline.
Advantages: Disadvantages:
- Avoids building 40’ retaining wall
- Avoids additional pavement
required for auxiliary lane
- Green River EB off-ramp and Green
River Rd intersection geometry may
be altered
- May not provide the same capacity as
the auxiliary lane
- Additional traffic analysis will
needed
- Traffic currently exceeds the required
minimum for an auxiliary lane, for
that reason this idea may not solve
the existing problem
Discussion/Justification:
By eliminating the proposed auxiliary lane for alternatives listed, the existing retaining wall
will be saved, and construction of the new taller retaining wall can be avoided. This would
likely be more applicable if the SR-91 ultimate cross-section is not constructed under this
project, but a more limited cross-section. However, additional traffic analysis will be
needed to confirm that this concept will operate sufficiently through the project horizon
year.
94
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 8 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
SKETCHES
SR-91 Alternative Analysis Study OCTA
Title: Provide 4 lanes at terminus of Green River
Road Off-Ramp (in lieu of auxiliary lane)
Idea
No. 1
Alternative No.
1C, 2, 3A, 3B, 4
Existing Ramp:
Proposed Ramp (Widen to Outside):
Available
space for
widening
Proposed
4th lane at
terminus
Signal
optimization
95
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 9 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
VALUE ANALYSIS ALTERNATIVE
SR-91 Alternative Analysis Study OCTA
Function: Adopt an acceptable cross-section for this
project
Idea
No. 2
Alternative No.
2, 3A, 3B, 4
Title: Use 2’ buffer throughout between GP lanes and ELs and 11' lanes (except for
outside two lanes)
Original Concept:
Alternatives 2, 3A, 3B and 4 utilize standard design features, including 12’ lanes and a
minimum 4’ buffer between the GP and ELs.
Revised Concept:
The revised concept proposes to gain consensus on an acceptable nonstandard cross-section
to avoid additional widening required to the south and north and expedite project
implementation. Additionally, it proposes to minimize the buffer to 2’ in order to further
reduce widening.
Advantages: Disadvantages:
- Avoids additional widening needed
for standard design features
- Avoids build out of additional
retaining walls
- Nonstandard design features will be
included in the project and will
require approval from Caltrans
Districts 8 and 12
Discussion/Justification:
This concept proposes to adopt the cross-section currently being used in Alternative 1C for
the project to facilitate the implementation of the project. The cross-section would include
two 11’ ELs, 2’ buffer, four 11’ GP lanes and two 12’ GP lanes. This cross-section is the least
intrusive and is similar to what is being used for the SR-91 COP project except that the
existing inside shoulder would remain. The lane widths are also consistent with the existing
cross-section on SR-91 in this region.
96
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 10 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
SKETCHES
SR-91 Alternative Analysis Study OCTA
Title: Use 2’ buffer throughout between GP
lanes and ELs and 11' lanes (except for
outside two lanes)
Idea No.
2
Alternative No. 2, 3A,
3B, 4
Existing condition:
Proposed lane configuration:
97
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 11 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
VALUE ANALYSIS ALTERNATIVE
SR-91 Alternative Analysis Study OCTA
Function: Reduce number/height of retaining walls
needed
Idea
No. 3
Alternative No.
1C, 3A, 3B, 4
Title: Shorten entrance merge for 91 EL ingress area west of Green River
Original Concept:
Current alternative concepts reflect maintaining the existing conditions for the ingress lane
between station 577+00 and station 610+00.
Revised Concept:
The revised concept would reduce the length of the ingress lane to be similar in length to an
off- or on-ramp configuration. This would reduce the current ingress lane from
approximately 3,000’ to approximately 1,300’.
Advantages: Disadvantages:
- Avoids build out of additional
retaining walls
- Traffic study has not been complete
to determine how reducing ingress
lane width will affect EL operation
Discussion/Justification:
This concept proposes to reduce the existing ingress lane in length, allowing the extra width
to accommodate the 6th lane thereby eliminating retaining walls in some areas and reducing
the height of retaining walls near the Green River EB off-ramp. This ingress area has a fairly
low volume entering the ELs, but traffic will need to be analyzed to confirm if this would
affect operations.
98
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 12 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
SKETCHES
SR-91 Alternative Analysis Study OCTA
Title: Shorten entrance merge for 91 EL
ingress area west of Green River
Idea No. 3 Alternative No. 1C, 3A,
3B, 4
Existing condition:
Proposed condition:
99
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 13 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
VALUE ANALYSIS ALTERNATIVE
SR-91 Alternative Analysis Study OCTA
Function: Avoid Coal Canyon bridge widening Idea
No. 4
Alternative No.
1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 3A,
3B, 4
Title: Avoid widening Coal Canyon by shifting the Express Lane egress west and
utilizing existing reduced lane widths
Original Concept:
The original alternative concepts require the widening of the Coal Canyon bridge.
Revised Concept:
The revised concept would avoid widening of the Coal Canyon bridge by utilizing the
current structure width and dropping the Express Lane egress lane prior to the bridge.
Advantages: Disadvantages:
- Avoids widening of Coal Canyon
Bridge
- Pavement delineation to be
completed by the SR-241/SR-91
connector project may be impacted
- Transitions will be shortened, which
could require design exceptions
and/or traffic analysis
Discussion/Justification:
This concept proposes to utilize the existing Coal Canyon bridge and avoid widening by
dropping the Express Lane egress lane into six general purpose lanes earlier and utilizing
existing reduced lane widths. The existing EB bridge is approximately 114’ wide, including
barriers. Coordination will be required with the SR-241/91 connector project to determine
proposed limits of egress lane beginning and ending. Furthermore, a traffic analysis will be
required to determine traffic impacts for moving the egress or ingress points.
100
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 14 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
SKETCHES
SR-91 Alternative Analysis Study OCTA
Title: Avoid widening Coal Canyon by shifting
the Express Lane egress west and utilizing
existing reduced lane widths
Idea No.
4
Alternative No. 1A, 1B,
1C, 2, 3A, 3B, 4
Existing condition:
Proposed condition:
Lane drop occurs between Sta 506+50 and 514+80
101
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 15 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
VALUE ANALYSIS ALTERNATIVE
SR-91 Alternative Analysis Study OCTA
Function: Avoid Coal Canyon bridge vicinity outside
widening
Idea
No. 5
Alternative No.
1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 3A,
3B, 4
Title: Utilize median area (turnaround) to reduce widening around Coal Canyon
Original Concept:
The original alternative concepts require the outside widening of the Coal Canyon bridge
and retaining walls to be built at the Coal Canyon EB off-ramp.
Revised Concept:
The revised concept would utilize the median used for the CHP turnaround near the Coal
Canyon Bridge.
Advantages: Disadvantages:
- Avoids outside widening of Coal
Canyon Bridge
- Avoids build out of retaining walls
near Coal Canyon EB off-ramp
- Requires inside widening of Coal
Canyon Bridge
- CHP turnaround will need to be
relocated
- Retaining walls will need to be built
in the median
- Impacts new installation of 91 EL
Gantry facing WB traffic
- May reduce radius curvature of EB
91 traveled way.
Discussion/Justification:
This concept proposes to utilize the median used for the CHP turnaround near the Coal
Canyon Bridge. This would also avoid the need to construct retaining walls near the Coal
Canyon EB off-ramp but retaining walls would be required in the median. The Coal
Canyon Bridge would not require outside widening but inside widening would be required.
Based on the experience from the SR-241/SR-91 project, relocating the CHP turnaround will
be a challenge.
102
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 16 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
SKETCHES
SR-91 Alternative Analysis Study OCTA
Title: Utilize median area (turnaround) to
reduce widening around Coal Canyon
Idea No.
5
Alternative No.
1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 3A, 3B, 4
Existing condition:
Proposed condition:
103
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 17 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
VALUE ANALYSIS ALTERNATIVE
SR-91 Alternative Analysis Study OCTA
Function: Move ingress to the west Idea
No. 6
Alternative No.
1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 3A,
3B, 4
Title: Move ingress/egress to west side of project
Original Concept:
The original alternative concepts require mimicking the existing ingress and egress
locations.
Revised Concept:
Three different options were considered for the relocation of the ingress:
• Option A: The revised concept would move the ingress location west of the egress
location around the SR-241/SR-91 interchange and remove the existing ingress
location near the Green River EB off-ramp. This would require some additional
outside widening in the vicinity of Gypsum Canyon. This can be done by utilizing
the proposed auxiliary lane developed by the SR-241 project near station 475+00 to
create an ingress.
• Option B: The revised concept would move the ingress location to after the existing
egress and in the same vicinity as the SR-241 GP lanes entering. This would require
restriping only. The concept would include a weaving lane that would combine
egress and ingress movements.
• Option C: The revised concept would move the ingress location to after the existing
egress and prior to the Mindeman landslide.
Advantages: Disadvantages:
- Avoids the majority of the build out
of retaining walls near Green River
interchange
- Allows for utilization of existing
ingress pavement
- For Option A, some work to be
completed by the SR-241 project will
be impacted
- Microsimulation would need to be
conducted to confirm reconfiguration
of the ingress/egress would function
adequately
- For Option A, access would not be
provided to the SR-91 ELs for GP
users of SR-241 other than using the
ELC
104
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 18 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
Discussion/Justification:
This concept proposes to move the ingress location to allow for the existing ingress
pavement from STA 597+00 to STA 610+00 to be utilized as a lane. This reduces the need for
outside widening and reduces size of potential retaining walls.
Option A would begin the ingress/egress lane at station 440+10 and end at 545+50. This
option would impact the Gypsum Canyon Bridge, Gypsum Canyon on-ramp, and SR-241
general purpose connector. There is an opportunity to reduce throwaway cost where
coordination with the 241/91 ELC project might be feasible. A traffic analysis will be
required to determine if this idea may deteriorate the required minimum operating speed of
55-mph in the express lanes and the resulting impacts to the GP lanes. This alternative
would not allow access to the SR-91 ELs for GP users of SR-241 other than using the
Express Connector. Finally, this option may also have a negative impact to the OCTA SR-91
ELs users as it adds demand to the ELs for approximately one mile. An early entrance into
the Express Lanes could also benefit the GP lanes through this congested segment.
Option B would not change where the ingress/egress lane begin, at station 470+50. The
lanes would end at 545+00 or further east as needed to meet operational requirements. A
traffic analysis will be required to determine if this idea may deteriorate the required
minimum operating speed of 55-mph in the express lanes and the resulting impacts to the
GP lanes.
Option C would maintain the beginning of the egress lane at station 470+50. The ingress
location would move to after the existing egress and prior to the Mindeman landslide. This
option will also require additional retaining walls to tie into existing retaining walls prior to
the Mindeman Landslide.
105
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 19 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
SKETCHES
SR-91 Alternative Analysis Study OCTA
Title: Move ingress/egress to west side of project Idea
No. 6
Alternative No.
1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 3A,
3B, 4
Existing condition (Includes build out of SR-241/91 Express Lane Connector):
The existing egress begins at Sta 470+50 and ends at Sta 545+50
The existing ingress begins at Sta 579+50 and ends at Sta 610+66
Proposed condition:
For Sketches of Option 6 see Attachment A
Option 6A: This option begins at Sta 440+10 and ends at Sta 545+50
Option 6B: This option begins at Sta 470+50 and ends as needed
Option 6C: This option begins at Sta 470+50 and ends at Sta 563+50
106
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 20 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
VALUE ANALYSIS ALTERNATIVE
SR-91 Alternative Analysis Study OCTA
Function: Project Planning Idea
No. 7
Alternative No.
1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 3A,
3B, 4
Title: Build 6th lane addition at same time as 241/91 connector
Original Concept:
The original project scope is separate from the SR-241/SR-91 Express Lane Connector
project.
Revised Concept:
The revised concept proposes to closely coordinate and overlap the construction of the SR-
91 GP project and SR-241/SR-91 Express Lane Connector project.
Advantages: Disadvantages:
- Avoids construction waste and
construction fatigue
- Traffic impacts would be reduced
over time
- The SR-241/SR-91 Express Lane
Connector project is currently in the
PS&E phase, meaning the SR-91 6th
GP Lane project will have to be fast-
tracked to be built at the same time.
Discussion/Justification:
This Alternative Idea would build the SR-91 6th GP Lane project concurrent with the SR-
241/SR-91 Express Lane Connector project to avoid construction waste and reduce
construction fatigue. The 6th GP Lane project could potentially be combined into one
construction contract for maximum economy of scale or be a separate concurrent
construction contract. Traffic benefits would be realized sooner by implementing the 6th GP
Lane project sooner.
107
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 21 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
SKETCHES
SR-91 Alternative Analysis Study OCTA
Title: Build 6th lane addition at same time as 241/91
connector
Idea
No. 7
Alternative No.
1A, 1B, 1C, 2, 3A,
3B, 4
Since this is a planning idea, no sketch required.
108
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 22 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
VALUE ANALYSIS ALTERNATIVE
SR-91 Alternative Analysis Study OCTA
Function: Avoid widening to the north Idea
No. 8
Alternative No.
3A, 3B
Title: Reject all north side widening concepts
Original Concept:
The original project scope allows for shifting the freeway centerline and widening to the
north through the Mindeman Landslide area.
Revised Concept:
The revised concept would eliminate the alternatives that shift the freeway centerline and
widen to the north to accommodate the 6th GP Lane project.
Advantages: Disadvantages:
- Avoids major construction to be
performed to the north.
- Avoids impacts to the Santa Ana
River Trail
- Eliminates design alternatives that
include widening to the north from
being considered
- May require impacts to the
Mindeman Landslide area
Discussion/Justification:
This concept would reject all alternative concepts that propose widening to the north.
Widening to the north involves realigning and reconstructing the median and impacting the
Express Lanes during construction. It also increases the ROW impacts on the north side of
SR-91. If north side widening is going to be considered then consideration should be given
to incorporating the ultimate WB improvements in the project. Sufficient alternatives have
been developed that do require widening to the north. Rejecting all north side widening
alternatives would help focus future project development activities.
109
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 23 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
SKETCHES
SR-91 Alternative Analysis Study OCTA
Title: Reject all north side widening concepts Idea
No. 8
Alternative No.
3A, 3B
Proposed north side widening concepts:
Alternative Concept 3A
Alternative Concept 3B
Westbound widening
Westbound widening
110
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 24 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
VALUE ANALYSIS ALTERNATIVE
SR-91 Alternative Analysis Study OCTA
Function: Eliminate Replacement of ELs Pavement
Section
Idea
No. 9
Alternative No.
2, 3A, 3B, 4
Title: Remove replacement of pavement structural section in median
Original Concept:
The original project scope proposes to reconstruct the median pavement to include a
different structural section for the ELs versus the GP lanes. This is proposed for the
alternative concepts that propose to shift the SR-91 centerline.
Revised Concept:
The revised concept would utilize the existing pavement structural section regardless of the
type of lane that is proposed in that location.
Advantages: Disadvantages:
- Simplifies construction staging
- Reduces construction waste
- Reduces cost
- Inconsistent with existing condition,
which may cause problems with
pavement tie-ins at beginning and
end of project.
- Replacing pavement section will
require complex staging and traffic
handling effort. In addition to major
impacts to the express lanes
operation
Discussion/Justification:
This concept would eliminate the need to do pavement reconstruction in the median
associated with the centerline shift. Reconstructing this pavement would require complex
construction staging due to the outside widening and median reconstruction.
111
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 25 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
SKETCHES
SR-91 Alternative Analysis Study OCTA
Title: Remove replacement of pavement structural
section in median
Idea
No. 9
Alternative No.
2, 3A, 3B, 4
Proposed condition:
Remove median
pavement
reconstruction
112
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 26 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
VALUE ANALYSIS ALTERNATIVE
SR-91 Alternative Analysis Study OCTA
Function: Project Planning Idea
No. 10
Alternative No.
1A, 1B, 1C, 4
Title: Ensure that retaining walls are constructed to SR-91 CIP Ultimate to eliminate
throwaway
Original Concept:
The original project scope proposes to construct retaining walls at the proposed edge of
shoulder.
Revised Concept:
The revised concept would construct retaining walls to accommodate the SR-91 CIP
ultimate cross section in the future.
Advantages: Disadvantages:
- Reduces construction waste and
construction fatigue
- Higher cost option
- Requires consensus on ultimate cross
section
- Design standards may change prior
to Ultimate SR-91 CIP
Discussion/Justification:
This concept would build the retaining walls at their ultimate location to accommodate the
SR-91 cross-section. However, this would increase cost and may reduce the efficiency of the
more constrained alternative concepts.
113
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 27 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
SKETCHES
SR-91 Alternative Analysis Study OCTA
Title: Ensure that retaining walls are constructed to
SR-91 CIP Ultimate to eliminate throwaway
Idea
No. 10
Alternative No.
1A, 1B, 1C, 4
Since this is a planning idea, no sketch required.
114
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 28 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
Evaluation of VA Alternatives
Upon completion of the brainstorming session and finalizing the VA alternative ideas, the
team moved forward with evaluating the ideas by using a qualitative comparison to a
baseline option. The team utilized Alternative Concept 2 as the baseline since this
alternative concept was consistent with the SR-91 CIP ultimate cross-section and proposes
more traditional widening to the outside. All VA alternatives were compared to Alternative
Concept 2 to determine how their performance would change compared to the baseline for
each of the evaluation criteria previously established. If the VA alternative was anticipated
to improve the performance over the baseline, a “+” was noted. No change or neutral is
denoted with a “o” and a negative change is noted with a “-”. The team evaluated each idea
collaboratively and agreed upon how the performance would change. The results of this
evaluation are included in the table on the following page.
The performance evaluation was also shared with the stakeholders during the final
presentation meeting held at the end of Day 2. The stakeholder team was asked to provide
their input on the alternatives considered and the performance evaluation. The following
comments were provided as part of the discussion:
• For evaluation criteria 2, further breakdown of this criteria may be required in a
future phase to distinguish between the general-purpose lanes and express lanes, as
well as the operations and revenue.
• Additional traffic modeling would be needed for evaluation of several of the
concepts that would affect operations.
• Rough order of magnitude cost for this project would be needed to establish the
viability of several of the ideas.
• The timing for implementation of this 6th GP lane project is dependent on the cost
range that is developed as an outcome of the alternative analysis phase.
• Coal Canyon UC has not officially been designated as a wildlife crossing. It is
classified as a decommissioned interchange.
• Moving the SR-91 Express Lanes egress/ingress locations (Idea No. 6 – Options 6A
and 6B) would require a larger study, mainly because it is a significant change that
could affect corridor operations. This would be beyond the scope of the SR-241/SR-
91 connector project, which is moving forward with final design, so would need to
be studied in the future by another team. These options should be discussed among
the stakeholder agencies.
115
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 29 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
Summary of VA Ideas
Idea No. 1 Provide 4 lanes at terminus of Green River Road Off-Ramp Idea No. 6 Move ingress/egress to west side of project
Idea No. 2 Use 2’ buffer throughout between GP lanes and ELs and 11'
lanes
Idea No. 7 Build 6th lane addition at same time as 241/91
connector
Idea No. 3 Shorten entrance merge for 91 EL ingress area west of
Green River
Idea No. 8 Reject all north side widening concepts
Idea No. 4 Avoid widening Coal Canyon by shifting the Express Lane
egress west and utilizing existing reduced lane widths
Idea No. 9 Remove replacement of pavement structural section in
median
Idea No. 5 Utilize median area (turnaround) to reduce widening
around Coal Canyon
Idea No. 10 Ensure that retaining walls are constructed to SR-91 CIP
Ultimate to eliminate throwaway
ID Evaluation
Criteria
Idea
No. 1
Idea
No. 2
Idea
No. 3
Idea
No. 4
Idea
No. 5
Idea
No. 6A
Idea
No. 6B
Idea
No. 6C
Idea
No. 7
Idea
No. 8
Idea
No. 9
Idea
No. 10
1 Construction
Impacts + + o + o + + o + + + o
2 SR-91 Corridor
Impacts o o o o o o o o + + + o
3 Cost and R/W
Constraints + + + + o + + o + + + o
4 Design
Standards - - o - o o o o o o o o
5 Environmental
Impacts o + o + o + + o o + o o
6 Planned Projects o o o o - - o o o + o o
7 Schedule o + o + o + + o + + o o
Summary of
Performance
+
o
-
2
4
1
+
o
-
4
2
1
+
o
-
1
6
0
+
o
-
4
2
1
+
o
-
0
6
1
+
o
-
4
2
1
+
o
-
4
3
0
+
o
-
0
7
0
+
o
-
4
3
0
+
o
-
6
1
0
+
o
-
3
4
0
+
o
-
0
7
0
Ranking: + = positive change over baseline, o = no change/neutral, - = negative change over baseline
116
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 30 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
Next Steps
Based on the evaluation of the VA alternatives, the following next steps are proposed to be
taken:
• VA alternative idea 1 showed mostly neutral performance but could result in major
cost savings. For this reason, this VA alternative is proposed to be further evaluated
to determine if traffic operations justify the incorporation of this concept.
• VA alternative ideas 2 and 4 both had improved performance over the baseline and
require geometric changes to the alternative concepts. For this reason, both are
proposed to be incorporated into all alternative concepts moving forward. This
includes 11’ ELs, 2’ buffer, four 11’ GP lanes, and two 12’ GP lanes on the outside.
Additionally, the existing Coal Canyon UC may be utilized and widening will be
avoided dependent on the final design of the SR-241/91 connector project.
• VA alternative idea 3 showed mostly neutral performance, but was included in the
baseline, so is proposed to be incorporated across the alternative concepts for
consistency. Traffic microsimulation analysis would need to be conducted to
determine the validity of the concept.
• VA alternative idea 5 did not show an improved performance over the baseline, so
has been included for documentation purposes but is not proposed to be evaluated
any further.
• VA alternative idea 6A showed an improved performance over the baseline,
however, it may impact work to be done by the 241/91 ELC project. There is an
opportunity to reduce throwaway cost where coordination with the 241/91 ELC
project might be feasible. A traffic analysis will be required to determine if this idea
may deteriorate the required minimum operating speed of 55-mph in the express
lanes and the resulting impacts to the GP lanes. The traffic analysis will also be
required to analyze if this option will have a negative impact to the OCTA SR-91 ELs
users as it may reduce the value to the user by approximately one mile.
• VA alternative idea 6B showed an improved performance over the baseline,
however, a traffic analysis will be required to determine if this idea may deteriorate
the required minimum operating speed of 55-mph in the express lanes and the
resulting impacts to the GP lanes.
• VA alternative idea 6C did not show an improved performance over the baseline,
however, it does provide an opportunity for reduced cost. For this reason, it is
proposed to be included as an Alternative Concept and carried forward. A traffic
microsimulation analysis would need to be conducted to determine the validity of
the concept. This would be beyond the scope of the traffic analysis being conducted
during this phase.
• VA alternative idea 7 showed an improved performance over the baseline but has a
fatal flaw in that it would result in delays to the SR-241/SR-91 connector project,
which is currently in the final design phase. For that reason, this idea has been
117
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 31 INFORMAL VA WORKSHOP
included for documentation purposes but is not proposed to be evaluated any
further.
• VA alternative idea 8 had the most positive performance change over the baseline.
This concept proposes to reject the alternative concepts that would widen SR-91 to
the north. For this reason, Alternative Concept 3A and 3B are not recommended to
move forward, due to the extensive impacts associated with each.
• VA alternative idea 9 had some improved performance over the baseline and is
recommended for further evaluation during a future phase to determine if the
existing pavement section can be utilized. For this phase, it is proposed to assume
that the existing pavement is acceptable. It should also be noted that by accepting
VA alternative idea 8, there would be no more alternative concepts that would shift
the SR-91 centerline, so VA alternative idea 9 would no longer be applicable.
• VA alternative idea 10 had no change over the baseline since the baseline already
included the SR-91 CIP ultimate cross-section. In all other alternative concepts, this
would affect the efficiency trying to be achieved to make them more cost effective, so
this concept is not proposed to be evaluated any further. It has been included for
documentation purposes.
118
ATTACHMENT A
Option 6 Sketches
119
LEGEND
EXHIBIT 6A
INGRESS/EGRESS
FOR REMOVAL, SEE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS SHEETS.CONSTRUCTION DETAILS PLANS.AND MAINTENANCE VEHICLE PULLOUT DETAILS, SEE FOR CURB, DIKE, TRANSITIONS, RAMP TERMINI, CURB RAMP,SEE RETAINING WALL PLANS.FOR LOCATION AND DETAILS OF RETAINING WALLS, ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACT RIGHT OF WAY BUSY AREA - MAY INCREASE TRAFFIC CONGESTION IN AN ALREADY - IMPACTS RAMPS BUILT BY SR-241/91 CONNECTOR- IMPACTS GYPSUM CANYON BRIDGE
ADDITION (WIDENING)
EB SR-91 6TH LANE
CONNECTOR PROJECT
SR-241/91
AND EGRESS
EXISTING INGRESS
ADDITION (STRIPING)
EB SR-91 6TH LANE
AND EGRESS
PROPOSED INGRESS
RIVER
GREEN
CANYON
COAL
CANYON
GYPSUM
ON-RAMP
GYPSUM CANYON
GP CONNECTOR
NB SR-241
EL 1
EL 2
GP 1
GP 2
GP 3
GP 4
EL 1
EL 2
GP 1
GP 2
GP 3
GP 4
GP 5
GP 6
EL 1
EL 2
GP 1
GP 2
GP 3
GP 4
S
T
A
4
4
0
+
1
0
CONNECTOR
NB SR-241 EL
5350'
S
T
A
5
6
4
+
0
0
S
T
A
5
9
1
+
0
0
LANDSLIDE
MINDEMAN
2700'
NOT TO SCALE
• SR-91 LINE
COUNTY
ORA/RIV
OFF-RAMP AUXILIARY LANE
PROPOSED GREEN RIVER
INGRESS LANE EGRESS LANE
B
e
g
I
N
G
R
E
S
S
S
T
A
4
9
3
+
6
0
E
N
D
I
N
G
R
E
S
S
S
T
A
5
4
5
+
5
0
E
N
D
E
G
R
E
S
S
7500'
S
T
A
4
7
0
+
5
0
B
e
g
E
G
R
E
S
S
6TH LANE ADDITION
EB ROUTE 91
RIVER
GREEN
CANYON
COAL
CANYON
GYPSUM
S
T
A
5
7
9
+
5
0
S
T
A
6
1
0
+
6
6
S
T
A
4
7
0
+
5
0
S
T
A
5
4
5
+
5
0
EGRESS LANE INGRESS LANE
ON-RAMP
GYPSUM CANYON
GP CONNECTOR
NB SR-241
OFF-RAMP
GREEN RIVER
B
e
g
E
G
R
E
S
S
E
N
D
E
G
R
E
S
S
B
e
g
I
N
G
R
E
S
S
E
N
D
I
N
G
R
E
S
S
3231'
EL 1
EL 2
GP 1
GP 2
GP 3
GP 4
EL 1
EL 2
GP 1
GP 2
GP 3
GP 4
GP 5
EL 1
EL 2
GP 1
GP 2
GP 3
GP 4
GP 5
EL 1
EL 2
GP 1
GP 2
GP 3
GP 4
GP 5
CONNECTOR
NB SR-241 EL
• SR-91
LINE
COUNTY
ORA/RIV
7500'
60% DESIGN
SR-241/91 CONNECTOR
MARCH 2021 - NOT TO SCALE
120
EXHIBIT 6B
INGRESS/EGRESS
LEGEND
ADDITION (WIDENING)
EB SR-91 6TH LANE
ADDITION (STRIPING)
EB SR-91 6TH LANE
CONNECTOR PROJECT
SR-241/91
AND EGRESS
EXISTING INGRESS
AND EGRESS
PROPOSED INGRESS
RIVER
GREEN
CANYON
COAL
EL 1
EL 2
GP 1
GP 2
GP 3
GP 4
GP 5
CANYON
GYPSUM
ON-RAMP
GYPSUM CANYON
GP CONNECTOR
NB SR-241
EL 1
EL 2
GP 1
GP 2
GP 3
GP 4
S
T
A
5
6
4
+
0
0
S
T
A
5
9
1
+
0
0
LANDSLIDE
MINDEMAN
2700'
GP 6
E
N
D
I
/
E
S
T
A
4
7
0
+
5
0
B
e
g
I
/
E
EL 1
EL 2
GP 1
GP 2
GP 3
GP 4
GP 5
GP 6
CONNECTOR
NB SR-241 EL
• SR-91
LINE
COUNTY
ORA/RIV
INGRESS/EGRESS
OFF-RAMP AUXILIARY LANE
PROPOSED GREEN RIVER
NOT TO SCALE
6TH LANE ADDITION
EB ROUTE 91
S
T
A
5
2
9
+
7
0
RIVER
GREEN
CANYON
COAL
CANYON
GYPSUM
S
T
A
5
7
9
+
5
0
S
T
A
6
1
0
+
6
6
S
T
A
4
7
0
+
5
0
S
T
A
5
4
5
+
5
0
EGRESS LANE INGRESS LANE
ON-RAMP
GYPSUM CANYON
GP CONNECTOR
NB SR-241
OFF-RAMP
GREEN RIVER
B
e
g
E
G
R
E
S
S
E
N
D
E
G
R
E
S
S
B
e
g
I
N
G
R
E
S
S
E
N
D
I
N
G
R
E
S
S
3231'
EL 1
EL 2
GP 1
GP 2
GP 3
GP 4
EL 1
EL 2
GP 1
GP 2
GP 3
GP 4
GP 5
EL 1
EL 2
GP 1
GP 2
GP 3
GP 4
GP 5
EL 1
EL 2
GP 1
GP 2
GP 3
GP 4
GP 5
CONNECTOR
NB SR-241 EL
• SR-91
LINE
COUNTY
ORA/RIV
7500'
60% DESIGN
SR-241/91 CONNECTOR
MARCH 2021 - NOT TO SCALE
2300'
S
T
A
4
9
3
+
5
0
S
T
A
5
1
6
+
5
0
5920'
121
LEGEND
ADDITION (WIDENING)
EB SR-91 6TH LANE
ADDITION (STRIPING)
EB SR-91 6TH LANE
CONNECTOR PROJECT
SR-241/91
AND EGRESS
EXISTING INGRESS
AND EGRESS
PROPOSED INGRESS
RIVER
GREEN
CANYON
COAL
EL 1
EL 2
GP 1
GP 2
GP 3
GP 4
GP 5
CANYON
GYPSUM
ON-RAMP
GYPSUM CANYON
GP CONNECTOR
NB SR-241
EL 1
EL 2
GP 1
GP 2
GP 3
GP 4
GP 6
7500'
S
T
A
4
7
0
+
5
0
EL 1
EL 2
GP 1
GP 2
GP 3
GP 4
GP 5
GP 6
CONNECTOR
NB SR-241 EL
• SR-91
OFF-RAMP AUXILIARY LANE
PROPOSED GREEN RIVER
INGRESS LANE
S
T
A
5
4
5
+
5
0
B
e
g
E
G
R
E
S
S
E
N
D
E
G
R
E
S
S
S
T
A
5
5
3
+
5
0
B
e
g
I
N
G
R
E
S
S
S
T
A
5
6
6
+
7
0
E
N
D
I
N
G
R
E
S
S
1320'
NOT TO SCALE
6TH LANE ADDITION
EB ROUTE 91
EXHIBIT 6C
INGRESS/EGRESS
EGRESS LANE
RIVER
GREEN
CANYON
COAL
CANYON
GYPSUM
S
T
A
5
7
9
+
5
0
S
T
A
6
1
0
+
6
6
S
T
A
4
7
0
+
5
0
S
T
A
5
4
5
+
5
0
EGRESS LANE INGRESS LANE
ON-RAMP
GYPSUM CANYON
GP CONNECTOR
NB SR-241
OFF-RAMP
GREEN RIVER
B
e
g
E
G
R
E
S
S
E
N
D
E
G
R
E
S
S
B
e
g
I
N
G
R
E
S
S
E
N
D
I
N
G
R
E
S
S
3231'
EL 1
EL 2
GP 1
GP 2
GP 3
GP 4
EL 1
EL 2
GP 1
GP 2
GP 3
GP 4
GP 5
EL 1
EL 2
GP 1
GP 2
GP 3
GP 4
GP 5
EL 1
EL 2
GP 1
GP 2
GP 3
GP 4
GP 5
CONNECTOR
NB SR-241 EL
• SR-91
LINE
COUNTY
ORA/RIV
7500'
60% DESIGN
SR-241/91 CONNECTOR
MARCH 2021 - NOT TO SCALE
S
T
A
5
6
4
+
0
0
LANDSLIDE
MINDEMAN
2700'
LINE
COUNTY
ORA/RIV
S
T
A
5
9
1
+
0
0
122
Attachment C
Nonstandard Design Features
123
SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project
Project Report
Attachment 4
Non-Standard Design Features for the Preferred
Alternative 2F
124
Non-Standard Design Features for
Initial Phase of Alternative 2F
125
Page 1 of 27
Non-Standard Design Features for Initial Phase of Alternative 2F
The Initial Phase of Preferred Alternative 2F Ultimate Project is separated into four sections for
the purpose of Geometric Approval Drawing (GAD) and non-standard design features approval
as follows:
GAD 1 Combination of SR-91 from Main Street to McKinley Interchange including all connectors
to I-15; and I-15 from Cajalco Road to Hidden Valley Parkway including proposed median
connectors from the north and south to SR-91.
GAD 2 OC- West GAD: SR-91 from SR-241 to County line
GAD 2 RIV- West GAD SR-91 County line to Prado Overhead
GAD 3 - East GAD: SR-91 from McKinley Interchange to Pierce Street
GAD 4 - Corona GAD: Prado Overhead to Main Street.
The following tables show the list of mandatory, advisory, ramp meter policy and HOV guideline
design exceptions for the initial phase of preferred Alternative 2F from the west end to the east
end of the project with approval date for respective section:
SR-91 CIP Initial Phase: Summary of Mandatory Design Exception
SR-91 GAD 2 Orange County (OC) Approved on May 17, 2012
Feature
No.
Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
G2IM1 201.1/
203.1
Stopping Sight
Distance/
General
Control
(Horizontal
only)
A.-K. V=80 mph,
SSD = 930’.
A. Vertical SSD =
828.2’, V=74.35
mph
B. Vertical SSD =
711.4’, V=67.86
mph
C. Horizontal SSD
= 676.04’,
V=65.89 mph
D. Horizontal SSD
= 725.40’,
V=68.63 mph
E. Horizontal SSD
= 664.80’,
V=65.26 mph
A. SR-91 WB
516+81.79 BVC to
545+31.79 EVC
B. SR-91 EB
516+29.99 BVC to
538+79.99 EVC
C. SR-91 EB
547+81.85 BC to
577+06.20 EC
D. SR-91 WB
491+98.96 BC to
494+00.00
E. SR-91 EB
489+92.43 BC to
518+53.07 EC
126
Page 2 of 27
SR-91 GAD 2 Orange County (OC) Approved on May 17, 2012
Feature
No.
Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
G2IM2 203.2 Standards for
Curvature
A. R=3900’
B. R=3900’
C. R=3900’
D. R=3900’
E. R=3900’
A. R=3000’
B. R=3000’
C. R=3677’
D. R=3654’
E. R=3700’
A. SR-91 WB
491+98.96 BC to
522+04.48 EC
B. SR-91 EB
489+92.43 BC to
518+53.07 EC
C. SR-91
547+81.85 BC to
577+06.20 EC
D. SR-91 WB
544+47.93 BC to
547+58.56 EC
E. SR-91 EB
544+44.30 BC to
545+80.12 EC
G2IM3 301.1 Traveled Way
Width
A.-B. 12’ lanes A. 11’ lanes for
5,900’
B. 11’ lanes for
5,700’
A. SR-91 WB
519+10.0 to
577+88.80
B. SR-91 EB
521+09.20 to
577+88.82
G2IM4 302.1 Shoulder
Width
A. 10’ inside (left)
shoulder.
A. 2’ inside (left)
shoulder.
A. SR-91 WB Ingress/
Egress
SR-91 GAD 2 Riverside County (RIV) Approved on May 2, 2012
Feature
No.
Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
G2IM1 201.1 Stopping Sight
Distance
C. V = 45mph,
SSD = 360’.
D.-I. V=80 mph,
SSD = 930’.
C. Vertical SSD =
280’, V=37mph
D. Vertical SSD =
721.2’, V=68.4
mph
E. Horizontal SSD
= 712.1’,
V=67.9mph
F. Vertical SSD =
784.3’,
C. Green River Bridge
D. SR-91
11+86.04 BVC to
23+36.04 EVC
E. SR-91 EB
13+36.18 BC to
26+18.48 EC
F. SR-91
36+63.48 BVC to
127
Page 3 of 27
SR-91 GAD 2 Riverside County (RIV) Approved on May 2, 2012
Feature
No.
Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
V=71.9mph
G. Horizontal SSD
= 717.2’,
V=68.2mph
H. Horizontal SSD
= 674.7’,
V=66.9mph
I. Vertical SSD =
708.3’,
V=67.7mph
62+63.48 EVC
G. SR-91 WB
44+29.07 BC to
65+32.45 EC
H. SR-91 WB
120+80.00 to
143+65.37 EC
I. SR-91
138+94.92 BVC to
146+94.92 EVC
G2IM2 202.2 Superelevation
Rate
A. R=4000’,
e=3%
B. R=1738.69’,
e=7%
C. R=492.14’,
e=12%
D. R=900’,
e=10%
E. R=2439.86’,
e=5%
F. R=1248.41’,
e=9%
G. R=4000’,
e=3%
H. R=700’,
e=11%
A. e=2%
B. e=4%
C. e=-4%
D. e=4%
E. e=3%
F. e=2.5%
G. e=2.5%
H. e=10%
A. SR-91
44+29.07 BC to
65+32.45 EC
B. Green River EB-Off
Ramp
7+13.63 BC to
13+04.84 PRC
C. Green River EB-Off
Ramp
13+04.84 PRC to
15+08.09 EC
D. Green River EB-On
Ramp
6+37.70 BC to
10+58.56 PCC
E. Green River EB-On
Ramp
10+58.56 PCC to
14+09.27 PCC
F. SR-91 EB/SR-71 NB
17+50.49 BC to
17+87.18 EC
G. SR-91
116+82.70 BC to
143+65.37 EC
H. Green River WB-Off
Ramp
49+31.55 BC to
51+64.19 EC
128
Page 4 of 27
SR-91 GAD 2 Riverside County (RIV) Approved on May 2, 2012
Feature
No.
Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
G2IM3 203.2 Standards for
Curvature
D. R=3900’
E. R=850’
F. R=850’
D. R=3000’
E. R=87’
F. R=215’
D. SR-91
13+36.18 BC to
26+18.48 EC
E. SR-91 EB/SR-71 NB
22+16.89 BC to
24+80.79 PCC
F. SR-71 SB/SR-91 WB
97+80.09 PCC to
102+11.29 EC
G2IM4 301.1 Traveled Way
Width
A.-B. 12’ lanes A. 11’ lanes for
16,900’
B. 11’ lanes for
22,400’
A. SR-91 WB
486+23.85 to
44+29.07
B. SR-91 EB
484+17.43 to
122+80.00
G2IM5 302.1 Shoulder Width A. 10’ inside (left)
shoulder.
B. 10’ inside (left)
shoulder.
C. 8’ outside
(right)
shoulder.
D. 4’ inside (left)
shoulder
E. 10’ inside (left)
shoulder
F. 10’ inside (left)
shoulder
G. 10’ inside
(left) shoulder
A. 8’ inside (left)
shoulder.
B. 2’ inside (left)
shoulder.
C. 2’ outside
(right)
shoulder.
D. 2’ inside (left)
shoulder.
E. 9’ inside (left)
shoulder.
F. 6’ inside (left)
shoulder.
G. 2’ inside (left)
shoulder.
A. SR-91 EB Green River
to SR-71
B. SR-91 WB Ingress/
Egress
C. Green River WB On
Ramp
D. Green River WB On
Ramp
E. SR-91 WB
F. SR-91 EB
G. SR-91 WB
G2IM6 309.1(3
)a
Minimum
Horizontal
Clearances
A. 10’ A. 3’ A. Green River Bridge
G2IM7 501.3 Interchange
Spacing
A. 2 miles A. 5585’ = 1.06mi. A. Green River & SR-71
G2IM8 504.2(2
)
Freeway Exit-
Deceleration
Length
A. 570’ A. 302’ A. SR-71S/SR-91W
129
Page 5 of 27
SR-91 GAD 4 (Same design exceptions Initial phase and Ultimate Project) Approved on
October 18, 2011
Feature
No.
Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
G4UM1 201.1 Stopping
Sight
Distance
A. 930’
B. 930’
C. 930’
D. 930’
E. 930’
F. 250’
A. 506.6’
B. 616.0’
C. 717.2’
D. 625.4’
E. 802’
F. 225’
A. SR-91 (Horizontal). BC
159+69.76 to EC
169+08.24
B. SR-91 (Vertical). BVC
09+08.76 to EVC
15+08.76
C. SR-91 (Horizontal). BC
7+34.09 to EC 221+18.79
D. SR-91 (Vertical). BVC
224+79.55 to EVC
233+79.55
E. WB SR-91 “A” line
Horizontal Curve BC
258+31.72/EC 274+31.72
F. Vertical Curve on
Lincoln Avenue OC
Bridge, Sta 283+50.24 to
Sta 289+00.24
G4UM2 202.2
Superelevati
on Rate
A. 3%
B. 2%
C. 2%
A. 2.5%
B. -2%
C. -2%
A. SR-91. Sta 161+45.68
to Sta 167+32.16
B. Maple WB-On. Sta
95+13.13 to Sta 98+37.86
C. Auto Center EB-On.
Sta 35+32.62 to Sta
36+99.72
G4UM3 301.1 Traveled
Way Width
A.12’ A. 11’ A. Auto Center
Undercrossing, Thru
Lanes.
G4UM4 302.1 Standard
width of
paved
shoulder
Freeway /
Expressway
Paved Shoulder
width (6 or more
lanes) = 10'
A. 2’-10’
B. 2’-10’
C. 4’-10’
D. 8’-10’
A. EB SR-91
Sta 149+25 to
Sta 167+75
B. WB SR-91
Sta 166+25 to
Sta 184+25
C. EB SR-91
Sta 283+86.00 to Sta
288+46.00
D. WB SR-91.
Sta 283+86.62 to
130
Page 6 of 27
SR-91 GAD 4 (Same design exceptions Initial phase and Ultimate Project) Approved on
October 18, 2011
Feature
No.
Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
E. 7.5’-10’
F. 7.5’-10’
G. 6’-10’
H. 6’-10’
I. 3’-10’
Sta 288+46.00
E. EB SR-91.
Sta 20+37.79 to Sta
21+37.79
F. WB SR-91
Sta 20+37.79 to Sta
21+37.79
G. EB SR-91.
Sta 14+33.60 to Sta
15+93.60
H. WB SR-91.
Sta 14+33.60 to Sta
15+93.60
I. EB SR-91.
Sta 250+35.25 to Sta
251+85.25
G4UM5 309.1(3)(b) Horizontal
clearance to
fixed object
Minimum
horizontal
clearance to
fixed object shall
not be less than
10’
A. 4’-10’
B. 8’-10’
C. 7.5’-10’
D. 7.5’-10’
E. 6’-10’
F. 6’-10’
G. 3’-10’
A. EB SR-91.
Sta 283+86.62 to Sta
288+46.00
B. WB SR-91.
Sta 283+86.62 to Sta
288+46.00
C. EB SR-91.
Sta 20+37.79 to Sta
21+37.79
D. WB SR-91.
Sta 20+37.79 to Sta
21+37.79
E. EB SR-91.
Sta 14+33.60 to Sta
15+93.60
F. EB SR-91.
Sta 14+33.60 to Sta
15+93.60
G. EB SR-91.
Sta 250+35.25 to Sta
251+85.25
131
Page 7 of 27
SR-91 GAD 4 (Same design exceptions Initial phase and Ultimate Project) Approved on
October 18, 2011
Feature
No.
Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
H. 2’-10’
I. 2’-10’
H. EB SR-91.
Sta 149+25 to Sta 167+75
I. WB SR-91.
Sta 166+25 to Sta 184+25
G4UM6 405.2(2)(a) Left-Turn
Channelizati
on Lane
Width
A.12’ A. 11’ A. Auto Center
Undercrossing, Left Turn
Lanes, UL-01M/UX-01M.
G4UM7 501.3 Interchange
Spacing
A. 10,560’
B. 5,280’
C. 5,280’
A. 8,565’
B. 2,925’
C. 5,159’
A. SR-91 from SR-71 to
Auto Center
B. SR-91from Auto Center
to Maple
C. SR-91 from Main Street
to Lincoln Avenue.
G4UM8 504.3(3) Proposed
Ramps
Intersection
on the
Crossroads
Spacing
Between
Intersections =
400'
A. 147’
B. 375'
A. Auto Center Drive
Westbound Ramps to
Wardlow Road.
B. Lincoln Avenue ramps
Intersection to Pomona
Road intersection to the
north.
G4UM9 204.3 Grade on
Lincoln
Avenue
Maximum 6% A. Existing
maximum grade on
Lincoln Avenue is
8.91%'
A. Lincoln Avenue
132
Page 8 of 27
GAD 1 SR-91 Approved on May 23, 2011
Feature
No.
Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
G1IM1 201.1
Table
201.1
Stopping
Sight
Distance
SSD = 930'
(Design Speed =
80 mph)
A. SSD = 620.53'.
Corresponding
Speed = 63 mph.
B. SSD = 613.89’.
Corresponding
Speed = 62 mph.
C. SSD = 576.44’.
Corresponding
Speed = 59 mph.
D. SSD = 646.35’.
Corresponding
Speed = 64 mph.
E. SSD = 900.93’.
Corresponding
Speed = 78 mph.
A. EB SR-91 Mainline
(“AE” Line) Horizontal
Curve BC 357+38.65/EC
371+20.50
B. WB SR-91 Mainline
(“CDW” Line) Horizontal
Curve BC 358+18.48/EC
372+03.35
C. SR-91 Mainline (“A”
Line) Vertical Curve PVC
373+75.00/PVT
381+75.00
D. SR-91 Mainline (“A”
Line) Vertical Curve PVC
383+25.00/PVT
389+25.00
E. SR-91 Mainline (“A”
Line) Vertical Curve PVC
426+25.00/PVT
430+25.00
G1IM2 203.2 Horizontal
Alignment:
Standards
for
Curvature
A. Min. Radius =
3900', Design
Speed = 80 mph
B. Min. Radius =
850’, Design
Speed = 50 mph
A. Radius = 3000',
Corresponding
Speed = 75 mph
B. Radius = 800’,
Corresponding
Speed = 48.33
mph
A. SR-91 Mainline, “A”
Line Horizontal Curve
(BC 357+78.83/EC
371+79.44)
B. I-15S to SR-91W
Connector, “SW” Line
Horizontal Curve (BC
384+16.09/EC
392+16.13)
133
Page 9 of 27
GAD 1 SR-91 Approved on May 23, 2011
Feature
No.
Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
G1IM3 302.1 Standard
width of
paved
shoulder
A. & D. Freeway /
Expressway
Paved Shoulder
width (6 or more
lanes) = 10'
B. & C. Freeway-
to-freeway
connections
(Single and two-
lane
connections) =
10’
A. Freeway /
Expressway Paved
Shoulder width = 8'
– 10’
B. Freeway-to-
freeway connector
Paved Shoulder
width = 8’
C. Freeway-to-
freeway connector
Paved Shoulder
width = 5’
D. Freeway /
Expressway Paved
Shoulder width = 5'
– 10’
A. WB SR-91, Sta 387+70
to Sta 394+00
B. I-15S to SR-91E
Connector
C. SR-91W to I-15S
Connector
D. WB SR-91, Sta
305+00 to Sta 307+50
G1IM5 501.3 Interchange
Spacing
Spacing Between
Interchanges = 2
miles
A. Spacing
Between
Interchanges = 1.1
miles
A. Main St. Interchange
to I-15 Interchange
G1IM6 504.3(1)(b) Ramps:
Lane Width
Lane Width = 16’ A. 12’ A. I-15S to SR-91E
Connector
G1IM7 504.3(3) Ramps:
Location
and Design
of Ramp
Intersection
on the
Crossroads
Spacing Between
Intersections =
400'
A. Spacing
Between
Intersection = 233'
B. Spacing
Between
Intersection = 215'
A. WB Main St. Ramps to
Grand Blvd
B. EB Main St. Ramps to
3rd St
134
Page 10 of 27
GAD 1 I-15 Approved on May 23, 2011
Feature
No.
Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
G1IM11 302.1
309.1(3)(b)
Standard
width of
paved
shoulder.
Horizontal
clearance to
wall.
Freeway /
Expressway
paved shoulder
width shall (6
or more lanes)
= 10'
Minimum
horizontal
clearance to
wall shall not
be less than
10’
Left paved
shoulder width
and horizontal
clearance = 4.66'
beside connector
retaining walls
and 5.33’ until
vertical clearance
is achieved under
the connector
bridges.
A. I-15 NB & SB Sta.
2148+50 to Sta.
2155+06.75
G1IM12 302.1
309.1(3)(a)
Standard
width of
paved
shoulder.
Clear width
to bridges
rails
Freeway /
Expressway
Paved
Shoulder width
shall (6 or more
lanes) = 10'
Shoulder width
shall be equal
to the standard
width of
highway.
A. to C. Existing
bridge shoulder
width= 8’.
A. to C. Existing
clear width to
bridge rail= 8’.
A. NB and SB direction
E. 6th Street Bridge
shoulder on I-15
B. NB and SB direction
Rail Road Bridge
C. I-15/SR-91 Grade
Separator Bridge
shoulder
G1IM13 201.1 Stopping
Sight
Distance
SSD = 930'
(Design Speed
= 80 mph)
A. & B. NB, SSD
=841'.
Corresponding
Speed = 75 mph.
C. SB, SSD =841'.
Corresponding
speed = 75 mp
D. SB, SSD =841'.
Corresponding
Speed = 75 mph,
SSD varies from
625' (V=63 mph
min.) to 841’ for
shoulder width
varies from 5’ to
16’ from 2148+50
to 2134+56.26
I-15 Mainline Horizontal
Curve
A. NB (BC2055+58.66
/EC2071+78.29)
B. NB (BC2087+76.49/
EC2115+36.07)
C. SB (BC2076+24.07/
EC2083+79.66)
D. SB (BC2124+37.24/
EC2147+21.26)
135
Page 11 of 27
GAD 1 I-15 Approved on May 23, 2011
Feature
No.
Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
G1IM14 201.1 Stopping
Sight
Distance
SSD = 430'
(Design Speed
= 50 mph)
A. SSD =365’ for
E91-S15.
Corresponding
Speed = 45 mph.,
B. SSD=377’ for
N15-W91,
Corresponding
Speed = 46 mph.
Connector Horizontal Curve:
A. E91-S15
(BC1363+84.64/
EC 1371+24.90)
B. N15-W91
(BC1377+19.74/EC
1405+32.27)
G1IM16 501.3 Interchange
Spacing
Interchange
spacing
between two
local
interchanges
shall be 1 mile
in urban area
Existing
Interchange
spacing between
El Cerrito Road
interchange and
the Ontario
Avenue
interchanges is
4600’
A. El Cerrito Road
interchange and the
Ontario Avenue
interchanges
G1IM17 501.3 Interchange
Spacing
Interchange
spacing
between
freeway to
freeway
interchange
and local
interchange
shall be 2 miles
in urban area
Existing
Interchange
spacing between
a) I-15/SR-91
Interchange and
Magnolia Avenue
interchange is 1.1
mile;
A. I-15/SR-91 Interchange
and Magnolia Avenue
SR-91 GAD-3 Approved on September 14, 2011
Feature
No.
Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
G3IM1 201.1
Table
201.1
Stopping
Sight
Distance
SSD = 930'
(Design Speed
= 80 mph)
A. SSD = 566'
(Corresponding
Speed = 59 mph)
B. SSD = 901'
(Corresponding
Speed = 78 mph)
C. SSD = 592’
(Corresponding
Speed = 61 mph)
D. SSD = 768’
(Corresponding
Speed = 71 mph)
A. EB SR-91 Mainline (“A”
Line) Horizontal Curve BC
460+00.43/EC 482+75.40
B. EB SR-91 Mainline (“A”
Line) Horizontal Curve BC
558+27.34/EC 574+70.25
C. SR-91 Mainline (“A” Line)
Vertical Crest Curve PVC
442+00.00/PVC 454+00.00
D. SR-91 Mainline (“A” Line)
Vertical Sag Curve PVC
459+50.00/PVT 465+50.00
136
Page 12 of 27
SR-91 GAD-3 Approved on September 14, 2011
Feature
No.
Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
E. SSD = 580'
(Corresponding
Speed = 60 mph)
F. SSD = 661'
(Corresponding
Speed = 65 mph)
G. SSD = 584'
(Corresponding
Speed = 60 mph)
H. SSD = 578'
(Corresponding
Speed = 60 mph)
I. SSD = 672'
(Corresponding
Speed = 66 mph)
J. N/A for Initial
Project
K. SSD = 634'
(Corresponding
Speed = 63 mph)
L. SSD = 920'
(Corresponding
Speed = 79 mph)
E. SR-91 Mainline (“A” Line)
Vertical Crest Curve PVC
498+00.00/PVT 503+50.00
F. SR-91 Mainline (“A” Line)
Vertical Crest Curve PVC
511+00.00/PVT 515+00.00
G. SR-91 Mainline (“A” Line)
Vertical Sag Curve PVC
559+75.00/PVC 565+75.00
H. SR-91 Mainline (“A” Line)
Vertical Crest Curve PVC
565+75.00/PVT 573+75.00
I. WB SR-91 Mainline ("A"
Line) Horizontal Curve BC
558+27.34/EC 574+70.25
J. N/A for Initial Project
K.WB SR-91 Mainline ("A"
Line) Horizontal Curve BC
574+70.25/EC 584+71.70
L. SR-91 Mainline ("A" Line)
Vertical Sag Curve PVC
579+12.12/PVT 583+12.12
G3IM2 501.3 Interchange
Spacing
A. Spacing
Between
Interchanges =
2 miles
B. Spacing
Between
Interchanges =
1 mile
A. Spacing
Between
Interchanges =
1.75 miles
B. Spacing
Between
Interchanges =
0.32 miles
A. I-15 Interchange to
McKinley St Interchange
B. Pierce St Interchange to
Magnolia Avenue
Interchange
G3IM3 301.1 Lane Width Minimum Lane
Width = 12’
C.HOV/GP Lanes
Width = 11’
C. EB SR-91 from Sta
438+25.00 to Sta 584+73.95
G3IM4 N/A for
Initial
Project
G3IM5 203.2
Table
203.2
Horizontal
Alignment:
Standards
for
Curvature
A. Min. Radius
= 3,900',
Design Speed
= 80 mph
A. Radius =
3,700', Design
Speed = 79 mph
A. SR-91 Mainline, “A” Line
Horizontal Curve (BC
574+70.25/EC 584+71.70)
137
Page 13 of 27
SR-91 GAD-3 Approved on September 14, 2011
Feature
No.
Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
G3IM6 302.1 Paved
Shoulder
Width
A-D: N/A for
Initial Project
E. Left Paved
Shoulder Width
= 10'
F. Right Paved
Shoulder Width
= 10'
G. Left Paved
Shoulder Width
= 10'
H. Right Paved
Shoulder Width
= 10'
A-D: N/A for Initial
Project
E. Left Paved
Shoulder width =
1.6' to 10’
F. Right Paved
Shoulder Width =
8' to 9'
G. Left Paved
Shoulder Width =
2’ to 8’
H. Right Paved
Shoulder Width =
8' to 9'
A-D: N/A for Initial Project
E. EB SR-91 from Sta
435+25.00 to Sta 584+73.95
F. EB SR-91 from Sta
478+35.00 to Sta 545+00.00
G. WB SR-91 from Sta
430+00.00 to Sta 584+71.70
H. WB SR-91 from Sta
478+00.00 to Sta 582+16.00
G3IM7 405.1(2)(b) Corner Sight
Distance
Corner Sight
Distance =
250'
(Design Speed
= 35 mph)
A. Corner Sight
Distance = 200'
(Design Speed =
30 mph)
A. EB SR-91 at the
intersection of Pierce St. and
EB off-ramp
G3IM8 Not Used
G3IM9 309.1(3)(a)
, (b) & (c)
Horizontal
Clearances
A. Minimum
clearance = 10’
B. Minimum
clearance = 10’
A. Left Paved
Shoulder Width =
1.6’ to 3’
B. Left Paved
Shoulder Width =
2' to 8’
A. EB SR-91 Mainline, “A”
Line from Sta 438+25 to Sta
584+71.70
B. WB SR-91 Mainline, “A”
Line from Sta 430+00.00 to
Sta 584+71.70
G3IM10 308.1 Cross
Sections
Lane Width =
12' & Shoulder
Width = 4’
A. Lane Width =
varies from 10' -
11.5' & Shoulder
Width = 2'
B. Lane Width =
varies from 10' –
to 11'
A. McKinley St
B. Pierce St
138
Page 14 of 27
SR-91 CIP Initial Phase: Summary of Advisory Design Exception
SR-91 GAD 2 Orange County (OC) Approved on May 17, 2012
Feature
No.
Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
G2IA1 202.5(1) Superelevati
on
Transition
A. 454.5’
B. 510’
(maximum
allowable)
C. 510’
(maximum
allowable)
D. 510’
(maximum
allowable)
A. 420’
B. 624’
C. 624’
D. 540’
A. SR-91
EC 577+06.20
B. EB SR-91
BC 489+92.43
C. EB SR-91
EC 518+53.07
D. WB SR-91
BC 544+47.93
G2IA2 202.5(2) Superelevati
on Runoff
A. L = 624’
Tangent =
416’
Curve =
208’
B. L = 400’
Tangent
=266.67’
Curve =
133.33’
C. L = 624’
Tangent =
416’ Curve
= 208’
D. L = 400’
Tangent =
266.67’
Curve =
133.33’
E. L = 266.67’
Tangent =
177.78’
Curve =
88.89’
F. L = 420’
Tangent =
280’ Curve
= 140’
A. L = 624’ Tangent
= 496.43’ Curve
= 127.57’
B. L = 400’ Tangent
= 248.96’ Curve
= 151.04’
C. L = 624’ Tangent
= 510.93’ Curve =
113.07’
D. L = 400’ Tangent
= 195.52’ Curve
= 204.48’
E. L = 266.67’
Tangent = 160.97’
Curve = 105.74’
F. L = 420’
Tangent = 180’
Curve = 240’
A. EB SR-91
BC 489+92.43
B. WB SR-91
BC 491+98.96
C. EB SR-91
EC 518+53.07
D. WB SR-91
EC 522+04.48
E. EB SR-91
BC 544+44.30
F. SR-91
EC 577+06.20
139
Page 15 of 27
SR-91 GAD 2 Orange County (OC) Approved on May 17, 2012
Feature
No.
Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
G. L = 540’
Tangent =
360’ Curve
= 180’
G. L = 540’
Tangent = 447.93’
Curve = 92.07’
G. WB SR-91
BC 544+47.93
SR-91 GAD 2 Riverside County (RIV) Approved on May 2, 2012
Feature
No.
Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
G2IA1 202.5(1) Superelevati
on
Transition
B. 510’
C. 510’
D. 240’
E. 300’
F. 150’
G. 371.25’
H. 416.25’
B. 420’
C. 420’
D. 166.67’
E. 200’
F. No Transition
G. 360’
H. 360’
B. SR-91
BC 13+36.18
C. SR-91
EC 26+18.48
D. Green River WB-Off
Ramp
BC 49+31.55
E. SR-71S/SR-91W
EC 102+11.29
III.
F. SR-91E/SR-71N
EC 17+87.18
G. SR-91
BC 116+82.70
H. SR-91
EC 143+65.37
G2IA2 202.5(2) Superelevati
on Runoff
G. L = 66.67’
Tangent =
111.11’
Curve =
55.56’
H. L = 200’
Tangent =
133.33’
Curve =
66.67’
I. No transition
used out of
this curve.
K. L = 360’
Tangent =
240’ Curve
G. Runoff does not
exist.
H. L = 200’ Tangent
= 66.67’ Curve =
133.33’
I. No transition used
out of this curve.
K. L = 360’ Tangent
= 160’ Curve =
200’
G. Green River WB Off
BC 49+31.55
H. SR-71S/SR-91W
EC 102+11.29
I. SR-91E/SR-71N
EC 17+87.18
K. SR-91
BC 44+29.07
140
Page 16 of 27
SR-91 GAD 2 Riverside County (RIV) Approved on May 2, 2012
Feature
No.
Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
= 120’
L. L = 360’
Tangent =
240’ Curve
= 120’
M. L = 360’
Tangent =
240’ Curve
= 120’
N. L = 360’
Tangent =
240’ Curve
= 120’
L. L = 360’ Tangent
= 160’ Curve =
200’
M. L = 360’
Tangent = 200’
Curve = 160’
N. L = 360’
Tangent = 200’
Curve = 160’
L. SR-91
EC 65+32.45
M. SR-91
BC 116+82.70
N. SR-91
EC 143+65.37
G2IA3 202.6 Superelevati
on of
Compound
Curves
A.
R=1394.04’,
e=8%
A. e=2.5% A. SR-91E/SR-71N
PCC 24+80.79
G2IA6 504.2(2) Divergence
Angle
A. 4º52’08” A. 5º24’51” A. Green River EB Off-
Ramp
G2IA7 504.4(6) Diverging
Branch
Connections
A. Diverging
branch
connections
should be
designed as
shown in
Figure 504.4
A. No 2500’ Aux Lane. A. SR-71S/SR-91W
G2IA8 504.4(6) Merging
Branch
Connections
A. Merging
branch
connections
should be
designed as
shown in
Figure 504.4.
A. Lane drop occurs in
at ramp meter bar
A. SR-71S/SR-91W
G2IA10 504.3(5) Through
Lane Drop
A. 50:1 Taper
@ 12’ = 600’.
A. 35:1 Taper @ 12’ =
430’.
A. Green River EB On
G2IA11 504.3(6) Two-Lane
exit ramp
A. If >1500
vph, two lane
exit.
A. 2330 vph, single
lane exit.
A. Green River EB Off
G2IA12 504.3(5) Connector
Design
Speed
A.-B. 50 mph A. Design speed = 25
mph
B. Design speed =
20mph in the loop
A. SR-71 S/SR-91 W
B. SR-91E/SR-71N
G2IA13 504.4(5) Single Lane
Connections
B.-D. If single
lane
connector
B. 2200’, single lane
connector.
C. 1600’, single lane
B. SR-71S/SR-91E
C. SR-91W/SR-71N
141
Page 17 of 27
SR-91 GAD 2 Riverside County (RIV) Approved on May 2, 2012
Feature
No.
Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
>1000’; two
lane
connector.
connector.
D. 1245’, single lane
connector
D. SR-91E/SR-71N
G2IA14 504.4(6) Branch
Connections
(vph)
A - C. If single
lane
connector
>1500 vph;
two lane
connector.
B. 2040 vph, single
lane connector
C. 1750 vph, single
lane connector
B. SR-71S/SR-91E
C. SR-91W/SR-71N
G2IA15 504.4(7) Lane Drops
Freeway–to-
Freeway
A-B. 50:1
Taper @ 12’ =
600’.
A. 32:1 Taper @ 12’ =
387’.
B. 40:1 Taper @ 12’ =
480’.
A. SR-91E/SR-71N
B. SR-71S/SR-91W
G2IA16 204.4 Vertical
Curve
Length
A. 800’
A. 600’
A. SR-91
PVI = 26+43.84
SR-91 GAD 4 (Same design exception for Initial Phase and Ultimate Project) Approved
on October 18, 2011
Feature
No.
Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
G4UA1 202.5(1) Superelevatio
n Transition
A. 510’
C. 445’
D. 445’
E. 210’
F. 240’
G. 300’
H. 510’
I. 300’
J. 300’
A. 330’
C. 375’
D. 375’
E. 135’
F. 160.93’
G. 200’
H. 396’
I. 226.41’
J. 270.96’
A. SR-91. BC
159+69.76
B. Not Used
C. SR-91. BC 7+34.09
D. SR-91. EC
221+18.79
E. Maple WB-On
EC 114+58.74
F. Maple WB-On
BC 116+59.67
G. Maple EB-On
BC 26+71.43
H. SR-91.
EC 169+08.24
I. Lincoln Ave EB hook
On ramp
BC 2289+26.29
J. Lincoln Ave EB Hook
Off ramp
142
Page 18 of 27
SR-91 GAD 4 (Same design exception for Initial Phase and Ultimate Project) Approved
on October 18, 2011
Feature
No.
Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
K. 150’
L. 150’
K. 133.1’
L. 87.54’
EC 3291+52.98
K. Lincoln Ave WB-Off
BC 1290+90.41
L. Lincoln Ave WB-Off
EC 1294+72.97
G4UA2 202.5(2) Superelevatio
n Runoff
Length (L) –
Two thirds of
L on
Tangent, one
third of Lon
curve.
C. L = 200’
Tangent = 133’
Curve = 66’
E. L = 300’
Tangent = 200’
Curve = 100’
C. L = 200’
Tangent = 60’
Curve = 140’
E. L = 194.71
Tangent = 90.95
Curve = 103.76
A. Not Used.
B. Not Used.
C. Maple EB-On.
BC 26+71.43
D. Not Used.
E. Lincoln Ave EB hook
On ramp.
BC 2289+26.29
G4UA3 203.6 Reversing
Curves
Follow Figure
202.5
A. Does Not Follow
B. Does Not Follow
A. Maple WB-On. PRC
95+13.13
B. Auto Center EB-On
PRC 36+99.72
G4UA4 204.4 Vertical
Curve Length
= 10V
A. 800’
B. 800’
C. 800’
A. 500’
B. 600’
C. 500’
A. SR-91
PVI=178+63.37
B.SR-91 PVI=12+08.76
C. SR-91
PVI=221+74.55
G4UA5 105.4(2) Curb Ramp Dual Curb Ramps
Single Curb
Ramps
A. Auto Center Drive/
SR-91 EB on and off
Ramp Intersection
B. Maple Street/ SR-91
WB off Ramp
Intersection
C. Maple Street/ SR-91
EB off and WB off Ramp
Intersection
D. Lincoln Ave/ SR-91
WB off and on Ramp
Intersection
E. D Street/ SR-91 EB
143
Page 19 of 27
SR-91 GAD 4 (Same design exception for Initial Phase and Ultimate Project) Approved
on October 18, 2011
Feature
No.
Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
off and on Ramp
Intersection
G4UA6 305.1 Median
Widths
Min. Median Width
= 36’
A. 22’
A. SR-91, “A” line Sta
157+50 to 305+00
G4UA7 310.2 Frontage
Roads:
Outer
Separation
Min. Outer
Separation = 26'
A. 24’
B. 17’
C. 18’
D. 14'
E. 19’
A. SR-91 and Wardlow
Road
B. SR-91 and Pomona
Road
C. SR-91 and Pomona
Road
D. SR-91 and C Street
E. EB SR-91 and 2nd
Street
G4UA8 504.2(2) Freeway
Entrances
and Exits:
Standard
Designs
Follow Figure
504.2A
A. Full R=3000’ is
not provided.
B. Proposed
R=4500’ before
convergence at
Freeway Entrance
C. Proposed exit
divergence angle
is 3°52'04" and
gore width 18.25’.
A. Maple WB-On. BC
94+00.00.
B. Lincoln EB hook On
C Lincoln EB hook Off
Ramp
G4UA9 504.2(3) Cut slope
Decision
Sight
Distance and
Provision of
Auxiliary
Lane
A 600 feet auxiliary
lane required,
1,000 feet
preferred.
A. No auxiliary
lane provided.
A. Auto Center Dr. WB-
Off ramp
G4UA10 Not
Used
G4UA11 504.3(3) Grade of
Local Road
at Ramp
Connection
Grade should be
4% or less
A. 5.87%
B. 5.58%
A. Maple intersection
with WB-Off.
B. Lincoln Avenue
intersection with WB Off
and On ramp
G4UA12 504.3(3) Distance
Between
Ramp
Minimum distance
should be 500’
A. 400’
A. Auto Center Dr.
Between eastbound
ramps and Frontage Rd
144
Page 20 of 27
SR-91 GAD 4 (Same design exception for Initial Phase and Ultimate Project) Approved
on October 18, 2011
Feature
No.
Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
Intersection
and Local
Road
Intersection
B. 425’
B. Maple St. Between
westbound off-ramp and
Pomona Road
G4UA13 504.6 Main line
Lane Drop at
interchange
A. Main line lane
should not be
dropped at local
service
interchange.
A. Main line lane is
dropped at Lincoln
Avenue
interchange.
A. SR-91 WB Lane is
dropped after 1245’
west of WB exit ramp
before entrance ramp
G4UA14 504.8 Access
Control
No local road
access opposite of
ramp intersection
A. Through
movement from
Paseo Grande.
B. Through
movement from
private driveway.
A. Maple EB-On
B. Maple WB-Off
SR-91 GAD 1 Approved on August 31, 2011
Feature
No.
Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
G1IA1 203.5 Compound
Curves
On one-way
roads, the larger
radius curve
should follow the
smaller radius.
A. - C. Larger
radius does not
follow shorter
radius.
A. I-15N/SR-91W
Connector (“NW” Line)
B. SR-91E/I-15S
Connector (“ES” Line)
C. I-15S/SR-91W
Connector (“SW” Line)
G1IA2 203.6 Reversing
Curves
A. Minimum
Superelevation
transition = 350’
and
tangent=233.33’
B. and C.
Minimum
Superelevation
transition = 175’
and
tangent=116.66’
D. Minimum
Superelevation
transition=150’
A. Superelevation
Transition length =
319.54 and
tangent=213.03’
B. Superelevation
Transition Length
116.69’ and
tangent=65.74’
C. Superelevation
Transition Length
136.65’ and
tangent=91.1’
D. Superelevation
Transition Length
100.05’’ and
A. EB SR-91 Main St
Braid On-Ramp (“M3”
Line), 1000’ & 3000’
Radius Curves
B. EB SR-91 Main St
Braid On-Ramp (“M3”
Line), (3000’ & 3500’
Radius Curves
C. EB SR-91 Main St
Braid On-Ramp (“M3”
Line), 3500’ & 3000’
Radius Curves
D. WB SR-91 Main St
On-Ramp (“M5” Line),
7000’ & 3000’ Radius
145
Page 21 of 27
SR-91 GAD 1 Approved on August 31, 2011
Feature
No.
Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
and tangent=100’
E. Minimum
Superelevation
transition=325’
and
tangent=216.67’
tangent=62.22’
E. Superelevation
Length = 312’ and
tangent=0.0’
Curves
E. SR-91E/I-15N
Connector (“CDE” Line),
3524’ & 900’ Radius
Curves
G1IA3 204.4 Vertical Curve
Length
A.-B. Minimum
Vertical Curve
Length = 800’
(Design Speed =
80 mph)
A. Vertical Curve
Length = 600’
B. Vertical Curve
Length = 500’
A. SR-91 Mainline (“A”
Line) Vertical Curve PVC
383+25.00/PVT
389+25.00
B. SR-91 Mainline (“A”
Line) Vertical Curve PVC
399+00.00/PVT
404+00.00
G1IA5 305.1 Median
Standards:
Width
Min. Median
Width = 36’
A. Median Width:
26 – 35'
B. Median Width:
17'-22'
A. SR-91, West of Main
St. Interchange
B. SR-91, East of I-15
Interchange
G1IA6 310.2 Frontage
Roads: Outer
Separation
Min. Outer
Separation = 26'
A. Outer
Separation = 19.5'
B. Outer
Separation = 9’
A. WB SR-91 & Bollero
Place
B. EB SR-91 & 2nd Street
G1IA7 504.2(2) Freeway
Entrances and
Exits:
Standard
Designs
A. Figure 504.2A,
For entrance
ramp R=3000’
B. & C. Figure
504.4
A. Used R=5000’at
Freeway Entrance
B. & C. Gore
position moved
more than 400’ for
Branch
Connection
A. EB Main St. On-Ramp
(“M2” Line)
B. EB CD Road (“CDE”
Line) Exit
C. EB CD Road (“CDE”
Line) to EN & ES
Connectors
G1IA8 504.4(5) Freeway-to-
Freeway
Connections:
Single-lane
Connections
2-lane connector
where length
exceeds 1000’
2 lane connector
when volume
exceeds 1500
equivalent
passenger car
per hour.
Existing single
lane connector
A. NE Connector
B. SW Connector
C. SE Connector
D. WN Connector
G1IA9 202.6 Compound
curves
superelevation
Transition
Figure 202.6)
superelevation
transition
Not maintained A. SR-91E-15S (ES line)
connector
146
Page 22 of 27
SR-91 GAD 1 Approved on August 31, 2011
Feature
No.
Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
G1IA10 204.3 Standards for
Grade
Minimum Grade =
0.3%
A. - 0.13%
B. 0.25% to 0.29%
C. 0.25%
D. 0.26%
E. 0.29%
F. - 0.16%
A. WB SR-91 “A” Line
Sta 323+37.50 to
324+00.00, 11.0 Lt
B. EB SR-91 “A” Line
Sta 335+25.00 to
344+00.00, 11.0’ Rt
C. WB SR-91 “A” Line
Sta 336+25.00 to
337+84.38, 11.0’ Lt
D. WB SR-91 “A” Line
Sta 342+00.00 to
346+00.00, 11.0’ Lt
E. EB SR-91 “A” Line Sta
352+25.00 to
354+50.00, 11.0 Rt
F. WB SR-91 “A” Line
Sta 363+00.00 to
367+32.00, 11.0’ Lt
G1IA13 202.5(1)
202.5(2)
Superelevation
Transition
Figure 202.5(1)
superelevation
transition length
2/3 of the
superelevation
runoff should be
on the tangent
and 1/3 within the
curve
Superelevation
transition distance
is not maintained.
Two-third/one-third
distribution not
achieved
A. Main St EB Braid On-
Ramp (“M3” Line),
Superelevation transition
B. Main St EB Braid On-
Ramp (“M3” Line),
Superelevation transition
and EC 3374+70.39
C. Main St EB Braid On-
Ramp (“M3” Line),
Superelevation transition
D. East CD Connector
(“CDE” Line),
superelevation transition
before PRC 387+55.48
E. Main St WB On-Ramp
(“M5” Line),
Superelevation transition
and EC 5324+17.16
147
Page 23 of 27
I-15 GAD 1Approved on August 31, 2011
Feature
No.
Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
G1IA21 504.6 Mainline lane
reduction at
interchanges
Preferably at least
one-half mile from
nearest exit or inlet
nose.
After 850’ from exit
nose.
C. SB Ontario Avenue off
ramp
G1IA22 504.4(5) Length of
single lane
connectors is
more than
1000’.
Single lane
connectors in
excess of 1000’ in
length should be
widened to two
lanes to provide
for passing
maneuvers.
A. E91-S15=6952’
B. N15-
W91=5362’
A. E91-S15=6952’.From
Sta.1358+09.64 to
Sta.1427+61.95
B. N15-W91=5362’. From
Sta.1374+00.00 to
Sta.1427+61.95
G1IA23 202.5(1)
202.5(2)
Superelevation
transition and
runoff.
A superelevation
transition should
be designed in
accordance with
the diagram and
tabular data
shown in Figure
202.5A to satisfy
the requirements
of safety, comfort
and pleasing
appearance.
A. The transition
distance is
modified to keep
the same rate and
adjusted
superelevation
runoff length.
B. Not used.
A. Gore area of E91-S15 /
E91-N15 connectors
B. Not Used
G1IA24 504.2 Existing
entrance and
exit nose
geometry on I-
15
Design of freeway
entrances and
exits should
conform to the
standard designs
illustrated in Figure
504.2A-B (single
lane), and Figure
504.3L (two lane
entrances and
exits).
A. Not Used
B. Ramp
convergence
ratio=30:1
A. Not Used.
B. SB Ontario Ave. on
ramp
G1IA25 504.5 Existing
auxiliary lane
between two
successive on
and off ramp.
Auxiliary lane =
2000’
Auxiliary lane =
1575’
A. Between NB El Cerrito
Rd on ramp and NB
Ontario Ave. off ramp
SR-91 GAD 3 Approved on September 14, 2011
Feature
No.
Index Description Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
G3IA1 N/A for
Initial
Project
G3IA2 305.1 Median
Standards:
Min. Median Width
= 36’
A. Median Width:
12' to 14’
A. SR-91 (“A” Line), Sta
430+00.00 to 584+71.70
148
Page 24 of 27
SR-91 GAD 3 Approved on September 14, 2011
Feature
No.
Index Description Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
Width
G3IA3 N/A for
Initial
Project
G3IA4 N/A for
Initial
Project
G3IA5 N/A for
Initial
Project
G3IA6 204.4 Vertical Curve
Length
A.-D. Minimum
Vertical Curve
Length = 800’
(Design Speed =
80 mph)
A. Vertical Curve
Length = 600’
B. Vertical Curve
Length = 400’
C. Vertical Curve
Length = 550’
D. Vertical Curve
Length = 600’
A. SR-91 Mainline (“A”
Line) Vertical Curve PVC
459+50.00/PVT
465+50.00
B. SR-91 Mainline (“A”
Line) Vertical Curve PVC
477+50.00/PVT
481+50.00
C. SR-91 Mainline (“A”
Line) Vertical Curve PVC
498+00.00/PVT
503+50.00
D. SR-91 Mainline (“A”
Line) Vertical Curve PVC
559+75.00/PVT
565+75.00
G3IA7 N/A for
Initial
Project
G3IA8 N/A for
Initial
Project
G3IA9 Not Used
G3IA10 203.3 Alignment
Consistency
Maximum
difference in
Design Speed
between
successive curves
= 10 mph
A. Maximum
difference =
14 mph
B. Maximum
difference = 22
mph
C. Maximum
A. WB SR-91 Mainline ("A"
Line) between horizontal
curves BC 460+00.43/EC
482+75.40 and BC
558+27.34/EC 574+70.25
B. EB SR-91 Mainline ("A"
Line) between horizontal
curves BC 398+74.93/EC
419+47.41 and BC
460+00.43/EC 482+75.40
C. EB SR-91 Mainline ("A"
149
Page 25 of 27
SR-91 GAD 3 Approved on September 14, 2011
Feature
No.
Index Description Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
difference =
22 mph
Line) between horizontal
curves BC 460+00.43/EC
482+75.40 and BC
558+27.34/EC 574+70.25
G3IA11 Not Used
G3IA12 502.2 Partial
Interchanges
Full Access A. Partial
Interchange
A. Pierce St. EB Off-Ramp
& WB On-Ramp
G3IA13 Not
Used
G3IA14 504.3(5) Passing Lane
on Single Lane
Ramps.
Additional passing
lane for ramp
length > 1000'
A. Length =
1557.86’
A. McKinley St WB Off-
Ramp , Sta 1493+25.01
to Sta 1501+50.00
G3IA15 Not Used
G3IA16 504.3(9) Distance
Between
Successive
On-Ramps.
Minimum Distance
= 1000'
A. Distance =
882.5'
A. Between McKinley St
SB to SR-91 Mainline EB
On-Ramp and McKinley St
NB to SR-91 Mainline EB
On-Ramp
G3IA17 N/A for
Initial
Project
G3IA18 201.7 Decision Sight
Distance (DSD)
DSD = 1260’
(V=80mph)
A. DSD = 699’
B. DSD = 858’
C. DSD = 697’
A. McKinley WB Off-
Ramp, Sta 498+56.88 to
Sta 506+03.03
B. Pierce St EB Off-Ramp,
Sta 552+50.00 to Sta
562+00.00
C. Magnolia Ave EB Off-
Ramp, Sta 575+58.58 to
Sta 582+34.17
150
Page 26 of 27
SR-91 CIP Initial Phase: Summary of Ramp Metering Policy Design Exception
GAD 2 SR-91 Orange County
No exception proposed
GAD 2 SR-91 Riverside County (RIV) Approved on May2, 2012
Feature No. Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
G2IRM1A
G2IRM1B
Ramp
Meter
Policy
Ramp Meter Provision of
ramp
metering
shall be
included in
any project
that
proposes
additional
capacity,
modification
of an existing
interchange,
or
construction
of a new
interchange.
Ramp Metering is
not proposed.
A. SR-91W/SR-71N
B. SR-91E/SR-71N
GAD 4 SR-91(Same Initial phase and Ultimate Project) Approved on January 05, 2012.
Feature No. Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
G4URM1A Ramp
Meter
Design
Manual
Index I-H
and I-J
HOV
Preference
Lane
An HOV
preference
lane shall be
provided at
all ramp
meter
locations.
An on ramp HOV
Preference Lane
is not proposed.
Maple Street westbound
proposed on-ramp
151
Page 27 of 27
GAD 1 SR-91/I-15 Approved on October 13, 2011
Feature No. Index Feature Standard Proposed
Exception
Location
G1IRM2A Ramp
Meter
Design
Manual
Index I-H
and I-J
HOV
Preference
Lane
An HOV
preference
lane shall be
provided at
all ramp
meter
locations.
An on ramp HOV
Preference Lane
is not proposed.
SR-91 Eastbound on
ramp at the Main Street
interchange
G1IRM2B Ramp
Meter
Design
Manual
Index I-H
and I-J
HOV
Preference
Lane
An HOV
preference
lane shall be
provided at
all ramp
meter
locations.
An on ramp HOV
Preference Lane
is not proposed.
15S-91W and 15N-91W
westbound proposed
combined CD Road
Connector on ramp
GAD 3 SR-91
No exception proposed
152
Attachment D
Traffic Assessment
153
State Route 91 Geometric and Design Alternatives Analysis
SR-91 Corridor Between SR-241 and SR-71
Traffic Assessment (Preliminary Draft)
April 29, 2021
Prepared for
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)
and
Riverside County Transportation Authority (RCTC)
SR-110 Arroyo Seco Parkway Safety and Operational Enhancement Project
Caltrans
154
State Route 91 Geometric and Design
Alternative Analysis
155
State Route 91 Geometric and Design
Alternative Analysis
i
Contents
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Project Overview ............................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Scope of Work ................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Limitations .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Project Description .................................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Purpose and Proposed Improvements .................................................................................................................... 3
3. Travel Forecasting Investigation .......................................................................................................... 5
4. Traffic Operations and Safety Assessment ....................................................................................... 10
Tables and Figures
Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................................. 2
Table 1. Alternative Concept Comparison ...................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2. OCTAM Model Capture Area .............................................................................................................. 5
Table 2. Subregion OCTAM Model Summary – 2045 Horizon Year ............................................................ 6
Table 3. EB SR-91 Model Summary – 2045 Horizon Year ........................................................................... 6
Figure 3. Subregion VMT Comparison – 2045 Horizon Year ........................................................................ 6
Figure 4. Subregion Delay Comparison – 2045 Horizon Year ...................................................................... 7
Figure 5. Eastbound SR-91 Delay Comparison – 2045 Horizon Year ......................................................... 7
Figure 6. Eastbound SR-91 Speed Comparison – 2045 Horizon Year ........................................................ 8
Table 4. Traffic Operations Concept Assessment ........................................................................................ 10
Table 5. Safety Concept Assessment ............................................................................................................. 11
156
State Route 91 Geometric and Design
Alternative Analysis
1
1. Introduction
1.1 Project Overview
In accordance with Contract Agreement No. C-9-1685, the Orange County Transportation Authority has retained
the Advanced Civil Technologies (ACT) team to provide conceptual engineering services for the State Route (SR)
91 Geometric and Design Alternative Analysis study (Project). As part of the ACT team, Jacobs has prepared this
Preliminary Traffic Assessment in support of the alternative analysis.
The purpose of the Project is to develop geometric design alternatives that improve the eastbound (EB) SR-91
corridor between SR-241 and SR-71 by adding one general purpose (GP) lane. The various alternatives are
discussed in Section 2.2, and the Alternative plan sets are included in Appendix A. The site vicinity map is shown
on Figure 1-1.
1.2 Scope of Work
The primary purpose of this report is to provide a high-level assessment of traffic performance of the design
alternatives. OCTA provided forecasts for the SR-91 corridor using the Orange County Transportation Analysis
Model (OCTAM), using the TransCAD software. Post-processing of the forecast data was used to compare the
Build vs. No-build alternatives at a high-level (Section 3). A preliminary qualitative assessment of traffic
operations and safety was also conducted, with a closer look at the variations (Section 4).
1.3 Limitations
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of project team members for specific application to the
project alternative analysis. This report should be used for planning only, not for preliminary or final design. More
detailed traffic modeling and analysis will be required as the project proceeds.
157
State Route 91 Geometric and Design
Alternative Analysis
2
Figure 1-1. Site Vicinity Map
158
2. Project Description
2.1 Existing Condition
The SR-91 freeway is a major east-west access-controlled corridor for commuters traversing between
northern Orange and Riverside counties. In the project study area, which includes the SR-91/SR-241 and SR-
91/SR-71 interchanges, the SR-91 corridor generally consists of five GP lanes in both the EB and westbound
(WB) directions. RCTC is currently sponsoring a project to improve operations of the SR-91 WB lanes
(SR-91 Corridor Operations Project, EA 0F544) through the addition of a sixth general purpose lane between
Green River Road and SR-241. This project is anticipated to be completed by late 2021. The 91 Express
Lanes, which is comprised of two express lanes in each direction, spans approximately 18 miles between
Orange and Riverside counties. Approximately 10 miles of the 91 Express Lanes are in Orange County
and the Riverside County portion makes up the remaining eight miles. The Express Lanes in Orange County
begins at the SR-55/SR-91 interchange and ends at the Orange/Riverside county line. The Express Lanes in
Riverside County starts from the Orange/Riverside county line and ends at Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside
County. Ingress and egress points occur at both ends of the facility and another entry/exit point occurs in the
vicinity of the Orange/Riverside county line.
2.2 Purpose and Proposed Improvements
The purpose of this Project is to develop geometric design alternatives that improve the EB SR-91 corridor
between SR-241 and SR-71 by adding one general purpose lane. All of the project alternatives include varied
design features that allow for the addition of this sixth EB lane.
Four Build alternatives have been developed:
Alternative 1 – Constrained Cross-Section (Design Variations A, B and C)
Alternative 2 – Full-Standard Cross-Section, Widen South
Alternative 3 – Full-Standard Cross-Section, Widen North (Design Variations A and B)
Alternative 4 – Hybrid Cross-Section (Limited Widen South)
All four of the alternatives will provide a sixth GP lane between the SR-91/SR-241 interchange and the SR-71
interchange. The details of the alternatives and the more refined alternative concepts, summarized in Table 1,
vary mostly in the cross-section: outside shoulder, lane, and buffer widths. In Concepts 2 to 4, there is a short
parallel (seventh) auxiliary lane in advance of the Green River Road interchange. The auxiliary lane allows for
approximately 1,000 feet of additional diverge distance and provides for a two-lane (trap/choice) off-ramp.
159
Table 1. Alternative Concept Comparison
GP
lanes
Outside
Shoulder
Lane
Widths
Buffer
Width
Auxiliary Lane
to Green River
Road Off
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
No-
Build
5 10' 11/11/11/12/12 13' (to allow for
ingress/egress with
no transition)
None
1A 6 4' to 10', but
mostly 6'
11/11/11/11/12/12 Generally 2'
(transitions to 13' to
allow for ingress
lane)
None
1B 6 10' None
1C 6 10' Yes
2 6 10' 12/12/12/12/12/12 Generally 4'
(transitions to 16' to
allow for ingress
lane)
Yes
3A 6 10' 12/12/12/12/12/12 Yes
3B 6 10' 12/12/12/12/12/12 Yes
4 6 10' 11/11/11/11/12/12 Generally 2'
(transitions to 13' to
allow for ingress
lane)
Yes
160
3. Travel Forecasting Investigation
OCTA provided forecasts for the SR-91 corridor using the OCTAM model. To balance the need to understand the
regional vs. corridor-specific effects, the model capture area was developed as illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2. OCTAM Model Capture Area
The operational assessment focused on approximately eight miles of EB SR-91. OCTAM does not provide any
tangible differentiation for cross-sectional widths or short auxiliary lanes, so two basic models runs were
completed: “Build” and “No-Build”. The Build scenarios included the six GP lanes from SR-241 to SR-71, and
represent Alternative Concepts 1 to 4. Both scenarios include the SR-241/SR-91 Express Lane connectors.
Neither scenario includes the braided configuration for Green River Road/SR-71 that is in the Ultimate CIP as the
model would not be sensitive to those changes.
OCTAM was run for four periods for the 2045 horizon years; AM peak (6 to 9 AM), midday (9 AM to 3 PM), PM
peak (3 to 7 PM) and overnight. Separate data summaries were created for the Orange County portion of the
model capture area (subregion), illustrated in Figure 2, plus a more focused assessment of the EB freeway (the
Express Lanes, GP lanes, and ramps).
Tables 2 and 3 are summaries of the comparison between the Build and No-Build scenarios for the subregion
and EB freeway corridor. Data are reported on vehicle miles traveled (VMT), delay, vehicle hours traveled (VHT),
and speed.
Figures 3 to 6 are graphic summaries of selected data, comparing the Build vs. No-Build.
The changes to the subregion are modest, because of the relatively large area. There is a negligible increase in
daily VMT (0.003%), mostly associated with the AM and PM peak periods. There are also modest decreases in
congested VMT (0.2%) and hours of delay (0.3%).
For the SR-91 corridor, the OCTAM results illustrate the benefits of the sixth lane addition more clearly. Delay is
reduced by approximately 20% (mostly in the AM and PM peak periods), with a corresponding increase in
average speed. While there will still be congestion in the corridor in 2045, there will be clear improvements in
overall traffic flow and quality.
161
Table 2. Subregion OCTAM Model Summary – 2045 Horizon Year
Period Scenario VMT Congested VMT Hours of Delay
AM Build 20,852,383 703,132 179,352
No-Build 20,857,678 703,554 179,700
Midday Build 21,474,931 536,553 24,858
No-Build 21,476,699 536,708 24,941
PM Build 27,358,503 868,580 176,996
No-Build 27,348,495 870,549 179,162
Overnight Build 15,452,354 356,991 2,701
No-Build 15,452,743 357,018 2,709
Total Build 85,138,171 4,058,831 1,977,482
No-Build 85,135,614 4,065,695 1,984,378
Table 3. EB SR-91 Model Summary – 2045 Horizon Year
Period Scenario VMT VHT Hours of Delay Average Speed
(mph)
AM Build 307,722 7,452 2,575 41
No-Build 314,761 7,928 2,954 40
Midday Build 333,985 5,664 364 59
No-Build 334,299 5,781 478 58
PM Build 531,427 21,323 12,967 25
No-Build 529,508 24,841 16,533 21
Overnight Build 317,708 5,044 34 63
No-Build 317,858 5,060 48 63
Total Build 1,490,842 39,482 15,940 38
No-Build 1,496,427 43,610 20,013 34
Figure 3. Subregion VMT Comparison – 2045 Horizon Year
0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
80,000,000
90,000,000
AM Midday PM Overnight Total
Vehicle Miles Traveled: Subregion
No-Build Build
162
Figure 4. Subregion Delay Comparison – 2045 Horizon Year
Figure 5. Eastbound SR-91 Delay Comparison – 2045 Horizon Year
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
AM Midday PM Overnight Total
Vehicle Hours of Delay: Subregion
No-Build Build
163
Figure 6. Eastbound SR-91 Speed Comparison – 2045 Horizon Year
A focused evaluation was conducted at the SR-241/SR-91 interchange. Table 4 is a summary of the volume
changes on SR-91, immediately east of SR-241. The data indicate that while overall cross-section volumes on
SR-91 increase, there is a much larger increase on the GP lanes, and a reduction on the Express Lanes, both from
SR-91 and on the planned SR-241 Express Lanes connector.
Table 4. SR-91 Traffic Volumes (at SR-241)
Period Scenario GP Lanes east
of SR-241
Express Lanes
from SR-91
Express Lane
Connector from SR-241
Total
AM Peak No-Build 26,761 5805 3375 35,941
Build 28,975 4442 2767 36,184
Change 8.3% -23.5% -18.0% 0.7%
PM Peak No-Build 46,623 10,565 4516 61,704
Build 50,468 9443 3670 63,581
Change 8.2% -10.6% -18.7% 3.0%
Daily No-Build 154,876 17,846 7892 180,614
Build 161,176 15,192 6438 182,806
Change 4.1% -14.9% -18.4% 1.2%
Table 5 is a similar summary for SR-241, immediately south of SR-91. The overall cross-section volumes on SR-
241 increase, by approximately 3.0% on a daily basis. There is a much larger increase on the GP connector to SR-
91 (9% daily) and a reduction on the Express Lanes connector.
164
Table 5. SR-241 Traffic Volumes (at SR-91)
Period Scenario GP Connector
to EB SR-91
GP Connector
to WB SR-91
Express Lane
Connector to SR-241
Total (south
of SR-91)
AM Peak No-Build 6754 824 3375 10,953
Build 7466 823 2767 11,056
Change 10.5% -0.1% -18.0% 0.9%
PM Peak No-Build 11,396 1358 4516 17,270
Build 13,269 1361 3670 18,300
Change 16.4% 0.2% -18.7% 6.0%
Daily No-Build 28,967 2594 7892 39,453
Build 31,585 2594 6438 40,617
Change 9.0% 0.0% -18.4% 3.0%
165
4. Traffic Operations and Safety Assessment
A preliminary assessment of traffic operations and safety was conducted, focusing on differences between the
variations. The assessments were conducted separately for traffic operations and safety, in Tables 4 and 5.
The alternative concepts were compared to the No-Build scenario (i.e., No-Build wasn’t assessed on its own). The
assessments were based on professional judgment, and not on specific data or modeling. A color scale was
employed:
likely worse than No-Build
likely about the same as No-Build
likely somewhat better than No-Build
likely much better than No-Build
For traffic operations, the following assessments were made:
Overall capacity/throughput: the ability to serve more GP traffic, reduce congestion, and relieve traffic
on alternate routes
SR-241 connector: operations and queuing on the connector before it joins SR-91
SR-241 connector ramp merge: conflicts at the merge and the weave up to the Express Lanes
ingress/egress
Express Lanes ingress/egress: ease of movements to and from the Express Lanes
Green River Road diverge: speed differentials and lane changes upstream of the off-ramp
Composite assessment: brings together the five measures above
In Table 6, the results for traffic operations show there are no clear differences between the alternative concepts.
All provide for much better operations on the GP lanes, particularly at the SR-241 connector merge, which is a
major constraint in the existing operations. While the short auxiliary lane at the Green River Road off-ramp will
be beneficial, the sixth lane is a much larger improvement, so the overall traffic operations benefit is minor. All
of the alternative concepts will provide much improved traffic operations.
Table 6. Traffic Operations Concept Assessment
Concept Overall
Capacity
SR-241
Connector
SR-241
Connector
Merge
Express Lane
Ingress/Egress
Green River
Road Diverge
Composite
1A
1B
1C
2
3A
3B
4
166
For safety, summarized in Table 7, the following assessments were made:
Congestion-related crashes (typically rear-ends) on the mainline and SR-241 connector
Sideswipe crashes, which are affected by lane widths
Express Lanes and conflicts during transitions
Green River Road interchange crashes
Composite assessment: brings together the four measures above
Table 7. Safety Concept Assessment
Concept Congestion-
Related
Sideswipe Express
Lanes
Green River
Road
Composite
1A
1B
1C
2
3A
3B
4
There is slightly more delineation between the alternative concepts for safety, but they are still largely similar.
Alternative Concepts 2 and 3A/3B provide the best combination of design characteristics, but the primary benefit
of reducing congestion-related crashes is provided by all the alternatives. However, additional safety benefits are
expected with Alternatives 2 and 3A/3B due to the improved cross-section geometry. Similarly, these
Alternative Concepts will help to reduce conflict between mainline through traffic and exiting vehicles at Green
River Road because of the auxiliary lane.
167
Attachment E
PEAR‐E Environmental Studies Checklist
168
Revised June 2020 Page 1 of 3
Attachment F: PEAR Environmental Studies Checklist
Environmental Study Not
anticipated
Memo
to file
Report
required Risk Comments
Land Use ܆܈܆L CIA Memo
Wild and Scenic River Consistency ܈܆܆L
Coastal Management Plan ܈܆܆L
Growth ܈܆܆L
Farmlands/Timberlands ܈܆܆L
Community Impacts ܆܈܆L CIA Memo
Community Character and Cohesion ܆܈܆L CIA Memo
Relocations ܆܈܆L CIA Memo
Environmental Justice ܆܈܆M CIA Memo
Utilities/Emergency Services ܆܈܆L CIA Memo
Traffic/Transportation ܆܆܈M Traffic Report
SB743/Induced Travel ܆܆܈M Traffic Report
Visual/Aesthetics ܆܆܈L VIA
Cultural Resources: ܆܆܈L Supplemental HPSR
Archaeological Survey Report ܆܆܈L Supplemental ASR
Historic Resources Evaluation Report ܆܆܈L Potential for
Supplemental HRER
Historic Property Survey Report ܆܆܈L Supplemental HPSR
Historic Resource Compliance Report ܆܆܈L Supplemental HPSR
Section 106 / PRC 5024 & 5024.5 ܆܆܈L Supplemental HPSR
Native American Coordination ܆܆܈L Supplemental HPSR
Finding of Effect ܈ ܆ ܆ L
Data Recovery Plan ܈܆܆L
Memorandum of Agreement ܈܆܆L
Other: Enter other study ܈܆܆L
Hydrology and Floodplain ܆܆܈L Supplemental LHS/FER
Water Quality and Stormwater Runoff ܆܆܈L Supplemental WQAR
Geology, Soils, Seismic and
Topography ܆܈܆L Geotechnical Memo
Paleontology ܆܈܆L PIR/PER Memo
PER ܆܈܆L PIR/PER Memo
PMP ܆܆܈L Depending on results of
the PIR/PER
Hazardous Waste/Materials: ܆܆܈L Supplemental Phase I
ISA
ISA (Additional)܆܆܈L Supplemental Phase I
ISA
PSI ܈܆܆L
169
Revised June 2020 Page 2 of 3
Environmental Study Not
anticipated
Memo
to file
Report
required Risk Comments
Other: ADL ܆܆܈L ADL, LBP
Air Quality ܆܆܈L Supplemental Air
Quality Report
Noise and Vibration ܆܆܈M
Supplemental NSR;
Supplemental NADR
dependent on results of
SNSR
Energy ܆܆܈L Energy Analysis Report
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise ܆܈܆L Climate Change
Memorandum
Biological Environment ܆܆܈L Supplemental NES/MI
Fish Passage ܈܆܆L
Wildlife Connectivity ܆܆܈L Supplemental NES/MI
Natural Environment Study ܆܆܈M Supplemental NES/MI
Biological Assessment Section 7: ܆܆܈M Biological Assessment
Formal ܆܆܈M Biological Assessment
Informal ܈܆܆L
No effect ܈܆܆L
Section 10 ܈܆܆L
USFWS Consultation ܆܆܈M
Supplemental NES/MI
and Biological
Assessment
NMFS Consultation ܈܆܆L
Species of Concern (CNPS, USFS,
BLM, S, F) ܆܆܈L Supplemental NES/MI
Wetlands & Other Waters/Delineation ܆܆܈M Supplemental JD
404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis ܈܆܆L
Invasive Species ܆܆܈L Supplemental NES/MI
HMMP ܆܆܈L
Depending on results of
the NES/MI, USFWS
and RCA consultation.
Preparation anticipated
following environmental
approvals.
CDFW Consistency Determination ܈܆܆L
2081 ܈܆܆L
Other: Enter other study ܈܆܆L
Cumulative Impacts ܆܆܈L
Addressed in
Environmental Re-
Validation
Context Sensitive Solutions ܈܆܆L
Addressed in
Environmental Re-
Validation
Section 4(f) Evaluation ܆܆܈L Section 4(f) De minimis
Report and Notice
Permits: ܆܆܆L
170
Revised June 2020 Page 3 of 3
Environmental Study Not
anticipated
Memo
to file
Report
required Risk Comments
401 Certification Coordination ܆܆܈L
404 Permit Coordination, IP, NWP, or
LOP ܆܆܈L
1602 Agreement Coordination ܆܆܈L
Local Coastal Development Permit
Coordination ܈܆܆L
State Coastal Development Permit
Coordination ܈܆܆L
NPDES Coordination ܆܆܈L
TRPA ܈܆܆L
BCDC ܈܆܆L
171
Attachment F
Preliminary Cost Estimates
172
Revised 2/8/2022
ITEM
NO.DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
1 JOINT PLANE CONCRETE PAVEMENT SQ YD 19,060 375$ 7,148,000$
2 CONCRETE BARRIER LF 4,800 150$ 720,000$
3 RETAINING WALLS (SEE ATTACHED)SF 18,310 Varies 2,770,000$
4 BRIDGE WIDENING (SEE ATTACHED)SF 3,194 Varies 1,330,000$
5 EARTH WORK CY 31,560 100$ 3,156,000$
15,130,000$
6 DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES LS 1 1,513,000$ 1,513,000$
7 PAVEMENT DELINEATION, SIGNING AND ELECTRICAL LS 1 1,513,000$ 1,513,000$
8 STAGE CONSTRUCTION AND TRAFFIC HANDLING LS 1 1,513,000$ 1,513,000$
9 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION LS 1 454,000$ 454,000$
10 UTILITIES AND RIGHT-OF-WAY LS 1 2,270,000$ 2,270,000$
7,263,000$
22,393,000$
35%7,838,000$
60%13,436,000$
30,230,000$
TO
35,830,000$
12,092,000$
TO
14,332,000$
42,322,000$
TO
50,162,000$
TOTAL PROJECT COST RANGE:
SR-91 EASTBOUND SIXTH LANE ADDITION ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT 1A (CONSTRAINED SECTION)
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
SUBTOTAL ALL ITEMS:
CONTINGENCY (LOW):
Between SR-241 and SR-71
CONTINGENCY (HIGH):
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST RANGE:
SUPPORT COST (DESIGN, PM & CM)40%
Page 1 of 16173
Revised 2/8/2022
No.Name Direction Cut/Fill/Bridge Struct Type Length (ft)Avg Ht/Width (ft)Max Ht/Width (ft)Area (ft2)$/SF Subtotal
1 Retaining Wall No. 519 EB Fill Type 1 740.00 6.0 8.0 4,440 $120 532,800$
2 Retaining Wall No. 528 EB Fill Type 1 550.00 6.0 8.0 3,300 $120 396,000$
3 Retaining Wall No. 538 (LS)EB Cut Type 1 Pile 120.00 8.0 10.0 960 $200 192,000$
4 Retaining Wall No. 550 EB Fill Type 1 100.00 6.0 8.0 600 $120 72,000$
5 Retaining Wall No. 580 EB Fill Type 1 160.00 6.0 8.0 960 $120 115,200$
6 Retaining Wall No. 582 EB Fill Type 1 Pile 805.00 10.0 14.0 8,050 $150 1,207,500$
2,520,000$
2,770,000$
7 Coal Canyon UC (Widen)EB Bridge PC/PS Bulb Tee 127.75 24.0 24.0 3,066 $375 1,149,750$
8 County Line Creek UC (Widen)EB Bridge R/C Slab 17.00 7.5 7.5 128 $450 57,375$
1,210,000$
1,330,000$
SR-91 EASTBOUND SIXTH LANE ADDITION ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Between SR-241 and SR-71
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT 1A (CONSTRAINED SECTION)
PRELIMINARY STRUCTURES ESTIMATE
Subtotal
Subtotal
RETAINING WALLS
BRIDGES
Subtotal (with mobilization)
Subtotal (with mobilization)
174
Revised 2/8/2022
ITEM
NO.DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
1 JOINT PLANE CONCRETE PAVEMENT SQ YD 27,850 375$ 10,444,000$
2 CONCRETE BARRIER LF 8,630 150$ 1,295,000$
3 RETAINING WALLS (SEE ATTACHED)SF 57,560 Varies 9,960,000$
4 BRIDGE WIDENING (SEE ATTACHED)SF 3,304 Varies 1,390,000$
5 EARTH WORK CY 62,630 100$ 6,263,000$
29,360,000$
6 DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES LS 1 2,936,000$ 2,936,000$
7 PAVEMENT DELINEATION, SIGNING AND ELECTRICAL LS 1 2,936,000$ 2,936,000$
8 STAGE CONSTRUCTION AND TRAFFIC HANDLING LS 1 2,936,000$ 2,936,000$
9 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION LS 1 881,000$ 881,000$
10 UTILITIES AND RIGHT-OF-WAY LS 1 4,404,000$ 4,404,000$
14,093,000$
43,453,000$
35%15,209,000$
60%26,072,000$
58,660,000$
TO
69,530,000$
23,464,000$
TO
27,812,000$
82,124,000$
TO
97,342,000$
SUPPORT COST (DESIGN, PM & CM)40%
TOTAL PROJECT COST RANGE:
SUBTOTAL ALL ITEMS:
CONTINGENCY (LOW):
CONTINGENCY (HIGH):
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST RANGE:
SR-91 EASTBOUND SIXTH LANE ADDITION ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Between SR-241 and SR-71
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT 1B (STANDARD RIGHT SHOULDER)
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
Page 3 of 16175
Revised 2/8/2022
No.Name Direction Cut/Fill/Bridge Struct Type Length (ft)Avg Ht/Width (ft)Max Ht/Width (ft)Area (ft2)$/SF Subtotal
1 Retaining Wall No. 519 EB Fill Type 1 740.00 6.0 8.0 4,440 $120 532,800$
2 Retaining Wall No. 528 EB Fill Type 1 550.00 6.0 8.0 3,300 $120 396,000$
3 Retaining Wall No. 538 (LS)EB Cut Type 1 Pile 190.00 10.0 15.0 1,900 $225 427,500$
4 Retaining Wall No. 550 EB Fill Type 1 100.00 6.0 8.0 600 $120 72,000$
5 Retaining Wall No. 573 EB Fill Type 1 80.00 6.0 8.0 480 $120 57,600$
6 Retaining Wall No. 574 (LS)EB Cut Type 1 Pile 620.00 10.0 16.0 6,200 $240 1,488,000$
7 Retaining Wall No. 582 EB Fill Type 1 Pile 800.00 10.0 14.0 8,000 $150 1,200,000$
8 Retaining Wall No. 590 EB Cut Soil Nail 1,680.00 10.0 18.0 16,800 $125 2,100,000$
9 Retaining Wall No. 609 EB Cut Soil Nail 880.00 18.0 36.0 15,840 $175 2,772,000$
9,050,000$
9,960,000$
10 Coal Canyon UC (Widen)EB Bridge PC/PS Bulb Tee 127.75 24.0 24.0 3,066 $375 1,149,750$
11 County Line Creek UC (Widen)EB Bridge R/C Slab 17.00 14.0 14.0 238 $450 107,100$
1,260,000$
1,390,000$ Subtotal (with mobilization)
SR-91 EASTBOUND SIXTH LANE ADDITION ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Between SR-241 and SR-71
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT 1B (STANDARD RIGHT SHOULDER)
PRELIMINARY STRUCTURES ESTIMATE
RETAINING WALLS
Subtotal
Subtotal (with mobilization)
BRIDGES
Subtotal
176
Revised 2/8/2022
ITEM
NO.DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
1 JOINT PLANE CONCRETE PAVEMENT SQ YD 29,250 375$ 10,969,000$
2 CONCRETE BARRIER LF 8,890 150$ 1,334,000$
3 RETAINING WALLS (SEE ATTACHED)SF 68,120 Varies 12,420,000$
4 BRIDGE WIDENING (SEE ATTACHED)SF 3,304 Varies 1,390,000$
5 EARTH WORK CY 70,520 100$ 7,052,000$
33,170,000$
6 DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES LS 1 3,317,000$ 3,317,000$
7 PAVEMENT DELINEATION, SIGNING AND ELECTRICAL LS 1 3,317,000$ 3,317,000$
8 STAGE CONSTRUCTION AND TRAFFIC HANDLING LS 1 3,317,000$ 3,317,000$
9 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION LS 1 995,000$ 995,000$
10 UTILITIES AND RIGHT-OF-WAY LS 1 4,976,000$ 4,976,000$
15,922,000$
49,092,000$
35%17,182,000$
60%29,455,000$
66,270,000$
TO
78,550,000$
26,508,000$
TO
31,420,000$
92,778,000$
TO
109,970,000$
SUPPORT COST (DESIGN, PM & CM)40%
TOTAL PROJECT COST RANGE:
SUBTOTAL ALL ITEMS:
CONTINGENCY (LOW):
CONTINGENCY (HIGH):
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST RANGE:
SR-91 EASTBOUND SIXTH LANE ADDITION ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Between SR-241 and SR-71
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT 1C (STANDARD RIGHT SHOULDER, 1300' AUX LANE AT GREEN RIVER EB OFF-RAMP)
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
Page 5 of 16177
Revised 2/8/2022
No.Name Direction Cut/Fill/Bridge Struct Type Length (ft)Avg Ht/Width (ft)Max Ht/Width (ft)Area (ft2)$/SF Subtotal
1 Retaining Wall No. 519 EB Fill Type 1 740.00 6.0 8.0 4,440 $120 532,800$
2 Retaining Wall No. 528 EB Fill Type 1 550.00 6.0 8.0 3,300 $120 396,000$
3 Retaining Wall No. 538 (LS)EB Cut Type 1 Pile 190.00 10.0 15.0 1,900 $225 427,500$
4 Retaining Wall No. 550 EB Fill Type 1 100.00 6.0 8.0 600 $120 72,000$
5 Retaining Wall No. 573 EB Fill Type 1 80.00 6.0 8.0 480 $120 57,600$
6 Retaining Wall No. 574 (LS)EB Cut Type 1 Pile 620.00 10.0 16.0 6,200 $240 1,488,000$
7 Retaining Wall No. 582 EB Fill Type 1 Pile 800.00 10.0 14.0 8,000 $150 1,200,000$
8 Retaining Wall No. 590 EB Cut Soil Nail 1,680.00 10.0 18.0 16,800 $125 2,100,000$
9 Retaining Wall No. 609 EB Cut Soil Nail 1,200.00 22.0 42.0 26,400 $190 5,016,000$
11,290,000$
12,420,000$
10 Coal Canyon UC (Widen)EB Bridge PC/PS Bulb Tee 127.75 24.0 24.0 3,066 $375 1,149,750$
11 County Line Creek UC (Widen)EB Bridge R/C Slab 17.00 14.0 14.0 238 $450 107,100$
1,260,000$
1,390,000$ Subtotal (with mobilization)
SR-91 EASTBOUND SIXTH LANE ADDITION ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Between SR-241 and SR-71
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT 1C (STANDARD RIGHT SHOULDER, 1300' AUX LANE AT GREEN RIVER EB OFF-RAMP)
PRELIMINARY STRUCTURES ESTIMATE
RETAINING WALLS
Subtotal
Subtotal (with mobilization)
BRIDGES
Subtotal
178
Revised 2/8/2022
ITEM
NO.DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
1 JOINT PLANE CONCRETE PAVEMENT SQ YD 22,900 375$ 8,588,000$
2 CONCRETE BARRIER LF 3,000 150$ 450,000$
3 RETAINING WALLS (SEE ATTACHED)SF 32,220 Varies 4,990,000$
4 BRIDGE WIDENING (SEE ATTACHED)SF 3,066 Varies 1,270,000$
5 EARTH WORK CY 23,300 100$ 2,330,000$
17,630,000$
6 DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES LS 1 1,763,000$ 1,763,000$
7 PAVEMENT DELINEATION, SIGNING AND ELECTRICAL LS 1 1,763,000$ 1,763,000$
8 STAGE CONSTRUCTION AND TRAFFIC HANDLING LS 1 1,763,000$ 1,763,000$
9 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION LS 1 529,000$ 529,000$
10 UTILITIES AND RIGHT-OF-WAY LS 1 2,645,000$ 2,645,000$
8,463,000$
26,093,000$
35%9,133,000$
60%15,656,000$
35,230,000$
TO
41,750,000$
14,092,000$
TO
16,700,000$
49,322,000$
TO
58,450,000$
SUPPORT COST (DESIGN, PM & CM)40%
TOTAL PROJECT COST RANGE:
SUBTOTAL ALL ITEMS:
CONTINGENCY (LOW):
CONTINGENCY (HIGH):
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST RANGE:
SR-91 EASTBOUND SIXTH LANE ADDITION ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Between SR-241 and SR-71
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT 1D (IDEA 6C FROM VALUE ANALYSIS WORKSHOP)
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
Page 7 of 16179
Revised 2/8/2022
No.Name Direction Cut/Fill/Bridge Struct Type Length (ft)Avg Ht/Width (ft)Max Ht/Width (ft)Area (ft2)$/SF Subtotal
1 Retaining Wall No. 519 EB Fill Type 1 740.00 6.0 8.0 4,440 $120 532,800$
2 Retaining Wall No. 528 EB Fill Type 1 550.00 6.0 8.0 3,300 $120 396,000$
3 Retaining Wall No. 538 (LS)EB Cut Type 1 Pile 190.00 12.0 12.0 2,280 $200 456,000$
4 Retaining Wall No. 550 EB Fill Type 1 1,060.00 4.0 6.0 4,240 $120 508,800$
5 Retaining Wall No. 560 EB Cut Type 1 800.00 6.0 8.0 4,800 $150 720,000$
6 Retaining Wall No. 568 EB Fill Type 1 170.00 4.0 6.0 680 $120 81,600$
7 Retaining Wall No. 574 EB Fill Type 1 100.00 10.0 10.0 1,000 $120 120,000$
8 Retaining Wall No. 609 EB Cut Soil Nail 820.00 14.0 28.0 11,480 $150 1,722,000$
4,540,000$
4,990,000$
10 Coal Canyon UC (Widen)EB Bridge PC/PS Bulb Tee 127.75 24.0 24.0 3,066 $375 1,149,750$
1,150,000$
1,270,000$ Subtotal (with mobilization)
SR-91 EASTBOUND SIXTH LANE ADDITION ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Between SR-241 and SR-71
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT 1D (IDEA 6C FROM VALUE ANALYSIS WORKSHOP)
PRELIMINARY STRUCTURES ESTIMATE
RETAINING WALLS
Subtotal
Subtotal (with mobilization)
BRIDGES
Subtotal
180
Revised 2/8/2022
ITEM
NO.DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
1 JOINT PLANE CONCRETE PAVEMENT SQ YD 37,200 375$ 13,950,000$
2 CONCRETE BARRIER LF 300 150$ 45,000$
3 RETAINING WALLS (SEE ATTACHED)SF 99,610 Varies 18,410,000$
4 BRIDGE WIDENING (SEE ATTACHED)SF 3,822 Varies 1,640,000$
5 EARTH WORK CY 75,100 100$ 7,510,000$
41,560,000$
6 DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES LS 1 4,156,000$ 4,156,000$
7 PAVEMENT DELINEATION, SIGNING AND ELECTRICAL LS 1 4,156,000$ 4,156,000$
8 STAGE CONSTRUCTION AND TRAFFIC HANDLING LS 1 4,156,000$ 4,156,000$
9 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION LS 1 1,247,000$ 1,247,000$
10 UTILITIES AND RIGHT-OF-WAY LS 1 6,234,000$ 6,234,000$
19,949,000$
61,509,000$
35%21,528,000$
60%36,905,000$
83,040,000$
TO
98,410,000$
33,216,000$
TO
39,364,000$
116,256,000$
TO
137,774,000$
SUPPORT COST (DESIGN, PM & CM)40%
TOTAL PROJECT COST RANGE:
SUBTOTAL ALL ITEMS:
CONTINGENCY (LOW):
CONTINGENCY (HIGH):
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST RANGE:
SR-91 EASTBOUND SIXTH LANE ADDITION ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Between SR-241 and SR-71
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT 2 (FULL STANDARD CROSS-SECTION, WIDEN SOUTH)
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
Page 9 of 16181
Revised 2/8/2022
No.Name Direction Cut/Fill/Bridge Struct Type Length (ft)Avg Ht/Width (ft)Max Ht/Width (ft)Area (ft2)$/SF Subtotal
1 Retaining Wall No. 524 EB Fill Type 1 300.00 4.0 6.0 1,200 $120 144,000$
2 Retaining Wall No. 528 EB Fill Type 1 300.00 4.0 6.0 1,200 $120 144,000$
3 Retaining Wall No. 536 EB Fill Type 1 210.00 4.0 6.0 840 $120 100,800$
4 Retaining Wall No. 538 (LS)EB Cut Type 1 Pile 230.00 24.0 24.0 5,520 $300 1,656,000$
5 Retaining Wall No. 540 EB Fill Type 1 700.00 10.0 10.0 7,000 $120 840,000$
6 Retaining Wall No. 552 EB Cut Type 1 485.00 4.0 6.0 1,940 $150 291,000$
7 Retaining Wall No. 556 EB Fill Type 1 200.00 4.0 6.0 800 $120 96,000$
8 Retaining Wall No. 560 (LS)EB Cut Type 1 Pile 830.00 10.0 10.0 8,300 $200 1,660,000$
9 Retaining Wall No. 568 EB Fill Type 1 600.00 4.0 6.0 2,400 $120 288,000$
10 Retaining Wall No. 574 (LS)EB Cut Type 1 Pile 600.00 16.0 16.0 9,600 $240 2,304,000$
11 Retaining Wall No. 580 EB Fill Type 1 Pile 170.00 10.0 18.0 1,700 $175 297,500$
12 Retaining Wall No. 582 EB Fill Type 1 Pile 1,575.00 10.0 18.0 15,750 $175 2,756,250$
13 Retaining Wall No. 598 EB Cut Soil Nail 430.00 10.0 14.0 4,300 $125 537,500$
14 Retaining Wall No. 602 EB Cut Soil Nail 430.00 10.0 14.0 4,300 $125 537,500$
15 Retaining Wall No. 606 EB Cut Type 1 370.00 6.0 8.0 2,220 $150 333,000$
16 Retaining Wall No. 610 EB Cut Soil Nail 950.00 26.0 52.0 24,700 $150 3,705,000$
17 Retaining Wall No. 619 EB Cut Type 1 440.00 6.0 8.0 2,640 $150 396,000$
18 Retaining Wall No. 622 EB Cut Soil Nail 520.00 10.0 18.0 5,200 $125 650,000$
16,740,000$
18,410,000$
19 Coal Canyon UC (Widen)EB Bridge PC/PS Bulb Tee 127.75 24.0 24.0 3,066 $375 1,149,750$
20 County Line Creek UC (Widen)EB Bridge R/C Slab 42.00 18.0 18.0 756 $450 340,200$
1,490,000$
1,640,000$ Subtotal (with mobilization)
SR-91 EASTBOUND SIXTH LANE ADDITION ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Between SR-241 and SR-71
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT 2 (FULL STANDARD CROSS-SECTION, WIDEN SOUTH)
PRELIMINARY STRUCTURES ESTIMATE
RETAINING WALLS
Subtotal
Subtotal (with mobilization)
BRIDGES
Subtotal
182
Revised 2/8/2022
ITEM
NO.DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
1 JOINT PLANE CONCRETE PAVEMENT SQ YD 141,810 375$ 53,179,000$
2 CONCRETE BARRIER LF 9,920 150$ 1,488,000$
3 RETAINING WALLS (SEE ATTACHED)SF 457,460 Varies 53,450,000$
4 BRIDGE WIDENING (SEE ATTACHED)SF 4,624 Varies 2,040,000$
5 EARTH WORK CY 527,250 100$ 52,725,000$
162,890,000$
6 DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES LS 1 16,289,000$ 16,289,000$
7 PAVEMENT DELINEATION, SIGNING AND ELECTRICAL LS 1 16,289,000$ 16,289,000$
8 STAGE CONSTRUCTION AND TRAFFIC HANDLING LS 1 16,289,000$ 16,289,000$
9 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION LS 1 4,887,000$ 4,887,000$
10 UTILITIES AND RIGHT-OF-WAY LS 1 24,434,000$ 24,434,000$
78,188,000$
241,078,000$
35%84,377,000$
60%144,647,000$
325,460,000$
TO
385,730,000$
130,184,000$
TO
154,292,000$
455,644,000$
TO
540,022,000$
SUPPORT COST (DESIGN, PM & CM)40%
TOTAL PROJECT COST RANGE:
SUBTOTAL ALL ITEMS:
CONTINGENCY (LOW):
CONTINGENCY (HIGH):
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST RANGE:
SR-91 EASTBOUND SIXTH LANE ADDITION ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Between SR-241 and SR-71
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT 3A (FULL STANDARD CROSS-SECTION, WIDEN NORTH)
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
Page 11 of 16183
Revised 2/8/2022
No.Name Direction Cut/Fill/Bridge Struct Type Length (ft)Avg Ht/Width (ft)Max Ht/Width (ft)Area (ft2)$/SF Subtotal
1 Retaining Wall No. 515 EB Fill Type 1 Pile 350.00 10.0 16.0 3,500 $150 525,000$
2 Retaining Wall No. 517 EB Fill Type 1 940.00 10.0 12.0 9,400 $120 1,128,000$
3 Retaining Wall No. 528 EB Fill Type 1 1,550.00 10.0 12.0 15,500 $120 1,860,000$
4 Retaining Wall No. 511 WB Fill MSE 4,870.00 16.0 30.0 77,920 $100 7,792,000$
5 Retaining Wall No. 580 WB Fill MSE 4,680.00 34.0 66.0 159,120 $100 15,912,000$
6 Retaining Wall No. 597 WB Fill MSE 1,090.00 22.0 42.0 23,980 $100 2,398,000$
7 Retaining Wall No. 581 WB Fill MSE 4,270.00 34.0 66.0 145,180 $100 14,518,000$
8 Retaining Wall No. 625 WB Cut Type 1 400.00 6.0 8.0 2,400 $150 360,000$
9 Retaining Wall No. 609 EB Cut Soil Nail 930.00 22.0 44.0 20,460 $200 4,092,000$
48,590,000$
53,450,000$
10 Coal Canyon UC (Widen)EB Bridge PC/PS Bulb Tee 127.75 24.0 24.0 3,066 $375 1,149,750$
11 County Line Creek UC (Widen)EB Bridge R/C Slab 41.00 38.0 38.0 1,558 $450 701,100$
1,850,000$
2,040,000$ Subtotal (with mobilization)
SR-91 EASTBOUND SIXTH LANE ADDITION ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Between SR-241 and SR-71
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT 3A (FULL STANDARD CROSS-SECTION, WIDEN NORTH)
PRELIMINARY STRUCTURES ESTIMATE
RETAINING WALLS
Subtotal
Subtotal (with mobilization)
BRIDGES
Subtotal
184
Revised 2/8/2022
ITEM
NO.DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
1 JOINT PLANE CONCRETE PAVEMENT SQ YD 106,000 375$ 39,750,000$
2 CONCRETE BARRIER LF 9,920 150$ 1,488,000$
3 RETAINING WALLS (SEE ATTACHED)SF 152,040 Varies 21,340,000$
4 BRIDGE WIDENING (SEE ATTACHED)SF 3,066 Varies 1,270,000$
5 EARTH WORK CY 120,000 100$ 12,000,000$
75,850,000$
6 DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES LS 1 7,585,000$ 7,585,000$
7 PAVEMENT DELINEATION, SIGNING AND ELECTRICAL LS 1 7,585,000$ 7,585,000$
8 STAGE CONSTRUCTION AND TRAFFIC HANDLING LS 1 7,585,000$ 7,585,000$
9 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION LS 1 2,276,000$ 2,276,000$
10 UTILITIES AND RIGHT-OF-WAY LS 1 11,378,000$ 11,378,000$
36,409,000$
112,259,000$
35%39,291,000$
60%67,355,000$
151,550,000$
TO
179,610,000$
60,620,000$
TO
71,844,000$
212,170,000$
TO
251,454,000$
SUPPORT COST (DESIGN, PM & CM)40%
TOTAL PROJECT COST RANGE:
SUBTOTAL ALL ITEMS:
CONTINGENCY (LOW):
CONTINGENCY (HIGH):
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST RANGE:
SR-91 EASTBOUND SIXTH LANE ADDITION ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Between SR-241 and SR-71
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT 3B (FULL STANDARD CROSS-SECTION, WIDEN NORTH, MAINTAIN COP SECTION)
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
Page 13 of 16185
Revised 2/8/2022
No.Name Direction Cut/Fill/Bridge Struct Type Length (ft)Avg Ht/Width (ft)Max Ht/Width (ft)Area (ft2)$/SF Subtotal
1 Retaining Wall No. 498 EB Fill Type 1 950.00 4.0 6.0 3,800 $120 456,000$
2 Retaining Wall No. 528 EB Fill Type 1 1,550.00 4.0 6.0 6,200 $120 744,000$
3 Retaining Wall No. 511 WB Fill MSE 4,330.00 10.0 28.0 43,300 $100 4,330,000$
4 Retaining Wall No. 587 WB Cut Soil Nail 680.00 10.0 22.0 6,800 $140 952,000$
5 Retaining Wall No. 586 WB Cut Soil Nail 4,330.00 10.0 14.0 43,300 $125 5,412,500$
6 Retaining Wall No. 601 WB Cut Soil Nail 650.00 10.0 14.0 6,500 $125 812,500$
7 Retaining Wall No. 614 WB Cut Type 1 800.00 10.0 12.0 8,000 $150 1,200,000$
8 Retaining Wall No. 609 EB Cut Soil Nail 950.00 20.0 40.0 19,000 $180 3,420,000$
9 Retaining Wall No. 605 WB Cut Soil Nail 800.00 10.0 20.0 8,000 $125 1,000,000$
10 Retaining Wall No. 621 EB Cut Soil Nail 510.00 14.0 28.0 7,140 $150 1,071,000$
19,400,000$
21,340,000$
11 Coal Canyon UC (Widen)EB Bridge PC/PS Bulb Tee 127.75 24.0 24.0 3,066 $375 1,149,750$
1,150,000$
1,270,000$ Subtotal (with mobilization)
SR-91 EASTBOUND SIXTH LANE ADDITION ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Between SR-241 and SR-71
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT 3B (FULL STANDARD CROSS-SECTION, WIDEN NORTH, MAINTAIN COP SECTION)
PRELIMINARY STRUCTURES ESTIMATE
RETAINING WALLS
Subtotal
Subtotal (with mobilization)
BRIDGES
Subtotal
186
Revised 2/8/2022
ITEM
NO.DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
1 JOINT PLANE CONCRETE PAVEMENT SQ YD 36,610 375$ 13,729,000$
2 CONCRETE BARRIER LF 9,990 150$ 1,499,000$
3 RETAINING WALLS (SEE ATTACHED)SF 99,650 Varies 19,650,000$
4 BRIDGE WIDENING (SEE ATTACHED)SF 3,304 Varies 1,390,000$
5 EARTH WORK CY 100,870 100$ 10,087,000$
46,360,000$
6 DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER FACILITIES LS 1 4,636,000$ 4,636,000$
7 PAVEMENT DELINEATION, SIGNING AND ELECTRICAL LS 1 4,636,000$ 4,636,000$
8 STAGE CONSTRUCTION AND TRAFFIC HANDLING LS 1 4,636,000$ 4,636,000$
9 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION LS 1 1,391,000$ 1,391,000$
10 UTILITIES AND RIGHT-OF-WAY LS 1 6,954,000$ 6,954,000$
22,253,000$
68,613,000$
35%24,015,000$
60%41,168,000$
92,630,000$
TO
109,780,000$
37,052,000$
TO
43,912,000$
129,682,000$
TO
153,692,000$
SUPPORT COST (DESIGN, PM & CM)40%
TOTAL PROJECT COST RANGE:
SUBTOTAL ALL ITEMS:
CONTINGENCY (LOW):
CONTINGENCY (HIGH):
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST RANGE:
SR-91 EASTBOUND SIXTH LANE ADDITION ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Between SR-241 and SR-71
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT 4 (HYBRID CROSS SECTION, LIMITED WIDEN SOUTH)
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
Page 15 of 16187
Revised 2/8/2022
No.Name Direction Cut/Fill/Bridge Struct Type Length (ft)Avg Ht/Width (ft)Max Ht/Width (ft)Area (ft2)$/SF Subtotal
1 Retaining Wall No. 519 EB Fill Type 1 740.00 6.0 8.0 4,440 $120 532,800$
2 Retaining Wall No. 528 EB Fill Type 1 550.00 6.0 8.0 3,300 $120 396,000$
3 Retaining Wall No. 536 EB Fill Type 1 150.00 8.0 10.0 1,200 $120 144,000$
4 Retaining Wall No. 538 (LS)EB Cut Type 1 Pile 220.00 11.0 23.0 2,420 $300 726,000$
5 Retaining Wall No. 550 EB Fill Type 1 1,060.00 11.0 12.0 11,660 $120 1,399,200$
6 Retaining Wall No. 560 (LS)EB Cut Type 1 Pile 780.00 11.0 20.0 8,580 $280 2,402,400$
7 Retaining Wall No. 568 EB Fill Type 1 710.00 8.0 10.0 5,680 $120 681,600$
8 Retaining Wall No. 574 (LS)EB Cut Type 1 Pile 780.00 11.0 24.0 8,580 $310 2,659,800$
9 Retaining Wall No. 582 EB Fill Type 1 Pile 790.00 11.0 14.0 8,690 $150 1,303,500$
10 Retaining Wall No. 590 EB Cut Soil Nail 1,700.00 11.0 18.0 18,700 $125 2,337,500$
11 Retaining Wall No. 609 EB Cut Soil Nail 1,200.00 22.0 44.0 26,400 $200 5,280,000$
17,860,000$
19,650,000$
12 Coal Canyon UC (Widen)EB Bridge PC/PS Bulb Tee 127.75 24.0 24.0 3,066 $375 1,149,750$
13 County Line Creek UC (Widen)EB Bridge R/C Slab 17.00 14.0 14.0 238 $450 107,100$
1,260,000$
1,390,000$ Subtotal (with mobilization)
SR-91 EASTBOUND SIXTH LANE ADDITION ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
Between SR-241 and SR-71
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT 4 (HYBRID CROSS SECTION, LIMITED WIDEN SOUTH)
PRELIMINARY STRUCTURES ESTIMATE
RETAINING WALLS
Subtotal
Subtotal (with mobilization)
BRIDGES
Subtotal
188
STATE ROUTE 91 EASTBOUND CORRIDOR OPERATIONS PROJECT (91 ECOP)
PA/ED Phase
April 25, 2022
David Thomas, Toll Project Delivery Director
1
2
Background/Project Location
91 ECOP
91 CIP Initial Phase
91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project
•91 Corridor Improvement Project
•Initial Phase/Future Phases
•91 Implementation Plan
•Alternatives Analysis Study
3
Project Limits/Description
91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project
Preliminary Traffic Analysis: Heat Map
491 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project
EB GP
Speeds
On
f
r
o
m
S
R
2
4
1
Co
a
l
C
a
n
y
o
n
Gr
e
e
n
R
i
v
e
r
b/
t
7
1
o
f
f
a
n
d
7
1
on
SR
7
1
Se
r
f
a
s
C
l
u
b
Ma
p
l
e
S
t
Li
n
c
o
l
n
A
v
e
Ma
i
n
S
t
Distance (miles)1.5 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.3 0.2 2.4 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.3 1.2 0.4 0.2 0.9
2025 Friday Build with 241 ELC Egress (1v2)
2 - 3 PM 71 70 70 57 69 67 71 68 51 36 21 6 6 6 8 7 9 12 17 19 29 68 68 70 72 71 57 31 21 17 14 7 7 8 5 6 8 11 11 15 21
3 - 4 PM 72 72 71 50 16 10 8 7 5 5 6 4 4 5 6 6 7 11 17 20 29 68 67 70 64 30 15 11 12 15 17 13 12 20 5 7 9 13 12 15 23
4 - 5 PM 73 72 72 13 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 3 3 5 6 6 8 12 18 19 29 68 64 70 72 71 69 72 71 71 69 41 29 34 9 8 10 13 13 16 23
5 - 6 PM 73 72 72 19 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 3 4 5 8 8 10 13 17 18 28 56 51 69 72 72 70 73 71 71 71 73 73 71 71 9 11 15 13 16 24
6 - 7 PM 72 71 71 24 7 7 8 8 6 7 7 5 5 6 9 9 11 15 17 18 28 57 50 70 72 71 69 73 71 71 71 72 73 72 72 63 58 28 16 17 24
7 - 8 PM 72 71 71 37 9 9 9 10 8 8 9 6 6 7 10 10 11 16 18 19 28 67 66 70 72 71 69 72 70 71 70 72 73 71 72 66 69 68 69 68 32
2025 Friday Build- GAP Closure, Alt. 1C
2 - 3 PM 71 70 70 57 69 67 71 69 70 71 68 47 19 12 20 17 16 28 39 31 32 67 67 68 51 23 16 10 8 7 8 5 5 6 4 6 7 10 11 14 21
3 - 4 PM 72 72 71 66 71 70 72 71 71 73 65 7 6 6 7 6 7 11 10 9 10 11 10 8 8 8 9 9 9 12 15 12 11 22 5 7 9 13 12 15 23
4 - 5 PM 73 72 72 70 72 71 73 72 73 73 7 3 3 4 7 8 10 18 19 19 23 27 39 65 64 44 36 25 30 32 40 43 26 16 6 8 10 13 13 16 23
5 - 6 PM 73 72 72 69 72 72 73 72 73 73 13 7 7 9 16 17 17 31 43 18 24 27 39 65 71 70 69 73 70 70 70 72 73 72 44 8 11 15 13 16 24
6 - 7 PM 72 71 71 67 71 71 72 72 72 73 72 64 33 23 25 23 22 37 67 50 37 41 47 67 71 70 68 72 69 70 69 72 73 72 71 8 11 15 14 16 24
7 - 8 PM 72 71 71 64 71 70 72 71 71 73 71 73 73 73 71 71 70 62 71 71 69 74 70 70 72 71 69 72 70 71 70 72 73 70 71 44 25 16 14 17 22
Mc
K
i
n
l
e
y
La
k
e
v
i
e
w
Im
p
e
r
i
a
l
H
w
y
We
i
r
C
a
n
y
o
n
Of
f
t
o
S
R
2
4
1
Gy
p
s
u
m
C
a
n
y
o
n
I-
1
5
In
g
r
e
s
s
57
t
o
5
5
•Gap closure increases EB 91 capacity at County Line. Improves 91 EB GP operation between SR 55 and County Line
•Extra Throughput at County Line increases flow into Riverside County and increases delay east of County Line.
County Line
5
I-15 Express Lanes –Southern Extension
91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project
Summary
691 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project
•Component of 91 CIP Ultimate Project
•Measure A Project -not in 10-year delivery plan
•New Alternatives (Est. $49-$154 million)
•Environmental Revalidation (Est. $5 million,2-3 years)
•Target 2030 Opening (after I-15 ELPSE)
•Caltrans District 8 Support
Staff Recommendation
7
•Proceed with PA/ED phase for the 91 ECOP
•Forward to the Commission for final action
91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project
QUESTIONS & FEEDBACK
891 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project
Extra Slides
991 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project
10
SR-91 Improvements East of I-15
91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project
Preliminary Traffic Analysis: Heat Map
1191 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project
County Line
AGENDA ITEM 8
Agenda Item 8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: April 25, 2022
TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
FROM: Brian Cunanan, Commuter & Motorist Assistance Manager
THROUGH: David Knudsen, Interim External Affairs Director
SUBJECT: San Bernardino County Transportation Authority Amendment for Bi-County
Rideshare Program Services and Commuter Assistance Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve Agreement No. 20-41-090-02, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement
No. 20-41-090-00 with the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) for
a two-year term to reimburse the Commission for an additional amount of $2.4 million,
and a total amount not to exceed of $4,800,000, for commuter/employer rideshare
(IE Commuter) programs and vanpool program support administered by the Commission,
on behalf of both agencies;
2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute
the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Commission’s Commuter Assistance Program (CAP) works to increase the awareness and
consideration of all commute options and incentives available to commuter constituents in
Riverside County. CAP fosters to increase the utilization of alternative modes of transportation
such as riding a bus or train, carpooling, vanpooling, walking, bicycling, and telework. As such,
the Commission implemented the CAP as a specific requirement under the original and 2009
Measure A Western County Public Transit program to address congestion mitigation. In addition
to improving mobility overall, commuter assistance or ridesharing helps reduce commuter stress
for employees, helps employers lower costs and increase employee productivity, and has a
positive impact on the environment and quality of living in the region.
Since 1993, SBCTA has contracted with the Commission to develop, implement, and manage a
CAP for San Bernardino County commuters. The program consists of several projects:
• Program Outreach – Branded as IE Commuter, engage commuters and employers to
establish rideshare programs at worksites throughout western Riverside and San
Bernardino counties. Marketing campaigns are provided to employer partners and
189
Agenda Item 8
distributed to their respective employee base. Online advertising, social media, events,
and regional promotions such as Rideshare Week engage commuters directly.
• Employer Services – Various services to employers in the bi-county area including the
provision of marketing promotions, rideshare survey processing, employer network
meetings, and event support. The program administrator also assists employers with
average vehicle ridership calculations related to the South Coast Air Quality Management
District Rule 2202 requirements for employers with 250 or more employees.
• Rideshare Incentives – Incentives focused on increasing consideration for alternative
commute modes and include: (a) the new $5/Day Rideshare Incentive for rideshare
participants that try ridesharing to work for a three-month trial period; (b) Monthly
Rideshare Spotlight or Monthly Telework Spotlight program for chances towards winning
monthly prize drawings to encourage commuters to continue ridesharing and log their
rideshare activity; (c) Annual California Rideshare Week sweepstakes, an annual
opportunity to encourage ridesharing for opportunities to win premium prizes sponsored
by IE Commuter employer partners, local businesses, and organizations.
• Guaranteed Ride Home – A guaranteed ride home is available at no cost to employees
who rideshare to work in the event of an emergency or unexpected overtime by them or
the driver of their rideshare arrangement (max two per year).
• Ridematching and Information Services – Commuter and employer access to online tools
and resources and a call center (866-RIDESHARE) during business hours for those
interested in personal assistance with ridematching or transit options and to address
general rideshare questions.
• Vanpool Support – Vanpool program administration staffing and support services such as
providing employer and commuters with information and support, coordination with
vanpool vendors, and program reporting and ensuring compliance with transit reporting
requirements.
Staff recommends approval of an additional two-year (FYs 2022/23 – 2023/24) term with SBCTA
for a total agreement amount not to exceed $4.8 million. It is anticipated that minimum SBCTA
reimbursements will total $1.2 million during FY 2022/23 and $1.2 million during FY 2023/24 for
the provision of core rideshare program and vanpool program support in San Bernardino County.
The proposed agreement between SBCTA and the Commission was approved by SBCTA’s Board
of Directors during its April 6th meeting.
190
Agenda Item 8
FISCAL IMPACT
Reimbursement funding anticipated to be received from SBCTA is included in the proposed
FY 2022/23 budget as follows: – $1.2 million for core rideshare and vanpool services and an
estimated $470,500 for potential special projects (rail recovery project, incentives, etc.).
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes
N/A Year: FY 2022/23
FY 2023/24 Amount: $1,200,000 revenues
$1,200,000 revenues
Source of Funds:
SBCTA reimbursements and 2009
Measure A Western County Public
Transit-CAP funds
Budget Adjustment: No
N/A
GL/Project Accounting
No.:
002111/002112/002127/002139/002182/002188/002191/632113 416 41605
263 41 41203
Fiscal Procedures
Approved:
Date: 04/18/2022
Attachment: Draft FY 2022/23 – FY2023/24 SBCTA Funding Agreement
191
Agreement No. 20-1002371-02 Page 1 of 2
RCTC Agreement No. 20-41-090-01
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 20-1002371
BY AND BETWEEN
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FOR
THE PROVISION OF RIDESHARE
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
This Amendment No. 2 to Cooperative Agreement (“Amendment No. 2”) is made and entered into
as of July 1, 2022 by and between the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (“SBCTA”),
whose address is 1170 W. 3rd Street, 2nd Floor, San Bernardino, California 92410-1715, and Riverside
County Transportation Commission (“RCTC”), located at 4080 Lemon St, Riverside, California 92501.
SBCTA and RCTC are each a “Party” and collectively the “Parties”.
RECITALS:
A. WHEREAS, The Parties entered into a Cooperative Agreement dated July 1, 2020 for the
Provision of Rideshare and Vanpool Program Implementation and Software (“Cooperative
Agreement”); and
B. WHEREAS, The Parties amended the Cooperative Agreement on September 21, 2021 to remove
the provision of rideshare and vanpool software and related confidentiality provisions, which
were transferred to a new five (5)-county regional rideshare software agreement with Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Orange County Transportation Authority, RCTC,
SBCTA and Ventura County Transportation Commission; and
C. WHEREAS, The Parties desire to amend the Cooperative Agreement to extend the Term through
June 30, 2024 and adjust SBCTA’s total obligation to RCTC; and
D. WHEREAS, The Parties have operated a bi-county Rideshare program which provides services
and support for each Party’s respective Transit and/or Multi-modal programs; and
E. WHEREAS, RCTC will engage and has the necessary resources to manage contractors providing
miscellaneous rideshare and multi-modal services.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, and the terms and conditions contained
herein, SBCTA and RCTC agree to amend the Cooperative Agreement as follows:
1. ARTICLE 3. TERM. Section 3.1 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
“3.1 This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2020 and terminate on June 30, 2024, unless it is
extended by a written amendment approved by the Parties.”
2. ARTICLE 2. COMPENSATION, Subsection 2.3.1 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following:
“That SBCTA’s total obligation to RCTC shall not exceed Four Million Eight Hundred Thousand
192
Agreement No. 20-1002371-02 Page 2 of 2
Dollars ($4,800,000), for the services rendered through the SERVICES CONTRACTOR.”
3. The Recitals set forth above are incorporated herein by this reference.
4. Except as amended by this Amendment No. 2, all other provisions of the Agreement as previously
amended shall remain in full force and effect.
5. This Amendment No. 2 is effective upon execution by the Parties.
6. A manually signed copy of this Amendment No. 2 which is transmitted by facsimile, email or other
means of electronic transmission shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as delivery of an
original executed copy of this Amendment No. 2 for all purposes. This Amendment No. 2 may be
signed using an electronic signature. This Amendment No. 2 may be signed in counterparts, each of
which shall constitute an original.
7.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement below.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
By: By:
Curt Hagman
President, Board of Directors
Anne Mayer,
Executive Officer
Date: Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM
By: By:
Julianna K. Tillquist
General Counsel Best, Best & Krieger, LLP,
General Counsel
Date: Date:
193
SBCTA AMENDMENT FOR BI-COUNTY
RIDESHARE PROGRAM SERVICES &
COMMUTER ASSISTANCE UPDATE
Brian Cunanan, Commuter & Motorist Assistance Manager
External Affairs Department
1
Riverside County Transportation Commission
April 25, 2022
Today's Discussion Items
2
•Commuter Assistance Background
•Bi-County Partnership –RCTC & SBCTA
•IE Commuter –Commuter & Employer Rideshare
Services
•Staff Recommendation
Commuter Based Congestion Reduction
3
•Western Riverside County Measure A - 1989, 2009
Commuter Assistance Program
•Congestion reduction and more efficient use of
transit network and infrastructure investments
•Improved quality of life for commuter constituents
Bi-County Partnership Since 1993
4
Significant Intercounty Commuting Between
Riverside & San Bernardino Counties
IE Commuter Mission
5
•Employer/ Commuter
Outreach & Engagement
•Employer Services
•Ridematching &
Information Services
•Rideshare Incentives
•Guaranteed Ride Home
•Vanpool Subsidy Program
Staff Recommendations
6
1)Approve Agreement No. 20-41-090-02, Amendment No. 2 to
Agreement No. 20-41-090-00 with SBCTA for a two-year term to
reimburse the Commission for an additional amount of $2.4 million,
and a total amount not to exceed of $4,800,000, for commuter and
employer rideshare (IE Commuter) programs and vanpool program
support administered by the Commission, on behalf of both agencies;
2)Authorize the Chair or Executive Director,pursuant to legal counsel
review,to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission;and
3)Forward to the Commission for final action.
QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION
7
AGENDA ITEM 9
Agenda Item 9
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE: April 25, 2022
TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
FROM: Marlin Feenstra, Project Delivery Director
THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Mid County Parkway Project Status and Reprogramming of Funds
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file an update on negotiations with the city of Perris (City) regarding Mid
County Parkway (MCP) since the March 28, 2022 Western Riverside County Programs and
Projects Committee meeting;
2) Direct staff to defer work on the Mid County Parkway Construction Package 2 from
Redlands Avenue to Ramona Expressway (MCP2) as currently scoped within the city;
3) Direct staff to work with the county of Riverside (County) to scope a different construction
package within County jurisdiction, along Ramona Expressway, to address ongoing safety
issues and continue progress on the overall MCP project;
4) Direct staff to return to the Commission at a future date with recommendations to
reprogram funds currently committed to MCP2 onto the newly scoped package, and;
5) Forward to the Commission for final action.
Update Since Previous Committee Meeting
At its March 28, 2022 meeting, the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
(Committee) received an update on this item, presenting the decision of the City at its March 22
meeting, not to support the MCP2 project unless certain conditions were met. Staff explained
that these conditions could not be accepted because they are inconsistent with the need and
purpose of the project. Therefore, the Committee directed staff to make another attempt to
reconcile the differences with the city and report back to the Committee at its April meeting.
The Executive Director met individually with the City Council members who expressed opposition
to the project, presenting information about the MCP and answering questions. The City Council
then considered the item in closed session at their April 12 meeting. A letter summarizing the
City’s position was received by RCTC, dated April 14, 2022, stating a majority of the City Council
supported the project subject to certain conditions being met (see attachment 5). A clarification
letter was received April 18, 2022 (attachment 6), which clarified conditions pertaining to the
194
Agenda Item 9
potential Redlands Avenue/Morgan Avenue/Indian Avenue route for trucks, which is reflected in
this staff report. The following is a summary of the conditions.
In addition to the two conditions previously agreed to (construct a bridge undercrossing at El
Nido and maintain the San Jacinto trail), the City is requiring improvements to Placentia Avenue
as their preferred option, or as an alternative the Redlands Ave./Morgan Ave./Indian Ave. option,
which would reroute trucks on other City streets with associated improvements if the Placentia
improvements are not feasible.
Placentia Avenue (City preferred option)
1. Acquire and remove 12 homes along the south side of Placentia Avenue between
Redlands Avenue and Perris Blvd. Consider a parkway with sound walls where the homes
currently stand, to mitigate noise impacts to the next row of houses to the south.
2. Conduct a noise study using the City’s noise ordinance and mitigate any noise impacts to
residences along Placentia Avenue, including installation of sound walls and landscaping.
3. Install a traffic signal on Placentia Avenue at Fire Station 90.
4. Install traffic signal at Placentia Avenue at Spokane Street and modify access points to
Paragon Park.
5. Modify existing signals along Placentia Avenue as needed.
6. Install traffic signals at Redlands Avenue at the new MCP2 and at Redlands
Avenue/Placentia Avenue.
7. Evaluate the conditions and width of pavement on Placentia Avenue and upgrade as
needed to accommodate MCP2 traffic.
Redlands Avenue/Morgan Avenue/Indian Avenue (City alternative option)
1. This option is desired if the Placentia Avenue option is not feasible due to reasons other
than cost.
2. Design the Redlands Avenue/MCP2 intersection so that trucks are directed north to
Morgan Avenue.
3. Evaluate the condition and width of existing pavement along the route and install
additional improvements as needed. The City offered to be the lead agency for the
environmental/design and construction of necessary improvements and right of way
acquisitions subject to a contribution/reimbursement by the Commission.
4. Include Placentia Avenue mitigation items 2-7 above.
The City also requested that an agreement be executed between the Commission and the City to
acknowledge these conditions.
195
Agenda Item 9
Evaluation of City Conditions
Commission staff appreciates the recent discussions with City of Perris staff and Council
Members. The conditional majority support for the interim project, although a step forward, still
results in a significant impact to the project viability. Key concerns are as follows:
• Conditions result in a significant cost increase estimated to range from $25 to
$40 million
• 12 residential parcels would have to be acquired from willing sellers. It is unlikely
that the Commission could legally or would willingly condemn these parcels since
the required finding that the properties are required to build the project is not
satisfied.
• The City’s alternative option would divert truck traffic to a city preferred route
requiring Commission contribution or reimbursement and could result in
Commission project efforts outside of the approved environmental footprint,
potentially necessitating supplemental environmental review and permitting. In
addition to contributing financially to these off-site improvements, the
Commission would also be funding similar improvements on Placentia Avenue
although truck traffic would be diverted.
• Although a Cooperative Agreement between the Commission and the City would
provide greater assurance of continued support, funds could still be expended at
risk to the Commission.
Due to the increased project cost and risks to the Commission’s successful and timely delivery of
this interim MCP phase, it is recommended that this segment be deferred until such time that
the project is financially and technically feasible. Continuing with this phase given the financial
and conditional uncertainty could jeopardize the overall corridor progress. As a reminder, the
Commission must maintain timely progress on this corridor to meet FHWA Major Project
Guidelines.
Addressing Current Safety Needs and Advancing the MCP – An Alternative Approach
Commission staff has preliminarily evaluated other possible MCP construction packages along
the 16-mile corridor to determine if a less complex, less controversial, and less expensive option
is feasible. Recent news reports have highlighted safety concerns regarding a portion of Ramona
Expressway within the footprint of the future MCP project. In addition, we have received
correspondence and detailed information from the County regarding severe injury and fatality
accidents along Ramona Expressway from Dawson Road to Warren Road. It is the consensus of
Commission and County staff that a project could be scoped in this area, consistent with MCP,
that provides improvements to increase safety on Ramona Expressway, especially for accidents
involving vehicles crossing over the centerline of the roadway (see attachment 7).
196
Agenda Item 9
Maintaining MCP progress is essential to preserving the benefits of the investments made by the
Commission over the past 20 years in addition to the commitments made to communities along
this corridor. This includes the eventual completion of the portion in Perris as well as the entire
corridor. Staff’s recommendation to address Ramona Expressway will advance the corridor while
addressing a current safety need.
Improving east/west mobility and safety is critical and includes not only MCP improvements but
also investments in other corridors such as Cajalco Road. Continued coordination and investment
in these corridors are also essential as the County completes the environmental processes for
improvements to those corridors. Although Cajalco Road is not part of MCP, the Commission did
make a commitment to invest in the corridor in conjunction with MCP improvements. Future
Commission investments in additional east/west corridors will be discussed after the
environmental document approvals for those projects.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact currently. However, staff will return to the Commission through the
Committee seeking approval for both scope and a contract related to the safety concerns raised
along Ramona Expressway and reprogramming of funds from MCP2 towards other eligible
projects, if applicable.
Attachments:
1) Letter from city of Perris dated February 28, 2022
2) Presentation to the city of Perris City Council March 8, 2022
3) Letter responding to city of Perris March 11, 2022
4) Letter from city of Perris dated March 23, 2022
5) Letter from city of Perris dated April 14, 2022
6) Letter from city of Perris dated April 18, 2022
7) Email from County of Riverside dated April 20, 2022, and Exhibits
8) Exhibit Map – MCP2, Redlands Avenue to Ramona Expressway
197
CITY OF PERRIS
Office of the City Manager
101 NORTH “D” STREET
PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92570
TEL: (951) 943-6100
February 28, 2022
Riverside Count Transportation Commission
Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
RE: Agenda Item No. 7 of the February 28, 2022 RCTC Meeting – Mid County Parkway Project
Construction Package No. 2 from Redlands Avenue to Ramona Expressway
Dear Commissioners,
The City of Perris appreciates the opportunity to comment on this item (Mid County Parkway Project
Construction Package). The city has been involved for many years with RCTC in this major transportation
facility to serve the current and future transportation needs of Western Riverside County. While we
understand that there is an opportunity for interim improvements to be constructed at this time, the city has
the following concerns that will result from constructing the proposed interim realignment:
1)The I-215/Placentia Avenue Interchange is currently under construction and was originally designed
to connect directly with an interchange at Redlands Avenue. The proposed interim alignment
proposes to stop construction at Redlands Avenue, thereby directing traffic to travel south to
Placenta Avenue, and then westerly through a residential area in order to get to the I-215 freeway.
The section between Redlands Avenue and Perris Blvd. is not a truck route and impacts/mitigation
to this residential area were not evaluated under the EIR for this project. Impacts to traffic and noise
were not considered in the EIR for this change to the original alignment.
2)The proposed interim alignment removes the Evans Road interchange. This is a significant change
to the original design of the MCP alignment. Traffic impacts under the EIR for this change have not
been assessed.
3)The proposed interim alignment does not take into account that a new high school been constructed
since the approval of the EIR for the project. The proposed interim alignment cuts access across El
Nido Avenue for students attending Orange Vista High School. These are impacts that were not
evaluated in the EIR and circumstances have significantly changed since the project design approval
that warrants additional review and mitigation.
ATTACHMENT 1
198
Under the Final Project Report, it states that if a decision is made after project approval to construct the
MCP project in phases, then RCTC would identify the impacts and needed mitigation measures of a first
phase and would compare these to the impacts and mitigation measures addressed and committed to in the
Final EIR/EIS through an Environmental Revalidation, which would determine whether an EIR Addendum,
Supplemental EIR, or Subsequent EIR would be required under CEQA, and whether a Supplemental EIS
would be required under NEPA. If new adverse impacts or mitigation are identified for the first phase or a
subsequent phase, then RCTC would prepare supplemental environmental documentation for approval of
that project phase. The proposed interim alignment and improvements will result in long term impacts to
the City of Perris that were not evaluated under the original EIR.
The city would like to take this opportunity to request that the proposed interim Mid County Parkway
alignment not move forward at this time until there is funding available to move forward with the ultimate
design within the City of Perris. The proposed interim improvements have not been reviewed for impacts
on Perris residents and traffic.
Sincerely,
City Manager
City of Perris
CC:
Anne Mayer, Executive Director
John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director
Marlin Feenstra, Capital Delivery Director
Mayor Michael Vargas, City of Perris
Rita Rogers, Perris Councilmember
Eric Dunn, City Attorney
Stuart McKibbin, City Engineer
Kenneth Phung, Director of Development Services
Attachments:
199
200
201
202
MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT
City of Perris Council Meeting
March 8, 2022
Anne Mayer, RCTC Executive Director
1
ATTACHMENT 2
203
MID COUNTY PARKWAY HISTORY
2
•Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) initiated in 1998
–Integrated land use, transportation, and conservation
–Model for nation
•Transportation (CETAP) & Conservation (MSHCP) ‐adopted 2003
•Mid‐County Parkway (MCP) from CETAP, began studies 2003
•EIR/EIS approved 2015
204
3
MCP ALIGNMENTS CONSIDERED
205
CITY OF PERRIS
RESOLUTION NO. 4428
4
•City project approvals June 2011
–City selected the alignment (Alternative 9)
that was then adopted by Commission
–Required Placentia IC to be part of MCP, first
phase
–Construction to start at west end of
MCP, recognizing entire facility would not be
built at once
–Ethanac corridor investigated
Placentia interchange construction is 70% complete
Ethanac studies proceeding
MCP2 design –using Alt 9
206
5
COMMISSION ACTIONS SINCE 2011
•Acquired right of way, mitigation land, permits
•2016 Strategic Assessment – due to funding realities, staff
directed to develop fundable/buildable packages
•Placentia Interchange
•Placentia Avenue improvements with City
•Spent $163+ million (since inception)
•Programmed $58 million for future work
207
6
MCP CONSTRUCTION COST
•Entire MCP: $2.8 billion
•Ultimate MCP in City of Perris: $1.4 billion (displaces 92 dwellings)
•MCP2 (proposed interim): $231 million (displaces 1 dwelling)
208
7
CITY OF PERRIS CONCERNS
•Traffic/air/noise impacts of interim condition
•Revalidation will be done with design, analyzing impacts
•Reduction/mitigation of impacts will be developed with City
•E.g. soundwall along Placentia, etc.
•New high school built after the MCP approved
•0.6 miles away from project
•El Nido is cul‐de‐sac in EIR; MCP is 40' higher
•Evans Road provides similar length path
209
8
RCTC NEXT STEPS
•EIR has limited shelf life, requires progress
•Commission funds have time constraints
•City Council support essential for interim project
•March 28 RCTC Committee project reconsideration
•April 13 RCTC Board action
210
QUESTIONS
9
211
March 11, 2022
Ms. Clara Miramontes, City Manager
City of Perris
101 North “D” Street
Perris, CA 92570
SUBJECT: Response to the City of Perris’ Concerns regarding the Mid -County Parkway Project Construction Contract 2
(MCP2)
Dear Ms. Miramontes:
Thank you for communicating your interest in the Mid-County Parkway Project Construction Contract 2 (MCP2) and for discussing
your concerns with the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). RCTC is in receipt of City of Perris’ (City) letter dated
February 28, 2022, which requested that RCTC not move forward with design of MCP2 at this time, due to impacts of the interim
project. On March 8, 2022, RCTC presented information about the project at the Perris City Council meeting. At this meeting, the
council expressed its concerns with the MCP2 Project. In response, RCTC would like to express its commitment to resolve these
concerns in cooperation with the City, by agreeing to the following:
1. Provide a safe bridge-type undercrossing at El Nido Avenue to maintain continuous vehicle and pedestrian access to
schools.
2. Maintain the San Jacinto trail under proposed MCP2.
3. Analyze expected truck traffic on MCP2 and develop a strategy to restrict truck traffic to the City’s desired routes. Study
the impacts of vehicular traffic expected to use Placentia Avenue and its impact on residential areas and Paragon Park,
including noise, air quality, and speed, and provide appropriate mitigation measures.
These measures are subject to technical feasibility and environmental analysis to ensure that none of them results in a greater
environmental impact than the previously approved EIR/EIS for Mid-County Parkway. RCTC understands the City’s concerns and
anticipates we will be able to incorporate these features as we proceed with design.
The City’s involvement and participation during the design phase is crucial to the MCP2 project’s success. With the commitments
outlined above, we hope to garner the City’s support of the MCP2. We look forward to your response on this regionally important
project. As stated at the c ouncil meeting on March 8, we anticipate discussion of this issue at the March 28 Western County
Programs and Projects committee meeting.
Should you have any questions or need additional clarification, please contact me at (951) 787-7141 or AMayer@RCTC.org.
Sinc erely,
Anne Mayer
Executive Director
ATTACHMENT 3
212
CITY OF PERRIS
Office of the City Manager
101 NORTH “D” STREET
PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92570
TEL: (951) 943-6100
March 23, 2022
Anne Mayer, Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
RE: Mid County Parkway Project Construction Package No. 2 (MCP2) from Redlands Avenue to
Ramona Expressway (Interim Improvements)
Dear Ms. Mayer,
The City of Perris appreciates RCTC’s collaboration in working with the city to address concerns related to
the MCP2 improvements and thanks you for your presentation at the May 8, 2022, City Council meeting.
The City Council has carefully considered the impacts that the MCP2 project may create on the city, such
as traffic, air quality, and noise impacts to residential areas, city streets, and a local park. For these reasons,
the City Council majority can only support the MCP2 project provided that there is “no truck traffic”
allowed, thereby prohibiting truck traffic along the MCP2 corridor entering or traveling through the City of
Perris.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or would like to discuss further.
Sincerely,
City Manager
City of Perris
CC: Mayor Michael Vargas, City of Perris
Rita Rogers, Perris Councilmember
Eric Dunn, City Attorney
Stuart McKibbin, City Engineer
Kenneth Phung, Director of Development Services
John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director
Marlin Feenstra, Capital Delivery Director
ATTACHMENT 4
213
01006.0001/783734.1
CITY OF PERRIS
Office of the City Manager
101 NORTH “D” STREET
PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92570
TEL: (951) 943-6100
April 14, 2022
Anne Mayer, Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
RE: Mid County Parkway Project Construction Package No. 2 (MCP2) from Redlands Avenue to
Ramona Expressway (Interim Improvements)
Dear Ms. Mayer,
The City of Perris appreciates RCTC’s collaboration in working with the City to address concerns related
to the MCP2 improvements. The concerns related to traffic, air quality, and noise impacts on nearby
residential areas, city streets, a fire station, and a local park, remain of great concern for us. The City has
reviewed the potential impacts and, along with your assistance, explored possible mitigation measures that
need to be considered in order to support the MCP2 project. For these reasons, the City Council majority
supports the MCP2 project, provided that the following items be included as part of the MCP2 project:
1.Placentia Ave Route (preferred): The proposed MCP2 improvements propose that all traffic travel
southbound from Redlands Avenue to Placentia Avenue for access to the future Placentia Avenue
interchange. The City agrees that the desired route is along Placentia Avenue, provided the following
items are included in the MCP2 project design:
a)Acquire and remove the twelve homes on the south side of Placentia Avenue, between
Redlands Ave. and Perris Blvd. This area should then be considered for a parkway with walls
to mitigate noise for residences further south of Placentia Ave.
b)A noise study shall be completed to assess necessary noise mitigation for the residences
along Placentia Avenue and shall meet the City’s Noise Ordinance. This should include the
installation of sound walls and additional landscaping on both sides of Placentia Ave,
adjacent to existing residential units.
c)Install signal at Fire Station 90 North Perris.
d)Install signals at the intersection of Placentia and Spokane Street and modify ac cess points
to the park, including a crosswalk.
e)Modify the existing traffic signals along Placentia Avenue, as needed.
ATTACHMENT 5
214
01006.0001/783734.1
f) Install traffic signals at Redlands/MCP2 and Redlands Ave/Placentia Ave.
g) Evaluate the conditions and width of existing pavement and upgrade as needed to
accommodate additional MCP traffic along Placentia Ave.
2. Redlands Ave/Morgan Ave/Indian Ave Route (alternative): Should the Placentia Avenue route
not be feasible due to reasons other than cost, truck traffic shall be diverted northbound at Redlands
Ave., continuing westbound on Morgan Ave., southbound on Indian Ave., and connecting back to
Placentia Avenue westbound onto the interchange. Trucks traveling eastbound, exiting the I-215
freeway, shall also be required to follow the same truck route to access the corridor at Redlands Ave.
The following items shall be included in the MCP2 project design:
a) Provide physical design features for the routing of trucks northbound on Redlands Avenue.
b) Provide additional sound mitigation to comply with the City Noise Ordinance along
residential the areas including Placentia Avenue.
c) Evaluate the condition and width of existing pavement along the route and install additional
improvements as needed. The City can be the lead agency for the environmental/design and
construction of this work subject to a contribution/reimbursement by RCTC.
d) Placentia Avenue mitigation shall be similar to items 1.b through 1.g, as necessary.
3. El Nido Avenue: Provide a safe bridge-type undercrossing at El Nido Avenue to maintain
continuous vehicle and pedestrian access to schools.
4. San Jacinto Trail: Maintain the San Jacinto trail under the proposed MCP2.
In order to acknowledge these conditions, the City requests that an agreement be executed between the City
and RCTC. The City of Perris values and appreciates our partnership with RCTC. Thank you for your
collaboration and we look forward to continuing to work together on this project. Please do not hesitate to
contact me if you have any questions or would like to discuss further.
Sincerely,
City Manager
City of Perris
CC: Mayor Michael Vargas, City of Perris
Habib Motlagh, Perris Special Projects
Eric Dunn, City Attorney
Stuart McKibbin, City Engineer
Kenneth Phung, Director of Development Services
John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director
Marlin Feenstra, Capital Delivery Director
215
01006.0001/783734.1
CITY OF PERRIS
Office of the City Manager
101 NORTH “D” STREET
PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92570
TEL: (951) 943-6100
April 18, 2022
Anne Mayer, Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
RE: Mid County Parkway Project Construction Package No. 2 (MCP2) from Redlands Avenue to
Ramona Expressway (Interim Improvements)
Dear Ms. Mayer,
The City of Perris appreciates RCTC’s collaboration in working with the City to address concerns related
to the MCP2 improvements. The concerns related to traffic, air quality, and noise impacts on nearby
residential areas, city streets, a fire station, and a local park, remain of great concern for us. The City has
reviewed the potential impacts and, along with your assistance, explored possible mitigation measures that
need to be considered in order to support the MCP2 project. For these reasons, the City Council majority
supports the MCP2 project, provided that the following items be included as part of the MCP2 project:
1.Placentia Ave Route (preferred): The proposed MCP2 improvements propose that all traffic travel
southbound from Redlands Avenue to Placentia Avenue for access to the future Placentia Avenue
interchange. The City agrees that the desired route is along Placentia Avenue, provided the following
items are included in the MCP2 project design:
a)Acquire and remove the twelve homes on the south side of Placentia Avenue, between
Redlands Ave. and Perris Blvd. This area should then be considered for a parkway with walls
to mitigate noise for residences further south of Placentia Ave.
b)A noise study shall be completed to assess necessary noise mitigation for the residences
along Placentia Avenue and shall meet the City’s Noise Ordinance. This should include the
installation of sound walls and additional landscaping on both sides of Placentia Ave,
adjacent to existing residential units.
c)Install signal at Fire Station 90 North Perris.
d)Install signals at the intersection of Placentia and Spokane Street and modify ac cess points
to the park, including a crosswalk.
e)Modify the existing traffic signals along Placentia Avenue, as needed.
ATTACHMENT 6
216
01006.0001/783734.1
f) Install traffic signals at Redlands/MCP2 and Redlands Ave/Placentia Ave.
g) Evaluate the conditions and width of existing pavement and upgrade as needed to
accommodate MCP traffic along Placentia Ave.
2. Redlands Ave/Morgan Ave/Indian Ave Route (alternative): Should the Placentia Avenue route
not be feasible due to reasons other than cost, truck traffic shall be diverted northbound at Redlands
Ave., continuing westbound on Morgan Ave., southbound on Indian Ave., and connecting back to
Placentia Avenue westbound onto the interchange. Trucks traveling eastbound, exiting the I-215
freeway, shall also be required to follow the same truck route to access the corridor at Redlands Ave.
The following items shall be included in the MCP2 project design:
a) Provide physical design features for the routing of trucks northbound on Redlands Avenue.
b) Provide additional sound mitigation to comply with the City Noise Ordinance for the
residential areas along Placentia Avenue.
c) The City can be the lead agency for the environmental/design and construction of necessary
right-of-way improvements and right-of-way acquisition along the truck route, subject to a
contribution/reimbursement by RCTC.
d) Placentia Avenue mitigation shall be similar to items 1.b through 1.g, as necessary.
3. El Nido Avenue: Provide a safe bridge-type undercrossing at El Nido Avenue to maintain
continuous vehicle and pedestrian access to schools.
4. San Jacinto Trail: Maintain the San Jacinto trail under the proposed MCP2.
In order to acknowledge these conditions, the City requests that an agreement be executed between the City
and RCTC. The City of Perris values and appreciates our partnership with RCTC. Thank you for your
collaboration and we look forward to continuing to work together on this project. Please do not hesitate to
contact me if you have any questions or would like to discuss further.
Sincerely,
City Manager
City of Perris
CC: Mayor Michael Vargas, City of Perris
Habib Motlagh, Perris Special Projects
Eric Dunn, City Attorney
Stuart McKibbin, City Engineer
Marlin Feenstra, Capital Delivery Director
217
1
From: Perez, Juan <JCPEREZ@RIVCO.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 8:50 AM
To: Anne Mayer <AMayer@RCTC.org>
Cc: Leach, Charissa <cleach@rivco.org>; Lancaster, Mark <MLancaster@Rivco.org>; Marlin Feenstra
<mfeenstra@rctc.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] MCP, Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Expressway
Good morning Anne,
I am writing to request that RCTC engage with the County on a conversation about how we can collectively pursue major
safety improvements on Ramona Expressway. Over the years, the County has worked to implement various safety
strategies on Ramona Expressway including installing passing lanes, signals and intersection improvements, and striping
and pavement management measures. Tragically, as you can see by the attached collision diagrams, we continue to
experience a high number of fatalities and severe injury collisions on this road.
RCTC’s adoption of the Mid County Parkway environmental document provides a pathway for improvements on Ramona
Expressway over time as a critical part of the overall MCP project. We now have an opportunity to implement the more
significant improvements, such as incremental segment widenings, that are truly needed to address immediate safety
needs, while being complimentary to a gradual approach to deliver the overall MCP project over time.
Similarly, as you are aware the County has completed public circulation of the EIR for Cajalco Expressway, and we
anticipate bringing the document before our Board for certification in the near future. Cajalco experiences a similar
significant collision history as Ramona Expressway. While the County has also over the years implemented many spot
safety measures, more must be done in order to achieve major safety benefits, and the nearing completion of the
Cajalco environmental document provides an opportunity to do so.
We stand at a moment of opportunity to see plans that were put into motion many years ago to make improvements to
the Cajalco Expwy/MCP/Ramona Expwy Corridor advance to the next stage of implementation. This implementation
needs to be done in an incremental and balanced way that will allow the overall system to function properly, without
putting any additional strain on any one roadway component. The improvements of these corridors, to address both
immediate safety needs and also plan for our continued growth, are of the highest priority for our Board of Supervisors
and County staff.
We look forward to working together with the RCTC team to develop an overall corridor phasing and delivery plan that
can be presented to our Board and the RCTC Commission for consideration.
Regards,
Juan
Juan C. Perez
Chief Operating Officer
County of Riverside
JCPerez@RIVCO.org
951‐955‐1147
ATTACHMENT 7
218
2
www.rivco.org
This email message, including any attachments, is intended for the sole viewing and use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
confidential and privileged information, which is prohibited from disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution, or the taking of any action in
reliance on the information contained in this email, including attachments, is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination or copy of this message, or any attachment, is strictly prohibited. If you have received a copy of this email in error, please notify the sender by reply
email immediately, and remove all copies of the original message, including attachments, from your computer.
Confidentiality Disclaimer
This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. The information contained in this message may be
privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure.
If you are not the author's intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or
copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please delete all copies, both electronic and printed, and contact the author
immediately.
County of Riverside California
219
Date Time Location Type No. Killed PCF
8/10/2019 410 923 Feet E/of Bridge Street VEH 1 23152A
9/18/2019 603 600 Feet E/of 5th Street VEH 1 21460A
9/28/2019 530 534 Feet E/of Martin Street VEH 1 23152A
12/10/2019 2132 1810 Feet W/of Lakeview VEH 1 21650
3/4/2020 1922 472 Feet E/of Lakeview PED 1 22350
3/24/2020 1330 1329 Feet E/of Hansen Ave. VEH 1 22107
4/16/2020 2140 1270 Feet E/of Bridge St. PED 1 22107
5/20/2020 427 748 Feet E/of 6th Street VEH 1 21460A
9/13/2020 250 60 Feet E/of I-215 VEH 1 21658A
9/25/2020 1950 3 Feet W/of Bridge St. PED 1 21964A
2/8/2021 1605 2919 Feet W/of Lakeview Ave. VEH 1 22350
2/11/2021 434 2428 Feet E/Day Street PED 1 21954A
3/17/2022 539 Intersection at Hansen Ave VEH 1 incomplete
4/4/2022 630 1103 Feet E/First St. VEH 1 incomplete
220
¬
¬
V
V
(
(
(
PERRIS
RAMO
N
A
E
X
P
Y
C AV
E
A A
V
E
11TH S
T
6T
H
S
T
9TH ST
10TH S
T
HA
N
S
E
N
A
V
E
LAK
E
V
I
E
W
A
V
E
YUC
C
A
A
V
E
MARVIN RD
MA
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
B AVE
PI
C
O
A
V
E
MARTIN ST
12TH ST
DA
V
I
S
R
D
BROWN AVE
SUNSET AVE
LAKEVIEW AV
E
E
PALM AVE
FERN AVE
WOLFSKILL AVE
RES
E
R
V
O
I
R
A
V
E
LAURENA ST
BEL
L
A
V
E
SI
X
T
H
S
T
PA
L
O
M
A
R
R
D
WATER AVE
C
I
T
R
U
S
S
T
CHA
S
E
A
V
E
PO
Z
O
S
R
D
O
R
A
N
G
E
S
T
N
O
R
T
H
D
R
AN
T
E
L
O
P
E
R
D
PHILIP
R
D
E
U
C
A
L
Y
P
T
U
S
S
T
MEADOW BLOSSOM RD
WALNUT AVE
RIDER ST
ORANGE AVE
BERNASCONI RD
NO
R
M
A
N
R
D
JACK CI
R
WILDFIR
E
C
I
R
D
A
W
S
O
N
R
D
W
A
L
K
E
R
S
T
DEBBIE
L
N
ARM
A
N
D
O
D
R
TAK
A
J
I
M
A
R
D
B A
V
E
WATER AVE
RESERVOIR A
V
E
WATER AVE
12TH S
T
D
A
V
I
S
R
D
WALNUT AVE
R C IT , E a g le A e r ia l
RAMONA EXPRESSWAY - FATAL/SEVERE INJURY COLLISION PIN MAP
SEGMENT 1 OF 2
(01/01/2017 - 04/14/2022)±1 inch = 1,751 feet
0 1,600 3,200800
Feet The County of Riverside assumes no warranty or legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Data and information
represented on this map is subject to updates, modifications and may not be complete or appropriate for all purposes. County GIS and other sources should be queried for the most current information.
Do not copy or resell this map. Orthophotos Flown 2016Printed by dacuna on 4/14/2022
4/18/2018 - Head-On
(Passing Other Vehicle)
9/28/2019 - Head-On (DUI)
(Crossed into Opposing Lane - Unplanned)
6/12/2018 - Vehicle - Ped (Ped Under the Influence)
(Ped in Roadway)
2/8/2021 - Rear-End
(Unsafe Speed)
5/25/2018 - Head-On (DUI)
(Traveling Wrong Way - Not Passing)
12/10/2019 - Head-On (DUI)
(Crossed into Opposing Lane - Unplanned)
3/4/2020 - Vehicle - Ped
(Unsafe Speed - Ped in Roadway)
6/5/2018 - Head-On (DUI)
(Passing Other Vehicle)
3/24/2020 - Broadside
(Unsafe Speed)
4/23/2018 - Hit Object (DUI)
9/15/2018 - Vehicle - Ped
(Pedestrian Violation)
3/28/2019 - Hit Object
6/6/2019 - Hit Object
11/9/2019 - Head-On (DUI)
(Ran Red Light)
2/1/2020 - Sideswipe (DUI)
(Crossed into Opposing Lane - Unplanned)
6/25/2020 - Head-On
(Ran Red Light)
7/23/2020 - Head-On
(Improper Passing)
12/3/2020 - Head-On
(Ran Red Light)
12/23/2021 - Head-On
(Ran Red Light)
3/17/2022 - Hit Object
(PROVISIONAL)
Legend
Fatal Collision
Severe Injury Collision
*2021 & 2021 Collisions are Provisional
221
¬
¬
(
SAN JACINTO
RAMONA EXPY
BRIDGE
S
T
5TH
S
T
6TH
S
T
WA
R
R
E
N
R
D
YUCCA
A
V
E
MARVIN RD
PICO RD
MA
I
N
R
D
OLD PICO RD
PU L S ARVIEW RD
YUCC
A
A
V
E
WATER AVE
4T
H
S
T
S L E G E R S S T
LAKE
V
I
E
W
A
V
E
E
C H A
S
T
I
T
Y
R
D
MIKE
R
E
E
D
R
D
BROWN AVE
B
E
T
T
I
N
G
E
R
A
V
E
5T
H
S
T
EA
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
A
R
Y
R
D
FO
U
R
T
H
A
V
E
6TH
S
T
M
T
R
U
D
O
L
F
R
D
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
A
V
E
TH
I
R
D
S
T
W
A
R
N
E
R
A
V
E
GATE
W
A
Y
A
V
E
RAYMO
N
D
A
V
E
MEADOW BLOSSOM RD
WAR
R
E
N
S
T
SECON
D
S
T
FI
R
S
T
S
T
WOLFSKILL AVEMI
K
E
L
N
LAURENA ST
DUNCAND
R
LI
N
D
A
V
I
S
T
A
A
V
E
SUMME R
S
T
PO
P
P
Y
R
D
5
T
H
S
T
P
U
L
S
ARVIEWRD RC I T, E a gl e A er ia l
RAMONA EXPRESSWAY FATAL/SEVERE INJURY COLLISION PIN MAP
SEGMENT 2 OF 2
(01/01/2017 - 04/14/2022)±1 inch = 1,920 feet
0 1,800 3,600900
Feet The County of Riverside assumes no warranty or legal responsibility for the information contained on this map. Data and information
represented on this map is subject to updates, modifications and may not be complete or appropriate for all purposes. County GIS
and other sources should be queried for the most current information. Do not copy or resell this map. Orthophotos Flown 2016Printed by dacuna on 4/14/2022
6/11/2018 - Head-On (DUI)
(Crossed into Opposing Lane - Unplanned)
3/16/2018 - Rear-End (DUI)
9/25/2020 - Vehicle - Ped
(Ped in Roadway)
8/10/2019 - Head-On (DUI)
(Crossed into Opposing Lane - Unplanned)
4/16/2020 - Vehicle - Ped
(Ped Hit while within Shoulder)
11/16/2017 - Head-On
(Crossed into Opposing Lane - Unplanned)
9/8/2017 - Sideswipe
(Improper Passing)
9/25/2018 - Vehicle - Ped
(Ped in Roadway; Ped Under the Influence)
6/11/2018 - Head-On
(Right-of-Way Violation)
6/17/2021 - Head-On
(Crossed into Opposing Lane - Unplanned)
4/4/2022 - Broadside
(PROVISIONAL)
5/20/2020 - Head-On
(Improper Passing)
Legend
Fatal Collision
Severe Injury Collision
*2021 & 2022 Collisions are Provisional
9/18/2019 - Head-On
(Improper Passing)
222
10
215
220 225
23 0
235
240
245
250 255 260
275 280 285 290 295 300
305 310 315 320 325 330 335
340
34 5
5
5
265 270
25
30
35
10
350
35 5
360
36536
0
365
365
355
360 30
25
35
40
45
50
34 5
3 5 0
355
255
260
265
15
20
25
3
0
270
215 220
225 230
235
22 0
225
230
215
270
275
280
285
255
260
26 5
265
270
27
5
275 280
285 290
345
350
355
360
260
26
5
270 275 280
370
375
380
3 7 0
375
370
365
375
380
9 240 1 2 3 4 245 6 7 8 9 250 1 2 3 4 255 6 7 8 9 260 1 2 3 4 265 6 7 8 9 270 1 2 3 4 275 6 7 8 9 280 1 2 3 4 285 6 7 8 9 290 1 2 3 4 295 6 7 8 9 300 1 2 3 4 305 6 7 8 9 310 1 2 3 4 315 6 7 8 9 320 1 2 3 4 325 6 7 8 9 330 1 2 3 4 335 6 7 8 9 340 1 2 3 4 345 6 7 8 9 3 5 0 1 2 3 4 35 5 6
7
8
9 360 1
2
3
4 365 6 789370123437567893801234
PER
R
IS V
A
LL
EY STO
RM
D
R
AIN
EVA
N
S Rd
RAMO
N
A Exwy
PLACENTIA Ave
W
ILSO
N
Ave
EL NIND
O
Ave
EUREKA
St
WALNUT St
LEGEND:
2000
Mid County Parkway Project
100
Feet
Redlands Avenue to Ramona Expressway
Construction Contract 2
MCP Interim Buildout Package
Parcel Boundary
Bridge
Toe of Fill
Top of Cut
Ultimate MCP
Plan Exhibit
REDLAN
D
S Ave
ATTACHMENT 8
223
1
MID COUNTY PARKWAY AREA MAP
Segment shown in
County exhibits
2Source: County of Riverside
3Source: County of Riverside
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
COMMITTEE
ROLL CALL
APRIL 25, 2022
Present Absent
County of Riverside, District I X
County of Riverside, District II X
County of Riverside, District V X
City of Corona X
City of Eastvale X
City of Hemet X
City of Jurupa Valley X
City of Menifee X
City of Moreno Valley X
City of Norco X
City of Perris X
City of Wildomar X