HomeMy Public PortalAbout10 October 27, 1993 Special CommissionFt ke, ! /1 rt ct e r-
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
1:30 P.M.
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 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.
This item is a continuation of discussion of the draft Measure A Vision and Strategy
Paper. (Please bring your copy of the draft Measure A Vision and Strategy Paper
to the meeting.)
4. ADJOURNMENT.
The next meeting is a joint RCTC/SANBAG/WRCOG/CVAG/Caltrans meeting on
November 3, 1993 at 1:30 p.m., at the Mission Inn, Spanish Art Gallery, Riverside.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
1993 MEASURE A VISION AND STRATEGY
ISSUE PAPER
WORKING DRAFT - PART 1: WHICH HIGHWAY AND
COMMUTER RAIL
PROJECTS MAYBE FUNDED
WITHIN FUNDING LIMITS?
prepared for
Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC)
by
RCTC Staff,
CALTRANS, Districts OS and 11,
BECHTEL CORPORATION,
CHARLES E. BELL SECURITIES, and
VALLEY RESEARCH AND PLANNING ASSOCIATES
October 2, 1993
1993 MEASURE A VISION & STRATEGY ISSUE PAPER
Riverside County Transportation Commission
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
Introduction 2
Purpose 2
Background 3
Funding Levels and Opportunities 4
Funding Levels 4
Traditional Funding Sources 8
State and Federal Funding 8
Congestion Management & Air Quality Program 8
Senate Bill 300 8
Propositions 108 & 116 8
Transportation Capital Improvement Program 9
Local Funds 9
Measure A 1/2% Sales Tax Revenue Forecast 9
Total Funding for Highway Projects 10
Total Funding for Commuter Rail Projects 10
Total Funding: Highway and Commuter Rail
Projects/Programs 11
Measure A Projects and Cost Estimates 11
Project Cost Levels 11
Transportation Programs 12
Highway Program 12
Interchange Program 13
Commuter Rail Program 14
Base Case and Expanded Case Project Costs 14
Highway Projects 14
Commuter Rail Projects 14
Project Costs Versus Revenues by Funding Level 15
Project Cost and Revenue Comparison 15
Potential for Additional Funding 21
Potential Additional Funding Sources 21
Remaining Issues and Recommendations 22
Issues for the Commission 22
Recommendations 23
Appendix A - STIP Funding Assumptions
Appendix B - Project Detail Descriptions
i-1
A-1
B-1
1993 MEASURE A VISION & STRATEGY ISSUE PAPER
Riverside County Transportation Commission
LIST OF TABLES AND EXHIBITS
TABLE/EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
TABLE 1 Funding Available By Funding Level 6
EXHIBIT 1 Funding Available By Funding Level 7
TABLE 2 Measure A Revenue Forecasts 10
TABLE 3 Base Case Project Cost Estimates 16
TABLE 4 Expanded Case Project Cost Estimates 17
TABLE 5 Base Case Existing Fund Commitments By Source 18
TABLE 6 Total Rail Project Costs And Funding Allocations 19
TABLE 7 Funding Level Versus Project Costs 20
i-2
1993 MEASURE A VISION & STRATEGY ISSUE PAPER
Riverside County Transportation Commission
INTRODUCTION
This Issue Paper reflects the joint effort of Commission staff and Caltrans, to identify, define
and describe programmed, anticipated and potential funding sources for the Highway and
Commuter Rail Programs. In addition, project costs have been developed cooperatively by
ROTC and Caltrans representatives considering those highway projects referenced in the
Measure A Improvement Plan (Base Case), expanded highway project scopes (Expanded
Case Project) which reflect additional improvements to the original list of highway projects,
and commuter rail projects. The expanded case also contains State Route (SR) 60 and 71
improvement projects.
While the assumptions used to derive the funding sources and some project costs may
change over time, the estimates are considered technically sound for financial planning
purposes.
PURPOSE
Funding necessary transportation improvements has become increasingly complex over the
last few years. The continuing recession has made funding sources more scarce, however
the need for transportation funds has grown. This Measure A Vision & Strategy Plan Issue
Paper has been developed to assist Commissioners, the Federal Highways Administration
(FHWA), and CALTRANS in choosing the course of action appropriate to various levels of
funding and project expense.
This Paper relies heavily on the information developed in the 1992 Draft ROTC Strategic
Plan Update, as well as technical and project cost information. The information provided
in this Paper is based upon the most likely scenarios for funding and project costs developed
in cooperation with FHWA and CALTRANS.
This Paper is intended to clarify and identify issues considering three different funding levels
versus base and expanded case project costs. Further, specific types of projects and
projected funding sources and levels are identified.
This Paper should enable decision makers to bring their own understanding of the current
economic and political situation in Riverside County to the table. Since an economic,
political and/or project cost projection cannot assure one specific outcome at some point in
the future, it is essential that this information be tempered with the knowledge of the
decision makers who will at least be partially responsible for determining future funding
2
1993 MEASURE A VISION & STRATEGY ISSUE PAPER
Riverside County Transportation Commission
possibilities and project costs. Ultimately, it is the decision of the Commission to make
important steps regarding the future transportation system, therefore it plays an integral role
in which funding level has the highest likelihood of occurring in the future.
With the importance of the Commission in mind, this Paper has been submitted by RCTC
staff to the Commission for its review and comment. At this point, discussion regarding the
three possible funding levels and project costs will become essential. Once the discussion
has taken place and various factors have been considered, a course of action might be
chosen, and crucial steps can be taken to develop a schedule of Highway and Commuter
Rail projects and update the 1992 Draft Strategic Plan.
Based upon the Commission's consideration of the issues and options referenced in this
Paper, staff should be able to prepare the next part of the 1993 Measure A Vision &
Strategy; to schedule projects against a stream of revenue.
BACKGROUND
The project team, responsible for the development of this Paper, assumes that the reader
already has a firm understanding of funding issues in Riverside County; especially those
issues relevant to Measure A. Detailed background information has not been provided in
order to limit the length and complexity of this Issue Paper. Should the reader require more
detailed background information, it may be obtained from the 1992 Draft Strategic Plan
Update or other financial documents available at RCTC offices.
This Paper is organized to assist in addressing the following major policy questions:
• what are the current estimates of the federal, state, local and Measure A 1/2
percent sales tax revenues which can be used to fund highway and commuter
rail projects considering varying revenue limits and project costs?;
• what are the funding requirements for the Commuter Rail Program? What
additional State funds may be available to fully fund the Program? What
amount of Measure A funding is needed for capital and operating
requirements?;
• what financial commitments for funding have been made and what is the
capacity for making additional commitments?;
3
1993 MEASURE A VISION & STRATEGY ISSUE PAPER
Riverside County Transportation Commission
• what are the potential interchange projects required to maintain adequate
local circulation and economic development? Which interchange
improvements can be implemented considering available resources?;
• which projects may compete well for State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) funds? Some projects that have been identified as a high
priority, based upon the Measure A Alternatives Analysis and Prioritization
Report, may be eligible for STIP funds; and
• what adjustments should be made to transportation programs and/or projects
as a result of revised revenue forecasts?
FUNDING LEVELS AND OPPORTUNITIES
FUNDING LEVELS
Three potential levels of funding are assumed; low, medium and high. For purposes of this
Issue Paper, all funding sources are reflected in 1994 dollar values. Measure A revenues
considered under each funding level include only those Measure A funds designated for the
Highway and Commuter Rail Programs. Measure A revenue allocated for the Regional
Arterial Program, Specialized Transportation, and Local Streets and Highways Programs are
not included in the three funding levels. However, the total Measure A revenue estimate
is provided under the section MEASURE A - 1/2 CENT SALES TAX FORECAST.
When considering the funding level descriptions, it may prove useful to also reference Table
1. Descriptions of each funding source by funding level is provided. The funding levels are
defined as follows:
• LOW
This level is considered a "worst case" funding condition and assumes that
funding opportunities will be limited. The low level includes State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds set at a declining "county
minimum" level, a low Measure A forecast, voter rejection of new rail and
transportation bonds, and the elimination of the SB300 Program beyond Fiscal
Year 1999/2000. STIP revenues are assumed to decline resulting from a lack
of increased funding to keep pace with inflation and an increasing demand on
existing funds for highway maintenance. Further, the low funding level
assumes an existing commitment of local, Transit Capital Improvement (TCI)
4
1993 MEASURE A VISION & STRATEGY ISSUE PAPER
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Program, Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program, and Proposition 108 & 116 funds
for the Commuter Rail Program as displayed in Table 1.
• MEDIUM
The medium funding level utilizes the same assumptions as the low level
except that slightly better than "county minimum" STIP funding is assumed
considering a population growth rate of 15 percent per year after the Year
2000 and revenues are assumed to keep pace with inflation (reference Table
1). In addition, under the Commuter Rail Program, new rail bonds are
assumed, providing an additional $25.1 million.
• HIGH
The high revenue level assumes that abundant funding opportunities will be
available to Riverside County. The assumptions for the high funding level
differ from the medium level in that:
o STIP funding above the medium level is assumed considering an annual
5 percent increase in growth following Year 2006;
o the SB300 Program is assumed to continue beyond Fiscal Year
1999/2000 providing an additional $10 million in revenues; and
o Measure A funds are estimated at the high level consistent with the
Official Statement for the 1993 Series A Bond Issue.
5
1993 MEASURE A VISION & STRATEGY ISSUE PAPER
Riverside County Transportation Commission
TABLE 1
FUNDING AVAILABLE BY FUNDING LEVEL
Funding
Source/Program
HIGHWAY
MEASURE A'
Amounts (millions)"
by Funding Level
Percentage of
Subtotal/Total
LOW MED HIGH LOW MED
HIGH
$280.9
$280.9
$299.9
35 %
32 %
30 %
STATE/FEDERAL
GAS TAX (STIP)
$460.0
$540.0
$612.0
58%
61%
63 %
SB300
$15.0
$15.0
$25.0
2%
2%
3%
LOCAL
SUBTOTAL:
COMMUTER RAIL
MEASURE A*2
$43.0
$43.0
$43.0
5%
5%
4%
$798.9
LOW
$133.7
$878.9
MED
$133.7
$979.9
HIGH
$142.7
LOW
57 %
MED
50 %
HIGH
51%
TCI
$17.8
$23.6
$23.6
7%
9%
9%
CMAQ
$7.3
$7.3
$7.3
3%
3%
3%
PROPOSITIONS 108
& 116 *3 & NEW RAIL
BONDS *4
SUBTOTAL:
TOTAL HIGHWAY
& RAIL
$78.7
$103.8
$103.8
33 %
38%
37%
$243.8
$268.4
$277.4
LOW
MED
HIGH
LOW
MED
HIGH
MEASURE A*2
$414.6
$414.6
$442.6
40 %
36%
36%
STATE/FEDERAL
FUNDS
$578.8
$689.7
$771.7
56%
60 %
61%
LOCAL
$43.0
$43.0
$43.0
,4%
4%
3%
TOTAL
$1,036.4
$1,147.3
$1,257.3
Note:
*1 Estimates are in 1994 Dollars. Estimates assume that rail continues to be funded at 11.49% of total Measure A revenues.
Measure A estimates contained in this Table only include highway and rail designated funds.
*2 Estimated revenues include an amount of funds (approximately $11 million) which will be allocated to bond debt service
costs considering interest eamed and ROW appreciation values.
*3 $51.5 million in 1994 dollars has been committed by the State, however, expenditure strategies are still underdevelopment.
*4 Approximately $25.1 trillion has been added to the Medium and High funding levels under the Highway Program - STIP
funds and Commuter Rail Program - New Rail Bonds to reflect proceeds to both Programs expected from the passage of
Rail Bonds by the voters in 1994.
5
EXHIBIT 1
FUNDING AVAILABLE UNDER EACH FUNDING LEVEL
TOTAL HIGHWAY AND COMMUTER RAIL
Funds (millions)
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
LOW
MED
Funding Level
HIGH
r unDING SuuKLE
TOTAL
2 Measure A
1. State/Federal Funds
® Local
1993 MEASURE A VISION & STRATEGY ISSUE PAPER
Riverside County Transportation Commission
TRADITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES
State and Federal Funding
The Measure A Transportation Improvement Plan specifically states that Measure A
revenues applied to highway projects will be matched by state and federal funds forming an
integrated highway program. The Transportation Improvement Plan assumed that a
partnership between the State of California and RCTC would be formed to fund identified
highway and commuter rail projects. The Highway Program, as defined in the Improvement
Plan, is to be funded with at least fifty percent (50%) by state and/or federal funds.
STIP Revenue Assumptions by funding level, used to estimate figures in Table 1 are
provided in Appendix A. Referencing Table 1, approximately $460 million is anticipated
from the STIP under the low funding level, $540 million under the medium level, and $612
under the high funding level. Under the medium and high funding level for the Highway
Program, an additional $25.1 million is added to reflect the passage of rail bonds by voters
in 1994.
Congestion Management and Air Quality Program (CMAQ)
CMAQ funding is a relatively new program established by ISTEA specifically for projects
and programs that will contribute to the attainment of the national ambient air quality
standard. In this Paper, $6.7 million in CMAQ funds (existing funding commitments only)
are equally applied to the Commuter Rail Program under all three funding levels (Reference
Table 1). Additional CMAQ funds may become available, but were not included in the
funding level estimates. Discussion of additional CMAQ funding is provided in the section
entitled POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES.
Senate Bill 300 (SB300)
Under the high funding level, assuming SB 300 continues beyond Fiscal Year 1999/2000,
funding is estimated at $25 million. The low and medium funding levels assume SB300 does
not continue beyond Fiscal Year 1999/2000 resulting in an estimated funding contribution
of $15 million. Additional SB300 funds may become available, and were not included in the
funding level estimates.
Propositions 108 & 116
Propositions 108 and 116 were passed by California voters in June of 1990, providing for a
total of $2.9 billion in rail bonds. In this Paper, Proposition 108 & 116 funds totalling $71.9
8
1993 MEASURE A VISION & STRATEGY ISSUE PAPER
Riverside County Transportation Commission
million are equally applied under the Commuter Rail Program at all three funding levels
(reference Table 1). Additional rail bond funds for the Commuter Rail Program ($25.1
million) may become available if passed by California voters in 1994. New rail bond
proceeds have only been assumed under the medium and high funding levels.
Transportation Capital Improvement Program (TCI)
The TCI Program is administered by the state as an annual program and is currently funded
primarily through a portion of the state gas tax. TCI funds are generally matched 50% by
local funds. In this Paper, TCI funds totalling $16.3 million (existing commitments only) are
equally applied to the Commuter Rail Program under all three funding levels (Reference
Table 1).
Local Funds
Various highway and interchange projects are currently targeted for local funds including
recent bridge improvements along SR91 in the City of Corona and improvements along SR
74 between Seventh and "G" Streets in the City of Perris. Local funds anticipated to be
available for the Corona bridges and SR74 improvements, as well as future interchange
improvements, total $43 million.
MEASURE A - 1/2% SALES TAX REVENUE FORECAST
In addition to the traditional funding sources described above, Measure A funds must be
estimated. These funds were approved by the voters to "augment" federal, state and local
funds and thereby further improve the existing transportation system. Initial Measure A
forecasts conservatively estimated $870 million over a 20 year period. In 1992 these estimates
were revised to $1.142 billion. The most recent estimates of September, 1993, project low
Measure A revenues at $1.172 billion and high revenues at $1.253 over the 20 year period
(Reference Table 2); in terms of today's values, the most recent is really lower than previous
estimates. The most recent Measure A estimates were derived based upon assumptions
contained in the Official Statement for the 1993 Series A Bond Issue (HIGH Measure A
projection) and econometric model results developed by RCTC staff and Charles E. Bell
Securities (LOW Measure A projection).
The amount of Measure A funds allocated to the Highway versus Commuter Rail Program
was developed considering the following assumptions:
1. the Highway and Commuter Rail Programs would receive fund allocation
consistent with distribution percentages by specific geographic area specified
9
1993 MEASURE A VISION & STRATEGY ISSUE PAPER
Riverside County Transportation Commission
in the Measure A Improvement Plan; and
2. Measure A funds for the Commuter Rail Program would be equal to the
amount of Measure A funds originally targeted for that Program considering
information contained in the Measure A Improvement Plan or 11.49 percent
of total Measure A proceeds.
TABLE 2
MEASURE A REVENUE FORECAST
Year ($)
Measure A Forecast
1990
$870 million
1990
$1.142 billion
1994 LOW
$1.172 billion
1994 HIGH
$1.253 billion
TOTAL FUNDING FOR HIGHWAY PROJECTS
Considering federal, state, local and Measure A funding. sources described above, the current
funding estimate for the Highway Program (including the Interchange, Callbox, and Park and
Ride Lease Programs) over the twenty year Measure A Program (through Fiscal Year
2008/09) under the lowest funding level is approximately $798.9 million in 1993 dollars. The
funding estimate under the medium and highest funding levels is $878.9 million and $979.9
million respectively. The section on POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES
identifies additional funding sources which could be applied to finance some expanded case
highway projects.
TOTAL FUNDING FOR COMMUTER RAIL PROJECTS
As indicated in Table 1, total estimated funding available for the Commuter Rail Program,
including Measure A, TCI, CMAQ, and Propositions 108 & 116, is $228.6 million under the
low and medium funding levels. Under the medium and high funding levels, Commuter Rail
Program funding is estimated to increase to increase to $253.7 million and $262.7 million
respectfully assuming additional state rail bonds and higher Measure A proceeds. Further
10
1993 MEASURE A VISION & STRATEGY ISSUE PAPER
Riverside County Transportation Commission
funding may become available for this program from additional sources such as new rail
bonds and TCI, CMAQ and discretionary STP funds (Reference POTENTIAL
ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES).
TOTAL FUNDING: HIGHWAY AND COMMUTER RAIL PROJECTS/PROGRAMS
Table 1 identifies the amount of federal and state, local and Measure A funding expected
to be available for highway and commuter rail projects in Riverside County considering the
low, medium and high funding levels. Total Measure A funds are estimated at $414.6
million for the low and medium funding levels and $442.6 million under the high level. Total
federal and state funds are estimated at $569.9 million under the low level, $649.9 million
under the medium level, and $721.9 under the high level. Local funds are estimated at $43.0
million under all funding levels. The percentage subtotal/total columns in Table 1 display
the percentage relationships between funding sources at each level.
Moving from the low to the high funding estimate, it becomes apparent that federal and
state funds represent a higher percentage of total funding available. Conversely, the limited
differences between estimated Measure A revenues means that Measure A proceeds
represent a decreasing percentage of total available funding, moving from the lowest to the
highest funding level. Overall, it seems that federal and state funds will be the primary
determining factor of the resulting funding level. This information should be considered,
along with other political and economic factors, when the Commission attempts to resolve
issues related to the three potential funding levels.
MEASURE A PROJECTS AND COST ESTIMATES
PROJECT COST LEVELS
This Paper divides project costs into base case and expanded case,levels. Base case projects
are those minimum projects, for which project scopes were determined in consultation with
Caltrans, and should meet voter expectations who approved Measure A. Base case project
cost estimates in 1994 dollars including construction, right-of-way (ROW), and 20%
CALTRANS engineering contribution costs (Reference Table 3). Expanded case projects are
composed of enhanced improvements to base case projects resulting from improvements to
highway standards or added capacity to further assist in congestion relief. Expanded case
project cost estimates in 1994 dollars including construction, ROW, and 20% CALTRANS
engineering contribution costs are provided in Table 4. For more detailed Highway Program
project descriptions reference Appendix B.
11
1993 MEASURE A VISION & STRATEGY ISSUE PAPER
Riverside County Transportation Commission
For commuter rail, existing expenditure commitments, to extend service Los Angeles and
Orange Counties on the ST&SF and VP lines, are reflected as base case cases. Expanded
case cases reflect any projects leading toward passenger service on the San Jacinto line.
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS
The Measure A Transportation Improvement Plan identified specific types of programs
which must be funded, including: the highway program (projects were identified by segment
and the number of additional lanes were specified); the Interchange Program (identified as
Project Type "IIP" in Tables 3 through 5); the Commuter Rail Program; and the Specialized
Transportation Program. The following sections describe previous work activity related to
each Measure A Program.
Highway Program
ROTC has proceeded with project development and implementation of the Highway
Program considering a few basic policies including:
• top priority will be given to constructing projects on SR91 and SR86; and
These projects were clearly the highest priority projects in the Measure A Program due to
commute hour problems on State Route 91 and safety issues on Route 86. The potential
SR91 Toll Road could redefine this policy as described under POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL
FUNDING SOURCES.
• project development work (environmental and engineering studies) has been
or will be, initiated on all remaining highway projects.
The goal is to achieve environmental clearance [under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) or the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as applicable] for the
following reasons:
o expedited protection of highway right-of-way;
One potential impact on the ability to deliver projects designated in this Issue Paper
is the escalation of right-of-way costs. This is a particularly prevalent problem in the
Western County area. Certification of environmental documents will enable RCTC,
Caltrans, and local agencies to protect right-of-way through a combination of policies
including adoption of local circulation elements, applying conditions to new
development, and the purchase of right-of-way, either through negotiation with
property owners or through condemnation proceedings.
12
1993 MEASURE A VISION & STRATEGY ISSUE PAPER
Riverside County Transportation Commission
o continue to improve the definition of project scope, cost, and timing;
and
Completion of environmental and engineering studies will continue to improve cost
estimates, and clarify the impacts and benefits of projects. Even though the
environmental phase is the most difficult to control, completion of environmental
documents will better enable ROTC and Caltrans to make programming decisions
and improve project cost estimates.
o assist RCTC in competing for additional funds.
Completion of environmental documents will enable RCTC to have "shelf ready"
projects which can be implemented quickly. Past experience has proven that agencies
with shelf ready projects have been better able to compete for state and federal
funds. Although the success of this strategy remains to be proven, RCTC has been
able to take advantage of high State matching fund percentages in the initial three
years of the State/Local Partnership Program (SB300).
By applying these basic policies, ROTC has initiated environmental and project studies and
has let construction contracts for a number of projects.
Interchange Program
The Interchange Program (which only applies in the Western County Area) includes the
following two freeway interchange programs:
• Local Circulation Improvement Program; and
This program is intended to improve local circulation at congested
interchanges within the geographic limits of other Measure A highway
improvement projects on Interstate 215 and SR60 and 91. The primary goal
of the Interchange Program is to assist in the funding of interchange widening
projects, and to provide additional travel lanes on local arterials.
• Economic Development Program.
The intent of this program is to assist in the construction of new interchanges
in order to enhance economic development in the region and to increase
employment in Riverside County.
13
1993 MEASURE A VISION & STRATEGY ISSUE PAPER
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Since the Measure A Improvement Plan was approved, locally -sponsored candidate projects,
totalling approximately $90.2 million, have been proposed for completion under both
programs. (reference Table 5).
Commuter Rail Program
ROTC has made considerable progress toward implementation of the Commuter Rail
Program. RCTC has joined with Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, and San
Diego Counties, under the direction of SB 1402 (Presley), to establish the Southern
California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA). Tables 3 and 4 display commuter rail projects
and estimated project costs under the base and expanded case levels. Table 6 provides
greater detail on each rail project including project components, cost and funding source.
BASE CASE AND EXPANDED CASE PROJECT COSTS
Highway Projects
A complete listing of highway projects is provided in Tables 3 and 4, along with projected
costs. Existing funding commitments are provided in Table 5. All project costs are
estimates except those otherwise noted for which construction contracts have been awarded.
Strategically, highway projects which have higher benefit/cost ratios, can be delivered rapidly,
may not compete well against other Statewide projects, and would benefit from expedited
right-of-way acquisition to avoid inordinate inflationary costs, are the best candidates for
Measure A funding participation. Projects which are of higher priority in Statewide
competition, may be subject to higher or unknown costs as a result of higher standards
advocated by CALTRANS or FHWA, and are simply too expensive to be funded through
Measure A alone, are the best candidate projects for state and federal financing. Currently,
highway project costs are estimated at $763.7 million under the base case. An additional
$761.1 million would be required under the expanded case.
Commuter Rail Projects
Commuter rail projects are listed in Tables 3 and 4 along with cost estimates. Current
funding commitments, as well as additional funds required for the Commuter Rail Program
are displayed in Table 6. Under the Base Case, all Lines are considered implemented
except the San Jacinto Line. Only right-of-way costs have been programmed. Estimates
under the base case indicate that $218.1 million is required to complete the projects listed.
Full implementation of the San Jacinto Line is not expected unless new state rail bonds and
additional TCI funds become available. With an estimated $56.4 million project cost for
14
1993 MEASURE A VISION & STRATEGY ISSUE PAPER
Riverside County Transportation Commission
"full" development of the San Jacinto Line, a $20.8 million shortfall results under the
medium funding level and $11.8 million under the high funding level.
PROJECT COSTS VERSUS REVENUES BY FUNDING LEVEL
PROJECT COST AND REVENUE COMPARISON
Table 7 provides a quick overview of the relationship between the three funding levels
displayed in Table 1 and the base and expanded case project costs displayed in Tables 3, 4
and 6. It is assumed that funding will be allocated for all base case projects prior to the
allocation of remaining revenues to expanded case projects.
15
TABLE 3
BASE/CASE PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
DES CONSTRUCTION, ROW AND 20% ENGINEERING
_P%eta
Highways
_
Segment of Hilghway
Scope of Project
Base
Case
71
SB County Line to Rte 91
No Project
60
I-15 to Valley Way
No Project
60
Valley Way to 60/91215
Add 1 HOV Each Direction
S27.4
60
60215 to Redlands
Add 1 HOV Each Direction
S26.2
91
91
91
Orange County Line to Main St.
Add 1 HOV Lane Each Direction
S17.6
Main St. to Magnolia
Add 1 HOV Lane Each Direction
S9.0
Magnolia to Mary St.
Add 1 HOV Lane Each Direction
S9.6
91
Rte.71 to I-15 (2nd Project) 191
[State
-15 to Mary St. (2nd Project) l�
91
91
Mary St. to Cridge St.
1 HOV Lane Each Direction
S78.0
Cridge St. to 60/91215
1 HOV Lane Each Direction
S29.5
215
215
215
215
60/91215 Interchange
SB/BB (Cons[. dt Row), WB/SB (Row)
S98.5
60/91215 to SB County Line
Add 1 HOV Lane Each Direction - Reduced
S19.7
60/91215 to University Ave.
Add 1 HOV Lane Each Direction - Reduced
S22.9
University Ave. to 60215 jct.
Add 1 HOV Lane Each Direction - Reduced
S693
79
79
79
Lambs Canyon (Gilman Spr. to 1st St.
Add 1 Mf lane Each Direction
S38.0
Sanderson Avenue
Construct 100yr. Flood Bridge
S15.5
Newport to Keller
Add 1 MF Lane Each Direction
S11.4
74
74
74
I-15 to 7th Street (Elsinore to Perris)
Add 1 MF Lane Each Direction
S32.5
7th to G Street
Add 1 MF Lane Each Direction
S8.9
G Street to 215 (Interchange)
Add I MF Lane Each Direction
S16.1
111
All Projects
Various Operational Improvements
S26.2
86
86
86
Dillion to 58
Build 4 Lane Expressway
S21.2
58 to 66
Build 4 Lane Expressway
S32.4
66 to 82
Build 4 Lane Expressway
S63.6
IIP
IIP
IIP
IIP
IIP
IIP
IIP
IIP
IIP
IIP
IIP
IIP
IIP
IIP
Job Development (S12)
Yuma
Construct New Interchange
• S19.1
Galena
Construct New Interchange
S13.1
Eastridge
Constnuct New Interchange
S1.0
Local Circulation (SI8)
Lincoln (S4.1)
Improve Existing Interchange
S4.4
Maple (S3.2)
Improve Existing Interchange
53.5
Van Buren (S11.2)
Improve Existing Interchange
S14.7
Adams (S10.8)
Improve Existing Interchange
S14.2
La Sierra (S15.4)
Improve Existing Interchange
S20.2
Fredrick (S4.45)
No Project
Day (S4.45)
No Pmject
Valley Way (S6.2)
No Pmject •
Faire Isle (S6.0)
Done with 215 Project
S0.0
SU it -TOTAL
S763.7
RAIL
Up Line
All Expected Costs
S34.4
Santa Fe Line
All Expected Costs
S137.5
Regional Facilities
All Expected Costs
S18.6
San Jac Line
Right of Way Purchase
S27.6
SUB -TOTALS
S218.1
TOTALS
S981.8
16
TABLE 4
EXPANDED CASE ESTIMATES FOR PROJECTS
S1994 INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION, ROW AND 20% ENGINEERING
Project
Highways
Segment of Highway
Expanded Case Scope of Project
Expanded Case
Added Cost
71
SB County Line to Rte 91
Upgrade to a Four Lane Facility
S39.3
60
I-15 to Valley Way
1 HOV Lane Each Direction
S32.8
60
Valley Way to 60/91/215
1 HOV Lane Plus 1 Mixed Flow Each Direction
S37.1
91
State Rte.71 to I-15 (2nd Project)
1 Additional HOV or MF Lane
S154.5
91
I-15 to Mary St. (2nd Project)
1 Additional Lane Each Direction
S168.5
91
Mary St. to Cridge St.
1 Additional HOV or MF Lane
S4.2
91
Cridge St. to 60/91/215
1 Additional HOV Each Direction - Full Standard
S83.5
215
60/91/215 Interchange
Build WB to SB Connector and Spruce Interchange
S58.7
215
60/91/215 to SB County Line
1 Additional HOV Each Direction - Full Standard
S633
215
60/91/215 to University Ave.
1 Additional HOV Each Direction - Full Standard
$49.9
215
University Ave. to 60/215 jct.
1 Additional HOV Each Direction - Full Standard
S43.0
III'
Yuma
S6.6
IIP
Fredrick ($4.45)
Reconstruct Interchange
S5.8
IIP
Day ($4.45)
Reconstruct Interchange
S5.8
IIP
Valley Way ($6.2)
Reconstruct Interchange
S8.1
U
SUB -TOTAL
S761.1
RAIL
San Jacinto Line
Start San Jacinto Line Service
S56.4
SUB -TOTALS
S56.4
TOTALS
S817.5
17
TABLE 5
BASE CASE EXISTING FUND COMMITMENTS BY SOURCE
ProjectProject
Highweya
Segment of Higbany
--- - ----- -- --- -----
Scope of Project
•
Boas
Came
- - - - EahtiagFaadingCwwarlaaueaesBySwarth
"A"
SB300
STIP
"A" TIP
Lod
Other
lred
71
SB Courtly Line to Rte 91
Nri,_ ett
60
60 '
60
1-15 to Valley way
No Project
Valley Way to 60/91215
Add 1 HOV Each Direction
S27.4
50.0
S33.7
($6.3)
(S2.2)
60215 to Redlands
Add 1 HOV Each Direction
S262
$0.0
528.4
91
91
91
Orange Canty Line to Main Si
Add 1 HOV Lane Each Direction
S17.6
S13.4
54.2
Main St. to Magnolia
Add 1 HOV Lane Each Direction
S9.0
$9.0
Magnolia to Mary St.
Add 1 HOV Lane Each Direction
S9.6
$7.6
91
State Rte.71 to I-15 (2nd Protect)
91
I-15 to Mary St. (2nd Project)
91
91
Mary St. to Cridge St.
1 HOV Lane Each Direction
$78.0
S78.0
Cridge St. to 60/91215
1 HOV Lane Each Direction
S29.5
S29.5
215
215
215
215
60/91215 Interchange
SB/EB (Colt. & Row). WB/SB (Row)
S98.5
$98.5
60/91 /215 to SB County Line
Add 1 HOV Lane Each Direction - Reduced
519.7
$19.7
60/91 /215 to University Ave.
Add 1 HOV Late Each Direction - Reduced
S23.9
$28.3
(SS 4)
University Ave. to 60/215 jct.
Add 1 HOV Lane Each Direction - Reduced
S69.3
S69.3
79
79
79
Lambs Canyon (Gilman Spr. to 1st St.)
Add 1 Mf Lane Each Direction
S38.0
S28.8
$2.6
$6.6
Sanderson Avenue
Construct 100vr. Flood Bridge
SI5 5
SI3.8
$1.7
Newport to feller
Add 1 MF Lane Each Direction
S11.4
$l 1.4
74
74
74
1-15 to 7th Street (Elsinore to Perris)
Add 1 MF Lane Each Direction
S32.5
S32.5
7th to G Street
Add 1 MF Lane Each Direction
S8.9
S4.1
$0.8
$4.1
G Street to 215 (Interchange)
Add 1 MF Lane Each Direction
S16.1
S16.1
111
All Projects
Vanan Operational Improvements
$262
S26.2
86
86
86
Dillon to 58
Build 4 Lane Expressway
S21.2
S16-0
$5.2
58 to 66
Build 4 Lane Expressway
S32.4
$32.4
66 to 82
Build 4 Lane Expressway
S63.6
$63.6
IIP
IIP
IIP
IIP
IIP
IIP
IIP
IIP
IIP
IIP
IIP
IIP
IIP
IIP
lob Development (S12)
Yuma
Construct New Interchange
S19.1
$0.0
$3.5
$5.5
S5.0
S5.2
Galena
Construct New Interchange
S13.1
S0.0
$0.0
$5.5
S5.5
$2.1
Eastridge
Construct New Imerehanpe
S1.0
S0.0
S0.0
$0.0
SI.O
$0.0
Local Circulation (SI8)
Lincoln ($4.1)
Improve Existing Interchange
$4.4
S2.2
$2.2
Maple (53.2)
improve Existing Interchange
S3.5
S1.7
51.7
Van Buren ($11.2)
Improve Existing Interchange
$14.7
$7.3
$7.3
Adams(S10.8)
Improve ' Intern
$142
S7.1
S7.1
La Sierra ($15.4)
hnprove EiEtisatercluinge
S202
$2.0
$10.0
_
.2
Fredrick (S4.45)
No Project
Day ($4 )
No Project
Valley Way ($6.2)
No Project
Faire Isle (S6.0)
Done with 215 Project
$0.0
' SUB -TOTAL
S763.7
$92.7
S14.5
S288.4
$32.3
$42.9
S6.6
S284.3
"A"
108
116
TCI
CMAQ
RAIL
Up Lire
All Expected Cans
S34.4
S21.5
4.7
7.6
0.6
Santa Fe Line
All Expected Coss
$137.5
S62.2
14.1
44.4
10.1
6.7
Regional Facilities
All Expected Casts
S18.6
S9.9
1.8
6.9
San lac Line
Right of Way Ptsdtne
S27.6
$21.0
6.6
I SUB TOTALS
5218.1
S114.6
27.2
51.3
17.7
7.3
0
,
' TOTALS
$981.8_
S207.3
41.7
339.7
50
50.2
6.6
S284.3
18
TABLE 6
TOTAL RAIL PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING ALLOCATIONS
Commuter Rail
Projects
Measure A
Prop. 108
Prop.116
TCI
CMAQ
TOTAL
AT & SF ROW Easement
517.0
56.6
_
1 S53.5
Rivaside - Irvine Service Line
Rolling Stock
S2.7
SI.6
$12.9
$1.8
519.1
Santa Fe Fora Account
$31.7
531.7
Tia I Stations
Pisa Street Station ROW
56.0
56.0
Pisa Street Station Construction
$4.2
5/.2
Wert Carona Station ROW
52.2
512
West Corona Station Construction
$2.5
52.5
51.0'
Station Design/Engineering (Both)
$1.0
Tier]] Stations
Available Funding
S12.5
512.5
S25.0
SUB -TOTAL
S24.4
S14.1
S44.6
51.8
S6.7
S91.6
Riverside - Union Pacific Line
Operation Easement
$1.5
$1.5
Locomotives
S5.0
55.0
Rolling Stock
$7.6
S7.6
S153
Union Pacific Fora Account
52.5
52.5
The Pedley Station ROW
50.9
50.9
The Pedley Station Construction
S3.0
50.7
S3.8
The Pedley Station Track Work
$1.4
S1.4
52.8
The Pedley Station Childcare
50.6
50.6
The Pedley Station Desiem/Enaineerina
SO.5
SO.5
SU11-TOTAL
S20.0
St7
S0.0
57.6
50.6
532.9
Downtown Riverside Station
Birtcher Lend Purchase
$8.3
583
Union Pacific Line Connection ROW
50.4
50.4
Parking Lot
50.6
50.6
Design
50.6
50.6
Track Engineering
50.1
50.1
Station Tract:
S2.1
MI
Union Pacific Main Line Connect
50.8
50.2
SLl
Press Enterprise Relocation
$1.5
51.5
Station Construction
S2.6
52.6
Amenta/Quinian/Pona
50.8
WS
Santa Fe Connection
$3.4
S1.4
Sllli-TOTALI S13.2I
_
58.3
521.5
Regional Facilities
Taylor Yard ROW
S1.9
51.9
33.7
Taylor Yard Construction
$6.9
56,9
SUR-TOTAL
51.9
51.9
56.9
S10.6
SCRRA Operation/Support 91-94
$1.4
S1,4
RCTC Support Cost (To Date)
S6.6
_
56.6
SUIT -TOTAL
Stt.O
SILO
TOTAL •1
S114.4
S27.2
551.5
517.8
573
$118.1
San Jacinto Subdivision
Trackwork
$19.1
$25.1
•2
S41.2
Stations
S6.4
$5.9
•2
512.2
GRAND TOTAL •3
S139.9
5523
S51.5
523.6
573
1174.5
Note: • 1 Total costs should be covered by estimated revalue under all finding levels.
•2 This amount is only covered by estimated revalue under the medium and high furling levels.
Additional rail bonds (currently under consideration) and/or TCl funds would be required
to fund this amount.
This amount is not included under the base or expanded coat projection Tables 3 & 4.
Assumes obtaining CTC support for the use of local overmatch expanded on the ,acquisition of the
San Jacinto Branch Line to count as match against future rail bond Gads.
•3 Grand Total includes all covered and uncovered costs, as well es full development of the San
Jacinto Branch Line. Costs not reflected are: inflation costs (yet to be determined), associated with
San Bernardino Subdivision, capital costs per the Santa Fe purchase and the oak agreement for the
operating easement , and environmental mitigation (yet to be identified) associated with the
Santa Ana River crossing on the San Bernardino Subdivision
19
1
1993 MEASURE A VISION & STRATEGY ISSUE PAPER
Riverside County Transportation Commission
TABLE 7
FUNDING LEVELS VERSUS PROJECT COSTS
(in millions)
Funding
Levels &
Earmark
Funds
By Level
& Type
Base
Case Costs
By Type
Base
Diff.
Expand.
Case Costs
By Type
Expand.
Diff.
% of Project
Costs Funded
Base/Expand.
LOW REVENUE LEVEL
Highway
$798.9
$763.7
$35.2
$761.1
($725.9)
100 % / 5 %
Rail
$243. 8
$218.1
$25.7
$56.5"
($30.8)
100 %/ 19 %*Z
MEDIUM 'REVENUE "'LEVEL
Highway
$878.9
$763.7
$115.2
$761.1
($645.9)
100 % / 15 %
Rail
$268.4
$218.1
$50.3
$56.5"
($6.2)
100%/63%"2
HIGH REVENUE LEVEL
Highway
$979.9
$763.7
$216.2
$761.1
($544.9)
100 % / 28 %
Rail
$277.4
$218.1
$59.3
$56.5"
$2.8
100%/79%'2
Notes:
This cost estimate includes the full development costs of the San Jacinto Line as displayed in Table
6.
This number represents the percentage of project cost funded if full development of the San
Jacinto Line is considered.
19
1993 MEASURE A VISION & STRATEGY ISSUE PAPER
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Referencing Table 7, revenue should cover base case project costs regardless of the funding
level. The primary difference between each funding level is the amount of revenues
available for expanded case projects listed in Table 4.
Excess funding under medium and high scenarios could be earmarked under "full"
development of the San Jacinto Line, necessary to enhance Line operations, or it could be
targeted for other rail related projects (Reference ""r, Table 7). Given the fixed funding
levels for TCI, CMAQ, and Propositions 108 and 116, estimated surplus rail revenue
displayed in Table 7 is largely due to Measure A revenues and new rail bond proceeds
allocated to the Commuter Rail Program. To maintain the approximate 11.49% commuter
rail to total Measure A percentage ratio guaranteed to the voters of Riverside County, it is
important that the surplus in Measure A rail funds remain earmarked for rail activities and
projects.
It should be noted that the Commission is currently undertaking a refinement study of the
San Jacinto Branch Line to better identify: capital improvement costs, potential project
phasing, station locations, possible technology options, and service scenarios. Additionally,
Santa Fe has promoted a possible option of using recycled rail materials (e.g.: ties, rails,
ballasts, signals, etc.) to improve the Line.
POTENTIAL FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING
POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES
Funding sources, in addition to those identified in Table 1, may become available to further
supplement traditional funding sources. This additional funding may include:
• State Route 91 Toll Road funds;
• CMAQ funds, if earmarked for highway and/or commuter rail projects;
• Discretionary Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds, if earmarked; and
• funds received through the joint development of rail stations.
Any additional funding gained through these sources could be applied to projects listed on
the expanded case list (Reference Table 4). Some preliminary estimates of the funds
potentially available from these sources have been developed and are provided below.
21
1993 MEASURE A VISION & STRATEGY ISSUE PAPER
Riverside County Transportation Commission
• SR91 Toll Road Funds
The California Private Transportation Corporation Toll Road Franchise for
the SR91 Toll Road includes the segment between the Orange County Line
and Interstate 15 in Riverside County. Although RCTC and other local
opposition may impede or prohibit toll road expansion, revenue constraints
may make this project acceptable. While detailed revenue estimates have not
been developed for this potential revenue source, a rough estimate of $10
million a year (beginning in Fiscal Year 2000/01) is being utilized as a
preliminary planning figure.
• CMAQ Funds for Highway and/or Commuter Rail Projects
If Congress continues the programs, CMAQ funds, beginning in Fiscal Year
1996/97, could be programmed for highway and/or commuter rail projects
which will contribute to attainment of the national ambient air quality
standard. These funds are now made available for local competition.
Approximately $4.85 million should be available on an annual basis for a total
of $58.2 million between Fiscal Years 1996/97 and 2008/09.
• Discretionary STP Funds
If Congress continues the program, Discretionary STP funds, which are also
now available for local competition, may be available for expanded case
highway and/or commuter rail projects. Approximately $3.07 million annually
should be available to the Commission for a total of $36.84 million between
Fiscal Years 1996/97 and 2008/09.
REMAINING ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ISSUES FOR "1"HE COMMISSION
This Paper provides basic information on expected Highway and Commuter Rail Program
funding and project costs. While conclusions are drawn, there are several issues which will
require the Commission, as the decision making body, to resolve and/or set policy including
the following:
• What projects on the expanded case project list should receive the highest
priority (Reference Tables 3 & 4)?
Prioritization of projects by project type (interchange, highway, commuter rail)
is essential in order to develop a viable project completion and funding
schedule.
22
1993 MEASURE A VISION & STRATEGY ISSUE PAPER
Riverside County Transportation Commission
• 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 Commission's input is necessary in order to determine which future
course of action offers the best benefit to risk ratio.
• 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 development.
• What, if any, additional highway or commuter rail projects under the
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 SR71 and the segment of SR60 from Valley Way to the
San Bernardino County Line not contained in the Improvement Plan.
• What adjustments should be made to transportation programs and/or projects
as a result of revised revenue forecasts and the assignment 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 case list (Reference
Table 4).
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations should be considered by the Commission:
• assume that the low revenue estimate as the most prudent estimate for
financial planning purposes;
• program base case level projects against this low funding level;
23
1993 MEASURE A VISION & STRATEGY ISSUE PAPER
Riverside County Transportation Commission
• for purposes of allocating remaining funds for highway projects, consider the
SR71 and 60 projects prior to expanded Measure A or additional Interchange
projects;
• for commuter rail projects, consider (if excess funds remain) partial financing
of the San Jacinto Branch Line expansion;
• 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.
24
1993 MEASURE A VISION & STRATEGY ISSUE PAPER
Riverside County Transportation Commission
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX A
STIP FUNDING ASSUMPTIONS
• LOW 1. FY 1989-1999 STEP= 1994 STIP (Programmed);
2. FY 2000-2001 STIP= $0 (STIP bid won't be available);
3. FY 2000-2006 STIP= ($30/1.05 YR to reflect the cost of
HSOPP) x 90% to reflect funds allocated to the Transportation
Enhancement Account (TEA) and also reflects the Highway
Systems Operations and Protection Program (HSOPP) using a
greater amount of available funds/year;
4. FY 2007-2009 STIP= ($30/1.05/YR to reflect the cost of
HSOPP) x 1.15 to reflect additional population growth x 90%
to reflect funds allocated to the Transportation Enhancement
Account (TEA);
5. FY 2002 Deducted $24.7 million bidding capacity due to delay
of the SR86 project;
6. FY 2003 Deducted $25.1 million to reflect failed Rail Bonds;
and
7. Increased revenues by 20 percent to reflect the value of
Caltrans engineering.
Approximately $460 million is anticipated from the STIP under this funding level.
• MEDIUM 1. FY 1989-1999 STIP= 1994 STIP (Programmed)
2. FY 2000-2001 STIP= $0 (STIP bid won't be available);
3. FY 2000-2006 STIP= $30M/Year x 90% to reflect funds
allocated to the Transportation Enhancement Account (TEA);
4. FY 2007-2009 STIP=($30M x 1.15/Year to additional
population growth) x 90% to reflect funds allocated to the TEA
Program;
5. FY 2002 Deducted $24.7 million bidding capacity due to delay
of the SR86 project; and
6. Increased revenues by 20 percent to reflect the value of
Caltrans engineering.
Approximately $540 million is anticipated from the STIP under this funding level.
A-1
. HIGH 1. FY 1989-1999 STIP= 1994 STIP (Programmed);
2. FY 2000-2001 STIP= $0 (STIP bid won't be available);
3. FY 2000-2006 STIP=($30M x 1.05/Year to reflect population
growth) x 90% to reflect funds allocated to the Transportation
Enhancement Activity (TEA);
4. FY 2007-2009 STIP=[($30M x 1.15 to reflect additional
population growth) x 1.05/Year to reflect legislative approval of
gas taxes to keep pace with inflation and real population
growth)] x 90% to reflect funds allocated to the TEA Program;
5. FY 2002 Deducted $24.7 million bidding capacity due to delay
of the SR86 project; and
6. Increased revenues by 20 percent to reflect the value of
Caltrans engineering.
Approximately $612 million is anticipated from the STIP under this funding level.
A-2
1993 MEASURE A VISION & STRATEGY ISSUE PAPER
Riverside County Transportation Commission
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX B
PROJECT DETAIL DESCRIPTIONS
BASE CASE PROJECTS, COSTS, AND DESCRIPTIONS
BASE CASE HIGHWAY PROGRAM
Route 60 - Valley Way to 60/91/215
Add 1 HOV lane each direction - $27.4 Million
Project extends from Valley Way Boulevard to Main Street, which is in close
proximity to 60/91/215 interchange. The project would construct a reduced standard
HOV lane in each direction.
Route 60 - 60/215 to Redlands Boulevard
Add 1 HOV lane each direction - $26.2 Million
Project limits extend from east of the 60/215 junction near Moreno Valley, to
Redlands Boulevard in Moreno Valley. The project includes a full standard HOV
lane in each direction on Route 60.
Route 91 - Orange County Line to Main Street - $17.6 Million
Main Street to Magnolia Avenue - $9.0 Million
Magnolia Avenue to Mary Street - $9.6 Million
Add 1 HOV lane each direction - Total cost $36.2 Million
The base case consists of projects already constructed or currently under construction
between the Orange County line and Mary Street. The project includes pavement
for two HOV lanes each direction between the Orange County Line and State Route
71 and one HOV lane each direction from Route 71 to Mary Street. The project has
several non-standard features.
Route 91 - Mary Street to Cridge Street
Add 1 HOV lane each direction - $78.0 Million
The base case includes construction of one HOV lane each direction at full standard.
The project includes reconstruction of the Central Avenue and Arlington Avenue
interchanges. There is no acceptable low cost reduced standard project.
Route 91 - Cridge Street to 60/91/215
Add 1 HOV lane each direction - $29.5 Million
Project consists of a reduced standard HOV lane in each direction.
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,
B-1
and Westbound to Southbound). - $98.5 Million.
Purchase right-of-way for two direct connectors and construct the Southbound to
Eastbound connector (San Bernardino to Moreno Valley).
Route 215 - 60/91/215 Interchange to San Bernardino County Line
Add 1 HOV lane each direction - $19.7 Million
Construct a reduced standard HOV lane in each direction.
Route 215 - 60/91/215 Interchange to University Avenue
Add 1 HOV lane each direction - $22.9 Million
Construct a reduced standard HOV lane in each direction from Main Street to
University Avenue. The project would be done in conjunction with project on Route
60 from Valley Way to 60/91/215.
Route 215 - University Avenue to 60/215 Junction
Add 1 HOV lane each direction - $69.3 Million
Project would include constructing an HOV lane in each direction at various cross
sections involving some reduced standards. Reconstruction of the Box Springs\Fair
Isle interchange and the construction of direct HOV connections to Route 60 would
be included.
Route 79 - Lambs Canyon (Gilman Springs to lrst Street in Beaumont)
Add a mixed flow lane in each direction - $38.0 Million •
Project involves some total reconstruction and adding of one mixed flow lane in each
direction to Route 79. The project includes the construction of an interchange at the
intersection of Route 79 and Gilman Springs.
Route 79 - Sanderson Avenue
Construct a 1,200 foot all weather crossing over the San Jacinto River between State
Route 79 and Ramona Expressway - $15.5 Million
Project is currently under construction with the County of Riverside as lead agency.
Route 79 - Newport to Keller
Add an additional mixed flow lane in each direction - $11.4 Million
Project involves an addition of one mixed flow lane in each direction to the existing
two lane roadway.
Route 74 - I-15 to 7th Street (Lake Elsinore to Perris)
Add an additional mixed flow lane in each direction - $32.5 Million
The project involves widening the existing two lane highway to a five lane highway
by adding a travel lane in each direction and a continuous left -turn lane down the
center of the highway.
Route 74 - 7th Street to G Street in the City of Perris
B-2
Add an additional mixed flow lane in each direction - $8.9 Million
The project involves widening the existing two lane highway to a five lane highway
by adding a travel lane in each direction and a continuous left -turn lane down the
center of the highway.
Route 74 - G Street to I-215 including the 74/215 Interchange
Add an additional mixed flow lane in each direction and reconstruct interchange -
$16.1 Million
The project involves widening the existing two lane highway to a five lane highway
and improvements to the existing Interstate 215 interchange.
Route 111 - Various Operational Improvements
Various projects along Route 111 for operational improvement - $26.2 Million
Various projects are being studied which include spot widenings, and addtion of
exclusive turn lanes.
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
The Route 86 project includes construction of a four lane expressway. The first
segment between Dillion Road and Avenue 58 has been completed using Measure
A funds. The other segments are shown to be funded in the STIP, however the
projects have been delayed due to environmental re-evaluation.
Interchange Improvement Program - Job Development
Construction of new interchanges to promote job development - $12 Million
The job development portion of the Interchange Improvement Program is intended
to use Measure A funds to match local funds to construct new interchanges. Three
projects have been identified for funding over the life of the program. The projects
include I-15\Yuma, I-15 and Galena, and I-215 and Eastridge. These three projects
would constitute the commitment of $12 Million.
Interchange Improvement Program - Local Circulation
Improvement to existing interchanges to facilitate local circulation - $18 Million
The Local Circulation portion of the Interchange Improvement Program will use
Measure A funds to match Measure A Highway funds and local funds to improve
existing interchanges. Interchanges are limited to segments of freeway included in
the Measure A Highway program. The Commission has approved various projects
to be included in the program. For the base case scenario, Route 91 and Lincoln,
and Route 91 and Maple are included, as projects that have already been
constructed. The additional projects proposed include Route 91 at Van Buren,
Adams, and La Sierra. The projects are assumed as the next highest priority based
on existing traffic volumes. Fifty percent funding has been assumed in the base case
B-3
for the five projects. The base includes no further highway improvement in the
Route 91 corridor above the one lane each direction. Therefore, there would be no
Measure A Highway contribution to the reconstruction of these interchanges.
Matching these three projects with 50% funding would consume the remaining
Measure A Local Circulation funds allocated to the program.
BASE CASE COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM
Union Pacific Line - $31.0 Million
The base case assumes the cost of the Union Pacific agreement, purchase of Rolling
Stock, and construction of the Pedley Station.
Santa Fe Line - $125.2 Million
The base case assumes the start-up of the Santa Fe line to Orange and Los Angeles
Counties. Construction of two initial stations, with some funding available for future
stations, purchase of Rolling Stock, and purchase of the operating easement, and the
costs of the Riverside -Downtown Station.
Regional Facilities - $17.0 Million
The base case :assumes costs for operation support, and work to be done at the
Taylor Yard.
San Jacinto Branch Line - $25.3 Million
The base case assumes only the purchase of the San Jacinto Branch Line with no
service.
B-4
EXPANDED CASE PROJECTS, COSTS, AND DESCRIPTIONS
HIGHWAY PROGRAM
Route '71 - Sstn Bernardino County Line to Route 91
U�ade facility to a four lane freeway - $39.3 Million
Route 60 - 1.15 to Valley Way
Add an additional mixed flow lane in each direction - $32.8 Million
Route 60 - Valley Way to 60/91/215
Add 1. HOV lane plus one mixed flow each direction - additional cost to base case
$37.1 Million
Project limits extend from Valley Way Boulevard to Main Street, which is in close
Armin; ity to 60/91/215 interchange. The project would add a full standard HOV lane
plus a mixed flow lane in each direction.
Route S1 - state Route 71 to I-15
Add 1 additional lane each direction (HOV or Mixed Flow or Toll) - Total cost
$154.5 Million
Tl,c project consists of adding an additional lane in each direction between State
Route 71. and I-15. The project would be completed to anacceptable standard.
Route 91 I-15 to -Mary Street
Add 1 additional lane each direction (HOV or Mixed Flow) - $168.5 Million
The expanded case would add an additional lane in each direction, either HOV or
Mied Flow in thi: section to a full standard.
Route 91 - Mary Street to Cridge
Add f, additiona lane each direction (HOV or Mixed Flow) to the Base Case
pe91+eat - additional cost to the base case $4.2 Million
Since. the base case involves reconstruction of all structures and substantially would
purchase all: right-of-way for ultimate project, the incremental cost of the additional
lane is ;malt
%mite 91 iCrSdge'Street to 60/91/215
Ac0 1-10V lane each direction to full standard - additional cost to base case $83.5
Route 215.-0/91/215 Intemhange
Cor.igru truce Street interchange and construct Westbound to Southbound Direct
Connector (Moreno Valley to Orange County). - additional cost to base case $58.7
Million
B-5
Route 215 60/91/215 Interchange to San Bernardino County Line
Add 1 HOV lane each direction at full standard - additional cost to base case $63.3
Million
Ratite 215 - 60/91/215Interchange to University. Avenue
- Add 1 HOV lane each direction at full standard - additionak.bafe case cost $49.9
Project involves_ extensive reconstruction: of structures.
.Route ?15 University Avenue to 60/215 Jiapction
Mel 1 _ HOV' ne each dirmtion at full standard-- additionat-bas2 case cost $43.0
Million
nterehange Xrivi.3ye en:t Prograra - Job -Development
Co tr ur. onvo bl_timate=improvement atYumaIntercha; -addi iicn .l cost to base
cage .6 Million (possibly: offset -by local matchl
'l'lie additlonarcost. includes build -out of the Yuma Intercht ng,e. The base case
includes costs for a firststarve of the project.
_.,
'ititgrellanv Ympy�ut Proorarn - Local Circulation
- -Funding of ��t ; Inter lang,es in aaproved fundill�i=s# Irmo rcr.�i mt to existing
interc:ha 4 _tt -ti eilitate: Beal circulation - additional cost above: base. case $19.7
Mid t�,:
LonX. :to -fie offset ley loca -rjatch).
The expanded_case presents the remaining intercts3nge.° which were; l pin oved by the
Coraamissterl. to be included in the p ogram. The interchanges includc; ;state Route
60,and Fx--6driek, State Route 60 and ?Jay, State Route 60 and Valley Way. The I-215
and Fail -We project will be reconstructed in the ease case I;215 ;troj ;ct.
COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM
Sant dal to IR -snrlx_Line :- $23.5 Million
The expended case 4No,�iI plO,�d„4rJixal�te alash:avice tc rr '.:.n .t.t�:into branch
line. These costs' are (4-44te tenlative. Rt.:11. wP, s00LI berq mi..,ro a study to
better dP ine Costs.. ..
:�
B-6