The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About01 January 25-26, 2024 Commission WorkshopRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org WORKSHOP AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda *Times are estimated January 25 – 26, 2024 Renaissance Palm Springs Hotel 888 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 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 p ublic prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission’s website, www.rctc.org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. The start times listed on the agenda are approximate and are included for guidance only. Agenda items may be taken out of th e order listed on the agenda. THURSDAY, JANUARY 25, 2024 PUBLIC COMMENTS – Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Commission, waive this three minute time limitation. Dependi ng on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Also, the Commission may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Commission shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Under the Brown Act, the Commission should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda that are not listed on the agenda. Commission members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to b e placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. 1:00 p.m. – 1:10 p.m. CHAIR’S WELCOME AND WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES Lloyd White, Chair Anne Mayer, Executive Director Commission Workshop Agenda January 25-26, 2024 Page 2 1:10 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. COACHELLA VALLEY RAIL PROJECT AFFIRMATION Page 1 This item is for the Commission to affirm the following: 1) That the Commission is the lead agency for delivering the Coachella Valley Rail Project (Project) and will be the venue for policy and funding decisions regarding the Project; 2) Continuation of the 10 percent set aside of Coachella Valley State Transit Assistance (STA) funds for the Project; 3) The Commission will set aside dedicated funding for the Project and future station maintenance and operations costs in the 2024 Traffic Relief Plan in both the Western County and Coachella Valley subregions of the plan and any funding measure submitted to the voters; 4) Coachella Valley and Western County subregions will pay for their proportional shares of the total project costs; 5) Staff is authorized to negotiate with host railroads, candidate operating entities, and state and federal agencies to advance the Project; and 6) Staff is directed to evaluate existing and future funding sources to fund future phases of the Project. 1:35 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. 2024 DRAFT TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN – ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY Page 6 This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file the Economic Impact Study related to the 2024 draft Traffic Relief Plan (Plan). 2:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY AND FOCUS GROUP UPDATE This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file the results of the 2023 public opinion survey and focus groups. 2:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. REFRESHMENT BREAK Commission Workshop Agenda January 25-26, 2024 Page 3 3:00 p.m. CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) Upon Adjournment from Closed Session – 5:00 p.m. of Section 54956.9: One or more potential case(s) LEGISLATIVE UPDATE This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive a legislative update. ACA-1 TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN OPTION This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive information regarding ACA-1 and provide direction to staff. TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN PROJECTS AND COST DISCUSSION This item is for the Commission to: 1)Receive an update on Traffic Relief Plan projects and costs and provide comments. 5:15 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. BREAK DINNER 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The workshop will continue at 8:30 a.m., Friday, January 26, 888 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California 92262. Commission Workshop Agenda January 25-26, 2024 Page 4 FRIDAY, JANUARY 26, 2024 7:30 a.m. – 8:30 a.m. BREAKFAST PUBLIC COMMENTS – Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Commission, waive this three minute time limitation. Dependi ng on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Also, the Commission may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Commission shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Under the Brown Act, the Commission should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda that are not listed on the agenda. Commission members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to b e placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. 8:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN FOLLOW UP AND NEXT STEPS This item is for the Commission to: 1) Provide additional input and direction on Traffic Relief Plan from previous day discussion. Commission Workshop Agenda January 25-26, 2024 Page 5 9:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. STATE ROUTE 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT UPDATE AND CORRIDOR ANALYSIS Page 71 This item is for the Commission to: 1) Direct staff to develop the necessary agreement(s) with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to modify the State Route 79 (SR-79) Realignment Project (Project) from a State Route to a future County expressway; 2) Direct staff to develop the necessary agreements or documentation to designate the Commission the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agency; 3) Adopt the proposed segments of the Project identified by the Corridor Analysis Study; and 4) Direct staff to proceed with one of the following Options: Alternative A a) Direct staff to draft a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Project’s Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) phase and continue the acquisition of right of way for the SR-79 Segment 3 Modified Limits, 0.35 miles south of Newport Road to Simpson Road, or SR-79 Segment 3, 0.35 miles south of Newport Road to Domenigoni Parkway. b) Amend the 2019-2029 Measure A Western County Highway Delivery Plan to add SR-79 Segment 3 Modified or Segment 3 to “Group 2: Partially Funding Likely Available” of the Commission-adopted Delivery Plan; c) Direct staff to identify and recommend funding sources and any other prioritization changes necessary to the 2019-2029 Measure A Western County Highway Delivery Plan to complete PS&E and Right of Way (ROW) phases for the segment selected. Alternative B a) Direct staff to proceed with limited, willing seller, core parcel SR-79 corridor ROW acquisition utilizing available Regional and Zone Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) funding; b) Amend the 2019-2029 Measure A Western County Highway Delivery Plan to add limited SR-79 ROW acquisition to “Group 2: Partially Funding Likely Available” of the Commission-adopted Delivery Plan. c) Reconsider advancing at least one segment upon identification of funding sufficient for construction for that segment. Commission Workshop Agenda January 25-26, 2024 Page 6 Alternative C a) Maintain current 2019-2029 Measure A Western County Highway Delivery Plan projects and suspend further work on SR-79. Reconsider suspension upon identification of funding sufficient for construction of at least one segment. 10:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. GOODS MOVEMENT UPDATE This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file an update on current goods movement studies. 10:30 a.m. – 10:45 a.m. CLOSING REMARKS Lloyd White, Chair Anne Mayer, Executive Director 10:45 a.m. ADJOURNMENT RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 25, 2024 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Erik Galloway, Project Delivery Director Lorelle Moe-Luna, Multimodal Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Coachella Valley Rail Project Affirmation STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to affirm the following: 1)That the Commission is the lead agency for delivering the Coachella Valley Rail Project (Project) and will be the venue for policy and funding decisions regarding the Project; 2)Continuation of the 10 percent set aside of Coachella Valley State Transit Assistance (STA) funds for the Project; 3)The Commission will set aside dedicated funding for the Project and future station maintenance and operations costs in the 2024 Traffic Relief Plan in both the Western County and Coachella Valley subregions of the plan and any funding measure submitted to the voters; 4)Coachella Valley and Western County subregions will pay for their proportional shares of the total project costs; 5)Staff is authorized to negotiate with host railroads, candidate operating entities, and state and federal agencies to advance the Project; and 6)Staff is directed to evaluate existing and future funding sources to fund future phases of the Project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: For over 30 years, the Commission has been advocating for passenger rail service to the Coachella Valley and we have never been closer than we are today. In 1991, the Los Angeles, Coachella Valley, Imperial County Intercity Rail Feasibility Study was completed that outlined the route and potential opportunities and challenges of establishing a passenger rail service. Other studies occurred through the years and the effort restarted in earnest with a 2010 Coachella Valley Rail Study update. This led to the Caltrans-led Coachella Valley Rail Planning Study completed in 2013. In October 2013, the Commission took bold action to advance the project by approving Resolution No. 13-042, “Resolution of Support to Establish Daily Intercity Rail Service from Los Angeles to the Coachella Valley Via the Pass Area,” in which the Commission committed to 1 overseeing preparation of a Service Development Plan (SDP) in coordination with the Caltrans Division of Rail and Mass Transit and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) as the next step toward establishing daily rail service between Los Angeles and the Coachella Valley. Concurrently, the Commission also approved a 10 percent set aside for STA funding for the purpose of rail project development from the STA share of funds attributable to the Coachella Valley. The 10 percent set aside was phased in between Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 and 2017, to allow SunLine Transit Agency to adjust. In FY 2023, the STA set aside provided an allocation of $441,200 to the Project. In May 2014, following a competitive procurement process, the Commission awarded a contract to HDR to prepare a full SDP starting with an Alternatives Analysis (AA), followed by an SDP and Tier 1 program-level Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In July 2016, the AA was completed and accepted by the Commission and FRA with the recommendation of a preferred route to be carried forward for analysis in an SDP and Tier 1 EIS/EIR. The preferred route, as shown in Figure 1, would span 144 miles from Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS), through Fullerton, Riverside, and the San Gorgonio Pass, to Indio or Coachella (Corridor), operating primarily over tracks owned by the BNSF Railway (BNSF) from Los Angeles to Colton, and tracks owned by the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) between Colton and Indio or Coachella. Figure 1: Map of Proposed CV Rail Corridor After five years of analysis and development, the draft Tier 1 EIS/EIR was released in summer 2021 for public comment. All public comments were reviewed and addressed in the Final Tier 1 EIS/EIR and on July 13, 2022, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 22-015 “Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying the Final Tier 1/Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program, Adopting Findings of Fact under the California Environmental Quality Act, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Approving the Program” and selected alternative Option 1, which assumes up to two daily round passenger rail trips between LAUS and the city of Coachella. This alternative is focused on the eastern section. In the eastern segment of the Corridor, the existing station in Palm Springs would be improved and utilized, and up to five new potential stations could be constructed in the Loma Linda/Redlands Area, the Pass Area, the Mid-Valley Area, the 2 city of Indio, and the city of Coachella. A third main line track and associated infrastructure would augment the existing two main tracks along the entire eastern section of the Corridor from Colton to Coachella. For the western section, existing stations in Los Angeles, Fullerton and Riverside would be utilized. For the Corridor from Los Angeles to Colton, RCTC has a Shared Use Agreement with BNSF for additional passenger rail service; however, discussions are needed to determine if railroad infrastructure improvements in the western section are needed, beyond what is planned for Metrolink. To date, the Commission has expended nearly $11.5 million on the project, comprising of the following sources: CV Rail Funding to Date Total Local Transportation Fund $ 664,000 State Transit Assistance $ 3,426,000 Proposition 1B $ 4,200,000 FRA Grant $ 2,900,000 Interest on Grants $ 291,000 Total $ 11,481,000 Of the nearly $11.5 million, $8.3 million were from formula funds, of which 57 percent came from the Western County share and 43 percent from the Coachella Valley share. Project Status Over the course of the last year, there has been ongoing coordination with key project stakeholders such as California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), Caltrans Division of Rail, FRA, and UP to develop a scope of work and set the framework on the roles and responsibilities for the next phases of work. Negotiations are currently underway with UP on a reimbursement agreement that would allow UP staff and consultants to review RCTC design and environmental technical studies along with granting access to RCTC to conduct the necessary field studies required for the Tier 2 Project Level EIR/EIS. RCTC is also initiating discussions at the state and federal level to determine lead agency for National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) oversight of the Tier 2 EIR/EIS. This is a key element of the project that needs to be finalized before moving forward with the Tier 2 EIR/EIS. Another key element is the identification of the managing agency for the future rail operations. RCTC staff has held preliminary conversations with the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor (LOSSAN) staff on the possibility of LOSSAN serving as the managing agency of the service, and on January 17, 2024, Executive Director Anne Mayer sent a letter to the LOSSAN Managing Director to seek their commitment to move forward. RCTC has received feedback from FRA that identifying the future operator of the Project is critical to the project’s competitiveness for federal grant funding. In December 2023, the Project was included in the FRA Corridor Identification Program, which makes the Project more competitive for future federal funding. This award includes $500,000 in funding to Caltrans for an updated SDP that will look at expanding from two daily round trips to five daily 3 round trips and address the managing agency, host railroad, and operator logistics. The updated SDP process will be completed in coordination with Caltrans. Next steps The next steps will include, but are not limited to, the following, which will occur currently: Tier 2 EIR/EIS • Finalize and execute RCTC and UP Reimbursement Agreement • Release Request for Proposals for Tier 2 EIR/EIS • Select consultant team for Tier 2 EIR/EIS • Scoping meetings • Station site selection process • Alternative Analysis • Environmental Technical studies • Development of Tier 2 Draft EIR/EIS • Draft EIR/EIS Public Circulation • Public Meetings • Preferred Alternative Selection • Final EIR/EIS • Record of Decision and Notice of Determination Staff estimates that the Tier 2 EIR/EIS phase will take approximately six to seven years and could cost $60 - $80 million dollars. SDP Update • Develop revised scope of work • Release Request for Proposals • Select consultant team • Complete SDP update • Obtain FRA Approval The SDP update is likely to take approximately two years. LOSSAN Managing Agency Coordination • Initiate coordination meetings • Coordinate with staff to update LOSSAN Board on proposal and initiatives Host Railroad Discussions • Initiate Shared Use Agreement discussions with UP and BNSF, based on their preferred process. The SDP update, identification of a managing agency, and discussions with host railroads will be concurrent to the Tier 2 EIR/EIS process. 4 DISCUSSION: A project of this magnitude involves a significant commitment of public resources and requires the Commission to place its name and credibility behind agreements with multiple public and private entities. This Project is also the only project that RCTC has ever undertaken that spans both Western County and the Coachella Valley, meaning that decisions regarding the project have implications for the entire county. Nonetheless, the Project is not in the Measure A expenditure plan approved by Riverside County voters 2002 meaning that local funds are not available, and the Project must therefore rely on state and federal funds. These unique attributes of the Project prompt RCTC staff to request that the Commission affirm its support for the Project with the intent to develop a path to full funding and delivery. Specifically, staff seeks affirmation of the following: 1. The Commission is the lead agency for delivering the Project and will be the venue for policy and funding decisions regarding the Project; 2. Continuation of the 10 percent set aside of Coachella Valley STA funds for the Project; 3. The Commission will set aside dedicated funding for the Project and future station maintenance and operations costs in the 2024 Traffic Relief Plan in both the Western County and Coachella Valley subregions of the plan and any funding measure submitted to the voters; 4. Coachella Valley and Western County subregions will pay for their proportional shares of the total project costs; 5. Staff is authorized to negotiate with host railroads, candidate operating entities, and state and federal agencies to advance the Project; and 6. Staff is directed to evaluate existing and future funding sources to fund future phases of the Project. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact for this item. Staff will continue to provide the Commission with regular status updates and seek approvals for necessary agreements and/or policy revisions. 5 COACHELLA VALLEY RAIL PROJECT AFFIRMATION Commission Workshop January 26, 2024 Anne Mayer, Executive Director 1 Proposed CV Rail Project Corridor 2 Staff Recommendations 3 The Commission affirms the following: 1)That the Commission is the lead agency for delivering the Coachella Valley Rail Project (Project) and will be the venue for policy and funding decisions regarding the Project; 2)Continuation of the 10 percent set aside of Coachella Valley State Transit Assistance (STA) funds for the Project; 3)The Commission will set aside dedicated funding for the Project in the 2024 Traffic Relief Plan in both the Western County and Coachella Valley subregions of the plan and any funding measure submitted to the voters; Operations and maintenance including stations will be eligible expenditures in the plan to the extent allowed by law. 4)Coachella Valley and Western County subregions will pay for their proportional shares of the total project costs; 5)Staff is authorized to negotiate with host railroads, candidate operating entities, and state and federal agencies to advance the Project; and 6)Staff is directed to evaluate existing and future funding sources to fund future phases of the Project. DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD DATE: CHECK IF SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: � i I G1 (( ) c c( if16v1 AGEN DA ITEM NO.: (A S LISTED ON THE AGE NDA) SUBJECT OF (.11c) d AGENDA ITEM: N AME: --LA] (ar(,ire1 AD DRESS: k - -6 L6r by J STREET REPRESENTING: Roi, / (Cf .i' f PHONE N O. .:�` '� tto3 CITY ZIP C ODE PHONE NO.: )('1 - 17/7. NA ME OF AGENCY / ORGANIZATION / GROUP BUSINESS ADDRESS: -St. - Null! aitvAl4 pe..k 'r,:, STREET CITY ZIP CODE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 25, 2024 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM Matt Wallace, Deputy Director of Financial Administration Sergio Vidal, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Aaron Hake, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: 2024 Draft Traffic Relief Plan – Economic Impact Study STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file the Economic Impact Study related to the 2024 draft Traffic Relief Plan (Plan). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In June 2023, the Commission entered into Agreement No. 23-19-014-00 with Beacon Economics, LLC (Beacon) to perform an economic impacts analysis (Study) related to the investment of a one-cent sales tax for transportation improvements in Riverside County, as outlined in the draft 2024 Traffic Relief Plan (TRP or Plan). Beacon was established in 2006 and has been providing the Commission with economic analyses and revenue forecasting services since 2010. Beacon’s independent Study is intended to provide Commissioners with data upon which to base decisions about the contents of the TRP and whether it should be funded through a sales tax ordinance submitted to voters. The Study considers not only the potential benefits of investing public funds on infrastructure, but also the costs of raising a tax to provide that investment. In order to quantify, analyze, and understand economic impact effects and community impacts, staff provided Beacon a list of twelve major capital transportation projects. The list of projects was used to develop the Study and the Socio-economic Benefits Analysis. The Study’s analysis included: • Sales Tax Revenue Forecast- Analyze, forecast, and understand implications of a one-cent sales tax scenario in Riverside County. Provide a long-range forecast of revenues, model all relevant input drivers, and incorporate the impact of e-commerce. • Cumulative Economic Impact Analysis of RCTC's Strategic Projects- Model the cumulative and project specific economic impacts (output, employment, compensation) on the local Riverside economy from direct expenditures of major capital transportation projects and programmatic expenditure categories. 6 • Socio-economic Benefit Analysis of RCTC’s Strategic Projects – Model and monetize the benefits stemming directly from projects’ impact on transportation time, safety, and other factors. These impacts do not represent an actual transfer of money, but instead it is a combination of mitigation costs forgone and increased productivity. On October 11, the Commission approved the TRP for public circulation and comment through early 2024. Beacon’s independent analysis will be incorporated into the public information shared with the public. This staff report focuses on the results of Beacon’s Study. Summary Sales Tax Revenue Forecast Beacon estimates the total nominal revenue generated from a one-cent sales tax is approximately $25 billion over the 30-year planning horizon from April 2025 to April 2055. The primary components in developing the revenue forecast are taxable sales forecasts, e-commerce, and tax elasticities. Beacon used a top-down approach whereby their models begin with accurate projection of the local population and labor force. These initial forecasts anchor all subsequent forecasts to the specific growth dynamics of the region and minimize drift in projections that can arise when using state and national drivers. Beacon’s methodology included a detailed analysis of historical data, including visual inspection, unit root testing, checking for autocorrelation, seasonality, cointegration, and other time series diagnostics. Additionally, a variety of methods were used to bolster forecast accuracy, including in-sample and out-of- sample testing and re-estimating forecast models each quarterly update. Cumulative Economic Impact Analysis of RCTC's Strategic Projects The Study indicates that construction resulting from additional transportation funding would benefit the Riverside County economy. Beacon’s $25 billion (nominal 2025 dollars) from Fiscal Year 2024/25 through 2054/55 projection would support $20.4 billion in construction, engineering, and design spending in Riverside County. The $20.4 billion in construction-related spending would multiply as it rippled through the Riverside County economy, generating a larger economic impact than the initial spending. After analyzing projected construction, engineering, and design spending, Beacon found that the construction spending would generate $30.9 billion in economic output and support 168,600 jobs (full and part time) and pay $10.9 billion in workforce income in Riverside County. • Of the $30.9 billion in economic output generated in Riverside County, $20.4 billion would represent direct spending, and $10.5 billion would represent secondary spending by businesses and workers down the supply chain. 7 • Of the 168,600 jobs supported in Riverside County, 109,200 would represent jobs directly supported by transportation infrastructure spending, and 59,400 would be supported through secondary spending by businesses and workers down the supply chain. • Of the $10.9 billion in workforce income generated in Riverside County, $7.7 billion would represent wages directly supported by transportation infrastructure spending, and $3.2 billion would come from businesses and workers down the supply chain. Economic Impact Summary Revenue Scenario Estimated Investment Jobs Supported Labor Income Economic Output One-Cent $25 billion 168,600* $10.9 billion** $30.9 billion** Note: Totals may not add due to rounding *Jobs Supported = An Industry-specific mix of full-time, part-time, and seasonal employment that are supported by project expenditures this includes Direct, Induced, and Indirect Jobs supported ** Direct, Induced, and Indirect Impact total To estimate the total economic and fiscal impact of the draft 2024 TRP project spending on Riverside County, Beacon used data from the set of projects listed in the Plan, spending allocations, prevailing wage estimates, and the one-cent sales tax revenue forecast. Staff provided estimates of recent projects to Beacon to model the expenditure assessments. The examples analyzed by Beacon reflect potential projects and expenditure categories evaluated by the Commission in the development of the Plan. Every project in the Plan cannot be analyzed due to time and cost constraints. Beacon Economics then used Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN), a state-of-the-art input- output modeling system that estimates how certain expenditures correlate and affect other industries in the economy to generate the total economic and fiscal impacts. Impact studies assume that any increase or change in spending has an economic direct, indirect, and induced effect. The total economic impacts consist of the one-time increases in total output, employment, and labor income in Riverside County associated with construction activities resulting from project prototype expenditures. All of the projects and most of the employment and economic activity will be in Riverside County. 8 Socio-economic Benefit Analysis of RCTC’s Strategic The socio-economic benefits resulting from the 12 proposed RCTC projects are exhibited in three primary ways: travel time savings, safety improvements, and emissions reductions. These benefits are calculated over a 30-year period and should be considered as the gross benefits derived by actual use of the projects following their completion. The following monetized values follow the U.S. Department of Transportation standards for benefit-cost analyses (BCAs). It should be noted that this analysis is a high-level estimate and is not intended to comply with or part of a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. When the individual projects commence the environmental phase, then the CEQA and NEPA compliant BCA will be performed. Travel time savings contribute to increased productivity, as commute time is considered not productive, especially compared to work hours or leisure time. Thus, reductions in travel time spurred on by projects can be aggregated over all local riders and working days to determine total hours of travel avoided following the project’s completion, and assigned a monetary value, based on median local incomes. Safety improvements demonstrate a monetary value to reducing transportation accidents, injuries, and fatalities. Finally, emissions reductions factor in the value to mitigating air pollutants that are damaging to health (such as sulfur oxides or fine particulate matter) or greenhouse warming effects (such as carbon dioxide). These reductions in emissions are calculated as a factor of a reduction in vehicle miles travelled stemming from transit projects, and ascribed a dollar value based on the potency of the emission. As a result of the 12 example projects taken from draft 2024 TRP, approximately three-quarters of the total socio-economic monetary benefit are derived from reductions in travel times. Safety improvements and emissions reductions represent around 23 percent and 3 percent of the total socio-economic benefit. Total benefits are estimated within a range of $6.2 billion to $12.7 billion, with a midpoint estimate of $9.7 billion over the 30-year analysis window. Socio-economic Benefit Summary Benefit Type Lower Bound Estimate Upper Bound Time Savings $4.4 Billion $7.1 Billion $9.4 Billion Safety Improvements $1.5 Billion $2.2 Billion $3.0 Billion Emissions Reduction $279 Million $297 Million $330 Million 30-Year Total $6.2 Billion $9.7 Billion $12.7 Billion Each of the 12 projects was evaluated individually for its impacts, and not all projects exhibited all three types of benefits. Nevertheless, the $9.7 billion figure represents a fair estimate of the 9 30-year quantifiable impact of the project set. Furthermore, there are non-monetized benefits to which these projects contribute to, such as business growth resulting from improved connectivity, improved health from active transportation usage, reduced incentive for aggressive driving, and other benefits. Since these impacts arise more nebulously, it is difficult to accurately attribute causality and quantify them; furthermore, there do not exist institutional standards by which to monetize such impacts. Despite these difficulties, they are important to mention as additional social benefits on top of the $9.7 billion figure. These impacts come as a benefit occurring within Riverside County, although the benefits are dispersed among users, and do not reflect an actual exchange of money. Attachments: 1) One-Cent Sales Tax Scenario Forecast Report 2) TRP Economic & Fiscal Impacts Report 3) Socio-economic Benefits Analysis 10 ONE-CENT SALES TAX SCENARIO FORECAST RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION October 2023 ATTACHMENT 1 11 About Beacon Economics Founded in 2007, Beacon Economics, an LLC and certified Small Business Enterprise with the state of California, is an independent research and consulting firm dedicated to delivering accurate, insightful, and objectively based economic analysis. Employing unique proprietary models, vast databases, and sophisticated data processing, the company’s specialized practice areas include sustainable growth and development, real estate market analysis, economic forecasting, industry analysis, economic policy analysis, and economic impact studies. Beacon Economics equips its clients with the data and analysis required to understand the significance of on-the-ground realities and to make informed business and policy decisions. Learn more at www.BeaconEcon.com For further information about this report, or to learn more about Beacon Economics please contact: Project Team Sean Windle Research Manager Christopher Thornberg, PhD Founding Partner Sherif Hanna Managing Partner Sherif@BeaconEcon.com Victoria Pike Bond Director of Marketing and Communications Victoria@BeaconEcon.com 12 TABLE OF CONTENTS United States Outlook 4 7 15 19 California Outlook Riverside County Outlook One-Cent Sales tax Scenario Forecast 13 4 UNITED STATES OUTLOOK HIGHLIGHTS • U.S. Economy Far From a Downturn – 2023 data shows that the U.S. economy is stronger today than it was a year ago. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth is solid, job growth is ongoing, industrial production remains near record-highs, profits and wages are rising, and U.S. debt markets are showing little sign of stress. • Still, there are Headwinds – Despite these strengths, Beacon Economics is less optimistic today than a year ago. The Fed’s excessive $5 trillion in quantitative easing, and the resulting 40% jump in the money supply, created massive government deficits and a large asset bubble. The U.S. economy has weathered rising interest rates over the last year largely because of these imbalances, but increasing rates also imply that inflationary pressures are not behind us and more Fed tightening is ahead. • Limited Interest Rate Stresses – The sharp rise in the cost of capital is causing signs of stress, particularly in the real estate industry. But that stress has not spread to the debt markets as lending institutions continue to have record-low delinquencies. Christopher Thornberg PhD, Founding Partner 14 5 A little over a twelve months ago, the forecast community began predicting that the U.S. economy would fall into recession “within a year.” Of the 60 commentators who contributed to the October 2022 Wall Street Journal Economic Forecasting Survey, almost a third said there was a 75% or greater chance of a recession occurring by October 2023. Four out of five said there was a greater than even chance of a recession, while some put the probability as high as 100%, a level of certainty that is, frankly, inappropriate in economic forecasting. Overall, the average probability in the Journal’s survey has been above 50% for a year.1 By the beginning of 2023, the media had begun to discuss the expected downturn as if it was a fait accompli. It was not a case of ‘if’ but of ‘when’, and ‘how bad’. 1 A review of nearly two decades of results from the WSJ’s Economic Forecasting Survey shows that there were only two other times when this average probability rose above 40%, in January 2008 and March 2020. Notably, these were the months after the starts of the Great Recession and Pandemic Recession, respectively. In other words, the forecast community tends to predict recessions after they have already begun, although to be fair, these official start dates are determined retroactively by the National Bureau of Economic Research. One could say that forecasters have been good at ‘current casting’. Perhaps this, along with a general preference for bad news, is why many in the media began to treat a coming recession as fait accompli at the start of 2023. U.S. FORECAST OUTPUT Real GDP (Billions, 2012$) Real GDP (% Change from Preceding Period, SAAR) Consumer Spending (Billions, 2012$) Consumer Spending (% Change from Preceding Period, SAAR) Fixed Investment (Billions, 2012$) Fixed Investment (% Change from Preceding Period, SAAR) Nonresidential Investment Nonresidential Investment (% Change from Preceding Period, SAAR) Residential Investment (Billions, 2012$) Residential Investment (% Change from Preceding Period, SAAR) Change in Private Inventories (Billions, 2012$) Government Spending (Billions, 2012$) Government Spending (% Change from Preceding Period, SAAR) Exports (Billions, 2012$) Exports (% Change from Preceding Period, SAAR) Imports (Billions, 2012$) Imports (% Change from Preceding Period, SAAR) 19,625.0 1.3 13,741.9 1.8 3,657.8 1.4 3,555.2 1.9 24.6 3,291.9 1.5 -1,045.4 12.6 2,370.2 6.0 3,415.7 8.0 19,563.1 4.0 13,681.6 3.5 3,645.1 6.8 3,538.9 3.0 28.1 3,280.0 1.9 -1,014.9 -0.1 2,335.7 7.3 3,350.6 5.0 19,372.0 2.1 13,563.7 1.7 3,585.5 3.3 3,513.0 3.9 -1.5 3,264.6 3.3 -1,015.1 1.9 2,294.9 -10.6 3,310.0 -7.0 19,679.2 1.1 13,787.6 1.3 3,671.0 1.5 3,565.3 1.1 27.3 3,302.5 1.3 -1,065.9 8.1 2,395.4 4.3 3,461.3 5.5 19,768.0 1.8 13,865.9 2.3 3,687.0 1.8 3,578.2 1.5 29.8 3,310.6 1.0 -1,083.5 6.8 2,423.5 4.8 3,507.0 5.4 ForecastCurrent Q4-23FQ3-23FQ2-23 Q1-24F Q2-24F Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis; Forecast by Beacon Economics 15 6 Beacon Economics never bought into the recession hyperbole, and we never raised our probability above 20% in the Journal’s survey—one of only 2 contributing forecasts to be so optimistic over the past year. That optimism has been largely born out in the data; an even cursory glance at 2023 data shows that the U.S. economy is not only far from a downturn, it’s actually stronger today than it was a year ago. GDP growth over the last year has averaged 2.5% SAAR, buoyed by solid growth in consumer spending. The nation has seen continued job growth, industrial production remains near record-high levels, profits and wages are rising, and U.S. debt markets are showing little sign of stress. This strength is moving into the second half of the year. According to the GDPNow estimate from the Atlanta Fed, growth in the third quarter of this year could come in between 5% and 6%. 2 Perhaps more telling, our best leading indicators suggest little change in the current trajectory. Manufacturing orders remain high even while inventories for key goods like autos remain low, housing permits and starts have stabilized at non-recession levels, and the job openings rate remains well above normal. Moreover, notwithstanding occasional news stories about rising credit card debt, overall household finances look great and net worth has recovered from last year’s decline. While overall household debt levels are growing slowly, debt burdens remain low and the consumer savings rate has actually started to rise despite a steady growth in spending. Amusingly, news headlines are now gushing about the economy’s “near miss” despite the reality that there was really very little to hit in the first place. We are out of the woods. We can comfortably forecast that the Wall Street Journal’s recession probability estimate will begin to fall over the next year. 2 https://www.atlantafed.org/cqer/research/gdpnow WSJ RECESSION PROBABILITY FORECAST - CHANCE OF U.S. ENTERING A RECESSION IN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% July 2023April 2023January 2023October 2022July 2022April 2022January 2022October 2021July 2021 Average Beacon Source: Wall Street Journal Economic Forecasting Survey; Analysis by Beacon Economics 16 7 CALIFORNIA OUTLOOK Sean Windle, Research Manager HIGHLIGHTS • California Adds Jobs – California has added more than 440,000 jobs since the trough of the pandemic, but that translates to just 2.5% growth. In other words, California’s job gains are largely a function of its size. • Labor Force Still Below Pre-Pandemic Peak – There are still roughly 168,000 fewer workers in California’s labor force than there were before the pandemic, a 0.9% decline. In contrast, the national labor force has grown by about 2.7 million workers. • New Household Formation Exacerbating Housing Crisis – Confoundingly, from 2020 to 2023, California lost about 600,000 people but added about 263,000 new households. The number of people per household also declined from 2.86 to 2.77. CALIFORNIA FORECAST: KEY INDICATORS Nonfarm Payrolls (000s, SA) Unemployment Rate (%, SA) Real GDP (Millions 2012$, SAAR) Home Prices ($, SA) Nonfarm Payrolls (000s, SA) Unemployment Rate (%, SA) Real GDP (Millions 2012$, SAAR) Home Prices ($, SA) 18,069 4.53 2,987,714 656,807 18,384 4.96 3,075,519 696,480 18,257 4.64 3,014,649 662,854 18,392 5.10 3,090,151 706,511 18,324 4.69 3,028,322 667,793 18,401 5.22 3,102,532 714,496 18,357 4.73 3,049,358 675,312 18,410 5.34 3,115,083 722,508 18,373 4.83 3,063,500 685,914 18,425 5.43 3,130,077 730,503 Q2-23 Q3-24 (F) Q3-23 (F) Q4-24 (F) Q1-24 (F) Q2-25 (F) Q4-23 (F) Q1-25 (F) Q2-24 (F) Q3-25 (F) Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; Analysis by Beacon Economics17 8 California continues to be a national leader in jobs creation. In the period of economic expansion following the pandemic- induced recession, the Golden State has added more than 440,000 jobs, according to the latest employment figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). In fact, California ranks third overall in terms of jobs added since the pandemic, behind only Florida and Texas. Nonetheless, the 440,000 jobs added translates to just 2.5% growth since the start of the pandemic, which reflects the fact that California’s job gains are largely a function of its size. Which is to say, relatively modest employment growth translates to a large number of new jobs. AN EXPANDING, ALBEIT CONSTRAINED CALIFORNIA ECONOMY U.S. STATES WITH MOST JOBS ADDED Texas Florida California North Carolina Georgia Tennessee Arizona Utah Washington South Carolina 997,800 704,000 443,500 302,500 230,600 179,100 164,800 152,200 123,300 112,500 7.7 7.8 2.5 6.5 4.9 5.7 5.5 9.7 3.5 5.1 Change in Total Jobs (Feb 2020 to July 2023) Percentage Change in Jobs (Feb 2020 to July 2023) Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; Analysis by Beacon Economics 18 9 In percentage terms, California has exhibited the slowest employment growth among job states and ranks near the middle of the pack among all states. In fact, California’s employment growth aligns closer to small- and mid-size states with more modest post-pandemic job gains. U.S. STATES WITH MOST JOBS ADDED Indiana Colorado Kentucky Missouri California New Jersey Oklahoma Oregon Nebraska Virginia 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.6 2.5 2.5 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.4 99,700 86,700 57,800 76,600 443,500 105,300 30,100 33,100 14,800 58,400 Percentage Change in Jobs (Feb 2020 to July 2023) Change in Total Jobs (Feb 2020 to July 2023) Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; Analysis by Beacon Economics The reason California’s job growth mirrors Missouri and not rapidly growing states like Texas, Florida, and North Carolina is a shortage of workers. As of July 2023, there were 1.04 million job openings in the state, but only about 889,000 unemployed persons. There simply are not enough workers to fill the current number of openings. According to the most recent data from the BLS, there are still roughly 168,000 fewer workers in the state’s labor force than there were in January 2020, prior to the pandemic, which equates to a 0.9% decline. In contrast, the national labor force has grown by about 2.7 million workers, or 1.7% during the same period. California’s labor force woes are evident in the chart below, which shows the percent growth in labor force compared to the nation since January 2020. While the national labor force recovered all the workers lost during the pandemic in August 2022, California lags far behind. 19 10 PERCENT CHANGE IN LABOR FORCE -6% -5% -4% -3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% Jan-23Jul-22Jan-22Jul-21Jan-21Jul-20Jan-20 National California Source: FRED; Analysis by Beacon Economics CALIFORNIA JOB OPENINGS AND UNEMPLOYED PERSONS Source: California EDD; Analysis by Beacon Economics Th o u s a n d s , S A 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 Jan-23Jul-22Jan-22Jul-21Jan-21Jul-20Jan-20Jul-19Jan-19Jul-18Jan-18Jul-17 Unemployed Job Openings 20 11 Adding the missing 168,000 workers back into the labor force, California’s unemployment rate rises above 5%. While not bad from a long-term perspective, it is higher than the published 4.5%, and reveals that part of California’s recovery in the data reflects people opting out of the workforce. In summary, the concern for California is not a lack of jobs, but rather a lack of workers. The state’s simultaneous jobs gains and labor force decline also reveal a contradiction. California has added about 440,000 jobs since the start of the pandemic, but there are fewer workers active in the economy. A possible explanation is that there are more workers in the state holding multiple jobs. Whatever the underlying causes, California employers have struggled to find enough workers to fill open positions, and this caused real wages to surge during and immediately after the pandemic. Real wages have since fallen to levels just above where they were prior to the pandemic. Higher interest rates and high inflation have cooled wage growth in California, and real wages are reverting to their pre-pandemic trend. -12% -9% -6% -3% 0% 3% 6% 9% 12% 15% Q1-23Q1-20Q1-17Q1-14Q1-11Q1-08Q1-05Q1-02Q1-99Q1-96Q1-93Q1-90 CALIFORNIA REAL WAGES AND GROWTH Source: RealWages.do; Analysis by Beacon Economics Re a W a g e s ( $ 2 0 2 2 - Q 4 ) 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 Q1-23Q1-20Q1-17Q1-14Q1-11Q1-08Q1-05Q1-02Q1-99Q1-96Q1-93Q1-90 Real Wage Real Wage % Yoy Change (Core PCE Deﬂated)Real Wage % YoY Change (CPI Deﬂated) Source: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; Analysis by Beacon Economics 21 12 HOME SALES CONTINUE TO DECLINE, BUT PRICES BOUNCE BACK The major underlying factor constraining jobs growth in California is the state’s chronic housing shortage. Between 2013 and 2023, the Golden State is on track to add around three million jobs, but only authorize about 1.2 million residential building permits. The huge discrepancy between housing supply and jobs added has made California one of the most expensive housing markets in the country. Beacon Economics believes that these soaring housing costs are part of the reason why the state’s labor force has yet to rebound to pre-pandemic levels despite the national labor force returning to growth over a year ago. Rapidly rising interest rates have further exacerbated California’s housing shortage, as existing homeowners locked into historically low mortgage rates are either unwilling or financially unable to sell. Beacon Economics expects this ‘lock-in’ effect and increasing cost of a mortgage to weigh on home sales in the near future. Seasonally adjusted existing home sales declined 5.9% and 5.7% in June and July, respectively. On a year-over-year basis, home sales have declined for 23 consecutive months stretching back to August 2021. Most recently, home sales fell 22.6% and 9% year-over-year in June and July, respectively, and are still about 33% below their pre-pandemic peak of February 2020. Meanwhile, median home prices have come down from their pandemic surge, falling 10.6% from their peak in April 2022 to February 2023. However, home prices appear to have bottomed out, returning to growth on a monthly basis in March 2023, and registering year-over-year growth for the first time since September 2022 in July 2023. As of July, prices are about 33% above the pre-pandemic peak, and only 6.4% below the pandemic peak. At the pace of growth seen during the past five months, California home prices will surpass their pandemic peak in the first quarter of 2024. CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL BUILDING FAILING TO KEEP PACE WITH EMPLOYMENT Total Jobs Added Per New Housing Unit Total Jobs Added Total Housing Units Authorized By Building Permits Share of New Housing Units That Are Multifamily 2.4 3,000,033 1,245,359 51.3% 2013-2023* Source: CIRB and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; Analysis by Beacon Economics * Forecast 22 13 CALIFORNIA SINGLE FAMILY HOME SALES 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 Jul-23Jan-23Jul-22Jan-22Jul-21Jan-21Jul-20Jan-20Jul-19Jan-19Jul-18 Source: Redfin; Analysis by Beacon Economics MEDIAN SALE PRICE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN CALIFORNIA $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 Jul-23Jan-23Jul-22Jan-22Jul-21Jan-21Jul-20Jan-20Jul-19Jan-19Jul-18 Source: Redfin; Analysis by Beacon Economics 23 14 MONTHS OF SUPPLY IN CALIFORNIA, SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Jul-23Jan-23Jul-22Jan-22Jul-21Jan-21Jul-20Jan-20Jul-19Jan-19Jul-18 Source: Redfin; Analysis by Beacon Economics While high interest rates are putting downward pressure on home sales, house price depreciation has been limited due to California’s chronic housing shortage. Additionally, consumer balance sheets are relatively strong, and although unemployment has ticked up, it is still relatively low. As such, Beacon Economics does not foresee a collapse in housing, but rather a housing correction. And recent growth in home prices suggest that the housing correction may have largely run its course. Despite the decline in home sales, there is less than two months of housing supply available in California. In other words, if no new units were added, based on current sales activity thus far in 2023, the number of single-family homes for sale would be exhausted in about seven weeks. Typically, a healthy housing market has six months of supply. The long-term problem is, of course, that California does not build enough housing. 24 15 RIVERSIDE COUNTY OUTLOOK Beacon Economics has made downward adjustments to its taxable sales forecast for Riverside County. In fiscal year end (FY) 2023, taxable sales grew 3.2% compared to FY 2022. However, this masks weakness emerging in the second half of the year. In the third and fourth quarters of FY 2023, taxable sales grew 0.6% and declined 2.3% year-over-year, respectively. In fact, FY 2023’s growth is largely attributable to strong gains in the first two quarters of the year, gains which reflected the tail end of the post-pandemic surge in consumer spending. Q1-22 Q2-22 Q3-22 Q4-22 FY 2022 Q1-23 Q2-23 Q3-23 Q4-23 FY 2023 Q1-24 Q2-24 Q3-24 Q4-24 FY 2024 14,257,273 14,637,983 15,277,450 15,586,748 59,759,454 15,643,926 15,423,240 15,365,189 15,227,706 61,660,062 15,241,867 15,145,738 14,993,535 14,933,006 60,314,146 26.5 29.6 19.3 13.2 21.6 9.7 5.4 0.6 -2.3 3.2 -2.6 -1.8 -2.4 -1.9 -2.2 YoY Change (%)Taxable Sales ($000s)Fiscal Year Quarter TAXABLE SALES RIVERSIDE COUNTY Source: California Department of Tax and Fee Administration; Forecast by Beacon Economics25 16 These latest taxable sales figures signal a potential inflection point. A combination of pent-up demand from pandemic lockdowns, surplus savings, and a hot labor market spurred a consumer spending bonanza during the past two years. Since then, however, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in Riverside County has risen from a low of 3.4% in May 2022 to 4.8% in August. Accordingly, Beacon Economics expects a 2.2% annual decline in taxable sales for FY 2024, as higher interest rates further cool the job market and consumers cut back on spending. Looking ahead, taxable sales are expected to remain weak, declining 0.6% in FY 2025 before returning to growth in FY 2026. The projected weakness through FY 2026 does not reflect deteriorating economic conditions and an impending recession, but rather consumer spending and the labor market returning to earth after a pandemic-driven surge. Accordingly, taxable sales will remain well above their pre-pandemic peak and are expected to surpass FY 2023 levels in FY 2026. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TAXABLE SALES (YOY % GROWTH) TAXABLE SALES RIVERSIDE COUNTY 50 20 -20 -10 40 10 0 -30 30 Source: California Department of Tax and Fee Administration; Forecast by Beacon Economics Source: Forecast by Beacon Economics Q1 - 0 0 Q1 - 0 6 Q1 - 1 2 Q1 - 2 1 Q1 - 3 0 Q1 - 3 6 Q1 - 0 3 Q1 - 0 9 Q1 - 1 8 Q1 - 2 7 Q1 - 1 5 Q1 - 2 4 Q1 - 3 3 Q1 - 3 9 Q3 - 0 1 Q3 - 0 7 Q3 - 1 3 Q3 - 2 2 Q3 - 3 1 Q3 - 3 7 Q3 - 0 4 Q3 - 1 0 Q3 - 1 9 Q3 - 2 8 Q3 - 1 6 Q3 - 2 5 Q3 - 3 4 % Q4-2143.05 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 59,952,547 61,778,340 64,397,746 66,672,404 68,259,366 69,649,800 71,403,766 73,424,586 75,737,988 78,390,592 81,110,144 83,512,400 84,987,795 86,488,633 Taxable Sales ($000s)Taxable Sales ($000s)Fiscal Year End Fiscal Year End 26 17 While the outlook for consumption has dampened slightly, the local labor market has exhibited resiliency, outperforming neighboring counties and the state. Since its pre-pandemic peak in February 2020, Riverside County has added more than 25,000 people to its labor force. During the same period, Los Angeles County’s labor force declined by more than 217,000 workers. California’s labor force also shrank by more than 197,000 workers from February 2020 to August 2023. Riverside County has benefited from post-pandemic worker migration trends away from coastal cities in favor of inland communities with lower housing costs. According to recently released population estimates from the California Department of Finance, the population of Riverside County increased 0.8% from 2019 to 2023, while Los Angeles County’s population declined 4%. Population gains increase the taxable base and fuel job growth in locally serving sectors within Riverside County. Riverside County’s logistics sector is also buzzing, with year-over-year growth in logistics property asking rents surging more than 27% in all the county’s major markets in the first half of 2023. In Perris/Moreno Valley and the Inland Empire, rent growth increased about 35% year-over-year through the first two quarters of 2023. The pace of growth in asking rents over the past several quarters is on par with overall growth in the decade following the Great Recession. The rapid gains in rents for Warehouse and Distribution Centers is largely due to the surge in e-commerce spending during the pandemic and after the end of lockdowns. While rent growth is beginning to cool, the ongoing shift to e-commerce spending will continue to buoy the local logistics sector, providing a basis for taxable sales growth beyond the expected short-term dip. ASKING RENTS FOR WAREHOUSE PROPERTIESRIVERSIDE COUNTY MARKETS $16 $10 $2 $4 $14 $8 $6 $0 $12 Source: REIS; Forecast by Beacon Economics Q1 - 0 0 Q1 - 0 6 Q1 - 1 2 Q1 - 2 1 Q1 - 3 0 Q1 - 3 6 Q1 - 0 3 Q1 - 0 9 Q1 - 1 8 Q1 - 2 7 Q1 - 1 5 Q1 - 2 4 Q1 - 3 3 Q1 - 3 9 Q3 - 0 1 Q3 - 0 7 Q3 - 1 3 Q3 - 2 2 Q3 - 3 1 Q3 - 3 7 Q3 - 0 4 Q3 - 1 0 Q3 - 1 9 Q3 - 2 8 Q3 - 1 6 Q3 - 2 5 Q3 - 3 4 REN T P E R S Q . F T CORONA INLAND EMPIRE PALM SPRINGS PERRIS/MORENO VALLEY TEMECULA 27 18 VACANCY RATES FOR WAREHOUSE PROPERTIES 35% 20% 5% 30% 15% 10% 0% 25% Source: REIS; Forecast by Beacon Economics Q1 - 0 0 Q1 - 0 6 Q1 - 1 2 Q1 - 2 1 Q1 - 3 0 Q1 - 3 6 Q1 - 0 3 Q1 - 0 9 Q1 - 1 8 Q1 - 2 7 Q1 - 1 5 Q1 - 2 4 Q1 - 3 3 Q1 - 3 9 Q3 - 0 1 Q3 - 0 7 Q3 - 1 3 Q3 - 2 2 Q3 - 3 1 Q3 - 3 7 Q3 - 0 4 Q3 - 1 0 Q3 - 1 9 Q3 - 2 8 Q3 - 1 6 Q3 - 2 5 Q3 - 3 4 CORONA INLAND EMPIRE PALM SPRINGS PERRIS/MORENO VALLEY TEMECULA 28 19 ONE-CENT SALES TAX SCENARIO FORECAST The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is putting together a ballot measure to propose a one-cent sales tax to fund transportation initiatives. RCTC has commissioned Beacon Economics to produce a forecast projecting revenues in this scenario. The proposed one-cent increase would go into effect in April 2025 (i.e., the fourth quarter of FY 2025), and would span a 30-year planning horizon through FY 2055. In forecasting the revenue that would be generated from the proposed one-cent sales tax, the existing Measure A sales tax must be considered. Measure A is a half-cent sales tax that was originally passed in 1988 for improvements to roadways, commuter rail lines, public transit, and other transportation projects. In 2002, Measure A was extended by voters through 2039. Currently, it is set to expire in the third quarter of FY 2039. Because the proposed one-cent sales tax would overlap the Measure A tax through the third quarter of FY 2039, the impact on consumption would essentially be that of a one-cent tax increase. The most straightforward approach to projecting the one-cent sales tax scenario is to take 1% of taxable sales in each quarter or fiscal year of the taxable sales forecast. However, this approach would risk overestimating revenue, because historical Measure A tax revenue is less than 0.5% of taxable sales in Riverside County. The chart below shows the historical Measure A revenues as a ratio of historical taxable sales in Riverside County. In other words, the chart shows the effective or realized rate. From FY 1999 through FY 2014, the Measure A historical tax rate hovered around 0.5%. However, beginning around FY 2016, the rate fell sharply. Despite temporarily recovering to around 0.5% in 2019 and again in 2021, the realized rate has continued to fall during the past two years and now stands at 0.47% as of FY 2023. BACKGROUND METHODOLOGY MEASURE A RATE HISTORICAL TAX RATEFISCAL YEAR 0.54 0.48 0.52 0.46 0.44 0.50 Source: Riverside County Transportation Commission; Analysis by Beacon Economics 199 9 200 3 200 7 201 3 201 9 202 3 200 1 200 5 201 1 201 7 200 9 201 5 202 1 200 0 200 4 200 8 201 4 202 0 200 2 200 6 201 2 201 8 201 0 201 6 202 2 % FY 20230.466 29 20 FY 20230.466 The downward drift is likely due to the basis for Measure A, which is a ‘transactions and use’ or ‘destination-based’ tax. That is, Riverside County collects Measure A sales tax only if the destination of purchased goods reside within Riverside County. For example, if a City of Corona resident makes an in-person purchase at a local retailer, then Riverside County collects the Measure A tax. Likewise, if that same person makes an online purchase from a retailer outside of Riverside County, then the county collects the Measure A sales tax since the package was delivered to a Riverside County resident. However, Riverside County does not collect Measure A sales tax from county residents who make purchases in-store at retailers outside county lines. The end of pandemic lockdowns likely spurred a rash of spending by county residents outside the county as consumers were able to travel freely. More importantly, Riverside County is one of the hottest warehouse and logistics markets in the United States. As such, online purchases largely originate in Riverside County, but have destinations outside the county. From 2002 to 2022, online sales as a percentage of total retail sales increased from 1.4% to 14.7%, and this figure is expected to continue rising over the next several decades. Given Riverside County’s prominence as a warehouse and distribution hub, e-commerce has and will continue to influence Measure A sales tax revenues. Accordingly, Beacon Economics incorporated the effect of increasing online sales into our projection of the proposed one-cent sales tax scenario. The one-cent sales tax scenario is a new tax when it comes to the impact on consumption. To capture this impact, Beacon Economics utilized findings from Baker et al. (2018), which found that households respond to higher sales tax in both the short- and long-run. In the short-run, consumer spending increases in the weeks leading up to the tax increase as households stock up on durable goods, then falls in the weeks after the tax goes into effect before eventually returning to normal levels (Baker et al. 2018). The study’s analysis found that a 1% increase in sales tax led to a 2% increase in spending leading up to the increase, followed by a 2% decrease in the weeks immediately after that tax goes into effect. Beacon Economics incorporated these elasticities into the one-cent sales tax scenario. Long-run responses are driven by shifts in spending toward online purchases and lower tax jurisdictions (Baker et al. 2018). These long-run responses are captured in our use of the percentage of online sales to total retail sales to model the proposed one-cent sales tax scenario. The annual results of the proposed one-cent sales tax scenario are listed in the table below. Beacon Economics estimates that the total nominal revenue generated from the one-cent sales tax is about $25 billion over the 30-year period April 2025 to April 2055. Because the tax would go into effect in the fourth quarter of FY 2025, the first fiscal year would include only one quarter of revenue. Similarly, the planning horizon concludes in the third quarter of 2055 so the last fiscal year would include only three quarters of revenue. In summary, the primary components of the one-cent sales tax forecast are: 1. Taxable sales forecast –Sales tax revenue ultimately comes from the pool of taxable sales, which in turn is driven by local and national drivers, such as employment and consumer spending. 2. E-commerce – The long-run trend of an increasing percentage of online sales to total retail sales. 3. Tax elasticities – The short-run impact of a sales tax increase on consumer spending. RESULTS 30 21 ONE-CENT SALES TAX SCENARIO FORECAST ($M) Source: Forecast by Beacon Economics 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 Total 146.3 591.2 615.7 636.7 652.6 666.3 682.8 701.3 722.8 746.1 771.8 796.1 810.3 823.7 836.8 851.2 864.4 878.5 891.8 903.2 914.9 926.3 938.3 950.0 961.3 971.8 980.8 989.8 998.6 1,007.5 761.1 24,990 RevenueFiscal Year End 31 www.beaconecon.com 32 2024 DRAFT TRP ECONOMIC & FISCAL IMPACTS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION November 2023 ATTACHMENT 2 33 About Beacon Economics Founded in 2007, Beacon Economics, an LLC and certified Small Business Enterprise with the State of California, is an independent research and consulting firm dedicated to delivering accurate, insightful, and objectively based economic analysis. Employing unique proprietary models, vast databases, and sophisticated data processing, the company’s specialized practice areas include sustainable growth and development, real estate market analysis, economic forecasting, industry analysis, economic policy analysis, and economic impact studies. Beacon Economics equips its clients with the data and analysis they need to understand the significance of on-the-ground realities and to make informed business and policy decisions. Learn more at www.BeaconEcon.com For further information about this report, or to learn more about Beacon Economics please contact: Beacon Economics LLC shall remain the exclusive owner of any Proprietary Information and all patent, copyright, trade secret, trademark, domain name and other intellectual property contained herein. Project Team Stafford Nichols, MBA, MSc, PhD. Candidate Maastricht University Research Manager Christopher Thornberg, PhD Founding Partner (Project Advisor) Johnathan Cahill, MSc Senior Research Associate Sherif Hanna Managing Partner Sherif@BeaconEcon.com Victoria Pike Bond Director of Marketing and Communications Victoria@BeaconEcon.com 34 35 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Projected Transportation Spending Economic and Fiscal Impact of Draft TRP Spending Methodology Appendix 5 8 11 14 17 36 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Riverside County has grown rapidly in the last two decades, cementing itself as a vibrant destination and developing into an economically vital part of California1. Growth in industrial real estate and warehousing have made the county a national logistics powerhouse, while its diverse communities also offer an attractive place to start a family. To support past and future growth, it is crucial for the county to have a robust transportation system. Increased traffic congestion can negatively affect the county’s residents and businesses by slowing commute times, increasing pollution, raising costs to businesses, and resulting in a lower quality of life for residents. To address this, Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is reviewing plans for major transport and highway infrastructure projects in the county through its Draft Traffic Relief Plan (TRP). These types of large capital-intensive infrastructure projects generate local and regional economic benefits through increases in demand while also improving inter- and intra-county travel. In this study, Beacon Economics performed an economic impact analysis to estimate and quantify the economic benefits to Riverside County as a result of 2024 Draft TRP project spending. Project spending could be funded through a 1-cent increase in county sales tax starting in fiscal year 2025. The total economic impacts consist of one-time increases in economic output, jobs supported, and labor income in Riverside County associated with 2024 Draft TRP project spending. All projects are located in the county, and the impacts are estimated for the county. 1 Riverside’s population has grown an impressive 58.9% from 2000 - 2022 and 12.4% from 2010 - 2022. U.S. Census Bureau, Resident Population in Riverside County, CA https://www.census.gov/.37 6 KEY ECONOMIC TERMS TERM DEFINITION Direct Effect Indirect Effect Induced Effect Secondary Effect Total Impact Employment Labor Income Output The output of goods or services resulting from immediate spending. These expenditures occur in a variety of categories, including construction equipment, intermediate inputs like lumber or concrete, labor, engineering and design services, and transportation. The additional output of goods or services generated by supply chain interactions. For example, when a construction worker spends money on groceries, that grocery store will go to a wholesaler and purchase additional goods, thereby generating an indirect impact. The additional output of goods or services generated by households spending their income. Sum of indirect and induced effects. The sum of the direct, indirect, and induced effects. The number of jobs supported through spending. The value of all forms of employment income paid for all types of impacts, including health benefits, bonuses, etc. The total value of production generated through project spending, including the value of intermediate inputs: the goods and services used in the production of equipment, raw materials, energy, and other production inputs. 38 7 Increasing county sales tax by 1 cent is forecasted to generate an approximately an additional $25 billion in revenues for Riverside County from fiscal year 2025 through fiscal year 2055, for a 30 year planning horizon. This additional revenue would then support $20.4 billion in 2024 Draft TRP spending through design, engineering, and construction spending of TRP projects in Riverside County2. The $20.4 billion in TRP spending is estimated to: • Generate a one-time, additional $30.9 billion in economic output in Riverside County over the 30-year investment lifecycle. Of that amount, $20.4 billion represents direct effects and nearly $10.5 billion represents secondary effects. • Support more than 168,600 jobs3 within Riverside County over the 30-year investment life cycle. Of that amount, 109,200 are direct jobs supported and 59,400 are secondary jobs supported. • Pay an approximate additional $10.9 billion of labor income in Riverside County over the 30-year investment life cycle. Of that amount, $7.7 billion represents direct effects and $3.2 billion represents secondary effects. • Generate a total of over $3.2 billion in fiscal impacts at the federal, state, and local levels. Of that amount, $826 million is additional fiscal revenue generated at the state and local levels, and $2.4 billion is additional fiscal revenue generated at the federal level. Of that total, state and local induced and indirect tax revenues are estimated to be $1.1 billion, and federal tax revenues are estimated to be $637 million. 2 Right-of-way and land purchases are generally excluded from economic impact analysis, resulting in the difference between revenue raised and direct design, engineering, and construction spending. 3 Jobs supported is an industry-specific mixture of full-time, part-time and seasonal employment, which is backed by project expenditures. This includes direct, induced, and indirect jobs supported. This figure represents total worker years. KEY FINDINGS 39 8 PROJECTED TRANSPORTATION SPENDING Representative 2024 Draft TRP Project Sample To estimate economic impacts, Beacon Economics analyzed data from 12 projects provided by RCTC that make up a representative sample of the 2024 Draft TRP. Sample projects include highways, commuter rail lines, regional connectors, active transportation initiatives, and other street safety and roadway improvements. Critically, each of the sample projects will be built in Riverside County and are in various stages of design, planning, and construction. In addition to sample projects, RCTC provided Beacon Economics with the anticipated spending allocation by project category in the 2024 Draft TRP (see Table 1). Spending is broken down into construction, environmental and design, construction management, and right of way (see Table 2). Total sample project spending analyzed was $4.7 billion. SPENDING ESTIMATES TABLE 1: 2024 DRAFT TRP PROJECT ALLOCATION DRAFT TRP PROJECT CATEGORY SPENDING ALLOCATION Environmental Mitigation Highways Public Transportation Regional Connections Safe Streets and Roads Active Transportation Commuter Assistance 25% 25% 25% 12% 8% 3% 2% Source: 2024 Draft Traffic Relief Plan (Riverside County Transportation Commission); Analysis by Beacon Economics https://www.rctc.org/traffic-relief-plan/40 9 TABLE 2: SAMPLE PROJECTS BY CATEGORY PROJECT CATEGORY CONSTRUCTION ($, MIL)CONSTRUCTION MGMT ($, MIL) RIGHT OF WAY ($, MIL)TOTAL ($, MIL)NET4 ($, MIL)ENVIRONMENTAL & DESIGN ($, MIL) I-10 Highland Springs Avenue Interchange I-15 French Valley (Phase 3) 3rd St. Grade Separation Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor I-15 Smart Freeway Pilot Project I-215 Harley Knox Boulevard Interchange SR-79 Realignment (all three segments) I-15 Express Lanes - Southern Extension Mid-County Parkway 3 (MCP 3) Coachella Valley (CV) Link SR-91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project San Jacinto Branch Line Extension Highways Highways Highways Highways Highways Regional Connections Safe Streets and Roads Regional Connections Public Transit Public Transit Active Transportation Safe Streets and Roads $29.3 $51.3 $140.0 $498.6 $1,151.3 $43.0 $155.7 $881.5 $89.0 $15.9 $98.7 $480.0 $13.9 $15.4 $42.0 $82.4 $109.3 $4.0 $14.7 $139.9 $26.7 $7.0 $26.0 $144.0 $2.9 $5.1 $14.0 $67.0 $227.4 $4.0 $23.4 $56.0 $8.9 $5.7 $22.0 $48.0 $1.7 $7.7 $21.0 $3.0 $151.8 $23.0 $2.4 $123.3 $13.4 $0.0 $11.1 $72.0 $47.8 $79.4 $217.0 $651.0 $1,639.8 $74.0 $196.1 $1,200.6 $138.0 $28.7 $157.8 $744.0 $46.1 $71.8 $196.0 $648.0 $1,488.0 $51.0 $193.8 $1,077.4 $124.6 $28.7 $146.7 $696.0 Source:RCTC; Analysis by Beacon Economics Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding 4 As noted above, land purchases and right of way are not generally included in the economic impact analysis and are therefore excluded. 41 10 5 See Measure A Revenue forecast report. 6 To provide a reasonable and conservative estimate, Beacon Economics assumed 50% of funds available for environmental mitigation will go toward land purchases. Forecasted Revenue Available Beacon Economics conducted a detailed revenue forecast of a 1-cent sales tax in the county that would extend from 2025 through 20555, for a 30 year planning horizon. An estimated $25 billion in revenue will be available over the life of the sales tax. Total Spending Analyzed Using sample projects, the 2024 Draft TRP spending allocation, and forecasted revenues available, Beacon Economics determined a total of $20.4 billion in net spending will be available for design, planning and construction of the Draft TRP project (see Table 3). Environmental mitigation spending and commuter assistance spending are important parts of the 2024 Draft TRP but did not have sample projects available. To estimate the spending of these two categories, their Draft TRP allocations were applied to the total estimated revenue available. Next, Beacon Economics reduced the resulting environmental mitigation spending number to account for potential land purchases in Riverside County used for conservation6. TABLE 3: ESTIMATED TOTAL 2024 DRAFT TRP SPENDING REVENUE SCENARIO EST. SPENDING($, BIL)CONSTRUCTION ($, BIL)RIGHT OF WAY ($, BIL)TOTAL ($, BIL)NET ($, BIL)ENVIRONMENTAL & DESIGN ($, BIL) 1 Cent Sales Tax $25.0 $7.0 $25.0$13.3 $4.6 $20.4 Source: Riverside County Transportation Commission; Analysis by Beacon Economics Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding 42 11 ECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACT OF 2024 DRAFT TRP SPENDING This section of the report provides quantitative estimates of the economic and fiscal impacts that construction of 2024 Draft TRP projects will likely have in the Riverside County. Revenues will be available starting in 2025. Beacon Economics estimates project expenditures occurring within the county — including design and engineering, environmental reporting, general construction expenditures such as excavation and site preparation, and labor costs, etc. — will total $20.4 billion. Total expenditures are expected to stimulate the county’s economy as spending ripples through the wider region. Construction workers will use their earnings to purchase goods and services in the county, and sub-contractors and other businesses will purchase or manufacture new goods and equipment to meet higher demand or replenish inventories — and so on. In total, 2024 Draft TRP project spending is estimated to generate a one-time increase of over $30.9 billion in additional economic output, support 168,000 jobs7, and pay $10.9 billion in labor income in Riverside County. • Of the $30.9 billion in economic output in Riverside County, $20.4 billion represents direct effects, and $10.5 billion represents secondary effects of business-to-business and worker spending. • Of the 168,600 jobs supported within Riverside County, 109,200 represent direct jobs backed by project spending and 59,400 are jobs supported by secondary business-to-business and worker spending. • Of the $10.9 billion in labor income paid in Riverside County, $7.6 billion represents direct labor income paid by project spending, and $3.3 billion represents labor income paid as a result of secondary business-to-business and worker spending. ECONOMIC IMPACT TABLE 4: ESTIMATED ECONOMIC IMPACT IMPACT TYPE JOBS SUPPORTED (000S)*LABOR INCOME ($, BIL)ECONOMIC OUTPUT ($, BIL) Direct Indirect Induced Total 109.2 28.2 31.2 168,600 $20.4 $5.7 $4.8 $30.9 Billion $7.7 $1.7 $1.5 $10.9 Billion Source: Beacon Economics Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding 7 Note: this figure represents total worker years over the project investment life cycle. 43 12 It is important to note that the economic impacts listed above are one-time effects and temporary in nature8. However, given that TRP spending will occur over several decades, it is reasonable to assume some of this jobs-supported figure represents permanent positions in the county. Furthermore, steady spending over the medium to long-term through the 2024 Draft TRP will functionally act as a permanent increase in demand, enabling local firms to grow to meet that demand. Secondary Impacts Unsurprisingly, 2024 Draft TRP direct project spending will support a wide variety of local industries in the county. Sectors such as wholesale and retail trade (Costco, Target, Ralphs, etc.), real estate (commercial, residential, industrial), and logistics will benefit enormously from secondary business-to-business and worker spending (see Chart 1). CHART 1: TOP-10 SECTORS BY SECONDARY OUTPUT (RIVERSIDE COUNTY) 8 Estimating structural changes in demand or sector composition is generally beyond the scope of input-output analysis. Wholesale & Retail Trade Real Estate Logistics Equipment Rental & Leasing Food & Beverage Education/Healthcare Employment Services Const (non-res maintenance and repair) Government Prof Sci and Tech 0 400 Economic Output ($ mm) 800 1,200 Source: Beacon Economics Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding 44 13 Project spending is estimated to generate significant federal, state, and local tax revenue through both direct spending and secondary spending. Payroll taxes from direct and secondary worker spending would be collected at the federal and state levels, while other taxes such as sales tax, special tax district levies (Mello-Roos districts), and property taxes would be collected at the state and local levels. In total, an estimated $3.2 billion in tax revenue will be raised, of which $2.4 billion would be federal tax revenue and $826.2 million would be state and local tax revenue. FISCAL IMPACT TABLE 5: ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT TAX TYPE STATE & LOCAL($, MIL)FEDERAL($, MIL)TOTAL($, MIL) Sales Tax Property Tax Income Tax Social Insurance Tax Corporate Profits Tax Other Total $113.9 $103.1 $428.4 $53.1 $95.3 $32.4 $826.2 Million $113.9 $103.1 $1,516.9 $1,279.0 $244.7 $(17.4) $3.24 billion $0.00 $0.00 $1,088.5 $1,225.9 $149.4 $(49.8) $2.414 billion Source: Beacon Economics Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding 45 14 METHODOLOGY DIRECT+INDIRECT+INDUCED=TOTAL IMPACT To estimate the total economic and fiscal impact of the 2024 Draft TRP project spending on Riverside County, Beacon Economics utilized data on the set of Draft TRP projects, Draft TRP spending allocations, prevailing wage estimates, and the 1-cent sales tax revenue forecast. With this expenditure data, Beacon Economics then used IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning), a state-of-the-art input-output modeling system that estimates how certain expenditures correlate and affect other industries in the economy to generate the total economic and fiscal impacts. IMPLAN expands on the traditional I-O approach to include transactions among industries and institutions, and among institutions themselves, thereby capturing all monetary market transactions in each period. This specific report uses the IMPLAN web model. For more information on the IMPLAN modeling process, visit IMPLAN.com. Impact studies assume that any increase or change in spending has a direct effect, indirect effect, and induced effect. • Direct effects are the additional output of goods or services resulting from immediate spending. For example, if an electrician is hired by a general contractor to install wiring at a new Coachella Valley Rail station, the upfront cost of employing the electrician’s services is the direct effect, which helps keep the electrician in business and enables the service provider to work for other clients. • Indirect effects are the additional output of goods or services generated by business-to-business interaction with suppliers of direct purchases, as well as the suppliers of the suppliers. For example, employing an electrician supports businesses down the electrician’s supply chain, such as the power tool industry and suppliers of raw materials needed to build power tools. Various 2024 Draft TRP projects will support these types of companies indirectly, allowing them to support other businesses that sell finished products to consumers. • Induced effects are the additional output of goods and/or services resulting from increased spending by individuals as household incomes rise. As businesses increase production to meet new demand from both direct and indirect effects, their payroll expenditures grow through increased hiring or increased salaries. For example, higher revenues received by the electrician’s business may lead to higher or larger overall payroll, or greater total employee compensation. As household incomes rise, people spend more on goods and services, such as groceries, housing, recreation, and personal shopping, which then fuels consumer spending and economic growth. The indirect and induced effects are also known as “ripple” or “multiplier” effects, as initial direct expenditures generate sequential rounds of spending in the economy. The sum of the direct, indirect, and induced effects is the total impact. INPUT-OUTPUT MODELING 46 15 This study uses a one-phase approach to estimate economic impacts of the project, meaning all estimated 2024 Draft TRP spending is analyzed at once. We then use four common economic indicators to analyze the impact of spending flows as they ripple through the economy: economic output, employment, labor income, and state and local tax revenues: • Economic output refers to the total value of production generated by the project’s construction and subsequent operations, including the value of intermediate inputs (goods and services used in production of equipment, raw materials, energy, and other production inputs). • Employment represents the number of part-time, full-time, and temporary jobs supported by the project’s construction and operations. Jobs “supported” include both jobs generated and existing jobs that have been expanded in scope, which helps keep workers more securely employed. This is particularly important when considering the construction sector, as many of these workers are project-based and new construction keeps them employed. For example, when the general contractor hires a carpenter, it is unlikely the project will be that carpenter’s first client, but instead one of many clients the carpenter has done business with. The carpenter, therefore, is not a new job generated. Instead, the project supports the carpenter by increasing industry demand, which helps keep the carpenter employed. • Labor income represents the value of all employment income paid, including fringe benefits such as health care, retirement (pensions), etc. • Federal, state, and local tax revenue represents the estimated amount of tax revenue generated by Riverside County Transportation Commission’s proposed project expenditures. This study uses a Multi-Regional Input-Output (MRIO) modeling approach. The MRIO analysis builds on the standard Input- Output (I-O) analysis by expanding the effects of expenditures beyond a single region to capture changes in demand in other regions that would otherwise be “leaked” out of the model. In a MRIO analysis, the direct effect in one region triggers indirect and induced effects in others. The results of the analysis reveal the effects of a change in one or several economic activities on an entire economy, as well as the economic interdependence of regions. Accordingly, a MRIO analysis is the most appropriate technique to analyze the impacts of 2024 Draft TRP project spending given Riverside County’s location within the larger Los Angeles-Long Beach-Orange County-Inland Empire economic region. To set up the analysis, the following two geographic regions were selected and nested together: Riverside County and the rest of California (excluding Riverside County). Although the rest-of-California region was included in the model, thereby allowing Beacon Economics to capture cross-border effects, only results for Riverside County are reported. 47 16 Input-Output: A type of applied economic analysis that tracks the interdependence among various producing and consuming industries in an economy. It measures the relationship between a given set of demands for final goods and services, as well as the inputs required to satisfy those demands. Industries: The different IMPLAN industry codes are based on definitions by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). There is a crosswalk available between North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and IMPLAN industries. Direct: Initial effects to a local industry or industries due to the activity or policy being analyzed. Indirect: Effects stemming from business-to-business purchases in the supply chain taking place in the region. Induced: Effects in the region stemming from household spending of income after removal of taxes, savings, and commuters. Output: The value of industry production (includes intermediate inputs). Employment: An industry-specific mixture of full-time, part-time, and seasonal employment. This is an annual average that accounts for seasonality and follows the same definition used by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and the BEA. Labor income: All forms of employment income, including employee compensation (wages and benefits) and proprietor income. Employee compensation: Total payroll cost of the employee, including wages and salaries, all benefits (health care, retirement, etc.), and payroll taxes. Proprietor income: The current-production income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and tax-exempt cooperatives. This excludes dividends, monetary interest received by non-financial business, and rental income received by persons not primarily engaged in the real estate business. Value added: The difference between an industry or establishment’s total output and the cost of its intermediate inputs. It is a measure of the contribution to Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Intermediate inputs: Purchases of non-durable goods and services, such as energy, materials, and purchased services used to produce other goods and services rather than for final consumption. Taxes on production and imports, net of subsidies (TOPI): Includes sales and excise taxes, customs duties, property taxes, motor vehicle licenses, severance taxes, other taxes, and special assessments. Other property income (OPI): Gross operating surplus minus proprietor income. This includes consumption of fixed capital (CFC), corporate profits, and business current transfer payments (net). Multipliers: Multipliers are a measure of an industry’s connection to the wider local economy by way of input purchases, payments of wages and taxes, and other transactions. It is a measure of total effects per direct effect within a region. Multi-Regional Input-Output analysis (MRIO): MRIO analyses utilize interregional commodity trade and commuting flows to quantify the demand changes across regions stemming from a change in production and/or income in another region. It measures the economic interdependence of regions. Leakages: Economic activity associated with the modeled event(s) that does not generate additional effects in the defined region. GLOSSARY 48 17 APPENDIX ECONOMIC & FISCAL IMPACT BY PROJECT TYPE TABLE 6: ECONOMIC IMPACT BY PROJECT TYPE TABLE 7: FISCAL IMPACT BY PROJECT TYPE 2024 DRAFT TRP CATEGORY 2024 DRAFT TRP CATEGORY NET SPENDING ($, BIL) STATE & LOCAL($, MIL) EMPLOYMENT (000S) FEDERAL($, MIL) LABOR INCOME ($, BIL) TOTAL($, MIL) OUTPUT ($, BIL) Commuter Assistance Active Transportation Safe Streets and Roads Regional Connections Environmental Mitigation Highways Public Transit Total Commuter Assistance Active Transportation Safe Streets and Roads Regional Connections Environmental Mitigation9 Highways Public Transit Total $0.5 $0.7 $1.8 $2.8 $3.1 $5.7 $5.7 $20.4 Million $-50.1 $46.8 $125.2 $190.3 $-312.9 $392.6 $434.2 $826 $0.30 $0.30 $1.10 $1.50 $1.60 $2.90 $3.20 $10.9 Billion $40.1 $115.5 $316.9 $483.1 $250.7 $978.6 $1,055.2 $3,240 $0.8 $1.0 $2.7 $4.0 $5.2 $8.4 $8.8 $30.9 Billion 3.2 5.5 17.7 23.4 20.2 46.9 51.7 168,600 $90.2 $68.6 $191.7 $292.8 $563.6 $586.0 $621.0 $2,414 Source: Beacon Economics Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding Source: Beacon Economics Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding 9 Note: Negative fiscal impact values represent subsidies, tax abatements, and or other programs that result in money going back to the taxpayer. 49 18 TABLE 8: SAMPLE PROJECT ECONOMIC IMPACTS PROJECT CATEGORY EST. SPEND($, MIL)LABORINCOME($, MIL) ECONOMICOUTPUT($, MIL) JOBSSUPPORTED I-10 Highland Springs Avenue Interchange I-15 French Valley (Phase 3) 3rd St. Grade Separation Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor I-15 Smart Freeway Pilot Project I-215 Harley Knox Boulevard Interchange SR-79 Realignment (all three segments) I-15 Express Lanes - Southern Extension Mid-County Parkway 3 (MCP 3) Coachella Valley (CV) Link SR-91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project San Jacinto Branch Line Extension Highways Highways Highways Highways Highways Regional Connections Safe Streets and Roads Regional Connections Public Transportation Public Transportation Active Transportation Safe Streets and Roads $46.1 $71.8 $196.0 $648.0 $1,488.0 $51.0 $193.8 $1,077.4 $124.6 $28.7 $146.7 $672.0 339 574 1,568 5,478 12,632 462 1,693 10,058 997 192 1,123 5,724 $21.0 $36.0 $98.0 $342.0 $789.0 $29.0 $106.0 $618.0 $62.0 $12.0 $70.0 $351.0 $67.0 $104.0 $285.0 $945.0 $2,171.0 $75.0 $283.0 $1,648.0 $181.0 $42.0 $213.0 $1,029.0 Source: Beacon Economics Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding 50 www.beaconecon.com 51 © 2023 All rights reserved. Beacon Economics LLC. Riverside County Transporta�on Commission Socio-Economic Beneﬁt Analysis January 2024 ATTACHMENT 3 52 2 53 3 Table of Contents Table of Contents ...........................................................................................................................................3 Execu�ve Summary ........................................................................................................................................4 Project Descrip�on ........................................................................................................................................5 Measures of Beneﬁts .....................................................................................................................................6 Time Savings ...........................................................................................................................................................7 Safety Improvements ..............................................................................................................................................8 Emissions Reduc�on ...............................................................................................................................................9 Time Savings Analysis................................................................................................................................... 10 Safety Improvement Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 12 Emissions Reduc�on Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 14 Non-quan�ﬁed Beneﬁts ............................................................................................................................... 16 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 18 About Beacon Economics ............................................................................................................................. 18 54 4 Executive Summary The goal of this report is to es�mate and aggregate the long-term socio-economic beneﬁts of twelve proposed transporta�on projects by the Riverside County Transporta�on Commission. These are beneﬁts stemming from actual usage of the transporta�on projects rather than the eﬀect of spending on construc�on of projects, and the beneﬁts are borne by both individual users of the transporta�on system and the community as a whole. It is standard to evaluate the sum of these socio-economic beneﬁts for 30 years, even if the projects remain useful for �me beyond that. These twelve projects were evaluated analy�cally for their �me saving, safety improvement, and emissions reduc�ons beneﬁts. Most of the economic beneﬁts come from improved travel �mes – approximately 74% of the total sum value of beneﬁts. Improvement in safety account for another 23%, and emissions reduc�ons provide about 3% of the total monetary equivalent of beneﬁts. 30-Year Beneﬁt Type Lower Bound ($Mil) Es�mate ($Mil) Upper Bound ($Mil) Time Savings 4,408.4 7,142.2 9,350.1 Safety Improvements 1,528.4 2,216.0 2,975.9 Emissions Reduc�on 279.1 297.1 330.3 Total 6,216.0 9,655.4 12,656.2 Overall, the es�mated beneﬁt from the 12 projects is approximately $9.7 billion dollars over 30 years, with a range of es�mates of approximately ±$3 billion. With an associated cost of about $5.2 billion dollars, the midpoint es�mate represents a return of $1.87 for every dollar spent – over thirty years, this represents a 2.11% annualized rate of return on investment. Note these are long-term economic beneﬁts derived uniquely from these speciﬁc projects, without the direct impacts of spending on construc�on. Furthermore, there are also unquan�ﬁable beneﬁts stemming from these projects, which mean the socio-economic impact of these projects is even greater. These unquan�ﬁable beneﬁts stem from either induced changes – for example, ﬁrms reloca�ng to the area because of improved transporta�on connec�vity – or indirect eﬀects, such as improved health for ac�ve transporta�on users or greater eﬃciency for logis�cs industry ﬁrms. 55 5 Project Description The purpose of this report is to quan�fy the beneﬁts of a set of Riverside County Transporta�on Commission projects. These socio-economic beneﬁts are derived from the actual usage of these projects – the economic value they bring to the community through the eﬀects they have on commuters and other travelers – rather than the economic eﬀect of construc�on spending. Project Cost ($Mil) Scope I-10 Highland Springs Interchange $47.8 Reconﬁgure & add lanes to ramps I-215 Harley Knox Interchange $79.4 Add lanes to ramps I-15 French Valley Phase 3 $217.0 Add major interchange with French Valley Parkway I-15 Express Lanes South Ext. $651.0 Extend express lanes 14.5 miles to Lake Elsinore SR-79 Realignment $1,639.8 Construct new freeway in Hemet-San Jacinto area 3rd St Grade Separa�on $74.0 Construct new underpass at railroad crossing in Riverside Mid-County Parkway 3 $196.1 Add lanes, bridge, other improvements to MCP CV-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corr. $1,200.6 Add tracks, sta�ons, crossings up to Coachella Valley Coachella Valley Link $138.0 Upgrade ac�ve transporta�on route in Coachella Valley I-15 Smart Freeway Pilot $28.7 Sensor and ramp monitoring system in Temecula Valley SR-91 Eastbound Corridor Ops. $157.8 Add lanes to SR-91 near Orange County line San Jacinto Branch Line Ext. $744.0 Upgrade rail and extend service to San Jacinto Valley As shown above, the proposed projects demonstrate a diversity of transporta�on types, project scopes, and geographic areas, as well as a wide range for the cost of each project. This report helps create an es�mate of the social and economic beneﬁt each project would generate, which can be compared with the rest of the projects despite their diﬀerences in scope and nature of beneﬁts. The advantage of such an analysis is that it posits a dollar value for quan�ﬁable beneﬁts stemming from these projects, which can be compared to the project’s own cost and to the beneﬁts resul�ng from other projects. 56 6 While understanding the economic impacts of the direct eﬀects of spending is rela�vely straigh�orward, mone�zing the long-term impacts resul�ng from transporta�on projects requires more abstract thinking and the assignment of monetary value to non-liquid, non-transac�onal beneﬁts. Nevertheless, many of the most impac�ul eﬀects of these types of projects – improved traﬃc ﬂow, safer travel, and reduc�ons in greenhouse gas emissions – are quan�ﬁable and commonly mone�zed. To be clear, these valua�ons do not imply an exchange of money; rather, they represent dispersed, economy-wide gains. For example, a worker’s commute could be reduced by 10 minutes a day, thereby freeing 50 hours a year for produc�ve work or leisure �me rather than economically unproduc�ve travel �me. Similarly, reduc�ons in risk of injury or fatality on roads and other methods of transporta�on can be assigned a monetary value resul�ng from avoiding lost produc�ve �me and decreases in quality of life. Finally, reduc�ons in emissions derive their economic value from avoiding illness caused by air pollu�on and forgoing the socio-economic cost of contending with carbon emissions and adap�ng to climate change. Measures of Benefits The long-term impacts of transporta�on projects can be considered the economic and social impacts resul�ng from the actual project rather than from the spending associated with construc�on and maintenance. These beneﬁts aggregate over the whole community, although there is not a direct transfer of money to users. Rather, these beneﬁts are not tangible – instead being reﬂec�ve of beneﬁts such as �me savings and safety improvements – but nonetheless can be assigned a monetary value. It is this monetary value that can then be compared to other projects, even though projects, and their beneﬁts, may appear radically diﬀerent. For many grant applica�ons, the federal Department of Transporta�on recommends aggrega�ng these beneﬁts over a 30-year period, even if the useful life, and therefore beneﬁts derived, of these projects is longer than thirty years. Furthermore, to account for �me preferences – wherein money today is preferred over an equivalent amount in the future – a 3% annual �me discoun�ng of beneﬁts for future years. As transporta�on projects can vary signiﬁcantly in their nature and impact, the measures used to quan�fy their beneﬁts ought to be adaptable. Most commonly, beneﬁts of transporta�on projects are measured by their impact on travel �me savings, improvements in travel safety, and reduc�ons in emissions caused by vehicles. 57 7 Time Savings The largest source of socio-economic beneﬁts generated by transporta�on projects such as highway expansion and improvement are those resul�ng from reduc�ons in travel �me, as nominally these savings allow for other, valuable ac�vi�es such as produc�ve work and leisure. The federal Department of Transporta�on (USDoT) uses a standard of 50% of median household hourly earnings (annual household earnings divided by 2,080) as the value of travel �me reduc�ons, which for Riverside County is 50% of $41.711 ($20.85). Intercity travel, on high-speed rail and air, is typically reﬂec�ve of more valuable �me, whether for work or leisure, and so is recommended to be set at 95% of median hourly earnings. While there are several methods of calcula�ng travel �me, for the purposes of this study, planning �me was u�lized as a standard throughout the analyses. Planning �me refers to the �me required to be “set aside” for 95% of all trips to arrive on �me. Alterna�vely, planning �me can be conceived as the length of trip for the 95th percen�le of travel �mes. Several key assump�ons guide the �me savings analysis of projects. First, that returns to �me savings are constant- rela�ve, meaning that the �me savings-per-driver are the same for a driver in the ﬁrst year of the project as they are in the 30th year, even if the travel �mes are diﬀerent. Ergo, the assump�on eﬀec�vely means the �me savings is measured as the diﬀerence in travel �me between the build scenario and the no-build counterfactual, and that this diﬀerence is constant over the 30-year window of analysis. This mainly accounts for the induced demand eﬀect, in which improved travel �mes lead to an increase in use, thereby leading to a reduc�on in �me savings; under this assump�on, behavior doesn’t change because of �me improvements. This assump�on is believed to lead to a slight overes�mate of derived beneﬁts. Second, popula�on growth is deemed independent of construc�on, which means that there is no assumed change in u�liza�on over �me. This leads to an underes�ma�on of poten�al beneﬁts because beneﬁts are aggregated over the sum of all users of a project. Third, each vehicle is assumed to only carry one worker – no carpooling is modeled. As at least some people will par�cipate in carpooling, the aggregate �me savings is underes�mated. Rather, it is es�mated in terms of how many vehicle-hours are saved, rather than person-hours – however, this is balanced slightly by the recommenda�on of using household rather than individual median earnings. Therefore, over the _________ 1 U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Es�mates, Table S1901. Retrieved from data.census.gov. 58 8 three assump�ons, the projec�on may be understood best as a lower-case es�mate of gross beneﬁts for �me savings, as resolving these assump�ons would likely increase the es�mated beneﬁts. As a further note, USDoT guidance encourages a 1.2% annualized growth in median hourly earnings to model future growth.2 Safety Improvements Measuring the beneﬁts of safety improvements in transporta�on is o�en measured in terms of injuries or fatali�es preven�on; such preven�on includes a composite measure of savings resul�ng from treatment costs, lost produc�vity, and quality-of-life for accident vic�ms. Preven�on is understood to be the willingness-to-pay in order to reduce the risk of fatality (or injury) by one in 10,000. This measure can be backwards calculated to generate a “value of sta�s�cal life” (VSL), which is o�en unsavorily referred to as the “cost of a human life”. Nonetheless, the VSL is an important gauge of standardizing safety beneﬁts across policies and projects. The USDoT has set and updated a VSL since 1994, with a major update based on a review of exis�ng VSL literature in 20133. USDoT endorsed a VSL of $9.1 million in that year, which meant that a reduc�on of the risk of fatality by one in 10,000 would be valued at approximately $910. Furthermore, USDoT adopted a formula for annual updates to the VSL based on inﬂa�on (measured by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, or CPI-U), real income growth (based on Median Usual Weekly Earnings in 1982-84 dollars), and an income elas�city factor. Previously, USDoT used an income elas�city of approximately 0.5, meaning that a 1% increase in real income was associated with a 0.5% increase in the VSL, but, following a literature review, began using an income elas�city of 1. For 2022, USDoT used a VSL of $12,500,000. For 2023, using July ﬁgures for the CPI-U and MUWE, this year’s VSL is calculated to be $13,158,190 4. There was not an atempt to project VSLs for future years, although it would be expected to rise monotonically. Thus, the es�mates of beneﬁts derived from safety improvements represent a lower bound of actual beneﬁts. _________ 2 Rogoﬀ, P. and Ayala, R. (2014) Revised Departmental Guidance on Valuation of Travel Time in Economic Analysis. Department of Transporta�on, Oﬃce of the Under Secretary for Policy. 3 Oﬃce of the Under Secretary for Policy (2021) Department Guidance on the Treatment of the Value of Preventing Fatalities and Injuries in Preparing Economic Analyses. Department of Transporta�on. 4 Putnam, J. and Coes, C. (2022) Guidance on the Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) in U.S. Department of Transportation Analyses – 2021 Update; Memorandum to Secretarial Oﬃcers, Modal Administrators. Department of Transporta�on, Oﬃce of the Under Secretary for Policy. 59 9 Furthermore, the value of injuries prevented or foregone is calculated as a frac�on of a VSL, based on severity. Although the severity of an injury follows a spectrum rather than categorical buckets, for standardiza�on these are calculated on a 7-point scale, from property damage only (PDO) to fatal. The scale and associated frac�ons of VSL are listed below. Accident Severity Value 5 Severity Descrip�on Frac�on of VSL 2023 $ PDO Property damage only N/A 5,909 MAIS 1 Minor 0.003 39,388 MAIS 2 Moderate 0.047 617,025 MAIS 3 Serious 0.105 1,378,460 MAIS 4 Severe 0.266 3,492,099 MAIS 5 Cri�cal 0.593 7,785,017 MAIS 6 Fatal 1.000 13,128,190 Emissions Reduc�on A ﬁnal measure of socio-economic beneﬁts relevant to transporta�on projects are reduc�ons in air pollutants and other emissions. These emissions factor in both global warming impacts resul�ng from carbon dioxide (CO2) and other global warming and health eﬀects from air pollu�on from emissions such as sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), vola�le organic compounds, and ﬁne par�culate mater. The standard in literature has been to measure an impact on pollu�on based oﬀ vehicle miles travelled (VMTs). Note that emissions per vehicle mile are usually quite limited – for most pollutants, each vehicle only generates a frac�on of a gram per mile. Of course, these eﬀects are mul�plied over thousands of vehicles travelling tens of miles per day. Nonetheless, because the social cost of these pollutants is measured per metric ton, the beneﬁts derived from projects resul�ng in a reduc�on in VMT typically do not command signiﬁcant weight, especially compared to �me savings or safety improvements. _________ 5 Oﬃce of the Under Secretary for Policy (2021) Department Guidance on the Treatment of the Value of Preventing Fatalities and Injuries in Preparing Economic Analyses. Department of Transporta�on. 60 10 Figures for average emissions per VMT were taken from the USDoT’s Bureau of Transporta�on Sta�s�cs es�mates for a mixed ﬂeet of gasoline and diesel vehicles, with projec�ons for average emissions in 2030. However, these ﬁgures do not account for a growth in electric vehicles in the vehicle ﬂeet. Social Cost of Pollutants6 Pollutant Cost per Metric Ton SOx $59,650 NOx $10,093 Vola�le Organic Compounds $2,560 PM2.5 $461,682 Carbon Dioxide & CO2e Variable; from $70.38 in 2023 to $137.94 in 2070 Time Savings Analysis Ten of the twelve sample projects were appropriate for a �me savings analysis. For most projects, this was performed as a comparison of travel planning �mes (TPTs) along either the en�re length of the proposed projects (for upgrades to roads) or for the distance between one mile before and a�er a proposed project site (for interchange improvements). For the SR-79 realignment and the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass rail corridor, �mes were compared between exis�ng travel �mes between termini and es�mated travel �mes along the new routes. Exis�ng TPTs were es�mated using Google data for 20 randomly selected days of the year for both direc�ons of travel, at the 7:00 AM and 4:00 PM travel hour. The �me saving was es�mated as the diﬀerence between the mean TPT across all 20 days and the minimum TPT. Lower bounds es�mated the �me saving to be only 2/3rds of the diﬀerence, whereas the upper bound was es�mated as an addi�onal minute saving of travel �me. These two travel �me savings were then aggregated over a por�on of annual average daily traﬃc (AADT) data for highways from CalTrans, and then mul�plied by 300 to account for all working days. This method implies no �me savings on _________ 6 Department of Transporta�on, Oﬃce of the Secretary. (2016). Beneﬁt-Cost Analysis (BCA) Resource Guide. 61 11 weekends or holidays, which may underes�mate the true value of �me savings. Nevertheless, this es�mate provides a solid range of es�mates of returns to �me savings. Project ($ in Millions) Lower bound Es�mate Upper Bound I-10 Highland Springs Interx $397.07 $592.65 $871.34 I-215 Harley Knox Interx $482.10 $719.56 $1,023.83 I-15 French Valley $602.41 $899.12 $1,307.45 I-15 Express Lanes $742.84 $1,574.28 $1,886.47 SR-79 Realignment $745.79 $1,275.07 $1,804.36 3rd St Grade Separa�on $43.95 $52.24 $64.39 Mid-County P’way 3 $532.93 $795.41 $942.90 CV-San Gorgonio Rail Corr. $228.66 $281.42 $334.19 I-15 Smart F’way Pilot $608.56 $916.42 $1,062.96 SR-91 E-bound Corr. Ops. $24.12 $36.01 $52.16 It is es�mated that the �me savings beneﬁt over thirty years range between about $4.4-9.4 billion, with a midpoint es�mate just over of $7 billion. The greatest contributors to the total beneﬁt are projects aﬀec�ng I-15 – the Express Lanes Southern extension, the French Valley Parkway interchange, and the Smart Freeway Pilot Project (although it is assumed the pilot is made permanents), all of which aﬀect the high-traﬃc-volume on the 15 freeway. Another major contributor to this sum is the SR-79 realignment project. Its large eﬀect reﬂets its scope – the construc�on of en�rely new major roadway that does not have to contend with intra-urban traﬃc, including pedestrian traﬃc, in San Jacinto and Hemet. As men�oned previously, the �me savings beneﬁts do not represent a transac�on of money. Instead, these beneﬁts are generally reﬂected in a more produc�ve workforce – the value of their �me formerly spent travelling now free to be used working or on leisure, both of which are considered valuable �me spent. The beneﬁts of directly reduced travel �mes for businesses like logis�cs are addressed later in the report. 62 12 Safety Improvement Analysis Es�ma�ng improvements to safety and reduc�ons in fatali�es and injuries required a less generalized approach than that for es�ma�ng �me savings. For the seven projects which may results in no�ceable safety improvements, unique approaches were taken to es�mate the eﬀect. For the SR-79 Realignment and Mid-County Parkway improvement projects, these routes with high rates of accidents are es�mated to experience a decrease to the statewide average rates of accidents and fatali�es per VMT. Thus, the diﬀerence between the present annualized rate of accidents and fatali�es and a counterfactual with state average rates is the improvement resul�ng from the project, with a window for range. For the two rail projects, a negligible risk of accidents is assumed, and the safety improvements are those over the average risk of accidents if train journeys were replaced by motor vehicle travel, with California average rates of accidents. For the Coachella Valley rail corridor, that is measured as the driving distance between the two termini – Union Sta�on in Los Angeles and a new terminus in the City of Coachella. For the San Jacinto Branch Line extension project, the length of the counterfactual trip is determined by average distances for San Jacinto Valley-based commuter travel in the west/northwest direc�on of the rail line, using US Census OnTheMap commuter patern data. For weekday travel, this is a 43.9-mile trip each direc�on based on the most recently available data. The Coachella Valley Link project’s safety improvement assumes a percentage reduc�on in cyclist-motorist and pedestrian-motorist accidents in the covered ci�es of the Coachella Valley. This assump�on implies some por�on of cyclists and pedestrians would switch over from using surface streets to the CV Link, where the risk of accidents is assumed to be negligible. A range for aggregate beneﬁt is determined by the switchover percentage. The 3rd Street Grade Separa�on project’s safety improvement beneﬁts come not from directly reducing traﬃc accidents, but rather from reducing delays for ambulances, ﬁreﬁghters, and law enforcement caused by the on- 63 13 grade rail crossing. Figures for injuries and deaths foregone come from the City of Riverside’s grant applica�on for state Port and Freight Infrastructure Program funds7, and annualized. Finally, the impact of the I-15 Smart Freeway pilot project is es�mated as if it were permanent. The controlled ramp monitoring (CRM) system that is to be implemented is expected to aide in safety, based oﬀ Molan et al (2020) study 8 of CRM implementa�on in the two Northern California highways. Molan et al. construct counterfactuals (without CRM) for accidents and fatali�es in 2019-2021 along these routes, although at the �me of the publica�on, accident data was not yet available. Comparing the diﬀerence between counterfactuals and actual accidents (now available 9) yields a percentage reduc�on in accidents, which is then applied to the I-15 Smart Freeway pilot route. Project ($ in Millions) Lower bound Es�mate Upper Bound SR-79 Realignment $267.35 $314.45 $364.59 3rd St Grade Separa�on $82.09 Mid-County P’way $37.94 $42.16 $46.37 CV-San Gorgonio Rail Corr. $117.20 Coachella Valley Link $854.47 $1,424.11 $1,993.76 I-15 Smart F’way Pilot $27.31 $40.96 $79.23 San Jacinto Branch Line Ext. $142.08 $195.08 $292.62 It is es�mated that the mone�zed beneﬁt of safety improvements range from $1.5-3.0 billion, with about a $2.2 billion midpoint es�mate. More than half of all safety improvement beneﬁts are es�mated to come from the _________ 7 Port and Freight Infrastructure Program, Selected Projects – Project Detail Summary (2023). California State Transporta�on Agency. Retrieved October 10, 2023, from htps://calsta.ca.gov/-/media/calsta-media/documents/pﬁp-awards-summary- narra�ve-7-6-23-a11y.pdf. 8 Molan, A., Murugesan, N., Shams, A., Tortora, C., Rahman, F., Loh, J., & Pande, A. (2020). Evalua�on of coordinated ramp metering (CRM) implemented by Caltrans. Mineta Transportation Institute, 1812. htps://doi.org/10.31979/m�.2020.1812 9 Caltrans, Performance Measurement System Data Source [Online]. Available: htp://pems.dot.ca.gov/. 64 14 Coachella Valley Link project, primarily caused by the high rates of automobile-pedestrian and automobile-bicyclist accidents in the Coachella Valley region. Even a par�al switchover of ac�ve travelers to the CV Link results in signiﬁcant beneﬁts to safety, and therefore a high monetary impact. Other major contributors to the beneﬁts are improvements to currently dangerous roadways, such as SR-79 and the Mid-County Parkway, which have above- average rates of vehicle accidents. Given the high volumes of traﬃc on these routes, even reducing the rate of accidents to a statewide average would be equivalent to these signiﬁcant monetary beneﬁts. Emissions Reduction Analysis Emission reduc�on modelling u�lized any project where there was a predicted reduc�on in VMT, as well as the 3rd Street Grade Separa�on project. However, it should be noted that these reduc�ons only derive gross beneﬁts without accoun�ng for other changes in VMT resul�ng in other projects – that is, the beneﬁcial emissions impacts from these projects may be overturned by increased emissions resul�ng from these or other projects. The two rail projects – the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor extension and the San Jacinto Branch Line extension – use the same counterfactual routes as those used for the safety improvement analysis, mul�plying the average distances travelled by expected ridership to derive the VMT reduc�on. Similarly, the CV Link project has developed expected ridership and an�cipated average trip length, from which VMT reduc�on is derived. The SR-79 Realignment project derives VMT reduc�on as result of the shortening of the length of the freeway, from 18.8 miles to 12 miles. Thus, 6.8 vehicle-miles are saved by each vehicle, which is mul�plied by AADT for each direc�on and by 300 for annual working days to determine the aggregate reduc�on in VMT. Each of the above VMT reduc�ons are mul�plied by average ﬂeet emissions of pollutants, with projec�ons from the EPA’s Oﬃce of Transporta�on and Air Quality for ﬂeet emissions through 2030 10; any emissions for years beyond that assume no change from the 2030 projec�on. This projec�on does not account for a rise in electric vehicles and should be considered an overes�mate. Furthermore, these reduc�ons do not an�cipate further switchover from personal motor vehicles to train or ac�ve transporta�on – that they are constant over the thirty- _________ 10 U.S. Environmental Protec�on Agency, (2023) Estimated U.S. Average Vehicle Emissions Rates Per Vehicle by Vehicle Type Using Gasoline and Diesel. Oﬃce of Transporta�on and Air Quality, personal communica�on, htps://www.bts.gov/content/es�mated-na�onal-average-vehicle-emissions-rates-vehicle-vehicle-type-using-gasoline-and. 65 15 year window of analysis – which may be an underes�mate of emissions savings if future u�liza�on is greater than expected. Addi�onally, the 3rd Street Grade Separa�on project grant applica�on includes a projected reduc�on in speciﬁc emissions11, a result of reducing idling �mes caused by train crossing. Project ($ in Millions) Lower bound Es�mate Upper Bound SR-79 Realignment $178.07 3rd St Grade Separa�on $0.68 CV-San Gorgonio Rail Corr. $39.80 Coachella Valley Link $12.34 San Jacinto Branch Line Ext. $48.25 $66.25 $99.38 Furthermore, under the assump�on of constant ﬂeet composi�on, the county stands to forgo 5,512,772 metric tons of CO2 emissions over the 30-year analysis window, as well as 2,185 tons of NOx emissions and nearly 81 tons of ﬁne par�cular mater (PM 2.5). However, some or all of these savings may be erased by a growing popula�on and u�liza�on of transporta�on infrastructure. Overall, it is es�mated that the value of foregone emissions is between $279-330 million, with a midpoint of approximately $297 million over thirty years. Compared to the beneﬁts derived from �me savings or safety improvements, this is quite insigniﬁcant. Most of the beneﬁts are derived from the SR-79 realignment, as the route itself becomes shorter in the realignment plan, saving travelers 6.8 miles in VMT every trip – or approximately 4,000 miles per vehicle per year. The other major contribu�ons come from travelers switching over from personal automobiles to rail or ac�ve transporta�on. Of course, should the total ridership of these rail projects increase, the poten�al emissions reduc�on beneﬁt grows. _________ 11 Port and Freight Infrastructure Program, Selected Projects – Project Detail Summary (2023). California State Transporta�on Agency. Retrieved October 10, 2023, from htps://calsta.ca.gov/-/media/calsta-media/documents/pﬁp-awards- summary-narra�ve-7-6-23-a11y.pdf. 66 16 Non-quantified Benefits A ﬁnal socio-economic impact of this set of projects is a variety of non-quan�ﬁed, non-mone�zed beneﬁts which are either indirectly caused by the comple�on of these projects or are induced through the improvement of the transporta�on system in the region as a whole. Namely, these impacts stem from induced beneﬁts of �me savings, users’ economic beneﬁts from improved road quality, and u�liza�on of public and ac�ve transporta�on systems. These beneﬁts o�en work in conjunc�on with other incen�ves to eﬀect changes in behavior, and so make it diﬃcult to directly atribute changes to speciﬁc projects. These beneﬁts are also variable over �me and users. This makes quan�fying such eﬀects, and atribu�ng a dollar value to them, a diﬃcult exercise which is o�en inaccurate. Nevertheless, these are beneﬁts which should s�ll be considered in evalua�ng a project as they acknowledge that such projects do not func�on independently of broader economy outside of transporta�on. Time savings reﬂect a more eﬃcient transporta�on system. It is possible to determine the beneﬁts of such to individual commuters, as reﬂected by the earlier sec�ons of this report. However, businesses also beneﬁt greatly from reduced conges�on and improved travel �mes, and although this beneﬁt is diﬃcult to quan�fy, it has signiﬁcant implica�ons for the regional economy. Businesses beneﬁt primarily in two ways: that they are able to draw on a larger geographic area for workers, and that they have greater access to markets. In a study of the Philadelphia and Chicago metropolitan areas, Weisbrod, Vary, and Treyz modelled that increased conges�on and commute �mes reduced labor produc�vity as specialized workers were more diﬃcult to access for businesses, whereas businesses reliant on generalized labor were less aﬀected. Furthermore, the authors found that reduced conges�on improved business produc�vity as delivery �mes were shortened and market access improved. A 2.5% reduc�on (a 1.5 minute reduc�on in an hour commute, for example) in metro-wide travel �mes for deliveries was modelled to cause a 0.23% increase in produc�vity in Philadelphia and a 0.38% increase in Chicago – with most of this produc�vity growth occurring in service industries 12. In Riverside County, where the logis�cs and warehousing industries are major employers and drivers of growth, faster delivery �mes could be even more impac�ul. Although these projects are not going to reduce travel �mes on all roads throughout the county, their improvements on travel �mes in speciﬁc areas could have a signiﬁcant impact on local businesses. In addi�on to spurring growth in _________ 12 Weisbrod, G. E., Vary, D., Treyz, G., & Na�onal Coopera�ve Highway Research Program. (2001). Economic implications of congestion. Transporta�on Research Board. 67 17 exis�ng businesses, greater access to labor and markets may also bring about ﬁrm reloca�on and crea�on in the region – broadening the poten�al economic impact of these transporta�on projects further. Furthermore, reduced conges�on and general highway improvement – such as that proposed for the SR-79 realignment and Mid-County Parkway projects – can diminish motorists’ incen�ves for aggressive driving13, which improves safety in the county’s roads and can reduce the administra�ve costs resul�ng from enforcing traﬃc laws. Addi�onally, improved road quality reduces wear and tear on vehicles, a beneﬁt whose costs are passed along to vehicle owners. The public and ac�ve transporta�on projects also generate non-quan�ﬁable beneﬁts. For example, new commuter rail sta�ons, such as the San Jacinto branch line extension, are associated with greater retail employment in surrounding areas following their opening14. As these sta�ons bring both foot and vehicle traﬃc to an area, retail stores and other services o�en beneﬁt by providing convenience to rail commuters. These sorts of sta�ons create islands of ac�vity in suburban areas that are o�en dominated by car travel. Similarly, retail shops located around ac�ve transporta�on projects are able to access customers on foot and bike – case studies throughout the world, in ci�es both urban and suburban, report increases in sales and local tax revenues from pedestrianiza�on projects 15. In areas with high car dependency, such as the Inland Empire, ac�ve transporta�on corridors also allow businesses and ci�es to increase the volume of customers without having necessita�ng more parking spaces. Finally, a self-evident beneﬁt of improved ac�ve transporta�on routes – such as CV Link – are beneﬁts users derive from engaging in ac�ve transporta�on. Primarily, this manifests as improved health outcomes resul�ng from exercise, which helps reduce risks of serious condi�ons such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and other chronic illnesses 16. These beneﬁts are reaped by users and can encourage a healthier lifestyle among more residents, who may have been reluctant to engage in ac�ve transporta�on due to concerns regarding safety or accessibility. _________ 13 Department of Transporta�on Federal Highway Administra�on. (2019). Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance 23rd Edition. htps://www.�wa.dot.gov/policy/23cpr/pdfs/pdf/23cpr.pdf 14 Schuetz, J. (2015). Do rail transit sta�ons encourage neighbourhood retail ac�vity? Urban Studies, 52(14), 2699-2723. htps://doi.org/10.1177/0042098014549128 15 Campbell, R., & Witgens, M. (2004). The business case for ac�ve transporta�on. Gloucester: Go for Green. 16 Active Transportation. (2015, August 24). Transporta�on.gov. htps://www.transporta�on.gov/mission/health/ac�ve- transporta�on 68 18 These and other beneﬁts combine to provide a further impact of the planned projects beyond the dollar value of investment in transporta�on infrastructure. Even further beneﬁts can emerge as the result of future investment in other projects being more valuable – for example, further densiﬁca�on of the rail or ac�ve transporta�on systems result in greater impacts tomorrow by investments today. Conclusion Overall, there are signiﬁcant long-term socio-economic beneﬁts emerging from the twelve proposed RCTC projects. These beneﬁts stem from the usage of the projects, and their impacts broadly aﬀect both users and the community as a whole. It is es�mated that the value of these beneﬁts is approximately $9.7 billion dollars, with a large range. Nearly three-quarters of the mone�zed beneﬁts come from improved travel eﬃciency and reduc�ons in travel �mes. A further 23% come from the beneﬁts of improving safety and reducing accident rates, while the rest emerges from the value of reducing air pollutants and other emissions. Further beneﬁts can emerge as a consequence of these projects and their direct beneﬁts, but these are le� unquan�ﬁed. These es�mates reﬂect the 30-year sum of beneﬁts as compared to a counterfactual world where no such projects are undertaken. Compared to their es�mated costs, the beneﬁts emerging from the combined set of projects represents a signiﬁcant return on investment. At the midpoint es�mate, for every $1 spent on these projects, there are $1.87 in beneﬁts. This return ul�mately ranges from $1.20 to $2.45. These beneﬁts may be even greater due to the unquan�ﬁable beneﬁts that they also indirectly cause or induce. About Beacon Economics Founded in 2007, Beacon Economics, an LLC and cer�ﬁed Small Business Enterprise with the state of California, is an independent research and consul�ng ﬁrm dedicated to delivering accurate, insigh�ul, and objec�vely based economic analysis. Employing unique proprietary models, vast databases, and sophis�cated data processing, the company’s specialized prac�ce areas include sustainable growth and development, real estate market analysis, economic forecas�ng, industry analysis, economic policy analysis, and economic impact studies. Beacon Economics equips its clients with the data and analysis they need to understand the signiﬁcance of on-the-ground reali�es and to make informed business and policy decisions. 69 19 Learn more at beaconecon.com Project Team Christopher Thornberg PhD. Founding Partner (Project Advisor) Emil Alexander Sabán, Research Associate For further informa�on about this report or to learn more about Beacon Economics please contact: Sherif Hanna, Managing Partner sherif@beaconecon.com Victoria Bond, Director of Marke�ng and Communica�ons. victoria@beaconecon.com Beacon Economics LLC shall remain the exclusive owner of any Proprietary Informa�on and all patent, copyright, trade secret, trademark, domain name and other intellectual property contained herein. 70 Beacon Economics | beaconecon.com Mazen Bou Zeineddine Manager, Economic, Fiscal, and Social Impact Analysis January 25, 2024 Economic and Social Impacts of the 2024 TRP Johnathan Cahill, Emil Saban, Sean Windle, Stafford Nichols Stafford@BeaconEcon.com Beacon EconomicsBeacon Economics Study Approach Revenue Forecast Economic Impacts Social Impacts Developed revenue forecast model to determine potential money available Modeled economic and fiscal impacts of draft TRP projects Analyzed long term socioeconomic benefits of draft TRP projects 2 Beacon EconomicsBeacon Economics Forecast Background and Methodology RCTC commissioned Beacon Economics to produce a forecast projecting the total revenue estimated to be realized over a 30-year planning horizon (April 2025 to April 2055) should the Commission decide to seek voter-approval on a one cent sales tax to fund the Traffic Relief Plan. In modeling and forecasting the revenue raised from the new tax, Beacon Economics considered the following: —Taxable sales forecast —E-commerce —Tax elasticities 3 Beacon EconomicsBeacon Economics Forecast Results 4 Beacon EconomicsBeacon Economics Revenue Scenario Est. Spending Jobs Supported (000s)* Workforce Income** Economic Output** One-Cent $25B 168.6 $10.9B $30.9B Revenue Forecast & Economic Impact Source: IMPLAN, analyzed by Beacon Economics Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding *Jobs Supported = An Industry-specific mix of full-time, part-time, and seasonal employment that are supported by project expenditures this includes Direct, Induced, and Indirect Jobs supported ** Direct, Induced, and Indirect Impact total One-cent is estimated to generate $30.9B in economic output from $25B in spending Investment lifecycle is anticipated to be over 30 years 5 Beacon EconomicsBeacon Economics Economic Impact Methodology: Key Terms Direct Impact •Economic activity generated through direct spending by RCTC Projects •Example: RCTC contracts with a design engineering firm and construction contractor Indirect Impact •Employment and economic activity supported via supply chains •Example: construction firms buy materials and parts from other vendors Induced Impact •Economic activity through expenditures by workers •Example: a restaurant employee uses their paycheck supported by construction workers to pay for groceries The Multiplier Effect: A measure of how spending ripples through the wider local economy 6 Beacon EconomicsBeacon Economics Impact Type Jobs Supported (000s)* Labor Income ($, B) Economic Output ($, B) Direct 109.2 $7.7 $20.4 Indirect 28.2 $1.7 $5.7 Induced 31.2 $1.5 $4.8 Total 168.6 $10.9 $30.9 One-Cent Economic Impact Secondary Impacts account for 34% of total output $25B in transportation expenditures will result in $30.9B in economic output within Riverside County over 30 years Source: IMPLAN, Analysis by Beacon Economics Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding *Jobs Supported = An Industry-specific mix of full-time, part-time, and seasonal employment that are supported by project expenditures 7 Beacon EconomicsBeacon Economics Fiscal Impact Effects Source: IMPLAN, analysis by Beacon Economics Secondary economic effects from TRP spending are estimated to generate roughly $1,750M in additional tax revenue for Federal, State, and Local government Spend Scenario Tax Impact Type ($m) State & Local ($m) Federal ($m)Total ($m) $ 25B Indirect 656 323 979 Induced 457 314 771 Total $ 1,113 $ 637 $1,750 Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding 8 Beacon EconomicsBeacon Economics Three main sources of benefits: Time savings No one prefers commuting to working productively or having free time Sum up aggregate time saved across all commuters impacted by project Safety improvements There are costs associated with traffic accidents, injuries, and fatalities Avoiding these yields economic benefits that can be spent elsewhere in the economy Emissions reductions Pollutants have a cost of mitigating their effects: climate change, air pollution &illness Avoiding emissions saves money throughout the community Measures of Socioeconomic Benefits 9 Beacon EconomicsBeacon Economics Benefit Type Estimate ($Mils)% of Total Lower Bound Upper Bound Time Savings 7,142.2 73.9%4,408.4 9,350.1 Safety Improvements 2,216.0 23.0%1,528.4 2,975.9 Emissions Reductions 297.1 3.1%279.1 330.3 30-YEAR SUM OF ALL PROJECTS 9,655.4 6,216.0 12,656.2 Estimate of Socioeconomic Benefits 10 Beacon EconomicsBeacon Economics This specific set of projects is estimated to return about $1.87 in gross socioeconomic benefits for every $1 spent —This does not necessarily mean all transportation projects will have the same relative impact –figures are project-specific. Social benefits come from actual usage of projects, not from spending on construction or maintenance Calculated as a 30-year sum from anticipated completion date of each project Calculated in 2023 dollars, and future years’ benefits are time-discounted Not all projects exhibit all three types of benefits Other benefits exist, but are not quantifiable or monetizable —Examples: Business growth because of improved travel time, improved health from using active transportation, improved foot traffic for retail near public transportation stops Economic Analysis Summary 11 Thank You Chris@BeaconEcon.com | beaconecon.com •Economic Outlooks •Revenue Forecasts •Cost Projections •Regional Development •Housing Studies •Impact Reports •CEDS Analysis •Policy Studies •Industry Studies •Labor Markets Stafford@BeaconEcon.com 220-6795/230-818 Presented to RCTC, January 25th, 2024 by Richard Bernard Ph.D., Partner Focus Groups and Survey 2 Research Specifics & Methodology Methodology In-person Focus Groups Dates August 28th –August 31st, and September 6th, 2023 Number of Groups 10 Groups Total Number of Participants 97 Participants Overall Research Population Likely Voters in Western Riverside County Other Criteria Groups Included Participants from Ages 21-75 3 Composition of Focus Groups Date Region Group #Population Aug. 28 Hemet, San Jacinto, Unincorporated Group 1 Women Group 2 Men Aug. 29 Menifee, Murrieta, Temecula, Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake/Wildomar, Unincorporated Group 3 Women Group 4 Men Aug. 30 Corona, Norco, Eastvale, Jurupa Valley, Unincorporated Group 5 Women Group 6 Men Aug. 31 City of Riverside, Unincorporated Group 7 Men & Women City of Riverside; Moreno Valley, Perris, Unincorporated Group 8 Spanish-Speaking Men & Women Sept. 6 Beaumont, Banning, Calimesa, Unincorporated Group 9 Women Group 10 Men 4 Some Key Focus Group Findings Traffic was one of the top-of-mind concerns. They attributed this to population growth in their area (including some of the participants). Some ascribed the problem to increases in cargo truck traffic and warehouses. Few initially perceive that there is a plan to reduce traffic, though some hoped there is. They wonder how road construction priorities are developed, as they perceive these projects take too long to complete or are started but not completed. Pedestrian safety and lack of sidewalks were significant concerns in more rural areas –differences by subregion. 5 Survey Specifics and Methodology Dates May 23-June 6, 2023 Survey Type Dual-mode Voter Survey Research Population Riverside County Likely November 2024 Voters Total Interviews 1,673 Margin of Sampling Error Riverside County(Full Sample) ±2.8% at the 95% Confidence Level(Half Sample) ±3.9% at the 95% Confidence Level(Per Measure) ±3.9% at the 95% Confidence LevelWestern Riverside(Full Sample) ±3.1% at the 95% Confidence Level(Half Sample) ±4.3% at the 95% Confidence Level(Per Measure) ±4.3% at the 95% Confidence LevelCoachella Valley(Full Sample) ±4.9% at the 95% Confidence Level(Half Sample) ±6.9% at the 95% Confidence Level(Per Measure) ±6.9% at the 95% Confidence Level Contact Methods Data Collection Modes Survey Tracking 2010, 2017 & 2019 Languages English & Spanish (Note: Not All Results Will Sum to 100% Due to Rounding) Text Invitations Telephone Calls Email Invitations Telephone Interviews Online Interviews 6 Sub-Region Legend Sub-Region Areas Within Sub-Region Western Region 1 Corona, Norco, Eastvale, Jurupa Valley; ZIP Code: 92883 Western Region 2 City of Riverside; ZIP Codes: 92504, 92508, 92518 Western Region 3 Moreno Valley, Perris; ZIP Code: 92570 Western Region 4 Hemet, San Jacinto; ZIP Codes: 92582, 92583, 92544, 92581 Western Region 5 Menifee, Murrieta, Temecula, Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake/Wildomar; ZIP Codes: 92530, 92562, 92590, 92028, 92595, 92592 Western Region 6 Beaumont, Banning, Calimesa; ZIP Codes: 92223, 92220, 92230 Coachella Region 1 Indio, Coachella, La Quinta; ZIP Codes: 92274, 92254 Coachella Region 2 Desert Hot Springs, Palm Springs, Cathedral City; ZIP Codes: 92241, 92276, 92240, 92258 Coachella Region 3 Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, Palm Desert 7 8 54% 52% 56% 55% 53% 58% 50% 46% 47% 28% 26% 25% 27% 25% 23% 32% 32% 34% 5% 5% 7% 6% 6% 7% 8% 7% 8% 7% 11% 8% 9% 7% 8% 9% 8% 7% 12% 6% 2023 2019 2017 2023 2019 2017 2023 2019 2017 Great Need Some Need Little Need No Real Need Don't Know Q3. Generally speaking, would you say that Riverside County has a great need for additional funding, some need, a little need or no real need for additional funding for the County’s transportation system, including freeways, local streets and public transit? Great/Some Need Little/No Real Need 82%10% 78%12% 81%12% 82%10% 78%13% 81%11% 82%11% 78%11% 81%13% All Riverside County Western Riverside County Coachella Valley The vast majority continue to perceive there is a need for at least some additional funding for transportation regardless of area of County. 9 10 Keeping roads in good condition; repairing potholes; improving safety; reducing congestion; and upgrading structurally declining bridges/overpasses are among the features considered very important priorities. Q6. I am now going to mention some specific features proposed in the Riverside County transportation measure I just asked you about. Regardless of your opinion of the measure, please tell me how important it is to you that the feature or provision be included as part of the measure. We will use a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT to you that the feature or provision is included in the measure and 7 means it would be VERY IMPORTANT. ^Not Part of Split Sample Riverside County; Ranked by 6-7 (Very Important) 80% 80% 75% 74% 71% 70% 70% 12% 10% 11% 12% 12% 14% 14% 7% 8% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 7% 9% 9% 8% Keeping roads in good condition Repairing potholes ^Improving safety Reducing congestion and traffic jams Upgrading structurally decliningbridges and overpasses 6-7 (Very Impt.)5 (Smwt. Impt.)4 (Neutral)1-3 (Not Too/Not at All Impt.)Don't Know Keeping roads in good condition in every neighborhood of Riverside County,including rural and historicallydisadvantaged neighborhoods Repairing potholes in every neighborhoodof Riverside County, including rural and historically disadvantaged neighborhoods Mean Score 6.3 6.3 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 6.0 11 Continued Q6. I am now going to mention some specific features proposed in the Riverside County transportation measure I just asked you about. Regardless of your opinion of the measure, please tell me how important it is to you that the feature or provision be included as part of the measure. We will use a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT to you that the feature or provision is included in the measure and 7 means it would be VERY IMPORTANT. ^Not Part of Split Sample Riverside County; Ranked by 6-7 (Very Important) 70% 69% 68% 66% 66% 66% 65% 10% 13% 12% 17% 16% 13% 13% 7% 7% 6% 7% 7% 7% 8% 11% 10% 9% 9% 11% 9% 12% 5% ^Keeping senior, student, disabled and veteran bus fares low ^Creating local jobs Reducing traffic bottlenecks Accelerating freeway project completion Reinforcing highways, roads and bridges from flooding and earthquakes ^Improving 911 emergency vehicle access ^Adding lanes on highways and freeways to reduce bottlenecks and provide asafe way to merge into traffic 6-7 (Very Impt.)5 (Smwt. Impt.)4 (Neutral)1-3 (Not Too/Not at All Impt.)Don't Know Mean Score 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.9 5.7 12 Keeping roads in good condition; repairing potholes; reducing congestion and traffic jams; upgrading structurally declining bridges and overpasses; and improving safety are among the features considered to be very important priorities. Q6. I am now going to mention some specific features proposed in the Riverside County transportation measure I just asked you about. Regardless of your opinion of the measure, please tell me how important it is to you that the feature or provision be included as part of the measure. We will use a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT to you that the feature or provision is included in the measure and 7 means it would be VERY IMPORTANT. ^Not Part of Split Sample Western Riverside; Ranked by 6-7 (Very Important) 80% 80% 76% 75% 73% 70% 70% 12% 10% 10% 11% 13% 15% 12% 7% 9% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 9% 7% 9% Keeping roads in good condition Repairing potholes Reducing congestion and traffic jams Upgrading structurally decliningbridges and overpasses ^Improving safety 6-7 (Very Impt.)5 (Smwt. Impt.)4 (Neutral)1-3 (Not Too/Not at All Impt.)Don't Know Keeping roads in good condition in every neighborhood of Riverside County,including rural and historicallydisadvantaged neighborhoodsRepairing potholes in every neighborhoodof Riverside County, including rural and historically disadvantaged neighborhoods Mean Score 6.3 6.3 6.1 6.1 6.0 6.0 6.0 13 Keeping roads in good condition; repairing potholes; reinforcing highways, roads/bridges from flooding and earthquakes; and keeping senior, student, disabled/veteran bus fares low are among the features considered to be very important priorities. Q6. I am now going to mention some specific features proposed in the Riverside County transportation measure I just asked you about. Regardless of your opinion of the measure, please tell me how important it is to you that the feature or provision be included as part of the measure. We will use a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT to you that the feature or provision is included in the measure and 7 means it would be VERY IMPORTANT. ^Not Part of Split Sample Coachella Valley; Ranked by 6-7 (Very Important) 83% 77% 75% 74% 74% 71% 71% 10% 14% 14% 13% 10% 15% 13% 5% 7% 5% 5% 7% 8% 5% 5% 10% 6% 5% Keeping roads in good condition Repairing potholes Reinforcing highways, roads and bridges from flooding and earthquakes ^Improving safety ^Keeping senior, student, disabled and veteran bus fares low Repairing potholes in every neighborhood of Riverside County, including rural and historically disadvantaged neighborhoods Upgrading structurally decliningbridges and overpasses 6-7 (Very Impt.)5 (Smwt. Impt.)4 (Neutral)1-3 (Not Too/Not at All Impt.)Don't Know Mean Score 6.4 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.0 6.0 6.0 14 15 Ballot Title and Summaries Tested Q4. Based on this description, do you think you would vote yes in favor of this measure or no to oppose it? Split Sample Countywide Transportation Improvement, Traffic Relief To reduce congestion/traffic jams, improve safety, create local jobs by keeping roads in good condition; repairing potholes; accelerating freeway upgrades; improving public transit; keeping seniors/students/disabled/veterans bus fares low; reinforcing highways/roads/bridges from flooding/earthquakes; protecting local wildlife/natural areas; shall an ordinance be adopted establishing a local (½¢)/(1¢) transportation sales tax providing approximately ($300,000,000)/($600,000,000) annually until ended by voters, requiring public spending disclosure, independent audits? (Reviewed by Legal Counsel) 16 Two-thirds initially support the 1-cent measure while a slightly lower (but statistically similar) percentage supports a ½-cent measure; however fewer than 4-in-10 would definitely vote yes on either measure. Q4. Do you think you would vote yes in favor of this measure or no to oppose it? Split Sample Q5. Would you vote yes in favor of the measure or no to oppose it? Split Sample 38% 22% 4% 2% 8% 22% 4% Definitely yes Probably yes Undecided, lean yes Undecided, lean no Probably no Definitely no Undecided 39% 23% 6% 2% 6% 19% 5% Total Yes 67% Total No 28% Total Yes 64% Total No 32% 1¢½¢ 62%60% Riverside County; MOE = ±3.9% per Measure 17 39% 23% 6% 2% 6% 19% 5% 40% 23% 5% 2% 6% 18% 6% 39% 25% 5% 3% 8% 18% 3% Q4. Do you think you would vote yes in favor of this measure or no to oppose it? Split Sample Q5. Would you vote yes in favor of the measure or no to oppose it? Split Sample Definitely yes Probably yes Undecided, lean yes Undecided, lean no Probably no Definitely no Undecided Total No 26% Western Riverside Coachella Valley Total No 28% Total Yes 68% Total Yes 68% 62%63% Support meets the two-thirds threshold on both measures among Coachella Valley voters; Riverside voters reach the two-thirds threshold initially on the 1-cent measure, and slightly lower on the ½-cent measure. Total No 28% 37% 22% 4% 2% 8% 23% 4% Total No 33% Total Yes 63% 59%62% Total Yes 69% 1¢½¢ Western Riverside, MOE = ±4.3% Per Measure; Coachella Valley, MOE = ±6.9% Western Riverside Coachella Valley 18 19 Moreno Valley/Perris subregion are the most apt to support the measure and the City of Riverside and the Southwestern Region are the least. Q4/Q5 (Combined). Initial Vote on Transportation Sales Tax Measure by Sub-Regions: Western Riverside Subregions 1-6 & Area of County 1 2 3 4 5 6 Western Riverside Total Yes Total No Undecided (% of Sample)(19%)(13%)(5%)(12%)(7%)(24%)(79%) 20 More than two thirds of voters in the sub-region including Indio, Coachella, La Quinta and the sub-region consisting of Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells and Palm Desert support the measure. Q4/Q5 (Combined). Initial Vote on Transportation Sales Tax Measure by Sub-Regions: Coachella Valley Sub-Regions 1-3 & Area of County 72% 64%69%68% 23% 33%27%27% 5%3%5%4% 1 2 3 Coachella Valley Total Yes Total No Undecided (% of Sample)(8%)(7%)(19%)(5%) 21 Two-thirds or more of voters in Supervisorial Districts 5, 4, and 1 would vote yes on the measure. Q4/Q5 (Combined). Initial Vote on Transportation Sales Tax Measure by Supervisorial District SD 1 SD 2 SD 3 SD 4 SD 5 Total Yes Total No Undecided (% of Sample)(18%)(20%)(21%)(17%)(24%) 22 23 Q4, Q8 & Q10. Do you think you would vote yes in favor of this measure or no to oppose it? Split Sample Q5, Q9 & Q11. Would you vote yes in favor of the measure or no to oppose it? Split Sample 64%68% 62%67%71% 64% 32% 26%31%28%23% 29% 4%6%7%5%6%7% InitialVote Vote AfterEducation Vote AfterCriticalStatement InitialVote Vote AfterEducation Vote AfterCriticalStatement Total Yes Total No Undecided Vote Progression for ½-Cent and 1-Cent Measures for Riverside County 1¢½¢ Riverside County; MOE by Measure = ±3.9% 24 Q4, Q8 & Q10. Do you think you would vote yes in favor of this measure or no to oppose it? Split Sample 64%68% 62%63%67% 61% 69%73%68% 32% 26%31%33% 27% 33%28% 20%25% 4%6%7%4%6%7%3%7%7% InitialVote Vote AfterEducation Vote AfterCriticalStatement InitialVote Vote AfterEducation Vote AfterCriticalStatement InitialVote Vote AfterEducation Vote AfterCriticalStatement Total Yes Total No Undecided Vote Progression for ½-Cent by Riverside County, Western Riverside, Coachella Valley Riverside County MOE = ±3.9% Western Riverside MOE = ±4.3% Coachella Valley MOE = ±6.9% 25 Q5, Q9 & Q11. Would you vote yes in favor of the measure or no to oppose it? Split Sample 67%71% 64%68%70% 64%68%73% 65% 28%23% 29%28%23% 29%26% 20% 28% 5%6%7%5%6%7%6%7%7% InitialVote Vote AfterEducation Vote AfterCriticalStatement InitialVote Vote AfterEducation Vote AfterCriticalStatement InitialVote Vote AfterEducation Vote AfterCriticalStatement Total Yes Total No Undecided Vote Progression for 1-Cent by Riverside County, Western Riverside, Coachella Valley Riverside County MOE = ±3.9% Western Riverside MOE = ±4.3% Coachella Valley MOE = ±6.9% 26 Q4, Q8 & Q10. Do you think you would vote yes in favor of this measure or no to oppose it? Split Sample 59%62% 52% 63%68% 57% 64%68% 62% 37%32% 41% 34% 28% 36%32% 26%31% 4%6%7%4%5%7%4%6%7% InitialVote Vote AfterEducation Vote AfterCriticalStatement InitialVote Vote AfterEducation Vote AfterCriticalStatement InitialVote Vote AfterEducation Vote AfterCriticalStatement Total Yes Total No Undecided Historic Vote Progression for ½-Cent Riverside County Transportation Sales Tax Measure 2017 MOE = ±3.5% 2019 MOE = ±3.4% 2023 MOE = ±3.9% 27 Conclusions Perceived need for additional funding for the County’s transportation, including freeways, local streets and public transit remains extremely high. More than 6 in 10 voters initially support a countywide one-half cent and one-cent transportation measure, respectively –within the margin of error for passage. After education both measures reach or exceed the two-thirds threshold for passage -within the margin of error. After critical statements both measures continue to receive support in the 60s. 28 Conclusions, Continued Keeping roads in good condition, especially by repairing potholes; improving safety; reducing congestion and traffic jams; and upgrading structurally declining bridges/overpasses are top voter priorities. Communicating the sub-regional projects is key to voters’ understanding of the measure. 220-6795/230-818 Presented to RCTC, January 25th, 2024 by Richard Bernard Ph.D., Partner Focus Groups and Survey 1 ACA-1 TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN OPTION Anne Mayer, Executive Director RCTC Workshop January 25, 2024 Public Outreach Public Opinion Poll 2 TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN FUNDING OPTIONS Draft 2024 Traffic Relief Plan Finalize 2024 Traffic Relief Plan TRP Expenditure Plan RCTC PUC Ordinance Decide Ballot Measure Today April 2024 June 2024 Public Outreach Public Opinion Poll 3 TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN FUNDING OPTIONS Draft 2024 Traffic Relief Plan Finalize 2024 Traffic Relief Plan ACA-1 Expenditure Plan TRP Expenditure Plan RCTC PUC Ordinance ACA-1 Ordinance Decide Ballot Measure Today April 2024 June 2024 1 TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN Projects and Costs Discussion January 25, 2024 Aaron Hake, Deputy Executive Director 2 Traffic Relief Plan Development Partners Palo Verde Valley City of Blythe Coachella Valley CVAG Western County RCTC 3 We are listening •City Council meetings •City Managers •Public Works Directors •CBOs, Transit, Chambers, County MACs, Educational Institutions, etc. •Comments through TrafficReliefPlan.org •Public opinion survey (spring 2024) Completed Upcoming Beaumont Blythe Canyon Lake LaQuinta Temecula Calimesa Cathedral City Coachella Corona Eastvale Menifee Moreno Valley Palm Desert Perris Rancho Mirage Riverside Wildomar 4 Environmental Mitigation Challenges: •New state requirements (e.g., VMT) •MSHCPs •Mitigation necessary for projects but cuts into funds Draft TRP: Coachella Valley – 12.5% for MSHCP •TPPS - CVAG Western County – 25% •Half to MSHCP •Half for project mitigation and resiliency projects – RCTC 5 Projects in Western County exceed 30-year revenue estimate (1% sales tax) •Draft TRP 30-Year Revenue Estimate (Western County): $20 Billion •Western County project list estimated cost: $25.6 Billion and rising Local Streets and Roads 6 Local Streets & Roads Regional Transportation 7 Local Streets and Roads Subregion Measure A Draft 2024 TRP Palo Verde Valley 100% to City of Blythe, County 100% to City of Blythe, County Coachella Valley 35% formula to cities and County (based on dwelling units & taxable sales) 100% to CVAG for prioritization in TPPS Western County 29% formula to cities, County (based on population & taxable sales) 4% by formula to cities, County; 4% for regional safety projects 8 Discussion: 1.Western County expectations: o Regional Projects o Local Streets and Roads 2.Commissioner input ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO THE STATE ROUTE 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT UPDATE AND CORRIDOR ANALYSIS AGENDA ITEM Segmentation It was determined that the Project could be broken into three segments, in which each segment would retain its logical termini and independent utility. The three segments are: Segment 1 – Sanderson Avenue to Florida Avenue (State Route 74) Segment 2 – Florida Avenue (State Route 74) to Domenigoni Parkway Segment 3 – Domenigoni Parkway to Newport Road A map of the proposed segments is included as Attachment 4. As part of the Corridor Analysis, the total project cost estimate was updated to current year dollars and analyzed as the corridor being considered a county expressway and broken into the three segments noted above. Table 1 summarizes the total project costs. The total project cost includes design, construction management, construction, ROW, and RCTC project management. Staff also held discussions with the County and developed a 4th segment alternative which modified the limits of Segment 3, extending it by 0.82 miles north to Simpson Road. Segment 3 Modified Limits – Domenigoni Parkway to Simpson Road A map of the proposed Segment 3 Modified Limits is included as Attachment 5. Table 1 – Updated Total Project Cost Breakdown by Segment (Caltrans vs County Facility) Segment Original Caltrans Facility Corridor Analysis County Expressway Difference 1 Segment 1 ‐ Northerly $750,000,000 $340,000,000 $410,000,000 2 Segment 2 ‐ Middle $780,000,000/ $670,000,000* $600,000,000 $180,000,000 3 Segment 3 ‐ Southerly $230,000,000 $170,000,000 $60,000,000 4 Segment 3 Modified Limits $340,000,000 $280,000,000 $60,000,000 Total $1,760,000,000 to $1,870,000,000 $1,110,000,000 to $1,220,000,000 $650,000,000 * The first number is for Segment 2 / the second number is if Segment 3 Modified is used and Segment 2 is reduced. As part of the analysis, staff reviewed the ROW required for the project by segment, as this would have a significant impact on the total project cost. The ROW required by segment and estimated cost is summarized in Table 2. Additions are noted in Bold/Italics Deletions are noted by Strikethrough RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 26, 2024 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Erik Galloway, Project Delivery Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: State Route 79 Realignment Project Update and Corridor Analysis STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Direct staff to develop the necessary agreement(s) with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to modify the State Route 79 (SR-79) Realignment Project (Project) from a State Route to a future County expressway; 2) Direct staff to develop the necessary agreements or documentation to designate the Commission the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agency; 3) Adopt the proposed segments of the Project identified by the Corridor Analysis Study; and 4) Direct staff to proceed with one of the following Options: Alternative A a) Direct staff to draft a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Project’s Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) phase and continue the acquisition of right of way for the SR-79 Segment 3 Modified Limits, 0.35 miles south of Newport Road to Simpson Road, or SR-79 Segment 3, 0.35 miles south of Newport Road to Domenigoni Parkway. b) Amend the 2019-2029 Measure A Western County Highway Delivery Plan to add SR-79 Segment 3 Modified or Segment 3 to “Group 2: Partially Funding Likely Available” of the Commission-adopted Delivery Plan; c) Direct staff to identify and recommend funding sources and any other prioritization changes necessary to the 2019-2029 Measure A Western County Highway Delivery Plan to complete PS&E and Right of Way (ROW) phases for the segment selected. Alternative B a) Direct staff to proceed with limited, willing seller, core parcel SR-79 corridor ROW acquisition utilizing available Regional and Zone Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) funding; 71 b) Amend the 2019-2029 Measure A Western County Highway Delivery Plan to add limited SR-79 ROW acquisition to “Group 2: Partially Funding Likely Available” of the Commission-adopted Delivery Plan. c) Reconsider advancing at least one segment upon identification of funding sufficient for construction for that segment. Alternative C a) Maintain current 2019-2029 Measure A Western County Highway Delivery Plan projects and suspend further work on SR-79. Reconsider suspension upon identification of funding sufficient for construction of at least one segment. PROJECT OBJECTIVE: The Project proposes to build a 12-mile limited access highway extending from south of Domenigoni Parkway north to Gilman Springs Road. The Project will provide a safer and more direct north-south route, serving the community of Winchester, the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto, and unincorporated Riverside County. The Project will: • Improve traffic flow for local and regional north-south traffic in the San Jacinto Valley by implementing a new roadway corridor; • Improve operational efficiency and enhance safety conditions; • Allow regional traffic, including truck traffic, to bypass local roads; and • Reduce the diversion of traffic from state routes onto local roads. PROJECT HISTORY: The Project was developed jointly with Caltrans and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which subjected it to state and federal environmental review requirements. Caltrans was the lead agency under both the CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). FHWA’s responsibility for NEPA environmental review, consultation, and other actions in accordance with applicable federal laws for this project, was carried out by Caltrans under its assumption of NEPA responsibility pursuant to 23 United States Code Section 327. On December 8, 2016, Caltrans approved the CEQA Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A Notice of Determination (NOD) was filed for CEQA compliance on January 26, 2017. On December 16, 2016, Caltrans approved the NEPA Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Record of Decision (ROD) was published in the Federal Register on March 15, 2017, and the statute of limitations expired on August 14, 2017. The EIR/EIS received no legal challenges. On January 26, 2017, the Commission, as a CEQA responsible agency, adopted the CEQA findings and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) that imposes mitigation measures to reduce many of the Project’s environmental impacts to below a level of significance. The cost to complete the environmental process was $42 million. 72 On February 2, 2023, at the Commission Workshop, the Commission directed staff to take a fresh look at the Project and evaluate the potential to accelerate delivery of the Project. Staff immediately undertook this effort as a Corridor Analysis. On October 16, 2023, a project update and presentation of the findings from the Corridor Analysis were presented to the SR-79 Corridor Ad Hoc Committee. The Corridor Analysis segmented the Project into three segments and proposed the Project as a county facility with active transportation and transit features. Extensive discussions were held among Ad Hoc Committee members regarding the merits of the various options including potential impacts by extending the proposed southerly Segment 3 to Simpson Road. This staff report to the full Commission acknowledges and responds to comments and clarifications requested during the Ad Hoc meeting. The Ad Hoc Committee did not reach a consensus on segment prioritization or segment limits. Other suggestions included utilizing available funding for corridor ROW acquisition as a priority. On December 21, 2023, RCTC staff met with the city of Hemet. This item was presented and discussed in detail with City representatives and staff. The City raised concerns about advancing the southerly Segment 3. PROJECT CHALLENGES: Funding Constraints The Project is named in the Western County highway portion of the Measure A expenditure plan (Attachment 1), the voter-approved half-cent sales tax measure for transportation improvements in Riverside County. The expenditure plan estimates the total project cost as $132 million and identifies that Measure A, federal, and state funding sources will be used for the Project, of which 50 percent was assumed to be state and federal. These state and federal sources are not available in the manner that the authors of Measure A assumed, nor will they be given the policy changes discussed later in this staff report. For these reasons, RCTC has not been able to proceed with construction of the Project. In 2019, the Commission adopted the 2019-2029 Measure A Western County Highway Delivery Plan which placed the Project in “Group 4: Not Part of the 2019-2029 Delivery Plan: RCTC Projects,” due to insufficient funds (Attachment 2). Low Benefit/Cost After completing the Project’s environmental phase, funding constraints have limited investment in the SR-79 corridor. The Project was not included in the funded groups of projects in the 2019-2029 Measure A Western County Highway Delivery Plan due to the high project cost and relatively low traffic volumes in comparison to other corridors, such as: State Routes 60, and 91 and Interstates 10, 15, and 215. The existing average daily traffic volumes on SR-79 are between approximately 30,000 and 50,000 vehicles per day. Other corridor volumes extend up to 340,000 vehicles per day. In general, more congested corridors have been designated as priorities. 73 The Project has a high per mile cost to construct because it is a new facility with a new alignment. Significant ROW purchase costs for the new corridor contribute to the high per mile cost. It is estimated that the average cost per mile for the corridor will range between $150 to $200 million. For comparison purposes, constructing the same number of lanes for the 15 Express Lanes Project was approximately $33 million per mile and the 15 Express Lanes Southern Extension is estimated at approximately $44 million per mile. In addition, the Mid County Parkway Project Segment 3, which improves an existing county road and connects to the proposed SR-79, is $19 million per mile. State Policy Changes California Senate Bill (SB) 743, which was signed into law in 2013 and the updated CEQA guidelines took effect July 1, 2020, requires lead agencies under CEQA to identify new methodologies for transportation analyses that will encourage “land use and transportation planning decisions and investments that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and contribute to the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions required in the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” SB 743 replaces Level of Service with VMT for land use and transportation projects which is intended to reduce future VMT growth. This shift in transportation impact focus is intended to align transportation impact analyses and mitigation outcomes with the state’s goals to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, encourage infill development, and improve public health through more active transportation. Although the approved environmental document anticipated that the Project would ultimately be a state-owned facility, it is important to note that Caltrans may not accept ownership or maintenance of the Project due to current policies that discourage new auto-oriented transportation facilities or additional vehicle capacity on the state highway system. Due to the continued need for this regional corridor, funding constraints, and policy changes at the state level, a new approach is needed for the Project. PROJECT PROGRESS: Right of Way Mitigation Land and Environmental Activities To comply with the requirements set forth in the MMRP, the Commission was tasked to acquire 232.56 acres of mitigation land for the protection of aquatic resources. Since its approval, the Commission has acquired 221.5 acres of the required 232.56 acres, over 95 percent of the required mitigation lands needed for the Project. Approximately $26 million was expended for these acquisitions. The Commission has completed the mitigation tasks cited in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) per Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The MOA between Caltrans, SHPO, and the Commission stipulates that the Commission shall complete cultural resource mitigation measures cited in the MOA. Additionally, the MOA stipulates that construction cannot commence on any aspect of the Project until the cultural resource mitigation measures are completed. The cultural resource 74 mitigation work was completed and accepted by Caltrans and the Consulting Tribes in March 2022, per the Commission’s direction at its August 28, 2017, meeting. Right of Way Acquisition Considering the magnitude of ROW acquisitions required for the Project, RCTC has commenced ROW acquisitions on critical parcels. To date, the Commission has acquired approximately 109 of 1,099 acres, or approximately 10 percent of the needed ROW. Approximately $25.8 million was expended on these purchases. Corridor Analysis At the 2023 Commission Workshop, the Commission directed staff to develop a corridor analysis to identify ways to re-envision the project into segments or configurations that would address the project needs while making the project fundable and buildable. The Corridor Analysis evaluated conversion of the Project from a State Route to a County expressway. This slightly reduced the project’s footprint due to the implementation of County standards rather than State Highway requirements. The Corridor Analysis also included trails and multimodal features and connections to existing transit facilities and identified cost-effective buildable segments that could be constructed in phases. The Corridor Analysis also presented the necessary steps required for Caltrans to relinquish CEQA lead to RCTC. Per federal requirements, Caltrans must remain the NEPA lead. Implications of the Proposed SR-79 Becoming a County Expressway Staff will need to seek Caltrans concurrence to consider this project off-system and approve the assignment of RCTC as the CEQA lead. If Caltrans accepts this approach, RCTC will become the CEQA lead agency and Caltrans will remain the NEPA lead agency. All project matters will be directed through the District’s Planning Division, Local Assistance Branch, due to Caltrans maintaining the NEPA lead. Since the future of SR-79 will be a non-state highway, a different name will need to be determined for this new corridor. It is important to note that as a new corridor built to County standards, funding for maintenance and operations activities will need to be identified. It is unlikely that the County or the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto could absorb the maintenance costs into their existing Capital Improvement Plans. Eligibility and funding for maintenance of this proposed corridor have been included in the 2024 Draft Traffic Relief Plan. Proposed Cross-section As part of the Corridor Analysis, staff coordinated with the County to scope the Project in a way that provides a buildable, fundable project for immediate public benefit which meets the local agency needs for safety and maintenance. After numerous meetings regarding the cross-section and project segmentation, RCTC and County staff have agreed on a cross-section based on county expressway standards with a future transit facility and bicycle/pedestrian path. The proposed cross-section is included as Attachment 3. 75 Segmentation It was determined that the Project could be broken into three segments, in which each segment would retain its logical termini and independent utility. The three segments are: • Segment 1 – Sanderson Avenue to Florida Avenue (State Route 74) • Segment 2 – Florida Avenue (State Route 74) to Domenigoni Parkway • Segment 3 – Domenigoni Parkway to Newport Road A map of the proposed segments is included as Attachment 4. As part of the Corridor Analysis, the total project cost estimate was updated to current year dollars and analyzed as the corridor being considered a county expressway and broken into the three segments noted above. Table 1 summarizes the total project costs. The total project cost includes design, construction management, construction, ROW, and RCTC project management. Staff also held discussions with the County and developed a 4th segment alternative which modified the limits of Segment 3, extending it by 0.82 miles north to Simpson Road. • Segment 3 Modified Limits – Domenigoni Parkway to Simpson Road A map of the proposed Segment 3 Modified Limits is included as Attachment 5. Table 1 – Updated Total Project Cost Breakdown by Segment (Caltrans vs County Facility) Segment Original Caltrans Facility Corridor Analysis County Expressway Difference 1 Segment 1 - Northerly $750,000,000 $340,000,000 $410,000,000 2 Segment 2 - Middle $780,000,000 $600,000,000 $180,000,000 3 Segment 3 - Southerly $230,000,000 $170,000,000 $60,000,000 4 Segment 3 Modified Limits $340,000,000 $280,000,000 $60,000,000 Total $1,760,000,000 to $1,870,000,000 $1,110,000,000 to $1,220,000,000 $650,000,000 As part of the analysis, staff reviewed the ROW required for the project by segment, as this would have a significant impact on the total project cost. The ROW required by segment and estimated cost is summarized in Table 2. 76 Table 2 – ROW Cost by Segment Total Parcels Required Cost for ROW Segment Caltrans Facility Corridor Analysis Parcels Acquired Caltrans Facility Corridor Analysis Segment 1 - Northerly 54 27 7 $90,067,859 $54,951,086 Segment 2 – Middle 47 / 42* 43 / 38* 2 $62,283,271/ $54,877,315* $50,561,270/ $44,318,627* Segment 3 - Southerly 15 14 0 $19,805,863 $19,486,305 Segment 3 Modified Limits 20 19 0 $27,211,819 $25,728,948 Total 116 84 9 $172,156,993 $124,998,661 * The first number is the number of parcels required for the original segments / the second number is if Segment 3 Modified is used. As noted, discussions were held with the County resulting in the development of Segment 3 Modified Limits, which offers several benefits. Some of the benefits include: • Increasing the limits of the initial project; and • Redirecting traffic from the existing SR-79 in downtown Winchester to the new alignment. A comparison of Segment 3 and Segment 3 Modified total project costs is summarized in Table 3. Table 3 – Segment 3 compared to Segment 3 Modified Item Segment 3 (Newport Rd. to Domenigoni Pky.) Segment 3 Modified (Newport Rd. to Simpson Rd.) Difference 1 Design $10,548,510 $17,995,050 ($7,446,540) 2 Agency Support $5,274,255 $8,997,525 ($3,723,270) 3 Construction $112,114,105 $190,687,325 ($78,573,220) 4 Construction Support $16,817,116 $28,603,099 ($11,785,983) 5 ROW Acquisitions $18,558,386 $24,503,760 ($5,945,374) 6 ROW Support $927,919 $1,225,188 ($297,269) Total Total (Rounded Up) $164,240,291 $170,000,000 $272,011,948 $280,000,000 ($107,771,656) ($110,000,000) 77 Segment Recommendation After reviewing the data, if the Commission decides to proceed with the Project at this time, the most cost-effective segment is Segment 3, which has the lowest total project cost (including the lowest ROW costs), offering a greater potential to find funding required to advance the segment. It should be noted that Segment 3 Modified Limits will require other improvements to Simpson Road to address the additional traffic, which will fall outside of the SR-79 Project footprint and will need to be a separate project(s) implemented and funded by the County. The city of Hemet raised concerns that this option would require improvements to other local streets, which would also fall outside the project footprint and will need to be implemented and funded separately by the City. Funding The Commission approved approximately $7.7 million for the Project in its FY 23/24 budget for ROW acquisition. The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Hemet/San Jacinto Zone recently approved the allocation of $10 million in TUMF funds to the Project, specifically for ROW acquisition. Given the current funding priorities at the state and federal level, it is not likely that this segment will be competitive with receiving funding. Local resources such as Measure A and TUMF will be the primary funding sources for the proposed phases of this project, including design, ROW, and construction. Furthermore, there are additional constraints to the identified funding such as TUMF. Specifically, this project’s TUMF eligibility is currently capped at $87 million. After accounting for environmental and ROW costs already incurred and assuming the $10 million in Zone TUMF mentioned above is utilized, only $40 million in TUMF funding eligibility remains. This study effort and revised corridor concept has resulted in lowering project costs significantly however, the Project costs still exceed $1 billion. Unlike other high-cost RCTC projects, this corridor has limited opportunity for external funds for reasons previously mentioned. Viewing this cost in the context of Measure A revenues demonstrates the significant difficulty in funding the Project as shown Table 4 below. It is for this reason that the Commission placed the Project in, “Group 4: Not Part of the 2019-2029 Delivery Plan: RCTC Projects” category. Table 4 – Summary and context of approx. Measure A collections and expenditures to date Total Measure A collected 2009-June 30, 2023 $2.6 billion Western County share of Measure A collected 2009-June 30, 2023 $2.0 billion Measure A Western County Highways share collected (30%) per voter approved expenditure plan $600 million Total RCTC expenditures on SR-79 Realignment to date (Measure A and TUMF) $88 million SR-79 Realignment project cost for remaining phases per Corridor Analysis (Segments 1, 2, 3/3 Modified) $1.1-$1.2 billion 78 Value of Western County Highways projects named in voter-approved Measure A expenditure plan delivered or under construction to date $2.5-$2.8 billion Although funding PS&E and ROW costs for either Segment 3 or Segment 3 Modified Limits is likely feasible within existing or near-term funding sources, sufficient funding for construction of Segment 3 is not yet identified and will have a significant impact on the rest of the Commission’s priorities. If the Commission chooses to proceed at this time and with the Commission’s direction, staff will commence a review of project priorities along with available funding and will determine what funding, if any, can be allocated to the project. This could require other Commission projects to be postponed indefinitely until other funding can be identified and allocated and the Commission will have fewer resources and flexibility to support partner agency projects such as interchanges, grade separations, and regional arterials. Once this review has been completed, staff will return to the Commission with recommendations on which project or projects will need to be postponed to allow for funding of Segment 3 or Segment 3 Modified Limits. SUMMARY The Project has been and will continue to be a difficult project for RCTC to fund in its entirety due to the cost of building a new roadway within a new ROW corridor. If the Commission desires to advance one segment of the Project toward construction, staff recommends proceeding with either Segment 3 or Segment 3 Modified Limits PS&E and ROW to jumpstart Project progress. Although construction funds are yet to be identified, having one segment ready to go to construction would position the Project to be eligible for more state and federal programs, though competition for those funds will be difficult. Segments 1 and 2 PS&E and ROW are not recommended due to higher costs that cannot be funded, even if other RCTC projects are postponed. Concerns have been raised by Ad Hoc members about proceeding with Segment 3 or Segment 3 Modified Limits. Staff has provided alternative recommendations for the Commission to consider: • Alternative A: commence PS&E and ROW phases on Segment 3 or Segment 3 Modified Limits and staff to identify funding sources necessary to complete these two phases. • Alternative B: focus on acquiring core parcels along the corridor that may be subject to imminent development, expending available Regional and Zone TUMF funding; staff to seek funding opportunities to advance one of the project segments. • Alternative C: maintain current 2019-2029 Measure A Western County Highway Delivery Plan priorities and suspend the Project until such time as the Project or a preferred Project segment can feasibly be funded through the construction phase. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact at this time. Staff will return to the Commission with funding recommendations, prioritization policy changes, and budget amendments, if necessary, upon 79 Commission direction. Funding in the current Fiscal Year 2023/24 budget is included for both ROW and Corridor Analysis related to the Project. Attachments: 1) 2002 Measure A Expenditure Plan – Western County Highways excerpt 2) 2019-2029 Measure A Western County Highway Delivery Plan 3) Cross-section 4) Proposed Segments 5) Segment 3 Modified Limits 80 SPECIFIC TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS TO BE FUNDED WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY The Expenditure Plan Map illustrates the Western and Coachella Valley areas The Western County area includes the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Corona, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Riverside, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, and Temecula It also includes the unincorporated communities of Jurupa, Mira Loma, Menifee, Wildomar, and Sun City and other more sparsely populated areas, and the reservations of the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians, the Soboba Band of Mission Indians, the Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians, the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians, and the Morongo Band of Indians 1 STATE HIGHWAYS Many more state highway improvement projects are needed to deal with congestion and safety problems than existing state and federal revenues can fund Projected formula funds from these sources over the 30 years is estimated to be $640 million and will fund less than 1/2 of the improvements needed and identified in the Expenditure Plan, which are estimated to cost 1 66 billion in current dollars Measure "A" funds will supplement those funding sources by an estimated $ 1 02 billion and will cover the remaining costs estimated to accomplish these improvements The Highway projects to be implemented with funding returned to the Western County Area by extending the Measure "A" Program are as follows 4 ATTACHMENT 1 81 ROUTE LIMITS PROJECT EST COST 91 60 115 1-215 Reducing congestion on these routes will require that new transportation corridors are constructed See Section 2 Rte 91 Pierce Street to Orange County Line Add 1 lane each direction 161 91/I 15 Interchange Add new Connector from 115 North to 91 West 243 91/71 Interchange Improve Interchange 26 Rte 71 Rte 91 to San Bernardino County Line Widen to 3 lanes each direction 68 215 60/91/215 to San Bernardino County Line Add 2 lanes each direction S 231 1-215 Eucalyptus Ave to 115 Add 1 lane each direction 210 15 Rte 60 to San Diego County Line Add 1 lane each direction 359 1-10 San Bernardino County Line to Banning Add eastbound truck climbing lane 75 10/60 Interchange Construct new interchange 129 Rte 60 Badlands area east of Moreno Valley Add truck climbing lane 26 Rte 79 Ramona Expressway to Domenigoni Parkway Realign highway 132 SUBTOTAL Measure A Funding State & Federal Formula Funds 1 02 Billion 0 64 Billion TOTAL 1 66 Billion The Commission may add additional State Highway projects, should additional Measure "A" revenue become available An estimated 5% of the total cost for these highway projects ($83 million) will be used for environmental purposes to mitigate the cumulative and indirect impacts associated with construction of these projects 5 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Phase Sponsor Cost Available Funding Consequence of deferring delivery Deferred projects from the 2009-2019 Western County Highway Delivery Plan Projects that fulfill or enhance projects named in the approved Measure A expenditure plan Projects that can realistically attain sufficient funding to achieve completion of a usable segment Projects with the potential to minimize Measure A contributions Eligibility for “restrictive” funding sources Economic benefit to the region due to the constructed traffic improvement (in millions $)(in millions $) Group 1 Fully Funded: Part of the 2019-2029 Delivery Plan COMPLETE 91 CIP Completion Design-Build RCTC 36$ X X X X X n/a (project closeout) I-15 ELP Completion Design-Build RCTC 22 X X X X n/a (project closeout) BUILD 15/91 Express Lanes Connector Design-Build RCTC 220 X X X X X X MEDIUM SR-60 Truck Lanes Construction RCTC 123 X X X X X MEDIUM Mid-County Parkway: Placentia Interchange at I-215 Construction RCTC 60 X X X X X MEDIUM 91 Pachappa UP Project: Railroad realignment Construction RCTC 18 X X X X X n/a (railroad constr.) Mid County Parkway: Sweeney Grading Construction RCTC 5 X X X X n/a (no lane const.) *71/91 Interchange Construction RCTC 128 X X X X X X MEDIUM *SR-91 Corridor Operations Project (Westbound auxiliary lane: Green River to 241)Construction RCTC 40 X X X X X HIGH *I-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension (Cajalco to 74): Advanced Operations Environmental through Construction RCTC 28 X X X X X MEDIUM START I-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension (Cajalco to 74)Environmental RCTC 33 X X X X X n/a (no lane const.) *I-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension (Cajalco to 74)Design-Build phase 1 RCTC 24 X X X X X n/a (no lane const.) *91 Downtown Riverside Express Lanes Environmental RCTC 22 X X X n/a (no lane const.) 757$ 757$ * = project (or project phase) fully-funded based on the June FFI Committee Innovative Financing Opportunities staff report recommendations and potential July 2019 Board approval Note: The June FFI Committee Innovative Financing Opportunities staff report estimated between $228M and $467M of proceeds available, use of $241M of proceeds are assumed above Group 2 Partial Funding Likely Available: Part of the 2019-2029 Delivery Plan Mid County Parkway: Right of Way and Environmental Mitigation ROW/Environmental RCTC 40 X X X X n/a (no lane const.) Mid-County Parkway: Package 2 Design/Construction RCTC 84 X X X X HIGH Mid County Parkway: I-215 Project, Nuevo to Alessandro Design/Construction RCTC 145 X X HIGH I-15 Express Lanes Project Southern Extension (Cajalco to 74)Design-Build phase 2 construction RCTC 470 X X X X MEDIUM 60/215 Riverside-Moreno Valley Express Lanes 60/215 Riverside-Moreno Valley Express Lanes Environmental RCTC 38 X X X X n/a (no lane const.) 60/215 Riverside-Moreno Valley Express Lanes Design/Construction RCTC 342 X X X HIGH I-215 Gap Project (I-215 to French Valley Parkway)Environmental to Construction RCTC 18 X X X n/a 91 Downtown Riverside Express Lanes Design/Construction RCTC 197 X X HIGH 1,335$ $125-$525 Group 3 Partner Agency Projects: Assist with Funding in 2019-2029 Lake Elsinore: I-15/Railroad Canyon Interchange (fully funded)Construction Lake Elsinore 36$ X X X MEDIUM RCTLMA: Cajalco Road Corridor Environmental to Construction County 452 X X HIGH Temecula: French Valley Parkway Phase 2 Environmental to Construction Temecula 120 X MEDIUM 608$ $36-$100 Group 4 Not Part of 2019-2029 Delivery Plan: RCTC Projects Mid County Parkway: Packages 3 and thereafter Environmental to Construction RCTC 800$ X X X HIGH 79 Realignment Design/ROW to Construction RCTC 1,300 X X MEDIUM I-15 Corridor (SR-74 to 215/15 interchange)Project Study to Environmental RCTC 35 X X X X n/a (no lane const.) SR-91 Corridor Ultimate Project: SR-91 Corridor Ultimate Proj.: 2035 (EB & WB general purpose lanes: 71 to 241)Environmental RCTC 50 X X X X n/a (no lane const.) SR-91 Corridor Ultimate Proj.: 2035 (EB & WB general purpose lanes: I-15 to Pierce)Environmental RCTC 25 X X X X n/a (no lane const.) I-10 Truck Climbing Lane Environmental to Construction RCTC 75 X X X n/a I-15 Corridor (215/15 interchange to San Diego County line)Project Study to Environmental RCTC 35 X X X n/a (no lane const.) SR-71 Widening Environmental to Construction RCTC 100 X X MEDIUM 10/60 Interchange Environmental to Construction RCTC 500 X X MEDIUM 215 Ultimate widening (60 to San Bernardino County line)Environmental to Construction RCTC 1,000 X MEDIUM 60 Jurupa Valley-Riverside Express Lanes Environmental RCTC 51 X X n/a (no lane const.) Managed Freeway Projects Pilot Project RCTC 50 n/a (benefit unknown) 4,022$ -$ Group 5 Not Part of 2019-2029 Delivery Plan: Partner Agency Projects SBCTA: 15 Express Lanes Environmental to Construction SBCTA N/A X n/a (cost unknown) RCTLMA: Ethanac Corridor Environmental to Construction County N/A n/a (cost unknown) Temecula: French Valley Parkway Phase 3 Environmental to Construction Temecula N/A n/a (cost unknown) N/A -$ June 24, 2019 Group Total Group Total 10-Year Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan 2019-2029 RCTC-Sponsored Group 1 and Group 2 Projects PRIORITIZATION FACTORS Projects Group Total Group Total Group Total Attachment 2 83 PROPOSED CROSS SECTION ATTACHMENT 3 84 PROPOSED SEGMENTS Segment 1 Sanderson to Florida Segment 2 Florida to Domenigoni Segment 3 Domenigoni to Newport ATTACHMENT 4 85 SEGMENT 3 MODIFIED ATTACHMENT 5 86 STATE ROUTE 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT UPDATE AND CORRIDOR ANALYSIS Project Update January 26, 2024 Erik Galloway, P.E. Project Delivery Director 1 SR-79 Project 2 Scope 12-mile limited access highway with 2 lanes in each direction –new alignment Project Limits Ramona Expressway to Newport Road Benefits Safer and more direct north-south route, serving the community of Winchester, the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto, and unincorporated Riverside County 3 2004: Start of environmental process. 2005: Evaluate and redefine alternatives 2008: Conducted field surveys & prepare technical reports 2009-2012: Prepare Draft Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) 2013: Circulate Draft EIR/EIS for public review and comment, conduct public hearings and review comments 2014: Preparation of Partially Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS, identify Preferred Alternative for Project 2015: Partially recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS available for public review and comment 2016: Publish Final EIR/EIS, prepare and publish ROD 2017 & Beyond: Right-of-Way & Mitigation Lands Acquisition 2023: Corridor Study 2023: WRCOG Provides $10M in ROW Funding 2023: SR-79 Ad Hoc Committee meeting & Meeting with City of Hemet Project History Project Challenges 4 Funding Constraints 1) Federal and state funding far below historical levels 2) High Project Costs 3) High per Mile Cost $100 to $150M vs $19 to $44M State Policy Changes Vehicle Miles Traveled in lieu of Level of Service RCTC Progress 5 •Over 95% of the required mitigation lands, 221.5 acres, for the project has been acquired and has expended $26 million Right of Way Mitigation Land and Environmental Activities •109 of 1099 acres (10%) of ROW has been acquired and expended $25.8 million.Right of Way Acquisition •Evaluate Caltrans vs. County Facility •Cost implications and environmental implications •Segmentation •Transit corridor option Corridor Analysis Corridor Study 6 •Convert Facility from Caltrans Highway to County Expressway •Coordinate RCTC becoming CEQA Lead 7 •Transit/Multi-Use Corridor Corridor Study (Continued) Segmentation 8 •Segmentation of the Alignment – Feasible/Buildable Segments •Right of Way will be reduced for a County Facility Segment 1 Sanderson to Florida Segment 2 Florida to Domenigoni Segment 3 Domenigoni to Newport 9 Updated Total Project Cost Breakdown by Segment (Caltrans vs County) Segment Original Caltrans Facility Corridor Study County Facility Difference 1 Northerly Segment 1 $750,000,000 $340,000,000 $410,000,000 2 Middle Segment 2 $780,000,000 / $670,000,000* $600,000,000 / $490000,000* $180,000,000 3 Southerly Segment 3 $230,000,000 $170,000,000 $60,000,000 4 Southerly Segment 3 Modified Limits $340,000,000 $280,000,000 $60,000,000 Total $1,760,000,000 $1,110,000,000 $650,000,000 Segment Costs * The first number is for Segment 2 / the second number is if Segment 3 Modified is used and Segment 2 is reduced. 10 Updated ROW Cost Breakdown by Segment (Caltrans vs County) ROW Costs by Segment Total Parcels Required Cost for ROW SegmentCaltrans Facility Corridor Analysis Parcels Acquired Caltrans Facility Corridor Analysis Segment 1 -Northerly 54 27 7 $90,067,859 $54,951,086 Segment 2 –Middle 47 / 42*43 / 38*2 $62,283,271/ $54,877,315* $50,561,270/ $44,318,627* Segment 3 -Southerly 15 14 0 $19,805,863 $19,486,305 Segment 3 Modified Limits20 19 0 $27,211,819 $25,728,948 Total116 84 9 $172,156,993 $124,998,661 * The first number is the number of parcels required for the original segment / the second number is if Segment 3 Modified is used. Alternative Southerly Segment 11 •Extend Southerly Segment 3 from Domenigoni Parkway to Simpson Road •Provide the potential to shift traffic out of Winchester Community •County improvement of Simpson Road 12 Southerly Segment 3 Modified Road –Newport Rd. to Simpson Rd. Detailed Total Installed Cost Breakdown Comparison Item Segment 3 (Newport Rd. to Domenigoni Parkway) 1.35mi Segment 3 Modified (Newport Rd. to Simpson Rd.) 2.17mi Difference 1 Design $10,548,510 $17,995,050 ($7,446,540) 2 Agency Support $5,274,255 $8,997,525 ($3,723,270) 3 Construction $112,114,105 $190,687,325 ($78,573,220) 4 Construction Support $16,817,116 $28,603,099 ($11,785,983) 5 ROW Acquisitions $18,558,386 $24,503,760 ($5,945,374) 6 ROW Support $927,919 $1,225,188 ($297,269) Total Total (Rounded Up) $164,240,291 $170,000,000 $272,011,948 $280,000,000 ($107,771,656) ($110,000,000) Alternative Southerly Segment Cost Estimate 13 Current •Fiscal Year 2023/24 Budget –approx. $7.7 million for Right of Way acquisition •WRCOG allocation of $10 million Future •TUMF Zone eligibility remaining $40 million •Limited opportunity for external funding Funding 14 •Design and construct as county operated and maintained facility •Cross section to include future transit corridor and multi-use trail •RCTC become CEQA lead •Finalize mitigation land acquisition Staff Recommendations: Segment 1 Sanderson to Florida Segment 2 Florida to Simpson Segment 3 Simpson to Newport 15 Alternative A •Commence PS&E and ROW Phases for Segment 3 or Segment 3 Modified •Staff to identify funding to complete these two phase Alternative B •Focus on Core Parcel Acquisition •Use Regional and Zone TUMF funding •Staff to seek funding opportunities to advance one of the segments Alternative C •Maintain current 2019-2029 Measure A Western County Highway Delivery Priorities •Suspend the project until the Project or Preferred Segment can be feasibly funded through construction Alternative Recommendations: QUESTIONS? 16 DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BO ARD DATE: Cl c•Y) a_ 6 1� 4 CHECK IF PUBLIC COMMENTS: at - AGENDA ITEM NO.: (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) N AME: ADD RESS: SUBJECT OF l PUBLIC COMMENTS: H 1 Ca Il r �.c�.0 7' a I ti rMoi r) SUBJECT OF AGENDA ITEM: Le.) --E V.sq- >J 14P- 0 A 5' ,n 8 bL STREET REPRESEN TING : I - LT) NA ME OF AGEN Y / ORGAN ON / GRO BUSINESS ADDRESS: PH ONE NO .: � l �-I4�- � clL/ 6-LL/24>�I3NENO.:,g/I( ST REET CITY Y-� ZIP CO DE DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD DATE: /-26 CHECK IF SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO.: SUBJECT OF (AS LISTED ON THE AGE NDA) NAME: ADDRESS: SR 71 AGE NDA ITEM: \SA- t (p PHONE NO.: ICI 7 7 (,2 •D- IO) ? C - '2r- Gfk ZIP CODE REPRESENTING: STREET CI TY L3' 5 5130014 or pit h PHONE NO.: N AME OF AGENCY / ORGANIZATI ON / GROUP iIU .S BUSINESS ADDRESS: STREET CITY ZIP CODE DET ACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BO ARD DATE: CHECK IF SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: O PUBLIC COMMENTS: �9 AGENDA ITEM NO.: SUBJECT OF (AS LISTED ON THE AGEND A) AGE NDA ITEM: NAME: ADDRESS: Ginn 1/0W! 'Da hi STREET P HONE N O.: CITY ZIP CODE REPRESENTING: PHONE NO.: NAME OF AGENCY / ORGANIZ ATION / GROUP BUSINESS ADDRESS: STREET CITY ZIP CODE DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD DA TE: if1/( s� I [ ' CHECK IF SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO.: (A S LISTED ON THE AGE NDA) NAME: SUBJECT OF 14 AGEN DA ITEM: 1 .04 ( v14 PH ONE NO.:`i J `2 fE-9 ADDRESS: '4:� v� I U ( Z / .t rj .� c r STREET CITY ZIP C ODE REPRESENTING: dv �) , PHONE NO.: NNN��c A RATION /GROUP Li) 6 Ak tse.„ BUSINESS ADDRESS6%,e-\\,.40...V J Ape 34' e 9 - ST REET C ZIP CODE DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD DATE: 12c.• 2-3 CHECK IF SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: CI PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM N O.: SUBJECT OF (AS LISTED ON THE AGEND A) NAME: ADDRESS: AGENDA ITEM: 79 .A.2,0- _v' • sotha sr STREET REPRESENTING: 5 R 7 9 + ',r2 4.0 N AME OF AGENCY / ORGANIZATION / GROUP CITY PHO NE NO.: PHONE NO.: ZIP CODE BUSINESS ADDRESS: STREET CITY ZIP CODE DET ACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BO ARD DATE: P - 2 6 -- CHECK IF PUBLIC COMMENTS: le AGENDA ITEM NO.: (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) NAME: ADDRESS:1 4 b STREET REPRESENTING: SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: SUBJECT OF AGEN DA ITEM: CITY A IM OF AGENCY / ORGA NIZATION / GROUP PH ONE NO .: eqj/-6S '— 9660 ZIP CODE PHONE NO.: BUSINESS ADDRESS: STREET CITY ZIP C ODE DETACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD DATE: acie- t7( CHECK IF OBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: r PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO.: (AS LISTED ON THE A GE NDA) SUBJECT OF AGE NDA ITEM: NAME: At /' e, ADD RESS: ST R ET REPRESENTINGSR NA ME 0 ENCY / OR GANIZATION / GROH BUSINESS ADDRESS: f�►�J STREET CITY PHO NE N O.: PHO NE NO.OZ S-3(2 ZIP CODE ZIP C ODE �p,�% DET ACH AND SUBMIT TO THE CLERK OF THE BOARD DATE: JA "" /' CHECK IF PUBLIC COMMENTS: O AGENDA ITEM NO.: (AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA) NAME: ADD RESS: STREET REPRESENTIN G: BUSINESS AD DRESS: SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS: SUBJECT OF AGENDA ITEM: 4-- 7� AOF AGENCY / ORGANIi`ON / GRO UP STREET -�� 7,9 PHO NE NO.: 4C'- ' rte` CITY P HONE NO.: ZIP CODE 1 74,11) .e.. / CITY ZIP CODE TV2CV SR79 REALIGNMENT COALITION Connecting Communities from Temecula Valley to Coachella Valley Connecting Communities fora Better Tomorrow! SR79 Realignment da r. SR79 REALIGNMENT "IN THE NEWS" 1998 — FEDERAL MONEY RECEIVED FOR PROJECT 2004 -JOHN STANDIFORD RE: "MEASURE A" 2004- 16.5% TUMF CONTRIBUTION FROM SAN JACINTO VALLEY 2006 — REI WED MEASURE A PROJECTS "SR 79" 2007- JOHN STANDIFORD "79 TIMELINES" 2007 — HONORABLE JOHN BENOIT 2008- $215 MILLION BUDGET 2010 — KATHY BECHTEL "CONSTRUCTION WAS TO HAVE STARTED THIS YEAR OR NEXT" Realignment of Highway 79 closer ■ COUNCIL: Hemet way 79 . >S' $ awarded $6 million in House draft of transportation plan By JENNA HUNT The Hemet News The city of Hemet is one step closer to obtaining a multi -million dollar grant needed to realign High - ETC. "This is one step into a long process and it is a huge step," Vice Mayor Lori Van Arsdale said Tues- day. Mayor Robin Lowe announced at Tuesday evening's council meeting that the city was awarded $6 million to fund the realignment during the House of Representative's mock-up of the Intermodal Surface Trans- portation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). Lowe said that while this is not a Wednesday, March 25,.1998 signed check, it is a major hurdle in receiving the funds for the long - needed realignment, It appears trips to Washington D.C. during the past months have paid off for Lowe, Council Member Marge Tandy and Van Arsdale, they said. "I'd say that's not wasting money when we go to Washington D.C.," Van Arsdale said. Lowe credits theirrecent trips to the capital, in addition to letters written by Public Works Director Juan 'Perez, for helping to create a positive bond and cement their rela- tionship with the United States 'Department of Transportation and members of Congress from South- ern California. "It is that kind of cooperation on all levels that gets the job done," Lowe said. Lowe said the Southern California members of Congress who were (Sec COUNCIL, Page A-5) A-5 M COUNCIL (Continued from Page A-1) instrumental in helping the project move forward are Ron Packard, Ken Calvert. George E. Brown Jr., Jay Kim and his key staff member Dan Mathews, Tony Orlando of the late Sonny Bono's office, and Sen. Bar- bara Boxer. "It Is very encouraging to have this kind of representation," Coun- cilman Lyle Alberg said. The process is a matter of legisla- tive steps and the next step will be with the U.S. Senate, which is cur- rently working on its own version of ISTEA. Lowe said when the Senate finishes crafting its version of legis- lation, both sides will go to commit- tee to reach a consensus on the trans- portation bill. Lowe and Van Arsdale said they appreciate the efforts of San Jacinto Council members Jim Conner and Patrick Williams for helping bring attention to Highway 79 during their recent trips to the nation's capital to lobby for a new bridge over Lake Park Drive. San Jacinto Mayor Jim Smedley has also been to Washing- ton D.C. on city business and helped lobby for the needed grant funding for the realignment. Lowe said. The goal for the city will be the completion of a six -lane roadway realignment with limited access, which will be a high-speed traffic mover into the Valley. It will serve as a regional link between the desert communities and San Diego. The connection will save travelers on the realignment IS miles over the cur- rent alignment. With the upcoming Eastside Reservoir Project and an increase in traffic due to recreational use this grant funding will be essential, city officials said. In other city business: U The council unanimously approved staff recommendations to the 1998-99 Community Develop- , ment Block Grant Funding which totals $583,000 in funding for city projects. The Valley -Wide Mentor program was approved for $2,500, II The council unanimously approved the tract map for Heart- land Group, Inc, to build on the northwest comer of Florida and Cal- ifornia. The developers said they are within 45 days of finding the $20 million needed to fund their golf course with 38 lots on 664 acres. ■ The council unanimously accepted the Federal COPS grant that will help fund two officers' salaries with a total of $75,000 for each officer over a three year period. The purchase of two fully equipped patrol vehicles from salary savings was put on hold until further infor- mation could be obtained UnsnaiIiig traFfic The Valley's traffic conditions are expected to get worse before improvements are made By Charles Hand TIM VALLEY CHRO011011 If you think the traffic some- times gets had in the San Jacinto Valley now, wail a biL lt's about to get worse. a lot worse, Between 1 million and I,S million people will move into western Riverside County between now and, say, 2020, Many of them will come to the Valley. With them will come cars, thousands of cars Then there is the develop- ment the Valley's two cities are promoting. Though Hemet has limited land remaining for commercial development, them is still room, Every time a Lowe) Hardware more goes up The tuture of Transportation l Evart S of 2 fart 2 cm Satutrtty or a Wal-Mart grows into a supat'ceoter, mom ®e will use the streets around them. 'then there's San Jacinto with a huge chunk of is hand artil* awaiting dse arrnal of o...dcn• dal +tsd :r:nuusn'tal ds^selup- ment that will add tens of thou- sands of auto trips daily en Valley streets and roads. Every dine someone moves here from San Ltter Orange Gormty or Loa A nges s in search •SEE ROADS ON S es of •1v It ;;14, lir i BOB OTTO/The Wlley Chronicle ON THE ROAM At &317 n.rn. traffic streams in and our of the San /seivty Valley. WEDNESDAY -FRIDAY, January 7-9, 2004 S ROADS D Continued from Page 1 of affordable housing, but con- tinues working where they came from, another commuter car hits the already crowded pavement. And, in the next two decades, that is going to happen a lot, if there is a bright spot in all this, it is that, for once, govern- ment is ahead of the curve. Sort of. John Standiford of the Riverside County T1•ansportation Commission office says there will never come a time when govern- ment has caught up with conges- don. "Our goal right now is just to keep up with it," he said. "We"re always going to have issues of congestion" 'l'hat said, Standiford and other transportation planners say several recent steps have been taken to get rolling on building roads, widening roads, installing signals, expanding public transit and otherwise accommodating the huge influx of residents, which is already several years along. During this fiscal year, voters have renewed for 10 years the Measure A half -cent sales tax while county and city govern- ments have levied a huge new tax to pay for freeway construction and expansion, and a plan to speed construction by setting aside large tracts of land to pro- tect threatened plant and animals species and their environments has been adopted by most municipalities in the western county. When voters renewed Measure A, not only did they create a multi -million dollar pool of money for roads, but forced cities into the 11-ansportation Uniform Mitigation Fee that will pay for much of the freeway expansion, and into the Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan, Any city that refuses to join either plan loses its ROAD C OSURE Sanderson Avenue will be closed between Seventh Street end Esplanade Avenue on Saturday, Jan, 10 end Sunday, Jan. 11 for construction share of the Measure A money. TUMP and Measure A will also provide a healthy boost to the public transportation budget for Riverside County. In fact, said Jim Kneepkins of the Riverside Transit Agency, the first payment of $392,000 for expansion of bus service has already arrived and plans are being formulated on how to use Among the plans is a transit center for Hemet and the expan- sion of an express bus service that, at the moment, runs only between Corona and Riverside An Orange County run is about to open. The Transportation Commission is also looking at major expansions of Metrolink service, including a station in Perris that would provide service to Orange County, while the Southern California Associated Governments is considering a proposal that would set up a high-speed train between Los Angeles and the Bay area with possible stops in Riverside County. For those moving around the area by auto, plans for use of the massive tax increases — mostly borne by people who have yet to move into the western county through increases in assessments on new homes running $6,600 per house for the mitigation fee and possibly $2,000 or $3,000 more for the habitat conservation plan — include the construction of a freeway and the expansion of connectors between the Valley and 1-215. Already Highway 79 between approximately Hunter Road and Temecula has gotten signal con- trolled intersections widened to four lanes Riverside County Supervisor Jim Venable said a second phase is about to start in which the road will be widened to four lanes between Winchester and Temecula. In the final planning stages are six -lane corridors connecting Highway 79 to I.215, The first of the connectors will run along Domenigoni Parkway. The second will be on Scott Road and the third on Clinton Keith Road. Together, they will cost $100 million in a combination of county, state and federal money. The major link in the trans- portation network will be what appears to be a new freeway along Highway 79 between Winchester and the Lamb Canyon WEDNESDAY -FRIDAY, I 7 January 7-9, 2004 ROADS ■ Continued from Page 3 Expressway at Ramona Expressway. Though. Highway 79 runs along Ramona Expressway and Sun Jacinto Avenue through San Jacinto and Hemet to Florida Avenue, plans call for it to he shifted to the west side of San Jacinto, where a freeway can be built on essentially empty land and become part of the infra- structure that will support the expansion of the city through both residential and commercial development. Standiford said the Valley will get a good deal of the money and planning that will go into the expansion and improvement of the western Riverside County transportation system because it is one of die few places with sub- stantial chunks of open land. It is where reside trial and commercial development will generate large Increases in demand for road capacity that new roads will be built and roads will be expanded, he said, On the other hand, undevel- oped land presents some crsvlron- mental challenges. "We havc had us work very hard to get through the environ- mental proems," he said the plans for Highway 79 between Winchester and Lamb Canyon Expressway. Venable, however, said envi- ronmental concerns have mostly been comateered through the Multispecies Habitat Cunserrattnn Plan. Ilvo vernal pools remain at issue, howeeet. Venable said offi- cials hope to solve the problem by swapping destruction of the pools for preservation of pools else- where - Vernal pool,, arc dry much of the time. When the area gets rain, they revive and become the homes for several threatened "We have had to work very hard to get through the environmental process," JOHN STANDIFORD, Riverside County Transportation Commission plant and animal species. State and federal lawbars their destruction unless they can be replaced. The habitat plan would set aide a preserve where such environments would be perma- nently protected. In addition to the major expansion and improvement plans that will help commuters and shoppers move around the Valley, there is some talk of changes within the cities. Among the proposals on the table in Hemet, for instance, is helping traffic move better along streets parallel to the very con- gested Florida Avenue on the north and south, perhaps by making them one-way streets. Deputy Public Works Director Mike Gow recently told the City Council that the city should con- sider widening Sanderson Avenue not just south of Florida Avenue in an area of rapid development, but all the way to the northern city limits, where it enters San Jacinto. San Jacinto officials are already consider the widening of Sanderson — and other roads — to accommodate the growth they are encouraging for the west side of town, along with the realign- ment of Lyon Avenue. Other expansion and realignment can he expected in the future as growth drives demand for more and wider thoroughfares. •SEE ROADS ON 7 Road fees leading out of valley TUMF:'Despite providing 10.5 percent o1' money in the county, officials say little is used for their projects. The tranaporlutiott uniform mitigation fee, or TEMP, wits eta rim! In Juno 2002 In help pay ler the hoped of roads front Wire dovelajnitcnt Developer, pay the feel. which are 58.620 per house and I d vista to 3"'3.00 per rgttal0' butt rt lininiui'ml. rural and ',Rico IIY JAMIE liAl0. ar wiSFIH AN$ AU IL list siui 'iiuiui u year, u countywide road improve. mint program Is cabana lm mare lunacy from Henri and San Jaelnk, ilevoittpmenta, but yfchhnc tints haiteni for Cu tales. Plana 9atd- IIE,MET NEWS- develupmenls. So far, the Sarl Jacinto Valley Is conlrIbuting about 10.6 par- cottt of $720 million expected to he raised countywide In the next five years. But local city officials soy little of that money will return to the valley. Also, they any un 88 percent Increase in the fee approved in Novembr, could have a dismal ROAD FEES MONO owes Stubblefield said he's pushing for a more equitable dispersion among cltles. Stubblefield is the city's rep- resentative on the Western Riv- erside Connell of Governments, the agency recently designated au the TUMF governing body. "I feel we're more like donor cities . . . fixing problems in more developed areas, which are driving up the fees," he said. Though there was a plan to review TUMP after two years, a September study cited en ap- proximate $180 million fund/zip shortfall. The report said the lack of money was caused, In part by cities grueling devel- opers exemptions from the fee. In the San Jacinto Valley, city officials any some developers did not have to pay the fee because their projects had been in Use works before the assess- ment began. effect un future development in the valley. The increase is ex- pected to take effect In Moeda. "We've done a good job at- tracting developers so far," San Jacinto City Manager Peter Ce- seatlni said. "We don't want to see the ever -escalating coats create a chilling effect on that" In September, $71.3 million was slated far'' L'1 regional arteri- al road projects across the San Jacinto made nu exemp- tlnns for home developers, but did exclude 17.024 square feet in Industrial, office and retail per- mits. tleinet gave exemptions for 380 homes and 58,559 square feet in retail and office Itermils City .Manager Steve Temple said Hemet's exemptions came in exchange for immedtide road Improvements at Warren and Esplanade loonies and n poi. - Lion of Florida Avenue. The city also allowed the $2 million protect that widened Sanderson Avenue from two to four lanes and added a turn lane near Page Plaza. • "If you drive around this county. Although the widening and extending 0f •ill' Ramona Ex- prmmwny was 'named a top priority, two other, projects in the urea deemed less important havereccivcd no flouting, Those included the widening of Espla- nade and Sanderson avenues. 'FUME money is split Sits percent for renionnl protects and 13.1 percent I'or roads in Lite cities in which developers are building, San Jacinto, Hemet and Riv- erside County officials will de, aide by mid -January what to do with the local portion of the money, nn amount yet to be determined. Work on Espla- nade and Sanderson could he financed by this fund. San.l,,cinin Cuunrllman Dale Sts ROAD FEES/B5, • 5TORIE5 FROM D1 town, construction is going on all over." said llunet Moyer Lyle Alberg, who looks fora ant to seeing more TUMF-generut- ed funds. Sllll, residents won't be able to ride on new pavement soon. The 193 million work on the Ramona Expressway won't start until next summer. A 3,5-niile stretch of the road- way, from Sanderson to the San Jacinto city limits, will be with could be about 12-18 months ennui from two to four lanes, It before construction iscomplete, also will be extended two miles, Stubblefield said. from Seventh Street hi San Fawn ,onnn. Ayala at (9511763-3451 or Jacinto to Cedar Avenue. tsa4R4aoaa And, Rama projects are final- teedbeforetheendoftheyear.It IIDAD FEE i Ott kart PAdSun,Lient6 pat!c contributed shout 16.5% of S726 MILLION expected t6 be raised countywide in Um next five seers for road -improvement fund tI� r ` �r tr r3Arpyyon�_7,. IESiiR .' }ir' Route 79 Realignment Project `Today. tronlIett.hoween (iLitton Spring& Rossi in the nnnh and Ikmteniguni Parkway in the south axe :ivia4 n chpuirul s tome dot'.nies local it regional traffic on heal taadways. t:ol kestian, lack 'kattitvuit andanfeky isstot7ctrn-kdIrattsgtnwtlner plan111111 at itCB.. tnxand !III solution. (good. satiation* ire nay mashed gnteltly: ix -tonne etsviNtunenial 'Wink the a,nasoutts posed by rcaliguring a.major Inolway thtt,tcrres highly dor_Inped sacs., and challenge pond by the r:alttral topography gad watee revninas elate aura all mutt he Adrenal. „Like,*RClt held Its fins ticratutmnal leaping moiling* in the IddI 0(2004, a Sot hat h rpemtd N4th the prulati 'Ilse urigin aIum,ariva havt been tumor t,tl 1uwui dimul[li ptib k oammrn . topaz am local Rprrmment. inpttt horn rnvtmnmenral aj{neri,•t, and Input ittnm ► staszai repent, .1a* artery. dse alrmta;tiVr nutluxt to tries= witit_it tan alnna Satinet na Aveluir. was mtnnrcd from twtlus -study. manly betxutie'ttf the, mmtber of bona. I aving:no. and • Khooh that world he doted In Addiriun, a new :aute.w....4I dd ut pioridr 'arnodterali{ntrttetsrThai imlrkimpsto.tosr iai++is.:nCuuber .1a0.5 the public. a, pttsjei l update mectit�s hod hi the L`aty Iti tenter and t WhIeheaee, Irokcd at the ptttptal' ' Ieuctaldy atsnmenta included: • Pick tlxatmid hint most tutees mane • ,:del hilpacdnt noghburho ds a at4 tettiryiri ye 4 alics and rrsoot Mtiiitm;n the quality of Ilk of the area • ni&ivis tlirmntte to him =en puma in nppnoprenc Sin= rho. the proTea torn ho been meeting eegttbdy with kcal gentttmattutr tty�M ua iuptnruuon yµ i *ands itoa firnho refined- tar• pmlece. The- elwtnitty OrnOriuxi'" alT11414.1 2. Ind 3 ate dikri rt nit the map on time 1ek Q i�nacoltanahrn will le ZIi1tusiahnnignpublic input, rtk'•gtditteni'nrtui vsse,vori federal Imminent woo engineeringCei +idctu v kxand lhu ucntl nF easiroruncnnd sttiMi.'k t Envimnatennd Intpue Stvttaxstt ilifitvirUNI :not Impact Report ecolteytiti lobe einnr%ied h+I pubiit uuuntcnc in early 21Wld. D" / O. 127 ) SR'74-Improve rihMates Interchange RI 1-115 rn PerrIs lelr land Winchester curve In Hamer (?11U91 SR 79 Widen to tourtanes tram Newport Rend to Keller Rood MOB) SR 91 Add one €arse in each dlitc2lon from Adams S rett•t the 60191/215 Interchange in Rlverside (201 11 SR 111 Mulriplt proiects inciudintl intemectiw, InWioVenlents and street widening In the -':hies i t d QulhCB.Indlo, Cathedral City, and County of Hlverseie Commuter Rail ExttndMeaoUnkservlCFtn,m Riverside to Perris on tho penis Valley Line, Uon;rituA a bus 8t ran n,ultlmodal racluRy In Downtow1, Ftrr1s Local Interchanges V.'ets„Icuuncy• •91/Van Buren (20071,91/La Sii.ts t rI007).t50IValleyWay i201T3r, Tr(1R1ayl1^redaticli i2060 Highway Projects Renewed Measure A (2009-2039) SR 91 Add die lane each direction Irom Pie,cc Wee( to Grange County Ilne 'SR 91ft•15loterc aosa krioMvrconnr_ca,r3. titoctwirive foam t.1.5 t;urth to 91 Mn?Sf SR 91171 lriterdienge improve interchange 5R 71 Widen to three lerteloch Mist:don from 51,1 91 to Safi Bernardino County Ilne 1.215 Add two Iarresencli direction nnm 150101171, to -Sat\ OetnertlinD Gossmy Nne 1.215 Acid one lane each direction (Tc m Eucalyi us Avenue III I.1 S 1.15 Add one lane each direction from SR WI to 'Jai, Diego County line t•10 Add eastbound truck climbing lane, San Bernardino County Brie to Banning 1-10/SR 160 Interchange Lonntrutt new interchange SR 60 Add truckciimbing Iatle, flacllat dr area, cast cif Moreno Valley SR 79 Realign highway, Gilman Sptin9s Road to Pomenigoni parkway 1990.2006 DOLLARS FOR LOCAL PROJECTS ery area of RlversIde County benefits from receiving Measure A local streets and roods revenues, • Western County Area BANNING 5 7,565,189 BEAUMONT CALIMESA CANYON LAKE CORONA HEMET LAKE ELSINORE MORENO VALLEY MURRIETA NORCO PERRIS RIVERSIDE SAN JACINTO TEMECULA RIVERSIDE COUNTY AREA -TOTAL Coachella Valley CATHEDRAL CITY !COACHELLA I DESERT HOT SPRINGS INDIAN WELLS INDIO LA QUINTA ` PALM SPRINGS I PALM DESERT • RANCHO MIRAGE 5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY CVAG AREA TOTAL $ S S S 3,710,125 2,020,260 • 2,180,262 40,493,121 19,113,940 9,699,903 40,875,378 14,029,418 8,350,210 10,160,325 91,283,924 6,152,407 22,375,959 $ 92,330,462 $ 370,340,883 Area $ 16,253,488 $ 2,109,750 $ S $ 2,316,749 2,460,409 13,892,231 21,120,492 25,307,907 8,702,845 15,821,624 11,616,387 119,601,882 Palo Verde Valley Area BLYTHE $ 10,771,845 RIVERSIDE COUNTY S 3,419,260 AREA TOTAL 'S 14.191.105 TOTALS $ 504,133,871 RR ersidt County Teattopartatiw, Corrar,lict,,n .4050 Lamoi' ,t!'wc 7rd I loo, • ff.). 8os 1.100H Rn4rsltte. L4 . 37..f' (13 2708 • Tel (35 11 "If, 114 I. ri;, 0511 7E7-' 920 • irttp.' n4 'W rrrr.rn.i RCTC Commission Members Chairman: Marion Ashley, County of Riverside 1st Vice Chairman: Terry Henderson, City of La Quinta 2nd Vice Chairman: Jeff Stone, C.uumty Of Riverside Bob Buster, .:aunt! .,f Risctu+.ic • John F.Tavagllone,County of Riverside Roy Wilson, t ruin• of Itivcrsidc - Barbara Hanna, City of Banning Roger Berg, l; t..1• nl BC.rtnrn,n, • Robert A. Crain, City of Blythe John Chlebnik,C,ry of (:dimes.' • Mary Craton, t :ity of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis, Carl. of Cathedral Cit•. • Juan M. Delara, City of Coachell4 Jeff Miller, city ut Cornna • Hank Hohenstein, City of Desert Hat Springs Robin Lowe, City of f-lcrnct • Mary Roche, Ciiv of Indian Wells Michael H.Wllson,City or Inch • Bob Magee, City of lake Elsinore Frank West, Lily of Moreno Vnfles • Rick Gibbs, Girt,-nl` LSurrlet:r Frank Hall, Ott. of Mom, • Dick Kelly, t ,r!: „t Pain, Desert Ronald Oden, City ni Palnc Spri„p;, • Daryl R. Busch, (:itr of Perris Gordon Moller, (`hr of R,naio Mir:il;r. • Steve Adams, City of Riverside Jim Ayres, i'in, of Sari # tcliiti • Ron Roberts, City of`Pcmcinla Michael A. Perovfc:h,Guyecnor'. . 11afoinrcc, Caltrans Diarriu irS Executive Director: Eric A. Haley Hemet move lifts H TILE PiiESS-ENMIPIRTSti !ETvIET SERVING THE SAN JACINTO VALLEY rIFS DAY.Fe1311VN itI r,. iln7 REAlGNMEKP. Regional planners want to create a north -south paththrough the San Jacinto Valley R litHERBS IM l5iW Flrtuel has agreed toset aside Its preferred route for a re - Miguel' state Highway 79- a de- _ mien n regionaltronsportation planter said could help move the long -owe! led project along. The llmtet C.Ity Council re- cently approved a resolution to "sin-steaignato" 4L's preferred route — out of the possible Suva that would pass through the city for a realigned lllglnsoy 75. Instead, the city will work with other agenoli to nod the best nude for the realigned highway. Regional IrensporiLitton pltutnenl sire working le reallgn lllglsway7s to erode ,+ north - smith highway Ihcough the San .iuclnlo Vslicy'that would -ran met Interaluhe 18 in Temecula toni Interstate to in Beaumont Highway 79 time midis Its way through the San Jacinto Valley along a tdn.7sHaua route that. takes Rao highway through boils fist downtown areas uI Unmet and San Jacinto. The Riverside County Trane- poriatlon Cemmtcalan; the lead 79 plan agency for the Islghway project, has shortened the list of pos- elbie routes ionthe 1Finae stretch that could go through the San Janos Valley. The list Includes three pos- sible routes through Hemet, with city officials earlier ex- pressing preference for the easternmost route, which is closest to downtown Hemet. In their approved resolution, council members said changed land -use patterns. enviranmdn- Iil reelce'Faa mid the need to expand flamed -Ryan Airport, made pursuing the city's ore - !erred mule more complicated, "It ha9 heroine lncrsesciogly evident" said Hemet !loaning Director RIchanl Ma-sycaek In a Jam se memo to the esuerli "that the city's preferred ilign- meat ... wapiti he oxiremtly diflictdt to implemen L" Sot ROM WV' a TUESDAY,February 6, 2007 • -Br HWY. 79 1 CONTINUED FA014 B1 Riverside County Transpor- tation Commission spokesman John Standiford said the city's decision would help narrow down the focus of environ- mental work for the project. "We now have a better de- fined area," Standiford said. He said his agency would work closely with other agen- cies, including the U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- ito neers, to determine the best route for the realigned high- way. He said planners expect to complete much of the project's environmental work this year, with construction possibly Carting in a few years. Theprojeat has a $215 million udget, ilaaluding $132 million in Meesrtre r! funds and HIGHWAY 79 -TIMELINES 2007: Prepare technical sports, prepare draft environmental , reports 2008-2009: Conduct public herrings, identit' preferred mete, begin final desige 2010-2011: acquire right -okay, complete final design, basin constructer SOuRCi:11111101 ChM lailtaffITRPI LIiMNE3 N $83 million in transportation uniform mitigation fees paid by developers. Standiford said. He said the budget would• likely increase, although he does nit have an amount, as land and other costs go up. Reach Herbert Atlenza at 951763.3464 or hattenna®PE.com 41 THE VALLEY CHRONICLE I March 9, 2007 I www.thcvallcychronicle.com Local News - BENOIT ■ Continued from PAGE 3 The time has passed when a motorist from the Inland area could expect to drive 70 miles an hour into Los Angeles on a rela- tively uncluttered freeway. And, even when the projects on the drawing boards or headed there re'I'iaished. that will not change. "We'll never have enough," Benoit said. "We are starting 20'or 30 years too late. - Not that the prognosis is hope- less. llvo in or transportation cor- ridors are planned for the San Jacinto Valley, sod Benoit midi= is cois1ident Metrolink will be ex cad to the Valley in five to a° y Not that public transportation will ever be a major part of the solution, Benoit said. "California made the decision years ago to invest in private transportation" and the state is beyond the point at which that can be changed. he said. "We started 100 years tater than Europe" Benoit said he believes Metrolink has made a difference along the Interstate 10 corridor that connects his Palm Desert communitywith Los Angeles. but that does not mein it can become the solution to growth -induced congestion. Instead, Benoit said he sees the need fo r an tegressive program to pull as much of the recently approved S20 billion highway .coristrinlionboncLanzasurc.into the Inland area to make up for years of neglect combined with rapid growth. Construction is scheduled to start by 2010 on rerouting Highway 79 between the north end of San Jacinto a n d 'Interstate 215. - T h e Midcounty Parkway will link the north end of San Jacinto with Interstate 15 south of Corona. No schedule has been estab- lished for the Midcounty Parkway. Benoit said he would like to see lns_governrnent restriction and environmental concern standing in the way of construction. which John Benoit he said slows construction and increases its cost. Cost rises 20 percent s year and any delay eats away at the amount of construction that can be done with the amount of money avail- able, he said, With the delays such issues cre- ate, it doubles the cast at the end of the day" "We should ask, 'Do we really nerd another full environmental tepeirt?". Inland highway projects deserve more' resources than some other areas because of rapid growth and growing congestion, Benoit said. Voters in Riverside and San Bernardino counties have done themselves a service by approving salts tau increases to Enaitcc high- way. construction and irnprnvty_ menu, he said. "That is a great card in the' Benoit Traffic woes hereto By CHARLES HAND liar VALET CHRONICLE 'Me race between freeway con- gestion and freeway construction as cur and congestion has won, and always will, says Asfelttblytivan John Benoit of the 60th District. Benoit and Assemblyman. Bob Dutton of Rancho Cucamonga teamed up last +reek to stage a transportation summit at' which local and state authoritiesgxuti- ered to assess the state of in sd roadways and the projects intend- ed to improve the picture. Afterward. Benoit said that the inland Empire is starting to far behind the growth curve that it will not be'possible to ever aeate enough freeway lanes to relieve the congestion that rapid popula- tion increases have already and are likely to make worse in the coming years. ► SEE BENOIT ON 4 deck," he said. Only 11I California counties have voted to tax themselves to pay for highway construction and they should — arid do — get higher priority than those coun- ties without such taxes. Benoit said. In addition to construction, the Inland area ran benefit from some other srrategica. including building bridges over the 50 rail- road crossings considered high priority iii the area, he said. but money will be a problem there too. "They cost $40 million each," he said. On the other baud, they would bring to an end long lines at crosarngs as long trains carrying goods from coastal ports to other states snake their way through the region, he said Official parting of ways for Highway 79 HEMET: The City Council selects a preferred route for the realignment of the key traffic artery. BY HERBERT ATIENZA THE PRESS -ENTERPRISE • Plans to realign Highway79 received a boost this week after the Hemet City Council ex- pressed support for a preferred route that would establish a faster, more direct north -south highway through the San Jacin- to Valley between Temecula and Beaumont. The City Council unanimous - 1 approved a resokgian sup- porting selection of one of two possible routes for the highway through the city's western boundary. "It's long overdue," said Hem- et Mayor Marc Searl, who said he hopes the council's action would help expedite the project. He said the council's action should help guide the Riverside County Transportation Com- mission as it finalizes plans for a final highway. Searl said identifying a final route would also allow the city and property owners on the city's west end to plan for the area. Regional transportation plan- ners have been planning to realign Highway 79 from Gil- man Springs Road to Domeni- goni Parkway. The realigned highway would create a more direct north -south link through the San Jacinto Valley, connect- ing Interstate 15 in Temecula and Interstate 10 in Beaumont. Highway 79 now winds through the valley in a circu- itous way laden with stoplights. It travels through both the downtown areas of Hemet and San Jacinto. Hemet Planning Director Richard Masyczek, in a May 13 memo to the council, said the county transportation commis - ROAD WORK TIMELINES 2007: Prepare technical and draft environmental reports 2008-2009: Conduct public hearings; identify preferred route; begin final design 2010-2011: Acquire right-of-way; complete final design; begin construction SOURCE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION sion had identified three poten- tial routes through the City and Hemet officials had exprossed See HIGHWAYB4A STORIES FROM 111 HFRM©AY,1R&Alone • Ma HIGHWAY 79: Potential routes for the realigned State Route 79 through the San Jacinto Valley. sswa Potential corridor O Potential Intersection or Interchange San Jacinto locally preferred alternative CORRIDOR 1 Manuel -Ryan Airport SAN JACINTO Cottonwood Ave. Esplanade Ave. Florida Ave. ocmr'lgont WINCHESTER SOURCE: RIVERSIDE COUNTY ]P NY00AT1; T10 COMMISSION Stetson A MARILYN ODELLO/THEPRESS-ENTERPRISE HIGHWAY CONTINUED FROM B1 support for the easternmost route, which is closest to down- town Hemet. Last year, however, the coun- ty transportation commission removed the city's preferred route from the three alterna- tives due to impacts on environ- mentally -sensitive vernal pools nearby., Of the two remaining alterna- tives, Masyczek said, the cen- tral route -- which now is the city' new preferred route — is closer to the city's western boundaries and that area is being considered for industrial and mixed -use development. It also would have less visual impact for visitors coming along Florida Avenue, which is considered Hemet's gateway, Masyczek said. The third and most western route, he said, could potentially mean that communication facil- ities on a hill west of town would have to be relocated because the highway would be built nearby. County transportation com- mission spokesman John Stan- diford said the council's resolu- tion makes it clear for the commission that the city has a preferred location. "It helps us to respond to the Hemet community's needs," he said. He said the 19 -mile project is now undergoing environmen- tal studies. The project has an estimated $215 million budget, including $182 million from Measure A funds and $89 million in trans- portation uniform mitigation fees paid by developers, he said. The cost could escalate, depend- ing on land values and other costs. Reach Herbert Atlenza at 961.763.3464 or hatienzat®a PE.com ,i_...ft an ,.__.� i _. IN WEIN _., ii. .m rn i lin NM mill WWI in !MEM BM am m is Ten letters, challenging puzzles. Crosswords day THE PRESS -ENTERPRISE in hi; Realign project pushed back HIGHWAY 79: RCTC was to have started construction this year, but funds unavailable. By CHARLES -HAND rI e VALLL7 i',,ar40411CLE The Highway 79 realignment pro ect through the San Jacinto Valley is on schedule, but the schedule is not what it used to be, The Riverside County Transportation Commission decided at its [apiary meeting that construction willhave to wait. Construction was to have started this year or next, but, mid Kathy Bechtel, project manager for the realignment, but the com- mission does not expect money to be available to start work. Circulation of environmental documents is on track, Bechtel said, but the recession has brought a decrease in the two pri- mary sources of funds, n,fr the • Transportation rm Mitigation Fee and the half -cent • gasoline tax. TUMF is a fee levied on all development to pay for the improvements to transportation infrastructure that will be - required to handle the additional traffic generated by the develop- ment. The project is not suspended, but the start of construction will be delayed until the money becomes available to build it, said Bechtel. "There are no plansto move SEE REALIGN ON 4 4 I. THE, y; CHRONICLE I Mairch 5, 2010 I www.thevalleychronicle.coni. REALIGN ■ Continued from PAGE 3 into final design or construction," Bechtel said. The road will connect the southern end of Lamb Canyon at Ramona. Expressway with Winchester Road and eventually Interstate 215. - The former Highway 79 Through the Valley has been relin- quished, leaving a gap in the Highway 79 route. Still in the environmental stages is the Mid -County Expressway that will connect the west side of San Jacinto at Ramona Expressway to 1-215 in Perris. RCTC is the lead agency in a consortium of federal, state, and local agencies involved in the freeway planning. About $70 million has been spent so far, she said, and some right-of-way has , been bought. but caps1-4ak try ,lanning, right- of-way acquisition, and construc- tion is not scheduled to start for an additional three or four years. Still to be determined is whether the road will start at the western end at 1-215 or at the east end on the western end of San Jacinto. The expressway was to have connected San Jacinto with Interstate 15 in the Lake Elsinore area, but complicated environ- mental issues, which generated controversy among residents along the leg between Perris and Lake Elsinore, and the western leg was eliminated, at least for the time being. Bechtel said the recent decision by the federal government to cut off highway funds to San Jacinto while four of its council members are under indictment will not affect the Mid -County Expressway because the Riverside County Transportation Commission is the lead agency, not San Jacinto. The city has a representative on the commission, but it is Steve Di Memmo, the unindicted council member, so the indictments have ,no effect on f l- Bechtel said. TRANSPORTATION: Highway 79 realignment may come next year BY DUG BEGLEY STAFF WRITER dbegiey©oe.com Published: 12 October 2011 07:11 PM A new route for Highway 79 through the San Jacinto Valley might be decided next year, after more than a decade of work to realign the highway and provide a faster trip through the growing area. Preliminary plans to move Highway 79 west and away from crowded streets in Hemet and San Jacinto were delivered Wednesday morning to Caltrans officials, said Cathy Bechtel, project development director for the Riverside County Transportation Commission. State engineers will review the plans for the next few months, and then the public will get a look during public hearings, probably in February or March, Bechtel said. Potential routes for Highway 79 The road, expected to cost about $1 billion to realign from Gilman Springs Road north of San Jacinto to Winchester, is one of two major projects to widen roads into the Hemet area. The Mid -County Parkway, also spearheaded by the county transportation commission, aims to convert the Ramona Expressway to a freeway - like road between San Jacinto and Interstate 215 in Perris. For more than a decade, transportation planners have predicted Highway 79 needs a new route, free from the driveways and cross -streets that choke its current path down Sanderson, San Jacinto and Florida avenues. "It has become more of a local route and no longer provides good regional service," Bechtel said. But moving the highway has proven a Herculean effort, Bechtel told officials at a county transportation commission meeting. Open land in the growing area decreased as commercial and residential developments increased. Various environmental and archeological concerns also dot the San Jacinto Valley, ranging from seasonal pools — some atop a salt flat — to possible cultural resources left by early Native American settlers of the area. Those complications, so far, have led to nearly 40 technical studies of the land, water, biological and archeological impacts of realigning the freeway, Bechtel said. Though important, those studies have slowed progress on the road and left landowners and building projects in limbo, officials said. Connecting Communities for a Better Tomorrow! 8R79 Realignment Coalition ALTERNATIVE 'A' LETTERS OF SUPPORT SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS COMMUNITY COALITION for EQUITY RAMONA BOWL AMPHITHEATRE MOUNT SAN JACINTO COLLEGE (MSJC) LAKE HEMET MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (RET) MWD CHAIRMAN RANDY RECORD SAN JACINTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT WESTERN SCIENCE CENTER MUSEUM HEMET SAN JACINTO GROUP PASS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE (EDA) HEMET SAN JACINTO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE GOSCH AUTOMOTIVE GROUP PANORAMA VILLAGE POA SENIOR COMMUNITY (RET) SUPERVISOR MARION ASHLEY WAYNE MINOR SIERRA DAWN ESTATES HOA SENIOR COMMUNITY CINDY AND ANDY DOMENIGONI WINCHESTER HOMELAND TOWN ASSOCIATION Chairman Isaiah Vivanco Vice -Chairwoman Geneva Mojado SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS EXECUTIVE OFFICES OF THE TRIBAL COUNCIL January 25, 2024 Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Re: Statement to RCTC Pertaining to its Traffic Relief Plan Secretary Monica Herrera The Soboba Band of Luisefto Indians ("Soboba"), a federally recognized Indian Tribe located in the San Jacinto Valley submits the following comments regarding DaniTr as dez surer Riverside County Transportation Commission's 2024 Traffic Relief Plan, with emphasis on the proposed realignment of SR -79 and any applications for federal and Sergeant at Arms local match funding. Michael Bentiste Executive Assistant the Tribal Council Dione Kitchen Tribal Executive Officer Steven Estrada 23906 Soboba Rd. San Jacinto, CA92583 MailingAddress P.O. Box487 San Jacinto, CA 92581 Realignment for the proposed Temecula Valley to Coachella Valley (TV2CV) has been a planned project with Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) for forty years, having been listed as funded through tax measures in 1988 and 2002 (renewed through 2039). The project has survived multiple legal and environmental challenges, with a total taxpayer investment of over one -hundred million tax dollars ($100,000,000) to date. RCTC approved the 2020 Traffic Relief Plan identifying the action to accelerate the proposed TV2CV project after it received environmental approvals in 2016 by both Federal and State agencies. Although Soboba does support the realignment project by pursuing and securing the available federal funds through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and any other sources necessary to initiate this project, Soboba does reaffirm its comments regarding realignment which were memorialized in the Tribe's March 21, 2013 letter to RCTC. The above referenced letter requested that any design of SR79 realignment take into account Soboba's ownership and intended use of the settlement property as well as the protection of the multiple tribal cultural resources within the area, including Native American human remains. Additionally, Soboba requests that consideration and protection of any traditional cultural landscapes, both listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historic Resources, within these areas be taken into consideration. With these statements in mind, the Soboba Band of Luisefio Indians does support Alternative A for purposes of this public comment. www.soboba-nsn.gov Respectfully. Geneva Mojado, ice Chairwoman Isaiah Vivanco, Chairman Daniel Va • xasui r - Monica Herrera.4ecretary Michael Bentiste. Sergeant at Arms www.soboba-nsn.gov Community Coalition For Equity Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Re: Route 79 Realignment Project To the RCTC Commissioners: The Community Coalition for Equity, Inc. was established to advocate for the residents of the San Jacinto Valley'. Of the 3 options staff has provided, the Coalition urges all RCTC Commissioners to direct staff to proceed with Alternative A as the only alternative that promises construction of new roadway. The Coalition believes RCTC has delayed construction of this project across the San Jacinto Valley in favor of other projects based on politics rather than need. It asks each RCTC Commissioner to consider whether the fact that the San Jacinto Valley is on the very low end of Riverside County's socioeconomic scale related the fact that RCTC has failed to complete any of the sections of the Route 79 Realignment Project that fall within the San Jacinto Valley? What has caused past RCTC Commissioners to vote to spend tax dollars on projects designed and proposed long after the Route 79 Realignment Project? Please consider that the poverty rate in Riverside County is approximately 11%2. However, as of January 2024, according to the Riverside County Office of Economic Development's Riverside County Poverty Rate by Census Tract3, areas of the Cities of Hemet and San Jacinto suffer from poverty rates exceeding 37%4. The rate of poverty in these areas is the highest in Riverside County. Measure A was approved by the voters in 1988. The Route 79 Realignment Project was one of several projects listed in RCTC campaign materials at that time. Voters were led to believe that the funds raised by the 1/2 cent sales tax would be used to build the projects that RCTC used to promote passage of Measure A. As of January 2024, RCTC has yet to actually construct any part of the Route 79 Realignment Project Road across the San Jacinto Valley. However, over the 36 years since RCTC started collecting tax revenue from Measure A, RCTC has used these tax dollars to construct any number of other roads and works of improvement not mentioned in campaign materials or even conceived of in 1988. The Community Coalition for Equity is calling on RCTC to provide equity to the residents of the San Jacinto Valley. The Coalition calls on each Commissioner to vote for Alternative A and thus use the tax dollars RCTC receives to benefit all residents of Riverside County with equity. 1 The San Jacinto Valley is made up of the City of San Jacinto, the City of Hemet and all unincorporated areas of the valley. 2 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/riversidecountycalifornia,riversidecitycalifornia/PST045223 3 https:l/countvofriverside.maps.arcgis.coral'epos(webappviewerfindex.htmRid=021f5173e83e4ea7bd4e31f6231ca45a 4 Census Tract 435.21, Poverty Rate 37.80 P.O. Box 1050, Hemet, CA 92546 +.>40.+— - r -c.4) 044 fia• Pnrnorwr3 101ST flfIIL'LPSiTPV P0[110116 PQUJL Pf�1W TP, )7400 Pfillor4 RA Poop_ Rau. ( 9)544 Mu: 95I -658q111 1 ParroroPout or January 24, 2024 Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Chairman White and RCTC Commissioners: Since 1923 the Ramona Bowl Amphitheatre has been home to "Ramona", California's Official Outdoor Play and Our Nation's Longest Running Outdoor Drama. From our very first production in 1923 to today our over 1.6 million attendees from Southern California and beyond have had a challenge getting to the Ramona Bowl because of two way roads leading in and out of our Valley. In our 5,443 seat amphitheatre we also produce concerts, summer youth plays, host graduations and weddings, put on Halloween, Christmas and a variety of other events that all have the ability to attract visitors from around Southern California. However, we are hampered by the public's ability to get to our facilities especially at night. Tourism is a huge economic driver for cities all over California. Hemet and San Jacinto have historically struggled to increase that funding base because of the challenges our roads present to those wanting to build or expand recreation and event facilities and those who want to visit them. The east/west Domenigoni Parkway built by Metropolitan Water District was a help but our north/south roads leading in and out of Hemet and the San Jacinto Valley are congested and difficult to transgress. On behalf of our Staff and Board of Directors, our over 500 Volunteers and our thousands of patrons we would like to strongly encourage the Commission to move forward with Alternative A under on your Workshop Agenda item State Route 79 Realignment Project Update and Corridor Analysis. A realigned and improved Highway 79 would have a huge impact on not only our visitors but also on the over 180,000 residents of Winchester and the San Jacinto Valley. Thank you your consideration of our request. Your vote to move forward with Alternative A will give us encouragement to plan with confidence for another 100 years of Ramona and events at the Ramona Bowl Amphitheatre. Sincerely, Joe Grindstaff, President Ramona Bowl Amphitheatre MS C Mt. San Jacinto College January 24, 2024 Re: California State Route 79 - Letter of Support Roger W. Schultz, Ph.D. Superintendent/President Board of Trustees Tom Ashley Vicki Carpenter Jhalister Corona Calvin Smith Brian Sylva The Mt. San Jacinto Community College (MSJC) District covers 1700 square miles in southwest Riverside County. The College serves a diverse and growing population with over 1 million residents within its boundaries from areas including, the San Gorgonio Pass, San Jacinto, Menifee and Temecula. Over the years this area has seen tremendous growth and development resulting in an increase in traffic congestion and safety concerns for community members and commuters alike. MSJC wishes to publicly support the State Route Highway 79 Realignment Project with the goal of creating safer and more efficient ways to travel within the area for our students, staff, and residents. Our campus locations will be directly impacted by this project, greatly improving the quality of travel and time spent on the road. Moreover, the short and long-term benefits of this project to the region as a whole are immense. To this end we, the MSJC Board of Trustees, strongly support this project as a priority and encourage the pursuance of the resources necessary to bring it to fruition. Please include the MSJC District as a formal supporter of this project. We highly encourage the support of Alternative A in order to make the first phase of the Highway 79 Realignment Project a reality. Sincerely, _-7 Roger W. Schultz, P'h:D. Superintendent/President rschultz@msjc.edu 1951.487.3002 San Jacinto Campus 1499 N. State Street San Jacinto, CA 92583 951.487.6752 Menifee Valley Campus 28237 La Piedra Road Menifee, CA 92584 951.672.6752 ' an Cmigonio Pass Campus It4'aunionl Middle College High School ;144 W Westward Avenue P.; nning, CA 92220 S 1 769.8424 Temecula Valley Campus 41888 Motor Car Parkway Temecula, CA 92591 951.672.6752 Board of Directors Todd A. Foutz President Division 3 Steven A. Pastor Vice President Division 5 Frank D, Marshall Ill Secretary / Treasurer Division 1 Larry Minor Division 4 Darrel J. Elam Division 2 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 5039, Hemet, CA 92544-0039 26385 Fairview Avenue, Hemet, CA Phone: 951/658-3241 Fax 951/766-7031 www.Ihmwd.orq January 24, 2024 Riverside County Transportation Commssion 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, California 92501 Subject: Highway 79 Realignment Project Dear Commissioners: Staff Michael A. Gow General Manager/ Chief Engineer Kathleen Billinger Asst. Secretary/Treasurer Clara Beaver Admin. Services Manager Will Carter Operations & Maintenance Manager Andy Forst Construction Manager As General Manager of the Lake Hemet Municipal Water District, we support the Highway 79 Coalition's efforts to improve access to the Hemet/San Jacinto Valley by advocating for the full completion of the Highway 79 Project connecting the Temecula Valley to Interstate 10 in Beaumont with a modern highway or parkway type of throughfare. As a former member of the ROTC TAO during the 2000s, I firmly recall the commitments made during both tax measures and the hard, successful work done to date. With that, I am encouraged ROTC is considering advancing the project further including options to actually bring hard improvements to fruition. Of the options described in the RCTCs Workshop Agenda item regarding the State Route 79 Realignment Project Update and Corridor Analysis, we at Lake Hemet Municipal Water District support Alternative A (see below). Alternative A a) Direct staff to draft a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Project's Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) phase and continue the acquisition of right of way for the SR -79 segment 3 Modified Limits, 0.35 miles south of Newport Road to Simpson Road, or SR -79 Segment 3, 0.35 miles south of Newport Road to Domenigoni Parkway. b) Amend the 2019-2029 Measure A Western County Highway Delivery Plan to add SR -79 Segment 3 Modified or Segment 3 to "Group 2: Partially Funding Likely Available" of the Commission -adopted Delivery Plan; c) Direct staff to identify and recommend funding sources and any other prioritization changes necessary to the 2019-2029 Measure A Western County Highway Delivery Plan to complete PS&E and Right of Way (ROW) phases for the segment selected. The Highway 79 improvements will increase access for LHMWD critical supplies and equipment as well as for its employees and customers to and from LHMWD's service area. Thank you for your consideration to approve advancing improvements for the Highway 79 Realignment Project including its phased and full completion. Best regards, Mike Gow General Manager/Chief Engineer Randy A. Record P.O. Box 1539 San Jacinto, CA 92581 Phone /fax: 951-654-8835 January 23, 2024 Riverside County Transportation Commission Chair White and Commissioners: Your agenda for January 26th, 2024, includes an item titled STATE ROUTE 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT UPDATE AND CORRIDOR ANALYSIS. I respectfully request that the Commission adopt Alternative A. The citizens of the San Jacinto Valley have faithfully supported Measure A tax measures over the years with the assurances that Highway 79 would be realigned and improved. It is imperative that the Commission take action to continue the long overdue implementation and completion of this much needed project. Best regards, A/4J Randy A. Record Past -Chairman of the Board, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Board Member, Eastern Municipal Water District Past -President, Association of California Water Agencies Board Member, The Bank of Hemet Member, Hemet/San Jacinto Action Group Member, Monday Morning Group Member, Southern California Leadership Council ik Z aluSD SAN JACINTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT The San Jacinto Difference! SJUSD • 2045 5. San Jacinto Avenue • San Jacinto • CA • 92583 • 951-929-7700 • wwwsaniacinto.k12,ca.u5, • @SanlacintoUSD January 24, 2024 Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, California 92501 Dear Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of the San Jacinto Unified School District to express strong support for the Highway 79 Coalition's efforts to advocate for the completion of the Highway 79 realignment process. As an educational institution deeply invested in the well-being of our community and the safety of our students, we believe the completion of this project is crucial for the overall improvement of our region. The current state of Highway 79 presents challenges that impact the daily lives of our students, their families, and the community at large. The proposed realignment holds the promise of enhancing safety, reducing traffic congestion, and fostering better connectivity. These improvements align with our commitment to providing a secure and conducive environment for our students to learn and thrive. Of the options described in the RCTCs Workshop Agenda item regarding the State Route 79 Realignment Project Update and Corridor Analysis, the San Jacinto Unified School District supports Alternative A (see below). We urge the Commissioners to: a) Direct staff to draft a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Project's Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) phase and continue the acquisition of right of way for the SR -79 Segment 3 Modified Limits, 0.35 miles south of Newport Road to Simpson Road, or SR -79 Segment 3, 0.35 miles south of Newport Road to Domenigoni Parkway. b) Amend the 2019-2029 Measure A Western County Highway Delivery Plan to add SR -79 Segment 3 Modified or Segment 3 to "Group 2: Partially Funding Likely Available" of the Commission -adopted Delivery Plan; c) Direct staff to identify and recommend funding sources and any other prioritization changes necessary to the 2019-2029 Measure A Western County Highway Delivery Plan to complete PS&E and Right of Way (ROW) phases for the segment selected. Dr. David Pyle, District Superintendent Err Karen IGrschineer Assistant Superintendent- Personnel Services Seth Heeren Jahn Roach. Assistant Superintendent - Business Services Assistant Superintendent- Educational Services Board of Trustees Sandra Peidaloza, President • Nelaisha Bin nett, vice -President • lasmin Rubio, Clerk • John I Norman, Membei • Tiica,OJeda, Member The completion of the Highway 79 realignment would not only address existing safety concerns but also contribute to the overall economic and social development of our region. Improved transportation Infrastructure plays a pivotal role in attracting businesses, promoting tourism, and creating a more vibrant community. These factors have a positive impact on the educational opportunities available to our students. Best regards, Seth Heeren Assistant Superintendent WEsnI1Ei SCIENCE CENTER Executive Director Alton Dooley, Jr., Ph.D. Board of Directors Executive Committee Todd Foutz President Ed Formica, D.D.S. Vice President Kevin R. Farrenkopf Treasurer Bruce M. Wallis, Esq. Secretary Guy Excel] Ken Graff Debbie Green Andrew Kotyuk Howard B. Rosenthal Directors Christi Barrett Eric Benson Brian Cahill Kathy Call icott Sumanta Chauduri Saini, M.D. Laura Cherland Grace Cua Dy Carvalho Donald Digby Cindy Domenigoni Bryan Dunn, D.D.S. Nancy Fernandez, D.D.S. Karen Foutz Gisela Gosch Charlotte Jones David G. Kelley Kevin Mohl Geneva Mojado Sreenivasa Nakka, M.D. Thomas Palmieri Gail Polvoorde, D.P.T Amita Rastogi, M.D. Abel Sanchez Cindy Smith Rod Tolliver Tu Thien Uong Lori Van Arsdale Mike Venable Jolene Walsh Joe Wojick Erin Wolbeck Blaine A. Womer `In Memoriam Executive Director Emeriti Bill Marshall, Ed.D. Founding Member Clayton A. Record, Jr. 25 January 2024 Riverside County Transportation Commission Chair White and Commissioners, The Western Science Center (WSC) is Riverside County's largest research -based natural history museum. Located at the northeast corner of Diamond Valley Lake of Domenigoni Parkway, we are a regional center for natural history research and education, hosting over 50,000 visitors in 2023 and another 18,000 at other sites across the region. As a research fa cility, we also serve as the repository for paleontological and archaeological finds for numerous organizations, including Riverside County, Joshua Tree National Park, San Bernardino National Forest, Bureau of Land Management, and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The Highway 79 project will provide numerous benefits to residents of this immediate area. For WSC specifically, it will greatly ease the ability of visitors from other parts of Riverside County to reach the museum, as well as improve the ability of our staff to take museum resources on the road to remote locations. The WSC Board of Directors strongly supports the Highway 79 Realignment Project, and encourages the Commission to adopt Alternative A. Sincerely, Alton C. Dooley, Jr., Ph.D. Executive Director Western Science Center Discovering the Past, Exploring the Present & Promoting a Sustainable Future Western Center Community Foundation - a 501 (c) 3 Non -Profit Corporation Tax ID # 33-082-0066 2345 Searl Parkway, Hemet, CA 92543 • 951-791-0033 • Fax 951-791-0032 • WesternScienceCenter.org I-tcmc't Jacinto 4 (JroLl1. AGVcca'l'es for Corn17u 1i1: 1F it `:'3 rra "' !:Cr ✓L:f'E FxE(UTivE: COMMITTEE Huh Dais Bruce Wallis 3 rrr i"...i. r. Howard Rosenthal `,•, Guy F.‘‘ .•il Directors January 24, 2024 Dr. Christi Barrett Frank Barrickman Dr. Kali P. Chaudhuri Cindy Domenigoni Kevin Farrenkopf Brian Fox Mark Fredricksen Dan Goodrich Gisela Gosch Mike Gow Debbie Green Joe Grindstaff Gayle Hepner Hamilton Jones Senator David Kelley Andrew Kotyuk Mike McIntyre Dr. Sreenivasa Nakka Dr. David Pyle Randy Record Abel Sanchez Dr. Roger W. Schultz Brad Scott Calvin Smith Rod Tolliver Lori Van Arsdale Greg Vasquez Dean Wetter Tom Wilson Joe Wojcik Executive Assistant Allison Perry Dear RCTC Commissioners: As President of the Hemet -San Jacinto Group I write to express the Group's support of TV2CV's efforts to advocate for the completion of the State Route 79 Realignment Project through the San Jacinto Valley. The Hemet -San Jacinto Group is urging you to approve Alternative A as set forth in the Workshop Agenda item related to State Route 79 Realignment Project Update and Corridor Analysis. (`HIghway 79 Project") The Highway 79 Project was presented to voters as part of Measure A in both 1988 and again in 2002 and pre -dates other completed projects that have received Measure A funding. The Highway 79 Project represents a vital alternative link connecting the 1-15 corridor in Teinecula to the I-10 Pass and Coachella Valley. Given the rapid population increase of Menifee, and the area of the RCTC Interstate 215 Central Project (the 12.5 -mile section of Interstate 215 l.)ctwcix Stott Road in Menifeeand Nuevo Road in Perris), The Highway 79 Project is more important than ever. South Hemet, Winchester and French Valley residents have long relied on Domenigoni Parkway and Newport Rd. to gain freeway access to 1.215. Over the past several years that access has been greatly hindered by the construction of thousands of homes in East Menifee and along Domenigoni Parkway. An additional 14,000 homes are projected for this area over the next 10 years. The Hemet -San Jacinto Group joins with the City of Hemet, the City of San Jacinto and many other stakeholders in urging RCTC to adopt Alternative A to start the process of the completion of The Highway 79 I uj Robert A. Davis President, I lcruet-Saar Jacinit rap Pass Economic Development Alliance P.U. Box 424, Beaumont, CA 92263 Phone: 951-3112-7501 Email: passed--ainfo@gmail.com Website: passeda.org January 23, 2024 EDA Re: RCTC January 26th, 2024, Workshop Agenda Item State Route 79 Realignment Project Update and Corridor Analysis — Public Comment Letter TV2CV Interstate 10 (1-10), State Route 60 (SR60) and Interstate 215 (1-215) are the only Riverside County highway corridor connecting two sides of Riverside County from Temecula Valley (TV) north through the San Gorgonio Pass and west to Coachella Valley (CV). Coachella Valley has the only County International Airport (Palm Springs) and has seen tremendous residential growth, job creation and international tourism growth attracting San Diego and Orange County residents and the movement of goods from new Riverside County national logistic warehouses. Commuters, visitors, and semi -trailer trucks traveling through this single corridor are experiencing substantial traffic congestion resulting in air quality/environmental impacts, increasing traffic incidents, and additional traffic onto local arterials. Several critical junctions and connectors exist throughout TV2CV that currently pose dangerous and inefficient roads, as well as choke points for traveling semi -trailer trucks and vehicular traffic including intersections and routes such as the 60 and 215, Winchester Road and Domenigoni Parkway arterials. The California Transportation Commission, Southern California Association of Governments, Western Riverside Council of Governments and the Inland Empire Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan all find that constructing the Temecula Valley to Coachella Valley (TV2CV) approved State Route 79 realignment project will relieve the major bottlenecks of I-10/SR60 and SR60/I-215, and connect major tourism destinations resulting in improved travel at all times on all days, thereby creating County employment and economic growth, including to the Economically Disadvantaged Community of Hemet and Minority Disadvantaged Community of San Jacinto. The TV2CV Project has been a planned project with Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) for forty (40) years beginning in the 1980's, having been listed as a funded project through both voter -approved RCTC Measure A tax measures in 1988 and 2002 (renewed through 2039), surviving multiple legal and environmental challenges, with a total taxpayer investment to date of over one -hundred million tax dollars ($100,000,000); and, Many of the affected communities that await completion of the TV2CV Project are low income and designated as disadvantaged and this project would allow improved and more efficient access to gainful employment opportunities, health care, higher education, and the judicial system. Relieving traffic congestion, idling vehicular traffic and semi -trailer trucks will contribute greatly to improved air quality and safe efficacious travel for commuters and movement of goods, as well as an increase in the general quality of life for the residential population. Route alignment has final approval which affects and delays development options available to property owners impacted by the alignment. The project has a completed environmental impact report (EIR) approved in December 2016 through CEQA and NEPA that maybe at risk, thus leading to further delays, the wasting of already spent taxpayer dollars, allowing further costly additional and more restrictive environmental challenges and mitigation, inflated future construction and land acquisition costs, just to pursue the same current approval for this project in the future. The PassEDA enthusiastically supports Alternative A. x Ralph 8. Berfy, Ill Treasurer HEMET/ SAN JACINTO VALLEY CHAMBER of COMMERCE Re: RCTC January 26'i', 2024, Workshop Agenda Item State Route 79 Realignment Project Update and Corridor Analysis — Public Comment Letter TV2CV Date: 1/25/2024 Interstate 10 (I-10), State Route 50 (S.R60) and Interstate 215 (I-215) are the only Riverside County highway corridor connecting two sides of Riverside County from Temecula Valley (TV) north through the San Gorgonio Pass and west to Coachella Valley (CV). Coachella Valley has the only County International Airport (Palm Springs) and has seen tremendous residential growth, job creation and international tourism growth attracting San Diego and Orange County residents and the movement of goods from new Riverside County national logistic warehouses. Commuters, visitors and semi -trailer trucks traveling through this single corridor are experiencing substantial traffic congesting resulting in air quality/environmental impacts, increasing traffic incidents, and additional traffic onto local arterials. Several critical junctions and connectors exist throughout TV2CV that currently pose dangerous and inefficient roads, as well as choke points for traveling semi -trailer trucks and vehicular traffic including intersections and routes such as the 60 and 215, Winchester Road and Domenigoni Parkway arterials. The California Transportation Commission, Southern California Association of Governments, Western Riverside Council of Governments and the Inland Empire Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan all find that constructing the Temecula Valley to Coachella Valley (TV2CV) approved State Route 79 realignment project will relieve the major bottlenecks of I-10/SR60 and SR60/I-215, and connect major tourism destinations resulting in improved travel at all times on all days, thereby creating County employment and economic growth, including to the Economically Disadvantaged Community of Hemet and Minority Disadvantaged Community of San Jacinto. The TV2CV Project has been a planned project with Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) for forty (40) years beginning in the 1980's, having been listed as a funded project through both voter approved RCTC Measure A tax measures' in 1988 and 2002 (renewed through 2039), surviving multiple legal and environmental challenges, with a total taxpayer investment to date of over one -hundred million tax dollars ($100,000,000); and, Many of the affected communities that await completion of the TV2CV Project are low income and designated as disadvantaged. This project would allow improved and more efficient access to gainful employment opportunities, health care, higher education, and the judicial system. Relieving traffic congestion, idling vehicular traffic and semi -trailer trucks will contribute greatly to improved air quality and safe travel for commuters and movement of goods, as well as an increase in the general quality of life for the residential population. Given the growth of HEMETISAN JACINTO VALLEY CHAMBER of COMMERCE logistics and tourism in Riverside County, the TV2CV would have obvious, positive economic impacts throughout the region. Route alignment has final approval which affects and delays development options available to property owners impacted by the alignment. The project has a completed environmental impact report (EIR) approved in December 2016 through CEQA and NEPA that maybe at risk, thus leading to further delays, the wasting of already spent taxpayer dollars, allowing further costly additional and more restrictive environmental challenges and mitigation, inflated future construction and land acquisition costs, just to pursue the same current approval for this project in the future. The Hemet San Jacinto Valley Chamber of Commerce, along with the TV2CV, support Option A for the State Route 79 Realignment Project and urge the commission to make this complex project the commission's highest priority in western Riverside County. The Chamber and TV2CV understand the difficulties of securing funding, given the shift in the State's transportation priorities. However, western Riverside County is adding 30,000 residents a year, making this the fastest growing County in California for both residential and industrial expansion. This project is particularly critical, given it would serve the fastest growing parts of the County, such as Menifee, Hemet, San Jacinto, Banning, Beaumont, the Coachella Valley and the unincorporated communities of French Valley and Winchester. Hemet San Jacinto Valley Chamber of Commerce enthusiastically supports Alternative A Cyndi Lemke NAME roo Gmail Andrew F. Kotyuk <afksquared@gmail.com> Gosch Auto Group letter of support for SR79 Realignment 1 message Eric Gosch <egosch@goschmail.com> Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 9:05 PM To: Andrew Kotyuk <afksquared@gmail.com> Re: ROTC January 26th, 2024 Workshop Agenda Item State Route 79 Realignment Project Update and Corridor Analysis As one of the San Jacinto Valley' largest employers and tax generators for 60 years, we have seen first hand the tremendous growth of Riverside County. But the promise of Measure A has largely bypassed our Valley. Now is the time for substantial positive action on SR79 Realignment. Our community will accept nothing less. Interstate 10 (1-10), State Route 50 (SR60) and Interstate 215 (1-215) are the only Riverside County highway corridor connecting two sides of Riverside County from Temecula Valley (TV) north through the San Gorgonio Pass and west to Coachella Valley (CV). Coachella Valley has the only County International Airport (Palm Springs) and has seen tremendous residential growth, job creation and international tourism growth attracting San Diego and Orange County residents and the movement of goods from new Riverside County national logistic warehouses. Commuters, visitors and semi -trailer trucks traveling through this single corridor are experiencing substantial traffic congesting resulting in air quality/environmental impacts, increasing traffic incidents, and additional traffic onto local arterials. Several critical junctions and connectors exist throughout TV2CV that currently pose dangerous and inefficient roads, as well as choke points for traveling semi -trailer trucks and vehicular traffic including intersections and routes such as the 60 and 215, Winchester Road and Domenigoni Parkway arterials. The California Transportation Commission, Southern California Association of Governments, Western Riverside Council of Governments and the Inland Empire Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan all find that constructing the Temecula Valley to Coachella Valley (TV2CV) approved State Route 79 realignment project will relieve the major bottlenecks of I- 10/SR60 and SR60/1-215, and connect major tourism destinations resulting in improved travel at all times on all days, thereby creating County employment and economic growth, including to the Economically Disadvantaged Community of Hemet and Minority Disadvantaged Community of San Jacinto. The TV2CV Project has been a planned project with Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) for forty (40) years beginning in the 1980's, having been listed as a funded project through both voter approved ROTC Measure A tax measures' in 1988 and 2002 (renewed through 2039), surviving multiple legal and environmental challenges, with a total taxpayer investment to date of over one -hundred million tax dollars ($100,000,000); and, Many of the affected communities that await completion of the TV2CV Project are low income and designated as disadvantaged and this project would allow improved and more efficient access to gainful employment opportunities, health care, higher education, and the judicial system. Relieving traffic congestion, idling vehicular traffic and semi -trailer trucks will contribute greatly to improved air quality and safe efficacious travel for commuters and movement of goods, as well as an increase in the general quality of life for the residential population. Route alignment has final approval which affects and delays development options available to property owners impacted by the alignment. The project has a completed environmental impact report (EIR) approved in December 2016 through CEQA and NEPA that maybe at risk, thus leading to further delays, the wasting of already spent taxpayer dollars, allowing further costly additional and more restrictive environmental challenges and mitigation, inflated future construction and land acquisition costs, just to pursue the same current approval for this project in the future. Sincerely Eric Gosch Gosch Auto Group Visit https://www.goschauto.com/privacy-policy to view a copy of our privacy policy and notice of collection." Date: January 24, 2024 Re: RCTC January 26th, 2024 Workshop Agenda Item State Route 79 Realignment Project Update and Corridor Analysis — Public Comment Letter TV2CV Interstate 10 (1-10), State Route 50 (SR60) and Interstate 215 (1-215) are the only Riverside County highway corridor connecting two sides of Riverside County from Temecula Valley (TV) north through the San Gorgonio Pass and west to Coachella Valley (CV). Coachella Valley has the only County International Airport (Palm Springs) and has seen tremendous residential growth, job creation and international tourism growth attracting San Diego and Orange County residents and the movement of goods from new Riverside County national logistic warehouses. Commuters, visitors and semi -trailer trucks traveling through this single corridor are experiencing substantial traffic congestion resulting in air quality/environmental impacts, increasing traffic incidents, and additional traffic onto local arterials. Several critical junctions and connectors exist throughout TV2CV that currently pose dangerous and inefficient roads, as well as choke points for traveling semi- trailer trucks and vehicular traffic including intersections and routes such as the 60 and 215, Winchester Road and Domenigoni Parkway arterials. The California Transportation Commission, Southern California Association of Governments, Western Riverside Council of Governments and the Inland Empire Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan all find that constructing the Temecula Valley to Coachella Valley (TV2CV) approved State Route 79 realignment project will relieve the major bottlenecks of I-10/SR60 and SR60/I-215, and connect major tourism destinations resulting in improved travel at all times on all days, thereby creating County employment and economic growth, including to the Economically Disadvantaged Community of Hemet and Minority Disadvantaged Community of San Jacinto. The TV2CV Project has been a planned project with Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) for forty (40) years beginning in the 1980's, having been listed as a funded project through both voter approved RCTC Measure A tax measures' in 1988 and 2002 (renewed through 2039), surviving multiple legal and environmental challenges, with a total taxpayer investment to date of over one -hundred million tax dollars ($100,000,000); and, Many of the affected communities that await completion of the TV2CV Project are low income and designated as disadvantaged and this project would allow improved and more efficient access to gainful employment opportunities, health care, higher education, and the judicial system. Relieving traffic congestion, idling vehicular traffic and semi -trailer trucks will contribute greatly to improved air quality and safe efficacious travel for commuters and movement of goods, as well as an increase in the general quality of life for the residential population. Route alignment has final approval which affects and delays development options available to property owners impacted by the alignment. The project has a completed environmental impact report (EIR) approved in December 2016 through CEQA and NEPA that maybe at risk, thus leading to further delays, the wasting of already spent taxpayer dollars, allowing further costly additional and more restrictive environmental challenges and mitigation, inflated future construction and land acquisition costs, just to pursue the same current approval for this project in the future. (List agency/organization/entity) Panorama Village of Hemet,Inc. enthusiastic Ilyfsupports Alternative A NAME ft Signature Date; -N 1 /11c',5 .N7 7 '1 t -Le ? - Re; RCTC January 25th, 2024 Workshop Agenda Item State Route 79 Realignment Project Update and Corridor Analysts - Public Comment Letter TVZCV interstate 10 ( I.10), State Route SO {S1160) and Interstate 215 (1-215) are the only Riverside County highway corridor connecting two sides of Riverside County from Temecula Valley (TV) north through the San Gorgonio Pass and west to Coachella Valley (CV). Coachella Valley has the only County international Airport (Palm Springs) and has Seen tremendous residential growth, job creation and international tourism growth attracting San Diego and Orange County residents and the movement of goods from new Riverside County national logistic warn houses. Commuters, visitors and semi -trailer trucks traveling through this single corridor are experiencing substantial traffic congesting resulting in air quality/environmental impacts, increasing traffic incidents, and additional traffic onto local arterials. Several critical lunctions and connectors exist throughout TV2CV that currently pose dangerous and inefficient roads, as well as choke points for traveling semi- trailer trucks and vehicular traffic Including Intersections and routes such as the 60 and 115, Winchester Road and Domenigcrni Parkway arterials. The California Transportation Commission, Southern California Association of Governments, Western Riverside Council of Governments and the Inland Empire Comprehensive Muitimodal Corridor Plan all find that constructing the Temecula Valley to Coachella Valley (TVZCV} approved State Route 79 realignment project will relieve the major bottlenecks of l-10/SRGO and ERGO/I-215, and connect major tourism destinations resulting in improved travel at all times on ail days, thereby creating County employment and economic growth, including to the Economically Disadvantaged Community of Hemet and Minority Disadvantaged Conlin unity of San Jacinto. the TVZCV Project has been a planned project with Riverside County Transportation Commission IRCTC) for torty 140) years beginning In the 190s,'laving been listed as a funded project through oath voter approved RCTC Measure A tax measures' in 19811 and 2D02 (renewed through 2039), surviving multiple legal and environmental challenges, with a total taxpayer investment to date of over one -hundred million tax dollars (5100,000,000), and, Many of Abe affected communities that await completion of the TV2CV Project are low incense and designated as disadvantaged and this project would allow improved and more effluent access to galntul employment opportunities, health care, higher education, and the judicial system. Relieving traffic congestion, idting vehicular traffic and semi trailer trucks will contribute greatly IC improved air quality and safe efficacious travel for commuters and movement of goods, as well as an increase In the general quality of life fur the residential population. Route alignment has final approval which affects and delays development options available to property owners impacted by the alignment. The project has a completed environmental impact report {EIR) approved in December 201.6 through CEQA and NEPA that maybe at risk, thus leading to further delays, the wasting of already spent taxpayer dollars, allowing further costly additional and more restrictive environmental challenges and mitigation, lnrimed future conslnction and land acquisition costs, just to pursue the same current approval for this project) in the future. (List agency/organization/entity) I: A- I `L + Y) enthusiastically ically supports Alternative A dt 1 rr. 7 '� eer�ti � C C• f . NAME Signature Date: January 24, 2024 Re: RCTC January 26th, 2024 Workshop Agenda Item State Route 79 Realignment Project Update and Corridor Analysis — Public Comment Letter TV2CV Interstate 10 (1-10), State Route 50 (SR60) and Interstate 215 (1-215) are the only Riverside County highway corridor connecting two sides of Riverside County from Temecula Valley (TV) north through the San Gorgonio Pass and west to Coachella Valley (CV). Coachella Valley has the only County International Airport (Palm Springs) and has seen tremendous residential growth, job creation and international tourism growth attracting San Diego and Orange County residents and the movement of goods from new Riverside County national logistic warehouses. Commuters, visitors and semi -trailer trucks traveling through this single corridor are experiencing substantial traffic congesting resulting in air quality/environmental impacts, increasing traffic incidents, and additional traffic onto local arterials. Several critical junctions and connectors exist throughout TV2CV that currently pose dangerous and inefficient roads, as well as choke points for traveling semi- trailer trucks and vehicular traffic including intersections and routes such as the 60 and 215, Winchester Road and Domenigoni Parkway arterials. The California Transportation Commission, Southern California Association of Governments, Western Riverside Council of Governments and the Inland Empire Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan all find that constructing the Temecula Valley to Coachella Valley (TV2CV) approved State Route 79 realignment project will relieve the major bottlenecks of I-10/SR60 and SR60/I-215, and connect major tourism destinations resulting in improved travel at all times on all days, thereby creating County employment and economic growth, including to the Economically Disadvantaged Community of Hemet and Minority Disadvantaged Community of San Jacinto. The TV2CV Project has been a planned project with Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) for forty (40) years beginning in the 1980's, having been listed as a funded project through both voter approved RCTC Measure A tax measures' in 1988 and 2002 (renewed through 2039), surviving multiple legal and environmental challenges, with a total taxpayer investment to date of over one -hundred million tax dollars ($100,000,000); and, Many of the affected communities that await completion of the TV2CV Project are low income and designated as disadvantaged and this project would allow improved and more efficient access to gainful employment opportunities, health care, higher education, and the judicial system. Relieving traffic congestion, idling vehicular traffic and semi -trailer trucks will contribute greatly to improved air quality and safe efficacious travel for commuters and movement of goods, as well as an increase in the general quality of life for the residential population. Route alignment has final approval which affects and delays development options available to property owners impacted by the alignment. The project has a completed environmental impact report (EIR) approved in December 2016 through CEQA and NEPA that maybe at risk, thus leading to further delays, the wasting of already spent taxpayer dollars, allowing further costly additional and more restrictive environmental challenges and mitigation, inflated future construction and land acquisition costs, just to pursue the same current approval for this project in the future. (List agency/organization/entity) Wayne Minor enthusiastically supports Alternative A Wayne Minor NAME Signature Date: 1/23/24 Re: RCTC January 26th, 2024 Workshop Agenda Item State Route 79 Realignment Project Update and Corridor Analysis — Public Comment Letter TV2CV Interstate 10 (1-10), State Route 50 (SR60) and Interstate 215 (1-215) are the only Riverside County highway corridor connecting two sides of Riverside County from Temecula Valley (TV) north through the San Gorgonio Pass and west to Coachella Valley (CV). Coachella Valley has the only County International Airport (Palm Springs) and has seen tremendous residential growth, job creation and international tourism growth attracting San Diego and Orange County residents and the movement of goods from new Riverside County national logistic warehouses. Commuters, visitors and semi -trailer trucks traveling through this single corridor are experiencing substantial traffic congesting resulting in air quality/environmental impacts, increasing traffic incidents, and additional traffic onto local arterials. Several critical junctions and connectors exist throughout TV2CV that currently pose dangerous and inefficient roads, as well as choke points for traveling semi- trailer trucks and vehicular traffic including intersections and routes such as the 60 and 215, Winchester Road and Domenigoni Parkway arterials. The California Transportation Commission, Southern California Association of Governments, Western Riverside Council of Governments and the Inland Empire Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan all find that constructing the Temecula Valley to Coachella Valley (TV2CV) approved State Route 79 realignment project will relieve the major bottlenecks of I-10/SR60 and SR60/I-215, and connect major tourism destinations resulting in improved travel at all times on all days, thereby creating County employment and economic growth, including to the Economically Disadvantaged Community of Hemet and Minority Disadvantaged Community of San Jacinto. The TV2CV Project has been a planned project with Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) for forty (40) years beginning in the 1980's, having been listed as a funded project through both voter approved RCTC Measure A tax measures' in 1988 and 2002 (renewed through 2039), surviving multiple legal and environmental challenges, with a total taxpayer investment to date of over one -hundred million tax dollars ($100,000,000); and, Many of the affected communities that await completion of the TV2CV Project are low income and designated as disadvantaged and this project would allow improved and more efficient access to gainful employment opportunities, health care, higher education, and the judicial system. Relieving traffic congestion, idling vehicular traffic and semi -trailer trucks will contribute greatly to improved air quality and safe efficacious travel for commuters and movement of goods, as well as an increase in the general quality of life for the residential population. Route alignment has final approval which affects and delays development options available to property owners impacted by the alignment. The project has a completed environmental impact report (EIR) approved in December 2016 through CEQA and NEPA that maybe at risk, thus leading to further delays, the wasting of already spent taxpayer dollars, allowing further costly additional and more restrictive environmental challenges and mitigation, inflated future construction and land acquisition costs, just to pursue the same current approval for this project in the future. Sierra Dawn Estates Homeowners' Association nc-nthusiastically supports Alternative A --Ng/ EL Goo172/cl�- NAME Signature Andy and Cindy Domenigoni 31851 Winchester Road Phone 951-926-6924 Winchester, CA 92596 January 25, 2024 Fax 951-926-4924 Re: RCTC January 26th, 2024 Workshop Agenda Item State Route 79 Realignment Project Update and Corridor Analysis — Public Comment Letter TV2CV Interstate 10 (1-10), State Route 50 (SR60) and Interstate 215 (I-215) are the only Riverside County highway corridor connecting two sides of Riverside County from Temecula Valley (TV) north through the San Gorgonio Pass and west to Coachella Valley (CV). Coachella Valley has the only County International Airport (Palm Springs) and has seen tremendous residential growth, job creation and international tourism growth attracting San Diego and Orange County residents and the movement of goods from new Riverside County national logistic warehouses. Commuters, visitors and semi -trailer trucks traveling through this single corridor are experiencing substantial traffic congesting resulting in air quality/environmental impacts, increasing traffic incidents, and additional traffic onto local arterials. Several critical junctions and connectors exist throughout TV2CV that currently pose dangerous and Inefficient roads, as well as choke points for traveling semi -trailer trucks and vehicular traffic including intersections and routes such as the 60 and 215, Winchester Road and Domenigoni Parkway arterials. The California Transportation Commission, Southern California Association of Governments, Western Riverside Council of Governments and the Inland Empire Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan all find that constructing the Temecula Valley to Coachella Valley (TV2CV) approved State Route 79 realignment project will relieve the major bottlenecks of I-10/SR60 and SR60/I-215, and connect major tourism destinations resulting in improved travel at all times on all days, thereby creating County employment and economic growth, including to the Economically Disadvantaged Community of Hemet and Minority Disadvantaged Community of San Jacinto. The TV2CV Project has been a planned project with Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) for forty (40) years beginning in the 1980's, having been listed as a funded project through both voter approved RCTC MeasureAtax measures' in 1988 and 2002 (renewed through 2039), surviving multiple legal and environmental challenges, with a total taxpayer investment to date of over one -hundred million tax dollars ($100,000,000); and, Many of the affected communities that await completion of the TV2CV Project are low income and designated as disadvantaged and this project would allow improved and more efficient access to gainful employment opportunities, health care, higher education, and the judicial system. Relieving traffic congestion, idling vehicular traffic and semi- trailer trucks will contribute greatly to improved air quality and safe efficacious travel for commuters and movement of goods, as well as an increase In the general quality of life for the residential population. Route alignment has final approval which affects and delays development options available to property owners Impacted by the alignment. The project has a completed environmental impact report (EIR) approved in December 2016 through CEQA and N EPA that maybe at risk, thus leading to further delays, the wasting of already spent taxpayer dollars, allowing further costly additional and more restrictive environmental challenges and mitigation, inflated future construction and land acquisition costs, Just to pursue the same current approval for this project In the future. Andy and Cindy Domenigoni enthusiastically supports AI ative A Andy Domenigoni NAME Date: January 25, 2024 Re: RCTC January 26th, 2024 Workshop Agenda Item State Route 79 Realignment Project Update and Corridor Analysis — Public Comment Letter TV2CV Interstate 10 (1-10), State Route 50 (SR60) and Interstate 215 (1-215) are the only Riverside County highway corridor connecting two sides of Riverside County from Temecula Valley (TV) north through the San Gorgonio Pass and west to Coachella Valley (CV). Coachella Valley has the only County International Airport (Palm Springs) and has seen tremendous residential growth, job creation and international tourism growth attracting San Diego and Orange County residents and the movement of goods from new Riverside County national logistic warehouses. Commuters, visitors and semi -trailer trucks traveling through this single corridor are experiencing substantial traffic congesting resulting in air quality/environmental impacts, increasing traffic incidents, and additional traffic onto local arterials. Several critical junctions and connectors exist throughout TV2CV that currently pose dangerous and inefficient roads, as well as choke points for traveling semi- trailer trucks and vehicular traffic including intersections and routes such as the 60 and 215, Winchester Road and Domenigoni Parkway arterials. The California Transportation Commission, Southern California Association of Governments, Western Riverside Council of Governments and the Inland Empire Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan all find that constructing the Temecula Valley to Coachella Valley (TV2CV) approved State Route 79 realignment project will relieve the major bottlenecks of I-10/SR60 and SR60/I-215, and connect major tourism destinations resulting in improved travel at all times on all days, thereby creating County employment and economic growth, including to the Economically Disadvantaged Community of Hemet and Minority Disadvantaged Community of San Jacinto. The TV2CV Project has been a planned project with Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) for forty (40) years beginning in the 1980's, having been listed as a funded project through both voter approved RCTC Measure A tax measures' in 1988 and 2002 (renewed through 2039), surviving multiple legal and environmental challenges, with a total taxpayer investment to date of over one -hundred million tax dollars ($100,000,000); and, Many of the affected communities that await completion of the TV2CV Project are low income and designated as disadvantaged and this project would allow improved and more efficient access to gainful employment opportunities, health care, higher education, and the judicial system. Relieving traffic congestion, idling vehicular traffic and semi -trailer trucks will contribute greatly to improved air quality and safe efficacious travel for commuters and movement of goods, as well as an increase in the general quality of life for the residential population. Route alignment has final approval which affects and delays development options available to property owners impacted by the alignment. The project has a completed environmental impact report (EIR) approved in December 2016 through CEQA and NEPA that maybe at risk, thus leading to further delays, the wasting of already spent taxpayer dollars, allowing further costly additional and more restrictive environmental challenges and mitigation, inflated future construction and land acquisition costs, just to pursue the same current approval for this project in the future. Winchester/ Homeland Town Association enthusiastically supports Alternative A NAME Gregg Cowdery Secretary Signature Gregg Cowdery T f TERCONINECTINU RVE SiDE COUNTY FOLLOW COMMUTING CARLOS SR79 Realignment Coalition 51179 Realignment r.Jgln SR 79 Realignment Coalition Andrew Kotyuk 951-492-9906 Andrew@ti 2cv.org GOODS MOVEMENT UPDATE Commission Workshop January 26, 2024 Lorelle Moe-Luna, Multimodal Services Director 1 Overview 2 •Monitoring goods movement policies and studies impacting Riverside County •Grade Separation Program Update •Regional Truck Logistics Fee Study Update Grade Separation Program Timeline 3 2001 2006 2007 2012 2017 First Countywide Railroad Grade Crossing Priority Study Grade Crossing Priority Update Adopted Funding Strategy 25% CMAQ/STP 25% Measure A Econ Dev $10M Western County Rail LTF Grade Separation Prioritization Study Grade Separation Prioritization Study Update Adopted Funding Strategy 10% match funds for CPUC 190 2017 Grade Separation Study Update 4 Safety Existing Daily Vehicle Delays Future Daily Vehicle Delays Emissions Residential Noise Adjacent Grade Separations Local Priority Project Readiness Isolated Location Feasibility Desirability Evaluation Factors Candidates for Quiet Zones 2017 Grade Separation Study Findings 5 Survey found that of the 46 remaining at-grade crossings: –11 high priority grade crossings: San Gorgonio Ave (Banning) Hargrave St (Banning) Bellegrave Ave (Jurupa Valley)Pennsylvania Ave (Beaumont) Mary St (Riverside)McKinley St (Corona) Jackson St (Riverside)Jurupa Rd (Jurupa Valley) Spruce St (Riverside)Third St (Riverside) Ave 66 (County) 2024 Grade Separation Study Update 6 •Scope to include: –Update and evaluate technical criteria –Updated survey of each jurisdiction’s at-grade crossings –Updated Funding Strategy and action plan to support local jurisdictions grade separations and/or quiet zones –To be completed early 2025 Regional Truck Logistics Fee Study Background 7 •RCTC filed a suit in September 2015 challenging the environmental document of the World Logistics Center. •Additional suits filed by the County and SCAQMD •World Logistics Center is an approved master-planned development of 40.6 million sq ft. •Project is expected to draw 14,000 truck trips per day at build-out. Map of World Logistics Center 8 Regional Truck Logistics Fee Study Settlement Agreement 9 •2016 Settlement Agreement between RCTC, County, City of Moreno Valley, and Highland Fairview (developer) •Terms and conditions included: –Each party contribute $250,000 towards the study of a regional transportation study to evaluate a logistics-related regional fee •Highland Fairview to pay – –$0.65/sq ft in-lieu fee if there is an approved fee program, or, –$0.50/sq ft if there is no regional fee program –Highland Fairview to contribute $6 million for Gilman Springs, SR-60 widening, and Theodore Interchange –Highland Fairview and Moreno Valley to contribute $200,000 for air quality studies Regional Truck Logistics Fee Study Major Tasks 10 1.Existing and Future Conditions Analysis 2.Funding and Cost Analysis 3.Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Mitigation Fee (Market Analysis) 4.Nexus Study Regional Truck Logistics Fee Study Key Findings 11 About 12% of daily trips is attributable to new truck traffic Capital projects would total about $385 million, about $48 million could be collected in a truck fee program ($1.28/SF) Map with forecasted truck trips on freeways in Western Riverside County Regional Truck Logistics Fee Study Identified Deficiencies Based on New Warehousing Development 12 SR-60 Regional Truck Logistics Fee Study Project Status 13 •Commission approved the Logistics Mitigation Fee Nexus Study in May 2019, but did not pursue a fee program •Data being updated to provide an overview of the state of warehousing and logistics growth –Use of latest SCAG model for Existing and Future Conditions Analysis –Update to see if “hot spots” have changed –Analyze impacts from small and medium trucks •Identify additional projects that could mitigate congestion •Update for data and analysis only, not for nexus study or fee determination •To be completed by June 2024 QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? 14 rctc.org 951.787.7141 info@rctc.org @theRCTC 15 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION WORKSHOP ROLL CALL JANUARY 26, 2024 Present Absent County of Riverside, District I  X County of Riverside, District II X  County of Riverside, District III X  County of Riverside, District IV X  County of Riverside, District V X  City of Banning  X City of Beaumont X  City of Blythe X  City of Calimesa X  City of Canyon Lake  X City of Cathedral City X  City of Coachella X  City of Corona X  City of Desert Hot Springs X  City of Eastvale X  City of Hemet X  City of Indian Wells X  City of Indio  X City of Jurupa Valley  X City of La Quinta X  City of Lake Elsinore X  City of Menifee X  City of Moreno Valley  X City of Murrieta X  City of Norco X  City of Palm Desert X  City of Palm Springs X  City of Perris  X City of Rancho Mirage  X City of Riverside X  City of San Jacinto X  City of Temecula  X City of Wildomar X  Governor’s Appointee, Caltrans District 8  X RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION WORKSHOP ROLL CALL JANUARY 25, 2024 Present Absent County of Riverside, District I  X County of Riverside, District II X  County of Riverside, District III X  County of Riverside, District IV X  County of Riverside, District V X  City of Banning  X City of Beaumont X  City of Blythe X  City of Calimesa X  City of Canyon Lake X  City of Cathedral City X  City of Coachella X  City of Corona X  City of Desert Hot Springs X  City of Eastvale X  City of Hemet X  City of Indian Wells X  City of Indio X  City of Jurupa Valley X  City of La Quinta X  City of Lake Elsinore X  City of Menifee X  City of Moreno Valley  X City of Murrieta X  City of Norco X  City of Palm Desert X  City of Palm Springs X  City of Perris  X City of Rancho Mirage X  City of Riverside X  City of San Jacinto X  City of Temecula X  City of Wildomar X  Governor’s Appointee, Caltrans District 8  X RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION WORKSHOP COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET JANUARY 25, 2024 NAME AGENCY EMAIL ADDRESS ., • sic y i orn -ff1Ggov /11,110 Pf /1. 7,...4 gi---- ,;/ 4--4_ ty4 IA ik riiii-ix .7i- 1 41-er t eQ r . \-el 4--- t 1---,e (',;^4--'t/ cA'rx,' I iX Si104 , -,, 74_,z___ I dC,,, \;,,,,-„._4.,,-- 6 R v6-, i KJ * iftJ » t-- // D g Co diA-Wy 14A4-(?LeC1 i J t 44/2. i ETA7, </k. .. S /l e i/-._____ � f';=, 19-------. . `tic /c / 1 ) / r^' -�Jr 6/ Mb1 4ifI 71556 -ph yno Z 10 t.,0[ wz____ iiw f---/-2444_,0-t-, —LA-3 .0---0 _jz)/ I' et( rn sphnr 3 1) i sin"& 4- 1 11"C1 I rA (U)rtkk 'Dis+5 CerCtrth< L CM' X15 F-• 0.-. ., CoatheitCk RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION WORKSHOP COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET JANUARY 26, 2024 NAME AGENCY E_MAIL ADDRESS �i 4It ��rp �► I /1122.1 _�rr: time_ ' j/,t,i; ,,/ k? U. S . c-›-c---L-e-_—c. e',— C" vN'-: o - s. e-1 L. 1 ili - �f ,'e i? Sr Cyr /(tom C 0 "N -I A., v 1 r J i 0 /t- 2 mfriOrzi0A-AI c it- KEN CALVERT 41ST DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA 2205 RAYBURN HOUSE OF1.1cr BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515-0542 12021226-1986 400 SOUTH VICENTIA AVENUE SUITE 125 CORONA, CA 92862 195 #1277-0042 73-710 FRED WARING DRIVE SUITE 129 PALM DESERT, CA 92260 17601620-0041 UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 26, 2023 The Honorable Lloyd White Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Chair White and Commissioners: COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEES: CHAIRMAN DEFENSE ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT CALVERT. HOUR E.GOV FACEHOOK.COM/R EPKENCALVERT INSTAGRAM: REPKENCALVEPT Your agenda for January 26th, 2024, includes an item titled STATE ROUTE 79 REALIGNMENT PROJECT UPDATE AND CORRIDOR ANALYSIS. I respectfully request that the Commission adopt Alternative A. The citizens of the San Jacinto Valley have faithfully supported Measure A tax measures over the years with the assurances that Highway 79 would be realigned and improved. I believe that the Commission should take action to continue the long overdue implementation and completion of this much needed project. Sincerely, KEN CALVERT Member of Congress RAUL RUIZ, M.D. Member of Congress 25th District of California Washington, D.C. Office: 2342 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Phone: 202-225-5330 January 25, 2024 Catalino Pining Riverside County Transportation Commission Governor’s Appointee Caltrans District 8 4080 Lemon St Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Catalino Pining, I write in support of the State Route-79 (SR-79) Realignment an 18 mile infrastructure project that will prove to be a vital throughfare connecting the Temecula Valley with the Coachella Valley. Constituents of California’s 25th Congressional District have expressed need for the SR-79 Realignment project as traveling out of the San Jacinto Valley is restricted by the lack of a north-south corridor. Currently my constituents have some of the longest work commutes and distances to major freeways per population in the country. As of today, north-south traffic flows through city streets causing undue congestion, pollution, safety hazards, and premature road wear adding to local municipal maintenance costs. My office is prepared to provide letters of support for any money with a federal nexus as well as information concerning federal law such as Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) or grants from the Department of Transportation (DOT). The lack of transportation infrastructure has made industrial growth difficult because companies investing in the valley must consider long travel time. This realignment will lead to an increase of investments in the valley, provide for local jobs, and significantly reduce my constituents drive time to provide better for their families. I believe that the implantation of SR-79 would benefit my constituents greatly and urge full and fair consideration, consistent with all relevant program rules and regulations. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact my District office at (760) 424-8888. Sincerely, Raul Ruiz, M.D. Member of Congress 't KC HEALTH ,. � GLOBAL MEDICAL CENTERS January 25, 2024 Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Commissions: On behalf of KPC Global Medical Centers, I would like to express strong support for the Highway 79 Coalition's efforts to advocate for the realignment completion. As a healthcare provider for this community, it is crucial for our patients and our Residency Program students that this project is completed to help promote safety in our community. Improving the regional corridor will be impactful for the delivery of healthcare to a valley of over 200,000 and growing. We are in desperate need of the proposed alignment of Highway 79 to provide better safety to our patients and medical students traveling to our hospitals. We support Alternative A as described in the RCTC's Workshop Agenda regarding the Realignment Project Update. This will have a positive impact on our patients and medical students. Sincerely, Peter Barono Chief Executive Officer 1117 E. Devonshire Avenue - Hemet, CA 92543 From:Tara Byerly To:Alexandra Rackerby Subject:FW: [EXTERNAL] Proxy Authorization Date:Monday, January 29, 2024 11:03:37 AM Hey Allie, This Proxy Vote from Supervisor Jeffries below also needs to go with the January 25-26, 2024 Commission Workshop Agenda Packet. Thank you, Tara From: Lisa Mobley <LMobley@RCTC.org> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2024 3:18 PM To: Tara Byerly <TByerly@rctc.org> Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Proxy Authorization Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Jeffries, Kevin" <KJeffries@rivco.org> Date: January 22, 2024 at 2:47:20 PM PST To: Lisa Mobley <lmobley@rctc.org> Cc: "Washington, Chuck" <C.Washington@rivco.org>, Anne Mayer <amayer@rctc.org>, Aaron Hake <ahake@rctc.org>, "Greene, Jeffrey" <JTGreene@rivco.org>, "Brock, Robyn" <RBrock@rivco.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proxy Authorization January 22, 2024 To: Lisa Mobley Re: Proxy Authorization The communication is to serve as approval and/or authorization for Third District County Supervisor Chuck Washington to carry and cast any and all votes for RCTC agenized items on 1/25/24 and 1/26/24 on behalf of the First District of Riverside County. The only exception to this proxy is a limitation related to any motion or vote related to recommending, approving or consenting to placing a ballot measure before the voters of Riverside County for any form of tax increase. In such a case my voting instruction shall be to Oppose. Please let me know if you have any questions. Respectfully, Kevin JeffriesConfidentiality DisclaimerThis email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. Theinformation 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 anyuse, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received thisemail in error please delete all copies, both electronic and printed, and contact the author immediately. County of Riverside California A local strategy to improve trafc ow, safety, and economic opportunity in Riverside County TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN2024 DRAFT UPDATE 2024 Draft Traffic Relief Plan Table of Contents Overview of the Traffic Relief Plan ...................................................................................................2 Accountability to Taxpayers .............................................................................................................3 Equity Among Regions and Residents ............................................................................................4 Traffic Relief Plan: Your Guide to Projects and Services ..................................................................5 Palo Verde Valley (Blythe) ................................................................................................................6 Coachella Valley ..............................................................................................................................7 Western Riverside County .............................................................................................................12 TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN Your Voice. Your Plan. The Traffic Relief Plan is a local strategy to reduce traffic bottlenecks, improve safety, and help create a stronger, more sustainable economy for our communities. Residents across Riverside County have expressed thoughts about how to improve transportation in Riverside County. From freeways that move faster, to safer roads with fewer potholes, to more available public transportation, and protecting our infrastructure from natural hazards like floods and earthquakes, you told us that these improvements will make a difference to your life. We’ve listened. Highlights of the Traffic Relief Plan include: • Improving freeway traffic flow on I-10, I-15, I-215, State Route 60, and State Route 91. • Improving traffic flow and safety on major roads including but not limited to Temescal Canyon Road, Cajalco Road, Ramona Expressway, Gilman Springs Road, Grand Avenue, Bob Hope Drive, Fred Waring Drive, Highway 111, and Indian Canyon Drive. • Improving the condition of existing roads by providing funds for basic pothole repairs, paving dirt roads, and synchronizing signals throughout Riverside County. • Adding sidewalks and safety improvements for pedestrians, equestrians, and bicyclists. • Increasing frequency of and access to bus and rail public transportation by adding new tracks, new stations, more trains, more bus service, bus shelters, safety and security measures, and technology to make public transit safer and more reliable. • Bringing daily rail service to the Coachella Valley and San Gorgonio Pass from Los Angeles, Orange County, and Riverside. • Connecting Riverside County by accelerating completion of a new east-west corridor between Perris and San Jacinto called the Mid County Parkway, building the long-awaited realignment of State Route 79 from the Temecula Valley through Hemet and San Jacinto, widening and improving safety on Cajalco Road, roadway improvements between Lake Elsinore and Perris to shorten commutes on I-15 and I-215, and a bypass to I-10 east of Banning toward the Coachella Valley. • Providing more independence and opportunity for residents who rely on public transportation services, such as seniors, veterans, individuals with disabilities, students, residents of rural communities, and those who choose to use public transportation. • Using new technologies that can improve the efficiency and safety of the current roadway and public transit systems, paving the way for the future. Voter Approval: This Traffic Relief Plan was drafted to serve as an expenditure plan for a possible voter-approved sales tax measure. Until a sales tax measure to fund the Plan is placed before the voters and approved, the Plan is aspirational, and the financial and other mandatory requirements of the Plan are not operative. Questions? Questions? If you have questions about the Traffic Relief Plan, please contact the Riverside County Transportation Commission at info@rctc.org or 951-787-7141. 2 2024 Draft Traffic Relief Plan OVERVIEW OF THE TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN Independent Audits Required Upon voter approval of a revenue source for the Plan, no less than annually, RCTC will obtain an independent financial audit. The audit will be published on the internet. Efficiency and Local Control Local Voice. Local Control. Riverside County voters will enact the Plan, which will then be implemented through their locally elected representatives and local public works professionals. By law, the Plan is implemented by RCTC, which is governed by local city council members or mayors of every city and all five members of the County Board of Supervisors. No Money Diverted to Sacramento or Washington D.C. State and federal governments cannot legally divert, take, or direct funds raised through this local Plan and its governing ordinance. Fiscal Accountability and Efficiency. Administrative salaries and benefits to administer the Plan are limited to no more than 1% of net revenues generated under the Plan’s governing ordinance. Implementation of this Plan will not require the creation of any new government entity. To achieve efficiency and local control, RCTC may delegate appropriate responsibilities for administering components of the Plan to existing local governments at its discretion. Transparency and Openness Implementation of the Plan will occur in compliance with all transparency, disclosure, and open meetings laws. Mandatory Plan Review and Updates Through a public process, RCTC must formally review this Plan at least every 10 years after it takes effect to ensure the Plan reflects the current and anticipated future needs of Riverside County’s residents. If RCTC wishes to amend the Plan after its review or at any other point in time, RCTC must follow current state law and this Plan’s voter-approved governing ordinance to do so. Flexibility to Expedite Projects RCTC may issue bonds or other debt against future revenue to achieve any objectives of the Plan and to expedite completion of projects. RCTC will issue bonds or other debt in accordance with applicable laws. The issuances of bonds or other debt will undergo a feasibility analysis to ensure the lowest borrowing costs are incurred while repayment terms are advantageous. To expedite priority projects and services, reduce costs to taxpayers, or avoid loss of other funding, RCTC may make maximum use of funds by temporarily loaning funds between transportation purposes set forth in the Plan. In borrowing and making loans, the proportionate shares for areas and purposes over the duration of the Plan may not be changed without an amendment of the Plan as required by law. Maintenance of Effort Funds received by cities and the County shall supplement existing local revenues and required developer improvements used for transportation purposes. As a condition of receiving funds, cities and the County shall maintain their existing commitment of local funds for transportation purposes. Environmental mitigation funds provided for land conservation shall supplement and shall not supplant existing mitigation fees paid by developers. 32024 Draft Traffic Relief Plan ACCOUNTABILITY TO TAXPAYERS Equity Among Regions and Residents Many residents of Riverside County live in areas that lack infrastructure and public transportation services. A growing number of residents face increasing traffic congestion. Therefore, the Traffic Relief Plan commits to providing equity for Riverside County residents in the following ways: Geography The Traffic Relief Plan recognizes the three distinct subregions of Riverside County and ensures that revenues raised by the Plan in each subregion remain there and cannot be moved to other parts of the county: • Palo Verde Valley (Blythe area) • Coachella Valley • Western Riverside County (Riverside and Corona areas, Moreno Valley and Perris areas, Hemet-San Jacinto Valley, San Gorgonio Pass, and Temecula-Murrieta-Lake Elsinore areas) Small, Rural, Disadvantaged Communities Prioritization of investments shall take into account the needs of residents in small, rural, and disadvantaged communities in Riverside County. Mitigation Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) The Traffic Relief Plan mitigates VMT with VMT-reducing projects and services funded by multiple aspects of this Plan. Decisions Based On Needs Priority for investments in areas requiring significant infrastructure repairs and upgrades and public transportation will be determined based on objective needs. New Funding for All Communities in Riverside County All communities will have access to new funding to keep local streets and roads in good condition. Increased Transportation Options for Residents The Traffic Relief Plan places significant focus on seniors, students, veterans, individuals with disabilities, and residents of rural and underserved communities who use public transportation regularly. Balanced Transportation System The Traffic Relief Plan recognizes all types of transportation needs for Riverside County. Proactively addressing the transportation issues in Riverside County requires a flexible and a comprehensive approach. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act The Traffic Relief Plan is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and, therefore, is exempt from CEQA review. This is because the Plan is designed to provide a funding mechanism for potential future projects and programs related to the Commission’s provision of transportation services. However, the Commission is not approving the construction of any projects that may result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment; future voter approval is required prior to establishing any funding mechanism as set forth in Public Utilities Code Section 240301; and all appropriate state and federal environmental review will be required and completed prior to any future approval of specific projects. 4 2024 Draft Traffic Relief Plan EQUITY AMONG REGIONS AND RESIDENTS Investment Types The Plan includes eight investment types. In the Coachella Valley, all investment types are funded through the valleywide Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS). In Western Riverside County, a specific percentage of funding is reserved for each investment type, with several sub-types. In the Palo Verde Valley (Blythe), funds can be used on any investment type below. Safe Streets and Roads – Pothole repair and road maintenance; sidewalks and pedestrian safety infrastructure; protected bicycle lanes; roadway improvements in high-accident areas; bus shelters; bridge repairs; improvements to railroad crossings, including bridges to separate roads from railroad tracks; traffic calming measures; bypass roads; median barriers; protecting roads, sidewalks, and bicycle facilities from flooding and other natural hazards; traffic signals, including technology to synchronize and interconnect signals; improvements to provide accessibility for persons with disabilities. Highways – Improving traffic flow on State Routes 60, 91, 111 and Interstates 10, 15, and 215 by constructing new lanes, improving highway interchanges (on- and off-ramps and bridges) and public transportation facilities, and utilizing innovative technologies. Public Transportation – Increasing frequency and safety of trains and buses; building new tracks, parking, and stations; extending rail service from Perris to Hemet and San Jacinto; extending rail service to the Coachella Valley and San Gorgonio Pass (Banning/Beaumont/Calimesa/Cabazon area); sustaining operation of rail service throughout the county; expanding bus service options including rapid/express buses; on-demand transit options known as “micro-transit;” modernizing and adding zero-emission buses; providing targeted transit services and keeping bus fares low for seniors, veterans, students, and individuals with disabilities; upgrading bus stops and amenities; and improving connections between home, school, and employment centers. Regional Connections – Constructing multi-modal transportation corridors that connect parts of Riverside County, relieving congestion on existing highways and local roads, improving safety such as realigning State Route 79, creating a bypass to I-10 east of Banning toward Coachella Valley, improving Cajalco Road, completing Mid County Parkway (Ramona Expressway), and providing a new Elsinore-Ethanac Expressway. Commuter Assistance – Expanding Freeway Service Patrol roadside assistance, maintaining and expanding carpool/vanpool service and Park & Ride lots, and partnering with employers to create incentives for alternative commute methods. Active Transportation – Improving safety and expanding access to pedestrian and bicycle facilities such as sidewalks and bicycle lanes, in addition to improving and expanding recreational trails and access to open spaces and natural areas. Flood and Blowsand Control – Reinforcing roadways and infrastructure against natural hazards in the Coachella Valley. Environmental Mitigation – To construct the traffic relief improvements in this Plan, mitigation will be required, while other community mitigation will be provided to preserve and improve quality of living, particularly in disadvantaged communities. Additionally, public infrastructure is increasingly under threat from natural disasters. Further, population growth and development puts pressure on natural areas that make Riverside County a desirable place to live. To achieve balanced growth of the region, ensure transportation projects can move forward, withstand natural hazards, and provide for a high quality of living for current and future generations of Riverside County residents, the Traffic Relief Plan makes meaningful commitments to environmental stewardship. PublicTransportationSafe Streets& Roads ActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationFlood &BlowsandControl New TechnologyCommuterAssistanceHighwaysRegionalConnections PublicTransportationSafe Streets& Roads ActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationFlood &BlowsandControl New TechnologyCommuterAssistanceHighwaysRegionalConnections PublicTransportationSafe Streets& Roads ActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationFlood &BlowsandControl New TechnologyCommuterAssistanceHighwaysRegionalConnections PublicTransportationSafe Streets& Roads ActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationFlood &BlowsandControl New TechnologyCommuterAssistanceHighwaysRegionalConnections PublicTransportationSafe Streets& Roads ActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationFlood &BlowsandControl New TechnologyCommuterAssistanceHighwaysRegionalConnections PublicTransportationSafe Streets& Roads ActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationFlood &BlowsandControl New TechnologyCommuterAssistanceHighwaysRegionalConnections PublicTransportationSafe Streets& Roads ActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationFlood &BlowsandControl New TechnologyCommuterAssistanceHighwaysRegionalConnections PublicTransportationSafe Streets& RoadsActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationFlood &BlowsandControl New TechnologyCommuterAssistanceHighwaysRegionalConnections 52024 Draft Traffic Relief Plan TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN: YOUR GUIDE TO PROJECTS & SERVICES The Palo Verde Valley component of the Traffic Relief Plan calls for improvements to all aspects of local transportation. All revenues generated in the Palo Verde Valley will remain in the Palo Verde Valley, with all revenue returned directly to the City of Blythe and County of Riverside. The Blythe City Council will have authority to set priorities and expend funds within the city limits and the County Board of Supervisors will have authority to expend funds in unincorporated areas of the Palo Verde Valley. Investments made by the City of Blythe and County must be for transportation purposes for the benefit of Palo Verde Valley residents and must be approved in an open and transparent manner pursuant to open meetings laws. All revenues generated through the Traffic Relief Plan in the Palo Verde Valley shall remain in the Palo Verde Valley and cannot be diverted to other areas of Riverside County. To address transportation needs in rural areas, such as the Palo Verde Valley, and to strengthen the agricultural economy and tourism, new investments will focus on: • Safety and maintenance of local streets and roads • Ensuring public infrastructure complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act • Closing sidewalk gaps and enhancing bike lanes for improved pedestrian access to and from schools • Improving the condition of interchanges at Interstate 10, including landscaping and gateway enhancements • Establishing a new vanpool program for residents commuting to major employment areas, such as Ironwood and Chuckawalla Valley prisons, Coachella Valley, and Arizona • Providing reduced- or free-fare public transit to increase access to education, healthcare, employment, and services • Replacing and expanding the bus fleet to improve air quality with low- and zero- emission vehicles • Upgrading transit operating and maintenance facilities to maintain transit vehicles and infrastructure in good condition • Increasing frequency and expanding public transit options for education, healthcare, employment, and services in underserved neighborhoods Transportation investments through the Plan will also serve as a driver for economic development in the community. Improving the transportation network will leverage other public and private investments and encourage new businesses to invest. RanchoMirage Palm Springs PalmDesert IndianWells La Quinta Indio DesertHot Springs Coachella CathedralCity Ramon Rd Varne r R d Fred Waring Dr Country Club Dr Dinah Shore Dr Dillon Rd Vista ChinoGen e A u t r y T r a i l E Palm C a n y o n D r Avenue 54 Airport Blvd Avenue 60 Avenue 66 Box C a n y o n R d Avenue 48 Avenue 50 Wa s h i n g t o n S t Coo k S t Por t o l a A v e Mon t e r e y A v e Bob H o p e D r Dat e P a l m D r Pal m D r Littl e M o r o n g o R d Ind i a n C a n y o n D r Sun r i s e W a y Mo n r o e S t Jeff e r s o n S t Jac k s o n S t Palm SpringsInternational Airport El Paseo Shopping District The LivingDesert Zoo& Gardens Indian WellsTennis Garden PoloGrounds Agua CalienteResort Casino Spa Joshua Tree National Park UC RiversidePalm DesertCampus FantasySpringsResortCasino Spotlight 29 Casino CSUSBPalm DesertCampus Palm SpringsAerial Tramway 10 INTERSTATE C A L I F O R N I A 10 INTERSTATE C A L I F O R N I A 111 74 86 86 62 111 PublicTransportationSafe Streets& Roads ActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationFlood &BlowsandControl Highways RegionalConnections 6 2024 Draft Traffic Relief Plan TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN: PALO VERDE VALLEY RanchoMirage Palm Springs PalmDesert IndianWells La Quinta Indio DesertHot Springs Coachella CathedralCity Ramon Rd Varne r R d Fred Waring Dr Country Club Dr Dinah Shore Dr Dillon Rd Vista ChinoGen e A u t r y T r a i l E Palm C a n y o n D r Avenue 54 Airport Blvd Avenue 60 Avenue 66 Box C a n y o n R d Avenue 48 Avenue 50 Wa s h i n g t o n S t Coo k S t Por t o l a A v e Mon t e r e y A v e Bob H o p e D r Dat e P a l m D r Pal m D r Littl e M o r o n g o R d Ind i a n C a n y o n D r Sun r i s e W a y Mo n r o e S t Jeff e r s o n S t Jac k s o n S t Palm SpringsInternational Airport El Paseo Shopping District The LivingDesert Zoo& Gardens Indian WellsTennis Garden PoloGrounds Agua CalienteResort Casino Spa Joshua Tree National Park UC RiversidePalm DesertCampus FantasySpringsResortCasino Spotlight 29 Casino CSUSBPalm DesertCampus Palm SpringsAerial Tramway 10 INTERSTATE C A L I F O R N I A 10 INTERSTATE C A L I F O R N I A 111 74 86 86 62 111 PublicTransportation ActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationCommuterAssistance Flood &BlowsandControl Highways Safe Streets& Roads RegionalConnections TRAFFIC RELIEF: COACHELLA VALLEY This map is illustrative of projects that could be completed. 72024 Draft Traffic Relief Plan TRAFFIC RELIEF: COACHELLA VALLEY The Coachella Valley component of the Traffic Relief Plan calls for improvements to all aspects of local and regional transportation systems in the Coachella Valley. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) will administer the Plan in the Coachella Valley. CVAG is a public agency governed by an Executive Committee consisting of the mayor or an elected official representing every city council in the Coachella Valley and the City of Blythe, all five County Supervisors, and the Tribal Chairs from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Cabazon Band of Cahuilla Indians, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, and Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians. Funds Generated in the Coachella Valley Stay in the Coachella Valley All revenues generated under the Plan in the Coachella Valley will remain in the Coachella Valley for expenditure. Funding will provide investments for projects in communities that fully participate in, and are compliant with, the Coachella Valley’s Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) and the procedures approved by the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission for the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). While this section uses the same library of icons seen throughout the Plan, most Coachella Valley projects, improvements, and programs may fall within multiple subject areas as they have multiple benefits. Establishing and Updating Regional Priorities Since 1989, CVAG has been entrusted to manage the regional transportation network. CVAG establishes its priorities according to the Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS), which is a merit-based method of prioritizing all regional projects in the Coachella Valley. Project priorities are based on criteria adopted by the CVAG Executive Committee, as recommended by civil engineers and public works professionals, and publicly reviewed by elected officials representing every CVAG member jurisdiction. The TPPS is updated every few years as the Coachella Valley’s population grows and becomes more diverse in order to address different mobility needs, new technologies, state and federal policy as well as worldwide climate and economic trends. Funding for TPPS projects follow CVAG’s cost-splitting policy that requires a local match to unlock regional funding. Local funding is an element of the Maintenance of Effort requirements employed by RCTC and CVAG. CVAG will continue to work with RCTC to ensure new regional funding resources do not supplant current funding and commitments; rather the funding pie grows larger for all. In addition to overall mobility related goals described under this Plan, the TPPS process shall include the following objectives: • Achieve balance and equity • Achieve climate resiliency • Provide economic opportunities • Address statewide and regional housing needs by supporting transit-oriented development and affordable housing • Address safety by continually reducing serious accidents and fatalities on the roadways • Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) • Promote public health and safety, including improving air quality The TPPS includes upgraded, safer, and more accessible regional roadways and bridges. These regional multi-modal facilities connect the Coachella Valley and ensure the transportation network helps support a stronger, more sustainable economy for the community. Some of the arterials and other roads that will continue to be improved are depicted on the map and listed at the end of this section. PublicTransportation ActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationCommuterAssistanceFlood &BlowsandControl Highways Safe Streets& Roads RegionalConnections 8 2024 Draft Traffic Relief Plan TRAFFIC RELIEF: COACHELLA VALLEY PublicTransportationSafe Streets& Roads ActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationFlood &BlowsandControl New TechnologyCommuterAssistanceHighwaysRegionalConnections PublicTransportationSafe Streets& Roads ActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationFlood &BlowsandControl New TechnologyCommuterAssistanceHighwaysRegionalConnections PublicTransportationSafe Streets& Roads ActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationFlood &BlowsandControl New TechnologyCommuterAssistanceHighwaysRegionalConnections PublicTransportationSafe Streets& Roads ActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationFlood &BlowsandControl New TechnologyCommuterAssistanceHighwaysRegionalConnections PublicTransportationSafe Streets& Roads ActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationFlood &BlowsandControl New TechnologyCommuterAssistanceHighwaysRegionalConnections Highways The TPPS has included projects to substantially improve connections to federal and state freeways and highways, particularly Interstate 10, Highway 111 and State Route 86. Upgrades to existing interchanges as well as new interchanges are planned and are awaiting funding to be constructed. This Plan will also allow for improvements such as managed lanes or toll lanes on I-10. Such facilities will make it easier and safer to travel along Interstate 10. Additionally, the plan will include grade separations for State Route 86, including a new bridge at Avenue 50, and improving other areas where high numbers of accidents and fatalities occur. The TPPS process is flexible enough to incorporate improvements to connecting regions, including Highway 62 and Highway 74. Additionally, the Plan includes funding to substantially improve the overall condition of these roads as CVAG works in partnership with Caltrans. Regional Connections To catch up with and prepare for continued population growth, the TPPS identifies regional corridors in every community of the Coachella Valley. It also will expand to address new needs, such as an I-10 bypass and extending Avenue 50 between I-10 and State Route 86 to reduce traffic gridlock on existing highways, improve safety, open economic opportunities to disadvantaged communities, and reduce the miles traveled by drivers who must drive inefficient routes to get from one end of the region to another. Active Transportation This Plan and the TPPS include active transportation projects that make it easier and more accessible for people to walk or bike safely. In the Coachella Valley, eligible improvements often accommodate electric vehicles such as golf carts and low-speed electric vehicles, which are part of a multifaceted approach to meet varying degrees of mobility and independence among seniors, individuals with disabilities and underserved communities. Such projects may be stand-alone projects, such as CV Link extensions to North Shore and Desert Hot Springs, and others may expand on the existing active transportation network, such as the Palm Desert Link and bike improvements to the La Quinta village. It also may include incorporating active transportation into the design of complete streets and creating multi-modal connections, such as improvements along Dillon Road. Linking such projects to public transportation and facilitating first mile, last mile connectivity shall be a priority. Public Transportation Public transportation investments, such as CV Rail, is an utmost priority in this Plan. Many of the improvements needed to create consistent service between the Coachella Valley and Los Angeles have already been identified and are awaiting funding to be constructed. With Plan funding, the TPPS will be updated to include CV Rail and a fair share “local commitment” from the Coachella Valley for rail investments and operational costs of CV Rail and train stations. Those investments will be paired with investments from the Western Riverside component of this plan to match federal and state funding. It also will facilitate the movement of goods along the rail lines, which is critical to economic opportunities. Under the TPPS update process, additional benefits to public transportation can be considered, such as transit priority lanes for buses, zero-emission buses and transit facilities, and bus shelters that are sustainable and enhance the passenger experience. The Plan will also support public transportation options for veterans, individuals with disabilities, seniors, students, and disadvantaged communities, including improving access and keeping these transit options affordable. 92024 Draft Traffic Relief Plan TRAFFIC RELIEF: COACHELLA VALLEY Safe Streets and Roads The Coachella Valley portion of the Plan will also fund operations and maintenance (O&M) of regional transportation corridors as identified in the TPPS. The CVAG regional O&M program will support operations, repairs, and replacement of traffic management systems, pavement surfaces (e.g., pothole repair), and traffic control devices. Identical to other projects in the TPPS, the O&M plan would follow a formula and approach to ensure the regional investment enhances, not replaces, investments being made by local cities and Riverside County. This plan includes funding to improve the aesthetic appeal of major corridors and gateways in the Coachella Valley, particularly Interstate 10 and Highway 86. The Coachella Valley corridors and gateways should better reflect the desert’s unique characteristics and appeal to visitors and residents alike. Additionally, the O&M program will enhance existing efforts to promote uniform standards, keep transportation infrastructure in good condition, and extend the life cycle of Coachella Valley’s transportation infrastructure. Regional corridors and gateways span cities and unincorporated communities and include, but are not limited to: • Interstate 10 • Highway 111 • Ramon Road• Cook Street• Fred Waring Drive • Gene Autry Trail/Palm Drive • Indio Boulevard • Highway 86• Washington Street • Monterey Avenue • Bob Hope Drive • Dinah Shore Drive • Date Palm Drive • Little Morongo Road • Avenue 50 CVAG regularly reviews and amends the TPPS to incorporate new and innovative strategies that help reduce traffic congestion and increase economic productivity. The TPPS embraces regional mobility concepts and technologies such as signal synchronization and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technologies, which better connect the Coachella Valley’s workforce to the workplace and reduce seasonal and traffic bottlenecks related to major events. Such concepts are also employed during emergencies to ensure access to hospitals and the best mobility possible for first responders and emergency vehicles. ITS technologies will allow for bus priority or transit signal priority to improve service and reduce delay for mass transit vehicles at intersections on regional corridors. Technologies that eliminate or reduce vehicle miles travelled, vehicle trips, and lay the groundwork for high-speed broadband access, will also be a priority. Flood & Blowsand Control Building bridges and other resilient infrastructure is a very high priority in the Coachella Valley. Critical roads, such as Indian Canyon, Gene Autry Trail, and Dillon Road are regularly closed due to blowsand and rainstorms. With increasing frequency, there are prolonged closures and roads are destroyed during major rain events in the communities of Palm Springs, Desert Hot Springs, and Cathedral City. Such flood impacts can occur anywhere in the Coachella Valley but are often associated with areas that have not had similar flood control and road investments in the past, such as the eastern Coachella Valley. Projects to address the persistent flooding along Box Canyon Drive and other areas will be included in this Plan and future TPPS updates. PublicTransportationSafe Streets& RoadsActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationFlood &BlowsandControl New TechnologyCommuterAssistanceHighwaysRegionalConnections PublicTransportationSafe Streets& Roads ActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationFlood &BlowsandControl New TechnologyCommuterAssistanceHighwaysRegionalConnections 10 2024 Draft Traffic Relief Plan TRAFFIC RELIEF: COACHELLA VALLEY PublicTransportationSafe Streets& Roads ActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationFlood &BlowsandControl New TechnologyCommuterAssistanceHighwaysRegionalConnections PublicTransportationSafe Streets& RoadsActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationFlood &BlowsandControl New TechnologyCommuterAssistanceHighwaysRegionalConnections Commuter Assistance Freeway Service Patrol will be expanded to I-10 in the Coachella Valley to quickly clear incidents from the freeway. Investments will be made in partnering with employers in the Coachella Valley to encourage alternative forms of commuting as a means to reduce congestion and improve air quality and safety. Environmental Mitigation Population growth and development puts pressure on open spaces and natural areas, such as the sand dunes and mountains, that make the Coachella Valley a desirable place to live. Consistent with the approach in Western Riverside County, a minimum of 12.5% of annual revenues shall be allocated, at the discretion of CVAG, to preserve the Coachella Valley’s natural areas, including fulfillment of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). CVAG shall allocate sufficient revenues set-aside for the above purposes to the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC) for habitat acquisition and/or endowment purposes until the CVMSHCP reserve assembly and endowment obligations are met to fill any funding gaps for the long-term administration, land management, and monitoring of the CVMSHCP. Funding related to this Plan shall not relieve any Permittees under the MSHCPs of their pre-existing obligations to the fulfillment of the CVMSHCP. Funding for these programs has an inherent benefit to the environment but also helps expedite permitting and completion of transportation projects. 112024 Draft Traffic Relief Plan TRAFFIC RELIEF: COACHELLA VALLEY Wildomar Canyon Lake Lake Elsinore Menifee Eastvale Temecula LakeMathews Lake Elsinore Canyon Lake Lake Perris VailLake Murrieta SanJacinto Perris Moreno Valley Highland Hemet Beaumont Banning Cabazon Rialto RanchoCucamonga Norco JurupaValley Fontana Corona Claremont Riverside Calimesa Diamond Valley Lake RIV E R S I D E C O . OR A N G E C O . RIVERS I D E C O . SAN D I E G O C O . SAN BERNARDINO CO. RIVERSIDE CO. 241 259 71 30 91 74 74 74 74 60 10 INTERSTATE C A L I F O R N I A 10 INTERSTATE C A L I F O R N I A 215 INTERSTATE C A L I F O R N I A 215 INTERSTATE C A L I F O R N I A 15 INTERSTATE C A L I F O R N I A 10 INTERSTATE C A L I F O R N I A 371 111 243 74 79 79 38 15 INTERSTATE C A L I F O R N I A 215 INTERSTATE C A L I F O R N I A 60 10 INTERSTATE C A L I F O R N I A 91 15 INTERSTATE C A L I F O R N I A 60 215 INTERSTATE C A L I F O R N I A 79 PublicTransportationSafe Streets& Roads ActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationFlood &BlowsandControl New TechnologyCommuterAssistanceHighwaysRegionalConnectionsPublicTransportationSafe Streets& Roads ActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationFlood &BlowsandControl New TechnologyCommuterAssistanceHighwaysRegionalConnections This map is illustrative of projects that could be completed. 12 2024 Draft Traffic Relief Plan TRAFFIC RELIEF: WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Safe Streets and Roads Every city and the unincorporated communities of western Riverside County is guaranteed to receive its fair share of funds for safety improvements to local streets and roads and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Additionally, major roadways that connect the region will receive funds to implement safety improvements that will reduce accidents, injuries, and fatalities, as well as provide emergency relief to regional corridors with few or no alternative routes. Half of the funds for Safe Streets and Roads will be distributed by formula (based on population) to each city and the County of Riverside for unincorporated communities. Half of the funds will be distributed by RCTC to major regional safety projects. Improvements funded from this program include: • Pothole repair and road maintenance • Sidewalks and pedestrian safety infrastructure • Protected bicycle lanes • Roadway improvements in high-accident areas • Bus shelters • Bridge repairs • Improvements to railroad crossings, including bridges to separate roads from railroad tracks • Traffic calming measures • Bypass roads • Median barriers More Bus Service,40% Commuter Assistance, 2% Safe Streets and Roads, 8% Public Transportation, 25% Active Transportation, 3% Environmental Mitigation, 25% Regional Connections, 12% Road Improvements,60% Highways, 25% Western Riverside County Traffic Relief Investments PublicTransportationSafe Streets& Roads ActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationFlood &BlowsandControl New TechnologyCommuterAssistance Highways RegionalConnections PublicTransportationSafe Streets& Roads ActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationFlood &BlowsandControl New TechnologyCommuterAssistanceHighwaysRegionalConnectionsPublicTransportationSafe Streets& Roads ActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationFlood &BlowsandControl New TechnologyCommuterAssistanceHighwaysRegionalConnections 132024 Draft Traffic Relief Plan TRAFFIC RELIEF: WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY • Protecting roads, sidewalks, and bicycle facilities from flooding and other natural hazards • Traffic signals, including technology to synchronize and interconnect signals • Improvements to provide accessibility for persons with disabilities Specific regional corridors that could receive funding for safety improvements include: • Cajalco Road • Gilman Springs Road • Grand Avenue • Ramona Expressway / Mid County Parkway • I-10 Bypass between Banning and Cabazon Highways Improving the flow of traffic saves time, reduces stress, and improves safety, air quality, and economic productivity. Population is growing in Riverside County. Without action, traffic congestion will also continue to grow. The highways in Riverside County were built decades ago, in some cases severing communities and impacting local traffic circulation. Additionally, Riverside County has an incomplete highway network that does not adequately serve our residents or economy. The Traffic Relief Plan will improve traffic flow by building new infrastructure and using technology to improve efficiency of how the transportation system operates. Investments will include: I-15 Corridor/Corona, Temescal Valley, Lake Elsinore, Wildomar, Murrieta, Temecula • Add Express Lanes in each direction on I-15 between Cajalco Road in Corona and State Route 74 • Add at least one lane in each direction on I-15 between State Route 74 to the San Diego County Line • Construct auxiliary lanes on I-15 in Corona • Construct the final phase of the French Valley Parkway interchange at I-15 in Temecula, which includes: o Widening ramps at Winchester Road o Constructing on and off ramps to I-15 from French Valley Parkway and a bridge over I-15 o Constructing the French Valley Parkway from Jefferson Avenue to Ynez Road o Adding of collector/distributor lanes for southbound I-15 from I-215 to Winchester Road • Reconstruct interchanges at: o Nichols Road in Lake Elsinore o Central Avenue (State Route 74) in Lake Elsinore o Wildomar Trail (formerly Baxter Road) in Wildomar o Bundy Canyon Road in Wildomar • Construct a new interchange on I-15 at: o Campbell Ranch Road and Temescal Canyon Road in Temescal Valley o Franklin Street in Lake Elsinore I-215 Corridor/Riverside, Moreno Valley, Perris • Add at least one lane in each direction between State Route 60 and Van Buren Boulevard • Construct new interchanges (on and off ramps) on I-215 at: o Keller Road in Murrieta o Garbani Road in Menifee • Reconstruct interchange at Harley Knox Boulevard in Moreno Valley 91 Corridor/Corona, Riverside • Add at least one new lane on State Route 91 between: o State Route 241 and State Route 71 in the eastbound direction PublicTransportationSafe Streets& Roads ActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationFlood &Blowsand Control New TechnologyCommuterAssistanceHighwaysRegionalConnections 14 2024 Draft Traffic Relief Plan TRAFFIC RELIEF: WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY o I-15 in Corona and Pierce Street in Riverside in both directions • Reconstruct interchanges on State Route 91 at: o Adams Street in Riverside o Tyler Street in Riverside • Construct a rapid transit connection from the 91 Express Lanes to the North Main Corona Transit Center/Metrolink station 60 Corridor/Jurupa Valley, Moreno Valley • Add at least one lane in each direction on State Route 60 in Moreno Valley • Reconstruct interchanges on State Route 60 at: o Etiwanda Avenue in Jurupa Valley o Rubidoux Boulevard in Jurupa Valley o Redlands Boulevard in Moreno Valley I-10 Corridor/Calimesa, Beaumont, Banning, Cabazon • Reconstruct interchanges on I-10 at: o State Route 79 (Beaumont Avenue) in Beaumont o Highland Springs Avenue in Beaumont and Banning o Pennsylvania Avenue in Beaumont o Morongo Parkway and Main Street in Cabazon o County Line Road in Calimesa o Cherry Valley Boulevard in Calimesa • Add express lanes on I-10 between State Route 60 in Beaumont and Highway 111 in Palm Springs Countywide Interconnected Highways Using technologies that have been proven effective around the world, as well as emerging innovative technologies, investments will be made to interconnect highways, street and ramp signals, and automobiles to create more efficiency in the entire transportation network. With roadways and vehicles that can talk to each other, traffic flow can be increased and safety improved by reducing the potential for human error on the road. Regional Connections To catch up with and prepare for continued population growth, new regional corridors are necessary to reduce traffic gridlock on existing highways, improve safety, open economic opportunities to disadvantaged communities, and reduce the miles traveled by drivers who must drive inefficient routes to get from one end of the region to another. Five new regional corridors are in various stages of preparation and need additional funding to become a reality for Riverside County residents. These transportation facilities will include features that accommodate public transit and bicyclists, and will be consistent with the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan for the protection of the environment. Investments will be prioritized based on readiness to be constructed and available funding: • Cajalco Road • Mid County Parkway • State Route 79 Realignment • Elsinore-Ethanac Expressway • I-10 Bypass PublicTransportationSafe Streets& Roads ActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationFlood &BlowsandControl New TechnologyCommuterAssistanceHighwaysRegionalConnections 152024 Draft Traffic Relief Plan TRAFFIC RELIEF: WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Public Transportation Bringing reliable public transportation to more areas of Riverside County is a priority of the Traffic Relief Plan. Increased investment in bus, rail, and new modes of public transportation will offer Riverside County residents choices for how they travel, and ensure public transportation is available for those who need it most. Passenger Rail Riverside County is home to several railroad rights-of-way that connect our growing communities. These rail lines serve as a public transportation backbone for our region. Funds for the Traffic Relief Plan will: • Increase train service frequency on existing commuter rail (Metrolink) lines such as the 91/Perris Valley Line and Inland-Empire Orange County Line, with trains eventually as frequent as every 30 minutes during peak periods • Expand rail service into new areas of Riverside County such as the Beaumont/Banning/Cabazon/Calimesa area, the Coachella Valley, and Hemet and San Jacinto • Construct new railroad tracks and supporting infrastructure within existing rail rights-of-way to allow more trains to operate and to increase efficiency and on-time performance of trains • Construct new rail stations, such as at the Ramona Expressway, in Winchester, and in Beaumont/Banning/Calimesa/Cabazon area • Maintain and enhance security and safety at rail stations • Maintain and enhance management of publicly owned railroad rights-of-way to ensure proper maintenance and safety • Enhance existing rail stations (there are currently nine stations in Corona, Riverside, Jurupa Valley, Perris, and near Moreno Valley), including: o Construct improvements to provide better accessibility for persons with disabilities o Construct new parking capacity at stations in Corona, Riverside, and Perris o Construct train boarding platforms, pedestrian bridges, and crossings • Maintain and operate existing and future rail stations • Invest in zero-emission trains • Maintain and enhance all aspects of operating rail service in Riverside County Bus The Public Transportation section of the Traffic Relief Plan will invest in bus transit to reduce traffic congestion, increase sustainability, and provide more options to residents who rely on public transit to access medical care, employment, education, and other services. Funding will go toward: • Sustaining and expanding where feasible local fixed-route bus services • Sustaining and expanding rapid/commuter bus services along major corridors in Riverside County to destinations such as San Diego, Orange, and San Bernardino Counties, downtown Riverside, Temecula, Moreno Valley, Coachella Valley, Hemet/San Jacinto, and Beaumont/Banning/Calimesa, Corona, and Perris. These routes can connect to commercial airports in the region, major educational, business, and retail/entertainment destinations • Improving safety and security on bus transit • Zero-emission buses and related capital, maintenance, and operation costs • Maintenance and operation of transit centers/hubs and bus stops/shelters • Roadway technologies that improve bus travel times • Micro-transit (on-demand) public transit technologies PublicTransportationSafe Streets& Roads ActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationFlood &BlowsandControl New TechnologyCommuterAssistanceHighwaysRegionalConnections 16 2024 Draft Traffic Relief Plan TRAFFIC RELIEF: WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Additionally, funding will be set aside for specialized transportation providers that serve seniors, veterans, students, individuals with disabilities, and rural and underserved communities. The Citizens and Specialized Transit Advisory Committee, with representatives from these populations, will assist RCTC in administering and providing oversight to the program. Funding will go toward: • Ensuring infrastructure compliance with expansion of destinations and hours of operation for paratransit services such as Dial-A-Ride • Keeping transit fares low for seniors, veterans, students, and individuals with disabilities • Improved access to and from schools, colleges and universities, and employment centers for low-income families and rural communities • Free or reduced bus fares for those who require access to medical appointments, job interviews, or other needed services • Bringing infrastructure into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act • Continued operation of vital community transportation resources such as the 2-1-1 network, which provides individualized assessments with transportation and social service specialists Environmental Mitigation To construct the traffic relief improvements in this Plan, mitigation will be required, while other community mitigation will be provided to preserve and improve quality of living, particularly in disadvantaged communities. Additionally, public infrastructure is increasingly under threat from natural disasters. Further, population growth and development puts pressure on natural areas that make Riverside County a desirable place to live. To achieve balanced growth of the region, ensure transportation projects can move forward, withstand natural hazards, and provide for a high quality of living for current and future generations of Riverside County residents, the Traffic Relief Plan makes meaningful commitments to environmental stewardship. Revenues shall be allocated, at the discretion of RCTC, for one or more of the following purposes: • To benefit the environment and to expedite permitting and completion of transportation projects • To promote public health and safety by improving air quality or safeguarding local transportation infrastructure from natural hazards, including, but not limited to, floods, fires, earthquakes, or blowsand • To preserve Riverside County’s natural areas, including fulfillment of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) obligations • To mitigate Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) • To support transit-oriented development and housing • To establish and maintain recreational use of public open spaces by non-motorized means RCTC shall allocate at least half of the revenues set-aside for the above purposes to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority for habitat acquisition and/or endowment purposes until the MSHCP reserve assembly and endowment obligations are met to ensure the long-term administration, land management, and monitoring of the habitat. Funding allocated from this Plan shall not relieve any Permittees under the MSHCPs of their pre-existing obligations to the fulfillment of the MSHCP. PublicTransportationSafe Streets& Roads ActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationFlood &BlowsandControl New TechnologyCommuterAssistanceHighwaysRegionalConnections 172024 Draft Traffic Relief Plan TRAFFIC RELIEF: WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Commuter Assistance To help commuters with a safer trip, and to provide alternatives to driving alone, the Traffic Relief Plan invests in the following Commuter Assistance programs: Freeway Service Patrol When accidents occur on highways or when vehicles break down, traffic can build quickly, creating delays and additional safety hazards to motorists. Freeway Service Patrol provides roving tow trucks to quickly assist motorists so that traffic can flow again. This public service is operated with strict performance and accountability measures by the California Highway Patrol, Caltrans, and RCTC ensuring that Freeway Service Patrols reduce congestion, increase safety, and decrease air pollution. The Plan will sustain and increase Freeway Service Patrol levels on Interstates 15 and 215 and State Routes 60 and 91, including weekend service. The Plan will also enable new service to begin on Interstate 10 and possibly other routes as determined by benefit-cost analysis. Park & Ride Lots Creating more convenient locations for commuters to meet and travel together reduces the burdens of solo commuting and decreases the number of cars on the road during peak hours. Employer Partnerships to Reduce Commutes The Traffic Relief Plan recognizes that improving commutes is not just about the commuter, but also about employers stepping up to help. The Plan calls for enhancing current Commuter Assistance Programs with employers in Riverside County to provide better options and incentives to encourage ridesharing, vanpooling, telecommuting, and public transit use. PublicTransportationSafe Streets& Roads ActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationFlood &BlowsandControl New TechnologyCommuterAssistanceHighwaysRegionalConnections 18 2024 Draft Traffic Relief Plan TRAFFIC RELIEF: WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Active Transportation Transportation options that do not require a motorized vehicle are an important element of healthy, connected communities in Riverside County. Therefore, the Traffic Relief Plan invests in pedestrian and bicycle facilities, trails and access to open space, and planning. Funding from this category can go toward: • Sidewalks and bicycle lanes • Infrastructure that provides safer routes to school for children to walk or bike to school and decreases injuries and fatalities • Recreational trails so that Riverside County residents can enjoy better access to our world-renowned natural open spaces o Amenities that support these facilities such as trailheads, parking lots, restrooms, and signs are eligible for these funds; however, maintenance and operations shall be the responsibility of the local government agency, not RCTC o Major regional trails identified in the master plan for the Riverside County Parks & Open Space District are eligible for funding, which include but are not limited to: • Butterfield Overland Trail/Southern Emigrant Trail • Santa Ana River Trail • Juan Bautista de Anza Historical Trail • Salt Creek Trail PublicTransportationSafe Streets& Roads ActiveTransportation EnvironmentalMitigationFlood &BlowsandControl New TechnologyCommuterAssistanceHighwaysRegionalConnections 192024 Draft Traffic Relief Plan TRAFFIC RELIEF: WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRAFFIC RELIEF PLAN Riverside County Transportation Commission (951) 787-7141 www.rctc.org 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208