Loading...
11 November 29, 1993 Special CommissionRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING 1:30 P.M. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1993 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CONFERENCE ROOM "A" 3560 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 100, RIVERSIDE 1. CALL TO ORDER. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS. 3. MEASURE A VISION AND STRATEGY PAPER. Overview This item is a continuation of discussion of the draft Measure A Vision and Strategy Paper. (Please bring your draft Measure A Vision and Strategy Paper to the meeting.) 4. ADJOURNMENT. :SC The next meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission will be Wednesday, December 8, 1993 at 2:00 p.m. at the RCTC offices, 3560 University Avenue, Ste. 100, Riverside. 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 • Riverside, California 92501 (909) 787-7141 • FAX (909) 787-7920 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION November 29, 1993 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: 1993 Measure A Vision and Strategy Issue Paper This item was continued from the Commission's November 10th meeting. Included in the Commission's agenda packet for further discussion are as follows: • The Measure A Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan, as approved by the voters on November 8, 1988 (Attachment A). • The Commission -adopted policy on Interchange Program (Attachment B). • Three alternatives for funding the Local Circulation Interchange Improvements with Measure A highway funds, Measure A interchange funds, and local or mitigation fee funds, in accordance with the policies (Attachment C). • Cost variances of Measure A projects between the original Program submitted to the voters in 1988 versus the current cost estimates (Attachment D). Staff will participate in the discussion and answer any questions the Commissioners may have at the meeting. Following the discussion, we encourage the Commissioners to discuss and make determinations on the following policy issues in the Report, as listed below: What projects on the expanded case project list should receive the highest priority? Prioritization of projects by project type (interchange, highway, commuter rail) is essential in order to develop a viable project completion and funding schedule. 1993 Measure A Vision and Strategy Issue Paper November 29, 1993 Page 2 o Given the current and likely future economic situation, which funding level (low, medium, or high) should be followed for project scheduling purposes? As previously discussed, funding and project cost estimates are not infallible. The Comission's input is necessary in order to determine which future course of action offers the best benefit to risk ratio. o Along which transportation corridors is future economic activity and potential land development anticipated or preferable? The prioritization of projects and the project scheduling process should reflect planned or desirable economic and land use developments. o What, if any, additional highway or commuter rail projects under expanded case will be necessary to provide for an adequate transportation system? Given the desires of the voters, economic reality, and political concerns, the Commission must identify which additional funds should be considered to deliver expanded case projects and which projects should be targeted for these revenues, particularly SR 71 and the segment of SR 60 from Valley Way to the San Bernardino County Line not contained in the Improvement Plan. o What adjustments should be made to transportation programs and/or projects as a result of revised revenue forecasts and the assignments of bond debt service considered under each scenario? Dependant upon the funding level being considered, it may be advisable to reconsider the scope of some projects on the expanded list (See Table 4 - Vision Paper). Staff has proposed the following recommendations to be considered by the Commission: • Assume that the low revenue estimate as the most prudent estmate for financial planning process; • Program base case level projects against this low funding level; • For purposes of allocating remaining funds for highway projects, consider the SRs 71 and 60 projects prior to expanded Measure A or additional interchange projects; 1993 Measure A Vision and Strategy Issue Paper November 29, 1993 Page 3 • For commuter rail projects, consider (if excess funds remain) partial financing of the San Jacinto Branch Line expansions; • Consider programming CMAQ and Discretionary STP funds for highways and commuter rail projects or "in -lieu" of all local match for local interchanges; • Support rail bonds but do not program bond proceeds until the bonds have passed; Support additional highway legislative authority (gas tax increase), but do not program proceeds until the tax increase has passed; and, • Authorize staff and Caltrans to prepare alternative program schedules. At a minimum, consider "pay-as-you-go" and "debt financing" (to the extent possible to accelerate project delivery). The scheduling of projects would constitute Part 2 of the Measure A Vision and Strategy Paper. nk Attachments ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT B RCTC APPROVED POLICIES MEASURE A LOCAL CIRCULATION AND JOB DEVELOPMENT INTERCHANGE PROGRAMS MEASURE A INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR LOCAL CIRCULATION PROGRAM The Measure A Interchange Improvements for Local Circulation Program is intended to fund additional improvements to interchanges on Routes 60, 91 and 1-215, in conjunction with Measure A freeway widening projects, to improve circulation on local streets. The estimated costs of proposed projects far exceed funding anticipated to be available for this purpose from the Measure A local sales tax revenues. In order to make maximum use of the Measure A funds and yet make sure that new development pays its fair share for improvements needed to handle the additional traffic they will generate, the following policies are proposed. I.a. Traffic Volumes, Safety (Accident Rates) and interchange design impacts on freeway and local street congestion will be used as the primary factors for selecting the projects with the greatest benefit for the Measure A dollars allocated to the project. I.b. Existing traffic volumes and projected traffic volumes will both be considered. Existing volumes will be given greater weight. I.c. Traffic volumes will be reviewed to determine, to the extent possible, the volume of regional trips versus local trips. Additional weight will be given to projects serving a high volumes of regional trips. Regional trips are those trips that are generated outside of, but pass through, a local jurisdiction to access and/or exit the freeway system. Il.a. The Commission, should encourage the WRCOG to develop a fee program, similar to the Coachella Valley Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), or the Commission should consider some other local match requirement, to expand the number of projects that can be constructed under this interchange improvement program. Il.b. If local match funds are required for projects and are not a result of the creation of a fee on development applied uniformly throughout the western county area, the Commission should give consideration to exempting projects from the local match if: (a) the area within a reasonable distance of the project is already fully developed and there is little, if any, chance for development fees to be collected; and (b) there is a significant percentage of regional traffic in the existing and projected traffic volumes. - III. The Commission will perform value engineering on projects as appropriate to determine that the type of improvement proposed provides the greatest cost/benefit ratio for thefunding approved. MEASURE A INTERCHANGES FOR JOB DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM The Measure A Interchange for Job Development Program is intended to provide a share of the costs for interchanges to improve jobs in the western county area. The proposed policies for this program: limit eligibility to new interchanges; require a minimum local match of 50%; and gives higher priority to projects from which the highest number of jobs will be created as a result of the freeway access provided by the project. Improvements to existing interchanges are not recommended for inclusion in this program due to the difficulty of determining the appropriate proportions of the overall project costs attributable to increasing job development versus solving local circulation problems related to existing and future residential development. I. Projects proposed for funding under the Measure A Program must have a minimum of 50% local match funds. Projects with a proposed local match higher than 50% will be given higher consideration for funding. The source of match funds can be provided as part of the requirements for improvements placed on the development or from revenues available to the local governing agency. II. When considering funding for a proposed project the Commission will use the number of proposed jobs to be created by opening the area to development and will give higher priority to projects that create a higher number of jobs. III. The Commission should recognize that the estimates of jobs to result from future development of the adjacent area is, in most cases, a best guess estimate from the local agency. Therefore local agency proposing the project should provide the Commission with the assumptions used to estimate the number of jobs that will result from the project and should provide some assurance that development is imminent. In addition, the local agency should be required to agree that if the zoning of the area is changed in the future, and the revised zoning allows development that will result in the creation of less jobs than the zoning at the time the project was approved and funded by the Commission, the local agency will be required to pay back to the Commission an appropriate amount of the Measure A funds expended on the project as determined by the Commission. - 2 - IV. The Commission should use the funds available through this program only for new interchanges. V. The Commission should not allocate Measure A funds to projects that do not meet minimum interchange spacing requirements of the Federal Highway Administration for urban areas (1 mile). APPROVED BY RCTC 06/13/BO - 3 - ATTACHMENT C MEASURE A LOCAL CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS FUNDING ALTERNATIVES INTERCHANGE LOCATION TOTAL PROJECT COST ($1994) CATEGORY I (SEE NOTE 1.) LINCOLN MAPLE VAN BUREN ADAMS LA SIERRA S5.37 S4.19 $14.68 $14.15 $20.18 ALTERNATIVE 1 PLAN 50'50 PROGRAM MEASURE MEASURE A HIGHWAY (O%) 0 0 0 0 0 A IIP (50%) $2.69 $2.10 $7.34 $7.08 S 10.09 LOCAL\ FEE (50%) S2.69 S2.10 $7.34 $7.08 $10.09 CATEGORY 1I (SEE NOTE 2) FREDRICK DAY VALLEY WAY 11#01; kit TOTAL $5.83 $5.83 $8.12 • ,v £L•. 2.MVi $78.36 NOTES 0 0 0 'Try Yf .�.•f'.v�{ }. }a .r:.a?.wp..0 $0.00 $2.92 $2.92 $4.06 v{ L $39.18 $2.92 $2.92 $4.06 � p $39.18 ALTERNATIVE 2 PLAN 50,25\25 PROGRAM (WITH FREEWAY IMPACT) ALTERNATIVE 3 PLAN 66.6\16.7\16.7 PROGRAM (WITH FREEWAY IMPACT) MEASURE MEASURE LOCAL\ MEASURE MEASURE LOCAL\ A A FEE A A FEE HIGHWAY IIP HIGHWAY IIP (50%) (25%) (25%) (66.696) (16.796) (16.7%) $2.69 $1.34 $1.34 $3.58 $0.90 $0.90 $2.10 $1.05 $1.05 $2.80 $0.70 $0.70 $7.34 $3.67 $3.67 $9.78 S2.45 $2.45 $7.08 $3.54 $3.54 $9.43 S2.36 $2.36 $10.09 $5.05 $5.05 $13.45 $3.36 $3.36 $0.00 $2.92 $2.92 $0.00 $2.92 $2.92 $0.00 $2.92 $2.92 $0.00 $2.92 $2.92 $0.00 $4.06 $4.06 $0.00 $4.06 $4.06 $ $29.29 $24.54 $24.54 $39.05 $19.66 $19.66 1. CATEGORY 1 INCLUDES INTERCHANGES THAT WOULD REQUIRE RECONSTRUCTION IF THE FREEWAY LANE ADDITIONS ARE CONSTRUC TO FULL STANDARD OR MORE THAN ONE REDUCED STANDARD LANE IS ADDED. 2. CATEGORY Il INTERCHANGES WOULD NOT BE IMPACTED BY FULL STANDARD LANE ADDITIONS. ATTACHMENT D To: Riverside County Transportation Commission From: Tom Horkan, Bechtel Project Manager Through: Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director Date: November 10, 1993 RE: Explanation of Cost Variances in Measure A Projects - 1988 to 1993 At the RCTC Commission meeting on October 27, 1993, questions were raised about cost variances between cost estimates contained in the original Measure A ballot, and the current project estimates shown in the Draft 1993 Measure A Vision & Strategy Issue Paper. In June, 1990 Bechtel prepared an update of the Measure A Transportation Expenditure Plan. Chapter 1 of that report (see attached) explains changes in estimates from the original Bechtel estimates prepared in May of 1988, the estimates used for the Measure A ballot in Nov 1988, and the updated cost shown in the June 1990 report. Table 1.2 shows the comparisons with the final estimates, per project segments in 1990 dollars. To accurately compare cost estimate variances from 1990 to 1994, the 1990 estimates must first be escalated to 1994 dollars. Exhibit A shows the original estimates, the revisions in 1990 and the 1990 costs escalated to 1994 dollars. From 1990 to 1994 an escalation rate of 4% per annum was used. The next column in the exhibit shows the current project cost estimates as shown in the Draft Vision & Strategy Issue Paper. The final column shows the difference between the escalated 1990 estimates and the current estimates. The following are explanations for the differences between the current cost estimate and the escalated 1990 costs. r_xr/iB IT // MEASURE A PROJECT COST VARIANCES RTE 60 PROJECT LIM17S BECH EL ES"I7MA7 MAY 1988 MEASURE BALLOT NOV 1988 BECITIEL ES"TIMATE JUNE 1990 1990ESTIMATE CURRENT VISION ESTIMATE CHANGE EXPLANATION ESCALATED TO $1994 VALLEY WAY TO EAST OF MAIN S"T $16,800 $16,800 $20,300 $24,208 S27,400 $3,192 NO SCOPE - BEI I hit ESTIMATE 60 EAST JCT 1215 TO REDLANDS BLDV $21,700 $21,700 $24,700 $29,455 $26,200 ($3,255) LESS COST - BETTER ESTIMATE 74 RT.15 TO SEVENTH ST $23 800 a` ,. " 1 +- - � ��� S28,600 S34,106 $32,500 ($1,606) LESS COST - BETTER ESTIMATE 74 SEVENTH ST TO'G" ST 3 " + x � '�� � $6,200 $7,394 S8,900 $1,506 NO SCOPE CHANGE - FINAL COST 74 "G" ST TO 1215 $5,900 $7,036 S16,100 $9,064 SCOPE INCREASE - SEE ATTACHMENT 2 74 WINCHESTER RD TO WARREN RD $2,000 $2,100 $2,743 SO ($2,743' PROJECT STOPPED 79 SANDERSON AVE TO BEAUMONTRR XING itoa i s iAi; $10 300 $12,283 $38,000 $25,7171 SCOPE INCREASE - SEE ATTACHMENT 2 79 SANDERSON AVE BRIDGE TO RT.79 _ $14,400 S17,172 $15,500 ($1,672) NO SCOPE CHANGE - FINAL COST 79 KELLER RD TO NEWPORT RD $0 $10,000 $9,400 $11,210 S11,400 $190 NO SCOPE CHANGE 91 ORG CNTY LN TO MAGNOLIA AVE $37,400 x s � i s.I;+ I I, $36,100 �i$,tt l ? . '.'il ($16,450 NO SCOPE CHANGE - FAVORABLE BIDS } t.,y',14$ :f, 91 ORG CNTY LN TO MAGNOLIA AVE (2nd Lane) SO `_, I ' ` 1' S108r7001 PHASE II 5129,15� a <: 91 MAGNOLIA AVE TO 60/91/215 IC iik s','1 t . 1 g �, r � �,,, ' 1�;. $97,200 °110-i} :, 11ilI°I,�' $1,187 NO SCOPE CHANGE 91 MAGNOLIA AVE TO 60/91/215 IC Lane) ( ) $137,7001PHASE II $164,21� 215 EAST JCT RT.60 TO WEST JCT RT.60 $18,800 $18,800 S 19,200 $22,896 $92,200 $69,304 SCOPE CHANGE - SEE ATTACHM ENT 2 215 WEST JCT RT.60 TO SBD CNTY LN $14,200 S14,200 $16,400 819,557 $19,700 $143 NO SCOPE CHANGE 215 RT.60/91R15INTERCHANGE $173,900 $115,000 $141,100 $168,264 $98,500 ($69,764) LESSSCOPE (1 DIRECT CONNECTOR) IIP JOB DEVELOPMENT NA S33,200 $33,200 MEASURE $12 MILLION IIP LOCAL CIRCULATION NA S57,000 $57,000 MEASURE $18 MILLION SUBTOTAL S507,600 $538,200 $678300 $515,287 $620,300 $105,013 COACHELLA VALLEY 111 OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS NA $26,200 86 BUILD 4 LANE EXPRESSWAY NA $117,200 SUBTOTAL 8143,400 1 $763,700 ;: • ATTACHMENT 1 lA Introduction 1_1 Background In November 1988, the voters of Riverside County approved Measure A, a one-half of one percent tax for a period of twenty years to fund transportation improvement projects. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is responsible for administering the program. The transportation improvement projects are specified for the three geographical areas of Riverside County, the Western County area, the Coachella Valley area, and the Palo Verde Valley area. The projects are classified as state highway, commuter rail, regional arterial, local street, or specialized transit projects. This report identifies the scope and cost of projects identified within the Western County state highway program. The Measure A ballot identifies projects and projected expenditure levels for the Western County state highway projects. The project scope definitions and costs identified in the ballot language were based on estimates performed either by Caltrans or by Bechtel Corporation. Bechtel Corporation was hired by RCTC in December 1987 to provide a scope and cost review of the proposed state highway projects in the Western County and Coachella Valley areas. This report updates the previous scope and cost review to be consistent with the Measure A ballot language and current knowledge on project segmentation. Sixteen individual Measure A projects (or project segments) have been evaluated. Also included in this report is an estimate for a complementary project, # 163 (I-215 from the San Bernardino County line to south of the 1-10 Interchange), included in the San Bernardino County Measure I program. Caltrans has prepared a Project Study Report for some of these, and has provided Bechtel with additional information when available. The seventeen project segments included in this report are: # 111 Route 60 from Valley Way (PM 07.53) to East of Main Street (PM 11.75) # 112 Route 60 from East Junction Route 215 (PM 12.06) to Redlands Boulevard (PM 20.37) # 131 Route 74 from Route 15 (PM 17.24) to Seventh Street in the City of Perris (PM 25.75) # 132 Route 74 from Seventh Street in the City of Perris (PM 25.75) to "G" Street in the City of Perris (PM 27.18) #133 Route 74 from "G" Street in the City of Perris (PM 27.18) to Route 215 (PM 27.51) # 134 Route 74 from Winchester Road (PM 34.34) to Warren Road (PM 36.93) # 141 Route 79 from Sanderson Avenue (PM 33.88) to the Beaumont Railroad Crossing (PM 40.33) # 142 Sanderson Avenue from Ramona Expressway to Route 79 (PM 33.88) # 143 Route 79 from Keller Road (PM 10.90) to Newport Road (PM 15.20) 1-1 #151 Route 91 from Orange County line (PM 00.00) to Magnolia Avenue (PM 11.10) - Phase I #152 Route 91 from Magnolia Avenue (PM 11.10) to Route 215 (PM 21.68) - Phase I # 153 Route 91 from Orange County line (PM 00.00) to Magnolia Avenue (PM 11.10) - Phase II #154 Route 91 from Magnolia Avenue (PM 11.10) to Route 215 (PM 21.68) - Phase 11 #161 Route 215 from East Junction Route 60 (PM 38.34) to West Junction Route 60 (PM 43.25) # 162 Route 215 from West Junction Route 60 (PM 4325) to San Bernardino County line (PM 45.33) #163 (1) Route 215 from San Bernardino County line (PM 00.00) to Route 10 (PM 03.50) # 171 Route 60/91/215 Interchange Table 1-1 is a summary of the estimated costs for the Western County area highway improvements contained in the Riverside County Transportation Expenditure Plan, with the exceptions of the Call Box program and the two interchange improvement programs. Figure 1.1 shows the location of each of these projects. (1) San Bernardino County Measure I Project. 12 Identification of Maior Revisions Project Revisions The 1988 version of this report was prepared prior to formulation of the Measure A ballot language. This version of the report is consistent with the ballot language. Following is a summary of the changes to the list of projects included in the 1988 report: 1. Project #121, Route 71 from the San Bernardino County line to Route 91 has been deleted because it was not included in the Measure A program. 2. Project # 132 was split into two projects (# 132 and # 133) to be consistent with actual project implementation. 3. Project # 134, Route 74 from Winchester Road to Warren Road was added because it was identified in the Measure A program. 4. Project #141 was split into two projects (#141 and #142), Sanderson Avenue to the Beaumont Railroad crossing and Sanderson Avenue from Route 79 to the Ramona Expressway. This was done to be compatible with the existing grade separation project at the Beaumont Railroad crossing and consistent with project implementation. 1-2 5. Project # 143, Route 79 from Newport Road to Keller Road was added because it was identified in the Measure A program. 6. Project #153, Route 91 outside widening from the Orange County line to Magnolia Avenue was added because the Measure A program identified the potential for the addition of up to two lanes in each direction on Route 91. 7. Project #152 was split into two projects (#152 and #154), Route 91 median widening from Magnolia Avenue to the 60/91/215 interchange and Route 91 outside widening from Magnolia Avenue to the 60/91/215 interchange, due to the potential for these projects to be developed sequentially. 8. Project #163, Route 215 from the San Bernardino County line to Interstate 10 (complementary Measure I project) was added because this project will be implemented simultaneously with Project #162. 9. Project #171, the 60/91/215 interchange was changed from eight direct connectors to six director connectors as identified in the Measure A program. Changes in Proiect Estimating Procedures Review of the 1988 project estimates and project revisions indicated the need to update specific areas. Following is a list of specific improvements made to the estimates: 1. Inflationary adjustment from 1987 to 1990 cost data. Specifically affected were the unit costs for structures and concrete median barrier. 2. Generic increases for construction traffic handling and drainage. Experience has shown that previous estimates were insufficient in these areas. 3. Allowances for project development costs were decreased. An allowance of 25 percent was used for projects greater than S10 million and an allowance of 38 percent was used for projects less than S10 million. This lower cost assumption for project development was based on actual experience with similar sales tax programs. 4. Contingencies were revised to be consistent with Caltrans guidelines, resulting in a decrease for some projects. 5. Previous estimates were reviewed. In only a few cases updates were required due to a change in scope. Significant upward revisions include additional of earthwork for the Sanderson Avenue Bridge Project, overlay asphalt for Route 74 from 1-15 to 7th Street in Perris, and addition of railroad improvements on Route 74 in Perris. 13 Comparison of Estimates Numerous estimates exist for these projects. Efforts were made to review and reconcile these estimates. Table 1.2 summarizes the various estimates that have been published by RCTC. Following is a summary explaining the differences. 1-3 1. Comparison of 1990 Estimates with Caltrans Estimates. Caimans is in the process of updating estimates for most projects. Their unpublished estimates were reviewed and in some cases the project scope differs from the Measure A project scope. Following is a summary of the areas where our estimate differs from the Caltrans estimates being developed. o Caltrans' estimate for Project #111 is for 1 HOV and 1 mixed -flow lane in each direction. The Measure A program only identifies one lane in each direction. This report assumes it to be a mixed flow lane with full inside shoulder. o Caltrans' estimate for Project #112 is for 1 HOV lane in each direction. This report estimates 1 mixed flow lane in each direction with full inside shoulder. o No Caimans detailed estimates currently exist for Projects #132, 133, and 134. o Ca!trans' estimate for Project #141 includes a 14 foot paved median turning lane and realignment of 1 mile including significant structures and right-of-way. This report includes no median and only minor realignment consistent with the Measure A program. o No Ca'trans detailed estimates currently exist for Projects #142 and #143. o No current Caltrans detailed estimates currently exist for Projects #151, 152, 153, and 154. o No current Caimans detailed estimates exist for Project # 161. o Caltrans' estimate for Projects #162 and #163 is for 1 HOV lane and 1 mixed flow lane it each direction. Our estimate for 1 HOV lane in each direction is consistent with Measure A and Measure I. 2. Comparison of 1988 Estimates with Measure A Ballot Language. Project estimates were included in the Measure A ballot language. In general the Measure A ballot language was consistent with our report prepared in 1988. The three areas of inconsistency are summarized as follows: o No Bechtel estimate was made for Project #153. The Measure A ballot language reflects an early Caltrans estimate for this project. o No Bechtel estimates were made for Projects # 134 and 143. o The Bechtel estimate for Project # 171 was for a full eight direct connector interchange. The Measure A Ballot identified the project as six direct connectors and used early Caltrans cost estimates for the project. 3. Comparison of 1990 Estimates with Measure A Ballot language. This report summarizes 1990 estimates for the Measure A projects. Following is a summary of the 1-4 differences from the Measure A ballot language. o Project * 151 reflects recent estimates from the draft PS8cE for this project Project * 153 is a new estimate. The sum of projects #151 and 153 is significantly higher than the Measure A ballot language due to the estimate being more complete and added costs due to sequential implementation of two separate projects (staged construction, mobilization, relocation of soundwalls and retaining walls, ramp modifications, and contingencies). o Projects #152 and 154 reflect the added costs associated with sequential implementation as two separate projects (staged construction, mobilization, relocation of soundwalls and retaining walls, and contingencies). o Project #171 reflects a more complete project scope and cost estimate. 4. Comparison of 1990 Estimates with Short Range Financial Plan. In January of 1990, RCTC published its Short Range Financial Plan for the Implementation of Highway and Commuter Rail Projects. The Financial Plan was developed to assess bonding requirements for the Measure A program. As such it was developed to be consistent with debt coverage requirements. Many of the project costs used in this plan differ from those in the 1988 Western County Scope and Cost Review and the Measure A Ballot language mainly because, the 1990 Estimate was not completed and the Caltrans estimates had not been reviewed for consistency with the Measure A ballot language. In order to be conservative for the purpose of development of the financial plan, the greater of known (Bechtel or Caltrans) project estimates was used. 1_4 Conclusions Overall, the estimated cost of the Measure A highway improvement projects is S678.1 million (in 1990 dollars). This represents a 26 percent increase over the estimates presented in the Measure A Ballot language. Eighty percent of this increase is found in the projects on Route 91 and the 60/91/215 interchange. In 1988, Bechtel did not prepare estimates for the outside widening project from the Orange County line to Magnolia Avenue nor the two direct connector interchange project. Early Caltrans estimates for these projects were used to develop the Measure A ballot language. A major contributor to the cost increases for the Magnolia to 60/91/215 interchange segment projects is due to dividing the four lane addition into two independent projects. This was done to expedite the addition of the fast two lanes, but resulted in significant duplicate construction expenses. In order to develop a feel for the magnitude of estimate changes between the 1988 and 1990, a comparison was made between those projects common to the two estimates. In general the estimates increased an average of 26 percent. This rate of increase can be characterized as follows: Estimate Adiustments Percent Increase Inflationary Adjustments 2 Generic Changes 5 Mobilization and Contingencies 5 Project Development Costs 1 Scope Changes 13 Total 26 1-5 FACILITY CODE 111 112 131 132 133 134 141 142 143 151 152 153 154 161 162 171 TOTAL: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN WESTERN COUNTY STATE HIGHWAY PROJECTS SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION, RIGHT OF WAY, AND ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATES June 1990 PRCVECT DESCRIP770N RT. 60 FROM VALLEY WAY (PM 07.53) TO EAST OF MAIN STREET (PM 11.75) RT. 60 FROM EAST JUNCTION RT. 215 (PM 12.06) TO REDLANDS BLVD (PM 20.37) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 60 RT. 74 FROM RT. 15 (PM 17.24) TO SEVENTH STREET (PM 25.75) RT. 74 FROM SEVENTH STREET (PM 25.75) TO "G" STREET (PM 27.18) RT. 74 FROM "0' STREET (PM 27.18) TO RT. 215 (PM 27.51) RT. 74 FROM WINCHESTER ROAD (PM 34.34) TO WARREN ROAD (PM 36.93) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 74 RT. 79 FROM SANDERSON AVE (PM 33.88) TO THE BEAUMONT RR XING (PM 40.33) SANDERSON AVENUE FROM RAMONA EXPRESSWAY TO RT. 79 (PM 33.88) RT. 79 FROM KELLER ROAD (PM 10.90) TO NEWPORT ROAD (PM 15.20) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 79 RT. 91 FROM ORANGE CNTY LN (PM 00.00) TO MAGNOLIA AVE (PM 11.10)-PHASE I RT. 91 FROM MAGNOLIA AVE (PM 11.10) TO RT. 215 (PM 21.68)-PHASE I RT. 91 FROM ORANGE CNTY LN (PM 00.00) TO MAGNOLIA AV (PM 11.10)-PHASE II RT. 91 FROM MAGNOLIA AVE (PM 11.10) TO RT. 215 (PM 21.68)-PHASE II SUBTOTAL ROUTE 91 RT. 215 FROM EAST JCT RT. 60 (PM 38.34) TO WEST JCT RT. 60 (PM 43.25) RT.215 FROM WJCT RT. 60 (PM 43.25) TO SAN BERNARDINO CNTY LN (PM 45.33) SUBTOTAL ROUTE 215 RT. 60/91 /215 INTERCHANGE MEASURE i LENGTH (MILES) 4.22 8.31 12.53 8.51 1.43 0.33 2.59 12.86 6.45 1.75 4.3 12.5 11.10 10.58 11.1 10.58 43.36 4.91 2.08 6.99 0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION 16,200 19,800 36,000 18,800 2,700 4,300 1,600 27,400 7,800 11,400 6,600 25,800 29,300 75,800 85,700 79,900 270,700 15,400 12,900 28,300 82,700 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY 0 0 0 4,200 2,000 0 100 6,300 500 100 200 800 0 2,000 1,000 31,000 34,000 0 200 200 30,900 TOTAL ENGINEERING 4,100 4,900 9,000 5,600 1,500 1,600 600 9,300 2,000 2,900 2,600 7,500 6,800 19,400 21,600 26,800 74,600 3,800 3,300 7,100 27,500 GRAND TOTAL 20,300 24,700 45,000 28,600 6,200 5,900 2,300 43,000 10,300 14,400 9,400 34,100 36,100 97,200 108,300 137,700 379,300 19,200 16,400 35,600 141,100 .24 470,900 72,200 006 ere,100 TABLE 1.1 s.9 40,200 01 10,000 I 50,200 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN JUNE 1990 WESTERN COUNTY STATE HIGHWAY PROJECTS COMPARISION OF COST ESTIMATES TOTAL ESTIMATED COST ( X 1000) ROUTE FACILITY CODE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT BECHTEL ESTIMATE MAY 1988 MEASURE A BALLOT NOV 1988 BECHTEL ESTIMATE JUNE 1990 60 N111 - VALLEY WAY TO EAST OF MAIN ST WIDEN TO 16,800 16,800 20,300 60 .112 - EAST JCT 1216 TO REDLANDS BLDV 4 LANES 21,700 21,700 24,700 74 I131 - RT.16 TO SEVENTH ST WIDEN TO 4 LANES 23,800 28,000 28,600 74 0132 - SEVENTH ST TO •G' ST 8,100 6,200 74 /133 - •0' ST T01216 5,900 74 0134 - WINCHESTER RD TO WARREN RD 0 2,000 2,300 79 0141 - SANDERSON AVE TO BEAUMONT RR XINC WIDEN TO 4 LANES 19,400 r 19,400 10,300 - .142 - SANDERSON AVE BRIDGE TO RT.70 14,400 79 #143 - KELLER RD TO NEWPORT RD 0 10,000 9,400 91 0161 - ORO CNTY LN TO MAGNOLIA AVE LANES 1b2 37,400 118,000 36,100 91 #163 - ORG CNTY LN TO MAGNOLIA AVE LANES 3 & 4 0 108,300 91 0162 - MAGNOLIA AVE TO 00/01/2161C LANES 182 173,500 173,500 97,200 91 0164 - MAGNOLIA AVE TO 00/01/215 IC LANES 3b4 137,700 215 0101 - EAST JCT RT.00 TO WEST JCT RT.00 WIDEN TO 18,800 18,800 19,200 215 0102 - WEST JCT RT.00 TO SBD CNTY LN 8 LANES 14,200 14,200 18,400 IC 0171-RT.00/01/2/6INTERCHANGE 2 CONNECT 4CONNECT 173,900 115,000 141,100 TOTALS 507,600 538,200 678,100 ABLE 1.2 UPLAND m RIALTO FONTANA OsAN BE•ARDINO 9 ONTARIO m Figure No. 1.1 State Highway Projects Improvements Measure A Western County Area 163: Cooperative Measure I Project CHINO m ct m 1 -1 NORCOO 1011 i® CORONA 1 111 COLTON ,•• �4 et-:11631 ",e1621�'- RIVERSI EU •.•.� � .� 161 1 152 j-„ •••, 11541 � I e, �� (171) MORENO VALLEY IRNER ci LAKE MHEWS ALBE •ILL REDLANDS 132 (133 PERRIS 131 LAKE ELSINORE I® m • m MENTONE 10 PERRIS LAKE ,94,49 TEMECULA .ANOEASON AVE HOMELAND I WINCHESTER WESTERN COUNTY AREA Riverside County SA_N BERNAR_DINO COUNTY DVERSIDE COUNTY BANNING I • • 13:),• BEAU GILMAN HOT SPRINGS • SAN JACINTO d I• MET 134 143 • CABAZON • MOUNTAIN CENTER AOUANGA • • CAHUILLA ANZA m ATTACHMENT 2 T The following is an explanation of the cost estimate differences for projects with significant changes: Route 74 - G Street to I-215 including the 74/215 Interchange Add mixed flow lane in each direction and reconstruct interchange - $16.1 Million Escalated 1990 estimate - $7.1 Million Significant scope change in project based on acceptability to Caltrans. Project involves significant additional right-of- way over 1990 estimate project. Route 79 - Lambs Canyon (Gilman Springs to first Street in Beaumont) Add a mixed flow lane in each direction and Construct Interchange at Gilman Springs Road - S38.0 Million Escalated 1990 estimate - $12.3 Million Costs reflected in Vision and Strategy Issue paper reflect significant scope changes and additions. The first major change is the addition of the Gilman Springs interchange to the project. This alone accounts for $6.5 Million of the cost increase. Other cost item increases included the addition of the project of a 14 foot paved median versus the originally planned 4 foot buffer, significant realignment of the roadway to meet design speed (both of these items had significant impacts on earthwork quantities), and the purchase of additional right-of-way for future expansion of the project for about $1 million. Route 215 - 60/91/215 Interchange to University - $22.9 Million - University to 60/215 Interchange - $69.3 Million Add 1 HOV lane each direction - $92.2 Million Escalated 1990 estimate - $22.9 Million This project is significantly more expensive than shown in the 1990 expenditure plan update. The expenditure plan update assumed a reduced standard project could be constructed for the entire length of the segment. Through project development on the project Caltrans and FHWA have concurred that from University to the 60/215 junction that a full standard project must be constructed in sections which have inadequate sight distance. This reconstruction, reconstruction of the Box Springs\Fair Isle interchange, and the construction of an HOV direct connector to Route 60 from I-215 significantly increase the cost between University to the 60/215. The current cost estimate for the segment between the 60/91/215 and University has been taken as the amount of money allocated in the STIP for the entire segment. This project may possibly be constructed at a cheaper cost than the $22.9 Million. Route 215 60/91/215 Interchange Construct Southbound to Eastbound Direct Connector (San Bernardino to Moreno Valley). Purchase Right of Way for two direct connectors (Southbound to Eastbound, and Westbound to Southbound). - $98.5 Million. Escalated $1990 Estimate - $168.3 Million The previous estimate in 1990 included construction of two direct connectors plus additional structure work on the legs of the interchange that is not needed with the current interchange concept. Route 111 - Various Operational Improvements Various proiects along Route 111 for operational improvement - $26.2 Million Escalated 1990 estimate - No estimate in 1990 The measure outlined $20 million for operational improvements based on projected revenue. Staff has assumed a 1992 cost of $20 Million and have escalated to $1994 and added 20% for engineering. Route 86 - Dillion Road to Avenue 58 - $21.2 Million Avenue 58 to Avenue 66 - $32.4 Million Avenue 66 to Avenue 82 - $63.6 Million Dillion Road to Avenue 58 - $21.2 Million; Avenue 58 to Avenue 66 - $32.4 Million; Avenue 66 to Avenue 82 - $63.6 Million Escalated 1990 Estimate - No estimate for 1990 No estimate in 1990. Project estimates are completed project cost for segment 1, plus STIP funds for remaining phases. PROJECT COMPARISON - MEASURE A PLAN VS. VISION STATEMENT BASE CASE 11 /29/93 # ROUTE LIMITS PROJECT BASE CASE PROJECT 1 91 OCL TO MAGNOLIA WIDEN FROM 6 TO 10 LANES BUILD 1 LANE EACH DIRECTION 2 91 MAGNOLIA TO 91/60/215 ADD UP 'TO 2 LANES EACH DIRECTION BUILD 1 LANE EACH DIRECTION 3 60 215 TO REDLANDS WIDEN TO 6 LANES (ADD 1 LANE EACH DIRECTION) 4 60 91 'ID VALLEY WAY WIDEN TO 6 LANES (ADD 1 LANE EACH DIRECTION) 5 74 15 TO 215 WIDEN TO 4 LANES (ADD 1 LANE EACH DIRECTION) 4 LANES PLUS PAVED MEDIAN 6 74 WINCHESTER TO WARREN REALIGN CURVE NOT DONE 7 79/SANDERSON 10 TO 74 WIDEN TO 4 LANES AND CONSTRUCT CROSSING 4 LANES PLUS PAVED MEDIAN 8 79 NEWPORT'IO KELLER WIDEN TO 4 LANES (ADD 1 LANE EACH DIRECTION) 4 LANES PLUS PAVED MEDIAN 9 60/I-215 91 7D 60 WIDEN TO 8 LANES (ADD 1 LANE EACH DIRECTION) 10 1-215 60/91/215 TO SBC LINE WIDEN TO 8 LANES (ADD 1 LANE EACH DIRECTION) 11 91/60/215 INTERCHANGE RECONSTRUCT WITH 2 DIRECT CONNECTORS 12 60,91,215 VARIOUS LOCATIONS INTERCHANGE WORK TO IMPROVE CIRCULATION 13 ALL VARIOUS LOCATIONS SHARE COST OF INTERCHANGES FOR JOB DEVELOPMENT 14 ALL CALL BOXES 15 60,91 PARK AND RIDE IMPACT = MEASURE A HIGHWAY PROJECTS ON EXISTINC ,TERCHANGES 11 /27/93 FRWY PROJECT SEGMENT BASE CASE EXPANDED CASE INTERCHANGES TO BE RECONSTRUCTED (INCLUDED IN COST OF BASE CASE PROJECTS) INTERCHANGES TO BE RECONSTRUCTED (INCLUDED IN COST OF EXPANDED PROJECTS PRESENTED) SR 91 ORANGE CNTY LINE TO I-15 NONE REQUIRED MAPLE (WORK IS COMPLETE - NO ADDITIONAL COST) SMITH (WORK IS COMPLETE - NO ADDITIONAL COST) LINCOLN (WORK IS COMPLETE - NO ADDITIONAL COST) I-15 TO MAGNOLIA NONE BUCHANAN (REPLACE IN KIND) MAGNOLIA TO MARY STREET NONE LA SIERRA (REPLACE TO 2/3 OF ULTIMATE) VAN BUREN (REPLACE TO 2/3 ULTIMATE) JACKSON (REPLACE TO ULTIMATE) ADAMS (REPLACE TO 2/3 ULTIMATE) MARY TO CRIDGE IVY (REPLACE IN KIND) PACHAPPA (RR) CRIDGE (REPLACE IN KIND) IVY (REPLACE IN KIND) PACHAPPA (RR) CRIDGE (REPLACE IN KIND) CRIDGE TO 60/91/215 INTERCHANGE 14TH STREET (EX. 6 LANES -PUT BACK 6 + TURNS) 14TH STREET (EXISTING 6 LANES - PUT BACK 6 LANES PLUS TURNS) SPRUCE STREET (EXISTING 2 LANE - PUT BACK 4 LANES PLUS RAMPS) SR 60 60/91/215 TO VALLEY WAY NONE ORANGE (NO STRUCTURE COST INCLUDED AS OF YET) MAIN (NO STRUCTURE COST INCLUDED AS OF YET) HALL (REPLACE IN KIND) RUB IDOUX (REPLACE IN KIND) LARUE (REPLACE IN KIND) VALLEY WY TO SB CNTY LINE NONE NONE 60/215 TO REDLANDS NONE NONE I- 215 60/91/215 TO SB COUNTY LINE NONE COLUMBIA AVE (EXISTING 2 LANES - PUT BACK 4 LANES PLUS TURN LANES) CENTER (EXISTING 2 LANES - PUT BACK 4 LANES PLUS TURN LANES) 60/91/215 TO UNIVERSITY NONE 3RD\BLAINE (EXISTING 4 LANE - PUT BACK 6 LANE) IOWA AVENUE (EXISTING 4 LANE - PUT BACK 4 PLUS TURN LANE) LINDEN AVENUE (EXISTING 4 LANE - PUT BACK 4 LANE PLUS TURN LANE) UNIVERSITY TO 60/215 FAIR ISLE (EX. 2 LANE - PUT BACK 4 PLUS TURN LA: EL CERRITO (EXISTING 2 LANE - PUT BACK 4 LANES) FAIR ISLE (EXISTING 2 LANE - PUT BACK 4 PLUS TURN LANE)