HomeMy Public PortalAbout11 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)