Loading...
01 January 26, 2016 Annual workshopCOMM-AWK-00007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www. rctc. org WORKSHOP AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda JANUARY 28 — 29, 2016 Hilton Palm Springs 400 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www.rctc.org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1:30 p.m. —1:35 p.m. 1:30 P.M. THURSDAY, JANUARY 28, 2016 WELCOME AND WORKSHOP OVERVIEW Scott Matas, Chair Anne Mayer, Executive Director 1:35 p.m. —1:55 p.m. CALIFORNIA ROAD CHARGE PILOT PROGRAM UPDATE Anne Mayer, Executive Director 1:55 p.m. — 2:45 p.m. 2:45 p.m. — 3:15 p.m. STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE AND POLICY REFORM Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager Mark Watts, RCTC Legislative Advocate This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive an update on state legislative activities; and 2) Endorse the legislative and administrative recommendations for the California Transportation Commission (CTC) 2015 Annual Report to the California Legislature. FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Kathy Ruffalo, RCTC Legislative Advocate Cliff Madison, RCTC Legislative Advocate 3:15 p.m. — 3:30 p.m. BREAK Riverside County Transportation Commission Workshop January 28 — 29, 2016 3:30 p.m. — 5:00 p.m. RCTC STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager J.D. Douglas, HDR Inc. Mark Watts, RCTC Legislative Advocate This item is for the Commission to: 1) Direct staff to prepare the Commission's Fiscal Year 2016/17 Budget to accommodate procurement of a Countywide Integrated Long Range Transportation Plan; 2) Direct staff to prepare the Commission's FY 2016/17 Budget to accommodate procurement of a "next generation" toll feasibility study; 3) Direct staff to prepare the Commission's FY 2016/17 Budget to accommodate procurement of a "next generation" rail feasibility study, emphasizing alternative rail service models, alternative project delivery approaches, and intra-county service; 4) Direct staff to prepare the Commission's FY 2016/17 Budget to accommodate additional resources needed to execute a long-term communications and customer engagement strategy for the purposes of public education and customer service; 5) Establish Commission policies to encourage funding and development of projects and programs to accommodate and support multiple travel choices such as added capacity, access to public transit, and active transportation modes including bicycling and walking; 6) Direct staff to provide recommendations for updating funding allocation policies of current revenue streams; 7) Authorize development of the 2019-2029 Measure A Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan (2019-2029 Deliver Plan): a) The 2019-2029 Delivery Plan shall commit to fulfilling commitments deferred in the 2009-2019 Measure A Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan (2009- 2019 Delivery Plan): i. Interstate 15 Express Lanes between Cajalco Road and State Route 74; 1. Direct staff to prepare the Commission's FY 2016/17 Budget to provide funding to initiate project development; ii. 71/91 Interchange; iii. North -facing connector between SR-91 and 1-15; and iv. Continued progress and evaluation of CETAP and alternative corridors. Riverside County Transportation Commission Workshop January 28 — 29, 2016 b) Development of the 2019-2029 Delivery Plan shall include a comprehensive phasing and prioritization study to determine if/how projects can be scaled or deferred to reflect funding constraints, state and federal policy challenges, and expected technological innovations; and 8) Adopt as a Commission objective to submit an additional local sales tax measure to Riverside County voters on the November 2018 or 2020 ballot. 5:00 p.m. — 6:00 p.m. BREAK 6:00 p.m. DINNER 6:30 p.m. HAVING TOMORROW'S CONVERSATION TODAY — THE CHANGING WORLD OF COMMUNICATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT 8:30 a.m. — 9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. —10:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. — 11:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m.-11:15 a.m. 11:15 a.m. The workshop will continue at 8:30 a.m., Friday, January 29, 400 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California 8:30 A.M. FRIDAY, JANUARY 29, 2016 CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) Case No. RIC 1505449 FUTURE CHANGES IN TRANSPORTATION — A LOOK AT FUTURE TECHNOLOGY David Ungemah, WSP I Parsons erinckerhoff CETAP CORRIDORS AND COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UPDATE Anne Mayer, Executive Director Juan Perez, Transportation and Land Management Agency Director, County of Riverside RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Anne Mayer, Executive Director Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director CLOSING REMARKS AND ADJOURNMENT Scott Matas, Chair Tara Byerly From: Tara Byerly Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 8:57 AM To: Tara Byerly Cc: Jennifer Harmon Subject: RCTC: Commission Workshop Agenda - 01.28 - 01.29.2016 Importance: High Good morning Commission Alternates: The Commission Workshop Agenda for the meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 28 through Friday, January 29, 2016 is available. Please copy the link: http://rctc.org/uploads/media items/ianuarv-28-29-2016.original.pdf Respectfully, Tara S. yerry Deputy Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 (951)787-7141 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION WORKSHOP ROLL CALL JANUARY 28, 2016 Present County of Riverside, District I Ed, County of Riverside, District II County of Riverside, District III DIP County of Riverside, District IV .� County of Riverside, District V ore City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Blythe City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of Cathedral City City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Eastvale City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of Jurupa Valley City of La Quinta City of Lake Elsinore City of Menifee City of Moreno Valley City of Murrieta City of Norco City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Perris City of Rancho Mirage City of Riverside City of San Jacinto City of Temecula City of Wildomar Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 0 t Rif Absent O ire O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C2/ 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET COMMISSION WORKSHOP JAN UARY 2812016 NAME AGENCY E_MA1L ADDRESS Sly ' 1,A..'/4 I, 'fir ' U; / •, = 5 ' 2e-eri �f Ff1J CUe i) y m -Sa tJ --e v e..1,, _ d .,tfgoscikis C j L Ili / Fa i9 Mil>7 ,a//09, a , u_ , f'� (ram% !,:-;-6zig` ci-S � c&ikc4e..A- (. ct-rzr 4514-err 41-erAieli 4%v C�C� 0-e-G(a ' /I A� to /s ift,=,-----T 12 v ---iiv rat -r- (-- 17 PLS lC A - w)( %S d r) ivti "--n c-i i 0 &11' it 1= t'e Z f / 7l/2e7Q- ,( C/CDL- , i .0 ® �IO , '' l 0 �.��'d ,_,. �a-A e,11)* i ( ) ( 91),Y1O) 6-:---Z‘.p.p1rt1 ,vyf- J; -c kC, j re2-3ti2koe P-Pst) L A Q 0 i UT -A- ram" -',-,---..w -=;hi'-'2,`.P.---)54- LC.A o 1-1• 'S/:/ �/�Aw/d4oIo4.✓�a r/..�1 Jane � ge-fup i1--- Ac) 6' �.------ RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION WORKSHOP ROLL CALL JANUARY 29, 2016 Present County of Riverside, District I 0 County of Riverside, District II County of Riverside, District III g County of Riverside, District IV 4,21:e. County of Riverside, District V City of Banning .4 City of Beaumont Artm,, City of Blythe ri City of Calimesa 01 City of Canyon Lake )717 City of Cathedral City )8:# City of Coachella 0 City of Corona �` 0 City of Desert Hot Springs 0 City of Eastvale 4e. 411e c�,&, c:;\i.Q__& q 2-- `,...�. City of Hemet /71/ 0 City of Indian Wells All 0 City of Indio 0 City of Jurupa Valley 0 , City of La Quinta Zr 0 City of Lake Elsinore a City of Menifee .0.- 0 City of Moreno Valley 0 AO City of Murrieta 0 City of Norco 0 City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Perris 0 City of Rancho Mirage 0 City of Riverside )3:0 0 City of San Jacinto 04 0 City of Temecula 0 City of Wildomar 0i Governor's Appointee, Caltrans District 8 0 Absent 0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 28, 2016 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: State Legislative Update and Policy Reform STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive an update on state legislative activities; and 2) Endorse the legislative and administrative recommendations for the California Transportation Commission (CTC) 2015 Annual Report to the California Legislature. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission retains Mark Watts of Smith, Watts & Hartmann as its legislative advocate in Sacramento. Mr. Watts will provide a presentation on the latest developments in the capitol regarding: • Governor Brown's fiscal year 2016/17 proposed state budget and State of the State speech; • Transportation funding bills authored by Assembly and Senate Transportation Committee Chairs Jim Frazier and Jim Beall, respectively; • The Extraordinary "Special" Legislative Session on Transportation; • Deterioration of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and its impact on Riverside County projects; and • The CTC's 2015 Annual Report recommendations to the California Legislature regarding policy reforms. Staff recommends the Commission formally endorse the reform proposals put forward by the CTC (found on page 3 of the attached Highlights of the 2015 Annual Report to the California Legislature). Staff provided input to the CTC on these legislative ideas, consistent with Commissioners' long-standing emphasis on reducing the costs of transportation projects and accelerating delivery. The CTC recommendations are consistent with the Commission's principles on new transportation funding, adopted at its March 2015 meeting. Agenda Item 2 Attachments: 1) California Transportation Commission Highlights of the 2015 Annual Report to the California Legislature 2) RCTC State Transportation Funding Principles (adopted March 2015) Agenda Item 2 2015 HIGHLIGHTS OF THE 2015 ANNUAL REPORT TO THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE Summary of Recommendations and Accomplishments CARN TRANSPOLIFOIA RTATION COMMISSION For the past decade, the lack of sufficient funding available to address the state's transportation needs for a growing population and recovering economy has been of great concern to the California Transportation Commission. Unfortunately, the fiscal crisis has escalated, with an identified $57 billion ten-year shortfall in funds necessary to rehabilitate and preserve the state highway system, coupled with an inability to program new capacity -enhancing transportation projects through fiscal year 2020-21. These numbers do not include similar needs for local streets and roads as well as transit and rail. As we look to 2016, the Commission recognizes the sense of urgency to meet the state's transportation goals in a sustainable manner. We also recognize the importance of meeting these goals while at the same time protecting California's economy. Therefore, it is imperative that funding for transportation infrastructure in the 21 st Century be sufficient, reliable, and dedicated to the most critical needs to provide the greatest overall benefit to Californians. The Commission commends the Governor and the Legislature for convening the special legislative session in 2015 in an attempt to address the transportation funding shortfall and secure necessary reforms. To assist as these discussions continue, this document summarizes specific recommendations that we believe should be considered during the upcoming legislative session, with a more detailed discussion of the recommendations contained in the Commission's 2015 Annual Report. Legislative Recommendations • Provide additional, reliable, and sufficient transportation funding. Pay transportation loans back, and index all transportation revenues to inflation. • Reset the price -based excise tax to 18-cents per gallon and eliminate the annual adjustment intended to maintain revenue neutrality. • Place a constitutional amendment before the voters protecting all transportation revenues and ensure existing revenues are invested in transportation. • Create a funding stream dedicated to improving freight mobility, and administer the program through the Trade Corridor Improvement Fund. • Provide environmental review exemptions for specific repairs, safety projects, and transportation projects within existing public rights of way that directly further State policy priorities. • Require the State Highway Performance Plan to include measurable targets for improving the state system, and require Caltrans to provide regular reports on its progress to CaISTA and the Commission. • Expand the provisions of SB 743 (Steinberg, 2013) to prohibit a cause of action, under CEQA, challenging a transportation project included in an RTP that is compliant with SB 375 (Steinberg, 2008) requirements. • Allow direct contracting between Caltrans and federally -recognized Native American Tribes in California for transportation program purposes. • Authorize the Administration to implement an "advanced mitigation" environmental program, including approving an up -front environmental mitigation program funding set -aside. • Clarify existing law to permit the expenditure of SHOPP funds for operational projects on state highways. • Provide flexibility for Caltrans to contract for more engineering and right-of-way workload. Permit Caltrans to prequalify consultants by type of work and draw from a list as work becomes available. Authorize Caltrans and its partners to use alternative procurement methods permanently and without limits. • Require early engagement of state resource agencies in the CEQA process for transportation projects to reduce permit processing time and require reasonable deadlines for permit approvals. • Repeal outdated transportation programs and redirect remaining funds to address critical transportation needs. • Require Caltrans to implement efficiency measures with the goal of generating $100 million per year in savings to invest in maintenance and rehabilitation of the state highway system. • Remove the sunset for assignment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) responsibilities to California, and make the waiver of sovereign immunity permanent for such assignment.01 ['] At time of publication of the annual report, Congress was considering transportation -authorizing legislation which includes a pilot provision allowing up to five states to substitute their own environmental processes in lieu of NEPA. If this legislation is approved, the Legislature should take any necessary action to include California in the pilot effort. Administrative Recommendations • Continue efforts to modernize the Caltrans organization to better reflect current -day realities. • Encourage and facilitate Caltrans partnerships with local agencies in the delivery of joint transportation projects. • Encourage and support Caltrans' efforts to provide more outreach regarding SHOPP project selection, and more transparency in the selection process. • Support CaISTA's efforts to develop a workload forecasting process for Caltrans related to the STIP and SHOPP that includes convening the appropriate agencies in preparing a methodology acceptable to all parties. • Support CaISTA's efforts to improve oversight of Caltrans' activities by strengthening the organizational independence and role of its internal audits and investigations function. • Encourage Caltrans to implement new methods, products, and technologies to operate more efficiently. • Encourage Caltrans to review the hours of HOV lane operations in Southern California and report to the Commission on any recommended changes. • Reexamine the issue of intercity rail and transit connectivity serving rural areas of the state, particularly those areas with limited access to air service. 2015 Commission Accomplishments • Allocated over $4.6 billion in state and federal transportation funding during the 2014-15 fiscal year, helping generate more than 75,000 private and public sector jobs, contributing to a construction program in excess of $4.9 billion in state - administered construction contracts. • Formed a Road Charge Technical Advisory Committee that developed pilot program design parameters to explore a road charge as a replacement to the excise tax on gasoline. • Adopted the 2016 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Fund Estimate and STIP Guidelines. • Recommended clear priorities and a balance of environmental, economic, and mobility goals for development of the California Transportation Plan. • Approved the 2015 Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan. • Reported that Proposition 1 B results demonstrate promises made to California voters were kept through good management, accountability measures, and transparent reporting. See report "Proposition 1 B: Promises Made, Promises Kept" at www.catc.ca.gov. • Adopted the Active Transportation Program, programming $368 million to 265 projects valued at more than $1 billion. Increased transparency and accountability through formation of a project delivery committee, providing greater opportunity for Caltrans to identify, discuss, and report potential problem projects. • Adopted priorities for the State's Asset Management Plan and implemented processes for greater openness, transparency, and accountability for the State Highway Operation and Protection Program. Established in 1978 as an independent state body, the California Transportation Commission (Commission) serves as the public review body for the State's Transportation Program. The functions of the Commission are assigned in State statutes, with primary responsibilities that include: • Program and allocate state and federal funds for the construction of highway, passenger rail and transit improvements throughout California • Advise and assist the Secretary of Transportation and the Legislature in formulating and evaluating state policies and plans for state transportation programs • Participate in the development of State and Federal legislation and adopt policies to implement enacted laws Lucetta Dunn, Chair Bob Alvarado, Vice Chair Darius Assemi Yvonne B. Burke James Earp Dario Frommer James Ghielmetti Carl Guardino Fran Inman James Madaffer Joseph Tavaglione Designed by Pat Davis Design Group, Inc. www.pddesign.com RCT Adopted Principles __ Riverside CoumyLonsporinrion tommission L Restore funds for transportation projects 2. Regional share, decision -making, equity 3. Geographic equity for state funds 4. User -pay = User -benefit 5. Reduce the costs of delivery 6. Fund trade corridors RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: January 28, 2016 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: RCTC Strategic Assessment: Final Recommendations STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Direct staff to prepare the Commission's Fiscal Year 2016/17 Budget to accommodate procurement of a Countywide Integrated Long Range Transportation Plan; 2) Direct staff to prepare the Commission's FY 2016/17 Budget to accommodate procurement of a "next generation" toll feasibility study; 3) Direct staff to prepare the Commission's FY 2016/17 Budget to accommodate procurement of a "next generation" rail feasibility study, emphasizing alternative rail service models, alternative project delivery approaches, and intra-county service; 4) Direct staff to prepare the Commission's FY 2016/17 Budget to accommodate additional resources needed to execute a long-term communications and customer engagement strategy for the purposes of public education and customer service; 5) Establish Commission policies to encourage funding and development of projects and programs to accommodate and support multiple travel choices such as added capacity, access to public transit, and active transportation modes including bicycling and walking; 6) Direct staff to provide recommendations for updating funding allocation policies of current revenue streams; 7) Authorize development of the 2019-2029 Measure A Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan (2019-2029 Deliver Plan): a) The 2019-2029 Delivery Plan shall commit to fulfilling commitments deferred in the 2009-2019 Measure A Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan (2009-2019 Delivery Plan): i. Interstate 15 Express Lanes between Cajalco Road and State Route 74; 1. Direct staff to prepare the Commission's FY 2016/17 Budget to provide funding to initiate project development; 71/91 Interchange; North -facing connector between SR-91 and 1-15; and iv. Continued progress and evaluation of CETAP and alternative corridors. b) Development of the 2019-2029 Delivery Plan shall include a comprehensive phasing and prioritization study to determine if/how projects can be scaled or Agenda Item 2 deferred to reflect funding constraints, state and federal policy challenges, and expected technological innovations; and 8) Adopt as a Commission objective to submit an additional local sales tax measure to Riverside County voters on the November 2018 or 2020 ballot. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This report is the culmination of a year -long, multi -faceted effort by Commissioners, staff, Riverside County residents, businesses, and professional consultants to take a comprehensive look at Riverside County's mobility future. As America's tenth most populous county with geography larger than more than two dozen states, Riverside County must have a transportation system that serves a very diverse array of needs. As the county enters into a new phase of growth and as the world changes (in terms of technology, public policy, and demographic shifts), before committing billions of dollars in public works investments, the Commission took the wise step of taking a moment to assess where it is at and where it needs to go to fulfill the public's needs and desires over the long haul. The Commission has been remarkably successful at fulfilling its promises to the voters of Riverside County, who have trusted it with delivering projects in the 1988 and 2002 Measure A sales tax initiatives. In the last 40 years, the Commission used its resources — both financial and personnel — to leverage billions of dollars of state and federal funding and build partnerships at all levels of government and among its constituents, all towards delivering transformative transportation projects and programs that maintain a quality of life and economy. Especially in recent years, the Commission has been able to keep a steady pipeline of projects moving to construction. Due to constant innovation and problem -solving, it was rare time when a major project within Riverside County was left idle. Moreover, the ability to secure significant infusions of state or federal funds relates to a proactive legislative and intergovernmental advocacy program that elevated the Commission's credibility in Sacramento and Washington. Today the county is seeing the fruits of decades of visionary leadership and planning: completion of major projects on 1-10, 1-215, SR-60, and Perris Valley Line, along with the ongoing work on SR-91 and rail grade separations. There are significant local policy foundations to these successes, including TUMF programs in east and west county, the Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, Measure A, and many other public policy efforts (as outlined in the appendices). This report takes inventory of those policies and measures them against today's environment, allowing the Commission to assess what remains relevant, what's missing, and what may need to change. The Commission's relationship with the public is also changing. Since the 1988 and 2002 Measure A campaigns, the natural memory fade of voters and the influx of new county residents over the years means that many of the Commission's constituents are not aware of who the Commission is, Measure A, or the public projects and services the Commission delivers to their benefit every day. Cell phones, the primary medium through which people receive information today, were still too large to fit in one's pocket when the last Measure A campaign Agenda Item 2 was waged. Moreover, the Commission is now less than one year away from being a customer - service entity with the opening of the 91 Express Lanes in Corona. Thousands of residents will become direct customers of the Commission, much like they are with their bank, cell phone, or utility company. All of this comes at a time when overall public sentiment towards government is sour. These challenges also present an opportunity for the Commission to reintroduce itself to its constituents and step-up its efforts to deliver information to better make mobility choices. These challenges also create an opportunity to listen to how the Commission can improve our constituents' quality of life. Yet, as Riverside County faces 41 percent population growth by the time Measure A sunsets in 2039, it is clear the Commission does not have the resources necessary to meet the needs and expectations of the public, its stakeholders, and even its own Commissioners. This report takes a sober look at the reality of what revenue is currently available and what more the Commission can reasonably expect to receive through the end of Measure A's lifespan from all potential sources of funding. The funding gap illustrated in this assessment makes it clear the status quo will fall far short of the county's needs and the Commission's own expectations. Even with innovative approaches and higher -risk efforts to secure new funding, the chasm is wide. This fact raises critical questions for the Commission, including: • How can the Commission adapt its policies to "change the game" in Riverside County to boost economic prosperity and reduce strain on the transportation system? • How can the Commission "re -vision" its projects or programs? • How can the Commission harness technology and innovation to reduce the costs and needs for new infrastructure and services? • What funding sources is the Commission willing to pursue to help narrow the gap? • How does the Commission ensure it keeps its existing promises to Riverside County voters? • How can the Commission better reach its customers and build greater public involvement in the planning of its communities and transportation systems? • How can the Commission partner with local governments to achieve mutual goals? • How can the Commission continue to "stay ahead of the game"? DISCUSSION: RCTC Strategic Assessment To help the Commission tackle these weighty questions, HDR, Inc. (HDR) was retained in April 2015 to conduct the Strategic Assessment. The assessment design model was as follows: Agenda Item 2 ASSESSMENT STRATEGIC CONSIDERATION S STRATEGIES APPLICATIONS Plans and Policies Existing & Future Conditions Financial Situation Partner Agency Priorities Public and Stakeholder Attitudes Planning/ Policy Gaps Improvement Needs/Costs Funding Gap Integrated Transportation System Regional Diversity Partner Priorities Public Attitudes Cost/Funding Realities i Federal & State Policies/ Regulations Political Realities Address Needs & Financial Scenarios Address Planning/Policy Gaps Build' Relationships: -Public - Stakeholders - Customers - Agency Partners Address Public Attitudes Implementation Timetrames Long -Range Countywide Transportation Plan County General Plan Update SCAG RTP/SCS Update Measure A Expenditure Plan Review Customer Engagement Funding Allocation Decisions Through the summer and fall of 2015, HDR and Commission staff methodically conducted the following activities in consultation with the Commission's Quality of Life and Sustainability Ad Hoc Committee: • Analyzed existing and future conditions in Riverside County in terms of the county's multi -modal transportation system, jobs and economic outlook, and population and demographic changes; • Analyzed a compendium of existing transportation (and related) plans and policies in place throughout Riverside County; • Analyzed funding projections against expected capital and operational needs; Agenda Item 2 • Conducted five public transportation summits throughout the county, plus one workshop in the city of Blythe; • Conducted a statistically valid public opinion telephone survey on public views of transportation needs, government, and funding options; • Interviewed partner government agency leaders (such as cities, transit operators, and councils of governments); and • Assessed the data from all of the above to develop strategies and tactics to recommend to the Commission — which are contained in this report. Findings Key findings from the assessment, as found in the Executive Summary, include: Future Conditions • Despite 41 percent population growth and 87 percent job growth in Riverside County by 2040, Riverside County will continue to have a low jobs -housing ratio, leading to persistent inter -county commuting patterns and increasing congestion; • Despite planned highway projects moving towards construction, highway congestion will continue to increase; • Opportunities to expand transit service to fill unmet needs are constrained by funding limitations; and • Continuing growth in freight rail traffic means that additional rail grade separations will be needed to reduce congestion, emissions, and safety concerns at crossings. The jobs -housing imbalance and chronic highway congestion can be addressed in a comprehensive way through an integrated countywide transportation plan that touches on traditionally local issues such as land use and serves as a focal point for economic and community development for the region (staff recommendation no. 1). Additionally, staff recommendation no. 7 will assist in ensuring projects in the Measure A Expenditure Plan are phased and scoped appropriately to address the critical needs of the region in a timely fashion. Ensuring a multimodal approach is taken on all projects (staff recommendation no. 5) and existing funding allocation decisions are appropriate for where the county is headed (staff recommendation nos. 6 and 8) will help make the most of what limited dollars are available to the Commission. Plans and Policies • There is a need for improved coordination among the large number of transportation - related plans in Riverside County; • The Commission's Measure A Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan is in need of being updated for the period of 2019-2029; Agenda Item 2 • The Riverside County transportation system has a total capital improvement need of $23 billion by 2040, plus an annual transit operations and maintenance need of $562 million annually; • Riverside County will need to make further efforts to meet state greenhouse gas reduction goals by further developing rail and transit service in concert with transit - oriented developments and employment hubs; • Emerging technologies could substantially increase efficiencies of the existing transportation system and provide users with better information about travel options, which can reduce costs and improve quality of life; • As the costs and needs of each mode of transportation evolve, the funding splits among the modes will need to be re-evaluated; and • Active Transportation is becoming an increasingly important mode of transportation; the Commission can assist local governments in competing for funding and developing plans. A component of a countywide long range transportation plan (staff recommendation no. 1) must be the fulfillment of the Measure A promise to voters (staff recommendation no. 7). Maximizing the leverage Measure A of investments for taxpayer benefit calls for ensuring multiple modes of transportation are considered in all projects (staff recommendation no. 5) and ensuring that the split of funds among categories of projects is appropriate for the future needs of Riverside County (staff recommendation no. 6). Funding Gap • Only $6.1 billion is expected to be available to fill the $23 billion capital funding need over the next 25 years (26 percent); • Aggressive pursuit of discretionary funding sources could yield as much as an additional $1.3 billion (6 percent) in capital funds; • More speculative revenue sources could yield as much as $6 billion more (26 percent) for capital, but should not be relied upon. Even if all of these funds materialized, the funding gap will be at least $9.8 billion (42 percent); • Current funding sources for operations and Riverside County transportation capital needs funding through 2040 $9.833 Billion 42% ■ Existing Programs ■ Discretionary Grants ❑ Possible New Sources ❑ Funding Gap maintenance of rail and transit cannot fund planned improvements through 2040, leaving a $238 million (42 percent) gap; Agenda Item 2 • A local option sales tax in addition to Measure A would be the most significant and likely infusion of revenue to help fill these funding gaps; • Additional fees and tolling could also help narrow the gap to meet public infrastructure needs; The major recommendation from this component of the Strategic Assessment is to pursue the most meaningful and practical new funding source that the Commission has the discretion to pursue: a local option sales tax measure supplemental to Measure A (staff recommendation no. 8). Public opinion data indicates the voters of Riverside County may not be ready in 2016 to approve such a ballot measure, but opportunity could exist in an upcoming election cycle. Without a supplemental measure, the remaining options yield very little money. Public Attitudes • A substantial portion of the public is unfamiliar with the Commission; • Transportation issues are important to the public. However, these issues are currently not as important as crime, jobs, and water issues; • Top public priorities for transportation improvements include roadway maintenance and reducing highway congestion. Freeway Service Patrol also gets strong support; • Public support for new revenue sources is strongest for express toll lanes, and moderate for increased fees on new development; • Stakeholder groups and the public identify improved accessibility to public transit as an important need, including more hours of service, service to more areas, and better/easier connections; • Other stakeholder desires: better land use/transportation linkages, more consideration for user quality of life, better rural/urban connectivity, and use of emerging technologies to help address transportation needs; • Stakeholders consistently identified the lack of funding as the biggest challenge to achieving needed improvements; and • Reducing the length and complexity of the environmental process is important to stakeholders. A stronger public communications and engagement effort (staff recommendation no. 4) on behalf of the Commission can fulfill multiple objectives essential to the Commission's mission, including: o Educating the public on the benefits their tax dollars are producing; o Educating the public on services and programs available to them that they may not be fully utilizing — assisting in reducing congestion and improving quality of life (staff recommendation no. 5); and o Protecting the Commission's investment in 91 and 1-15 Express Lanes by ensuring high customer satisfaction (staff recommendation no. 2); and Agenda Item 2 o Ensuring accountability to the public by engaging in regular, meaningful communication with those whose mandate we are fulfilling; and o Helping the public re-establish expectations by helping them understand the significant void between the cost of what they want and the resources available — as well as the potential avenues to increase those resources. Partner Agency Priorities • Roadway maintenance and improving older highway interchanges are the top transportation improvement cities and the county; and • The local partner agencies desire the Commission to provide leadership and resources to enable a more effective coordinated approach to legislative advocacy and pursuit of funding from the state and federal governments. Placing city, county, transit agency, and councils of government priorities into a comprehensive transportation plan (staff recommendation no. 1) will help make the most of limited Commission funds and help coordinate across jurisdictions and across funding programs. Helping jurisdictions prepare projects multimodal in nature and more competitive for state and federal grants will maximize the value of limited funds by ensuring projects serve as many needs as possible; this can be partially achieved through staff recommendation no. 5 and a heightened effort on the legislative front that could be a component of staff recommendation no. 4. Moving towards a sales tax measure beyond Measure A (staff recommendation no. 8) will provide cities and the county the greatest possibility of securing the revenue needed to keep local streets and roads in good condition and upgrading dilapidated interchanges, whereas the state of California continues to come up short in this regard. Next Steps Strategies for the Commission to pursue were developed by HDR and Commission staff based on the findings of the Strategic Assessment (found on pages 1-3 of the Executive Summary). These strategies form the basis of eight proposed action items for the Commission to consider at the 2016 Annual Workshop, discussed above. In conclusion, there are two areas deserving of special attention as the Commission makes its decision on these strategic recommendations: Countywide Long Range Transportation Plan A central feature of the proposed strategies and action items is the development of a countywide long range transportation plan. This plan will serve as a focal point for the numerous transportation efforts underway throughout the county, with the goal of achieving greater coordination across government and greater clarity of mission and purpose for public policy decisions that impact how the residents and businesses use the transportation system Agenda Item 2 and their communities. The plan will better position the entire county to compete strategically for state and federal funds, as well as create a coordinated policy basis to respond to ongoing and future state and federal mandates. Several of the other proposed action items in this report will actually fold up into the Countywide Long Range Transportation Plan. FY 2016/17 Budget and Beyond If the recommended actions in this report are adopted, staff will begin preparing a series of additional items that will return to the Commission in the year(s) ahead for further action. One of these major upcoming items will be the Commission's FY 2016/17 Budget. The Budget will commit financial resources to turn these strategies into tactics and results in the near, mid, and long -terms. Attachment: Riverside County Strategic Assessment —January 2016 Agenda Item 2 �w. •Los Angeles Orange .-'411 _._111!E ■111 San Bernardino Coachella valley San Diego Palo Verde Valley imperial January 2016 7‘1 Riverside County Strategic Assessment Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 F)1 In Association With: AMMA Transit Planning CrinSol Fehr & Peers Katherine Padilla & Associates Moore Methods WSP I Parsons Brinckerhoff System Metrics Group Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 ES.1. Introduction 1 ES.2. Recommended Strategy 1 Plan for the Future 1 Maximize Our Assets 2 Increase Funding 3 Communicate More 3 ES.3. Existing and Future Transportation Conditions 4 Demographics 4 Roadway Facilities 5 Rail and Transit 6 Freight Transportation 7 Active Transportation (Bicycles and Pedestrians) and Low -Speed Transportation 8 Key Findings and Strategic Considerations of Existing and Future Conditions 8 ES.4. Current Plans and Policies 10 Current Plans 10 The Role of Measure A 11 Current Policies 14 Strategic Issues and Policy Gaps 15 Key Findings and Strategic Considerations of Current Plans and Policies 17 ES.5. Funding Analysis 17 Funding for Capital Projects 17 Funding for Operations and Maintenance Costs 19 Key Findings and Strategic Considerations of Funding Analysis 19 ES.6. Public and Stakeholder Attitudes 20 Polling of Registered Voters 20 Summits and Workshops for Stakeholders and the General Public 23 Key Findings and Strategic Considerations of Public and Stakeholder Attitudes 24 ES.7. Partner Agency Coordination 26 Key Findings and Strategic Considerations of Partner Agency Coordination 29 Strategic Assessment i Draft Report January 20, 2016 List of Tables Table ES.1: Riverside County Population and Employment 4 Table ES.2: Demographic Comparisons within SCAG Region 4 Table ES.3: Current Transit Service Levels and Transit Trips Per Capita by County 7 Table ES.4: Summary of Current Transportation Plans for Riverside County 10 Table ES.5: Summary of Measure A Projects 12 Table ES.6: Total Estimated Cost of Capital Improvements (2016-2039), by Mode/Project Type 13 Table ES.7: Existing Annual O&M Costs for Transit and Rail 14 Table ES.B: Future (2040) Annual O&M Costs for Planned Transit System 14 Table ES.9: Estimate of Potential Revenue from New Sources (Category C) 18 List of Figures Figure ES.1: Existing and Future (2040) County Travel Patterns 5 Figure ES.2: Existing Congested Locations on Riverside County's Major Roadway Facilities 5 Figure ES.3: Future (2040) Congested Locations on Riverside County's Major Roadway Facilities 6 Figure ES.4: Existing and Proposed Rail Services 6 Figure ES.5: Fixed -Route Bus Transit Service Areas in Riverside County 7 Figure ES.6: Location and Status of Rail Crossings in Riverside County 9 Figure ES.7: 2009 Measure A Programs by Geographic Area 13 Figure ES.B: Funding Sources for Capital Improvements 2016-2039 18 Figure ES.9: Funding for Rail and Transit O&M in Year 2040 19 Figure ES.10: Views of Government Performance 20 Figure ES.11: Priority Issues for Riverside County 21 Figure ES.12: Support for Transportation Improvements 22 Figure ES.13: Support for Alternative Revenue Sources 23 Figure ES.14: Summary of Summits and Workshop 25 Figure ES.15: Regional Transportation Improvement Priorities for Local Jurisdictions 27 Figure ES.16: Local Transportation Improvement Priorities for Local Jurisdictions 28 Strategic Assessment Draft Report January 20, 2016 Executive Summary ES.1. I ntroduction In November 2002, Riverside County voters approved Measure A, a 30-year extension of the countywide '/z-percent sales tax originally passed in 1988 to fund transportation improvements in Riverside County. Both measures authorized the Commission to administer the tax according to the expenditure plans delineated on their respective ballots. The current Measure A ("2009 Measure A"), which expires in June 2039, requires the Commission to review and update the expenditure plan in 2019 and every ten years thereafter. Four years later in December 2006, the Commission adopted a 10-Year Delivery Plan of high -priority projects included in the Western Riverside County Measure A expenditure plan, including the first tolled express lanes in Riverside County. Subsequently the Commission received legislative approval to implement two projects that included tolled express lanes. A vast majority of projects in the 10-Year Delivery Plan will be open to the public by 2020, including tolled express lanes on State Route 91 and Interstate 15 and the Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension. Therefore, the Commission's relationship to the public is in the midst of significant transition in terms of construction and operations of permanent revenue -generating facilities. External factors are also shaping the Commission's activities. Since the renewal of Measure A and adoption of the 10-Year Delivery Plan, the Riverside County economy has experienced dramatic swings. Revenue forecasts for Measure A have been adjusted several times, causing project scopes to be modified. The Commission has also had to respond to changing policies at the state and federal level that emphasize greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction, active transportation, and public transit. At its 2015 annual workshop the Commission directed staff to conduct a strategic assessment to assist the Commission in re-examining the County's needs for transportation investments in the context of: (1) the Measure A expenditure plan and other local transportation -related policies, (2) changing economic and demographic trends in Riverside County, (3) evolving state and federal transportation policies, (4) revenue realities, and (5) desires of the public and stakeholders. The objective of the strategic assessment is to produce findings and provide strategic recommendations on actions the Commission can take to proactively prepare for the County's future. The next section of this Executive Summary presents the strategic actions recommended for the Commission to take based on the study's analysis and findings. The technical analyses that provide the basis for the recommendations are summarized in the sections following the Recommended Strategy, and include Existing and Future Conditions, Current Plans and Policies, Funding Analysis, Public and Stakeholder Attitudes, and Partner Agency Coordination. The detailed documentation of these analyses is provided in the appendices to this Executive Summary. ES.2. Recommended Strategy The recommended strategic actions are based on the technical analyses and findings presented in sections below, and have been grouped into four categories: Plan for the Future, Maximize Our Assets, Increase Funding, and Communicate More. Plan for the Future ➢ Develop a long-range transportation plan (LRTP) for Riverside County that provides a vision of the County's future integrated transportation system and a coordinated strategy for agencies to work toward a common vision for meeting mobility needs and contributing to a sustainable transportation system. The LRTP will include: Strategic Assessment 1 Draft Report January 20, 2016 • Develop principles for development and land use planning that is supportive of an integrated and efficient transportation system for Riverside County; • Develop plans for rail and transit facilities to serve employment centers in Riverside County; • Develop plans for rail and transit services to serve the essential mobility needs of transit - dependent people including seniors and veterans in Riverside County and provide a viable alternative to driving in the more highly urbanized parts of the County. • Develop plans for express lane and other toll facilities to promote driver choice, promote express bus and carpool benefits, provide a means to fund future transportation projects, and increase mobility in Riverside County. • Plan for highway and regional arterial roadway facilities to maintain acceptable levels of vehicular mobility in Riverside County, including a re-evaluation of CETAP corridors; and • Develop plans and strategies for active transportation facilities to enable greater levels of trip - making by bicycle, on foot, and low -speed electric vehicles. ➢ Evaluate new and existing corridors to assess feasibility of tolling the entire facility or adding tolled express lanes to determine the next tolling projects in Riverside County. Findings will be incorporated into the LRTP. ➢ Continue assuming the leadership role in the development of Riverside County's rail network: • Conduct a next -generation rail feasibility study to determine the next rail projects in Riverside County, including an analysis of alternative rail service and project delivery models, with a focus on intra-county travel; • Adopt as policy that the Commission will be the lead agency in all fixed guideway projects seeking state or federal discretionary grants. ➢ Commence development of the 2019-2029 Measure A Western County Highway Delivery Plan, prioritizing projects deferred from the current delivery plan, specifically: • 1-15 Express Lanes from Cajalco Road to SR-74 (toll) • SR-71/SR-91 Interchange • SR-91/I-15 Northbound Express Lane Connector (toll) • Continued progress and evaluation of CETAP and alternative corridors. Maximize Our Assets ➢ Optimize existing funding sources by: 1. Prepare the 2019 review and update of the Measure A Expenditure Plan as required by the Measure. 2. Integrating RCTC services, programs and projects across modes and departments to maximize mobility benefit for as many people as possible. 3. Developing a countywide coordinated strategy to leverage existing revenue streams to capture additional discretionary and competitive state and federal revenues. 4. Reviewing and updating the Commission's funding allocation policies (including the bus -rail funding split and Measure A program allocations) to better align and balance current and future needs. 5. Supporting continuation of the WRCOG and CVAG TUMF programs and periodic policy reviews and updates of fee levels based on nexus study findings. ➢ Initiate a comprehensive prioritization and phasing assessment of planned and potential transportation improvement projects to determine: Strategic Assessment 2 Draft Report January 20, 2016 1. Approximate timing/phasing of improvements and the corresponding flow of revenue streams needed to implement them; 2. If/how some major projects can be phased or scaled down to reduce or defer funding needs; 3. If/how some major projects may be vulnerable to emerging state and federal policy changes; 4. Locations where bottleneck improvements can provide congestion relief without needing to improve an entire corridor; and 5. Improvements or services that can be deferred, replaced, modified, or eliminated because of emerging or expected technological innovations. ➢ Coordinate with local agencies and rail and transit providers to effectuate development of viable transit -oriented development around rail and transit stations in Riverside County. ➢ Coordinate with local agencies to promote development and expansion of employment centers supported by multi -modal transportation. ➢ Support CEQA/NEPA reform to reduce the cost and time required to prepare project environmental documents. ➢ Enhance the Commuter Assistance Program and Freeway Service Patrol. ➢ Enhance the service levels and accessibility of transit service for low-income and transit -dependent communities. ➢ Expand the use of technology to make Riverside County's transportation system more "user friendly" and to enhance awareness of transportation programs managed by RCTC and provided as a result of Measure A. I ncrease Funding ➢ Encourage state and federal efforts to increase transportation funding through sources that will provide Riverside County with a fair share. ➢ Prepare to submit an additional local sales tax measure to voters in 2018 or 2020. ➢ Consider a truck impact mitigation fee and/or a development impact mitigation fee for highways. ➢ Collaborate with transit service providers and other programming agencies to explore options for a dependable, sustainable, ongoing revenue source adequate to support operations and maintenance costs of desired future rail and transit expansions. ➢ Consider how future surplus toll revenues may be used to improve transportation within the corridor in which they were generated. Communicate More ➢ Develop an ongoing public education and involvement program to educate the public about Riverside County transportation and RCTC to develop a greater public awareness of: • Who RCTC is and the services we offer; • What RCTC has accomplished; • How Measure A works and the benefits to Riverside County residents and businesses; • Current ongoing Measure A projects; and • Future needs. ➢ Enhance existing stakeholder and community engagement processes to ensure that RCTC remains closely in touch with users of the transportation system in Riverside County. ➢ Develop outreach and feedback mechanisms for dealing with RCTC's new "customers", the users of the express lanes. Strategic Assessment 3 Draft Report January 20, 2016 ES.3. Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Demographics From a current population of almost 2.5 million, Riverside County is projected to grow by 41% by the Year 2040, with the largest numerical growth expected in Western Riverside County and the higher growth rates expected in the desert areas (see Table ES.1). Employment is expected to grow faster than population, with an overall growth of 87%. Table ES.1: Riverside County Population and Employment Population 2012 •opulation 2040 Populati Absolute Difference (2012-2040) Pct. Difference (2012-2040) Coachella Valley 431, 206 697,744 266,538 62% Palo Verde Valley 25,783 43,473 17,690 69% Western Riverside County 1,787,928 2,430,010 642,310 36% Total Riverside Co. 2,444,917 3,171,227 926,310 41% Employment 2012 Employment 2040 Employment Absolute Difference (2012-2040) Pct. Difference (2012-2040) Coachella Valley 148,174 294,174 146,000 99% Palo Verde Valley 5,080 10,763 5,683 112% Western Riverside County 463,433 848,829 385,396 83% Total Riverside Co. 616,687 1,153,766 537,079 87% Riverside County's forecast growth percentages are the highest of all the urbanized counties in the SCAG region, and in terms of absolute growth in population and jobs Riverside County is second only to Los Angeles County (see Table ES.2). Riverside County has the lowest jobs/housing ratio of all the SCAG region counties, and that is expected to continue in the future despite the rapid growth of jobs projected for Riverside County. As a result, many Riverside County residents will commute to other counties for their employment and other trip purposes. As illustrated in Figure ES.1 the majority of the inter -county trips are to/from San Bernardino County, with trips to/from Orange and Los Angeles Counties comprising most of the rest. Table ES.2: Demographic Comparisons within SCAG Region County Los Angeles 2012 2040 Pop % 2012 Population Population Difference Employment 9,922,731 11,517,461 16% 4,235,143 2012 Jobs 2040 Emp % to Employment Difference Households 5,213,136 23% 1.30 2040 Jobs to Households 1.32 Orange 3,071,544 3,464,493 13% 1,526,227 1,898,685 24% 1.53 1.65 Riverside 2,244,917 3,171,227 41% 616,687 1,153,770 8 0.89 1.10 San Bernardino 2,067,978 2,725,029 32% 659,463 1,028,205 56% 1.07 1.20 Ventura 835,432 962,806 15% 332,250 420,211 26% 1.23 1.35 Total SCAG Region 18,322,197 22,123,389 21% 7,428,836 9,838,616 32% 1.26 1.33 Strategic Assessment Draft Report 4 January 20, 2016 Figure ES.1: Existing and Future (2040) County Travel Patterns Los Angeles County Orange County Tri ps to other desti nations: Miles • 15 San Bemardino County 'Q� c1% San Diego County Riverside County 11% 79% 79% v1% 41% Sa1b6 Se Imperial County ..Base year 23-•;.,.•Future year �j Interlint-azonal trip flows Roadway Facilities Travel demand is projected to increase consistently with the forecast population and employment growth, and would result in increased congestion on the County's major roadway facilities (see Figures ES.2 and ES.3). The substantial increase in the extent of traffic congestion indicates that, despite the highway projects currently under construction and in the pipeline, the large amount of regional population growth will put substantial additional strains on the highway system. Figure ES.2: Existing Congested Locations on Riverside County's Major Roadway Facilities • Ontario •Redlands San Bernardino County Colton • Chino Loma t Cahrnesa 1 Desert Hot Riverside Moreno • Cherry Springs NOrCO • Valley Beaumont Valley • • • • • Corona Banning • Orange County Mission Viejo • San Juan Capistrano • Temecula • Lake Elsinore Perris • Sun City • Canyon • Lake Wildomar • Murrieta San Jacinto Hemet Valle East Hemet • • Vista • Winchester San Clemente • Fallbrook • ldyllwild • Palm Thousand Springs Palms r Cathedral • City Rancho • Indian• • Mirage Wells • • Indio La Quinla • Coachella • Aguanga • San Diego County - Roadways Over Capacity - Existing Riverside County • thermal • Mecca Oasis • it eNP 10 Miles Blythe Riverside County • Incorporated City Unincorporated Area Source: RivTAM Base Year Model Strategic Assessment Draft Report 5 January 20, 2016 Figure ES.3: Future (2040) Congested Locations on Riverside County's Major Roadway Facilities • Ontario • Colton • Redlands • Norc -.Corona Mission Chino Mi�a� Calimesa �r Loma � /�� I N. • — x ` Desert Hot •Rlvefside Moreno \ y Cherry Springs i Ncr. Valley geao\\moot Valley • Corona A, Ba �r Palmer .40 . `S nn s Thousand p g \ Palrns ` San ♦ y �PerfiS 1� Jacinto I 1 Cathedral • 1 Hemel Valle Idyllwild City Riverside County Sun Clty East Hemet • • Vista • Rancho Indian• • '� Lake •1 • Mirage �Wel{s y. •clntllo Elsinore .• Canyon Winchester La Quinla •Coachella • 1 a Thermal San Bernardino County San Clemente • Lake Wildomar • • Murrieta • Temecula Iallhrook Jr nning Aguanga • San Diego County Mecca — t0\s satmn sea -r- NP 110 Miles r�- Blythe Roadways Over Capacity - Existing — Roadways Over Capacity - Future Riverside County • Incorporated City Unincorporated Area Source: RivTAM Future Year Model Rail and Transit Metrolink service currently operates on three routes to Los Angeles and Orange County, and the terminus of the 91 Line service (Los Angeles to Riverside) will soon be extended from downtown Riverside to Perris along the Perris Valley Line (PVL) (see Figure ES.4). Extensions of PVL have been proposed from Perris to San Jacinto and from Perris to Temecula, and rail service has also been studied along the 1-15 corridor from Corona to Temecula. The two existing Amtrak services are long-distance trains that operate from Los Angeles to New Orleans (three times per week) and from Los Angeles to Chicago (daily). A study is currently underway of a potential new Amtrak service from Los Angeles to the Coachella Valley with initially two round trips per day. Figure ES.4: Existing and Proposed Rail Services Coltord• San Bernardino Chino - --� • Ji Riverside o - t� San Juan Capistrano • Dana San Point Clemente Source: Caltrans, SunLine Redlands Calimesa • Moreno Cherry`.Valley, • Valley Beaumont Canyon vim Omar Lake ♦a'" Murrieffi , — •L Temecula Fallprook Banning San E t Jacinto -Hemet � aEa•/a Valle �r Hemet Vista Aguanga San Diego • Yucca Valley Desert Hot Springs • Palm Springs Cathedral tlyllwild City • palm San Bernardino County Thousand Palms Desert • Ran[ho • Indian Mirage ,,Walls • La Ouinta Oasis • Riverside -County Mecca 10 Miles - Amtrak Rail Line Coachella Valley Rail California High -Speed Rail • Incorporated City - Metroank Rail Line Meni*Bit k Extensions Q Riverside County Unincorporated Area (Temecula 8 HBmeVSan JatinroJ Transit Agency, Riverside County Bus transit service areas are illustrated in Figure ES.5. In addition to the fixed -route and demand -responsive services illustrated on the map the City of Riverside operates its Special Transit for senior citizens and riders with disabilities. Strategic Assessment Draft Report 6 January 20, 2016 Figure ES.5: Fixed -Route Bus Transit Service Areas in Riverside County . Ontario o' Chino Corona Mira Loma Riverside Norco ' Sun City Canyon Lake Mission Viejo ( �VAldomar Orange County mumeta San Juan e Capistrano San Bernardino County Genic ese Cherry Valley Beaumont Winchester San Clemente Riverside Transit Agency Faee Routes Demand Response Derma Area Seneca Area Banning San Jacinto • • Valle Vista Aguanga Corona Cruiser � Fixes Routes Desert Hot Springs Pains Spring` itIN Cathedral Idyllwlltl crty>� Palmt i. r Desert Indian Wells Demand Response Se,. Area Services Area Rancho -• _'' Mirage Coachella G _ La Quinta Oasis Riverside County Thousand Palms Thermal Mecca 11 PASS Transit Authority SunLine Transit Agency . Free Routes . .Fsect Rote. Demand Response SePase Area Demand Response Service Al. aere. Area Sends Ares Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency ram Reutes Demand Response Servos Area Blythe Y / -'tMl Source: Riverside County, SunLine Transit Agency, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency The per -capita transit service level and ridership in Riverside County (Table ES.3) is slightly higher than that in San Bernardino County and about half that in Orange County, reflecting the lower population and less - concentrated development patterns in the Inland Empire. Los Angeles and San Diego Counties have higher ratios because of the higher densities of their developed areas and their significant investments in rail transit. Table ES.3: Current Transit Service Levels and Transit Trips Per Capita by County County Annual Transit Service Hours per Capita Annual Transit Trips per Capita Los Angeles 1.50 60.7 Orange 0.89 20.8 Riverside 0.45 10.0 San Bernardino 0.39 9.3 San Diego 1.04 30.7 Ventura 0.36 6.5 Due to the large service area in Riverside County, the continuing development of new neighborhoods, and the expansion of established residential areas, there are numerous areas of the county with unmet transit needs and other areas where needs for service expansion have been identified. However, opportunities for service expansion are limited due to constrained funding sources for subsidizing transit operations and maintenance costs, as well as the lower density development patterns in the service area. Freight Transportation BNSF Railway (BNSF) and Union Pacific Railroad (UP) own freight railroads that cross Riverside County and carry goods from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach destined for locations across much of the United States. Current levels of freight train activity are projected to at least double in the next 25 years as imported goods are expected to rise at a rapid rate and the ports expand their facilities to meet the needs of US consumers. Strategic Assessment 7 Draft Report January 20, 2016 Where these rail lines cross streets at grade, traffic is delayed while each train crosses, and the combination of the number of trains and their length means that the crossing gates are down a total of between one and two hours each day at each street crossed by the BNSF and UP rail lines. For the past decade RCTC has made railroad grade crossings one of its high priorities for transportation improvements, and as a result funding has been obtained to construct 14 grade separations (overpasses or underpasses), and to close two low -traffic crossings. (Figure ES.6 shows the 14 grade separation locations in green or yellow, and the closed locations in black.) With continuing growth in freight train traffic many of the remaining at -grade intersections are projected to experience high levels of delay, and RCTC has established a list of 19 crossings with the highest priority for improvement. However, the state and federal funding sources that were used to fund the completed grade separations are no longer available, so additional progress in this direction must await the availability of a new source of funding. Active Transportation (Bicycles and Pedestrians) and Low -Speed Transportation Agencies throughout Riverside County are working to provide local and regional trails, bikeways, and sidewalks to make bicycling and walking ("active transportation") more viable modes of travel for short trips, and to connect these facilities to long-distance regional facilities and form regional networks for active transportation. Additionally, several communities are providing facilities that accommodate low -speed motorized vehicles for travel without needing to travel in mixed traffic with autos and trucks. Key Findings and Strategic Considerations of Existing and Future Conditions • Forecast population growth in Riverside County of 926,000 (41 %) by Year 2040. • Forecast jobs growth of 537,000 (87%) by 2040. • Continued low future jobs -housing ratio despite robust jobs growth forecast. • Forecast growth is expected to substantially increase highway congestion despite the highway improvement projects currently underway and in the pipeline. • Opportunities to expand transit service to fill unmet needs are constrained by funding limitations. • Continuing growth in freight rail traffic means that additional railroad grade separations will be needed to reduce traffic delays at rail crossings, but additional sources of funding are needed. • Active transportation facilities are an important component of the transportation system, to facilitate short trips without use of an auto and to provide better bicycle and pedestrian connections to transit. Strategic Assessment 8 Draft Report January 20, 2016 .. Vdb, � -- MORENO VALLEY ., . Figure ES.6: Location and Status of Rail Crossings in Riverside County chwy •CALIMESA VOPly r, BEAUMONT r f+ .77 I i LA OUINTA WOUND Cooidop • '.ultimo a.. • xr + — Ww ' (..rr1 petu.. • ameiwismimill *N • COACHELLA r f— 41,14 /+HM • DESERT HOT if SPRINGS PALM SPRINGS Strategic Assessment 9 Draft Report January 20, 2016 ES.4. Current Plans and Policies Current Plans The future of transportation in Riverside County is laid out in a diverse array of planning documents that have been developed by various responsible agencies. Table ES.4 identifies current plans, responsible agencies, transportation modes, and planning horizons. Table ES.4: Summary of Current Transportation Plans for Riverside County Plan 2013 CA State Rail Plan Agency Caltrans Mgd Lanes F Arterial Roads m Intchg Grd Sep. •r Active Trans Habit -at Sho Ter High- ways Rail Transit Bus Transit NEV Long Term X X General Plan Circulation Element County of Riverside X X X X CVAG Non -Motorized Transportation Plan CVAG X X TUMF Regional Roadway System CVAG X X X X SR-91 Implementation Plan OCTA/RCTC/ Caltrans X X X X X X X Measure A Expenditure Plan (2009-2019) RCTC X X X X X X Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan (2006) RCTC X X X X Comprehensive Operational Analysis RTA X X Comprehensive Operational Analysis SunLine Transit Agency X X Regional Transportation Plan SCAG X X X X X X X Short -Range Transit Plans SunLine, Corona, Banning, Beaumont, Riverside, Palo Verde X X Western Riverside County Non- Motorized Transportation Plan WRCOG X X TUMF Regional System of Highways and Arterials WRCOG X X X X Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MHSCP) Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority X X Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) Coachella Valley MSHCP X X 4-City Neighborhood Electric Vehicle Transportation Plan WRCOG, Corona, Norco, Riverside and Moreno Valley X X X Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) Plan CVAG X X X FN Strategic Assessment Draft Executive Summary 10 January 20, 2016 The Role of Measure A Central to RCTC's mission since 1989 has been the delivery of projects included in Measure A, the County's half -cent sales tax dedicated to transportation improvements. In 1988 County residents approved Measure A as a 20-year program (1989-2009), and in 2002 the voters approved a 30-year extension (2009-2039). Each measure included a list of transportation improvements to be delivered using the sales tax revenues. Table ES.5 highlights Measure A projects that are completed, under construction, or planned in Western Riverside County and the Coachella Valley. Funds raised by Measure A are returned to each of the County's three distinct geographic areas — Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley — in proportion to their contribution. Generally, 75% of the funding is allocated to Western Riverside, 24% to Coachella Valley, and 1 % to Palo Verde Valley. Figure ES.7 illustrates the distribution of Measure A funds geographically and between programs. Strategic Assessment 11 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 Table ES.5: Summary of Measure A Projects Western County Coachella Valley Completed 60/215 East Junction Project 74/215 Interchange Project 1-215 South Project 1-215 Bi-County Gap Closure 1-215 Central Project SR-91/La Sierra Avenue Interchange Project SR-91/Van Buren Boulevard Bridge and Interchange Project SR-91/Green River Road Interchange Project 1-215 Widening— Southbound — Blaine Street to Martin Luther King Boulevard) I-215/Van Buren Boulevard Interchange SR-74 Curve Widening Grade Separations: Auto Center Drive, Columbia Avenue, Iowa Avenue, Jurupa Avenue, Magnolia Avenue, Riverside Avenue, and Streeter Avenue Perris Valley Line — 24 mile commuter rail extension terminating in Perris (2016) Completed SR-111: • Make Improvements and Widen SR-111 through Indian Wells (Phases I -IV) • Washington Street Intersection Improvement (La Quinta) 1-10/Palm Drive/Gene Autry Trail 1-10/Indian Canyon Drive I-10/Bob Hope Drive/Ramon Road Interchange 1-10/Date Palm Drive I-10/Monterey Avenue Interchange Project Grade Separation Projects: Avenue 48/Dillon Road, Avenue 50, and Avenue 52 Under Construction 91 Project —Tolled Express Lanes SR-91 HOV Project Grade Separation Projects: Clay Street, Magnolia Avenue, and Sunset Avenue Under Construction I-10/Jefferson Street Interchange Project Avenue 56 / Airport Boulevard Grade Separation Project Future Term 1-15 Express Lanes Project SR-60 — Add Truck Climbing and Descending Lane, Badlands area east of Moreno Valley 71/91 Interchange Project SR-71 Corridor Improvement Project SR-79 Realignment Project Mid County Parkway 1-215 North Project 10/60Interchange 1-10 Truck Climbing Lane Future Term SR-111: • Signal Synchronization Project • Intersection improvements and Street Widening in Cathedral City • Widening Project in Indian Wells from Cook Street to the Eastern City Limit • Madison Street to Rubidoux Street — Street Improvement Project (Indio) SR-86Interchanges 1-10 Interchange Projects • 1-10 / Monroe Street • 1-10 / Jackson Street Whitewater River Bridge Crossing (Avenue 50) Avenue 48 Widening (Jackson Street to Van Buren Street) SR-86/Avenue 50 Interchange Project Avenue 66 Grade Separation Project Strategic Assessment Draft Executive Summary 12 January 20, 2016 Figure ES.7: 2009 Measure A Programs by Geographic Area Western County *Bond Financing- B% *Economic Development Incentives -1% *Highways - 30% •Local Streets and Roads - 29% *New Corridors - 11% *Public Transit -12% *Regional Arterials -9% Coachella Valley *Highways and Regional Arterials -50% *Local Streets and Roads -35% •Publ lc Transit - 15% Palo Verde Valley *Local Streets and Roads-100% Source: RCTC Annual Budget As part of the 2002 Measure A extension, RCTC is committed to supporting habitat mitigation in Riverside County. RCTC has fully paid its $153 million obligation to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) for the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), as promised under Measure A. Long -Term I mprovement Needs and Costs Based on all the plans listed above in Table ES.4, a needs list was developed to indicate improvement projects needed to achieve full development of current plans. This is a comprehensive list covering all modes and all the various components of the regional transportation system in the County planned for a horizon year of 2040. An order -of -magnitude cost estimate was identified for each project in the needs list using estimates available from recent studies or by applying typical unit costs to the needed improvement. Table ES.6 summarizes the capital costs, which collectively total $23.4 billion. Table ES.6: Total Estimated Cost of Capital I mprovements (2016-2039), by Mode/ Project Type Mode/Project Type Amount (in 2015 $) Freeways & Interchanges $8,724,000,000 Arterials $9,990,000,000 Grade Separations $1,528,000,000 Transit— Intercity and Commuter/Regional Rail $1,392,000,000 Transit - Bus Capital $1,092,000,000 Non-motorized/Active Transportation $642,000,000 Total $23,367,000,000 In addition to the capital improvements costs, the future transportation system will have substantial, ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M) costs due to planned improvements in rail and transit services. Table ES.7 summarizes existing rail and transit O&M costs, which total $156 million annually. Table ES.8 Strategic Assessment 13 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 summarizes the annual O&M costs (in Year 2015 dollars) for the planned rail and transit system, which total $562 million annually. Table ES.7: Existing Annual O&M Costs for Transit and Rail Annual O&M Cost (in 2015 $) M etro l i n k $14,000,000 RTA $75,500,000 SunLine $52,500,000 Municipal Operators $3,200,000 Specialized Transit $10,800,000 Total Existing Annual Countywide Transit O&M Cost $156,000,000 Table ES.8: Future (2040) Annual O&M Costs for Planned Transit System Mode Annual 0&M Cost (in 2015 $) Intercity Rail $30,200,000 Commuter/Regional Rail $126,200,000 Basic Local Bus $246,400,000 Enhanced Local Bus $144,600,000 Regional Express Bus $14,300,000 Total Future Annual Rail and Transit O&M Cost $561,700,000 Current Policies Following is a summary list of key policies currently in effect relative to the transportation system and its development and operation: Freeways and Highways • The Freeway Service Patrol program of commuter assistance delivers a high benefit -cost ratio for delay reduction on freeways, however, there is limited funding available to expand the FSP program. Managed Lanes and Tolling • RCTC has secured specific legislation that guides the development and operation of toll facilities on SR-91 and 1-15. Similar legislation has not been passed for toll lanes on other highways. Arterials and Local Streets • TUMF programs in Western Riverside County and the Coachella Valley place some responsibility for funding transportation improvements on the development generating the need for improvements. • Local agencies must maintain their existing commitment of local funds for street, highway and public transit purposes to receive Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds. Rail and Transit Strategic Assessment 14 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 • The 2008 Transit Vision includes: o Provisions to guide annual allocation of Measure A and TDA funds, as well as percentages for specialized transportation contribution of Measure A; o Vision for potential Perris Valley Line extensions to San Jacinto and Temecula; o Funding split formula for transportation funds in Western Riverside County: 78% for public bus and 22% for commuter rail. • CVAG has established a policy to dedicate 10% of the Coachella Valley's annual TDA State Transit Assistance (STA) funds to establishing passenger rail service. Non -Motorized / Active Transportation • The State of California has redirected programming responsibilities for active transportation funding from MPOs to the State. • RCTC and local cities must now compete to secure a portion of the 50% of total funds made available annually through the Active Transportation Program statewide funding solicitation. Sustainability / Climate Change / Environment • Senate Bill 535 requires a portion of cap -and -trade funds to be directed to disadvantaged communities. Grant applications for these funds should involve projects that are located in or directly benefit disadvantaged communities. Riverside County includes a number of the disadvantaged communities that have been identified statewide. • Executive Order B-30-15 mandates a 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions below 1990 levels by 2030, so regional agencies must take climate change into account in their planning and investment decisions and employ full life -cycle cost accounting to evaluate and compare infrastructure investments and alternatives. Funding / Finance • The 2013 RCTC Comprehensive Debt Management Policy allows RCTC to investigate innovative project financing methods where appropriate (TIFIA, toll revenue -backed bonds) for future projects. • The 2013 Edition RCTC Full Speed Ahead 2009-2019 Delivery Plan provides for exploration of alternative procurement and delivery options such as design -build and public -private partnerships. Strategic I ssues and Policy Gaps The review of current plans and policies presented in the preceding sections raises several issues deserving consideration in the Strategic Assessment. They include strategic issues that should be considered because of changing conditions or needs, as well as issues which are not currently addressed by adopted plans or policies ("gaps"). This section outlines the plans and policies that fall into one of these categories, and summarizes the issues or questions that should be considered in the Strategic Assessment. Technology and Automation The rapid advancement of technology will affect the future of transportation, especially promising the potential to make the system safer and more efficient. Strategic issues to consider include: • Could the emergence of automated vehicles increase the capacity of the highway system so that some planned improvements may be no longer necessary? Strategic Assessment 15 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 • Will the emergence of car -sharing systems substantially change auto ownership patterns in the future, and how will that affect traffic volumes and congestion levels? • How can traveler information systems be used in the future to enable travelers to make optimal travel choices, and how much can that improve the efficiency of the system? • Can technological advancements be tapped to improve service and reduce costs for serving the transit -dependent? Congestion Management vs. Greenhouse Gas Reduction State laws, policies, and funding programs put increasing emphasis on reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG), often to the detriment of strategies to reduce traffic congestion through highway capacity expansion. Riverside County will need to improve all components of its transportation system to provide adequate mobility for the 3.2 million people projected to live in the County in 2040. Strategic issues to consider include: • What land use strategies can realistically be implemented in Riverside County to shorten driving distances and to enable people to accomplish more of their mobility needs without the need for an automobile? • What strategies can be pursued to bring more employment to Riverside County so people can live closer to their jobs? • What strategies can be pursued to provide more Riverside County residents with good mobility alternatives to the single -occupant automobile? • How can Riverside County best contribute to, and be compatible with, the SCAG region's Sustainable Communities Strategy while providing good quality of life for its residents including meeting their mobility needs? • What highway system improvements will be important for supporting economic development in Riverside County and minimizing time people waste in congested traffic? • What is the optimal mix of transportation system investments so the system is both ecologically and financially sustainable? Funding Availability and Allocations. Current funding sources will be very inadequate to pay for all the County's future transportation improvement needs. Also, funding sources are increasingly dedicated to particular modes or purposes, which affects the types of projects that are possible to fund. Strategic issues to consider include: • Are RCTC's funding allocation policies still appropriate in light of system investment needs and emerging trends in state and federal funding? • Is the current split of funds between bus transit and rail transit appropriate for the future? • How can transit service be substantially expanded in the future and be financially sustainable? Farebox revenues cover only a portion of transit O&M costs, and funding sources for transit O&M are limited. • How should RCTC determine funding priorities, given the inevitable shortfall of revenues in relation to identified needs? • As new funding sources are considered and realized, what policies can be adopted to make sure the funds are directed to improvements that are truly important for meeting Riverside County's transportation needs? • Is there funding availability to meet the maintenance and operations needs of the Commission -owned commuter rail stations? Strategic Assessment 16 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 Regional Emergency/Evacuation Planning. There is no plan in place for dealing with a catastrophic event that would require large-scale evacuation or disable key components of the regional transportation system in Riverside County for extended periods of time. Key Findings and Strategic Considerations of Current Plans and Policies • Long-range planning for Riverside County transportation is addressed in a large number of plans developed by multiple agencies. Not all plans are coordinated among one another. • Measure A requires a ten-year update of the Expenditure Plan in 2019. • The Measure A Western County Highway Delivery Plan will shortly need to be updated to address the period 2019-2029. • The Riverside County transportation system has a total capital improvement need of $23 billion by 2040 • The Riverside County rail and transit system has an estimated annual transit O&M cost of $562 million (2015 dollars) in 2040. • To contribute to state greenhouse gas reduction goals, rail and transit service should be developed in concert with transit -oriented development and employment centers. • Active transportation funds must now be competitively pursued at the state level by local agencies. • Western Riverside County has fixed split percentages for allocating funds to bus and rail, and O&M cost needs in each sector will change over time as system needs continue to evolve. • Emerging technological innovations have the potential to substantially increase operating efficiencies of the transportation system, as well as provide users with better information about travel choices and conditions. ES.5. Funding Analysis Revenue sources at the federal, State, and local levels were identified and analyzed for their future funding potential, both for capital improvements and transit operations and maintenance (O&M). Estimates for each revenue source were developed based on a combination of factors, including 1) the assumed continuation of prior year funding amounts, 2) planning documents from the relevant programming agencies, 3) independent forecasts, and 4) consultations with RCTC staff. Revenue sources were assigned to one of three categories: • Category A — existing revenues reasonably expected to be available countywide in the future, including those from formula programs or ongoing levies/fee programs (example: TUMF) • Category B — existing unprogrammed revenues that Riverside County might realistically secure on a discretionary or competitive basis (example: cap and trade grants) • Category C — "strategy revenues" that are contingent upon the implementation of future federal or State legislation or project -specific funding mechanisms (example: mileage -based user fees, highway or express lane tolls) Funding for Capital Projects Figure ES.8 illustrates the availability of capital funding in relation to the projected $23 billion need. Existing programs (Category A) can cover 26% of the need, and plausible discretionary grant funds (Category B) can cover another 6%. This leaves a funding gap of almost $16 billion (two-thirds of the total need). Strategic Assessment 17 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 Figure ES.B: Funding Sources for Capital I mprovements 2016-2039 ■ Existing Programs ■ Discretionary Grants ■ Possible New Sources ❑ Funding Gap Revenue from potential new sources of funds (Category C) at the various levels of government has been estimated for the purpose of illustrating how much the funding gap could be filled by particular sources. Eight potential funding sources have been quantified, and their potential revenue is shown in Table ES.9. Of potential new revenues that could be adopted at the local level, an additional sales tax would generate the greatest amount of funding. A freeway mitigation fee or vehicle license fee each has the potential to generate one-third to one-half as much as a quarter -cent sales tax, and toll revenues on other highways (besides the 91 and 15) would generate about 50% less than those. Table ES.9: Estimate of Potential Revenue from New Sources (Category C) Estimated Revenue by 2040 (in 2015 $) Federal Gas Tax Increase $587,000,000 State Gas Tax Increase $847,000,000 Mileage -Based User Fee (State) $1,957,000,000 Measure A2 — 1/4 cent increase for 20 years $1,265,000,000 Vehicle License Fee increase $422,000,000 Freeway Mitigation Fee $585,000,000 Tolls on Additional Express Lanes $241,000,000 Private Railroad Funds $153,000,000 Total $6,058,000,000 FN Strategic Assessment 18 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 Funding for Operations and Maintenance Costs Figure ES.9 illustrates the available funding for rail and transit operations needs in the Year 2040. Available sources of revenue for future (new) services are limited to farebox revenue and three current funding programs that collectively can cover 30% of the total need, leaving an O&M funding gap of $238 million annually for the planned 2040 rail and transit system. No sources of substantial new O&M funding are currently under consideration at any level of government. Figure ES.9: Funding for Rail and Transit O&M in Year 2040 $16.9 Million 3% $238.2 Million 42% $3.3 Million 1% Funding for Transit O&M Needs $156.0 Million 28% $139.7 Million 25% $7.6 Million 1% ■ Existing Revenue ■ Future Farebox Revenues ■ CMAQ ■ LCTOP ■ State Operating Assistance for Intercity Rail ❑ Unfunded Need Key Findings and Strategic Considerations of Funding Analysis • The County's transportation capital needs total $23 billion over the next 25 years, and current revenue sources are estimated to be able to generate $6.1 billion. • There is potential to generate additional capital funding through competitive grant sources. The estimated potential additional revenue is about $1.3 billion, leaving an estimated funding gap of $15.9 billion. • The funding gap could realistically be closed substantially with potential new sources that have been talked about at the local, state, and federal levels, even if those sources were plausible. • Current sources of funding for O&M will be unable to fund the rail and transit services planned for the Year 2040, leaving an estimated annual gap of about $238 million, or 42% of the total O&M costs. No new significant sources of O&M funding are under consideration at any level. • Of potential new revenues that could be adopted at the local level, an additional sales tax would generate the greatest amount of funding. A freeway mitigation fee or vehicle license fee each has the potential to generate one-third to one-half as much as a quarter -cent sales tax, and toll revenues on other highways (besides the 91 and 15) would generate about 50% less than those. Strategic Assessment 19 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 ES.6. Public and Stakeholder Attitudes Public and stakeholder attitudes were gauged through two types of activities: (1) telephone polling of a random sample of 800 Riverside County voters conducted during August and October, 2015; and (2) a series of five community summits held in August/September 2015 plus a public workshop held in Blythe in October 2015. Polling of Registered Voters Based on the polling, the following are the key messages and perspectives of the voting public. Views of Government. Respondents in general do not have favorable opinions of government (see Figure ES.10). "No Opinion" numbers are high for RCTC, likely because many voters do not know who RCTC is or what it does. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 Figure ES.10: Views of Government Performance Local City Riverside County Riverside County California State Government Board of Supervisors Transportation Legislature Commision ■ No Opinion ■ Dissatisfied Satisfied Source: Aug and Oct 2015 JMM Poll Priority of issues. Reducing highway congestion is the transportation issue of highest priority, following the three top issues of reducing crime, creating jobs, and improving water supplies (see Figure ES.11). Roadway maintenance is also a high priority issue. Expanding rail and transit services are much lower priorities to voters. Strategic Assessment 20 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 Figure ES.11: Priority I ssues for Riverside County 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% I I • • i� • • • • • • • �u•,0J �5 °o \ � \\J05 �J5 5 0 •C y'°°'0i.�z e\� o . a of `�Q,o, owr°`'�\�\o4��`'eoQ te t'°\Qee�y as., c. .0 .0, .Ae �to ,a, • Vem``�•°am z � . IY t▪ •� Q. \o a� �° �� a� �e `ra Qe. �' o .<90 44 Q-e \ - `:1 \ \ fiQ \°Ga �°"e foie °» ▪ <i to §`� b\opt Q-o s\- k�oG � �° $k `5 Qa e% (,49 \�. to s• (o ■ No Opinion ■ Low ■ Medium High Source: Aug and Oct 20151MM Poll Strategic Assessment 21 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 Priority of Transportation Improvement Types. Fixing potholes and widening highways to reduce congestion are the highest transportation priorities for voters (see Figure ES.12). Expanding older interchanges and providing freeway tow truck service gets very high marks. Walking and bike routes to school are higher priority than bike lanes and bike paths in general. Improving rail and bus transit are medium priorities, and new highways are a relatively low priority. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure ES.12: Support for Transportation I mprovements °aa� r�a�h ra��e ��,\`e y °o\ �'yey ��a� • e�,\`a Qa�ry r44a6y C. a a .`` ,c`� ,`eye �y �o ,eta �� ��,� �� ,c`4o ts�a° yea t• `� ��� �e5 �° •�°� �O� 6 �� o 6 a 1 Q� +p ra Y a\�aaN) �9� <.e0\ ya6- ,°e •�aea�e�agas�o Q •` �a `S eft �` .���° , a <<+ ■ No Opinion ■ Low Medium ■ High Source: Aug and Oct 20151MM Poll Strategic Assessment 22 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 Support for New Revenue Sources. When asked about their support for different types of new revenue sources (see Figure ES.13), a majority of voters support building new FasTrak lanes, and almost half support increased fees on new development. Other fees and taxes get lower levels of support, ranging from 37% support for a quarter -cent sales tax down to 12% support for increasing the gas tax by five cents per gallon. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure ES.13: Support for Alternative Revenue Sources ■ No Opinion ■ Oppose Favor \aoee �e.� oe�� as`ee sNeey Oo• a� e\o2 aN,et Faye eye zs% • o \a e� ooe •fie rye ce osz oo s° a .e `pad 4` ee5 5 a+ .`ter aye N. ,\�`��`� �reya\e sae a+ \N• y\<S(ah • % 5`\ '`,ce `yea ear\ ctea c`�� \s S Source: Aug and Oct 20151MM Poll Summits and Workshops for Stakeholders and the General Public Stakeholders attending the Summits were a diverse group representing many interests within Riverside County, with a strong focus on environmental awareness, alternative transportation options, and governance/policy issues. Inputs received at each of the summits are summarized in Figure ES.14, and the following discussion highlights some of the main messages. Transportation needs. Accessibility to public transportation was identified repeatedly as a need, including safer sidewalks, ADA accessible curb ramps, and better connections between transit systems. First mile / last mile access and access for seniors were also identified as needs. Many participants were not aware of some transportation services currently being provided. Strategic Assessment 23 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 How to solve/address the needs. Participants frequently mentioned improvements to public transit, including extending hours of service; more routes and improved frequencies; access to information on availability and schedules; access to alternate modes; use of alternative fuels; and ensuring transit is affordable to all residents. Stakeholders also indicated that better communication, land use policies, and elected official involvement would address some of the needs. Participants emphasized the need to link transportation and land use policies, respect the needs of users in improving quality of life, ensure better connectivity between rural and urban areas, and maximize capacity through the use of existing infrastructure and information technology. The major challenges: Nearly every group discussion during the Summits concluded that funding (finding it, getting it, keeping it) was a significant challenge to transportation progress. Stakeholders also identified the length and complexity of the environmental process, changes to the political landscape, and government/development policies as potential challenges. Key Findings and Strategic Considerations of Public and Stakeholder Attitudes • A substantial portion of the public is unfamiliar with RCTC. • Transportation issues are important to the public, but currently not as important as crime, jobs, and water issues. • Top public priorities for transportation improvements include roadway maintenance and reducing highway congestion. Freeway Service Patrol also gets strong support. • Public support for new revenue sources is strongest for express toll lanes, and moderate for increased fees on new development. Additional fees and taxes are opposed by a majority of voters, with the greatest opposition to a gas tax increase. • Stakeholder groups and the public identify improved accessibility to public transit as an important need, including more hours of service, service to more areas, and better/easier connections. • Other stakeholder desires — better land use/transportation linkages, more consideration for user quality of life, better rural/urban connectivity, and use of emerging technologies to help address transportation needs. • Stakeholders consistently identified the lack of funding as the biggest challenge to achieving needed improvements. • Other key challenge to address — reducing the length and complexity of the environmental process. Strategic Assessment 24 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 i Riverside Jobs & Economy Create a direct link for goods movement between the 15 and 91. Increase frequency for public transit. Deal with congestion near schools through land use collaboration. Additionally, attract more local jobs by encouraging affordable housing near jabs thereby reducing travel times. Extend train service on weekends and weekdays. Innovation and Technology Communication makes transit attractive. Provide tech training for seniors, Disabled, Students and affinity groups such as bicyclists. This will enhance safety, encourage satellite offices, reduce trips, and help people working at home. More integrated planning; destroy silos with intergovernmental coordination around crass jurisdiction services. Build express bus service with signal pre-emption and special lanes. Access for All Better interconnection to key destinations such as jobs and hospitals with clearly defined destinations, wayfinding, and transfer stations. More hike racks on buses. dial -a -ride services to adjacent cities, and additional routes to areas not covered by RTA such as La Sierra and Orangecrest. Provide more comfort through amenities such as shade and seating for all. Environment More information about closures and detours. Improve 511 accuracy. Create incentives such as ride a bus day, ride your bike day, and pre-tax transit passes. Promote alternative fuels. Provide later Metrolink service between Riverside and San Bernardino, Promote existing services. Perris Jobs & Economy The community needs more job opportunities. Improve East-West corridor through Moreno Valley. Enhance training and apprentice programs for community college students and veterans. Seek more benefits from the warehouses that are everywhere with 60+ near March AFB alone. Consider how we keep people employed when transportation projects are done. Enhance cooperation between RCTC and SANBAG to enhance connections to jobs. Innovation and Technology Create new channels of communications to the public such as Amps. kiosks at every station, and one method of payment for all systems. Create events like Ciciavia and partner with communications companies for tickets from }come and notifications. Provide more charging stations for electric cars_ Access for All Challenge: Difficult to get assistance for seniors and the disabled. Need additional funding, longer hours. There is a lack of educational information about existing programs such as schedules, bicycle safety education, carpoollvanpool awareness, and adequate pedestrian facilities. Consider neighborhood support, neighbors driving seniors and the disabled. RCTC, be ambassadors to get the word out to the seniors. Environment Promote cross -county collaboration. Encourage incentives for logistics industry to stagger work hours and dedicated truck lanes/hours. Provide incentives to carpool. Change land use pattems and meet the AB32 and SB375 mandates. The solution is public/private partnerships working with non -profits, and incorporating visionary strategies from other states and countries. Winchester Jobs & Economy Widen existing corridors such as Scott Rd., Bundy Canyon, and SR74. Improve accessibility to MCP & SR79 so businesses can move here. Metrolink Figure ES.14: Summary of Summits and Workshop What We Heard Flow Decisions Are Made - Your Input Matters The Sweet Spot Einanciat 1. Maximize capacity through the use of existing infrastructure and information technology. `. 2. The County benefits When the nexus between transportation and land use planning Is met. 3. Recognize the need for better connectivity between rural {affordable} and urban centers. 4. Generate transportation policy by respecting the needs of the users and how it makes their lives better and more convenient. extensions to San Jacinto, Hemet, and Temecula. Concentrated communities, not urban sprawl. Challenges include funding, operations, environmental constraints, and maintenance. Innovation and Technology Need better planning and zoning changes with more mixed -use and more density. Improve connectivity between modes, with better scheduling and frequency, and a universal public transit pass. Use solar energy with charging opportunities. Incentivize alternative work schedules. Deal with distracted driving and reducing the need for single occupancy vehicles. Access for All Most important: Need more bike lanes, bus lines to Hemet with expanded service hours, and specialized transportation for students with special needs. Need wheel chair access. Look at comprehensive long range planning and better coordination with cities. Expand and complete trails system. Environment Provide more green technology for vehicles, charging stations, and bike renting services. Improve the trails with a network like CV Link, and provide more air-conditioned buses. Temecula Jobs & Economy Add additional access from Orange County to San Diego and to airports. Expand 1-15, 215, and SR74. Consider tall lanes. mainline improvements, and an east -west bypass. The goal is to attract hi -tech jobs to the area. Connect areas of interest, i.e., Old Town to the Mall. Innovation and Technology Education and outreach information critical. Uber changed the Taxi industry so use technology Apps for transit info. Change land use policies and provide incentives for developers to create a more viable biking and walking infrastructure. Access for All Safety. Class I! bike trails not always safe. We need creative ideas such as floating parking, dedicated streets, and raised bike Panes. Better transit for college. First and last mile connectivity. Environment Streamline CEOA and encourage telecommuting. Help change minds -sets and habits to increase use of transportation options and build walkable communities. Technical case to the gated communities so they care. Land use is a major challenge to change behavior. Targeted Focus Group • Alternatives to CV link Reprioritize funds to achieve improved roadway maintenance. Allocate funding by community to provide flexibility encouraging local alternatives to active transportation. Palm desert Blythe Jobs & Economy Need a transit center in east Coachella Valley with connections to the rural areas, Blythe, Imperial Valley, and Mexicali. CV Link and an active transportation network means youth and sustainability. Reprioritize funds to achieve improved roadway maintenance. Allocate funding by community to provide flexibility encouraging local alternatives to active transportation. East Coachella Valley has no transit planning and limited rural transit resources plus palitical opposition to moving projects forward in the Salton Sea area. Freight movement creates jobs. Innovation and Technology Provide access to WiFi on buses. Increase the alternative fuel vehicles, the Sunline fleet, and consider smaller, electric buses. Technology can help overcome negative perception of mass transit services. Take care of what you have before you spend money elsewhere. Access for All improve customer experience such as shaded bus shelters with benches, friendlier bus drivers, better planning because some parts of Coachella Valley have no sidewalks or bike trails_ Provide better city lighting in eastern Coachella Valley. Rural areas are underserved and heavily reliant on cars with some people not owning them. Need affordable taxis for seniors to access medical facilities. Environment Funding is the main challenge. Currently, there are no incentives for residents to care or get involved in the political change process. Make the Jobs & Economy Not enough attention from RCTC. Bring the money for improvements out here. Connectivity is what will improve the quality of life in the Valley. Extended standard bus hours, a way to get to work on solar project without a car, the SunLine to Coachella and options to Palo Verde College after 7:00 pm. Innovation and Technology Develop Apps for local transit schedules and create a flexible schedule to adjust for rider demand like Super Shuftle. A clearinghouse to connect all resources together with one number for dispatch. Safety and education improvements needed. Access for Atl Approximately 20% of the local population is transit dependent. There is no taxi service, Uber, or local charter bus company to Phoenix. In the next 5-10 years huge growth in senior population. Better access to health care in Riverside. Loma Linda, Moreno Valley is critical. Volunteer reimbursement progra m and Technology can help facilitate Dr. Brooks volunteer program but recognize this is a temporary solution. There needs to be more planning here. Environment The recent bridge washout. Maintain and strengthen our infrastructure, Build a linear trail along the Colorado River. Provide bus shelters to protect against intense heat. Strategic Assessment 25 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 ES.7. Partner Agency Coordination Interviews and meetings with partner agencies provided insights and information as to their views and priorities. A City Manager Roundtable was held on September 10 with the League of California Cities - Riverside Division Executive Committee, a Regional Agency CEO Meeting was held on September 30, and WRCOG/CVAG CEOs held a conversation with RCTC Executive Staff on October 8. Additionally, City Managers from the cities and the County of Riverside CEO's office were surveyed in order to identify priorities for their jurisdiction as well as for the region as a whole. Finally, the long-range transportation plans of adjacent counties were reviewed to determine the consistency of plans for inter -county corridors connecting to Riverside County. Partner agencies' perceptions of Riverside County needs. City Managers see the TUMF program in western county as needing improvement. They also see a need for a cohesive voice from the region to state and regional (SCAG) government as well as a comprehensive countywide transportation plan. The top needs they identified for the county's transportation system include improving highway interchanges, fixing potholes and resurfacing roads, widening congested arterials, and expanding rail service to new areas of the county (see Figure ES.15). Partner agency priorities. Based on the local agency survey, the individual jurisdictions' high priority categories included fixing potholes and resurfacing roads as the highest priority, followed by expanding older interchanges on major highways and improving walk and bike routes to schools (see Figure ES.16). Specific to transit operators, RTA needs to grow their service and construct a new central facility, while SunLine, needs to implement basic infrastructure improvements in addition to service expansion. (For example, making a bus stop ADA-compliant does not make sense if there are no sidewalks connecting to the bus stop.) How partners think RCTC can help. RCTC could potentially coordinate/lead a countywide transportation plan that rolls up into the RTP/SCS. RCTC could also lead a coordinated strategy that could protect local transportation dollars and help local cities present a cohesive approach to state and federal funding opportunities. Cities could use RCTC's help in legislative advocacy, and in helping elected officials understand the existing programs, why they are important, how they are funded, and how infrastructure is a component of economic development. Additionally, RCTC could provide strategic support of City capital improvement programs by helping cities understand funding options for projects, building a strategy, and prioritizing projects. Partners also indicated that RCTC could provide best practices and case studies for how to get projects done, illustrate creative solutions that have been used by others, and provide specific technical staff resources on modeling, air quality, etc. to help project funding applications. A "toolbox of capability" at no/low charge to COG/cities could help create a consistent approach out of Riverside County on all project applications for funding (on modeling, congestion, issues, etc.). Agencies see an opportunity to partner with County and Regional Parks and feel that RCTC could lead this effort. Future needs in inter -county corridors. For the most part, adjacent county's corridor plans are consistent with the plans in Riverside County. One key area of difference is the 1-15 corridor between Riverside County and San Diego County. The long-range plan in San Diego County is to add two toll lanes each direction to the current eight general purpose lanes, and in Riverside County the improvement identified in Measure A is to add one general purpose lane in each direction. In the corridor connecting Riverside County to Orange County, the ongoing 91 project in Riverside County will bring the corridor to a consistent cross-section (two toll lanes plus five general purpose lanes) on both sides of the county line. In the long-term future, additional capacity may be needed in this corridor. Strategic Assessment 26 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 Figure ES.15: Regional Transportation I mprovement Priorities for Local Jurisdictions 18 16 14 12 10 8 0 a`�h C0 �a-' ceh a�' �a�' �h oath aJo is&' �0 • ce �0 °�� d� �e ,e `0�3 le 4 • qT \\\ ��,c� � �� °� �a\� �q �tav� �ti` 03yy 0�� ya Vo ei` �`� a` Q�ol •s- `ee� -roe .-' e\�q +.- a�°� ,fro` �e v- .ate tar y �� ..y \� \CI .<< , e4o Oy`y` Ec�� C°4 vk �a�c� °cam 9rRP •d`� q pJ,- a�4�t a� e\ QP °ty t°k� bp�ro ko� `�� 6 h � o 3,a\. Qro`,q, ea,y ,� ��be r3a , g� e`er, Q°`r°�e .k. °c .0) e `.. ro d¢4* \�Q. � �ce�e e�ahF ro��s� A fie; ,pj „tR ter$ c,,. coo Qo* �, r Pyeah °ch `Q� e��v 46C Q' e tit` �' t 0 4} Je�ck .4, $ra ac4a 0-- p ac ei P A 40, act .s& "" .ro e' Q40- Strategic Assessment 27 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 Figure ES.16: Local Transportation I mprovement Priorities for Local Jurisdictions FN Strategic Assessment Draft Executive Summary 28 January 20, 2016 Key Findings and Strategic Considerations of Partner Agency Coordination • Roadway maintenance and improving older highway interchanges are the top transportation improvement needs as seen by RCTC's local (city and county) partner agencies. • The local partner agencies desire RCTC to provided leadership and resources to enable a more effective coordinated approach to legislative advocacy and pursuit of funding from the state and federal governments. FN Strategic Assessment 29 Draft Executive Summary January 20, 2016 F)1 2280 Market Street, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 951.320.7300 hdrinc.com C) 2016 HDR, all rights reserved. F)1 Task 2: Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Strategic Assessment Riverside County Transportation Commission July 31, 2015 Revised October 30, 2015 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions I-N Page intentionally blank. RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Demographic and Land Use Inventory 4 2.1 Population and Households 4 2.2 Employment 7 2.3 Land Use 11 3.0 Transportation System Inventory 17 3.1 Highways and Roadways 17 3.2 Transit 26 3.3 Active Transportation (AT) 47 3.4 Aviation 58 3.5 Freight Rail 59 4.0 Transportation Travel Demand and Markets 64 4.1 Jobs -Housing Balance 64 4.2 Highway and Roadway Travel Demand 65 4.3 Travel Markets 72 4.3 Transit Ridership 74 5.0 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies 78 5.1 Levels of Service and Congested Locations 78 5.2 Travel Speeds 81 5.3 Greenhouse Gas 86 5.4 Accidents and Safety 87 5.5 Transit Needs 89 5.6 Interregional Transportation System Needs 91 October 2015 i RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions List of Tables Table 2.1: 2012-2040 Population by Riverside County Planning Area 4 Table 2.2: 2012-2040 Population by City in Riverside County and Planning Area 5 Table 2.3: 2012-2040 Households by Riverside County Planning Area 7 Table 2.4: 2012-2040 Population by SCAG County 7 Table 2.5: 2012-2040 Households by SCAG County 8 Table 2.6: 2012-2040 Employment by Planning Area 8 Table 2.7: 2012-2040 Employment by City in Riverside County and Planning Area 10 Table 2.8: 2012-2040 Employment by SCAG County 11 Table 2.9: Existing Land Use Categories in Riverside County and SCAG Region 13 Table 3.1: Existing and Future Highways and Roadways Lane Miles in Riverside County 17 Table 3.2: Riverside County Public Transportation System Performance (2011-2014) 31 Table 3.3: Average Weekday Ridership by Line 32 Table 3.4: Metrolink Average Weekday Boardings by Station 32 Table 3.5: Parking Utilization Rate at Each Metrolink Station 33 Table 3.6: Metrolink Annual Ridership Characteristics by Route 35 Table 3.7: Riverside Transit Agency Fixed Route Service Characteristics 37 Table 3.8: City of Corona Transit Fixed Route Service Characteristics 39 Table 3.9: PASS Transit — City of Banning Fixed Route Service Characteristics 40 Table 3.10: PASS Transit — City of Beaumont Fixed Route Service Characteristics 40 Table 3.11: SunLine Fixed Route Service Characteristics 42 Table 3.12: Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency Deviated Fixed Route Service Characteristics 44 Table 3.13: Riverside County Existing Bikeway Miles by Class 47 Table 3.14: Train Volumes 61 Table 3.15: Vehicle Delay and Gate Down Time 62 Table 3.16: List of Crossings with the Highest Priority for Improvements 63 Table 4.1: 2012-2040 Employment to Household Ratio (Jobs -Housing Balance) by Planning Area 65 Table 4.2: 2012-2040 Jobs -Housing Balance Rates by SCAG County 65 Table 4.3: Existing and Future Major Roadway VMT by Planning Area 66 Table 4.4: Existing and Future VMT per Capita by Planning Area 66 Table 4.5: Existing and Future Major Roadway VHT by Planning Area 66 Table 4.6: Trips per Capita Recent History for Riverside County 75 October 2015 ii RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions imn Table 4.7: Riverside County Future Transit Trips and Transit Trip Per Capita Projections 75 Table 4.8: Current Transit Trips Per Capita for Southern California Counties 77 Table 5.1: Existing and Future Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons) in Riverside County 86 List of Figures Figure 2.1: 2012-2040 Population by City in Riverside County and Planning Area 6 Figure 2.2: 2012-2040 Employment by City in Riverside County and Planning Area 11 Figure 2.3: Existing Land Use Designations in Western Riverside Region 14 Figure 2.4: Existing Land Use Designations in Coachella Valley 15 Figure 2.5: Existing Land Use Designations in Palo Verde Valley 16 Figure 3.1: Existing Major Roadways in Riverside County 19 Figure 3.2: Future New Major Roadways Projected in Riverside County 20 Figure 3.3: Existing Roadway Facilities in Western Riverside County 21 Figure 3.4: Existing Roadway Facilities in Coachella Valley 22 Figure 3.5: Existing Roadway Facilities in Palo Verde Valley 23 Figure 3.6: Existing and Future Expected Truck Routes in Riverside County 25 Figure 3.7: Fixed -Route Bus Transit Service Areas in Riverside County 28 Figure 3.8: Existing Passenger Rail Routes in Riverside County 29 Figure 3.9: Planned California High Speed Rail Route in Western Riverside County 30 Figure 3.10: Fixed -Route Bus Transit Service Areas in Western Riverside County 36 Figure 3.11: Fixed -Route Bus Transit Service Area in Coachella Valley 41 Figure 3.12: Fixed -Route Bus Transit Service Area in Palo Verde Valley 43 Figure 3.13: Existing Class I Bike Path and Trail Facilities in Riverside County 49 Figure 3.14: Existing Class I Bike Path and Trail Facilities in Western Riverside County 50 Figure 3.15: Existing Class I Bike Path and Trail Facilities in Coachella Valley 51 Figure 3.16: Existing Class I Bike Path and Trail Facilities in Palo Verde Valley 52 Figure 3.17: Existing Golf Cart Facilities in Coachella Valley 53 Figure 3.18: Existing Bike Paths by Class and Amenities in Riverside County 54 Figure 3.19: Existing Bike Paths by Class and Amenities in Western Riverside County 55 Figure 3.20: Existing Bike Paths by Class and Amenities in Coachella Valley 56 October 2015 iii RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 3.21: Existing Bike Paths by Class and Amenities in Palo Verde Valley 57 Figure 3.22: Existing Municipal and General Aviation Airports in Riverside County 58 Figure 3.23: Existing Freight Rail Network in Riverside County 59 Figure 3.24: Location and Status of Rail Crossings in Riverside County 60 Figure 4.1: Existing Traffic Volumes on Major Roadways in Riverside County 67 Figure 4.2: Future Traffic Volumes on Major Roadways in Riverside County 68 Figure 4.3: Existing Truck Volumes in Riverside County 70 Figure 4.4: Future Expected Truck Volumes in Riverside County 71 Figure 4.5: Existing and Future Travel Markets in and to/from Riverside County 72 Figure 4.6: Existing and Future Travel Markets in and to/from Western Riverside County 73 Figure 4.7: Existing and Future Travel Markets Within and to/from Coachella Valley 73 Figure 4.8: Existing and Future Travel Markets Within and to/from Palo Verde Valley 73 Figure 4.9: Existing Holiday, Weekend, and Seasonal Traffic Patterns in Riverside County 74 Figure 5.1: Existing (Daily) Congested Locations on Riverside County's Major Roadway Facilities 79 Figure 5.2: Future (Daily) Congested Locations on Riverside County's Major Roadway Facilities 80 Figure 5.3: Existing Morning Travel Speeds on the County's Major Roadway Facilities 82 Figure 5.4: Future Morning Travel Speeds on the County's Major Roadway Facilities 83 Figure 5.5: Existing Afternoon Travel Speeds on the County's Major Roadway Facilities 84 Figure 5.6: Future Afternoon Travel Speeds on the County's Major Roadway Facilities 85 Figure 5.7: Riverside County Existing Transportation Network Collision Rates per Million VMT 88 Figure 5.8: Riverside County Existing Transportation Network Collision Density Rates per Million VMT 89 October 2015 iv RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions I-N Page intentionally blank. October 2015 v RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions 1.0 Introduction In support of the Riverside County Strategic Assessment, this Report presents an inventory of the existing and future transportation conditions and summary of future transportation needs in Riverside County. Inventories and needs were defined through a detailed review and analysis process of available state, regional and local agency data and reports. Inventories are presented for Riverside County, and if supported by the data, are also presented for each of the County's three planning areas: Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley. The Report is organized as follows: • Section 2.0 presents a summary of existing and future population, household, employment, and land use in the County; • Section 3.0 presents a summary of the existing and expected future transportation system inventory, for all systems and models of travel, in Riverside County; • Section 4.0 presents the transportation system markets for travelers within, as well as into and out of the County; and • Section 5.0 presents the expected future transportation system needs across all systems and models in the County. In many cases, the available data and reports reviewed and used in this analysis considered sources with different existing and future horizon years. In other cases, interim data from on- going studies, such as the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) Update, were also used. As a result, the existing conditions information generally represents 2012 to 2014 conditions. For example, the population and employment interim data from the SCAG 2016- 2040 RTP/SCS represents 2012 and 2040 conditions. The information presented in this Report will be used as the foundation for subsequent technical analysis in later tasks. For example, in combination with the Baseline Policy and Planning Inventory conducted in Task 3 of this assessment, the Task 2 inventory and needs will be used to develop the costs and timing associated with a long-term list of transportation needs for the County. A brief summary of key findings and conclusions from this analysis, also presented in more detail below in Section 5.0, include: • Future Expected Roadway System Level of Service/Congestion. Congested locations for both the existing and future major roadway facilities in Riverside County were identified as over capacity / congested locations. Over capacity segments considered volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratios greater than 1.0, indicating a level of service (LOS) of F. Segments of 1-215, 1-15, 1-10, SR-60, and SR-91 are projected to operate over capacity in the future, predominantly in Western Riverside County. The congested roadways for 2040 conditions account for future improvement projects that are planned, programmed, and funded as part of the SCAG RTP, Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and other documents. October 2015 1 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions • Future Expected Roadway System Travel Speeds. Reduced network travel speeds also are an indicator of congestion and bottlenecks. While planned and programmed roadway improvements are projected to provide a substantial benefit to travel speeds on portions of the system (e.g., Mid County Parkway and SR-79 realignment), rural highways including SR-177, SR-243, and US-95 are anticipated to have a noticeable decrease of travel speeds by 2040. 1-10, a key east to west freeway through Riverside County, is anticipated to experience travel speed degradation by 2040 in Western Riverside County and the Coachella Valley. • Greenhouse Gas. Congestion levels combined with vehicle -miles of travel (VMT) and vehicle -hours of travel (VHT) affect the level of GHG emissions in Riverside County. About one vehicle mile of travel is equal to one pound of carbon dioxide emissions. Therefore, VMT and GHG increase proportionally. Western Riverside County represents the largest concentration of both existing and future highway and roadway usage and resulting GHG, almost three times more than the expected combined GHG emissions from the Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley planning areas. The overall GHG emission growth is expected to be about 75°/o from existing to future conditions, with each planning area expected to increase by 70% to 91 %. • Safety and Accidents. Collision rates per million vehicle miles of travel and collision densities per million vehicle miles of travel were calculated to identify the locations and severity of accidents on the Riverside County transportation system. Collision rates were determined for existing conditions, and while it is not possible to predict future accident rates, a reasonable assumption is that accident rates can be expected to increase over time as VMT increases if strategic actions are not implemented to mitigate high accident locations. Freeway facilities with higher collision rates include parts of SR- 91, SR-60, 1-10, 1-15, and 1-215 in Western Riverside County. Arterials with higher collision rates include parts of SR-74, SR-79, and SR-243 in Western Riverside County and SR-111 and SR-86 in the Coachella Valley. • Transit Needs. As population in the region continues to grow, agencies must ensure that the provision of transit service meets the expected future demand. Increases in households and employment offer opportunities to improve the job -housing balance within the county, which can create an environment in which public transit can play a more important mobility role. Current surveys suggest that many transit agencies in the County provide service to school -age children and young adults, and seniors. Additional capital and maintenance funding may also be needed for fleet acquisition and maintenance, as federal and state agencies increasingly require public transit agencies to purchase and operate low -emission to zero emission vehicles. In addition, with the recent regional emphasis on active transportation, public transit agencies cannot afford to miss opportunities to improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and from transit stations and bus stops. October 2015 2 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions • Freight and Interregional Transportation Needs. In early 2015, Caltrans prepared the draft Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan (ITSP), a planning process used to identify and prioritize 11 corridors for interregional transportation improvements across the state. Each corridor includes a mix of multimodal and integrated strategies designed to improve freight and recreational travel in each of these key corridors. The Southern California — Southern Nevada/Arizona corridor (one of the 11 ITSP corridors in California) considers highway, passenger rail, and freight rail interregional components in Riverside County. The key interregional systems in this corridor affecting Riverside County include freight corridors (I-15, 1-10, and the BNSF Railway Transcon and UPRR Sunset mainline corridors); passenger rail corridors (Amtrak bus connections between the Coachella Valley and the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner in Fullerton, the proposed Coachella Valley Rail Corridor, and the Metrolink Perris Valley Line); various private bus operators (e.g., Greyhound) using 1-10 and 1-15; and various active transportation and local/regional commuter systems. In addition, the increasing volume of freight train traffic on Riverside County rail lines has created a need to mitigate the impacts where these rail lines cross streets at -grade. October 2015 3 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions 2.0 Demographic and Land Use Inventory This section presents a summary of the socio-economic analysis for the RCTC Strategic Assessment. The primary source of data used for this assessment was from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) small area socioeconomic data (SED) preliminary results developed for the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The land use data presented later in this section were also obtained from SCAG. The following sections are presented below: • Population and Households; • Employment; and • Land Use. 2.1 Population and Households Riverside County is expected to be one of the fastest growing counties in Southern California as shown in Table 2.1, below. In 2012, the County had more than 2.2 million residents, which is expected to grow by 41 percent (or 1.24 percent per year) to reach nearly 3.2 million people by 2040. In comparison, the entire six -county SCAG region is only anticipated to grow by 21 percent from 18.3 million to just over 22.1 million people in the same time period. Table 2.1: 2012-2040 Population by Riverside County Planning Area Riverside County 2012 Planning Area Population 2012 °/ 040 Absolute of % of Difference Difference County 2040 County (2012- (2012 Total Population Total 2040) 2040) nnual rowth Rate Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Western Riverside Co. (WRCOG Region) Total Riverside Co. 431,206 25,783 1,787,928 19% 1% 80% 697,744 43,473 2,430,010 22% 1% 77% 266,538 17,690 642,310 62% 69% 36% 1.73% 1.88% 1.10% 2,444,9/7 100% 3,171, 227 100% 926,310 41% 1.24% Total SCAG Region 18,322,197 12% 22,123,389 14% 3,801,192 21% 0.68% Source: SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, Preliminary Results, 2015. Most of this growth is forecast to occur in the WRCOG region west of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountain Ranges, including projections of an additional 926,000 people over the 28 year (2012 to 2040) period. Population in this region is expected to exceed 2.4 million by 2040 (a 36 percent change or 1.1 percent per year). The Coachella and Palo Verde Planning regions are expected to grow by 62 and 69 percent respectively, with the Coachella Valley projected to add more than 266,000 residents by 2040. The annual rate of population growth by planning area varies, ranging from a high of 1.88% annually in the Palo Verde Valley to 1.10% annually in the Western Riverside County area. Table 2.2 shows the population growth from 2012 to 2040 expected by city and unincorporated areas in Riverside County, with Figure 2.1 showing the same information. In 2012, the five largest cities in the County were located in the WRCOG planning area, including: • City of Riverside is the largest city in the County with just over 308,000 residents; October 2015 4 RCTC 1 Strategic Assessment - Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions • City of Moreno Valley is the second largest with around 195,000 people; • City of Corona has nearly 154,000 residents; • City of Murrieta has 104,000 people; and • Temecula has 99,000 people. Table 2.2: 2012-2040 Population b Riverside County Planning Area/City Coachella Valley Cit in Riverside Count 2012 2040 Population Population 431, 206 697,744 and Plannin • Area Difference % Difference (2012-2040) (2012-2040) 266,538 62% Cathedral City 52,127 67,742 15,614 30% Coachella 41,367 132,189 90,822 220% Desert Hot Springs 26,358 50,286 23,928 91 % Indian Wells 5,508 7,732 2,224 40% Indio 77,980 122,167 44,187 57% La Quinta 36,230 45,406 9,175 25% Palm Desert 48,771 62,785 14,014 29% Palm Springs 45,896 57,567 11,672 25% Rancho Mirage 18,189 25,714 7,525 41% Unincorporated County 78,779 126,156 47,377 60% Palo Verde Valley 25,783 43,473 17,690 69% Blythe 10,547 13,060 2,513 24% Unincorporated County 15,236 30,413 15,177 100% Western Riverside Region (WRCOG Region) 1,787,928 2,430,010 642,310 36% Banning 29,138 34,314 5,176 18% Beaumont 37,422 76,237 38,815 104% Calimesa 8,794 25,811 17,017 194% Canyon Lake 10,454 12,133 1,678 16% Corona 153,691 170,083 16,391 11 % Eastvale 57,586 66,718 9,133 16% Hemet 80,372 124,872 44,501 55% Jurupa Valley 97,384 114,788 17,405 18% Lake Elsinore 54,396 105,872 51,476 95% Menifee 80,690 119,620 38,931 48% Moreno Valley 194,754 258,619 63,864 33% Murrieta 104,321 128,472 24,150 23% Norco 26,972 32,039 5,067 19% Perris 71,347 117,291 45,944 64% Riverside 308,198 383,964 75,766 25% San Jacinto 44,611 78,691 34,081 76% Temecula 99,133 130,208 31,075 31 % Wildomar 32,436 54,727 22,290 69% Unincorporated County 296,228 395,550 99,322 34% Total Riverside County 2,444,917 3,171,227 926,310 41% Total SCAG Region 18,322,197 22,123,389 3,801,192 21 % Source: SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, Preliminary Results, 2015. October 2015 5 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Combined, these five cities make up around 38% of the County's total population in 2012. Unincorporated areas of the WRCOG region have a total population that exceeds 296,000, but this population is dispersed throughout the planning area. The City of Indio, in the Coachella Valley Planning Area, is the largest incorporated city outside of the WRCOG area with just under 78,000 residents, with Cathedral City being the only other city in the Coachella Valley with a population exceeding 50,000 residents. Five cities, including Riverside, Moreno Valley and Lake Elsinore in WRCOG and Coachella and Perris in Coachella Valley, and the unincorporated areas of both the WRCOG and Coachella Valley Planning Areas will account for over half of all County population growth by 2040 (approximately 484,000 of the anticipated 926,000 population growth in the County). The City of Coachella is expected to add nearly 91,000 residents over this period, more than tripling its current population, and becoming the fifth largest city in the County by 2040. The City of Riverside will grow by 25 percent to reach nearly 384,000 residents, and Moreno Valley will grow by 33 percent to exceed 258,000 residents. The Cities of Lake Elsinore and Perris will each add 51,000 and 46,000 people, respectively. Unincorporated areas in the WRCOG and Coachella Valley planning areas combined will add nearly 147,000 residents by 2040, with more than 99,000 of those dispersed throughout the WRCOG region. The number of households is also growing, but at a slower pace than population, resulting in declining household size. In 2012, the average household size in the County was 3.23, but this is expected to decline (-7%) to 3.01 people per household. This is a faster rate of decline than for the SCAG region, which is expected to decline by four percent to 2.98 from 3.11 in 2012. Figur 500,000 450,000 _ ■ Population 2012 - ■ Population 2040 400,000 350,000 - 300,000 0 a 3 - o' 250,000 a To 0 ~ 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 = 1 liA l r r Iiligli u u 0 _ Coachella cf _ Valley E d E d c d D Palo Verde Valley J D m m Western ., Riverside J Council of 2 Governments (WRCOG) '^ F 3 Source. SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, prelim. results, 2015. October 2015 6 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Table 2.3 shows the 2012, 2040, and anticipated growth in the number of households in Riverside County and Planning Area. As supported by the population discussion above, the number of households is growing at similar rates in the County as well as Planning Area. While the percentages of households in 2012 and 2040 in each Planning Area differ slightly from population, the growth rates are very similar. Annual growth in households is expected to grow at higher rates than population in Palo Verde Valley (3.15% for households and 1.88% for population), while the overall growth in Riverside County households in 2040 is expected to grow at slightly higher rates than population (51 % for households compared to 41 % for population). fable 2.3: 2012-2040 Households by Riverside County Planning Area 2012 °/ 2040 Absolute % of % of Difference Difference nnual Riverside County 201 ount 2040 County (2012- (2012- rowth Planning Area Households Total Households Total 2040) 2040) Rate Coachella Valley 157,237 23% 259,020 25% 101,783 65% 1.80% Palo Verde Valley 6,464 1 % 15,421 1 % 8,957 139% 3.15% Western Riverside Co. (WRCOG 530,770 76% 777,555 74% 246,785 46% 1.37% Region) Total Riverside Co. 694,471 100% 1,051,996 100% 357,525 51 % 1.49% Total SCAG Region 5,885,023 12% 7,413,445 14% 1,528,422 26% 0.83% Source: SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, prelim. results, 2015. County comparisons of population and households in the Southern California Association of Governments region are presented in Tables 2.4 and 2.5 respectively. Riverside County is anticipated to account for nearly one quarter (25%) of all regional population growth, following Los Angeles County as the second highest growing County. Riverside County's population is anticipated to experience more growth by 2040 than Imperial, Orange, and Ventura Counties combined. By 2040, Riverside County will be close to the overall population of Orange County. In terms of households, Riverside County is anticipated to account for just fewer than 10% of all anticipated regional growth, only following Los Angeles County with 18% growth. As with population growth, Riverside County's growth in households to 2040 will experience more than Imperial, Orange, and Ventura Counties combined. By 2040, Riverside County will have more households than San Bernardino County. fable 2.4: 2012-2040 Population by SCAG County 2040 % of 2040 SCA • ulation Tot Absolute Difference (2012- 0/0 Difference (2012- 2040) 57% Annual Growth Rate 1.6% County 2012 % 2012 of SCAB Po • ulati • • Imperial 179,595 1% 282,373 1% 102,778 Los Angeles 9,922,731 54% 11,517,461 52% 1,594,730 16% 0.5% Orange 3,071,544 17% 3,464,493 16% 392,949 13% 0.4% Riverside 2,244,917 12% 3,171,227 14% 926,310 41% 1.2% San Bernardino 2,067,978 11 % 2,725,029 12% 657,051 32% 1.0% Ventura 835,432 5% 962,806 4% 127,374 15% 0.5% Total SCAG Region 18,322,197 100% 22,123,389 14% 3,801,192 21% 0.68% Source: SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, prelim. results, 2015. October 2015 7 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Fable 2.5: 2012-2040 Households by SCAG County ' 012 % • County 2012 - CAG Population - 2040 • pulation 2040 % of SCAG Total 1 % Absolute Difference (2012- 2040) 43,151 % Difference (2012- 2040) 87% Annual Growth Rate 2.3% Imperial 49,427 1 % 92,578 Los Angeles 3,257,096 55% 3,948,771 53% 691,675 21% 0.7% Orange 999,361 17% 1,153,713 16% 154,352 15% 0.5% Riverside 694,471 12% 1,051,996 14% 357,525 51% 1.5% San Bernardino 615,375 10% 854,925 12% 239,550 39% 1.2% Ventura 269,293 5% 311,462 4% 42,169 16% 0.5% Total SCAG Region 5,885,023 100% 7,413,445 100% 1,528,422 26% 0.8% Source: SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, prelim. results, 2015. -� n Employment As with population, Riverside County is one of the fastest growing counties in the SCAG region, followed only by Los Angeles County in the anticipated number of jobs to be added between 2012 and 2040 (Table 2.6). Riverside County is expected to grow from nearly 617,000 jobs to more than 1.15 million by 2040, an 87 percent increase (2.3 percent annually). The entire SCAG region is anticipated to grow by 32 percent from 7.4 million to just over 9.8 million jobs. The growth in Riverside County represents 22 percent of all regional growth in employment. I axle z.n: zuiZ-Zu4u tmployment oy Pianning Area 2012 % 2040 Absolute 0,0 Riverside County 1 20129of County �� % of Difference Difference nnual 2040 �1County (2012- (2012- rowth Planning Area HousehoTotal Households otal 2040) 2040) Rate Coachella Valley 148,174 24% 294,174 25% 146,000 99% 2.48% Palo Verde Valley 5,080 1 % 10,763 1 % 5,683 112% 2.72% Western Riverside Region (WRCOG 463,433 75% 848,829 74% 385,396 83% 2.18% Region) Total Riverside Co. 616,687 100% 1,153,766 100% 537,079 87% 2.26% Total SCAG Region 7,428,836 8% 9,838,616 12% 2,409,780 32% 1.01% Source: SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, prelim. results, 2015. The annual rate of employment growth by Planning Area varies, ranging from a high of 2.72% annually in the Palo Verde Valley to 2.18% annually in the Western Riverside Region. This growth represents higher expected employment growth for each sub -region and Riverside County compared to population, ranging in some cases over 1 % point annually in Western Riverside County (2.18% annual employment growth versus 1.10% annual population growth). Employment growth for the Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley are also expected to be higher than population growth over the same period. Overall growth in employment is significant, compared to population growth in the County over the same period (87% in employment versus 41 % in population). Most of Riverside County's growth is expected to occur in the WRCOG region, which is projected to add around 385,000 jobs over the planning period to close to 849,000 (an 87 percent change from 2012 to 2040, or 2.2 percent per year). The Coachella and Palo Verde October 2015 8 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions I-N Planning regions are expected to double in employment in this same period with the Coachella Valley adding 146,000 jobs. Table 2.7 and Figure 2.2 present employment growth by city and unincorporated county areas in Riverside County. In 2012, more than 75 percent of all employment was located in the WRCOG planning area, with the City of Riverside being the largest job center in the county, with more than 119,000 jobs (just under 20 percent of all county employment). The City of Corona had just over 63,300 jobs, and unincorporated areas of the county have more than 59,000 jobs dispersed through the WRCOG area. The City of Temecula has more than 41,000 jobs. In the Coachella Valley Planning Area, the Cities of Palm Springs and Palm Desert have the highest levels of employment with nearly 34,000 and more than 27,000 jobs, respectively. The entire Palo Verde Valley area has about 5,000 existing jobs. All cities are expected to grow in employment by 2040, but the City of Riverside will add more than 80,500 jobs, representing nearly 15 percent of all new employment in the Riverside County. Unincorporated areas of the WRCOG region will add an additional 70,300 jobs by 2040, which will be dispersed throughout the area. In the Coachella Valley planning area, the City of Coachella is forecasted to quadruple in the number of jobs by adding more than 24,400 jobs, with an additional 30,600 jobs added to various unincorporated regions of the planning area. October 2015 9 RCTC 1 Strategic Assessment - Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Table 2.7: 2012-2040 Em • to ment b Cit in Riverside Count and Plannin • Area Riverside County Planning Area/City Coachella Valley 2012 Employment 148,174 2040 Employment 294,174 Difference (2012-2040) 146,000 % Difference (2012-2040) 99% Cathedral City 10,265 19,941 9,677 94% Coachella 8,220 32,630 24,410 297% Desert Hot Springs 3,162 9,300 6,138 194% Indian Wells 5,593 9,190 3,597 64% Indio 17,853 37,042 19,189 107% La Quinta 11,833 19,870 8,038 68% Palm Desert 33,985 49,367 15,382 45% Palm Springs 27,109 47,240 20,131 74% Rancho Mirage 12,186 21,039 8,853 73% Unincorporated County 17,969 48,555 30,586 170% Palo Verde Valley 5,080 10,763 5,683 112% Blythe 2,295 3,882 1,587 69% Unincorporated County 2,785 6,881 4,096 147% Western Riverside Region (WRCOG Region) 463,433 848,829 385,396 83% Banning 8,405 15,339 6,934 83% Beaumont 5,788 17,401 11,614 201 % Calimesa 1,337 5,796 4,460 334% Canyon Lake 773 1,828 1,055 136% Corona 63,309 83,193 19,884 31% Eastvale 4,493 9,965 5,472 122% Hemet 20,947 45,394 24,447 117% Jurupa Valley 24,426 32,701 8,274 34% Lake Elsinore 11,895 30,231 18,336 154% Menifee 10,144 24,126 13,982 138% Moreno Valley 30,274 60,226 29,952 99% Murrieta 23,319 45,180 21,862 94% Norco 12,749 24,788 12,039 94% Perris 15,057 31,435 16,378 109% Riverside 119,106 199,649 80,543 68% San Jacinto 6,059 17,861 11,802 195% Temecula 41,364 60,965 19,602 47% Wildomar 4,849 13,318 8,469 175% Unincorporated County 59,141 129,433 70,293 119% Total Riverside County 616,687 1,153,766 537,079 87% Total SCAG Region 7,428,836 9,838,616 2,409,780 32% Source: SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, prelim. results, 2015. October 2015 10 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 2.2: 2012-2040 Employment by City in Riverside County and Planning Area 225,000 200,000 — 175,000 150,000 0 125,000 0 v 100,000 z 75,000 50,000 25,000 Cathedral City 11 v u u° .111I III ...�1I1I_,_. � c o 1 " � d o N E CO O cl o o c £ = �v�m Y C � c 5-c c E u u m � J u w V C m D D V Y1 w ■ 2012 ■ 2040 E T v W v oW w T v v `O o - a xv > = c > z w `w G 2 O 2 K 2 2 o Coachella Valley Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) T a Source: SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, prelim. results, 2015. County comparisons of employment growth in the SCAG region are presented in Table 2.8. As shown, Riverside County is anticipated to grow by 14% total employment by 2040, second only to Los Angeles County in this region. As with population and households shown above, employment growth in Riverside County is anticipated to grow more than the combined growth of Imperial, Orange, and Ventura Counties combined by 2040. Fable 2.8: ZU11-2U4U Employment by SCAG County 2012 % 2040 Absolute 0/0 of % of Difference Difference Annual County 2012 SCAG 2040 SCAG (2012- (2012-..Prowth Employment Total Employmen i Total 2040) 2040) Rate Imperial 59,066 1 % 124,609 1 % 65,543 111 % 2.7% Los Angeles 4,235,143 57% 5,213,136 53% 977,993 23% 0.7% Orange 1,526,227 21 % 1,898,685 19% 372,458 24% 0.8% Riverside 616,687 8% 1,153,770 12% 537,083 87% 2.3% San Bernardino 659,463 9% 1,028,205 10% 368,742 56% 1.6% Ventura 332,250 4% 420,211 4% 87,961 26% 0.8% Total SCAG Region 7,428,836 100% 9,838,616 100% 2,409,780 32% 1.0% Source: SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, prelim. results, 2015. October 2015 11 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions I-N 2.3 Land Use As part of developing its 2016-2040 RTP/SCS update SCAG is developing a Scenario Planning Model (SPM) to facilitate collaborative planning in the region. One of the SPM tools is the UrbanFootprint Tool, which is a web -based scenario development and modeling framework originally developed as part of the state -funded Vision California project in 2012, and is now being updated as a reference to categorize the land uses in the SCAG region, including Riverside County. The tool categorizes 35 place types to represent the various types of land use throughout the SCAG region. For this purpose, the 35 place types were broken down into six groups to easily differentiate between the major types of existing land uses as shown in Table 2.9. Figures 2.3 through 2.5 show the specific existing land uses in Riverside County, for each of the three planning areas respectively, consistent with the SCAG's 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. Future land use designations are not expected to change from the existing designations, although growth in population and employment will occur within each land use (refer to Sections 2.1 and 2.2 above). Riverside County includes a mix of land uses, with a significant amount designated rural, particularly in Palo Verde Valley. October 2015 12 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions I-N Table 2.9: Existin • Land Use Cate • ories Place Type Grouping in Riverside Count and SCAG Re • ion Place Types Mixed Use Centers 1 Urban Mixed Use 2 Urban Residential 3 Urban Commercial 4 City Mixed Use 5 City Residential 6 City Commercial 7 Town Mixed Use 8 Town Residential 9 Town Commercial 10 Village Mixed Use 11 Village Residential 12 Village Commercial 13 Neighborhood Residential 14 Neighborhood Low Employment Areas Employment Areas 15 Office Focus 16 Mixed Office and R&D 17 Office/Industrial 18 Industrial Focus 19 Low -Density Employment Park Suburban Commercial/Mixed Use Suburban Commercial/Mixed Use 20 High Intensity Activity Center 21 Mid Intensity Activity Center 22 Low Intensity Retail Centered Neighborhood 23 Retail: Strip Mall/Big Box 24 Industrial/Office/Residential Mixed High 25 Industrial/Office/Residential Mixed Low Suburban Residential Single Use Suburban Residential 26 Suburban Multifamily 27 Suburban Mixed Residential 28 Residential Subdivision 29 Large Lot Residential Area Rural Rural 30 Rural Residential 31 Rural Ranchettes 32 Rural Employment Institutional Institutional 33 Campus/University 34 Institutional Parks and Open Space 35 Parks and Open Space Source: SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. October 2015 13 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 2.3: Existing Land Use Designations in Western Riverside Region Cnl[cn ..Egitpultadwir=fiwz- *a na ��•� a r7� /li ► lioLama. �.- ��,. ,�� , . �nliswu61 'H .u. MN y .� 1 „ ti is,uIrlia.la Wm air r v TJ ;i'lf����V'` Y f� . .i • .; la 3�- } AA. ,likAi 7 te4til: Temea la San `"ticmenm r mM.r11,1.1 ..,.�. October 2015 Lake Eleinore San Diego County (Miles 10 Wlldomar Reninnas • Morena Valley 14 Cherry valley See Inset aeaumont East Hemet nchester Rivers i a County _See Inset Banning Vane Vesta Aguanga Idyl lid vacant Land - Mixed Use Centers Employment Areas - Suburban Commercial/Mixed Use Suburban Residential Rural Institutional Military Parks and Open Space Western Riverside County ■ Incorporated City Unincorporated Area Source: SSAG iOt s RCTC I Strategic Assessment - Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 2.4: Existing Land Use Designations in Coachella Valley Hd nhl ng 1 Riverside County f IMiles N 0 10 Trrxs DND :a12.0+S Proiectso7C_nrviects1OdDi_R10,V. RCiC16Cf5 G401ACre_5n RCIOkBaseMavSBasrMavtrASKt_LU_Coackela_Vallryr .o-ccarsrli-7n_5rto15 _,Desert Ho Springs See Inset San Diego County San-Ber Thousand Palms Riverside [idUnty Rms. iriP C'pumy See Berm ida.y'1Inset Duns 7 ■ W4115 We' MIL October 2015 Thermai Mecca Vacant Land - Mixed Use Centers Employment Areas Ifa Suburban Commercial/Mixed Use Suburban Residential Rural - Institutional Military Parks and Open Space Coachella Valley ■ Incorporated City Unincorporated Area Source: SCRG Imperial 15 RCTC I Strategic Assessment - Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 2.5: Existing Land Use Designations in Palo Verde Valley Inset San Bernardino County Riverside County Arizona O3s s San Diego County ( INFiles el 0 15 11tprs0316ata1261S Propest6C_prolects10402_RTC_SA_31CT610C15 0402_RCTC_SA RCTCISaselvtaplBase Map1TASK1_ U Palo_Verde„Valley mKd-ccarsea.7l2312015 Riverside County Imperial County October 2015 Vacant Land MI Mixed Use Centers Employment Areas I, Suburban Commercial/Mixed Use Suburban Residential Rural Institutional Military Parks and Open Space © Palo Verde Valley • Incorporated City Unincorporated Area source scAG \See Inset, Blythe Arizona 16 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions I-N 3.0 Transportation System Inventory 3.1 Highways and Roadways Riverside County has two major interstate highways that provide access to users in the county, including: • Interstate 10 (1-10), which extends from the western Riverside County boundary (San Bernardino County) to the eastern boundary (Nevada), crosses the entire County providing east -west freeway access to inter -regional, intra-regional, and through movement users; and • Interstate 15 (1-15), which primarily serves Western Riverside County, extends from the southern Riverside County boundary (Orange County) to the northern boundary (San Bernardino), also provides north -south access for through movement users. Other prominent freeway and highway routes in Western Riverside County include SR-60, SR- 91, SR-79, and Interstate 215 (1-215), as well as SR-74 which serves both Western Riverside County and the Coachella Valley and SR-111 and SR-86 in the Coachella Valley. Table 3.1 presents a summary of the existing (2012) and future expected (2040) roadway lane miles in Riverside County for Arterials, Expressways, and Freeways, and the expected percentage increase in lane miles for each facility from the existing to future years. Table 3.1: Existing a nd Future Highways and Roadways Lane Miles in Riverside County Riverside County 2012 Facility Types Lane Miles 2040 Lane Miles Difference (2012-2040) Difference (2012-2040) Freeway 2070 3002 932 45% Expressway Arterial Source: R/VTAM. 241 318 77 32% 2046 2865 819 40% The primary growth in roadway lane -miles planned in the County will be on the freeway and arterial systems, with expected growth by 45% and 40% respectively — a level commensurate with the projected population growth. Consistent with the statewide effort to develop a sustainable transportation system, half of the planned growth in roadway lane -miles would involve building new high -occupancy vehicle (HOV) or high -occupancy toll (HOT) lanes along portions of the 1-15, 1-215, SR-60, and SR-91. Lane mile increases on major roadways will result from the following planned and programmed projects, some of which, as noted below, are Measure A planned and programmed projects designed to address the County's transportation deficiencies for 2009-2039: • 1-10, from Banning to San Bernardino County line, add eastbound truck -climbing lane • I-10/SR-60, Construct new interchange • 1-15, from SR-60 to the San Diego County line, add one lane in each direction • 1-215, from Eucalyptus Avenue to 1-15, add one lane in each direction October 2015 17 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions • 1-215, from 60/91/215 to San Bernardino County line, add two lanes in each direction (completed) • SR-79, from Gilman Springs Road to Domenigoni Parkway, realign highway • SR-60, Badlands area, east of Moreno Valley, add truck -climbing lane • SR-71, from SR-91 to San Bernardino County line, widen to three lanes in each direction • SR91/71, improve interchange • SR-91/I-15, add new connector at interchange from 1-15 north to SR-91 west (under construction) • SR-91, from Pierce Street to Orange County line, add one lane in each direction (under construction) Figures 3.1 and 3.2 show the existing and future major roadway facilities in Riverside County including managed lane and high occupancy vehicle lane designations. There are several major arterials within the County mainly concentrated in Western Riverside County and some in Coachella Valley, which are shown by planning areas in Figures 3.3 through 3.5, including: • Cajalco Road/Ramona Expressway extends east -west from 1-15, crossing over the 1-215 and Highway 79, until it connects to Highway 74. • Mission Boulevard/Van Buren Boulevard is an inter -county arterial that runs east -west from Valley Boulevard in Los Angeles County, through San Bernardino County and extends all the way to 1-215 in Riverside County. • Central Avenue/Alessandro Boulevard runs east -west from Van Buren Boulevard across the 1-215 to Gilman Springs Rd. • Perris Boulevard is a north -south arterial which runs through Highway 74 and 1-215 all the way to the north County boundary. • Varner Road runs parallel to the 1-10 for roughly ten miles from Palm Drive to Golf Center Parkway. • Garnet Avenue and 20t" Avenue, both running parallel to and on each side of 1-10, from the I-10/SR-62 to 1-10/North Indiana Canyon Drive Interchanges. • North Palm Canyon Drive, South Gene Autry Trail, East Vista Chino, Grapefruit Boulevard or SR-111, running through much of Coachella Valley. October 2015 18 Figure 3.1: Existing Major Roadways in Riverside County oinona Ontari Norco 90 orona f T� ust;° i Mission Viejo/ Lorna ■ Riverside RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions — (... �l tc4;� ®San Yucca Bernardino _ Valley s� Redlands' San Bernardino eCounty Colton • San ` Jacinto East Val Lake. Canyon Laker Hemet Usta Elsinore 10fildomar • Murrieta Edgemont 215 Perris Sun City Dana • an Juan Capistrano Temecula Point! • P Fallhrook Miles 0 nside i carlshad ■ Desert Hut Springs • • Rancho Bermuda Idyllwild Cathedra Mirage Dunes City 0 Indio Indian Its •, La,4uinta Aguanga Thousand PalmPalms Springs San Diego County Twentynine Palms ■- Joshua Tree NP Coachella • Thermal Mecca je cG10C_proje cGa902_R TC_SA_R CTC IOC 15_09CQ_R CTC_SA_RC TCrH ase Maple ase MaplTA5 K2_R D HWY_Regional. rrad cca rse147f23 October 2015 Riverside County Managed Lane (NOV) ■ Incorporated City Highway 0 Unincorporated Area Riverside County Source: R vTAM Base Year Model 19 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 3.2: Future New Major Roadways Projected in Riverside County Tustin I' • V'a Dana Point orona Lake Car Mission r Elsinore L. Viejo WIdomar• 74 73 r Munieta egi•Juan Capistrano • San Clemente Fallbrook • a (Miles Onside • Carlsbad • UP ICI' 330 .4't I j� Temecula it San Jacinto Sanipiego. County Yucca - Valley. Desert Spring • Thousand ;Palm Palms Springs Rancho Bermuda • Idyllwild Cathedral Mirage Dunes City • • �• Indio Indian Wells • La Quinta Aguanga .r' if FC[s,uc_PPOJFC[s,u4u2_k c_s.v_rtc L. o_uauz_kc c_s,v_kc aeasemapueasemap_k unvvv_rtegionai. October 2015 Twe ntyni n Palms • •oachella Thermal Mecca Ss/fon Sea New Roadways Riverside County Blythe Arizona Source: RivTAM Future Year Mode! • Incorporated City o U n incorporated Area 20 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 3.3: Existing Roadway Facilities in Western Riverside County .11MM•\. r.■ �.�,, i 1 ■•����� rI' San Juan Capistrano San 'Clemente Wildomar San Bernardino County Beaumont San Jacinto Winchester Riverside County San Diego County llfprs63. t3r2015 P roj ecizlBC_p rojec1,0902_1RTC_SA_RC TCl0C15_0�2_RC TC_SA_RC TCIBa; eMaplB. eMa rATAS44,2_RD HWY_11 tern_R neersitl e_Co 1_1* mxb cca rs a 14723,015 Banning Valle Vsta Agu anga 1 Roadway Type Managed Lane (HOV) Highway Major Roadway Western Riverside County • Incorporated City o Unincorporated Area Source: RivTAM Base Year Model October 2015 21 Figure 3.4: Existing Roadway Facilities in Coachella Valley Banning Thousand Palms • Bermuda Dunes Indian Wells RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Riverside County Thermal Mecca 021 • Aguanga 0 'Miles 0 10 San Diego County llfprs63. t3r2015 P roj ecizlBC_p rojec1,0902_1RTC_SA_RC TCl0C15_0�2_RC TC_SA_RC TCIBa; Oda OB. Oda rATASK2_RD HWY_Coachella_Valley. mxd•ccarse11-723.15 Joshua Tree National Park Highway — Major Roadway p Coachella Valley • Incorporated City O unincorporated Area a Imperial County Source: Rh/TAM Base Year Model October 2015 22 Figure 3.5: Existing Roadway Facilities in Palo Verde Valley Desert Hot p rings • Twentynine Palms Thousand Palms Cathedral City • Palin Bermuda Rancho s Desert Dunes Mirage, Cuuntryb 6 • 0,7liidio Indian 3R.---- Nkl� -- • Coachella"' •La Quinta ...';Thermal 1 C San ❑iego•County Mile: 0 15 Salton Sea, Mecca Highway Major Roadway CI Palo Verde Valley Incorporated City 0 Unincorporated Area ..I Source: RivTAM Base Year Model RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions San Berardino County Imperial County To praC31D ta%2015 Pr or a 01,10C_p rojeck+0-002_PTC_5A_IRC TClCIC 15_04C2_RC TC_SA_RC TCIBas eMa plBas eMa pr.TA5 k2_RDHWY_Palo_Verde_VaIle y.mxd- a rs el41f23/2015 October 2015 23 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions I-N As provided by Caltrans, existing truck routes in Riverside County are consistent with the major facilities (freeways, expressways, and arterials) as shown previously (Figure 3.6). These existing truck routes primarily used to transport goods by truck are not expected to change by 2040. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) recently (2014) completed a comprehensive goods movement plan for the region, including Riverside County, referred to as "On the Move: Southern California Delivers the Goods". This Plan was designed to develop long-term strategies comprehensive of all modes (e.g., roadway, port, air, and rail), that will be supportive of economic growth and quality of life for residents and businesses in the region. The goals of the Plan focused on improving transportation mobility and efficiency, safety, and air quality, while reducing community impacts, energy efficiency and security, and greenhouse gases. The truck routes shown in Figure 3.6 and the freight rail system (presented later in Section 3.5) summarize the freight transportation system in Riverside County. This Plan also presented truck oriented bottlenecks and at -grade rail crossing bottlenecks and safety needs in Riverside County (presented below in Section 5.6). Riverside County also worked in close collaboration with SCAG in the development of this Plan and recently defined next steps (What's Next) for Goods Movement in the County, including the identification of key issues and strategies to improve goods movement and freight infrastructure in its jurisdiction. October 2015 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 3.6: Existing and Future Expected Truck Routes in Riverside County Tustin ■ j Irvin • an Bomar d ino Ontario Lake Car Mission Elsinore L. 13Vigo ®r Wildomar• • Murrieta Dana • SZMuan Capistrano Point* San Clemente 11 �1 r N D Miles Ocpanside • .Cadshad • Fallhrook • Desert Hot Springs • Beaumont Banning r ; I . Thousand Palm San ' SS nri �-s Palms Jacinto p,..9 • Rancho Bermuda Valle Idyll,Aild I�,'Cathedtai Mirage Dunes Hemet East ista. Ciy 0� Indio Temecula Indian Wells • La Quinta Twentynine Palms Joshua Tree NP Riverside County Coach ell a'�� _ Thermal Mecca Aguanga Oasis. Sanipiego County t 1lfprs031D ata12015 Projec510C_p roje ots+A902_R TC _SA_R C TC 10 C 15_0402_R C TC _SA_RC TC 18 as e M a 0.0 as M a p1Tr a ck R outes_R eg to n a I. mxd-cc ars e II-7/232015 October 2015 alien Sea Imperial County Source: Caftans L Existing Truck Routes o Riverside County • Incorporated City Unincorporated Area 25 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions I-N 3.2 Transit This section presents a summary of Riverside County's existing public transportation network and plans for potential future expansion of this network by 2040. The summaries provide detail about each fixed route service in the County, with less detailed descriptions of demand responsive and paratransit services, which are presented in more detail in Appendix A. Countywide Transit Services Riverside County's existing public transportation network includes services by planning area: Western Riverside, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley. A total of seven public transit agencies operate within these areas, providing transit services over approximately 3,760 square miles of Riverside County's total 7,300 square miles. These transit systems, as well as Metrolink regional passenger rail services and RCTC's Specialized Transportation Program, are described below. Figure 3.7 shows the fixed -route bus transit service areas in each part ofthe County, while Figures 3.8 and 3.9 show passenger rail service in Riverside County for both existing and future years, including the planned California High Speed Rail route (which passes through Western Riverside County only). Table 3.2 presents the three-year performance history (2011-2014) of public transit in Riverside County, exclusive of Metrolink services. In the most recent reporting year, over $90 million was expended countywide on public transit bus and demand responsive transit programs, as reported in the County's public operators' Short Range Transit Plans. Passenger revenue of $20.9 million was generated or 23.1 % of total operating expense, almost one -quarter of the total operating budget. Expenditures and passenger revenues have grown steadily in this period, almost a 15% increase over three years in countywide operating expense and 14% increase in passenger fare revenues. The number of existing trips has also grown in this period, with a 7.9% increase, providing 15.2 million passenger trips annually, exclusive of Metrolink. This is a significant trend with increasing transit trips provided in Riverside County, considering that Los Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino, counties are all experiencing declines in bus utilization. The number of vehicles to provide these trips has also increased substantially during this period, including a 24% increase, from 491 vehicles in FY 2011/2012 to 608 vehicles in FY 2013/2014. Not reflected in Table 3.2 is the considerable replacement of capital equipment during this period, providing Riverside County residents with an upgraded public transportation fleet countywide. In terms of performance, the 15.2 million annual trips have been provided at a cost per vehicle revenue hour of $103, a unit cost that has increased 9% in this reporting period, while cost per passenger of $5.95 has only increased by 6.5% over that same period. Provision of productive service across this vast county is one of Riverside County's greatest challenges. System wide, this ranges from about 23 passengers per revenue hour and 1.63 passengers to 1.76 passengers per revenue mile. In addition, detailed planning, engineering, and environmental planning for California High Speed Rail have been underway for over 20 years. The California High Speed Rail Authority has begun construction, environmental clearance, and engineering for several of the planned October 2015 26 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions I-N system's initial segments of the Phase 1 program (San Francisco Bay Area to Los Angeles - Anaheim), including the Bakersfield to Merced test track and Los Angeles to Anaheim segment. Environmental clearance and engineering are also underway for the Palmdale to Burbank and Burbank to Anaheim segments that connect with Los Angeles. Phase 1 will be implemented over the next 10 to 15 years (e.g., 2015 to 2030). Phase 2 of the program includes the San Diego to Inland Empire to Los Angeles segment through Riverside County. The California High Speed Rail Authority, with its federal, state, and regional partners, has previously prepared a project level environmental impact report/environmental impact statement (EIR/EIS) and preliminary engineering study to assess the potential alternative alignments and station locations for this corridor, including Riverside County. While the California High Speed Rail Authority has not determined the timing for initiating Phase 2, the system will provide increased transit ridership, state and regional connectivity and accessibility, roadway system congestion relief and greenhouse gas emission reductions, economic development, among other opportunities for Riverside County residents. October 2015 27 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 3.7: Fixed -Route Bus Transit Service Areas in Riverside County Rand,R San Cu. ionga Be ma rtll:on n Bermrdino i`411ory..Lui- n: 11.1;,_• ds A3 dart*, , in�a � Calimes _. iii• i R 0 ` ]r a Anne, JS[Ir1 Ora ng • Laguna Be Ban: Point I GI _PrrleclsiZOi Wire MAWOR_Julrel et; ional_reutes mxtl-John-71211201S Lake MtSSIon Viejo County n San Juan San Clemente Temecula Fallbrook Riverside Transit Agency Fixed Routes Demand Response Service Area Service Area San '24 Ja into ` Valle Vist -XMeet pester guanga Vail ey San Bernardino County Dese[tHot Desert hot pangs Sptings ; 1104 , Thousand Palms Palm Des. Coach - La Drente Riverside County Corona Cruiser PASS Transit Authority Fixed Routes Fixed Routes Demand Response Service Area Demand Response Service Area Service Area Service Area SunLine Transit Agency Fixed Routes Demand Response Service Area Service Area Arizona Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency Fixed Routes Demand Response Service Area Service Area October 2015 28 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 3.8: Existing Passenger Rail Routes in Riverside County j 330 San Mira • Lroma Riverside • Norco Corona Edgemont La Canyon Mission Elsinore Lake Viejo �Wildomar• M urri eta AIN' Juan Capistrano San \Clemente Fallbrook (Miles Ocmnside 'Carisbad Calimes San ▪ Jacinto Temecula ✓! Aguanga San Diego County Palm Springs Desert Hot Springs • Thousand Palms Twentynine Palms 'Joshua Tree NP Rancho Bermuda Cathedral Mirage Dunes City • • 0� Indio Indian Wells • Coachella La,4uinta •Thermal Mecca Aim N:1 015 ProjectsVOC projects10402_RTC_SA_RCTC10C15_0402_RCTC_SA_RCTC1.BaseMap%BaseMar,TRANSIT_Rail_Regional.mxc-ccarseli 7f23f2015 October 2015 Riverside County Salton Sea Imperial Coun ` 6, Source: Calfrans. Sunline Transit Agency, Riverside County 1A l Amtrak Rail Line Metrolink Rail Line Riverside County Incorporated City Unincorporated Area 29 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 3.9: Planned Passenger Rail Route in Western Riverside County San Diego County Miles 10 7 _. Desert,Hot Springs i' r - California High -Speed Rail - Coachella Valley Rail ^+ Metrolink Extension (Temecula & Hemet/San Jacinto - Metrolink Extension (Perris Valley Line) Western Riverside County • Incorporated City Unincorporated Area Source: — Calfrans October 2015 30 RCTC I Strategic Assessment - Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Table 3.2: Riverside County Public Transportation System Performance (2011-2014 FY 12/13 Chng FY 13/14 from 11/1 �..l� �ah_ ,�.IBIL Financial Data Operating Expense $78,833,006 $84,527,645 $90,596,326 14.9% Passenger Fare Revenue $18,382,156 $21,510,855 $20,943,025 13.9% Net Operating Costs $60,450,850 $63,016,790 $69,653,3011 Operating Characteristics Unlinked Passenger Trips 14,112,722 14,750,794 15,229,435 7.9% Passenger Miles 95,101,916 99,302,900 102,589,797 7.9% Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 986,862 1,044,968 1,097,399 11.2% Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 15,573,321 15,132,145 19,201,542 23.3% Total Actual Vehicle Miles 18,679,641 19,128,820 20,055,176 7.4% Service Area Square Miles 3,763 3,763 3,763 0.0% Service Area Population - DOF Jan. Countywide Estimates 2,217,778 2,227,577 2,255,059 1.7% Fleet Size 491 512 608 23.8% Performance Characteristics Operating Cost per Revenue Hour $94.25 $96.97 $103.11 9.4% Operating Cost per Passenger $5.59 $5.73 $5.95 6.5% Passenger per Revenue Hour 23.3 23.8 22.7 -2.6% Passenger per Revenue Mile 1.76 1.77 1.63 -7.4% Revenue miles per service area square mile 4,139 4,021 5,103 23.3% Trips per capita/ service area population 6.4 6.6 6.8 6.1% Vehicles per service area square mile 0.13 0.14 0.16 23.8% Future planned capital transit improvements in Riverside County were identified by SCAG and participating regional agencies as part of its RTP/SCS planning processes. While these projects were identified to meet the needs of the County's future transportation system, many require federal funding and further study. SCAG is responsible for tracking major transportation projects and submits regionally significant transit projects for further planning and programming purposes. The current version of the plan, the 2012 RTP/SCS, contains a listing of projects that fall within these criteria and are listed in Appendix A of this Report. SCAG is in the process of updating the RTP/SCS, which upon adoption will include a new project listing. In each section below, future planned projects are summarized for each system. Western Riverside Planning Area The existing fixed route transit services provided in the Western Riverside planning area are shown in Figure 3.10, including: • Metrolink Rail; • Riverside Transit Agency (RTA); • City of Corona Transit Services (CCTS); • PASS Transit - City of Banning Fixed Route; and • PASS Transit - City of Beaumont Fixed Route. Future planned projects are also summarized for each system. October 2015 31 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions METROLINK RAIL SERVICE Metrolink is a commuter rail service that provides services to major employment centers and destinations throughout the Los Angeles region, including Riverside County. Three routes, 1) Riverside, 2) Inland Empire -Orange County Line, and 3) 91 Line, currently provide weekday and limited weekend services to five stations located in Western Riverside County. The five Metrolink stations in Riverside County include: • North Main Corona; • West Corona; • Riverside -La Sierra; • Riverside-Pedley; and • Downtown Riverside. Upon the scheduled completion of the Perris Valley line (PVL) at the end of 2015, Metrolink will extend commuter rail service to Moreno Valley and Perris, including four new stations: 1) Hunter Park, 2) Moreno Valley/March Field, 3) Downtown Perris, and 4) South Perris. These stations will provide intermodal connectivity with RTA and Corona Cruiser for users traveling to and/or from these stations. There are also proposed PVL extensions to San Jacinto and Temecula. Average weekday ridership for the three Metrolink routes serving Riverside County is presented in Table 3.3. Based on data from the 2010 Metrolink Onboard Survey, average weekday boardings per month by Riverside County station are presented in Table 3.4. Table 3.3: Average Weekday Ridership by Line W Lines Average Weekday Riders (Q4 2014-2015) Riverside Line 4,870 Inland Empire -Orange County Line (IEOC) 4,776 91 Line 2,691 Source: Metrolink, Fact Sheet for Q4 (2015) Table 3.4: Metrolink Average Weekdav Boardings by Station Average Station Weekday Boardings North Main Corona per Month West Corona by Station Riverside- La Sierra Riverside- Pedley Downtown Riverside April 2015 960 403 675 167 1,065 May 2015 939 385 666 150 1,018 June 2015 1,001 426 686 176 1,046 Average Weekday Boardings Per Month 966 405 676 164 1,043 Source: Metrolink 2015: Ridership estimates are based on ticket sales by origin station and do not reflect transfers. October 2015 32 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Station parking utilization rates for each of the Metrolink stations in Riverside County are shown in Table 3.5. The La Sierra station parking is fully utilized, and the Downtown Riverside and North Main Corona stations have utilization of at least 80%. Table 3.5: Parkin a Utilization Rate at Each Metrolink Station Stations Parking Utilization Rate at Each Station No. of spaces Parking Utilization (September 2015) North Main Corona 1,386 spaces / 21 handicapped spaces 80% West Corona 526 spaces / 14 handicapped spaces 56% Riverside -La Sierra 1,082 spaces / 24 handicapped spaces 99% Riverside-Pedley 283 spaces / 11 handicapped spaces 53% Downtown Riverside 1,115 spaces / 25 handicapped spaces 86% Source: Metrolink, Vehicle Count 9/30/2015 Additional descriptions of the Metrolink lines operating in Riverside County, population served, ridership, RCTC contribution to the operating budget, and connectivity to RTA are presented below. Riverside Line The Riverside Line operates between LA Union Station and Riverside. The service runs weekday peak hours only, with limited service during major holidays. Based on the 2012 Metrolink Fact Sheets, 93% of Riverside Line riders use the service for work, 1.5% for school, 1.5% for visiting, 2.3% for leisure, and 1.3% for other purposes. Passengers with adult passes make up 79% of total line ridership. For FY15, annual ridership for the Riverside Line is 1,209,238. The seven Metrolink stations along the Riverside Line (with two stations in Riverside County — Pedley and Riverside -Downtown) include: • L.A. Union Station; • East Ontario; • Montebello/Commerce; • Pedley; • Industry; • Riverside -Downtown. • Downtown Pomona; October 2015 33 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Inland Empire -Orange County Line The Inland -Empire Orange County (IEOC) Line operates between San Bernardino and Oceanside. Based on the 2012 Metrolink Fact Sheets, 79% of IEOC Line riders use the service for work, 5.7/0 for school, 11.9% for visiting, 2.3% for leisure, and 0.9% for other purposes. Passengers with adult passes make up 82.2% of total line ridership. For FY15, annual ridership for the IEOC Line is 1,301,961. The fifteen Metrolink stations along the Inland Empire -Orange County Line, with four stations in Riverside County including Riverside -Downtown, Riverside -La Sierra, North Main Corona, and West Corona) include: • San Bernardino; • Tustin; • Riverside -Downtown; • Irvine; • Riverside -La Sierra; • Laguna Niguel/Mission Viejo; • North Main Corona; • San Juan Capistrano; • West Corona; • San Clemente; • Anaheim Canyon; • San Clemente Pier; and • Orange; • Oceanside. • Santa Ana; 91 Line The 91 Line operates between L.A. Union Station and Riverside, running parallel to SR 91. Based on the 2012 Metrolink Fact Sheets, 82% of 91 Line riders use the service for work, 8.3% for school, 1.6% for visiting, 3.1 % for leisure, and 4.7% for other purposes. Passengers with adult passes comprise 80.4% of total line ridership. For FY15, annual ridership for the 91 Line is 681,393. The eight Metrolink stations along the 91 Line (with four stations in Riverside County, West Corona, North Main Corona, Riverside -La Sierra, and Riverside -Downtown) include: • L.A. Union Station; • Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs; • Buena Park; • Fullerton; • West Corona; • North Main Corona; • Riverside -La Sierra; and • Riverside -Downtown. A summary of the ridership characteristics of the three Metrolink lines operating within Western Riverside County is shown in Table 3.6. October 2015 34 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Table 3.6: Metrolink Annual Ridership Characteristics by Route racteristi Characteristi « Riverside Inland Empir Oran • e Count :1 Lin Annual Ridership (FY15) 1,209,238 1,301,961 681,393 Type of Fare: Adult 79% 82.2% 80.4% Senior 6.6% 8.6% 5.3% Student 6.9% 6.0% 10% Disabled 6.1 % 3.2% 2.1 Military 1.3% 0% 2.1 Trip Purpose: Work 93.3% 79.3% 82.4% School 1.5% 5.7% 8.3% Visiting 1.5% 11.9% 1.6% Leisure 2.3% 2.3% 3.1 % Other 1.3% 0.9% 4.7% Source: Metrolink 2012. Metrolink is governed by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) that is comprised of five county member agencies. Member agencies include Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), and Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC). The five member agencies contribute subsidies to provide the additional revenue needed to operate the Metrolink rail system. For FY 2014-2015, RCTC contributed $9.8 million to the JPA. Metrolink tickets and passes are accepted on RTA routes that serve Metrolink stations. RTA serves the North Main Corona, Pedley, Riverside -La Sierra, Riverside - Downtown, and West Corona Metrolink stations. October 2015 35 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 3.10: Fixed -Route Bus Transit Service Areas in Western Riverside County :.cis arge«r+Rn+sueruu.as _J.iyi_ r ce,, reue. ntmd. . eernarchno Caunts, Celrm Csa 'Mies 10 0 Western Riverside County Riverside Transit Agency Corona Cruiser PASS Transit 0 Incerperalee Coy F d R to F ed Rawes F ed R tes Unincoiporeted Area Demand Response Se:viae Area - perrand Response Service Area Demarrd Response Service Area Service Area Service Area Service Area October 2015 36 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY (RTA) RTA operates 36 regional, local, and rural bus and trolley service routes and eight CommuterLink express routes in this planning area. Routes in higher density urban areas with greater peak ridership operate with larger vehicles, while routes in suburban and rural areas with lower ridership operate with smaller to medium sized vehicles. RTA Fixed Routes provide services to the General Public, Children, Senior/Disabled and Medicare Card Holders. Table 3.7 presents a summary of RTA's existing service characteristics. Table 3.7: Riverside Transit A enc Fixed Route Service Characteristics Fixed Route Services Base Fare Day Pass Monthly Pass Operating Expense (Annual) Passenger Fare Revenue (Annual) Unlinked Passenger Trips (Annual) Passenger Miles (Annual) Service Area Square Miles Fleet Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour Riverside Transit Agency 2013/2014 $1.50 $4.00 $50.00 $43,894,941 $13,243,146 9,161,851 62,003,122 2,500 238 $165.74 RTA also maintains transfer agreements with transit agencies adjacent to their service area, including: • Omnitrans; • Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA); • Corona Cruiser; • Pass Transit; • SunLine. Metrolink tickets and passes are also accepted for use by RTA fixed routes one hour before to one hour after Metrolink's service hours and are valid on the day of travel. In the spring of 2013, RTA conducted on -board surveys as part of its Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA). This survey helped RTA develop a ridership profile, including the following characteristics: • 33 is the average age of RTA riders; • 63% of the riders' median household income is under $25,000 compared to 6% of the riders' median household income is over $75,000; • 70% of the riders surveyed are employed; • 67% of riders own an automobile; • 29% of riders have been using RTA's services between 6 months to 2 years, with 28% using the services for more than 5 years; • School was the primary destination (37%) with work as the second most popular destination (27%); and October 2015 37 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions • Majority of users are female (52%) and the primary language spoken in the household (95%) is English. The RTA also recently conducted a COA which provided recommendations about how the agency should grow over the next ten years (2025). Proposed route level and capital project improvements were recommended which was adopted by the Board in January 2015. Four overarching principles were introduced with specific recommendations about how RTA should improve service to meet each. These principles included: • Increase Transit Use as a Travel Mode. Enhance the customer experience to attract new choice riders and encourage existing riders to use transit for more trip purposes and create an all -day, all -week transit network with streamlined route alignments and higher service frequency to attract riders to the system. • Build a Market Based Network. Service investments should be focused in areas where transit is most competitive to ensure the success of the network including transit - oriented, high -density areas with a mix of land uses and walkable street network. • Deliver an Efficient and Effective Service. Create direct route alignments that minimize out -of -direction service and maintain desired route frequencies to attract riders. • Promote Financial Sustainability. Focus on network service improvements that will yield a high return on investment, including improving existing routes that are already successful to generate more ridership and fare revenue to ensure financial sustainability into the future. Based on these principles, improvements were focused on the following service tiers: • Frequent Key Corridor. Corridors that function as high frequency (15 minutes or better) routes in high -density areas as the core spine service operating in the northwestern and center portions of Western Riverside County; • Supporting Local. Representing the majority of the route network providing connections to key destinations in the service area; • Regional Connectors. Longer distance routes that connect to urban centers separated by large low -density to rural areas; • Community Feeders. Shorter distance routes that connect key destinations within a community operating at a high frequency due to shorter distances traveled; and • CommuterLink. Long-distance, peak hour express services within and outside of the County to connect passengers to major employment centers and major intermodal transit centers. The COA recommended that the plan should be implemented by phase including short-term (FY 2017 to 2019), mid-term (FY 2020 to FY 2022), and long-term (FY 2023 to FY 2025) improvements. RTA also identified the need to implement a fully system -wide real-time passenger information system by 2016. October 2015 38 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions CITY OF CORONA TRANSIT SERVICES The City of Corona Transit (CCTS) operates a general public fixed route service called the `Corona Cruiser, a two -route system. The Corona Cruiser fixed route began operating in 2001 and serves the city -center, hospital, medical facility, civic center, library, retail, and residential areas in the eastern and southern portions of the city and offers services to the general public, children, and seniors/disabled/Medicare. The CCTS and RTA have a reciprocal agreement allowing valid pass -holders with a one-way transfer at no -cost at bus stops serving both operators. The CCTS provides services to Monday thru Saturday; and no services are available on Sundays. The operating characteristics of this service are shown in Table 3.8. In addition, ridership for the Corona Cruiser shows 34% general public, 29% senior/disabled, 25% students, and 3% children. The remaining 6% represent transfers to/from RTA and 1 % transferring to/from Metrolink. The most recent Short Range Transit Plan shows ridership characteristics for Dial -a -Ride services including seniors or disabled (83%), general public (12%), Metrolink transfers (2%), personal care attendants (1 %), and children (0.7%). Table 3.8: City of Corona Transit Fixed Route Service Characteristics 2013/2014 Fixed Route Services City of Corona Base Fare Day Pass Monthly Pass Operating Expense (Annual) Passenger Fare Revenue (Annual) Unlinked Passenger Trips (Annual) Passenger Miles (Annual) Service Area Square Miles Fleet Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $1.50 $4.00 $35.00 $892,738 $179,780 169,745 670,493 41 14 $61.50 PASS TRANSIT — BANNING AND BEAUMONT City of Banning Fixed Route The Pass Transit City of Banning System offers three fixed transit routes and Cabazon Evening Express services. Approximately 75% of Routes 1 and 2 duplicate one another with one -hour frequencies. The City of Banning fixed route system provides services to the general public, children, and senior citizens/disabled. The Banning Pass Transit operates seven days a week and most holidays. This system's service characteristics are presented in Table 3.9. In addition, Banning conducted a survey in 2013 to determine ridership characteristics of its transit system. According to the survey, 86% of riders use the fixed route system at least three times a week. For 91 % of the respondents, the bus system was the only means of transportation, and riders tend to be either underemployed or unemployed. Approximately 88% of riders reported an annual household income of $20,000 or less, with 81 % reporting a household of two or more, and 87% of riders with English as the primary language spoken at home. Spanish-speaking riders, where Spanish is the primary language of the household, were 13% of system riders. October 2015 39 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Table 3.9: PASS Transit — Cit of Bannin • Fixed Route Service Characteristics Pass Transit/Dial-A-Ride Fixed Route Services 2013/2014 Base Fare 10-ticket Booklet Monthly Pass Operating Expense (Annual) Passenger Fare Revenue (Annual) Unlinked Passenger Trips (Annual) Passenger Miles (Annual) Service Area Square Miles Fleet Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $1.80 $10.35 $36.00 $1,324,565 $142,845 146,981 364,513 23 10 $91.97 City of Beaumont Fixed Route The City of Beaumont Transit System operates eight fixed routes and one CommuterLink. The Beaumont Transit System provides service to the general public, youth and children, and seniors and persons with disability. The service operates seven days a week with no service during major holidays. Current ridership trends indicate that youth passengers tend to use transit during morning and afternoon peak hours. In 2015, youth passengers make up 50% of monthly ridership. As growth continues for Route 2, trends indicate that passengers are using this route to get to work in Cabazon. Based on 2011 surveys, 73% of riders have an income of less than $20,000 per year, 76% of riders do not own a vehicle, and 98% or riders walk less than 4 blocks to the bus stop. The system's performance characteristics are shown in Table 3.10. According to the latest Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP), high school children remain the primary user of the transit system (56%). Working age adults age 19 to 50 make up 18% of the ridership while retirees make up 5%. Beaumont is also beginning to track Armed Forces veterans accounting for 2% of ridership. Further evaluation shows when excluding youth passengers, 74% earn an income less than $25,000 annually. Approximately 58% of general passengers do not have a drivers' license and 33% indicated that driving is too expensive. Table 3.10: PASS Transit — City of Beaumont Fixed Route Service Characteristics Fixed Route Services Base Fare Day Pass Monthly Pass Operating Expense (Annual) Passenger Fare Revenue (Annual) Unlinked Passenger Trips (Annual) Passenger Miles (Annual) Service Area Square Miles Fleet Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour City of Beaumont 111111111111! 2013/2014 $1.15 $3.00 $36.00 $1,339,462 $196,407 198,499 377,148 31 13 $69.09 October 2015 40 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Coachella Valley Planning Area The existing transit services provided in the Coachella Valley planning area are shown in Figure 3.11. The fixed route transit service is managed by the SunLine Transit Agency. Figure 3.11: Fixed -Route Bus Transit Service Area in Coachella Valley n Coachella Valley • Incorporated City Unincorporated Area Sunline Transit Agency - Fixed Routes Demand Response Service Area Service Area Riverside County N;;„ P' , kkcca Sten. se, r bales 6 14 .10151410l.w RJ.o+ve.E.m wrw �•..M.n. n,mis San Diego County Imperiat County SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY FIXED ROUTE SunLine is a Joint Powers Authority created in 1977 to provide public transit service to its member cities and unincorporated communities in the Coachella Valley. Member cities include Desert Hot Springs; Palm Springs; Cathedral City; Rancho Mirage; Palm Desert; Indian Wells; La Quinta; Indio; Coachella; and unincorporated Thermal, Mecca, Oasis, Bermuda Dunes, and Thousand Palms. SunLine's fixed route transit service, SunBus, consists of 12 routes connecting the Valley from Desert Hot Springs and Palm Springs in the northwest to Mecca and Oasis in the southeast. Buses operate 363 days a year, with no service provided on Thanksgiving and Christmas. SunLine provides service to the general public, students, seniors and visitors, of which seventy- one percent are employed or students. Seventy-nine percent of riders are low income, transit dependent, and use SunBus five days or more each week, based on the 2008 Agency Survey. The system's characteristics are shown in Table 3.11. October 2015 41 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Table 3.11: SunLine Fixed Route Service Characteristics SunLine Transit Agency Fiscal Year 2013/2014 Base Fare Day Pass Monthly Pass Operating Expense (Annual) Passenger Fare Revenue (Annual) Unlinked Passenger Trips (Annual) Passenger Miles (Annual) Service Area Square Miles Fleet Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $1.00 $3.00 $34.00 $21,255,086 $4,617,536 4,684,278 30,693,464 1,120 69 $103.11 The SunLine Transit Agency has initiated a Focused Comprehensive Operational Analysis to develop a long-range plan to foster system -wide ridership future growth. Last undertaken in 2005, SunLine anticipates the completion of the study in mid-2016 including the definition of future transit expansion and policy recommendations. Upon completion of this study, SunLine Transit anticipates implementing Board -approved recommendations, over a ten-year period, to improve transit services throughout the Coachella Valley. According to SunLine's latest Short Range Transit Plan, the cities of Coachella and Indio have shown the highest rates of recent and expected future growth in the region. According to the California Department of Finance, more than 70,000 people moved into the region mainly in the cities of Coachella and Indio. According to a passenger survey conducted in November 2014, 84% of those surveyed are dependent on transit service for transportation. Approximately 76% of riders have a household income below $25,000, while 47% indicated that Spanish is the primary language spoken at home. Work is the primary transit trip purpose with 35%, with 16% for shopping, and 14% for school. Most commuter trips ended in the City of Palm Desert with 23% of work trips ending within the city limits. School trips to the College of the Desert also represent a high number of trips ending in the City of Palm Desert. COACHELLA VALLEY INTERCITY RAIL (IN PLANNING STAGE) RCTC, with the communities of Coachella Valley and San Gorgonio Pass, initiated a Coachella Intercity Rail Feasibility Study in 2014 to examine the potential for Amtrak rail service between the Coachella Valley and downtown Los Angeles' Union Station. RCTC is funding this planning effort through Phase I, which will identify the purpose and need, screen and evaluate alternatives, and identify feasible alternatives to move forward in the planning process. A Federal Rail Administration (FRA) grant has been awarded to Caltrans and RCTC to support Phase II, which will include preparation of a Service Development Plan and a program -level Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report in accordance with FRA guidelines. These are each critical steps to potentially establishing a new future rail service to/from the region. October 2015 42 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Palo Verde Valley Planning Area The existing transit service area in the Palo Verde Valley is shown in Figure 3.12, including the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency Deviated Fixed Route Service. Figure 3.12: Fixed -Route Bus Transit Service Area in Palo Verde Valley z, rw..ry..na Paimc ,4.a .. N.......Q ....C..., ..... 1...__._... 15 San Bernardino County i Arizona Palo Verde Valley Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency • Incorporated City - Fixed Routes Unincorporated Area Demand Response Service Area Service Area i PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY DEVIATED FIXED ROUTE The Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA) provides many transit options to the general public, senior citizens, and persons with disabilities, including the "Desert Roadrunner." PVVTA provides four deviated fixed routes in the Palo Verde Valley, which serve Blythe, Ripley, Mesa Verde, Palo Verde College, and California Department of Corrections facilities and limited services to Ehrenberg, Arizona. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Paratransit services are also provided after hours on the Fixed Routes through route deviation requests. The routes can deviate up to 3/4 of a mile away from the actual mapped routes. The PVVTA operates Monday thru Saturday, and limited holidays. This system's characteristics are shown in Table 3.12. October 2015 43 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Table 3.12: Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency Deviated Fixed Route Service Characteristics Palo Verde Valley Transit Authority Fiscal Year 2013/2014 Base Fare 10-Ride Punch Pass Monthly Pass Operating Expense (Annual) Passenger Fare Revenue (Annual) Unlinked Passenger Trips (Annual) Passenger Miles (Annual) Service Area Square Miles Fleet Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $1.65 $16.50 $43.00 $458,913 $62,616 44,432 622,048 306 12 $52.05 RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEMAND RESPONSIVE AND PARATRANSIT SERVICES Several demand responsive and paratransit service currently operate in the Western Riverside and Coachella Valley planning areas. Each is summarized below. Riverside Transit Agency - Dial -A -Ride RTA offers paratransit services known as "Dial -A -Ride" (DAR) to seniors (age 65 and above) and persons with disabilities in the Western Riverside planning area. This system provides origin -to -destination advanced reservation transportation services to areas within three-quarters of a mile of an RTA fixed route, excluding express services. These areas are referred to as the "Dial -A -Ride service area" and trips must begin and end within these service areas. Services are provided at times equivalent to local fixed route bus. City of Corona Dial -A -Ride The Corona Dial -A -Ride (Corona DAR) provides service to the general public, seniors, and persons with disabilities in the Western Riverside planning area. Curb -to -curb services are provided throughout the City of Corona and neighboring county areas of Corona, El Cerrito, and Home Gardens as well as satellite locations in the City of Norco, with specific service to / from the Department of Motor Vehicles, Department of Public Social Services, and Norco College. The Corona DAR provides service Monday thru Saturday with extended hours for paratransit riders during the weekday, with no service available on Sundays. The Corona DAR does not provide service during major holidays. Pass Transit - City of Banning Dial -A -Ride Services The Banning Pass Transit DAR provides service to seniors (60+), persons with disabilities, and individuals certified for complementary paratransit service under ADA. The primary uses consider transportation to medical appointments, workshop programs for persons with disabilities, shopping areas, employment, and connections to RTA and Pass Transit fixed routes. Services are provided within a % mile boundary of the PASS Transit Routes 1 and 2 in Cabazon. This system operates within the city limits of Banning and Beaumont within the October 2015 44 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Western Riverside planning area. The Banning Pass Transit Dial -A -Ride operates during the weekday and most holidays. PASS Transit — City of Beaumont Dial -A -Ride The Beaumont DAR provides services to its senior citizens and persons with disabilities. Passengers primarily use the service for shopping and personal errands. However, there has been an increase in the number of medical trips from previous years. Service is provided seven days a week with extended service for persons with ADA complementary paratransit certification, with no service during major holidays. Service is provided to city residents and within a % mile boundary of Route 2 in Cabazon. City of Riverside Special Transit Special Transit (ST) is administered and operated by the City of Riverside Parks and Recreation and Community Service Department. It has provided paratransit services to the community of Riverside since 1975. This is an origin —to -destination rideshare transportation service that transports senior citizens of age 60 and older, and persons with disabilities. This service operates 7 days a week including holidays and covers 87.4 square miles within the city limits of Riverside County. According to the latest SRTP, the City of Riverside ST anticipates a growth in demand from the baby boomer generation. Currently, 13% of the City's population is seniors with 18% of the population nearing 60. As a result, this service is anticipating a growth in service demand in the near future. SunLine Transit Agency — Dial -a -Ride SunLine's DAR service, also known as SunDial, offers curb -to -curb service to senior and persons with disabilities and offers next -day complementary demand -response service to Coachella Valley residents. The SunDial service includes up to a % mile proximity of the existing fixed route network. SunDial provides service 363 days a year during the same hours as the fixed -route network. In 2011, the SunLine Transit Agency introduced a Taxi Voucher Program, which provides half price taxi trips to seniors (of age 60 or older) and persons with disabilities. This program is funded by the Federal New Freedom Section 5317 funds. OTHER SERVICES RCTC administers, or supports, several other programs that are transit and transportation related. Two of these, the IE-511 program and 211 VetLink are information -based programs, helping to connect riders with available services. RCTC's Specialized Transportation Program provides a mix of transit and transportation assistance programs, particularly focused on persons with disabilities, persons of low income and seniors. IE-511 Information Service RCTC, since 2010 has partnered with the San Bernardino Associated Governments, to provide traveler information to residents and visitors. IE-511 is an online traffic and commuter resource providing users with real-time traffic information and travel times for Southern California freeways; bus and rail trip plans through Google Transit; carpool, rideshare and vanpool partners through IECommuter; and nearest Park and Ride lots. October 2015 45 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions 211 VetLink Trip Planner The 211 VetLink Trip Planner, initiated in early 2015, assists veterans, active duty service members, and their families locate and plan for needed transportation. This project is an outgrowth of a federal grant secured by San Bernardino and Riverside Counties from the FTA's Veterans Transportation and Community Living Initiative (VTCLI) to support one-call/one-click projects that assist veterans in connecting with transit services. This system has built an effective partnership with the transit providers of both counties, RCTC and the San Bernardino Associated Governments, Loma Linda Veterans Administration Medical Center, and other community -based organizations. Countywide Special Transit Programs RCTC's Universal Call for Projects was first introduced in the spring of 2008 following the adoption of the 2008 Coordinated Transportation Plan for Riverside County. The Universal Call combined funding from three grant programs, including: Measure A Specialized Transit Program supporting transportation projects in Western Riverside County; FTA Section 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute Program; and FTA Section 5317 New Freedom Program. The 2015 Cycle of Specialized Transit Funding supported 22 projects from 10 agencies under the FTA 5310 program and 17 projects from 16 agencies under the Measure A program. (Note: the Section 5316 and 5317 programs were not included in the 2015 Call for Projects since funding was not available from the federal government due to the lack of Congressional reauthorization of federal surface transportation legislation.) October 2015 46 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions 3.3 Active Transportation (AT) There are various Active Transportation (AT) facilities across Riverside County such as bike routes and recreational trails of different classes. A compilation of data from Riverside County Park's Department, Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), and SCAG were reviewed and used to identify these facilities. Table 3.13 summarizes the existing bikeway miles, per city, and by class type in Riverside County. Figure 3.13 shows the Class I Bike path and Trails network in Riverside County, including a Class I Bike Path that runs parallel to the I- 10 connecting to the trails available in Western Riverside County to Coachella Valley. In addition to Bike Paths and Trails and combinations of each, also presented are descriptions of the County's community, historic, regional, and non -County /quasi -public land trails. Figures 3.14 through 3.16 show the detail for this same system of Bike Paths and Trails for the three planning areas of the County. Figure 3.16 shows Coachella Valley's golf cart network. Figures 3.18 through 3.21 show the extensive Bike Paths by Class and facility (e.g., showers, bike racks, etc.) amenities in the Riverside County and each planning area. Table 3.13: Riverside Count Existin• Bikewa Miles by Class Class I Class II Class III Total Existing Miles Riverside County Existing Bikeways (in miles) 925.1 235.7 103.6 1,264.3 Source: SCAG The following definitions summarize the differences of the bikeway class facilities represented in this section: • Class I Bikeway: Bike Paths. Provides a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with minimal cross flows. Used to support corridors not served by streets and highways, or with facilities wide existing rights -of - way. Bike paths offer opportunities not provided by the road system, and provide recreational or high-speed commute routes, if cross flow of vehicles and pedestrian conflicts is minimized. The design standards include a minimum paved width on a travel way for a two-way bike path (8 feet at a minimum, 10-foot preferred). The minimum paved width for a one-way bike path shall be 5 feet. • Class II Bikeway: Bike Lanes. Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway. Bike lanes are established along streets in corridors where there is significant bicycle demand, and where there are distinct needs easily served by bicycles. Class II bikeways should improve conditions for bicyclists in the corridors and are intended to delineate the right of way and provide more predictable movements to bicyclists and motorists. Bike lanes also better accommodate bicyclists through corridors where insufficient room exists for safe bicycling on existing streets. This can be accomplished by reducing the number of vehicular lanes, reducing lane widths, and/or prohibiting on -street parking. Minimum Class II bike lane widths shall be 4 feet, unless there are exceptions based on the surrounding road environment. • Class III Bikeway: Bike Routes. Provides for shared use with motor vehicle traffic on local streets. As with bike lanes, designation of bike routes should indicate to bicyclists October 2015 47 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions I-N that there are particular advantages to using these routes as compared with alternative routes. Responsible agencies have taken actions to assure that these routes are suitable as shared routes and will be maintained in a manner consistent with the needs of bicyclists. Design standards include placing bike route signs along roadways and/or adding shared roadway markings along the route. • Class IV Bikeway (Separated on -street facility). Provides on -street bicycle facilities with physical separations between cars and bikes. These facilities are particularly well suited for children, families, and seniors by increasing safety by avoiding potential for auto interactions. The physical separation can be accomplished in a variety of techniques such as with planters, concrete, or even parked cars. Regional Trails Regional Trails are multipurpose trails, typically 10-12 feet wide, serving as an alternate route for pedestrian, hiker, bicyclist, and equestrian use. These typically long-distance facilities are designed to connect parks and recreation areas. Existing regional trails in Riverside County total 267.1 miles and include the following: • Desert Hot Springs Trail • Dillon Road Trail • Vista Santa Rosa Trail • Whitewater Trail • All American Canal Trail • Colorado River Trail • Bain Street Trail • Bogart Park Trail • Box Springs Mountain Trails • Harford Spring Trail • Hidden Valley Trails • Highgrove Trail • Idyllwild Park Trails • Lake Skinner Trails • Louis Robidoux Nature Trail • McCall Park Trails • Mockingbird Canyon Trails • Murrieta Creek Trail • Salt Creek Trail • San Jacinto Trail • Santa Ana River Trail • Santa Rosa Plateau Trails • Temecula Creek Trail • Temescal Canyon Trail • Double Butte Trail • Kabian Trail • Wine Country Trails • May Stone Trail • San Timoteo Canyon Trail October 2015 48 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 3.13: Existing Class I Bike Path and Trail Facilities in Riverside County Pomon f Dana Point 0 Ontario an Bemardino Calimesa Moreno `lfal le`y Beaumont Banning ' 1(...,.: -Jn!'®� San ;Palm Jacinto ® Springs. 1 k,, Rancho $Valle Idyllvui d Cathedral Mirage • ista Edgemont Mission Viejo Sawn Juan Capistrano San Clemente • emecula Indian Its ■ et rLa 4uinta lwentynine Palms Riverside County �Source: r � Riverside County Class I Bike Path — Historic Trail Riverside County Combination Trail (Regional/Class I Bike Path) — Non -County Public and Quasi -Public Lands Trails Incorporated City Community Trail Regional Trail Unincorporated Area p rsuawata�u�o rro�ecGwL:_pro�ecawvu�_n iu_sn_nuiuwu�o_uwu_nuiu_sn_p23 October 2015 49 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 3.14: Existing Class I Bike Path and Trail Facilities in Western Riverside County ,Ontario Colton Sari Bernardino Cou �rrprsw�� zarz�i� rrojettsi,-_proNclswwrz_nip_5x_n�i�i��'i�_pwr_n�i�_sn_n� iemapinasemap,iwSKz_ I nniu_oo. .Lern_rnrversloe_.-ounry.mxo-ccarseirriz,zu'i� r — Class I Bike Path — Combination Trail (Regional/Class I Bike Path) — Community Trail Historic Trail Non County Public and Quasi -Public Lands Trails Regional Trail Western Riverside County • Incorporated City o Unincorporated Area Riverside County Source: lot s October 2015 50 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 3.15: Existing Class I Bike Path and Trail Facilities in Coachella Valley San Diego County Niles N. 0 10 1lfprs0310 tar2015 ProjectslOC_prolects10902_1RTC_SA_RCTC10C15_0902_RCTC_SA_RCTC1B as eMaplB as eM a plTAS K2_TRAILS_C oa the IIa_Va II ey. mxd. cc ars el47f2312015 San.Bemardino,County Bermuda Runes Ni — Class I Bike Path — Combination Trail (Regional/Class I Bike Path) Community Trail — Historic Trail — Non -County Public and Quasi -Public Lands Trails — Regional Trail 0 Coachella Valley Incorporated City Source Unincorporated Area County of3;vers;de Imperial County October 2015 51 RCTC I Strategic Assessment - Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 3.16: Existing Class I Bike Path and Trail Facilities in Palo Verde Valley 1 Riverside County San Diego'County 1 0 (Mile 15 Arizona Sefton Sea San Bemardino County Imperial County 'Ors0310 tar2015 Pr of ec510C_p role cts10902_RTC_SA_RCTC10C15_0902_RCTC_SA_RCTC1B as eM a plB as eM a plTAS K2_TR AILS_P a lo_Ve rde_Valley.mx • ccars e141123,2015 Combination Trail (Regional/Class I Bike Path) Historic Trail — Non -County Public and Quasi -Public Lands Trails -- Regional Trail 0 Palo Verde Valley Incorporated City Source' Unincorporated Area R;vera;cle Coun(y See Inset Arizona October 2015 52 Figure 3.17: Existing Golf Cart Facilities in Coachella Valley Banning Fralm. prmgs guanga I San Diego County Niles N 0 4 10 1lfprs0310 tar2015 ProjectslOC_projects,0902_1RTC_SA_RCTC10C15_0902_RCTC_SA_RCTC1B as eM a plB as eM a plTAS K2_60 LF_Coachella_Va II ey2.mxd-cca rs el 47)23,2015 Ran Mirage RCTC I Strategic Assessment - Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions San Bemardino,County cho Thousand Palms • • •1 +Desert ■�. RiversidetCounty Thermal 86 Mecca Source CVAG Existing Golf Path Proposed Golf Path Existing Golf Lane Proposed Golf Lane — Existing Multipurpose Path ---- Proposed Multipurpose Path ,Joshua Tree, 0 Coachella Valley National Park • Incorporated City 0 Unincorporated Area S'a Hnn Saa Imperial County October 2015 53 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 3.18: Existing Bike Paths by Class and Amenities in Riverside County omon i 60 99 Tustin Irvine a Dana Point Ontario Chino • igb Colton • irate ■ Loma. f Niv6rside !iNorco Corona Mission V ejo an Bemardino Moreno lfal ley Edgemont Perris Calimesa 62 herry ()Halley Beaumont Banning ' sr, J. - Thousand '' P ® Palm <<" ► Palms Springs + ®A�?►�' -� Rancho Bermuda Idyllwild• Cathedral iMirage Dunes rry 2,E4•4��'Indio Indianallh�e� �? Coachella ® =La Orlirita" n Thermal C ,Mecca ■ •.z I _ 47 yucca Valley,. San Bernardino County lwentynine Palms • •— 1/4, San l Jacinto :. Halle - Sun City t iista I ci Hemet East rti- . 1Ninche idit Hemet Canyo Lake, n w Elsinore' Lake ormdomar 6� r Murrieta S'at'rJuanCapistrano San Clemente rim Source: CVAG,SCAG emecula r, Desert Hot _Springs r ■ p - Aguanga Oasis Riverside County 70 177 Blythe W Existing Bike Amenity [Shower] ■ Bike Rack Existing Bikeway [Class I Path] Proposed Bikeway [Class I Path] Riverside County W Proposed Bike Amenity [Shower] • Existing Bike Parking Existing Bikeway [Class II Lane] Proposed Bikeway [Class II Lane] ■ Incorporated City • Bike Locker 2 Proposed Bike Parking Existing Bikeway [Class III Route] Proposed Bikeway [Class III Route] ❑ Unincorporated Area p rsuatuata�uto rro�ecGtuu_p_RTC_SA_R CTCloC15_09ut_n CTC_SA_RC TC+Base MaplBasennapt ifla Kl flu iRf1N s_R egional_propincl. October 2015 54 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Fi ure 3.19: Existin • Bike Paths b Class and Amenities in Western Riverside Count n u r W.1"g" i' l �•�� _ter■,_ —= is i■l111116 �1t�+ ■•!_ MEM.• •.1��1 M■� Witt Miiii ar � �I MTh" i• _• Temecula • San • Clemente Mira Loma Riverside County Colton Redlands Canyon Lake San Diego County See Inset San Bemardino County Cherry Valley . See Inset ,.Beaumont Banning Valle —" Vista Source: CVAG,SCAG �Palm� Springs Idylhat Ire - Existing Bikeway (Class I Path) Existing Bikeway (Class II Lane) Existing Bikeway (Class III Route) - Proposed Bikeway (Class I Path) Proposed Bikeway (Class II Lane) Proposed Bikeway (Class III Route) Western Riverside County • Incorporated City o Unincorporated Area llfprs0310 ta2015 Pr of a cts10C_p rolectsr0902_RTC_SA_RCTC10C15_0902_RCTC_SA_RCTC1B as Oda plB as eM a plTAS K2_ACTRAN S_Western_Rifers id e_C ounty2_pr o p In clmxb cc a rs a 11.7,23,201 October 2015 55 RCTC I Strategic Assessment - Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 3.20: Existing Bike Paths by Class and Amenities in Coachella Valley See Inset Palm 5.pangs —4' Riverside County _An . r L San Bet Riverside County Indio I Thousand .� Palms ay hedral A v ,'A-1 rt �*�—R'anchoPalm. Ms Mirage Desert ,country,. `Be ►l-nw'Palm;- Du. !Mean. Well's San Diego County Miles N 0 10 ounty 1lfprs0310 atar2015 Proj ec51OC_p rolectsr0902_1R TC_SA_R C TC10 C15_0912_RC TC_SA_R C TCIe as eM a ple as eM aplTAS K2_AC T RAN S_C o ac he l la_Ual ley_p ro p I ncl. mxd. cc arse 147,23/20115 October 2015 Inset Existing Bike Amenity (Shower) Proposed Bike Amenity (Shower) Bike Locker A Bike Rack Existing Bike Parking Proposed Bike Parking Existing Bikeway (Class I Path) Existing Bikeway (Class II Lane) Existing Bikeway (Class III Route) Proposed Bikeway (Class I Path) Proposed Bikeway (Class II Lane) Proposed Bikeway (Class III Route) CI Coachella Valley • Incorporated City 0 Unincorporated Area Sa Hnn Saa ylmperial County • Source: GVA G, SCA G 1�. 56 RCTC I Strategic Assessment - Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 3.21: Existing Bike Paths by Class and Amenities in Palo Verde Valley Inset San ❑iego•County Afprs0310 '420115 Prole San Bemardino County Imperial County (Mile 15 10C_prolecY10902_1RTC_SA_RCTC10C15_0902_RCTC_SA_RCTC1B as eMaplBas eMaplTASK2_ACTRAN S_P alo_Verde_Va II ey _propin cl.mxd-c ca rs ell7232015 Proposed Bike Parking — Existing Bikeway (Class III Route) ® Proposed Bikeway (Class I Path) Proposed Bikeway (Class II Lane) Proposed Bikeway (Class III Route) 0 Palo Verde Valley Incorporated City Unincorporated Area Source: CVAG,SCAG Arg.pna October 2015 57 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions 3.4 Aviation As shown in Figure 3.22, most of the airports in Riverside County serve general aviation or cargo purposes. No future airports are planned; however, the March Air Reserve Base may be converted from military to cargo. Data was provided by OpenStreetMap (OSM). Figure 3.22: Existing Municipal and General Aviation Airports in Riverside County Ontario' • Pomona F • uc,,I ,; Norc -.:•F1NLnicif ra<J • Airport 91 41 Tustin Irwin Corona San Bernardino 'niton • Redlands- ' • Fort Fiabo''b • Airport - Cahn.. • .r7r Moreno ® Walley Riverside + IVlunicipa! :7. Airport .ytk Carryon Mission Lake Ekinom 1 mew Skylark „yam Laguna''• 7q Airport •Wildom Bea`Ta' Murriela Dana • Sasanuan Capistrano Temecula Pointe Clemente • Fallhrook IMiles • rJ� p 0 rside•,_ Cadshad � 4 Hemet Ryan • Airport �F Yucca „Valley San Bernardino County Banning Municipal Airport e•re Pal' 'Springs San Jacinto ! 1 Valle Vista East Hem VIAnchester Fie'nch Valley Airport Bitty Joe Airport n Aguanga Santpiego County Helen Hot „Springs Thousand Palms liventynine Palms • Joshua Tree NP Bermuda Julian Hinds Dunes Airport Riverside County P.M elant Indio Airstrip.' Indian Wells - A La Quinta • . Jacque !line Cochran Regional Airport Oasis 11i g6 Salton See Desert Centel Airpo t a'D Imperial County Source QSM 1Vhdland Airport Airport Riverside County • Incorporated City O Unincorporated Area October 2015 58 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions 3.5 Freight Rail Riverside County serves as a conduit for the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach for transportation of goods to areas beyond the state with more than 77 percent of freight being pass -by freight destined for areas beyond. Of the pass -by freight, 65 percent passes through by rail and the remaining 35 percent on trucks. Longer and slower trains create congestion at many of the at -grade crossings for five railroad lines in the county, which are owned by private freight operators, Union Pacific (UP) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF). Figure 3.23 shows the existing freight rail lines in Riverside County. The BNSF Railway and UP Railroad own these lines, including the BNSF Railway San Bernardino Subdivision, UP RR Los Angeles Subdivision (UP LA Sub), and UP RR Yuma Subdivision (UP Yuma Sub). The BNSF line provides transcontinental freight rail movements between the Los Angeles basin and all eastern markets. This line is located in the northwestern portion of Western Riverside County. The UP Yuma Sub is UP's primary transcontinental line. These rail lines facilitate Riverside County freight movements, which will be expected to continue into the future. Figure 3.23: Existing Freight Rail Network in Riverside County namgna o�Ea Moreno Valley Edge... Yucca 11 Valley r San Bernardino County De sert Mot :P �' ..,,i aZ ' Rancho ..Valle I¢jilwlld (}4yledm•, Mirage Hemet East Vista ` 1 S C,h, Mahe_ IMnehestei Hemet ,' f M sign E'ira re Canyon im Lake Viejo -'1 Wiegman. 74 Sao 2e3 .Palm A� Pal ins Jacinto Murrieta San -Juanita plstrane Temecula San m aNe �� a9 Fallnroo'- Mlles side arisbad San Diego Counly- Bermuda Danes r Txen[ynlne Mecca Riverside County srinorr imperial County Source.' OSM Freight Rail Lines ORiverside County • Incorporated City Unincorporated Area Figure 3.24 shows the location of the railroad crossings on the BNSF and UP lines in Riverside County, as well as their status as of 2012 when the grade separation priority analysis was last completed. October 2015 59 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 3.24: Location and Status of Rail Crossings in Riverside County r Palmysha RVIACIOur "01 ' r: �uCdlurmlis .• •emu rift t ga ar\�f`ir�ip,i Ave �Oodma Sn eeler .Fa•' Weever, Veep. _ !oefia ide P RIVERSIDE ;one washingeon ry Madisen,. .y �' Jefferson faAwn ' Adams .4c "ri,on A tee.• Tyll i \k' Atairolic adln r ..r,r.ne. ea Wr '! Cre. 5aeurpr wmr+ CORONA _VAA INDR7; Ar Ounla i s! q LAVUINTA :.,.a rrr..s„ eaee...,. &rn. Ar t. AV, Carea.ose aa•W.n w� 1 W Gamo, re.AyP.4' uu, nee. lent LEGEND I� Coles — PHoe ve 48 strn-so COACHELLA .;a1 1FarJMle �41Adense A rya. r'r.°" r Dr/Avenue 56 F+n \i AVQnne S8, Avenue` *men h.* N.J. One liatiOrd OAT. Rail Crossings • In;012 study ® TCIF Completed aR$Fline • Permanently Closed `.1�Avenue 66 e tMd-y .Trey MORENO VALLEY r., r�. San revalue Canyon ltanrf Game Hall ling Ar ea _Evy Lakeview ALIMESA Cherry Valley err.''Valley Bt•'N m N. ti Jar „ . A r� ,i,51 Be j BANNING Plsa, 5i _ �Sume[ ,.- �3an Gorgorttiy'TT \ and 1 r g Apache sway BEAUMONT Munic+. Airport 243 Wh•te Water i6 ;1 DESERT Hdsert Hot SPRINGS`'SPnn99 +� hr ralm egs PALM SPRINGS P:iu,i NBcsMtla4yo titan Rd - 3 0 lw 5 October 2015 60 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions In addition to freight rail traffic, commuter rail services in Riverside County share tracks with freight trains, which often results in inconsistent on -time performance due to constrained track capacity. Table 3.14 summarizes existing and future train volumes on the five mainline freight rail lines in Riverside County: • Union Pacific (Los Angeles Subdivision); • Burlington Northern Santa Fe (San Bernardino Subdivision); • Burlington Northern Santa Fe & Union Pacific (Riverside); • Burlington Northern Santa Fe & Union Pacific (San Bernardino Subdivision); and • Union Pacific (Yuma Main). Table 3.14: Train Volumes i. 2035 UP (LA SUB) 24 12 0 36 46 12 0 58 BNSF (SB SUB) 42 23 3 68 91 42 4 137 BNSF & UP (RIV) 66 35 3 104 137 54 4 195 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 66 8 3 77 137 42 4 183 UP (YUMA MAIN) 40 0 1 41 90 0 1 91 Notes: Metrolink trains include 91 and Inland Empire -Orange County line (normal operating schedule); Year 2011 freight train volume was factored up by 2.71 consistent with SCAG growth factors. Table 3.15 summarizes gate down time and vehicle hours of delay per day for Years 2010 and 2035. The total gate down time per day is measured in minutes for each crossing, and is the number of minutes every day that the crossing gates are down. Under future conditions (2035), it is estimated that the crossing gates will be down for all crossings in Riverside County for a total of 214 hours, which is triple the existing levels. Vehicle hours of delay per day takes queue length into consideration and quantifies the number of hours drivers are delayed per day at each crossing due to train activity. October 2015 61 RCTC 1 Strategic Assessment - Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Table 3.15: Vehicle Delav and Gate Down Time ross Stree Jurisdiction Jurupa Valley Vehicle Delay 2010 5.18 Hours of 2035 44.88 Gate Down (in minutes) 2010 55.29 Tim: 111.00 UP (LA SUB) Bellgrave Avenue Rutile Street Jurupa Valley 5.63 17.31 55.29 110.64 Jurupa Road Jurupa Valley 10.43 27.24 55.29 110.64 Palm Avenue Riverside 5.50 33.48 61.55 130.71 Brockton Avenue Riverside 9.83 53.55 61.82 130.71 Panorama Road Riverside 6.06 27.90 69.39 149.25 BNSF (SB SUB) Smith Avenue Corona 16.69 59.60 105.35 261.45 Railroad Street Corona 11.35 52.44 105.35 261.45 Cota Street Corona 7.21 18.72 104.94 260.60 Sheridan Street Corona 2.61 36.60 104.94 260.60 Joy Street Corona 8.95 123.15 104.94 261.45 Radio Road Corona 4.99 35.03 104.94 260.60 McKinley Street Corona 56.72 322.63 105.35 261.45 Buchanan Street Riverside 12.51 42.54 104.94 261.45 Pierce Street Riverside 13.47 69.76 105.35 261.45 Tyler Street Riverside 19.32 111.79 105.35 261.45 Harrison Street Riverside 8.23 22.48 104.94 260.60 Gibson Street Riverside 0.92 3.00 104.94 260.60 Jackson Street Riverside 9.11 80.56 105.35 261.45 Adams Street Riverside 22.88 157.86 105.35 261.45 Jefferson Street Riverside 8.89 21.88 104.94 260.60 Madison Street Riverside 19.77 140.14 105.35 261.45 Washington Street Riverside 10.21 61.43 104.94 261.45 Mary Street Riverside 14.14 111.79 105.35 261.45 BNSF & UP (RIV) Cridge Street Riverside 6.42 19.04 159.97 241.78 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 7th Street Riverside 12.84 144.29 173.42 457.66 3`d Street Riverside 27.39 127.30 173.42 457.66 Spruce Street Riverside 17.91 322.67 173.42 457.66 Chicago Avenue Riverside 36.31 115.28 173.42 457.66 Palmyrita Avenue Riverside 9.15 35.47 172.75 456.13 Center Street Riverside County 15.06 56.56 173.42 457.66 Main Street Riverside County 6.08 18.47 172.75 457.66 UP (YUMA MAIN) San Timoteo Canyon Road Calimesa 2.77 41.65 111.83 307.75 Viele Avenue Beaumont 0.20 69.06 111.83 308.74 California Avenue Beaumont 14.12 187.05 111.83 308.74 Pennsylvania Avenue Beaumont 18.08 164.92 111.83 308.74 22nd Street Banning 33.90 122.10 112.27 308.74 San Gorgonio Avenue Banning 32.19 124.49 111.83 308.74 Hargrave Street Banning 46.69 230.34 111.83 308.74 Apache Trail Riverside County 4.94 39.45 111.83 308.74 Broadway Riverside County 14.35 42.18 112.01 308.74 Tipton Road Palm Springs 0.22 12.92 112.27 308.74 Avenue 54 Coachella 0.72 27.72 79.50 213.59 Avenue 58 Riverside County 1.88 7.85 79.22 212.98 Avenue 62 Riverside County 3.45 95.57 79.22 214.21 Avenue 66 Riverside County 8.11 46.68 79.22 214.21 Total (hours per day) 603 3,727 84 214 October 2015 62 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions While many of the rail crossings in Riverside County are projected to experience high levels of delay under future conditions, 19 crossings have been identified with the highest priority for improvements based on total train activity and operational delay (shown in Table 3.16). These rail crossings are typically characterized by high train and vehicular traffic volumes, extensive vehicle delay and emissions, and one or more traffic incidents in recent years. Table 3.16: List of Crossings with the Highest Priority for Improvements Rail Line Cross Street Score 012 Ranking 2006 Ranking BNSF & UP (SB SUB Spruce Street Riverside 3900 1 1 BNSF (SB SUB) McKinley Street Corona 3700 1 1 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) Chicago Avenue Riverside 3450 1 1 BNSF & UP (SB SUB) 3rd Street Riverside 3275 1 1 UP (YUMA MAIN) Hargrave Street Banning 3250 1 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Joy Street Corona 3186 1 4 BNSF (SB SUB) Madison Street Riverside 3175 1 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Adams Street Riverside 3125 1 2 BNSF (SB SUB) Tyler Street Riverside 3000 1 2 UP (LA SUB) Jurupa Road Jurupa Valley 2925 1 1 UP (YUMA MAIN) 22dd Street Banning 2883 2 2 UP (LA SUB) Bellgrave Avenue Jurupa Valley 2883 2 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) Veile Avenue Beaumont 2883 2 4 UP (YUMA MAIN) San Gorgonio Avenue Banning 2817 2 2 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 66 Riverside County 2525 2 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) Avenue 62 Riverside County 2504 2 3 UP (YUMA MAIN) California Avenue Beaumont 2500 2 3 BNSF (SB SUB) Sheridan Street Corona 2482 2 5 BNSF (SB SUB) Pierce Street Riverside 2475 2 3 October 2015 63 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions 4.0 Transportation Travel Demand and Markets This section presents a summary of the existing and future expected transportation travel statistics and markets served by the Riverside transportation network. Summaries of the jobs - housing balance and the vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled, and travel patterns within, as well as to and from Riverside County and each planning area are summarized. 4.1 Jobs -Housing Balance The jobs -housing balance is a planning concept applied throughout many regions of the United States, and in particular, by California regions, that attempts to identify how well regions and communities balance employment within a reasonable distance to housing. Jobs -Housing Balance has been used as a key congestion management planning travel market assessment measure in California since the early 1990s. SCAG defines the jobs -housing balance as "a provision of an adequate supply of housing to house workers employed in a defined area (i.e., a community or subregion)," and "an adequate provision of employment in a defined area that generates enough local workers to fill the housing supply." There are several potential benefits that have been proposed to occur should a community be "balanced," including: • Reduced driving and congestion; • Improved air quality; • Lower costs to businesses and commuters; • Lower public expenditures on facilities and services; • Greater family stability; and • Higher quality of life. A common measure used to assess the jobs -housing balance is to examine the ratio of employment to households in a region. Table 4.1 presents the employment/households ratio for Riverside County, its three planning areas, and for the SCAG region as a whole. A ratio close to 1.0 implies a balanced community. If the ratio is significantly less than 1.0, then the community has more households than employment and may be more residential in nature, thus producing longer -distance, work trips out of the area. An area with a ratio greater than 1.0 is one that is primarily an employment center and an attractor of work trips. The jobs -housing balance in Riverside County is expected to grow from 0.89 jobs per household in 2012 to 1.1 by 2040. The Palo Verde planning area is expected to experience a modest reduction in jobs to households. In general, this trend toward a higher jobs -housing ratio may indicate a shift in commuting patterns toward more trips being able to remain within the county. Annual growth rates for Jobs -Housing Balance increases are expected to occur in Coachella Valley by 0.67% per year and .80% per year in Western Riverside County, while Palo Verde Valley is expecting reduced growth by -.42 percent per year to 2040, which indicates a likely decrease in this balance over time. October 2015 64 RCTC I Strategic Assessment - Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Table 4.1: 2012-2040 Employment to Household Ratio (Jobs -Housing Balance) by Planning Area Annual Riverside County 2012 J-H 2O40 J-H Difference % Difference Growth Planning Area Ratio Ratio (2012-2040) (2012-2040) Rate Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Western Riverside Region 0.94 0.79 0.87 Total Riverside County 0.89 Total SCAG Region 1.26 1.14 0.70 1.09 0.19 (0.09) 0.22 21% 0.67% -0.42% 25% 0.80% 1.10 0.21 24% 0.76% 1.33 0.06 5% 0.18% Source: SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, prelim. results, 2015. As shown in Table 4.2, the overall regional jobs per household balance will increase to 1.33 with Riverside County increasing at a faster rate but still remaining well below the regional average. In order to have a significant impact on regional travel patterns, this balance would need to increase dramatically in proportion to other counties in the region, which are all increasing to levels within the range of 1.1 to 1.65, with Riverside County remaining at the lowest rate (1.10) of all SCAG counties. With each of the region's counties expecting future increases in jobs -housing balance, there will likely be no significant impact to travel demand in the region. Research indicates that a very high shift in Jobs -Housing would have to occur to change travel patterns. Table 4.2: 2012-2040 Jobs -Housing Balance Rates by SCAG County County o• s o Households Annual Growth Rate i 1 o• s o Households Difference ifference (2012- (2012- 2040) 2040) Imperial 1.20 1.35 0.15 13% 0.4% Los Angeles 1.30 1.32 0.02 2% 0.1 % Orange 1.53 1.65 0.12 8% 0.3% Riverside 0.89 1.10 0.21 24% 0.8% San Bernardino 1.07 1.20 0.13 12% 0.4% Ventura 1.23 1.35 0.12 9% 0.3% Total SCAG Region 1.26 _ 1.33 0.06 5% 0.2% Source: SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, prelim. results, 2015. A ell Liighway and Roadway Travel Demand Traffic volumes for both the existing and future conditions for Riverside County are shown in Figures 4.1 and 4.2 respectively. The RIVTAM travel model was used as the source of this information. These volumes in combination with transportation network characteristics (e.g., trip generation and distribution, network connections and paths, and network assignments) were used to identify existing and future vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and vehicle hours of travel (VHT) summaries respectively presented in Tables 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5. VMT is expected to increase between approximately 70% and 90% between 2012 and 2040, significant increases in VMT (Table 4.3). In addition, VMT in Riverside County as a whole is expected to grow by 7513/0 by 2040. As shown in Table 4.4, VMT per Capita (by service population) is also expected to grow from 11.5 to 14.2 vehicle miles of travel in Riverside County overall. While VMT per capita October 2015 65 RCTC 1 Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions is significantly higher for Palo Verde Valley roadway users (ranging from 91 to 92 vehicle miles of travel in 2012 and 2040 respectively), the VMT per Capita impacts are balanced by significantly more trip -making in the Western Riverside Region and Coachella Valley. VHT is expected to increase by significantly more than VMT in Riverside County and each planning area, ranging from 100% in Western Riverside County, to 238% each in the Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley planning areas (Table 4.5). In total, VHT is expected to increase 137% in Riverside County to 2040. Table 4.3: Existing and Future Major Roadway VMT by Planning Area Riverside County Planning Area Coachella Valley Difference % Increase 2012 VMT 2040 VMT (2012-2040) (2012-2040) 7,133,900 13,627,037 6,493,137 91% Palo Verde Valley 2,814,909 5,006,120 2,191,210 78% Western Riverside Region 25,219,945 42,885,166 17, 665,221 70% Total Riverside County 35,168,754 61,518,323 26,349,569 75°A° Table 4.4: Existing and Future VMT per Capita by Planning Area Riverside County Planning Area 2012 VMT 2040 VMT 2012 VMT per Capita (service population) 2040 VMT per Capita (service population) Coachella Valley 7,133,900 13,627,037 12 14 Palo Verde Valley 2,814,909 5,006,120 91 92 Western Riverside Region 25,219,945 42,885,166 11 13 Total Riverside County 35,168,754 61,518,323 11.5 14.2 Table 4.5: Existing and Future Major Roadway VHT by Planning Area Riverside County Planning Area Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Western Riverside Region Total Riverside County 2012 VHT 2040 VHT 104,942 28,122 484,856 617,920 354,594 95,049 1,016,522 1,466,165 Difference (2012-2040) 249,651 66,927 531,666 848,244 °Au Increase (2012-2040) 238% 238% 110% 137% October 2015 66 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 4.1: Existing Traffic Volumes on Major Roadways in Riverside County Pomona „r • Tustin Dana Point ntan o Corona Mission Viejo 330 San Bemardinp‘' � r Edg`emmont 215 Perris Sun City Lake Elsinore OWIdomar• 74 73 T Mumieta San -Juan Capistrano San \ Clemente (Miles OcfAnside 'Carlsbad • Canyon Lake Fallbrook • Calimes Beaumont San Jacinto 'r Valle Hemet East � Vista ii NAnchesteerl Hemet emecula .4kImo+ Aguanga San Diego County '\ Twentynine Yucca Palms Valley „, _ 52 San�ardino County Desert Hot Springs • Thousand Palms Rancho Bermuda Mirage Dunes Indio Indian Wells •, La,4uinta Source: RivTAM Base Year Mode! 'Joshua Tree NP ioachella Thermal Mecca N.\ 015 Projects\OC_projects10402_RTC_SA_RCTC10C15_0402_RCTC_SA_RCTC1.BaseMap%BaseMar, EX Vols_Regional.mxd-ccarsell-7f28l2015 October 2015 Riverside County Existing Vehicle Volumes 50,000 - 75,000 < 25,000 25,000 - 50,000 �75,000- 100,000 �> 1 00 ,000 Riverside County Incorporated City Unincorporated Area 67 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 4.2: Future Traffic Volumes on Major Roadways in Riverside County Tustin E • I Corona Lake Car Mission Elsinore L: Viejo WIdomar 74 M urri eta Fallbrook • Ocmnside' 'Carlsbad Calimes Cherry Valley Banning San Jacinto Twentynine Yucca Palms Valley „oar — San -Bernardino County DesertC Springs • Thousand Palm Palms Springs •Valle Idyllwild East Hemet • Vista ii Vtincheste';a Hemet r emecula Aguanga Sarkpiego County Cathedral City Rancho Bermuda Mirage Dunes •• Indian Wells • La,4uinta 'Joshua Tree NP ioachella Thermal Mecca F)1 Arizona Future Vehicle Volumes 50,000 - 75,000 Riverside County < 25,000 �75,000 - 100,000 • Incorporated City Source: 25,000- 50,000 1>100,000 o Unincorporated Area RivTAM Future Year Mode! N:C u1b HrojectsVuc_]rojectsiu4u2_ItIC_6'A_kC I CAULlb_u41J2_1-&, I C_6'A_I-&, Auasemavdasemapru vols_Regional.mx[-ccarser fr2arAlb October 2015 68 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions I-N Existing and future truck volumes on Riverside County's major facilities are shown in Figures 4.3 and 4.4 respectively. As shown, consistent with other roadway characteristics (overall volumes, VMT, VHT) in Riverside County, truck volumes are expected to increase significantly on major roadways, including facilities in Western Riverside County. For example, some of Western Riverside County's major facilities, such as 1-10, will increase to about 15,000 from 10,000 truck movements by 2040. The range of truck movements for most major facilities in the County will increase with similar growth. October 2015 69 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 4.3: Existing Truck Volumes in Riverside County Pomon • Ontario �i Twentynine an ucca Palms Bemardino Halley,- s's" Conon San"B ardino County 62 4``-- .1 - r herry Malley Desert Hot Springs • Ed emont Beaumont : anning Joshua 97 orona g - ® Tree NP Thousand San Palm Palms Jacinto ® Springs Tustin Perris 'aRancho Bermuda Valle Idyllwild Cathedral Mirage Dunes Sun Ci : Hemet East sta. = City O. Indio Irnihe'� • • Winchester' Hemet Indian Its Lake Canyon • Coachella Mission Elmore Lake ® La Quinta Viejo AWildomar • ® 74 Murrieta a� San Juan Capistrano San Clemente • Miles Ocp9nside ■ Cadshad • Temecula •. Fallhrook • p rsu:swaxa�u�o rro�ecawu_pR TC_sA_R CTCIuu�o_uwu_nuiu_sn_nu iu�a asennap hermal Mecca Aguanga Oasis Sanipiego County Source: RivTAM Base Year model sue_ Riverside County Arizona Existing Truck Volumes 2,500 - 5,000 Riverside County 1,000 5,000 - 10,000 • Incorporated City 1,000 - 2,500 > 10,000 ❑ Unincorporated Area October 2015 70 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 4.4: Future Expected Truck Volumes in Riverside County mona Ontario Irvine • 61381 r89) San - Bernardino' 66 Colton • 216 . Perris �...� City Elsinore �+Wildomar I a Dana M urri eta • San Juan Capistrano Point • San Clemente Mission iejo 7 3 Fal!brook • (Miles Ocmnside • 78 'Carlsbad • Calimesa Cherry \ Valley Yucca Valley • San Bernardino County Desert Hot Springs • Twentynine Palms • Beaumont Banning 'Joshua Thousand Tree NP San Palm Palms F . J&CIntO 243 p., Jell" cc. Rancho Bermuda • Valle Idyllwild 1 .Cathedral Mirage Dunes 'Hemet • Vista • East City •• Indio • NAnche=terL Hemet -anyon emecula Aguanga A. 79 San Diego County Indian Wells •. La 4uinta Source: ioachella Thermal Mecca Riverside County Future Truck Volumes ch 5,000 - 10,000 Riverside County < 1,000 I0 10,000 - 15,000 • Incorporated City 86 1,000 - 2,500 —> 15,000 o Unincorporated Area iP 2,500 - 5,000 RrvTAM Future Year Mode! N.A U15 Projects VUO_]rujectsCOdO—RT-_SA_kCIG1UC16_114112_kCIU_SA_kCIOAUaseMaribaseMard-U_Iruck Vols_kegional.mxd-ccarsell-028!'21115 October 2015 71 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions 4.3 Travel Markets Using available travel demand modeling tools, such as the RIVTAM model, traffic assignment outputs and origin -destination data were used to determine the intra-county and inter -county travel patterns for existing and future travel demand conditions. Figure 4.5 shows the percentage of trips that originate or end in Riverside County, trips that stay within Riverside County called intra-county trips, and those trips that travel into or outside of Riverside County, called inter -county trips. Figure 4.5: Existing and Future Travel Markets in and to/from Riverside County Los Angeles County Orange County Tripsto other destinations: a% Miles 15 x�rrceanxms� rtoeasw�wrceas�n�xua+emimamm-nie+ .... _ San Bemardino County v43 e1% San Diego County Riverside County 79% 79% 41% Imperial County ..Base year 2.5-1: ,.Future year Inter/infra zonal trip flows The majority of Countywide intra-county trip -making (79%) for both existing and future conditions is expected to be the same, while existing and future inter -county trip -making is expected to be about the same for both existing and future conditions, with the majority of Riverside County inter -county trip making expected to occur between Riverside and San Bernardino Counties (11 %), with trips to and from Riverside to and from Orange, Los Angeles, and Imperial Counties ranging from less than 1 % to 4% of these trips. Figures 4.6 through 4.8 show similar intra-county and inter -county travel market assessments for each of the planning areas, including Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley. As with Riverside County in total, the majority of trip -making for each planning area in both existing and future conditions is internal, between 71 and 72% in Western Riverside County, 90 to 93% in Coachella Valley, and 80 to 81 % in Palo Verde Valley. Inter -county trip - making for each planning area shows some differences than the County as a whole as well, with 14 to 15% from Western Riverside County to San Bernardino, with between 4 and 5% both to and from Los Angeles and Orange Counties, and very few trips to and from Imperial County. Both Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley planning areas consider limited inter -county trip - making to other counties, with the majority of movements to/from Western Riverside County. October 2015 72 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 4.6: Existing and Future Travel Markets in and to/from Western Riverside County Los Angeles County r- 4%. 5% 4% Orange County Tri ps to other desti rati ons: 3% Miles 15 14% Westem Riverside County Q G1% San Bemardino County 1% Coachella Valley [1% 72% G1% San Diego County Palo Verde Valley Imperial County Arizona ,.Base year i Future year 401.10 Inter/infra zonal trip flows x11...xmsr mxaswc rrceav_213m833011m+emiMEIS.11 + .... Figure 4.7: Existing and Future Travel Markets Within and to/from Coachella Valley S :R. TARO Los Angeles County Orange County Tri ps to other desti rati ons: v0i5 2% San Bernardino County Westem Riverside County San Diego County Coachella Valley 93% 90% Palo Verde Valley Imperial County ,.Base year ice• Future year 001.10 Inter/infra zonal trip flows Figure 4.8: Existing and Future Travel Markets Within and to/from Palo Verde Valley Los Angeles County Tri ps to other desti rati ons: 7% Miles 15 4E3 G1% Westem Riverside County vgE 41 San Diego County 1% San Bernardino County sc)iiimpimmulmit Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley 2% Imperial County BO% <IC .. C1% Arizona ,.Base year Cam -•--,,-Future year 001.10 Inter/infra zonal trip flows S :R. TARO October 2015 73 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions I-N In addition, weekend, holiday, and seasonal weekday (winter, fall, summer, spring) travel and traffic patterns represent variations to average weekday travel conditions on the major roadway facilities of Riverside County. While variations differ slightly by morning and afternoon peak periods as shown in Figure 4.9, the purposes of travel are expected to be very different. For example, the majority of weekday travel is commuter or work oriented, while weekend and holiday travel consider different purposes. For each major facility in Riverside County (SR-60, I- 10, I-15, and I-215), traffic counts were reviewed and used to determine changes in seasonal, weekend, and weekday travel patterns. This data was collected from the Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS) for the AM and PM peak periods. The AM peak period traffic counts represented 7:00 to 9:00 in the morning, while the PM peak traffic counts represented 4:00 to 6:00 PM in the evening. Future conditions are expected to remain similar to those reported for existing conditions. Figure 4.9: Existing Holiday, Weekend, and Seasonal Traffic Patterns in Riverside County Riverside County Average Holiday Weekend Winter Weekday Fall Weekday NIO Summer Weekday Spring Weekday 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 Number of Vehicles per Hour IPM ■ AM 4.3 Transit Ridership SCAG has identified trips per capita as a significant measure of the relationship between transit trips provided and population growth. SCAG indicates "the use of per capita transit trips as a measure of regional performance has a long history dating back to the 2001 RTP." A goal of 34.9 trips per capita for the entire SCAG region was established for FY 2011-12. Given the substantial population increases in Riverside County over the past couple of decades and expected to 2040 (see Section 2.0 above), transit trips per capita is a particularly important indicator. Riverside County's recent trips per capita from 2005/2006 to 2013/2014 are shown in Table 4.6. Trips per capita have increased by 4% over the past three years indicated that trips by mode, including rail and specialized transit trips, range from increases of 2% for passenger rail to almost 17% percent in specialized transportation trips. October 2015 74 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions 01 Table 4.6: Trips per Capita Recent History for Riverside County Factors FY 05/06 Baseline (First Coordinated Plan) FY 11/12 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 % Change from FY 11/12 Riverside County Population 2,005,477 2,217,778 2,227,577 2,255,059 + 1.7% Passenger Rail Public Bus, Fixed Route 2,700,117 878,438 888,844 898,216 + 2.2% 10,575,445 13,115,046 13,667,996 14,143,952 +7.8% Public Bus, Demand Response Specialized Transportation Trips TOTAL Passenger 548,845 767,883 795,503 823,649 +7.3% 61,859 494,516 559,104 577,736 +16.8% Transit Trips 13,886,266 15,255,883 15,911,447 16,443,553 + 7.8% Provided, All Modes Trips Per Capita 6.9 6.9 7.1 7.2 + 4% Note: Metrolink changed its procedure for calculating boardings by line. Passenger rail trips from FY 11/12 on reflect boardings at stations only in Riverside County versus the prior reporting procedure of boardings for the entire line. A snapshot of unlinked passenger trips occurring in FY 13/14 was used for this assessment to represent existing transit ridership across all transit modes in Riverside County. Based upon an unlinked passenger trip total of 16.2 million, inclusive of Metrolink passenger trips, the trips per capita for Riverside County were 7.2. because SCAG forecasts for the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS were not available, the trips per capita for the future, including 2020, 2030, and 2040, were determined using California Department of Finance population figures and the assumption that unlinked passenger trips would continue to grow by 5% in the target years (i.e., 2020, 2030, and 2040). The future transit trips per capita ratio and expected future passenger transit trips for Riverside County are shown in Table 4.7. Table 4.7: Riverside Count Future Transit Trips and Transit Trip Per Capita Pro'ections Countywide with Metrolink Total of all Unlinked Passenger Transit Trips Service Area Population Projected Transit Trips per Capita FY 13/14 FY 2020 FY 2030 FY 2040 16,229,435 17,040,907 17,892,952 18,787,600 2,255,059 2,478,059 2,862,915 3,215,291 7.2 6.9 6.2 5.8 When comparing trips per capita by County in Southern California, areas with multiple modes of transportation and a higher provision of transit service in highly populated urban areas tend to have higher trips -per -capita rates. In comparison, even though Riverside County represents a mix of urban, suburban, and rural areas, its trips per capita rates tend to be lower. However, when compared to the six counties in the SCAG region, it ranks third behind Los Angeles and Orange counties in trips per capita, in which the bus -only mode share is considered. As Riverside County continues to grow, transit agencies will have to invest more in the provision of transit service in order to keep up with population growth. Moreover, should Riverside County determine that public transportation represents a larger transportation mode share, the level of October 2015 75 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions I-N investment in capital and operations available to transit agencies will need to increase significantly. The current trips per capita by County for bus transit mode share includes: • Los Angeles County, 49.8 trips per capita; • San Diego County, 19.4; • Riverside County, 10.0; and • San Bernardino, Ventura, and Imperial Counties, 9.2, 6.5, and 3.0 trips per capita respectively. Table 4.8 presents a summary of the trips per capita by mode for Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Venture, Imperial, and San Diego counties. Los Angeles County includes the full compliment of transit modes, from bus, light rail, heavy rail, bus rapid transit, vanpool, commuter bus, demand response, and demand response —taxi. The other counties, with San Diego County including a robust system of transit modes, consider a different mix of transit modes in which trips per capita were prepared. Due to these differences in transit modal use and availability to users by County, it is difficult to draw comparisons. Regardless, Riverside County offers trip per capita rates higher than most of these counties with the exception of Los Angeles and San Diego. In addition, a transit travel market assessment was conducted as part of the RTA's COA. The northern portion of the RTA service area, which includes the cities of Corona, Riverside, and Moreno Valley, is the most populous area in western Riverside. Moderate housing and employment growth is expected in the northern sub -area (Corona, Riverside, Eastvale, Jurupa Valley, and Norco). Residential use will be the primary form of development in the Moreno Valley/Perris sub -area with new employment concentrated near the Riverside County Regional Medical Center. The COA indicated that the Hemet/San Jacinto/Pass sub -area (which includes the cities of Hemet, San Jacinto, Banning, Beaumont, and Calimesa) will experience the highest rates of ridership growth in the RTA system. The Southwest sub -area (Canyon Lake, French Valley, Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Murrieta, Temecula, Wildomar, and Winchester) will experience employment growth in Murrieta along the 1-15 and I-215 freeways. According to the COA, by 2035, Temecula and Murrieta are projected to have the highest density in this sub -area making it conducive for increased levels of transit service and ridership. October 2015 76 RCTC 1 Strategic Assessment - Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Table 4.8: Current Transit Trips Per Capita for Southern California Counties Trips per Capita by County 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Baseline 2013 National Transit Database Unlinked Passenger Trips Trips Per Capita Los Angeles County Mode Bus (MB) Light Rail (LR) Heavy Rail (HR) Bus Rapid Transit (RB) Van Pool (VP) Commuter Bus (CB) Demand Response (DR) 9,893,481 Demand Response -Taxi (DT) --------------------- Total Trips Orange County Mode Bus (MB) Demand Response (DR) Van Pool (VP) Commuter Bus (CB) 470,032,743 47.5 63,652,197 6.4 49,516,465 5.0 9,118,437 0.9 3,626,621 0.4 2,432,521 0.2 1,454,103 0.1 _ _ _ 74_9,680 _ _ 0.1 _ _ _ 600,582,767 60.7 3,051,771 Demand Response -Taxi (DT) --------------------- Total Trips Riverside County Mode Bus (MB) Demand Response (DR) Commuter Bus (CB) 60,218,302 19.7 1,558,948 0.5 1,226,662 0.4 351,897 0.1 _ _ 68,32_4 _ 0.0 _ 63,424,133 20.8 2,228,528 Demand Response -Taxi (DT) -------------------------------- Total Trips San Bernardino County Mode Bus (MB) Demand Response (DR) Van Pool (VP) 21,420,184 586,285 363,077 _ _8,539 22,378,085 9.6 0.3 0.2 0.0 10.0 2,056,915 Commuter Bus (CB) --------------- Total Trips ------ 18,101,784 8.8 681,959 0.3 191,015 0.1 _ _ 10_7,167 _ _ 0.1 _ 19,081,925 9.3 Ventura County Mode Bus (MB) Commuter Bus (CB) 829,017 Demand Response (DR) --------------------------------- Total Trips San Diego County Mode Bus (MB) Light Rail (LR) Van Pool (VP) Hybrid Rail (HR) Commuter Rail (CR) Demand Response (DR) Commuter Bus (CB) 4,154,759 5.0 843,806 1.0 _ 411,509 _ _ _ _0.5 5,410,074 6.5 3,138,265 Demand Response -Taxi (DT) _________________________________ Total Trips Imperial County 175,201 Mode Bus (MB) --Dem_and Re_spo_ns_e_(DR_) - - - - - Total Trips 59,934,772 19.1 29,699,366 9.5 2,161,114 0.7 2,000,888 0.6 1,629,196 0.5 521,874 0.2 307,407 0.1 _ _ 14_5,039 _ _ 0.0 _ 96,399,656 30.7 655,335 3.7 29,961 0_2 -----685,296----3.9 - -- 1 U.S. Census Bureau, 2009-2013 5-Year American Communi y Survey: Total Population 2 2013 National Transit Database: Unlinked Passenger Trips October 2015 77 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions 5.0 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies In addition to the expected growth by 2040 in VMT, VHT, population, and employment presented in earlier sections above, selected performance measures were computed to identify future potential transportation deficiencies in Riverside County. Performance measures presented below include transportation roadway network accidents, travel speeds, congestion levels using volume to capacity ratios, and greenhouse gas emissions. Using these measures, general transportation deficiencies were identified in Riverside County. These deficiencies are also presented in this section. 5.1 Levels of Service and Congested Locations Using the RivTAM model, congestion locations for both the existing and future major roadway facilities in Riverside County were identified as over capacity / congested locations. Over capacity segments were identified for both years to show countywide segments that have a volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratio greater than 1.0, indicating a level of service (LOS) of F. While other roadway segments in both years are approaching and will be expected to approach LOS F, only those segments with a v/c ratio greater than 1.0 were shown. The following major roadway facilities are projected to operate over capacity in the future, predominantly located in Western Riverside County. These roadways include: • 1-215; • 1-15; • 1-10; • SR-60; and • SR-91. Figures 5.1 and 5.2 show the existing and future major roadway facilities with v/c ratios of 1.0 or higher in Riverside County. These segments represent congested locations in both years and show a comparison of the levels of service from 2012 to 2040. Over capacity or congested roadways shown for 2040 conditions account for future improvement projects that are planned, programmed, and funded as part of the SCAG RTP, TIP, and other documents. These are represented in the RivTAM model as existing plus committed projects. October 2015 78 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Ontario Chino ■ Figure 5.1: Existing (Daily) Congested Locations on Riverside County's Major Roadway Facilities Irvihe • Dana San JuaniCapistrano Point • `; San . Clemente • orona - Edgemont Nii.....s.lt -µ —.—— Sun City • Lake, '• Elsinore" Canyon Mission Lake Viejo Wildomar• 74 Murrieta Fallhrook • — N 0 Ocpimside • Miles Carlsbad • mprsunuata12015 ProjecklOC_projeck10902_RTC_sA_R CTC10C15_09R2_R CTC_sA_RC TC+Base Maptuase Msot.,_VCRATIO_Regionsi.mxd ccarsei,,,,2015 Twentynine an Yucca Palms Bemardino Halley 4•` • 62 San Bemardino County 11 Desert Hot herry Springs ❑Halley ■ Beaumont Banning Joshua Thousand Ire? NP San Palm Palms Jacinto ® Springs x ® 4 Rancho Bermuda i •Valle Idyllwild Cathedral Mirage Dunes Riverside County Hemet East sta City ❑ Indio 1Ninchest& Hemet Indian Its 1D • Coachella ® La,Quinta iThermal E Mecca Temecula n Aguanga San Diego County October 2015 Source: RivrAM Base Year Model' Roadways Over Capacity ■ Incorporated City Riverside County ❑ Unincorporated Area 79 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 5.2: Future (Daily) Congested Locations on Riverside County's Major Roadway Facilities Pomona.gr.•Ontario i • Chino ■ Dana Point • Mission Viejo ira ■ Loma ■. Riverside Norco Colton San Bemardino Lake Car Elsinore L llffildomar • Murrieta SIT -Moan Capistrano San Clemente • Miles Oopirside • Carlsbad • Fallhrook • emet East Winchester Hemet +r • Temecula r Desert 11oil Springs • Palm Springs IdylimAid Cathedral Calimesa San Jacinto [: _ Valle ista Aguanga Sanipiego County',. N/ Thousand Palms Rancho Mirage Bermuda Dunes City ❑ Indio Indian Its •, La,4uinta lwentynine Palms • Joshua Tree NP Coachella i Thermal Mecca 111p rs031D a1a12015 Proje cklO C_p roje ck10902_RTC_sA_R CTC 10C 15_0902_R CTC_sA_RC TC+B as e M a p1B as e M a p1F U_VC RAT IO2_R egi o na I. mxd-ccars el F7/23/2015 October 2015 Riverside County Blythe " • Arizona Source: RwTAM Future Year Model Roadways Over Capacity • Incorporated City ElRiverside County ❑ Unincorporated Area 80 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions I-N 5.2 Travel Speeds Existing and future transportation network travel speeds were prepared using the RivTAM Models. Reduced network travel speeds are used to define congested and bottleneck locations on transportation networks. Facility improvements represented in the RivTAM future year models (e.g., referred to as the existing plus committed projects that are funded and programmed) are projected to provide a substantial benefit on travel speeds to portions of the transportation network. Expected travel speed improvements are projected to occur on the Mid County Parkway and the realignment of State Route 79 (SR-79), a rural highway. Both of these major roadway improvement projects, located in Western Riverside County, were designed to help improve travel speeds in both urban and rural conditions within the area. The following rural highway facilities have a noticeable decrease (slowing) of travel speeds by 2040: • SR-177; • SR-243; and • US-95. The speeds on SR-177 and SR-243 will be in the 35-45 mph range, so the performance on these facilities should be acceptable in the future. The speed on US-95 is projected to drop below 35 mph north of Blythe, so additional capacity may be needed to maintain adequate performance in the future. 1-10, as a key east to west freeway through Riverside County, also is anticipated to experience travel speed degradation by 2040. Reduced travel speeds and increased congestion levels are anticipated to occur in segments of 1-10 both in Western Riverside County and the Coachella Valley. Figures 5.3 and 5.4 show the existing and future year morning (AM) peak period travel speeds on the major roadway facilities of Riverside County and Figures 5.5 and 5.6 show the existing and future evening (PM) peak period travel speeds on the same major facilities in Riverside County. This shows the critical locations of travel speed issues in both the existing and future years, as well as the differences in expected travel speeds on the major roadway facilities expected in Riverside County by 2040. October 2015 81 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 5.3: Existing Morning Travel Speeds on the County's Major Roadway Facilities Pomona r� • Tu▪ stin Dana Point ntan o Corona Colton Moreno 'Valley �Edgemont 216 Perris Sun City Mission Elsinore Viejo WIdomar• 74d TMurrieta San"Juan Capistrano San Clemente Canyon Lake Fallbrook • Calimesa Cherry Valley Be`mo▪ nt Bain g San r • Jacinto • Valle • Vista Hemet ii East NAnchesteerl Hemet sr Temecula e• Yucca Valley • San Bernardino County Desert Hot Springs • Thousand Palms Twentynine Palms • Rancho Bermuda Idyllwild `.'Cathedral Mirage4Dunes .00 g City Indio '�` -, !Indian Wells • Coa_chella 371 .160Aguanga San Diego County La,4uinta •Thermal ' Mecca Riverside County Mile Source: Ocmnside RivTAM Base Year Mode! Carlsbad o N:C u1 b Hrojectsluc_]rojectslu4u2_P C;_sA_kC I clUC1b_u41J2_kC; IC;_sA_kC GABaseMavdaseMaotX AM_ Irafticspeen_kegional.mxq-ccarserfr24r2uib October 2015 AM Travel Speeds < 35 35 - 45 45 - 55 Riverside County 55 - 65 • Incorporated City >65 o Un incorporated Area 82 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 5.4: Future Morning Travel Speeds on the County's Major Roadway Facilities Pomona r� • Tustin Dana Point ntan o Chino • Corona Colton Calimesa Moreno Cherry V��ey� � ` , O Val ley O ... • ,mb/ E9d emont' Beaumont Banning —�. ` , f• ■y [ts�r._.al.� San Jacinto 11 Valle Sun City H���''''''''''tEast��e""'m"et""'''"CCCCCCJJJJT'T�����t'''"'Vista ii East Lake•• • �♦ Nhnchesteerl Hemet Canyon J sr Elsinore Lake drWiclomare • _ 7� 73 T Murrieta,.� San -Juan Ca San \ Clemente Mission Viejo -Fallbrook • (Mile Ocmnside Carlsbad Temecula e• Yucca Valley • San Bernardino County Palm Springs Idyllwild Aguanga San Diego County Cathedral City Thousand Palms Rancho Bermuda Mirage Dunes �OO Indio (Indian Wells • La 4uinta Twentynine Palms • Riverside County ioachella Thermal Mecca • Salton Sea i Source: RivTAM Future Year Model N:C u1 b Hrojectsluc_]rojectslu4u2_P C;_sA_kC I cluClb_u41J2_kC; IC;_sA_kC GABaseMavdaseMaoru AM_ Irafticspeegs_kegional.mxq-ccarsell rizth uib October 2015 AM Travel Speeds < 35 35 - 45 45 - 55 55 - 65 > 65 Riverside County Incorporated City Unincorporated Area 83 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 5.5: Existing Afternoon Travel Speeds on the County's Major Roadway Facilities Pomona r� • Tustin Dana Point ntan o Corona Mission Viejo Moreno Valley Edgemont Twentynine Palms •• 62 San Bernardino County y4% 0' 1tg,' i Springs. lig'csr, ��iik) Valle Idyllwild'''Cathedral Sun City jHemet Vista -0 City �� East Lake • NAnchester' Hemet Canyon1J Lake I Wildomar• � � Elsinore rMum eta• San Juan Capistrano San Clemente Beaumont Fallbrook • (Mile Ocmnside Carlsbad Temecula San Jacinto 371 Aguanga O 76 79 San Diego County Thousand Palms Indian Wells Le,4uinta g eccswc_P _k c_5,v_kc cwcin_uauz_kc c_5,v_kc cttsaeemapesasemap_N m_ rarricapeegs_keg October 2015 ioachella Thermal Mecca Riverside County Salton Sea Source: RivTAM Base Year Mode! PM Travel Speeds < 35 35-45 45 - 55 Riverside County 55 - 65 • Incorporated City >65 o Un incorporated Area 84 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 5.6: Future Afternoon Travel Speeds on the County's Major Roadway Facilities Pomona • r91 Tustin Irvine Dana Point ntan o Corona Mission Viejo Moreno 'Valley Edgemont Calimes San Jacinto 111. Valle Sun City `Vista f p`•• Hemet East Lake • �nchester Hemet Elsinore Canyon• ' Lake "Idomar• �, • Murrietaii Temecula � Fallbrook • s 76 79 .>r, IPA i; ,h San Diego County 86 L Salton Sea Source: 40.1 ...6,30.guanga Yucca Valley • San Bernardino County Desert Hot Springs Thousand Palm Palms Springs Idyllwild 371 Cathedral City Rancho Mirage Bermuda Dunes Indian Wells • La 4uinta 1 Twentynine Palms • ioachella Thermal Mecca • Riverside County Mile Ocmnside RivTAM Future Year Mode Carlsbad �1 N:C uI b Hrolectsluc projects u4u2_k�C_6'A_kCIcwC16_u41J2_1-&,IC_6'A_kC�cABasemavdasemavd-u_Hm_Irafticspeen_kegional.mxcl-ccarser/izth ui October 2015 PM Travel Speeds < 35 35-45 �`�•. Blythe 45 - 55 Riverside County 55 - 65 • Incorporated City >65 o Un incorporated Area 85 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions I-N 5.3 Greenhouse Gas Riverside County's geography is part of several air basins and its jurisdiction is covered by several air districts representative of southern California. For example: • The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) covers the urbanized portion of Riverside County and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAB also covers the urbanized portions of Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, all of Orange County; • The Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB) covers the desert portion of Riverside County and under the jurisdiction of three air districts, two of which include Riverside County. These include the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District covering eastern Riverside County or the Palo Verde Valley area; and the SCAQMD administering the area of Riverside County between the Salton Sea Air Basin and Pal Verde Valley area. • The Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB) covers the eastern portion of Riverside County (excluding the MDAB portion) and is administered by the SCAQMD. Congestion levels combined with VMT and VHT have an impact on the level of GHG emissions in Riverside County. About one vehicle mile of travel is equal to one pound of carbon dioxide. Therefore, VMT and GHG increase proportionally. Table 5.1 shows the estimated existing and future GHG emissions (metric tons) by planning area as well as Riverside County in total based on the VMT data provided earlier in this section. As with the VMT results presented earlier in Section 5.0, Western Riverside County represents the largest concentration of both existing and future highway and roadway usage and resulting GHG, almost three times more than the expected combined GHG emission from the Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley planning areas. The overall GHG emission growth is expected to be about 75% from existing to future conditions, with each planning area expected to increase by 70% to 91 %. Table 5.1: Existing and Future Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons) in Riverside County Riverside County Planning Area 2012 GHG 2040 GHG Difference % Increase Metric Tons Metric Tons (2012-2040) (2012-2040) Coachella Valley 7,782,436 14,865,859 7,083,422 91% Palo Verde Valley 3,070,810 5,461,222 2,390,411 78% Western Riverside Region 27,512,667 46,783,818 19,271,150 70% Total Riverside County 38,365,913 67,110,899 28,744,983 75% October 2015 86 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions 5.4 Accidents and Safety Five years of collision data, from 2008-2012, were collected for Riverside County from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). The collision data was used in combination with the existing RivTAM assignment outputs to identify two safety measures for the Riverside County transportation network: • Collision rates per million vehicle miles of travel; and • Collision densities per million vehicle miles of travel. Figure 5.7 shows the existing collision rates per million vehicle miles of travel for the major roadway facilities in Riverside County. These collision rates represent existing conditions, but while future accident rates have not been predicted in this analysis, a reasonable assumption is that accident rates will be expected to increase over time as VMT increases and strategic actions are not implemented to mitigate high accident locations. Figure 5.8 shows the existing collision densities per million vehicle miles of travel, another safety measure that is often displayed in conjunction with collision rates. This measure shows the high density safety hot spots. Since the roadway links are various lengths, some hot and cold spots are adjacent to one another and may appear arbitrary. The two sets of data (collision density and rates) should be used in conjunction to identify roadways with potential safety concerns. October 2015 87 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 5.7: Riverside County Existing Transportation Network Collision Rates per Million VMT PomonagOntario ■ Chino ■ Dana Point orona San r� Bernardino Colton ; • ira � *Loma % Moreno Riverside _ Valley Norco ❑• ■ ■ ■ Edgemont_ Beaumont Banning Calimesa fit herry •CValley `P1�ti r San rrr _r r Jacinto [ara Perris r ■ Valle Idyllwild Sun City Hemetfsta d e ❑ ■ East rAy_ Lake# ■Canyon Winchester Hemet Elsinore Mission Lake Viejo., �Wildomar• ,i Murrieta • . L SanuanrCapistrano San ■ Temecula Clemente nr% Aguanga # Fallhrook ■ .1111111111/4 Santpiego County},. Miles / Oopirnside • Carlsbad ■ lwentynine Palms •-- Desert Hot springs Thousand Palm Palms Springs ■ 1111 ■ Rancho Bermuda Cathedral MirageDunes City ❑ Indio Indian I• ts Coachella ® La,Quinta Thermal Mecca P 5113LU dtdl'N'I� YfCJ2 CGLllU—PfOJe CGW4UL—li IU—SH— —114UL—IiUIU—SH—IiU IUV]d52MdPltl d52MdPlIHS KL—U LJ LLISILJ NS'I—li2glCndl.fRX O-CCdf521F IfLi October 2015 Riverside County Arizora Collision Rate (per million miles) 10-50 > 50 Riverside County ■ Incorporated City ❑ Unincorporated Area Source: SWIMS, TIMS 88 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions Figure 5.8: Riverside County Existing Transportation Network Collision Density Rates per Million VMT San Bemardino ira ■ Loma Riverside Norco Edgemont Beaumont Banning orona Nii....ss: 275 SanJacintoyPerris Halle Sun City • • ' ista Hemet East ake • 1Ninchestell Hemet Elsmdte Canyon • Mission Lake Viejo ®�. Wildomar• Murrieta Dana Poirii San Juan Capistrano San sClemente Fallhrook • ��Milea+ 0 0 aside Carlsbad 11fp rs031D a1a12015 Proje cklOC_p roje ck10902_RTC_SA_R CTC 10C 15_0902_R CTC_sA_RC TC+El as e M a p1B as e M a p1TASK2_C OLLI SIO Ns2_R e g io n a I. mx d- cca rs elF 7/23/2015 Temecula • Twentynine Halley Palms San Bernardino County .,ucca f �. i Thousand g a sPalm ® Palms d Spnngs Rancho Bermuda Idylld r ' Cathedral Mirage ❑D unes City Indio Indian Wells • Coachella LaOuinta •Thermal Mecca Aguanga • Oasis Sanipiego County Joshua Tree NP Riverside County October 2015 Irh-peri Source: S WI TRS, TIMS Collision Density NIHigh Blythe . J> Riverside County ■ Incorporated City ❑ Unincorporated Area 89 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions I-N 5.5 Transit Needs The Riverside County Transportation Commission annually conducts unmet transit needs hearings at locations around the county to identify and assess comments from the public on reasonable transit needs that are not being met. A review of four years of unmet needs public testimony was undertaken to identify deficiencies in the County's transit network, including a review of hearings held in May 2011 in Banning, May 2013 at RCTC, and October 2014 at SunLine Transit Agency and in March 2015 at the Mecca Boys and Girls Club. A brief summary of the areas of unmet transit need within Riverside County follows: UNSERVED SPATIAL AREAS Given the large service area in Riverside County and the continuing development of new neighborhoods and the expansion of long-standing residential areas, there are, not surprisingly, areas of the County that do not have public transit service. Unmet transit services include: • Temescal Valley — In Western Riverside County, this newer community has continued to grow and is in need of expanded transit services. • North Palm Springs — In the Coachella Valley, there is need for increased transit service north of the 1-10 Freeway beyond the existing SunLine Route 24 service. • Desert Hot Springs — In the Coachella Valley, there is no SunLine service near Desert Hot Springs off Highway 62. • Expanded area of North Shore Salton Sea — In Eastern Coachella Valley, while some service has been added to the SunLine network near Mecca, there is still a need for additional service. • Oasis, near the Torres -Martinez Reservation — This and other Unincorporated Areas near Mecca and Thermal have transit needs that are unmet by existing services. • Calimesa — Plantation on the Lakes in Calimesa is a growing retirement community of more than 500 homes with very limited, if any, transit service. • Department of Motor Vehicles, East Riverside - Sycamore Canyon and Eastridge have a high need for transit services, both to the two DMV offices located in this area SPAN OF SERVICE AND OPERATING DAYS OF SERVICE Various transit operators in Riverside County have identified the need to extend both days and hours of service as a specific need in the following locations: • SunLine/ RTA #220 — This inter -city route's frequency and span of service is of concern to riders who need to travel into Riverside but who cannot use early morning services. • North Shore Salton Sea — Existing Eastern Coachella Valley service runs on weekdays and increased frequency, weekend, and bi-directional services are desired. • Sunday service — PASS Transit in the City of Banning does not currently operate on Sundays and potential riders indicated the need for Sunday services. October 2015 90 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions I-N CONNECTIVITY WITH METROLINK TRAINS/ MORE TRAIN SERVICE There is a desire for increased Metrolink train service between Riverside and Los Angeles. In addition, users of the SunLine/RTA Route #220 desire improved connectivity with more Metrolink trains, particularly with Metrolink service on the weekends. RTA intermodal connections to Metrolink on weekends, particularly on Saturdays, are an identified need. INFRASTRUCTURE FOR TRANSIT USERS WHO ARE ALSO PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS Commenters across Riverside County have spoken about the need for benches at every stop in addition to more bus stop shelters. Providing sidewalks designed to satisfy the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Design Guidelines will ensure that all passengers, including those using a mobility device, can access public transit in a safe and efficient manner. In addition, the provision of amenities such as shelters, benches, and bicycle amenities will further enhance the transit users' experience and provide for an integrated transportation system that supports active transportation (e.g., pedestrian and bicycle) goals. Bus turnouts can also be helpful in improving the transit system. By providing turnouts at the proper locations, passenger boarding and alighting will take place with limited interruption to the traffic flow. However, due to the expense of building a turnout, careful consideration should be taken when identifying a turnout site so buses can safely exit and enter mixed flow lanes without increased disruption to the traffic flow and vehicular safety. Providing turnouts in locations where buses cannot safely enter mixed flow lanes defeats the purpose of promoting transit service as a safe and efficient mode of transportation. Continuing attention to curb cuts and to accessibility is important for Riverside County residents who are disabled and use mobility devices to move about. Some curb cuts have aged considerably, since they were first installed and are in need attention and rehabilitation. SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION NEEDS Commenters speak of the expanding elderly population within Riverside County and the need to meet the public transportation needs of the County's aging community, in the Banning/ Beaumont area and in Palm Springs among others. Specific needs consider trip chaining, the need for transit operators (demand responsive) to make multiple stops on a particular trip, long- distance medical trips to destinations are of increasing importance, including trip needs into Loma Linda — Veterans Administration Medical Center, Loma Linda University Medical Center; Riverside County Regional Medical Center; and to specialist referrals within Los Angeles County. Programs serving homeless persons in Riverside County, including Veterans programs and the Riverside County Continuing Care Department, have difficulty providing transportation to homeless persons. Immediate needs transportation, such as through dedicated van service or taxi vouchers, is needed that can help to serve this population. 5.6 Freight and Interregional Transportation System Needs In early 2015, Caltrans prepared the draft Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan (ITSP), a planning process and document that the agency used to identify and prioritize 11 corridors for interregional transportation improvements across the state. Each corridor includes a mix of multimodal and integrated strategies designed to improve freight and recreational travel in each of these key corridors. The Southern California — Southern Nevada/Arizona, one of the 11 ITSP October 2015 91 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 2: Document Existing and Future Conditions I-N corridors in California, considers highway, passenger rail, and freight rail interregional components in Riverside County. The key interregional systems in this corridor impacting Riverside County include: • Freight corridors include 1-15, 1-10, and the BNSF Railway and UPRR Yuma mainline corridors; • Passenger rail corridors include Amtrak bus connections to the Pacific Surfliner Intercity Rail Corridor to Coachella Valley and the proposed Coachella Valley Rail Corridor; • Various private bus operators (e.g., Greyhound) using 1-10 and 1-15 and Metrolink Perris Valley Line; and • Various active transportation and local/regional commuter systems. As documented in the ITSP, freight corridor improvements, maintenance, and preservations are high priorities for both 1-10 and 1-15 in Riverside County. Medium priorities are being considered for freight corridor expansion, Coachella Valley Rail Corridor, and local and regional commuter systems. The potential improvements for these high and medium corridor priorities for the corridor will need to be funded regionally and statewide, but provide an opportunity for RCTC to identify strategies to address these interregional system needs. In addition, Riverside County also worked in close collaboration with SCAG in the development of the Regional Goods Movement Plan encompassing Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Imperial, and Ventura counties. Riverside County also recently defined next steps (What's Next) for Goods Movement in the County. The County focused on defining the potential impacts on its countywide transportation system related to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, in particular, through freight rail and truck movements generated by the Ports (77% of all goods pass through Riverside County) as well as anticipated increases in the number of freight trains passing through the County causing increased transportation system (and roadway) delays, congestion, safety, and noise. For the past decade, Riverside County has defined goods movement as a top legislative priority for future transportation improvements, and as a result, has defined and been using multiple funding sources to support the implementation of freight infrastructure, including Measure A Economic Funds, Trade Corridor Improvement Funds, among various other federal and state (CMAQ, STP) funding mechanisms. The County's focus has been on improving at -grade freight rail/roadway crossings. It identified 31 at -grade freight rail/roadway crossings requiring upgrades up to a potential cost of $1.7 billion. Due to funding opportunities and constraints, the number of locations was refined to include the top 20 locations ($908 million), with the County defining funding strategies to complete its improvement program. October 2015 92 RCTC Riverside County Strategic Assessment Appendix B: Summary of Current Plans and Policies b FEZ Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies Strategic Assessment Riverside County Transportation Commission January 5, 2016 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies I-N Page intentionally blank. RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Summary of Current Plans 1 2.1 Freeways and Highways 5 2.1.1 Western Riverside County 5 2.1.2 Coachella Valley 5 2.1.3 Palo Verde Valley 5 2.2 Managed Lanes and Tolling 8 2.3 Arterial Roads 9 2.3.1 Western Riverside County 9 2.3.2 Coachella Valley 11 2.3.3 Palo Verde Valley 15 2.4 Rail and Transit 16 2.4.1 Western Riverside County 16 2.4.2 Coachella Valley 17 2.4.3 Palo Verde Valley 18 2.5 Non-Motorized/Active Transportation 18 2.5.1 Western Riverside County 18 2.5.2 Coachella Valley 20 2.5.3 Palo Verde Valley 22 2.6 Goods Movement 23 2.7 Sustainability and Climate Change 25 2.8 Land Use and Transportation 25 3 Summary of Current Policies 26 3.1 Freeways and Highways 26 3.2 Managed Lanes and Tolling 26 3.3 Arterials and Local Streets 26 3.4 Rail and Transit 27 3.5 Non-Motorized/Active Transportation 27 3.6 Goods Movement 27 3.7 Land Use 28 3.8 Sustainability / Climate Change / Environment 28 3.9 Planning / Modeling 28 3.10 Funding / Finance 29 4 Policy Gaps and Strategic Issues 30 January 2016 i RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies List of Tables Table 1: Summary of Current Transportation Plans for Riverside County 1 Table 2: Summary of Measure A Projects 4 Table 3: Measure A Projects and Status 6 Table 4:Planned Regional Bikeways in the Palo Verde Valley 22 List of Figures Figure 1: 2009 Measure A Programs by Geographic Area 5 Figure 2: Planned Highway Projects in Riverside County 6 Figure 3: SCAG 2012-2035 Express/HOT Lane Network 9 Figure 4: Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials (RSHA) 10 Figure 5: Coachella Valley TUMF Network (1 of 6) 11 Figure 6: Coachella Valley TUMF Network (2 of 6) 12 Figure 7: Coachella Valley TUMF Network (3 of 6) 12 Figure 8: Coachella Valley TUMF Network (4 of 6) 13 Figure 9: Coachella Valley TUMF Network (5 of 6) 13 Figure 10: Coachella Valley TUMF Network (6 of 6) 14 Figure 11: Palo Verde Valley Area Circulation Plan 15 Figure 12: Metrolink Extensions to San Jacinto and Temecula/Murrieta 16 Figure 13: California High -Speed Rail Alignment Alternatives in Riverside County 17 Figure 14: Potential Alignment for Coachella Valley — San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor 18 Figure 15: WRCOG Non -Motorized Transportation Network 19 Figure 16: North Coachella Valley Bike and Recreation Trail 20 Figure 17: South Coachella Valley Bike and Recreation Trail 21 Figure 18: CV Link 22 Figure 19: Palo Verde Valley Bike and Recreational Trails 23 Figure 20: Location of High -Priority Grade Separation Projects Identified in 2008 Funding Strategy 24 January 2016 ii RCTC I Strategic Assessment - Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies I-N 1 Introduction This technical memorandum presents: 1. A summary of plans currently in place to guide development of the transportation system in Riverside County; 2. A summary of policies currently in place that guide strategic decision -making relative to transportation in Riverside County; and 3. A summary of the strategic policy and issue areas which: (a) are not currently covered by adopted plans or policies, or (b) should be reviewed as part of the Strategic Assessment in light of current and evolving circumstances. 2 Summary of Current Plans Current plans for Riverside County's transportation system are listed in Table 1. The table indicates the agency responsible for each plan, the transportation modes included, and whether the planning horizon is short-term (up to 10 years) or long term. Improvements needed to accomplish these plans will be identified and included in the list of improvement needs being developed for the Strategic Assessment. • • !awe 1: aumma or current Trans • °nation Plans ror Riversiae count Plan Agency Improvement Plans for — Planning Horizon Long Term Short Term High- ways Mgd Lanes Arterial Roads Intchg, Grd Rail Bus Transit Transit Sep. Active Trans Habit -at 2013 CA State Rail Plan Caltrans X X California High Speed Rail Authority Alternatives Analysis California High Speed Rail Authority X X General Plan Circulation Element County of Riverside X X X X CVAG Non -Motorized Transportation Plan CVAG X X TUMF Regional Roadway System CVAG X X X X SR-91Implementation Plan OCTA/RCTC/ Caltrans X X X X X X X Measure A Expenditure Plan (2009-2039) RCTC X X X X X X X X Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan (2009-2019) RCTC X X X X Comprehensive Operational Analysis RTA X X Comprehensive Operational Analysis SunLine Transit Agency X X Regional Transportation Plan SCAG X X X X X X X January 2016 1 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies I-N Plan Agency High- ways Mgd Lanes Improvement Arterial Roads Plans for Intchg, Grd Rail Sep. Transit Bus Transit Active Trans Habit -at Planning Horizon Long Term Short Term Short -Range Transit Plans SunLine, Corona, Banning, Beaumont, Riverside, Palo Verde, RTA, RCTC X X Western Riverside County Non -Motorized Transportation Plan WRCOG X X TUMF Regional System of Highways and Arterials WRCOG X X X X Santa Ana River Trail Plan Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District X X Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority X X Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) Coachella Valley MSHCP X X List of agencies included in Table 1: • Banning: City of Banning • Beaumont: City of Beaumont • Ca!trans: California Department of Transportation • Corona: City of Corona • CVAG: Coachella Valley Association of Governments • OCTA: Orange County Transportation Authority • Palo Verde: Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency • RCTC: Riverside County Transportation Commission • Riverside: City of Riverside • RTA: Riverside Transit Agency • SCAG: Southern California Association of Governments • SunLine: SunLine Transit Agency • WRCOG: Western Riverside Council of Governments Central to RCTC's mission since 1989 has been the delivery of projects included in Measure A, the County's half -cent sales tax dedicated to transportation improvements. In 1988 County residents approved Measure A as a 20-year program (1989-2009), and in 2002 the voters approved a 30-year extension (2009-2039). Each measure included a list of transportation improvements to be delivered using the sales tax revenues. Table 2 highlights Measure A January 2016 2 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies I-N projects that are completed, under construction, or planned in Western Riverside County and the Coachella Valley. January 2016 3 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies Table 2: Summary of Measure A Projects Completed 60/215 East Junction Project 74/215 Interchange Project 1-215 South Project 1-215 Bi-County Gap Closure 1-215 Central Project SR-91/La Sierra Avenue Interchange Project SR-91/Van Buren Boulevard Bridge and Interchange Project SR-91/Green River Road Interchange Project 1-215 Widening — Southbound — Blaine Street to Martin Luther King Boulevard) I-215/Van Buren Boulevard Interchange SR-74 Curve Widening Grade Separations: Auto Center Drive, Columbia Avenue, Iowa Avenue, Jurupa Avenue, Magnolia Avenue, Riverside Avenue, and Streeter Avenue Perris Valley Line — 24 mile commuter rail extension terminating in Perris (2016) Completed SR-111: • Make Improvements and Widen SR-111 through Indian Wells (Phases 1-IV) • Washington Street Intersection Improvement (La Quinta) 1-10/Palm Drive/Gene Autry Trail 1-10/Indian Canyon Drive I-10/Bob Hope Drive/Ramon Road Interchange 1-10/Date Palm Drive I-10/Monterey Avenue Interchange Project Grade Separation Projects: Avenue 48/Dillon Road, Avenue 50, and Avenue 52 Under Construction 91 Project — Tolled Express Lanes SR-91 HOV Project Grade Separation Projects: Clay Street, Magnolia Avenue, and Sunset Avenue Under Construction I-10/Jefferson Street Interchange Project Avenue 56 / Airport Boulevard Grade Separation Project Future Term 1-15 Express Lanes Project SR-60 — Add Truck Climbing and Descending Lane, Badlands area east of Moreno Valley 71/91 Interchange Project SR-71 Corridor Improvement Project SR-79 Realignment Project Mid County Parkway 1-215 North Project 10/60 Interchange 1-10 Truck Climbing Lane Future Term SR-111: • Signal Synchronization Project • Intersection improvements and Street Widening in Cathedral City • Widening Project in Indian Wells from Cook Street to the Eastern City Limit • Madison Street to Rubidoux Street — Street Improvement Project (Indio) SR-86 Interchanges 1-10 Interchange Projects • 1-10 / Monroe Street • 1-10 / Jackson Street Whitewater River Bridge Crossing (Avenue 50) Avenue 48 Widening (Jackson Street to Van Buren Street) SR-86/Avenue 50 Interchange Project Avenue 66 Grade Separation Project Funds raised by Measure A are returned to each of the County's three districts — Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley — in proportion to their contribution. Generally, 75% of the funding is allocated to Western Riverside, 24% to Coachella Valley, and 1 % to Palo Verde Valley. Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of Measure A funds geographically and between programs. January 2016 4 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies Figure 1: 2009 Measure A Programs by Geographic Area Western County *Bond Financing - 8% *Economic Development Incentives -1% *Highways - 30% *Local Streets and Roads - 29% *New Corridors -11% *Public Transit -12% *Regional Arterials -9% Source: RCTC Annual Budget Coachella Valley *Highways and Regional Arterials - 50% *Local Streets and Roads - 35% *Public Transit -15% Palo Verde Valley •Local Streets and Roads -100% As part of the 2002 Measure A extension, RCTC is committed to supporting habitat mitigation in Riverside County. RCTC has fully paid its $153 million obligation to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) for the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), as promised under Measure A. Following is a high-level summary description of the improvements planned for the various components of the transportation system. January 2016 5 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies I-N 2.1 Freeways and Highways 2.1.1 Western Riverside County Planned improvements to the highway system include: • HOV/HOT/Express lanes O 1-215 from 60/91/215 interchange to Orange Show Road in San Bernardino County (HOV) O 1-15 from SR-74 to 1-215 (HOV and HOT) O SR-91 from Orange County Line to 1-15 (HOT/express) • General Purpose lanes O 1-15 from SR-60 to San Diego County line (MF) O 1-215 from Eucalyptus Avenue to 1-15 (MF) O SR-71 from SR-91 to the San Bernardino County line (MF) O SR-91 from Orange County line to Serfas Club Drive (MF and Auxiliary) • Truck -climbing lane O 1-10 from San Bernardino County line to SR-60 O SR-60 from Gilman Springs Road to Jack Rabbit Trail • Freeway -to -Freeway Interchange improvements O I-10/SR-60 O S R-91 /S R-71 O SR-91/I-15 • New highway and highway realignment O Mid County Parkway connecting San Jacinto at SR-79 with Perris at 1-215 (new) O SR-79 between Domenigoni Parkway and Gilman Springs Road (realignment) In addition, long-term needs have been identified in the corridor parallel to SR-91 connecting Riverside County to Orange County, including: • Elevated 4-lane facility between SR-241 and 1-15 in the vicinity of SR-91 • Irvine -Corona Expressway (ICE), a 4-lane facility between SR-241 and 1-15 in the vicinity of Cajalco Road 2.1.2 Coachella Valley • SR-86 is planned to be upgraded to a freeway, replacing the at -grade intersections with grade -separated interchanges. 2.1.3 Palo Verde Valley • No significant highway improvements are planned for the Palo Verde Valley. January 2016 5 RCTC 1 Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies Figure 2 illustrates the locations of planned highway improvements identified above. Figure 2: Planned Highway Projects in Riverside County nge Cott nty tc Source: HDR San niego County (Miles 10 202119511 GTG SimegWcxssmeni 11511VVA,P_Dec,Yn NchWRcoG_ae, m. r.a1.61115_Gt5 San Bernardino County uanga Palm `pnngs yuw� e Truck Climbing Lane tttttt� HOVIHOT1Express Lane Mixed Flow Lane Auxiliary Lane New Highway and Highway Realignment Interchange • The projects being funded by Measure A for 2009-2039 are listed in Table 3. The table identifies the project, provides a brief description, and indicates the status. Table 3: Measure A Projects and Status Measure A Projects Description Completed Under Construction Planned 1-10 'Add eastbound truck climbing lane, San Bernardino County line to Banning X I-10/SR-60 Interchange Construct new interchange X 1-10 Coachella Valley Corridor Improvement Projects Project Segments: 1-10/ Date Palm Drive Widen bridge to three lanes each side plus bike lanes, new and realigned on and off ramps both eastbound and westbound X January 2016 6 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies Measure A Projects Description Completed Under Planned Construction I-10/Bob Hope Drive/Ramon Road New bridges of four lanes in each direction over 1-10 and three lanes in each direction over railroad tracks, new interchange with multi -lane on and off ramps both east and westbound on the 1-10 at Bob Hope X I-10/Indian Canyon Drive New bridge with three lanes on each side plus bike lanes, new and realigned on and off ramps both eastbound and westbound, widen portions of Garnet Avenue and 20`" Avenue X I-10/Monterey Avenue Widen and realign on and off ramp westbound to connect with Varner Road instead of Monterey Avenue and add traffic signal at Varner Road X 1-10/Palm Drive/Gene Autry Trail New bridge of three lanes in each direction plus bike lanes, new and realigned on and off ramps both eastbound and westbound, widening of Gene Autry bridge over Union Pacific railroad tracks X 1-15 Corridor Improvement Project Construct one HOV lane in each direction between the 1-215 and the SR-74 and construct one General Purpose lane, two Express Lanes, and Auxiliary Lanes in each direction from SR-74 to the San Bernardino County Line, add one lane in each direction from SR-60 to San Diego County line X I-215 Add one lane in each direction from Eucalyptus Avenue to 1-15 X 1-215 Add two lanes in each direction from SR- 60/SR-91/1-215 to San Bernardino County line X 1-215 Bi-County HOV Project Construct one HOV lane in each direction from the SR-60/SR-91/1-215 Interchange to Orange Show Road in San Bernardino County. X 1-215 Central Project Widen 12.5 miles of the 1-215 between Scott Road and Nuevo Road adding one general purpose lane in each direction, closing the existing HOV gap. X 1-215 North Project Construct one HOV lane in each direction from Nuevo Road to the SR-60 /1-215 Interchange X I-215 South Project Widened six mile of the 1-215 between Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Scott Road by adding one general purpose lane in each direction X SR-60 Add truck climbing lane, Badlands area, east of Moreno Valley X SR-60/I-215 East Junction Interchange Project Construct one High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) direct connector in each direction closing the gap between the SR-60 westbound HOV lane in Moreno Valley and the SR-60/I-215 eastbound HOV lane X SR-71 Corridor Improvement Project Widen to three lanes in each direction from SR-91 to San Bernardino County line X January 2016 7 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies Measure A Projects Description Completed Under Construction Planned SR-74 Improve 4`" Street Interchange at 1-215 in Perris and Winchester curve in Hemet X SR-74/I-215 Interchange Project Reconstructed and modified the existing interchange by replacing the two-lane bridge over the freeway with an eight -lane bridge X SR-79 Realignment Project Realign the SR-79 between the Domenigoni Parkway and Gilman Springs Road X _ SR-91 HOV Project Widen six miles of the SR-91 between Adams Street and the SR-60/SR-91/1-215 Interchange by constructing one HOV lane in each direction, closing the existing HOV gap X SR-91/La Sierra Avenue Interchange project Replacement of existing overcrossing and widening of La Sierra Avenue X SR-91/Van Buren Boulevard bridge and interchange Replacement of existing overcrossing bridge, widening of westbound ramps, and new eastbound ramp X SR-91 Project Project Segments: 15/91 Interchan e g Add tolled express lane direct connectors between the 91 and 1-15 X 91/Main Street Interchange improvements X 91/Lincoln Avenue Interchange improvements X 91/Maple Street Interchange improvements X 91/Serfas Club -Auto Center Drive Interchange improvements X 71/91Interchange • • •. • •.• • • X 91/Green River Road Interchange improvements SR-111 X Mid -County Parkway Construct a new eastbound/westbound corridor connecting San Jacinto with the Perris area terminating at the 1-215 X Perris Valley Line Extend the existing Metrolink 91 Line service from the Downtown Riverside station, 24 miles along the existing San Jacinto Branch Line terminating in Perris X 2.2 Managed Lanes and Tolling RCTC is currently in the process of developing Express (High -Occupancy Toll, or HOT) Lanes on the 91 freeway from the Orange County Line to 1-15 as an extension of the 91 Express Lanes in Orange County. In addition, RCTC is moving forward with plans to add Express Lanes to 1-15 from the San Bernardino County line to Cajalco Road. Figure 3 highlights these Express January 2016 8 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies Lanes projects in the context of the SCAG 2012 RTP's vision for an express lanes network in the region. Figure 3: SCAG 2012-2035 Express/HOT Lane Network SCAG 2012-2035 RTP Express I HOT lane Network Ventura County as ROTC EapnulHOT WM Sl'K2912.2e3S RTP Ewe.t r HOT t.M tyfpngTCW ROW m m Los Angeles County w LT Oil MHO 2.3 Arterial Roads ELl 79 m m San Bernardino County Orange County v aT Riverside County 74 1 1MEM 2.3.1 Western Riverside County The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) administers a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) to help fund regional arterial, interchange, bridge, grade separation, and transit projects. The WRCOG TUMF Regional System of Highways and Arterials (RSHA) is shown in Figure 4. January 2016 9 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies Figure 4: Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials (RSHA) o OaR Gm . or Lae I I i ;Miles 0 2 4 8 12 16 Source: 2014 WRCOG TUMF Annual Report U dirnare Number of Lanes 0%0 2 Lanes 0%0 4 Lanes 4011160 6 Lanes 401411110. 8 Lanes Railroad crossings • S4,550,800 per lane e $2,t20,000per Lem Inidrehdngd& Q Tie*.760.000 $22,284000 Q $10,890,000 • Srldges OCanPieted Svisa ree - Completed Road Sepermemh Elkopreeed RTATrarai Center ® Carplegd RTp Tromso CgrOr g*R4efC Railroads Freeways Laken & Rivers laTOM F Zane Boundary Streets& Roads ay Boundaries January 2016 10 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies 2.3.2 Coachella Valley The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) administers a TUMF program to help fund regional arterial, interchange, and bridge projects in the Coachella Valley. The network of regional arterials funded with support from the CVAG TUMF is shown in Figures 5 through 10. Figure 5: Coachella Valley TUMF Network (1 of 6) PI ERT HOT SPRINGS armee S.:m 1. Men14wr ouP ?," e.mew..wm. (T. emu Figure I-1 unit segments COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE i n _ CVAG Source: Transportation Project Prioritization Study (2010) January 2016 11 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies Figure 6: Coachella Valley TUMF Network (2 of 6) CATHEDRAL CITY vn PALM SPRINGS .RANCHO, MIRAGE • N oo. Source: Transportation Project Prioritization Study (2010) Figure 7: Coachella Valley TUMF Network (3 of 6) € err. �.... __ CATHEDRAL RANCHO _I CITYE--1 � w,1,Poigi eerv�ar....e�+wewr a-0❑ oO.D, 411r/4/11 r COUNTY OF 1 RIVERSIDE figure 1.3 LMA m, Seynenu Source: Transportation Project Prioritization Study (2010) VA January 2016 12 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies Figure 8: Coachella Valley TUMF Network (4 of 6) INDIAN WELLS wrbe... • 000 °�....wrw,..n... raeoa.na Figure LM1u!orm Segrnenu Source: Transportation Project Prioritization Study (2010) Figure 9: Coachella Valley TUMF Network (5 of 6) Source: Transportation Project Prioritization Study (2010) January 2016 13 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies Figure 10: Coachella Valley TUMF Network (6 of 6) .INir.Mrd,� x is n..+Hw.+. ► M+•w.rn..r oo❑ COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE figure 1-6 1.66'wm SESmeola I30 CVA Source: Transportation Project Prioritization Study (2010) January 2016 14 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies 2.3.3 Palo Verde Valley The Palo Verde Valley Area Plan, developed as part of the County of Riverside General Plan Update, outlines the vision for this area for 2020. Figure 11 presents the vehicular circulation system that supports the land use plan for the area. Figure 11: Palo Verde Valley Area Circulation Plan Freeway (Variable ROW) ��., Arterial (728'ROW) • Major [778' ROW} r Secondary ('IRO' ROPY) ▪ r BilountalnArterial 2 Ln (iia' ROW) Collector (74' ROW) Highways �C Existing Interchange Railroads Amended • Existing Bridge Area Plan Boundary City Boundary Waterhodtes East County - Da s e rtA rea Mct:oy Mounignss GOMh1UNl1 Y 4 MA.INIT r CT CT G.HUGuwWJA MkS.RVitt Yk E Y .. _. k.K3 N CITY OF BLYTHE HI)N11Y OF WLLEVE EL (:I IEIC KWA11 A VAl I i Y AND IRONWOOD $IAI E PHIBONW Maki. Movatoins EILYTI IE APPOP1 f1npariat County Source: County of Riverside General Plan: Palo Verde Valley Area Plan r 1av 1 i lTti•:1F 64 Herin Mormiaoryv January 2016 15 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies 2.4 Rail and Transit Planned regional rail and transit for Riverside County: 2.4.1 Western Riverside County Planned regional rail and transit for Western Riverside County includes Metrolink extensions, express bus service, and the state high-speed rail project. Metrolink. The Perris Valley Line extension of Metrolink from Riverside to Perris is currently under construction with opening set for 2016. The SCAG 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) identifies Perris Valley Line extensions to San Jacinto and Temecula (shown in Figure 12) for implementation by 2035. The Temecula/Murrieta extension might potentially be developed as part of a hybrid blended system for future high speed rail service between Los Angeles and San Diego via the Inland Empire. Figure 12: Metrolink Extensions to San Jacinto and Temecula/Murrieta Metrolink Existing (2008) Plan (2035) San Bernardino County 0 10 20 Miles Source: SCAG Metrolink service levels on existing lines are planned to be increased. The SR-91 Implementation Plan identifies Metrolink service expansion on the Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) and 91 Line, adding 8 IEOC trains and 20 91 Line trains for a total of 59 daily trains. Express Bus. The SR-91 Implementation Plan identifies the addition of three new express bus services from Riverside to Orange County, with frequencies every 30 to 40 minutes, for implementation by 2020. January 2016 16 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies High Speed Rail. The California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) identifies a Phase II alignment from Los Angeles to San Diego via the Inland Empire, with possible alignments through Riverside County along either the I-15 or 1-215 Freeways (see Figure 13). Figure 13: California High -Speed Rail Alignment Alternatives in Riverside County Fr SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SANBAG. Melroiigk Ontano International Airport Station I-10 UPRR Canty of San Bernardino ' I -it} Station Option 4 (Corona Station �r .1 G(`L 4aGn ,Naha Mew*. %Ow Mw.r. •ee..r .r Sinn. - a.ohm - M6var AINYhPM1.0ta. - 144.444h0.iW01r41110100110. Q. hhhaawirlp.e. rteo. sown* . wh wow rw • wrh. Mhos A Woo, 11.4.• City of San Bernardino Station Option 4* SAN BERNARDINO INTL *� .Riverside Station *ILK Blvd Option f Riverside Station -Watkins Drive Option 0 \43MARCH ARB fMurriete 1-15 --- Station Option March ARB Station Option S2 - Ontario Airport to Murrieta/Temecula Source: California High Speed Rail Authority LA to SD via Inland Empire Preliminary Alternatives Analysis (April 2010) Approximately 45-50 miles of the 170 mile alignment are planned to be located in Riverside County based on preliminary scoping documents prepared in April 2010. The timetable for implementation of Phase!! has yet to be determined, but is expected to occur after the planned completion of Phase 1 (San Francisco to Anaheim) in 2029, based on the Authority's 2014 Business Plan schedule and phasing assumptions. 2.4.2 Coachella Valley Intercity Bus. In December 2011, daily Amtrak Thruway bus service connecting to the Pacific Surfliner route at Fullerton was initiated. This service provides connections east through the January 2016 17 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies Coachella Valley with one daily round trip between Fullerton and Palm Springs, and one daily trip from Fullerton to Indio. The 2013 California State Rail Plan (CSRP) identifies this Amtrak Thruway bus service for possible future expansion, based on a 170 percent ridership growth in the first 10 months of operation. Intercity Rail. The 2013 CSRP identifies the Coachella Valley Corridor (shown in Figure 14) as a proposed intercity route between Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS) and Riverside County with potential stops at LAUS, Fullerton, Riverside, Redlands/Loma Linda, Beaumont/Banning, Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, and Indio. Four new stations are needed in the future, including the Indio Transit Center, which needs to be converted into a multimodal facility with train platforms. The Coachella Valley Corridor's inclusion in the CSRP and status as an intercity service makes it eligible in the future for State operating assistance. Figure 14: Potential Alignment for Coachella Valley — San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Redlamb/ lvrtsa lini4 Station liatuninte Led Beam -nand blemslirian Station • RMrrsde • L YENc4' - Barbing! MathemSadaFERairoodTraits Q 0 bislnkaliaimbrailoxriecoms — wino PAC& Ram Tracks 0 Pvipuse i sliloi Palm Sirrigs Saakkn Cabaxafl — �t',o,' Attu ``ha Mirage" tik1WF {atl�lr F..111 Station eth Vevio lam � Pain Dorm owrt : Stiki4u I De3C'I ▪ • I.a QuinU Source: Coachella Valley Association of Governments The California Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan also identifies the Coachella Valley Corridor as a priority corridor for passenger rail improvements including Amtrak bus connections to the Pacific Surfliner and the Coachella Valley — San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor. 2.4.3 Palo Verde Valley There are no regional rail and transit improvements planned for the Palo Verde Valley. 2.5 Non-Motorized/Active Transportation 2.5.1 Western Riverside County The Western Riverside County Non -Motorized Transportation Plan provides a regional network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in order to provide enhanced transportation options, as is presented in Figure 15. WRCOG has also adopted a City Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) Transportation Plan which plans a network to accommodate NEVs in the cities of Corona, Norco, Riverside, Moreno Valley, and Santa Ana River Trail. January 2016 18 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies Figure 15: WRCOG Non -Motorized Transportation Network Legend on+Aaioi.rra Tranaparlalmn YOMarina Cl.allkalana - Rlk.aarlRad«gran Sax. LI., Clasa 101 Ro.),, E.I.Ing - -- etlagragRad..nian $ax.e 18e. Clan I(OR Road}, Prawn. RdolaasOasIaigr.n Skaad 4ie. 9liia i fr,A1Raad}. P,poovod ur.rnarira - Billea,y, Cl as a R Kai Head. $MApad p an. Y. Ealsllnq - gil•.++ri. CI... II ion Head. 8lrspad taneaA ahvseaad Gad a II jGN Woad, S11..1 Lanasj,Peopesad AllarnaiNa +•• 91Fr•.r, CIsd a In 4S.pned a.iro WM). E%IOnp w�. �ikrw ry, CI M a III (F•prad bt•anfV Road). Prypaaep -- honar lFllph.ra. - Rid Ka d 0 Nondala.u.d n.nlPnnann Iona ® grrA transit Gaayr El kldrollrt Mallon Ed•Rnp �. Srunal Unkape Zan. IMrnlr Ira ma LlnaaCe Inns June 2010 Mountatrr 59 Source: 2010 Western Riverside County Non -Motorized Transportation Plan January 2016 19 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies 2.5.2 Coachella Valley The Coachella Valley Association of Governments 2010 Non -Motorized Transportation Plan Update identifies non -motorized transportation projects in the Coachella Valley area. Projects include bikeways, hiking and equestrian trails. Figure 16 and Figure 17 show location of existing and proposed bicycle and recreation trails. In addition, CVAG is planning for CV Link, a transportation corridor planned to follow the Whitewater River channel that incorporates pedestrians, bicycles, and low speed -electric vehicles in one project. This project, illustrated in Figure 18, will connect eight of the nine cities in the Coachella Valley and three Native American tribal lands. Figure 16: North Coachella Valley Bike and Recreation Trail part APE —c T,41041.31 el' 4 4t. 1 e flNrr 1 `41E t 1L I k. ■ .uGMIlO .• DESERT HOT MIIOS % a1 A r - z. �.4- a:. — 'f vwr,,wt al 11... I cu. .rE ... t 1 .. .m a17 I 1 • 0 0.5 1 I 111111. Legend Bicycle and Trail Facilities Golf, Path, Existing CLASS. STATUS _ _ Golf, Path, Proposed - Class l Bike Path, Existing Ts Golf Lane En sung - - Class I Bike Palk, Proposed _ - Golf, Lane, nto,gge, - Class a Bike Lane, Existing Sidewalk, Path, Existing _ _ Class II Bike Lane, Proposed Sidewalk, Path, Proposed Class III Bike Route, Existing — Multipurpose, Palk, Existing - Class III Blka Route, Proposed . w Multipurpose, Palk, Proposetl r AAA • ,1 . ,pto1.n,f- •„. w.-1 rtprtex • , • Ei;,. WV �•1, I wIMCWklgtflwpf�"- ro issi=a p at«relul � aPlns a.,,n,,m�� r iPTt f Lr 1',CATHEDRA:CITY • I .y�� a . I 1 I, J • ?I - s If--i''1' r-. EXISTING AND PROPOSED BICYCLE AND RECREATIONAL TRAIL FACILITIES NORTH COACHELLA VALLEY .... _s - • ,;. (,. r n.re 4' . I Y 1 'x .., oF�`_`�i is ~ 15I aria a��i� . '1. >.t.' s k 0 RANCHO M i b� 3 PALM DESERT n.F Source: CVAG 2010 Non -Motorized Transportation Plan Update January 2016 20 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies Figure 17: South Coachella Valley Bike and Recreation Trail 3 s% _ __+L CperA!!IL x / • • �I n, A yF :1 jI �044* ?�tkt A EXISTING AND PROPOSED BICYCLE AND RECREATIONAL TRAIL FACILITIES SOUTH COACHELLA VALLEY i • ' _ I p��r Ry 'ry_c2 y - cil,! r-4,—_.110 'MOMS 1111 ND WELLS U n+ • 1 1MI- Trail Facilities CLASS, STATUS Class l Bicycle Path, Existing Class l Blcycle Path, Proposed Class ll Bicycle Path, Existing Class ll Bicycle Path, Proposed Glass III Bicycle Lane, Existing Class III Bicycle Lane, Proposed Legend Golf, Path. Existing — + Golf, Path, Proposed Golf, Lane, Existing — Golf, Lane, Proposed Sltlewalk, Path, Exlsting Sidewalk, Path, Proposed •isi Multipurpose, Path, Existing Multipurpose, Path. Proposed a s t- u WPM N • 1 Ra 1 4.0 1 Mr. K Rr 1 1 •:I•I, .55T ., r ;�TM .� / 1 r:, 3 1 1 i 1•.. '4."3144__—i—__1..• 1- ,Avot0H l AL.'44114e WO 4 1 1 � „ •• 1 • F_. 1 1 1 I : -I • 1 1 t I t ; ers/ArE � - .eM rm 1 1 fC 1 lv gl 0' 1 1 1 3 1 1 `. .r �__ 1} _`' 1 . ! , Source: CVAG 2010 Non -Motorized Transportation Plan Update w �. `i°IP 94• anq rrr M.rzria 4.1.2 14:-. . ` 1 1 1 �C NF 1ii [SIN IWE� January 2016 21 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies Figure 18: CV Link I'.Fie Rt AO' Sr PINGS CV Link Alignment Proposed Reuse .r r horn tiro Roue %hoe Pout* et e i . �M1 S•Iton Se• MOo; FI 51KJ:C Source: 2015 CV Link Master Plan 2.5.3 Palo Verde Valley The Coachella Valley Association of Governments 2010 Non -Motorized Transportation Plan Update also identifies the following non -motorized transportation projects in the Palo Valley area (listed in Table 4 and shown in Figure 19). Table 4: Planned Regional Bikeways in the Palo Verde Valle Class Street/Path From I I I I I I I Colorado River US-95 Hobsonway, Blackrock Rd. Riverside Ave. Clark Ranch Rd. to Blythe city limit North end of Palo Verde Valley Mesa Dr. Arrowhead Blvd. To Length (mi.) Blythe city limit to Imperial County line Blythe city limit Blythe city limit Blythe city limit 22.2 5.2 2.0 1.5 January 2016 22 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies Figure 19: Palo Verde Valley Bike and Recreational Trails A. =ertr a.,.n«olo.NPdri. -�. ,,.lone,,,. ^.., CoonnWlr ilnl _,. CONH[0.111n llae iitooliel llae: C Wee 1 Rlhe PAN �. CWee 10Nt Pdli CWer 2ONn Path H..1n,r. HW Itiwlhmn aranMpq,e I. nil • Juan Hn rliAq i1n xiyq N.H.! lemon it lixq I And ••--nnnneM Itt At I. ane. Alh..1 aneoue Pifilr PUNS MAI Fong nali anti FIieWs Oarea Rnl Onulnlery ,Nyacw lerr , WIU.A. Source: CVAG 2010 Non -Motorized Transportation Plan Update 2.6 Goods Movement Riverside County serves as a conduit for the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach for transporting goods to areas beyond the state, with more than 77% of freight being pass -through cargo destined for areas beyond the County line. Approximately 65% of the pass -through freight travels by rail and the remaining 35% travels by truck. There are 61 at -grade Alameda Corridor East (ACE) crossings in Riverside County. These crossings are located on the main lines of either the Union Pacific (UP) or Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroads. In April 2006, RCTC identified a list of 31 priority ACE grade January 2016 23 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies separation projects, and in 2008, developed a Grade Separation Funding Strategy to address implementation of the top 20 projects through the leveraging of existing commitments by local jurisdictions and other funding partners. Figure 20 shows the location of those 20 priority grade separations. Figure 20: Location of High -Priority Grade Separation Projects Identified in 2008 Funding Strategy *Wl. :, HDIO COACH ELLA r LJ BANNING 15 -- -' R IYERSIU E COUNTY .re tR]R❑ • ,i RNERSIOE_IA ;l'•.. NGRGd r ,Z.'P�t.��� , : . : 4 *. . + t r"r 1 fT �11 1 II I: Ilr r •-- f� ,.___I I- --ladP#IP - . drirdelia4 4511,41'' 4' -.41 tit# i 411114111 41111 Vr� i 15 RIYERSI6 `r COUNTY CD BERTH Source: RCTC 2008 Grade Separation Funding Strategy 1 l I P ti, 3,5 UP (LA SUP) RAIL WE 111111 EBISF(SB SUB) RAIL WE 11111 I UP BNSFSHARE0 RAIL WE • PRO RRYG ROUP A Q PRO RRYGROUPB • PRO RRYGROUPC -•-••• CRY BO W OARIES STREET FREPNAY The California Interregional Transportation Strategic Plan identifies the Union Pacific Railroad's Yuma Mainline as a priority freight corridor in the state, along with the 1-15 and 1-10 freeways. The Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan identifies a priority project to build a truck climbing and ascending lane on SR-60 through the Badlands, and the Measure A Expenditure Plan includes an eastbound truck climbing lane on 1-10 from the San Bernardino County Line to Banning. January 2016 24 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies 2.7 Sustainability and Climate Change The WRCOG has developed a regional Climate Action Plan (CAP) to coordinate GHG reduction efforts in implementation of AB 32. The CAP identifies specific GHG reduction measures to be implemented both regionally and locally in support of those efforts: • Measure SR-7: Metrolink Expansion. Additional Metrolink transit service will be provided to Western Riverside County. • Measure SR-8: Express Lanes. Additional Express Lanes will be added along major freeways in Western Riverside County. Extension of Express Lanes along State Route 91 (SR-91) and Interstate-15 (I-15) would be operational by 2017 and 2020 respectively, thereby reducing congestion according to regional transportation modeling. The SR-91 extension project is currently under construction. The 1-15 Toll Express Lanes from State Route 60 (SR 60) to Cajalco Road has entered the preliminary engineering phase, and the anticipated opening year is 2020. • Measure SR-11: Goods Movement. Efficient movement of goods through inland Southern California will be facilitated through the addition of truck climbing lanes on SR-60. SCAG has developed regional plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) readiness plans to identify viable locations for charging stations, changes to development codes, and other strategies to encourage the purchase and use of electric vehicles. WRCOG was allocated $20,000 to engage in readiness guidelines and workshops, infrastructure plans, and coordinating council functions. PEV chargers are already being installed in the WRCOG subregion. Through these planning and outreach efforts, alternative -fuel vehicles will be promoted as one strategy to reduce GHG emissions associated with passenger vehicles in Riverside County. 2.8 Land Use and Transportation RCTC does not have any direct authority over land use planning, which is the responsibility of local cities and the County (in unincorporated areas). That said, there is a strong nexus between land use and RCTC's transportation planning decisions under both the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and SB 375. The MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi -jurisdictional plan to conserve sensitive species and their associated habitats in the Western Riverside subregion. Created in 2004 by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), the MSHCP comprehensively addresses federal and state Endangered Species Acts (ESA and CESA) requirements. RCTC has made a strong financial commitment to the implementation of the MSHCP through its Measure A program. SB 375 requires coordination between regional land use and transportation planning processes in order to achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions. This coordinated element is known as the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which SCAG added to its RTP for the first time in 2012. Local agencies are not required to follow specific GHG reduction strategies laid out in the RTP/SCS; however, RCTC's planned transportation projects will be increasingly scrutinized for their impact on land use and the ability of the Southern California region to meet January 2016 25 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies its collective GHG reduction goals. The regional reduction targets for the SCAG region are 8% per capita by 2020 and 13% per capita by 2035. 3 Summary of Current Policies Current plan and policy documents were reviewed to identify current policies and statutes that guide decision -making relative to transportation in Riverside County. The list of documents reviewed is included in Appendix A. Appendix B includes the summary of information pulled from each document. Following is a bulleted list of key current policies, programs, and statutes by category, including identification of strategic implications for RCTC and Riverside County. To distinguish between state -level and local policies, the state -level policies have been shaded in the list below. �J. I Freeways and Highways Policy / Program / Statute Agency Strategic Implications for RCTC and Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol I Funded by I. (FSP) commuter RCTC & assistance program Caltrans • The FSP program of commuter assistance delivers a high benefit - cost ratio for delay reduction on freeways. Limited funding available to expand FSP program Call Box Program RCTC • Proliferation of cell phones has reduced usage. Program needs to be re-formulated to better meet current needs. 3.2 Managed Lanes and Tolling Policy / Program / Statute Agency Strategic Implications for RCTC and Riverside County Deputy Directive DD-43- R1: Requires that a toll revenue expenditure plan be developed by Caltrans and the regional transportation agency. Caltrans • In general, use of toll revenues from express lanes in California must be planned cooperatively by the county transportation commission and Caltrans. • RCTC has secured specific legislation for the SR-91 and 1-15 projects which supersede the Deputy Directive in regard to tolling of those two corridors. 3.3 Arterials and Local Streets Policy / Program / Statute Agency Strategic Implications for RCTC an Riverside County Western Riverside Co. TUMF Program: development fees for regional arterial improvements Coachella Valley TUMF Program: development fees for regional arterial improvements Measure A local agency maintenance of effort requirement WRCOG • Places some responsibility for funding transportation improvements on the development generating the need for improvements • Source of funding for planned arterial roadway improvements CVAG • Places some responsibility for funding transportation improvements on the development generating the need for improvements • Source of funding for planned arterial roadway improvements RCTC • Local agencies must maintain their existing commitment of local funds for street, highway and public transit purposes to receive Measure A Local Streets and Roads funds. January 2016 26 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies 3.4 Rail and Transit Policy / Program / Statute Agency Strategic Implications for RCTC and Riverside County Metrolink FY 15/16 Adopted Budget, including FY 17 and FY 18 Projections: 14.1 % increase in Member Agency subsidies from FY15 to FY16 SCRRA • Work with SCRRA to identify long-term cost containment measures • Strategize with local cities and other funding partners on long-term strategies to increase funding through ancillary revenue streams (advertising, parking) or offset station operating and maintenance costs. 2008 Transit Vision RCTC • Funding allocations to guide annual allocation of Measure A and TDA funds, as well as percentages for specialized transportation contribution of Measure A) • Perris Valley Line extensions to San Jacinto and Temecula? • Funding formula for transportation funds in Western Riverside County is split- 78% for public bus and 22% for commuter rail Coachella Valley 90% bus transit / 10% passenger rail split of TDA funds CVAG • Dedicates a portion of the Coachella Valley's annual TDA funds to establishing passenger rail service 3.5 Non-Motorized/Active Transportation Policy / Program / Statute Agency Strategic Implications for RCTC and Riverside County SB 99: Active Transportation Program SB 821: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Ca!trans • Redirected programming responsibilities for active transportation funding from MPOs to State • RCTC and local cities must now compete to secure a portion of the 50% of total funds made available annually through the ATP statewide funding solicitation RCTC • 2% of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) available, competitive projects 3.6 Goods Movement Policy / Program / Statute Agency Strategic Implications for RCTC and Riverside County 2008 Grade Separation Funding Strategy RCTC • Significant funding gap will require leveraging commitments of local jurisdictions, host railroads, and other funding partners • For Section 190 award eligibility, RCTC or lead agency must negotiate up to a 5% or 10% local match from the host railroad; for such a contribution to be forthcoming, RCTC will need a clear demonstration of project benefits to the host railroad. January 2016 27 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies 3.7 Land Use Policy / Program / Statute Agency Strategic Implications for RCTC and Riverside County Senate Bill 375: requires SCAG to develop RTP/SCS to integrate land use and transportation planning to achieve GHG reduction targets for passenger vehicles State of California • Planned development and infrastructure projects need to be accounted for in the RTP/SCS assumptions to be consistent with the RTP/SCS and therefore eligible for state and federal funding. Western Riverside County and Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plans Regional Conservation Authority • Coordination of habitat mitigation and the planning of transportation projects. 3.8 Sustainability / Climate Change / Environment Policy / Program / Statute Agency Strategic Implications for RCTC and Riverside County 1 Senate Bill 535: requires a portion of AB 32 investments be directed to disadvantaged communities. State of California Senate Bill 743: replaces vehicle delay and level of service (LOS) with vehicle miles of travel (VMT) as the basis for determining significant project impacts under CEQA. Executive Order B-30-15 : mandates a 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions below 1990 levels by 2030 • Identify existing, unfunded transportation projects in Riverside County that are located in or directly benefit disadvantaged communities. • Prioritize the development of discretionary grant application for projects located in disadvantaged communities State of • RCTC will need to incorporate VMT into project California environmental review assessments. • Projects that increase VMT (which includes land development and roadway capacity improvements) will likely need to identify mitigation measures to reduce vehicle trip -making and trip lengths. _ State of • Regional agencies must take climate change into account California in their planning and investment decisions, and employ full life -cycle cost accounting to evaluate and compare infrastructure investments and alternatives Plug-in Electric Vehicle (PEV) Readiness Plan SCAG • Identify city policies and practices which either facilitate or hinder PEV infrastructure installation 3.9 Planning / Modeling Policy / Program / Statute Agency Strategic Implications for RCTC and Riverside County Riverside County Congestion Management Program: monitors congestion and develops deficiency plans to expand system capacity and address congestion RCTC • The program is designed to plan for system capacity expansion to address congestion. It is basically inconsistent with plans and programs designed to reduce vehicle trips and GHG. January 2016 28 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies 3.10 Funding / Finance Policy / Program / Statute Agency Strategic Implications for RCTC and Riverside County AB 1532: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) Investment Plan: directs proceeds from GGRF toward grant programs that reduce GHG emissions State of California 2016 State Transportation Improvement Program Guidelines (draft): CTC intends to consider climate change impacts when approving programming recommendations in the event that programming requests exceed programming capacity County and local cities must compete annually for discretionary funds available from GGRF for transportation, including Transit and Intercity Rail Program (TICRP) and Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program State of California • RCTC must take climate change into account when proposing new programming for the 2016 STIP, by virtue of Executive Order B-30-15 (see above) • Bicycle/pedestrian projects (currently only 1.6% of RCTC STIP expenditure) may be easier to fund under new draft guidelines 2014 Summary of STIP County State of Shares: STIP provides 75 percent of California its revenues to counties through the Regional Improvement Program (RIP). CTC provides periodic updates on STIP fund estimate. • Decrease in gas tax receipts means almost no new programming capacity for the 2016 STIP • Potential deferral of existing programmed projects Ordinance No. 02-001, Riverside County Transportation Commission Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance: Return Measure A sales tax revenue to the geographical regions where the revenue is generated. RCTC • RCTC acts as administrating entity for most Measure A funds • Return to source policies leave most programming discretion to CVAG; WRCOG, by comparison, has a more rigid framework for the distribution of funds among the various project modes Ordinance No. 02-001, Riverside County Transportation Commission Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance: Mandatory annual fiscal audit shall determine Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement for local governments. RCTC • Requires continued investment by local government in streets and roads as a condition of receiving Measure A local return funds • Provides leverage to RCTC in ensuring that local governments comply with ongoing implementation of both the MSHCP and/or TUMF program. Ordinance No. 02-001, Riverside County Transportation Commission Expenditure Plan and Retail Transaction and Use Tax Ordinance: Attract new commercial and industrial development and jobs to Riverside County to reduce the need for long commutes to Orange and Los Angeles counties through $40 million Infrastructure Improvement Bank and economic incentives program WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program: Ensure that developers pay their "fair share" toward the cost of needed infrastructure improvements RCTC RCTC should consider the potential for the TUMF program to work at cross-purposes with Measure A economic incentives by increasing the cost of new commercial and industrial developments that significantly increase the job base in Riverside County. WRCOG • TUMF creates meaningful but also historically volatile funding source for local transportation improvements associated with new growth • TUMF does not provide funding for freeway corridor improvements January 2016 29 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies Policy / Program / Statute Agency Strategic Implications for RCTC and Riverside County CVAG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program CVAG • • TUMF revenues are used to improve transportation facilities that primarily serve trips within and between communities (mainly arterial roadways) 2013 RCTC Comprehensive Debt Management Policy. Guides policies regarding the issuance and repayment of debt by RCTC. Requires RCTC to maintain sustainable levels of debt relative to anticipated revenues. RCTC • Investigate innovative project financing methods where appropriate (TIFIA, toll revenue -backed bonds) for future projects • Passed with 62% of the vote in 2010, Measure K increased Measure A bonding capacity to $975 million. May 2015 Sales Tax Revenue Forecast for Riverside County: shows taxable sales returning to trend growth of 5% to 6% per year out to fiscal year 2038-39 2015 RCTC Legislative Platform (State and Federal): Support robust testing and analysis of California's road user charging (RUC) pilot program as a potential replacement of the state motor fuels excise tax as the primary funding mechanism for transportation RCTC RCTC • Recent stabilization of sales tax -based revenues (Measure A, LTF, STA) may allow for acceleration of certain high -priority planning and construction activities • Continue to monitor program activities initiated by SB 1077 Vehicles Road Usage Charge Pilot Program 2013 Edition RCTC Full Speed Ahead 2009-2019 Delivery Plan: Explore alternative procurement and delivery options such as design -build and public -private partnerships (also re -affirmed in 2015 RCTC Legislative Platform) RCTC • Monitor legislative efforts to renew P3 enabling legislation (SBX2 4), which expires January 1, 2017 • Potential to re -assess projects with P3 viability (last assessment conducted circa 2005) prior to the expiration of SBX2 4 4 Policy Gaps and Strategic Issues The review of current plans and policies presented in the preceding sections raises several issues deserving consideration in the Strategic Assessment. They include issues which are not currently addressed by adopted plans or policies ("gaps"), as well as strategic issues that should be considered because of changing conditions or needs. This section outlines the plans and policies that fall into one of these categories and summarizes the issues or questions that should be considered in the Strategic Assessment. Technology and Automation. The rapid advancement of technology will affect the future of transportation, especially promising the potential to make the system safer and more efficient. Strategic issues to consider include: • Could the emergence of automated vehicles increase the capacity of the highway system so that some planned improvements may be no longer necessary? January 2016 30 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies • Will the emergence of car -sharing systems substantially change auto ownership patterns in the future, and how will that affect traffic volumes and congestion levels? • How can traveler information systems be used in the future to enable travelers to make optimal travel choices, and how much can that improve the efficiency of the system? • Can technological advancements be tapped to improve service and reduce costs for serving the transit -dependent? Congestion Management vs. Greenhouse Gas Reduction. State laws, policies, and funding programs put increasing emphasis on reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG), often to the detriment of strategies to reduce traffic congestion through highway capacity expansion. Riverside County will need to improve all components of its transportation system to provide adequate mobility for the 3.2 million people projected to live in the County in 2040. Strategic issues to consider include: • How can Riverside County best contribute to, and be compatible with, the SCAG region's Sustainable Communities Strategy while providing good quality of life for its residents including meeting their mobility needs? • What land use strategies can realistically be implemented in Riverside County to shorten driving distances and to enable people to accomplish more of their mobility needs without the need for an automobile? • What strategies can be pursued to bring more employment to Riverside County so people can live closer to their jobs? • What strategies can be pursued to provide more Riverside County residents with good mobility options to the automobile? • What highway system improvements will be important for supporting economic development in Riverside County and minimizing time people waste in congested traffic? • What is the optimal mix of transportation system investments so the system is both ecologically and financially sustainable? Funding Availability and Allocations. Current funding sources will be very inadequate to pay for all the County's future transportation improvement needs. Also, funding sources are increasingly dedicated to particular modes or purposes, which affects the kinds of projects that are possible to fund. Strategic issues to consider include: • Are RCTC's funding allocation policies still appropriate in light of system investment needs and emerging trends in state and federal funding? • Is the current split of funds between bus transit and rail transit appropriate for the future? • How can transit service be substantially expanded in the future and be financially sustainable? Farebox revenues cover only a portion of transit O&M costs, and funding sources for transit O&M are limited. • How should RCTC determine funding priorities, given the inevitable shortfall of revenues in relation to identified needs? January 2016 31 RCTC I Strategic Assessment — Task 3: Summary of Current Plans and Policies • As new funding sources are considered and realized, what policies can be adopted to make sure the funds are directed to improvements that are truly important for meeting Riverside County's transportation needs? • Is there funding availability to meet the maintenance and operations needs of the Commission -owned commuter rail stations? Regional Emergency/Evacuation Planning. There is no plan in place for dealing with a catastrophic event that would require large-scale evacuation or disable key components of the regional transportation system in Riverside County for extended periods of time. January 2016 32 RCTC Riverside County Strategic Assessment Appendix C: Needs List RCTC RCTC Strategic Assessment Freeways I-N Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year CAJALCO RD. (PM TC 1-15 36.8) SR74 (PM 22.3) CONSTRUCT 2 TOLL EXPRESS LANES TO JCT. I-15/1-215 C 15 SR74 (PM 22.3) (PM 8.7) CONSTRUCT 2 HOV LNS Freeways Freeways SCAG SCAG 2029 2039 SCAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan SR-91 Implementation Plan RCTC Draft Roadway Needs MAX VALUE ■ $393,750,000 $230,950,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) Freeway Service Patrol Freeway Service Patrol from Orange County Line to Riverside County. Freeways SCAG 2020 $30,000,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION Freeway Service COMMISSION (RCTC) Patrol Countywide Expanded Freeway Service Patrol from Orange County Line tcj91/15 Interchange in Riverside County Freeways SCAG 2020 $333,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) 1-10 San Bernardino County Line Jet 1-10/SR60 CONSTRUCT NEW EASTBOUND TRUCK CLIMBING LANE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) 1-10/SR-60 Jct/Split SR60/1-10 Jct/Split RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) SR-71 SR-91 San Bernardino County Line Construct new interchange Freeways SCAG 2025 Freeways SCAG 2030 Widen to 3 MF lanes each direction Freeways RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) SR-91 SR-241 Pierce Tr San Diego County 1-15 SR 60 Line San Bernardino 1-215 SR 60/91/215 County Line 1-215 Eucalyptus Ave 1-15 On SR-91/I-15: SR91 - Add 1 MFL ea dir (SR241-SR71)(115 Pierce); 115 - Add TEL med dir connct SB15 to WB91 & Freeways EB91 to NB15, 1 TEL ea dir Hidden Valley-SR91 dir connct. Add 1 lane each direction Add 2 lanes each direction Add 1 lane each direction Express Lanes Connector. This is a project that RCTC is SR-241/91 funding that is outside of the County. Freeways Freeways Freeways Freeways SCAG SCAG Measure A T Expenditure Measure A Expenditure Measure A Expenditure 2035 $26,000,000 $184,463,504 $177,132,192 2035 2039 2039 2039 SR-91 Implementation 2018 Plan $386,160,000 $75,000,000.00 $129,000,000.00 $68,000,000.00 $359,000,000.00 $231,000,000.00 $210,000,000.00 $180,000,000.00 potential needs $393,750,000 $230,950,000 $30,000,000 $333,000 $26,000,000 $184,463,504 $177,132,192 Express Lane Connector Ramps S R-71 /S R-91 SR-79 S R-91 S R-91 SR-91 SR-91 Badlands area, east of Moreno Valley Gilman Springs Road Pierce St Tustin Ave east of Green River Rd SR-57 Express lane connector ramp SR-91 EB to I-15 NB Express lane connector ramp 1-15 SB to SR-91 WB Add truck climbing lane interchange improvements Domenigoni Parkway Realign highway Add 1 lane each direction (already covered in SCAG RTP Orange County Line project on SR-91 from 241 to Pierce) SR-55 WB auxiliary lane direction e/o Green River Rd, add collector -distributor roads and direct south connectors at I-15/SR-91, extend 91 Express Lanes to I-15, and interchange improvements widening improvements Freeways Freeways Freeways Freeways Freeways Freeways Freeways Freeways Measure A Expenditure 2035 2039 SR-91 Implementation 2020 Plan Measure A Expenditure Measure A Expenditure SR-91 Implementation 2016 Plan SR-91 Implementation 2017 Plan SR-91 Implementation 2025 Plan 2039 2039 $26,000,000.00 $132,000,000.00 $161,000,000.00 $122,700,000.00 $45,200,000.00 $1,312,000,000.00 $278,000,000 - $532,000,000 a critical needs $386,160,000 $359,000,000 $231,000,000 $210,000,000 $180,000,000 $150,000,000 $26,000,000 $122,700,000 $132,000,000 $0 $45,200,000 1 $1,312,000,000 $532,000,000 Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year SCAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan SR-91 RCTC Draft Implementation Roadway Plan Needs MAX VALUE Ultimate CIP: Widen SR-91 by one GP lane in each direction from SR-241 to SR-71, I-15/SR-91 Direct North Connector, Extension of Express Lanes on I-15 and SR-91 Improvements East of 1-15. (already covered in SCAG RTP SR-91 SR-241 SR-71 project on SR-91 from 241 to Pierce?) Freeways S R-91 /I-15 Interchange Add new connector from 1-15 North to 91 West Freeways SR-91 Implementation 2035 Plan Measure A Expenditure 2039 $243,000,000.00 TBD $0 $243,000,000 RCTC RCTC Strategic Assessment Potential Additional Freeway Needs I-N Route Name From To Description Project Type Source RCTC Draft Roadway Needs MAX VALUE Task 2 Transportation System Needs potential needs Cottonwood Roadway widening or truck lane. Currently 2 lanes each Potential Additional and 1-10 SR-86 Merge Springs Rd direction. Freeway Needs Deficiencies Task 2 Transportation System Needs potential needs Roadway widening or truck lane. Currently 3 lanes each Potential Additional and 1-10 SR-62 SR-86 Merge direction. Freeway Needs Deficiencies Task 2 Transportation System Needs potential needs Haugen-Lehmann Roadway widening or truck lane. Currently 4 lanes each Potential Additional and 1-10 Way SR-62 direction Freeway Needs Deficiencies Task 2 Transportation System Needs potential needs Haugen-Lehmann Roadway widening or truck lane. 11 miles rural, 1 mile Potential Additional and 1-10 SR-243 / 8th St Way suburban. Currently 4 lanes each direction Freeway Needs Deficiencies Task 2 Transportation System Needs potential needs Roadway widening or truck lane. Currently 4 lanes each Potential Additional and 1-10 SR-243 / 8th St SR-243 / 8th St direction Freeway Needs Deficiencies Task 2 Transportation System Needs potential needs Roadway widening or truck lane. Currently 4 lanes each Potential Additional and 1-10 SR-79 SR-243 / 8th St direction Freeway Needs Deficiencies Task 2 Transportation System Needs potential needs Roadway widening or truck lane. Potential Additional and 1-10 SR-60 SR-79 Currently 4 lanes each direction. Freeway Needs Deficiencies Task 2 Transportation System Needs potential needs Managed Lanes/Truck Lanes. Currently 4 lanes each Potential Additional and SR-60 1-215 Gilman Springs Rd direction. Freeway Needs Deficiencies Task 2 Transportation System Needs critical needs Managed Lanes/Truck Lanes. Currently 4 lanes each Potential Additional and SR-60 SR-91 / 1-215 1-215 direction. Freeway Needs Deficiencies Task 2 Transportation System Needs potential needs Roadway widening (2 lanes). Currently 3 lanes each Potential Additional and SR-111 SR-74 City of Indio direction Freeway Needs Deficiencies Task 2 Transportation System Needs potential needs Roadway widening (2 lanes). Currently 3 lanes each Potential Additional and SR-111 Cathedral City SR-74 direction Freeway Needs Deficiencies Task 2 Transportation System Needs potential needs Roadway widening (2 lanes). Currently 3 lanes each Potential Additional and SR-111 Palm Springs Cathedral City direction Freeway Needs Deficiencies Task 2 Transportation Roadway widening (2 lanes) System Needs potential needs 24 miles rural, 8 miles suburban. Currently 2 lanes each Potential Additional and SR-74 1-215 SR-243 direction Freeway Needs Deficiencies $184,000,000 $224,000,000 $40,000,000 $96,000,000 $8,000,000 $40,000,000 $8,000,000 $280,000,000 $140,000,000 $112,000,000 $80,000,000 $32,000,000 $272,000,000 Route Name From To Description Project Type Source 7 Roadway widening (2 lanes). Currently 2 lanes each direction.Only including the cost for 2.5 miles in MAX VALUE (distance on SR-74 between Ellis Ave and 1-215) because SR-74 1-15 1-215 the rest of the distance has already been accounted for. S R-74 Orange County Line 1-15 Roadway widening (2 lanes) 11 miles rural, 5 miles suburban. Currently 1 lane each direction. Roadway widening (2 lanes) 6 miles suburban, 11 miles rural. Currently 2 lanes each SR-79 1-15 SR-371 (Aguanga) direction Managed Lanes. SR-91 SR-60 1-15 Currently 4 lanes each direction SR-91 San Bernardino County Line SR-60 Managed Lanes. Currently 4 lanes each direction Potential Additional Freeway Needs Potential Additional Freeway Needs Potential Additional Freeway Needs Potential Additional Freeway Needs Potential Additional Freeway Needs Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies RCTC Draft Roadway Needs MAX VALUE potential needs potential needs critical needs potential needs critical needs $40,000,000 $224,000,000 $272,000,000 $308,000,000 $56,000,000 RCTC RCTC Strategic Assessment Interchanges I-N WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2016 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP Lead Agency BANNING Route Name 1-10 Bypass South From 1-10 To interchange Description Project Type Interchanges Source WRCOG Year Completion SCAG Project Cost Project Cost WRCOG Total $18,328,000 CVAG Project Cost Expenditure Plan RCTC Measure A MAX VALUE $18,328,000 BEAUMONT 1-10 (PM 7.07 to 8.07) at SR-79/ Beaumont Ave btwn 6th St and 1st St Reconstruct/widen SR-79/Beaumont Ave IC from 4 to 6 lanes and reconstruct/widen ramps Interchanges SCAG 2027 $24,800,000 $24,800,000 BEAUMONT 1-10 (PM 7.71 to 871) at Pennsylvania Ave btwn 6th St and 3rd St Reconstruct Pennsylvania Ave IC and reconstruct/widen ramps Interchanges SCAG 2030 $24,000,000 $24,000,000 BEAUMONT 1-10 (PM 8.81 to 9.81) at Highland Springs Ave btwn 5th St and south ramps Reconstruct/widen Highland Springs Ave IC from 4 to 6 lanes and reconstruct/widen ramps Interchanges SCAG 2035 $44,900,000 $44,900,000 CALIME� County Line r 'nterchang= Interchanges W—F iM $18,328,000 $18,328,000 CALIMESA I-10 (PM RO-86-4 to RO-86-4) Seventh Place Calimesa Blvd. Reconstruct IC to a 2-lane roundabout reconfiguration. and reconstruct/widen ramps Interchanges SCAG 2019 $15,000,000 $15,000,000 CALTRANS 1-15 at Bellegrave Ave btwn Hamner Ave &amp; Wineville Rd Add signals and ramps. 0.1 mi. Interchanges SCAG 2030 $4,406,941 $4,406,941 CATHEDRAL CITY 1-10 at Landau btwn Vista Chino & Varner Rd Construct new 6-lane mixed flow, partial cloverleaf IC Interchanges SCAG 2035 $65,250,000 $65,250,000 COACHELLA I-10 (PM 58.39 to 59 39) at Dillon Rd Btwn Vista Del Norte and Vista Del Sur Reconstruct/widen IC ramps Interchanges SCAG 2020 $22,022,000 $22,022,000 COACHELLA SR86S (PM 21.02 to 22.9) at Dillon Rd Btwn west of Coachella Storm Water Channel and Avenue 47 Reconstruct/widen IC from 2 to 4 lanes and reconstruct/widen ramps Interchanges SCAG 2020 $26,851,000 $26,851,000 EASNALE Schleisman Rd Lindsey Ct Wineville Ave CONSTRUCT NEW IC (6 THROUGH LANES) AND RAMPS (2 LANES) AND NB/SB AUX LANE Interchanges SCAG 2035 $62,750,000 $62,750,000 EASNALE SR-60 (PM SBD 9.46 to 10.46) at Milliken Ave btwn Harrel Ave &amp; Iberia Reconstruct/widen IC, ramps, and channelization improvements Interchanges SCAG 2020 $4,133,000 $4,133,000 JURUPA VALLEY SR-60 (PM 2.53 to 3.53) at Mission Blvd btwn Granite Hill Dr &amp; Sevaine Way Reconstruct interchange/ramps Interchanges SCAG 2035 $45,000,000 $45,000,000 JURUPA VALLEY SR-60 (PM 9.06 to 10.06) at Rubidoux Blvd btwn 30th &amp; 34th Sts Reconstruct/widen IC, ramps and channelization improvements Interchanges SCAG 2030 $22,874,982 $22,874,982 LAKE ELSINORE 1-15 at Lake St ` "Y Rd Temescal Cyn Reconstruct/widen IC from 2 to 6 lanes and reconstruct/widen ramps Interchanges SCAG 2022 $20,274,537 $20,274,537 LAKE ELSINORE 1-15 J. MAIN ST. i Interchange Improvement Interchanges SCAG 2028 i $19,700,000 $19,700,000 LAKE ELSINORE I-15 (PM 17.01 to 18.01) at Olive St btwn Orchard St and Grape St Construct new 4 lane IC and ramps Interchanges SCAG 2018 $43,392,355 $43,392,355 LAKE ELSINORE I-15 (PM 23.35 to 24.35) at Nichols Rd btwn ramps Reconstruct/widen IC from 2 to 6 lanes and reconstruct/widen ramps Interchanges SCAG 2025 $44,947,121 $44,947,121 MENIFEE 1-215 (PM 15.95 to 16.95) at Garbani Rd btwn Haun Rd &amp;amp; Antelope Rd Construct new 4 lane (2 Ins eac dir) and ramps Interchanges SCAG 2025 $44,812,849 $44,812,849 MENIFEE 1-215 (PM 20.3 to 21.3) Sun City Blvd. Easterly of Encanto Dr. Reconstruct/Widen IC from 4 to 6 lanes and reconstruct ramps Interchanges SCAG 2020 $38,000,000 $38,000,000 MORENO VALLEY SR-60 (PM 14.84 to 15.84) at Heacock St btwn Hemlock Ave &amp; Sunnymead Blvd Widen/reconstruct Heacock IC, ramps, and channelization improvements. No additional lanes planned. Interchanges SCAG 2025 $23,873,104 $23,873,104 MORENO VALLEY SR-60 (PM 15.85 to 16.85) at Perris Blvd btwn Sunnymead Blvd &amp; Ironwood Reconstruct/widen arterial from 4 to 6 lanes and reconstruct/widen ramps Interchanges SCAG 2025 $37,379,000 $37,379,000 NORCO 1-15 (PM 42.37 to 43.37) at Hidden Valley pkNy btwn Hamner Ave &amp; Beyond NB Exit Ramp Reconstruct interchange/ramps/channelization improvements Interchanges SCAG 2025 $4,200,000 $4,200,000 NORCO I-15 (PM 43.13 to 44.13) at 2nd St Btwn Hamner Ave &amp; Valley View Ave Reconstruct/widen IC from 2 to 4 Lanes and widen ramps Interchanges SCAG 2025 $7,500,000 $7,500,000 NORCO 1-15 (PM 45.1 to 46.1) at 6th St btwn Hamner Ave &amp; Sierra Ave Reconstruct interchange/ramps/channelization improvements Interchanges SCAG 2030 $19,500,000 $19,500,000 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year PERRIS 1-215 (PM 24.7 to 26.1) at Ellis Ave btwn Perris Valley Storm Drain w/o 1- 215 to Dunlap Dr e/o 1-215 Construct new 2 lane IC and ramps (1 lane) Interchanges SCAG 2030 SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan MAX VALUE $92,442,996 PERRIS 1-215 (PM 29.5 - 30.0) at Placentia btwn ramps Construct new 6 lane IC and ramps at Placentia OC Interchanges SCAG 2020 $59,215,891 PERRIS 1-215 (PM 30.9) at Ramona Expwy btwn ramps Widen from 4 to 8 lanes Interchanges SCAG 2030 $56,473,000 PERRIS 1-215 (PM 31.83 to 32.83) at Harley Knox Blvd btwn Harvill Ave and Western Way Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Interchanges SCAG 2020 $28,525,000 $92,442,996 $59,215,891 $56,473,000 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study PERRIS SR-74 (Matthews) I-215 Interchange 7Rr $18,328,000 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP RIVERSIDE COUNTY AVE 62 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1-15 Ave 62 SR-86 IC btwn w/o SR111 to Buchanan St Construct new IC and ramps and widen OC from 2 to 6 lanes Interchanges SCAG 2035 $46,550,000 @ new Eastern Bypass IC s/o Temecula Construct new Eastern Bypass/1-15 IC (4 lanes) & ramps (1 lane) and 4 lane (2 Ins each dir) Interchanges SCAG 2035 $30,000,000 $46,550,500 $28,525,000 $18,328,000 $46,550,500 $30,000,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1-15 (28.36 to 29.36) at Horsethief Canyon Rd just beyond and btwn ramps Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Interchanges SCAG 2030 $45,000,000 $45,000,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1-15 (PM 32.60 to 33.60) at Temescal Canyon north of Glenn Ivy just beyond and btwn ramps Reconstruct/Widen IC from 2 to 4 lanes and reconstruct ramps Interchanges SCAG 2030 $19,988,986 $19,988,986 RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1-215 (PM 35.92 to 36.92) at Alessandro Blvd btwn BNSF &amp; Old 215 Frontage Road Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Interchanges SCAG 2030 $4,985,041 $4,985,041 RIVERSIDE, CITY OF SR-60 (PM 11.23 to 12.23) at Main St btwn Russell St &amp;amp; Stoddard Ave Reconstruct/widen IC and reconstruct/widen ramps, channelization improvements Interchanges SCAG 2025 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 RIVERSIDE, CITY OF SR-91 (PM 12.9 to at Tyler St 13.1) btwn Diana Ave Reconstruct/widen IC and reconstruct/widen ramps &amp; Indiana Ave Interchanges SCAG 2025 $48,310,849 $48,310,849 RIVERSIDE, CITY OF 15.70) (PM 15.40 to at Adams St 5.70 RIVERSIDE, CITY OF SR-91 (PM 16.15 to at Madison St 17.15) btwn Diana AvReconstruct/widen IC and reconstruct/widen ramps Interchanges $32,000,000 $32,000,000 &amp; Indiana Ave btwn Garden St Reconstruct/widen IC and reconstruct/widen ramps Interchanges SCAG 2025 $32,000,000 $32,000,000 &amp; Indiana Ave I 2012 RTP TEMECULA 2012 RTP 1-15 (PM 4.48 to 5.48) at I-15/Rancho California btwn Ynez Rd and Reconfigure 4 to 6 lane IC and ramps Jefferson Ave Interchanges SCAG 2035 $33,008,000 W ILDOMAR 1-15 (PM 15.8 to 16.8) at Bundy Canyon Rd WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study SR-79 (Eastern 1-15 Bypass) btwn Orange St and Cherry St Reconstruct/widen IC from 2 to 4 lanes and reconstruct ramps Interchanges SCAG Interchange WRCOG 2025 $22,634,981 $18,328,000 $33,008,000 RCTC Summary of Current Plans and Policies SR-91/71 Interchange mprove interchange Interchanges Measure A .111111 Expenditure $26,000,000.00� Future traffic forecasts do not justify expanding the current roadway capacity $22,634,981 $18,328,000 $26,000,000 RCTC RCTC Strategic Assessment Arterials I-N WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year BANNING BANNING BANNING BANNING BANNING WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study BANNING WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study BANNING WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study BANNING WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study BANNING BANNING BANNING BANNING BANNING BANNING BANNING BANNING BANNING BANNING BANNING BANNING BEAUMONT BEAUMONT BEAUMONT WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study BEAUMONT WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study BEAUMONT WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study BEAUMONT WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study BEAUMONT WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study BEAUMONT WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study BEAUMONT WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study BEAUMONT BEAUMONT BEAUMONT BEAUMONT BEAUMONT BEAUMONT WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study BEAUMONT WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study BEAUMONT 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 8th Highland Springs Highland Springs Highland Springs Highland Springs Wilson I-10 Wilson (8th) Oak Valley (14th) Cherry Valley 1-10 Bypass South 1-10 1-10 Bypass South San Gorgonio 1-10 Bypass South UP Lincoln Ramsey Ramsey SR-243 Sun Lakes Sun Lakes Sun Lakes Sunset Sunset Sunset Wilson (8th) Wilson (8th) 1st 1st 6th Sunset 1-10 Wilson (8th) 1-10 Highland home Smith Creek Highland Springs Ramsey 1-10 UP Highland Home Highland Springs Viele Pennsylvania 1-10 Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) Desert Lawn Champions Oak Valley (14th) Highland Springs Oak Valley (14th) Pennsylvania Oak Valley (14th) Oak Valley (STC) Oak Valley (STC) Cherry Valley (J St) 1-10 Pennsylvania Potrero Potrero jiL I-10 interchange Sun Lakes Wilson (8th) Oak Valley (14th) Morongo Trail (Apache Trail) bridge railroad crossing SR-243 Wilson (8th) Highland Springs Wesley Sunset bridge Highland Home Lincoln interchange railroad crossing Wilson (8th) Highland Home Pennsylvania Highland Springs Highland Springs Potrero Blvd. Extension Oak View Beaumont City Limits 6th Oak Valley (San Timoteo) SR-60 California SR-79 (Beaumont) 1-10 VIELE AV VIELE AV BLYTHE BLYTHE BLYTHE BLYTHE BLYTHE BLYTHE 14th Ave 7th St Barnard St Hobsonway Hobsonway N. Lovekin Blvd 4th 6th River Valley Rd Hobsonway Date St Arrowhead Blvd Olive Lake Blvd Hobsonway 1-10 Oak Valley (STC) Pennsylvania Oak View 1-10 Cherry Valley (J St) 1st SR-60 4th Michigan Ave. Mellow 1st 4th 7th St Rice St Intake Blvd Carlton Ave Intake Blvd 10th Ave Construct new 4 lane arterial highway extension and overpass facility at SR79 Widen Existing Bridge at D-Canal from 2 to 4 Lanes Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes Construct/Extend 2 Lane Arterial Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes Widen Existing Bridge at C-Canal from 2 to 4 Lanes Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials (Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG SCAG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG $0 $18,328,000 $0 $1,848,000 $3,861,000 $16,539,000 $2,905,000 $15,312,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,067,000 $3,874,000 $0 $1,422,000 $18,328,000 $30,624,000 $0 $5,070,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 2020 SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan MAX VALUE $36,000,000 2027 2025 2025 2023 2032 2022 $2,170,000 $915,000 $2,042,000 $3,749,000 $2,712 000 $5,070,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,328,000 $0 $1,848,000 $3,861,000 $16,539,000 $2,905,000 $15,312,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,067,000 $3,874,000 $0 $1,422,000 $18,328,000 $30,624,000 $0 $5,070,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $36,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,170,000 $915,000 $2,042,000 $3,749,000 $2,712,000 $5,070,000 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year BLYTHE BLYTHE CALIMESA CALIMESA CALIMESA CALIMESA CALIMESA CALIMESA CALIMESA CALIMESA CALIMESA CANYON LAKE N. Lovekin Blvd CANYON LAKE Riviera Dr ery;RP— Calimesa Calimesa County Line Desert Lawn Singleton Singleton Singleton Tukwet Canyon Goetz Rd Railroad Canyon 10th Ave 8th Ave Widen Existing Bridge at C-Canal from 2 to 4 Lanes Arterials 18th Ave 20th Ave —1111tT)unty Line Avenuel 1-10 interchange County Line 1-10 Roberts Bryant Palmer Champions 1-10 interchange Avenue L Condit Condit Roberts Roberts Palmer Railroad Canyon _ Rd Canyon Hills Goetz 2012 RTP CATHEDRAL CITY CATHEDRAL CYNDR Terrace Rd CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP CATHEDRAL CITY CATHEDRAL CITY CATHEDRAL CITY CATHEDRAL CITY CATHEDRAL CITY CATHEDRAL CITY CATHEDRAL CITY CATHEDRAL CYN DR CATHEDRAL CYN DR CATHEDRAL CYN DR CATHEDRAL CYN DR DA VALL DA VALL DA VALL E Palm Canyon Br. at Whitewater Chnl N side of Whitewater Br. Newport Rd IE Palm Cyn S Side of Whitewater Br. Dinah Shore Dr Dinah Shore Dr. Ramon Rd Ramon Rd Cobb Rd Gerald Ford Dr CATHEDRAL CITY DA VALL DR 1-10 Vista Chino Gerald Ford Dr Dinah Shore Dr Varner Rd Construct 2 Lane Overcrossing at the Lower Outfall Drain Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials incl. bridge at N Cath. Cyn Chanl)-CTHCN2 CTHCN3 CTHCN5 Construct new 6-lane Road, including bridge at Long Canyon Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials SCAG SCAG WRC WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG SCAG 2023 SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan MAX VALUE $2,440,000 2030 $2,408,000 2022 $2,525,000 CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG SCAG 2032 $21,540,000 $0 $37,483,000 $0 $4,681,000 $4,226,000 $37,483,000 $12,749,000 $4,281,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,525,400 $5,028,000 $10,642,400 $2,495,600 $3,617,600 $24,025,032 $2, 704,180 $3,899,200 CATHEDRAL CITY DA VALL DR Dinah Shore Ramon Rd Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2020 $6,252,000 $6,251,784 $2,440,000 $2,408,000 $0 $37,483,000 $0 $4,681,000 $4,226,000 $37,483,000 $12,749,000 $4,281,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,525,000 $5,028,000 $10,642,400 $2,495,600 $3,617,600 $24,025,032 $2,704,180 $3,899,200 $21,540,000 $6,252,000 CATHEDRAL CITY DA VALL DR Ave 30 1-10 Construct new 6-lane Road, including bridge over the Railroad Arterials SCAG 2027 $21,675,000 $21,675,000 CATHEDRAL CITY CATHEDRAL CITY CATHEDRAL CITY DA VALL DR (west side of DA VALL DR) DATE PALM DR DATE PALM DR McCallum Way Ave 30 1-10 1. Varner Rd East Palm Cyn Bridge Spanning White Water River Widen from 2 to 3 lanes includes Widen from 4 to 6 lanes, including bridge at N. Catheral Channel Arterials Arterials SCAG SCAG 2026 2018 $2,681,000 $13,015,000 $23,776,596 $2,681,000 $13,015,000 CATHEDRAL CITY DATE PALM DR Dinah Shore Dr Ramon Rd Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2020 $4,085,000 $4,085,000 CATHEDRAL CITY DATE PALM DR Gerald Ford Dr Dinah Shore Dr Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2020 $3,900,000 $3,326,400 CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CATHEDRAL CITY CATHEDRAL CITY CATHEDRAL CITY DATE PALM DR DATE PALM DR DATE PALM DR 30th Ave Vista Chino Ramon Rd Vista Chino S side of RR Br. DPL 30th Ave Arterials Arterials Arterials CVAG CVAG CVAG $2,724,368 $1,092,000 $2,363,328 2016 RTP 2016 RTP 2016 RTP CATHEDRAL CITY CATHEDRAL CITY E. Palm Canyon E. Palm Canyon CATHEDRAL CITY E. Palm Canyon CATHEDRAL CITY Landau CVAG TPPS 2010 Update West Cathedral City Limits Cathedral Canyon Drive Widen from 4 to 6 Lanes East Cathedral City Date Palm Dr Limits Cathedral Canyon Drive Date Palm Dr YYranlp + Varner Rd Widen from 4 to 6 Lanes Widen from 4 to 6 Lanes mssing link LAN4 Arterials Arterials Arterials _erterials� SCAG SCAG SCAG CVAG 2020 2020 2020 $8,975,000 $2,205,000 $1,995,000 $8,974,860 $2,204,400 $1,995,000 $21,754,900 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CATHEDRAL CITY Landau Valley Center Blvd Varner Rd Construct new 4-lane Road Arterials SCAG 2030 $13,053,000 $3,900,000 $2,724,368 $1,092,000 $2,363,328 $8,975,000 $2,205,000 $1,995,000 $21,754,900 $13,053,000 CATHEDRAL CITY Landau 1-10 Valley Center Blvd Construct new 6-lane Road Arterials SCAG 2030 $8,702,000 $8,702,000 CATHEDRAL CITY MOUNTAIN VIEW 20th Ave Varner Rd Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2024 $6,200,000 $6,200,000 CATHEDRAL CITY Pal 1-10 IC Varner Rd Arterials CVAG $2,621,556 $2,621,556 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update 2012 RTP 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A MAX VALUE Expenditure Plan CATHEDRAL CITY RAMON RD Gene AutryTrail W Bank of the Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Whitewater Rvr Arterials SCAG 2018 $3,157,000 $21,088,620 $3,157,000 CATHEDRAL CITY RAMON RD Landau Blvd Date Palm Dr PALM DR Date Palm Dr Da Vali DATE PALM DR Arterials CVAG $11,362,972 $10,590,560 $11,362,972 CATHEDRAL CITY RAMON RD Arterials CVAG $10,590,560 CATHEDRAL CITY VALLEY CENTER BLVD CONSTRUCT VALLEY CENTER BLVD NORTH OF I-10 AND SOUTH OF VARNER RD AS A 4 LANES ARTERIAL J (Arterials SCAG 2035 $28,204,000 $28,204,000 CATHEDRAL CITY VALLEY CENTER BLVD DATE PALM DR DA VALL DR (FUTURE EXTENSION) CONSTRUCT VALLEY CENTER BLVD NORTH OF 1-10 AND SOUTH OF VARNER RD AS A 4 LANE ARTERIAL Arterials SCAG 2035 $26,225,000 $26,225,000 CATHEDRAL CITY VARNER RD Date Palm Dr Ramon Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2020 $42,056,000 $42,055,880 $42,056,000 CATHEDRAL CITY VARNER RD Mountain View Rd Date Palm Dr Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2024 $11,281,000 $11,281,200 $11,281,000 CATHEDRAL CITY VARNER RD Palm Dr Mountain View Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2024 $5,566,000 $5,566,000 $5,566,000 CATHEDRAL CITY VISTA CHINO Date Palm Da Vall Dr Construct new 4-lane Road Arterials SCAG 2024 $16,236,000 $16,236,000 CATHEDRAL CITY VISTA CHINO E Bank of Whitewater Br. Landau Blvd Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2020 $3,626,000 $3,626,000 $3,626,000 COACHELLA AVE 48 Van Buren St W of Hwy 86 Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2022 $4,010,000 $23,198,370 $4,010,000 COACHELLA AVE 48 Intersection of Ave 48 and Hwy 86 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2018 $113,000 $113,000 COACHELLA Jackson St. Eli CVAG ■ $4,541,680 $4,541,680 COACHELLA Hwy 111 to SR-86S Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2020 $102,558,000 $102,558,000 COACHELLA SR-86S to 1-10 Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2020 $24,830,000 $24,830,000 COACHELLA Bridge. at All Amer.Canal Construct 6-lane Bridge Arterials SCAG 2020 $3,603,000 $3,603,000 COACHELLA AVE 50 Cabazon Dr NNERealign. 0.5mi E of SR-86S incl. Br. At Whitewater Chnl, Future Ave 50 ST-86S and Ave 50 CVAG $57,037,720 $57,037,720 Arterial COACHELLA AVE 50 Jackson St Van Buren St Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2023 $10,588,000 $3,761,600 $10,588,000 COACHELLA AVE 50 Van Buren St Harrison St Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2020 $7,174,000 $7,174,000 COACHELLA AVE 50 0.5mi E of SR-86S Van Buren St I-10 IC Ave De Oro Incl. Bridge at . Canal and Future Ave 50 I-10 IC Arterials CVAG $103,002,160 $103,002,160 COACHELLA AVE 50 50G Arteri- CVAG $6,981,780 $6,981,780 COACHELLA AVE 52 _ Hwy 111 SR-86S Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2027 $115,056,000 $62,821,140 $115,056,000 COACHELLA AVE 52 Calhoun St Fredrick St Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2023 $8,532,000 $8,532,000 COACHELLA AVE 52 Intersection of Ave 52 and SR-86 All American Canal Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2020 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 COACHELLA AVE 52 Jackson St Calhoun St Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2018 $4,630,000 $4,630,000 COACHELLA AVE 52 Fredrick St Harrison St Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2023 $2,305,000 $2,305,000 COACHELLA AVE 52 Harrison St Hwy 111 Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2024 $1,375,000 $1,375,000 COACHELLA AVE 52 Intersection of Ave 52 and Hwy 111 Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2022 $139,000 $139,000 COACHELLA COACHELLA COACHELLA AVE 52 AVE 52 AVE 52 Calle Empalme Jackson St Shady Ln Van Buren St Harrison St incl. intersection of Ave 52 and SR-86 Arterials Arterials Arterials CVAG CVAG CVAG $10,877,748 $6,180,960 $6,800,850 $10,877,748 52E 52F $6,180,960 Van Buren St $6,800,850 COACHELLA AVE 54 Harrison St Tyler St Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2024 $9,024,000 $7,874,080 $9,024,000 COACHELLA AVE 54 Tyler St Hwy 111 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2022 $6,340,000 $5,695,400 $6,340,000 COACHELLA AVE 54 Van Buren St Harrison St Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2026 $7,984,000 $7,973,520 $7,984,000 COACHELLA AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD (NORTH SIDE) 0.25 mi. W of Van Buren St Harrison St Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2023 $11,009,000 $5,853,360 $11,009,000 _ COACHELLA AVE 56/AIRPORT Future Ave 56 BLVD SR-86S IC-56J Arterials CVAG $45,398,500 $45,398,500 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year COACHELLA AVE 58 Van Buren St Harrison St (SR-86) Widen from 2 to 4 lanes COACHELLA DILLON RD Ave 44 COACHELLA DILLON RD 1-10 1-10 IC Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Whitewater Br. Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials Arterials Arterials SCAG 2023 SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan MAX VALUE $6,627,000 SCAG SCAG 2023 $8,895,000 2020 $4,669,000 $8,528,640 $3,973,200 $6,627,000 $8,895,000 CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update COACHELLA COACHELLA DILLON RD DILLON RD Dillon Rd SR-86S IC Dillon Rd 1-10 IC I Arterials Arterials CVAG CVAG $15,185,000 $18,150,000 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update COACHELLA GRAPEFRUIT BLVD Ave 48/Dillon Rd Ave 50 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2022 $10,326,000 $3,907,360 $4,669,000 $15,185,000 $18,150,000 $10,326,000 COACHELLA GRAPEFRUIT BLVD Ave 52 Ave 54 Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2020 $7,074,000 COACHELLA GRAPEFRUIT BLVD COACHELLA Ave 50 Ave 52 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2023 $6,955,000 GRAPEFRUIT BLVD Ave 54 Ave 56 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2023 $5,152,000 $5,502,000 $11,751,880 $4,013,800 $7,074,000 $6,955,000 $5,152,000 COACHELLA HARRISON ST Ave 54 Ave 56 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2024 COACHELLA COACHELLA COACHELLA HARRISON ST HARRISON ST Jackson St Ave 52 Grapefruit Blvd Ave 48 Ave 54 Ave 52 Ave 50 JAC4 Arterials Arterials Arterials CVAG CVAG CVAG El L $6,648,000 $8,638,080 $6,648,000 Id=1 $3,696,000 $5,919,720 $3,907,200 $3,696,000 $5,919,720 $3,907,200 2012 RTP COACHELLA VAN BUREN ST 2012 RTP =ypnl RI IDFAI CT COACHELLA Ave 48 Ave 50 Ave 50 Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Ave 52 iden from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials Arterials SCAG 2023 $10,669,000 SCArs 20�` $10aiL90 $3,316,640 ` $3.818.240 $10,669,000 $10,669.000 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study COACHELLA VAN BUREN ST COACHELLA CORONA CORONA CORONA CORONA CORONA CORONA CORONA CORONA CORONA CORONA CORONA VAN BUREN ST 6th Auto Center Auto Center Foothill Foothill Foothill Foothill Green River Green River Green River Magnolia Ave Ave 54 Ave 52 SR-91 Railroad BNSF Paseo Grande Wardlow Wash Lincoln California SR-91 Dominguez Ranch Palisades Rimpau Ave 56/Airport Blvd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2023 Ave 54 Magno SR-91 railroad crossing Lincoln bridge California 1-15 Dominguez Ranch Palisades Paseo Grande Ontario CORONA CORONA CORONA CORONA CORONA CORONA CORONA CORONA CORONA CORONA CORONA CORONA CORONA CORONA CORONA CORONA CORONA Main St Main St Main St Main St Main St McKinley McKinley McKinley McKinley McKinley Ontario Ontario Ontario Ontario Ontario Ontario Ontario Widen from 2 to 4 lanes South Grand Blvd. Ontario Ave. I Widen from 2 to 4 lanes. Ontario Ave Hidden Valley Parkridge SR-91 Hidden Valley Promenade SR-91 Arlington Channel BNSF 1-15 Lincoln Buena Vista Main Kellogg Fullerton Rimpau Foothill Parkridge SR-91 S. Grand Promenade SR-91 Magnolia bridge railroad crossing El Cerrito Buena Vista Main St Kellogg Ave. Fullerton Rimpau I1-15 Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials SCAG WRC WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG SCAG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG 2023 $478,000 $475,0001 $3,964,752 $478,000 r $0 $0 $14,268,000 $20,138,000 $5,812,000 $0 $4,472,000 $2,610,000 $3,069,000 $0 $0 2035 $2,473,000 $2,620,000 $0 1,751,000 $0 $7,045,000 $0 $0 $2,565,000 $969,000 $45,936,000 $4,481,000 $1,616,000 $0 $0 $2,637,000 $0 $0 $4,170,240 $475,000 $0 $0 $14,268,000 $20,138,000 $5,812,000 $0 $4,472,000 $2,610,000 $3,069,000 $0 $0 $2,620,000 $0 $1,751,000 $0 $7,045,000 $0 $0 $2,565,000 $969,000 $45,936,000 $4,481,000 $1,616,000 $0 $0 $2,637,000 $0 $0 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update 2012 RTP 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan MAX VALUE CORONA Railroad St Sherman Ave (Main St (at Grand) Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials I SCAG 1 2035 $5,090,000 $5,090,000 CORONA CORONA CORONA CORONA CORONA , Railroad St Auto Club Railroad St BNSF Railroad St Buena Vista River Corydon Buena Vista railroad crossing Main (at Grand) Main Green River i segment of SCAG 2012 RTP project on Railroad St from Sherman Ave to Main St (at Grand) Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG $0 $14,268,000 $2,921,000 $0 $0 $0 $14,268,000 $0 $0 Serfas Club X SR-91 $0 $8,225,000 DESERT HOT SPRINGS HACIENDA AVE Mountain View Rd Dillon Rd(LongCynRd) Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $8,225,000 $9,779,040 DESERT HOT SPRINGS HACIENDA AVE Little Morongo Rd Palm Dr Arterials CVAG $8,039,000 $9,337,680 $8,039,000 DESERT HOT SPRINGS HACIENDA AVE Little Morongo Rd Cholla Dr(missinglink) Construct new four 12-ft lanes with 14-ft medians between Little Morongo Rd and Cholla Dr. Arterials SCAG 2025 $5,623,000 $0 DESERT HOT SPRINGS HACIENDA AVE Cholla Dr Palm Dr Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $2,416,000 $0 DESERT HOT SPRINGS HACIENDA AVE Palm Dr Mountain View Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $4,594,000 $6,090,560 $4,594,000 DESERT HOT SPRINGS INDIAN AVE MISSION LAKES BLVD PIERSON BLVD Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2022 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 DESERT HOT SPRINGS DESERT HOT SPRINGS INDIAN AVE Pierson Blvd Mission Lake Blvd. SR-62 incl. Future Br. At Mission Cr. Arterials CVAG $5,982,900 $8,874,000 $5,982,900 INDIAN AVE Mission Lakes Blvd Arterials CVAG $8,874,000 DESERT HOT SPRINGS LITTLE MORONGO RD Two Bunch Palms Tr Dillon Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $11,072,000 $13,080,720 $11,072,000 DESERT HOT SPRINGS LITTLE MORONGO RD Pierson Blvd Two Bunch Palms Tr Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $8,874,000 $4,295,040 $8,874,000 DESERT HOT SPRINGS LITTLE MORONGO RD Mission Lakes Blvd Pierson Blvd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $3,062,000 $3,509,840 $3,062,000 DESERT HOT SPRINGS MISSION LAKES BLVD Indian Ave Little Morongo Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $8,874,000 $8,851,840 $8,874,000 DESERT HOT SPRINGS Mission Lakes Blvd SR62 Indian Ave. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2022 $6,938,000 $26,592,240 $6,938,000 DESERT HOT SPRINGS MISSION LAKES ,BLVD Little Morongo Rd Eastem Terminus at Verbena Dr Artery CVAG W $6,399,456 $6,125,000 DESERT HOT SPRINGS MISSION LAKES BLVD Little Morongo Rd Palm Dr Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $4,594,000 $0 DESERT HOT SPRINGS MISSION LAKES BLVD Palm Dr Eastem Terminus at Verbena Dr Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $1,531,000 $0 DESERT HOT SPRINGS MOUNTAIN VIEW Hacienda Ave Dillon Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $6,125,000 $7,829,920 $6,125,000 DESERT HOT SPRINGS Mountain View Rd. Pierson Blvd. at East Terminus of Desert View Ave. Hacienda Ave. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2022 $766,000 $766,000 DESERT HOT SPRINGS Palm Dr. Dillon Rd. Two Bunch Palms Tr. Widen from 4 to 6 lanes. Arterials SCAG 2023 $4,990,000 $5,039,496 $4,990,000 DESERT HOT SPRINGS Palm Dr. Pierson Blvd. Mission Lake Blvd. Widen from 4 to 6 lanes. Arterials SCAG 2023 $3,696,000 $3,806,880 $3,696,000 DESERT HOT SPRINGS Palm Dr. Two Bunch Palms Tr PIERSON BLVD ; Arterials CVAG $2,185,944 $2,185,944 DESERT HOT SPRINGS PIERSON BLVD SR-62 Indian Ave Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $9,950,000 $10,813,120 $9,950,000 DESERT HOT SPRINGS PIERSON BLVD Indian Ave Little Morongo Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $6,593,000 $6,839,600 $6,593,000 DESERT HOTIF SPRINGS DESERT HOT SPRINGS DESERT HOT SPRINGS PIERSON BLVD _ Pierson Blvd (Pierson Blvd Little Morongo Rd Palm Dr Arterials CVAG CVAG _ , CVAG $10,589,280 $9,209,520 $3,289,440 $10,589,280 Miracle Hill Rd. ,Palm Dr Hacienda Ave. Miracle Hill Rd Arterials Arterials $9,209,520 I $3,289,440 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2016 RTP 2016 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2016 RTP 2016 RTP ■ Lead Agency DESERT HOT SPRINGS DESERT HOT SPRINGS DESERT HOT SPRINGS DESERT HOT SPRINGS DESERT HOT SPRINGS Route Name Pierson Blvd. Pierson Blvd. TWO BUNCH PALMS TR TWO BUNCH PALMS TR Worsley Rd. From Miracle Hill Rd. Ambrosio Dr Little Morongo Rd Palm Dr To Eastern Terminus of Desert View Ave. Miracle Hill Rd. Palm Dr Miracle Hill Rd Description Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Project Type Arterials Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Pierson Blvd. Indian Ave. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Source SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG Completion Year 2023 2023 2025 SCAG 20231 SCAG Project Cost $5,254,000 $1,500,000 $4,990,000 $3,541,000 $9,541,000 EAS LE EASTVALE Archibald Ave San Bernardino County Line River San Bernardino County Line 65th St Widen from 2 to 4 lanes, including bridge widening Arterials SCAG 2028 $23,310,000 EASTVALE EASTVALE EASTVALE EASTVALE EASTVALE EASTVALE EASTVALE EASTVALE Hamner Ave Hamner Ave Hamner Ave Hamner Ave Bellegrave Ave Amberhill Limonite Schleisman Amberhill Limonite Schleisman Santa Ana River Hamner Ave Santa Ana River bridge Bellegrave Ave Widen from 2 to 6 lanes East Center interchange Hamner Ave Limonite I_ Limonite Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG SCAG WRCOG WRCOG 2030 $9,051,000 EASTVALE Limonite East Center EASTVALE EASTVALE EASTVALE Limonite Ave. Limonite Limonite Archibald Hamner Sumner Hamner Sumner Harrison Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials Arterials Arterials SCAG WRCOG WRCOG 2030 $5,000,000 EASTVALE EASTVALE Limonite Limonite Harrison Archibald Archibald Hellman (Keller SBD Co.) Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG EASTVALE Limonite Cucamonga Creek bridge EASTVALE Philadelphia Ave Milliken Ave 1-15 Widen from 1 EB existing to 2 lanes Arterials Arterials WRCOG SCAG 2035 $938,000 EASTVALE EASTVALE Schleisman Rd Schleisman Rd Harrison Cucamonga Creek Sumner bridge WRCOG WRCOG EASTVALE Schleisman Rd San Bernardino County Line I Harrison Ave Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 'Arterials SCAG 20301 $14,093,000 EASTVALE Schleisman Rd San Bernardino County Line 600' e/o Cucamonga Creek Arterials WRCOG WRCOG Total Project Cost L EASTVALE EASTVALE Schleisman Rd 600' e% Harrison Cucamonga Creek (Schleisman Rd Sumner Ave Hamner Ave Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials Arterials WRCOG SCAG 2030 $6,088,000 EASTVALE EASTVALE EASTVALE HEMET HEMET ink Schleisman Rd Schleisman Rd Sumner Ave Scholar Schleisman Rd Cawston Ave A Street Cawston Ave Bridge over Salt Creek Channel Cawston Ave Ai Cove St Scholar A Street Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG Hamner lir Construct 4 lane bridge across Salt Creek Channel Arterials Arterials WRCOG SCAG Mustang Way Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes Arterials $20,000,000 2024 SCAG 019 $3,000,000 HEMET Domenigoni Pkwy Warren Rd Sanderson Ave Widen from 4 to 6 lanes HEMET Domenigoni Pkwy Sanderson State St Arterials Arterials SCAG WR 2021 $8,000,000 HEMET HEMET Esplanade Ave Hemet St Warren Rd Hemet St Bridge over Bautista Creek San Jacinto St Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes Construct 2 lane bridge across Bautista Creek Arterials Arterials SCAG SCAG $5,000,000 r$20,000,000 L$4,110,000 $596,000 $4,226,000 L $2,965,000 $2,977,000 $23,246,000 $9,020,000 tr— $0 $18,328,000 $402,000 $2,946,000 $1,488,000 $0 ku $6,668,000 $3,874,000 $0 Fr- $969,000 $1,637,000 $1,637,000 CVAG Project Cost $5,105,760 $4,052,863 $10,988,600 RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan MAX VALUE $5,254,000 $1,500,000 $4,990,000 $3,541,000 $9,541,000 $23,310,000 $0 $596,000 $4,226,000 $2,965,000 $2,977,000 $23,246,000 $9,051,000 $0 $0 $9,715,0001 $5,034,000 $4,681,000 $0 $18,328,000 $6,668,000 $3,874,000 $938,000 $0 $969,000 $14,093,000 $0 $0 $6,088,000 $0 $0 ■ $0 $20,000,000 $3,000,000 $5,273,000 Wr $8,000,000 $0 $5,000,000 $20,000,000 1 Mission Blvd I-15 1-15 2016 RTP I Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year HEMET Lyon Ave Lyon Ave Bridge over Salt Creek Channel Construct 4 lane bridge across Salt Creek Channel Arterials T SCAG 2023 SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan MAX VALUE $20,000,000 �1 $20,000,000 2016 RTP 2016 RTP HEMET HEMET Lyon Ave Menlo Ave Domenigoni Pkwy Chambers St Westerly End Park Ave Construct New 4 lane Arterial Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes Arterials Arterials SCAG SCAG 2025 2020 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study HEMET WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study HEMET HEMET HEMET HEMET Sanderson Sanderson Sanderson Sanderson Sanderson Acacia Menlo Domenigoni Pkwy Stetson RR crossing Acacia Stetson RR Crossing Menlo Esplanade Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2016 RTP HEMET 2016 RTP AIL HEMET i SR-74 SR-74 Warren Rd Cawston Cawston Columbia Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials Arterials SCAG SCAG 2022 20J�� $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 2016 RTP Columam311.1 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials i SCAG 2024 $7,500,000 2012 RTP HEMET SR-74 (PM 34.548 to PM 36.928) Winchester Rd (SR- 79) Warren Rd Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $15,000,000 $13,022,OOO1 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study HEMET HEMET HEMET HEMET State St State St State St State St Domenigoni Pkwy Chambers Florida Stetson Chambers St Stetson Esplanade Florida Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG "Ft $0 $0 $0 $10,256,000 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2016 RTP HEMET _ HEMET HEMET 2016 RTP HEMET WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study HEMET State St Stetson Ave Stetson Ave Stetson Ave Stetson Ave Johnston Ave West of Cawston Ave West of Cawston Ave Cawston Ave Cawston Florida Ave (SR-74) Warren R'P Widen from 2 to 4 lanes. No MAX VALUE because it overlaps with WRCOG segment on State Street from Stetson to Florida. Relocate and construct 4 lane arterial Westerly City Limits Widen from 2 to 6 Lanes State St State St Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG WRCOG 2028 2025 2025 2019 $1,750,000 $8,000,000 $8,000,000 $2,750,000 $2,973,000 $0 $0 2016 RTP HEMET Warren Rd Warren Rd Bridge over Salt Creek Channel Construct 6 lane bridge across Salt Creek Channel Arterials SCAG 2022 $20,000,000 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study HEMET 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update 2016 RTP 2016 RTP IHEMET INDIAN WELLS INDIAN WELLS INDIAN WELLS INDIAN WELLS Warren Rd 'Warren Rd HIGHWAY 111 HIGHWAY 111 HIGHWAY 111 HIGHWAY 111 Salt Creek Esplanade Ave Village Ct Cook St Eldorado Dr Miles Ave INDIO Adams St Ave 38 INDIO AVE 38 Adams St 2016 RTP i 1p AVE 40 Adams St 2012 RTP I INDIO 'AVE 42 (Monroe St bridge (Domenigoni Pkwy Widen from 2 to 4 lanes I Cook St Eldorado Dr Miles Ave Washington Avenue Ave 40 Madison St Jefferson St IFHWY111E HWY111F HWY111G Incl. Bridge Over Deep Cyn Chnl- HWY111H Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes (Jackson St I Widen from 4 to 6 Lanes Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials I WRCOG SCAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG SCAG SCAG SCAG $0 2026 $20,000,OOOI 2022 2022 2022 $1,400,000 $2,500,000 $2,905,000 $14,853,OOO1 $945,000 $3,326,400 $4,536,000 $5,423,600 $7,500,000 $15,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,256,000 $0 $8,000,000 $8,000,000 $2,750,000 $0 $20,000,000 $2,905,000 $20,000,000 $945,000 $3,326,400 $4,536,000 $5,423,600 $1,400,000 $2,500,000 $1,400,000 (Arterials I SCAG I 2022I $5,365,OOOI $5,364,480 $5,365,000 2012 RTP 1111.1 INDIO 2012 RTP INDIO AVE 44 AVE 44 Whitewater River Dillon Rd Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes Monroe St Whitewater River Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes. Arterials Arterials SCAG SCAG 2020 2020 $3,210,000 $3,210,000 $3,210,000 $3,210,000 CVAG TPPS 2010 Update INDIO CVAG TPPS 2010 Update INDIO AVE 44 IAVE 44 Monroe St 1Low Water Xing Low Water Xing i Dillon Rd Arterials Arterials CVAG CVAG $2,293,200 $11,144,8801 2012 RTP INDIO AVE 48 Jefferson St Madison St Widen from 4 to 6 Lanes !Arterials SCAG 2022 $7,531,000 $2,293,200 $11,144,880 $7,531,000 Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan MAX VALUE CVAG TPPS 2010 Update INDIO iimhAVE 48 Jefferson St W Side of All - American Canal (excl. br. At A11- 4mer. Canal) Arterials CVAG � r $7,530,600 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP INDIO AVE 50 Jefferson St Madison St (Excl Br. At AIIAmerican Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes Canal) Arterials SCAG 2020 $4,185,000 $4,185,000 $7,530,600 $4,185,000 INDIO AVE 50 Madison St Monroe St Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes Arterials SCAG 2022 $4,089,000 $4,089,200 $4,089,000 INDIO AVE 50 Jackson St Van Buren St (centerline) Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes Arterials SCAG 2022 $3,762,000 $3,762,000 INDIO AVE 50 Monroe St Jackson St Widen from 3 to 4 Lanes Arterials SCAG 2022 $3,679,000 $3,679,700 $3,679,000 INDIO AVE 52 Monroe St Jackson St INDIO AVE 52 Madison St Monroe St Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes Arterials SCAG 2021 $7,945,000 $3,642,000 $7,945,000 Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes Arterials SCAG 2020 $3,973,000 $3,973,200 2016 RTP 2016 RTP 2016 RTP 2016 RTP 2016 RTP INDIO INDIO INDIO INDIO INDIO Calhoun St Clinton St Dillon Rd Dillon Rd Dillon Rd Capricom Ave Miles St Bridge over Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel Ave 44 Cabazon Rd Dr. Carreon Blvd De Oro Ave North City Limits Hwy 86 IC Widen from 3 to 4 Lanes Widen from 3 to 4 Lanes Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes, not including bridge over Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials 1 SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG 2022 $400,000 2022 $500,000 $17,500,000 2022 2024 $1,900,000 2022 $1,100,000 y CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2016 RTP INDIO Golf Center Pkwy Ave 44 Ave 45 incl. Br. At Whitewater Chnl and Golf Center Pkwy. 1-10 IC Arterials INDIO HIGHWAY 111 Rubidoux Blvd. Jackson St Widen from 4 to 6 Lanes INDIO HIGHWAY 111 Jackson St Indio Blvd Widen from 4 to 6 Lanes INDIO HIGHWAY 111 Shields Rd. Madison St Widen from 4 to 6 Lanes INDIO CVAG TPPS 2010 Update INDIO CVAG TPPS 2010 Update INDIO Indio Blvd INDIO BLVD INDIO BLVD Railroad Crossin Widen from 4 to 6 Lanes Jefferson St/1-10 IC Madison St (over All - Amer. Canal) Madison St Monroe St incl. Br. At Whitewater Chnl Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials CVAG CVAG SCAG SCAG SCAG 2022 2018 2020 Arterials Arterials Arterials SCAG CVAG CVAG 2020 $9,248,000 $5,185,000 $1,879,000 $28,968,800 $2,389,500 $3,973,000 $400,000 $500,000 $17,500,000 $1,900,000 $1,100,000 $28,968,800 $2,389,500 $9,248,000 $5,185,000 $1,879,416 $1,879,000 $13,000,000 i $2,626,470 $11,855,910 $13,000,000 $2,626,470 2016 RTP INDIO Indio Blvd 1-10 IC Jefferson St Widen from 4 to 6 Lanes, not including railroad crossing Arterials SCAG 2020 $700,000 CVAG TPPS 2010 Update INDIO CVAG TPPS 2010 Update INDIO CVAG TPPS 2010 Update INDI� INDIO BLVD INDIO BLVD INDIO BLVD Hwy 111 Jackson St Monroe St Ave 48 (was HWY111A) HWY 111 Jackson St Arterials Arterials Arterials CVAG CVAG CVAG $5,026,000 $2,639,980 $4,317,390 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP INDIO JACKSON ST Ave 41 INDIO JACKSON ST HWY 111 INDIO JACKSON ST Ave 44 1-10 IC Ave 48 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2021 $9,958,000 Arterials SCAG 2021 $8,403,000 Hwy 111 Widen from 4 to 6 Lanes Arterials SCAG 2022 $6,460,000 $11,855,910 $700,000 $5,026,000 $2,639,980 $4,317,390 $9,958,000 $8,403,000 $6,460,000 INDIO JACKSON ST Ave 48 Ave 50 Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes Arterials SCAG 2021 $3,907,000 $3,907,000 INDIO JACKSON ST Ave 50 Ave 52 Widen from 3 to 4 Lanes Arterials SCAG 2022 $3,134,000 $3,133,900 $3,134,000 INDIO JACKSON ST 1-10 IC Ave 44 Widen from 4 to 6 Lanes Arterials SCAG 2024 $1,268,000 CVAG TPPS 2010 Update INDI CVAG TPPS 2010 Update IND I-10 IC Jackson St Ave incl. Bridge at Whitewater Chnl JAC6 $7,727,880 $18,612,000 2012 RTP INDIO JEFFERSON ST (Ave 40 Ave 38 Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes 2012 RTP I INDIO JEFFERSON ST (Varner Rd Ave 40 Widen from 2 to 6 Lanes (Arterials Arterials SCAG SCAG 2021 2022 $3,237,000 $2,824,000 $3,237,120 $1,268,000 $7,727,880 $18,612,000 $3,237,120 $2,824,000 CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year JEFFERSON ST Jefferson St JEFFERSON ST 1-10 IC 1-10 IC Ave 40 Arterials Arterials I CVAG CVAG SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan MAX VALUE $54,396,000 $2,824,480 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP INDIO 2016 RTP 111- INDIO INDIO INDIO INDIO INDIO MADISON ST MADISON ST MADISON ST MADISON ST Miles Ave Ave 50 Ave 52 Hwy 111 Fred Waring Dr (missing link) Ave 48 Ave 50 Ave 48 MADISON ST Fred Waring Dr Indio Blvd Construct New 4 - Lane Road, including bridge at All American Canal and Whitewater River. Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes Widening from 2 to 4 lanes Widening from 3 to 4 lanes Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG 2020 2020 2020 2020 $17,870,000 $9,208,000 $8,626,000 $5,662,000 Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes Arterials SCAG 2020 $4,631,000 $15,745,200' $54,396,000 $2,824,480 $17,870,000 $8,626,120 $4,787,440 $9,208,000 $8,626,120 $5,662,000 Madison St Ave 3811=ir Ave 40 Widen from 3 to 4 Lanes Arterials SCAG $1,000,000 CVAG TPPS 2010 Update INDIO MADISON ST AVE 50 25 miles N of Ave missing link MAD6A 50 Arterials CVAG $3,247,200 $4,631,000 $1,000,000 2016 RTP INDIO Madison St OC Madison St OC at 1- 10 New 4 Lane Overcrossing Arterials SCAG $50,000,000 2012 RTP INDIO 'MONROE ST Ave 41 Ave 42 Widen from 2 to 6 Lanes Arterials SCAG 2022 $5,716,000 I CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update INDIO MONROE ST Monroe St INDIO MONROE ST Ave 49 INDIO MONROE ST Ave 50 INDIO _ILAONROE ST* Ave 40 II-10 Ave 50 Ave 52 1 1-10 IC J MON6 Arterials MON4B Arterials MON5 Arterials Arterials CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG $18,302,000 $997,400 $3,421,400 $5,715,900 2012 RTP 2012 RTP INDIO VARNER RD/AVE 42 Clinton St Monroe St Widen from 2 to 6 Lanes Arterials SCAG 2022 $9,905,000 $3,247,200 $50,000,000 $5,716,000 $18,302,000 $997,400 $3,421,400 $5,715,900 $9,905,000 INDIO VARNER RD / AVE 42 Jefferson St Clinton St Widen from 2 to 6 Lanes, including bridge over All American Canal. Arterials SCAG 2022 $8,305,000 CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update INDI 42 VARNER RD /AVE Jefferson St VARNER RD /AVE 42 INDI ,Madison St Madison St Monroe St incl. Br. Over All -Amer. Canal (same as SCAG segment above) (same as SCAG segment above) Arterials Arterials CVAG CVAG $8,305,280 $9,905,280 2012 RTP 2012 RTP JURUPA VALLEY Armstrong Rd San Bemardino County Line Valley Way JURUPA VALLEY Bellgrave Ave Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd/Birtcher Dr Intersection Van Buren Blvd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 'Arterials Arterials SCAG 2035 $6,132,000 $1,726,000 SCAG 2035 $4,745,000 $858,000 $8,305,000 $0 $0 $6,132,000 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study JURUPA VALLEY Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd Hamner Wineville Ave Arterials WRCOG 2012 RTP IJURUPA VALLEY Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd 3,350' Easterly of Wineville Rd Bel lgrave Ave/Birtcher Dr Intersection I Construct 4 lane arterial, including 4-lane bridge crossing channel Arterials SCAG 2030 $2,000,000 $8,669,000 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study JURUPA VALLEY JURUPA VALLEY Etiwanda Etiwanda San Bernardino County Line SR-60 SR-60 Limonite Arterials WRCOG $0 Arterials WRCOG $0 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP JURUPA VALLEY JURUPA VALLEY JURUPA VALLEY JURUPA VALLEY JURUPA VALLEY JURUPA VALLEY JURUPA VALLEY JURUPA VALLEY JURUPA VALLEY JURUPA VALLEY JURUPA VALLEY Limonite Ave Limonite Ave Limonite Ave Limonite Ave Limonite Ave Limonite Ave Limonite Ave JURUPA VALLEY arket St Market St Mission Mission Philadelphia Ave Wineville Ave. Bain St. 1-15 Etiwanda Van Buren Etiwanda Ave Downey St Wineville Ave Van Buren Clay Clay .11_ Riverview Van Buren Blvd Rubidoux Blvd. Santa Ana River Milliken Ave SR-60 1Wineville Rd Baldwin St North of the Santa Ana River bridge Etiwanda Ave Widen EB lane from 1 lane to 2 lanes. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Widen from 1 EB existing to 2 lanes Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials [Arterials SCAG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG SCAG SCAG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG SCAG 2020 2030 2030 2035 $7,000,000 $4,000,000 $1,500,000 $25,000,000 $1,018,000 $1,474,000 $0 $16,185,000 $2,359,000 $0 $5,193,000 $9,686,000 $0 $0 $4,745,000 $0 $8,669,000 $0 $0 $7,000,000 $4,000,000 $0 $16,185,000 $2,359,000 $0 $1,500,000 $25,000,000 $9,686,000 $0 $0 $1,018,000 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year JURUPA VALLEY Riverside Dr 1-15 Etiwanda Ave Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials JURUPA VALLEY JUR JURUPA VALLEY JURUPA VALLEY JURUPA VALLEY JURUPA VALLEY JURUPA VALLEY JURUPA VALLEY Riverside Dr at Day Creek Wineville Rd UPA VALLEY imonite San Bernardino Rubidoux County 1Rubidougla— 1SR-60 ISchleisman Rd II-15 Valley VAN BUREN ST Etiwanda Ave Mission Mission interchange Widen bridge from 2 to 4 lanes Arlington Ave 'Construct 4 lane arterial Armstrong I Mission SR-60 VAN BUREN ST Bellegrave Ave LA QUINTA Bellegrave Ave Santa Ana River 'AVE 50 Jefferson Street 'Madison Street Widen from 2 to 4 lanes. Arterials Arteria� Arterials Arterials 'Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials SCAG SCAG WRCO WRCOG WRCOG SCAG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG 2030 SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan MAX VALUE $1,800,000 2035 20351 $389,000 $25,735,000 SCAG 2018I $1,383,000 $0 $0 $18,328,000 $0 $7,188,000 $18,097,000 $1,800,000 $389,000 $0 $0 $18,328,000 CVAG TPPS 2010 Update LA QUINTA AVE 50 Washington St E side of Br. At Evac. Chnl rterials $7,372,360 J� 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP LA QUINTA LA QUINTA LA QUINTA AVE 52 AVE 58 AVE 58 Jefferson Street Madison Street Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2018 $944,000 $3,776,460 $25,735,000 $0 $7,188,000 $18,097,000 $1,383,000 $7,372,360 $944,000 Jefferson St Madison St Widen south side from 1 to 2 lanes Arterials SCAG 2020 $3,442,000 $3,301,500 $3,442,000 Madison St Monroe St Widen south side from 1 to 2 lanes Arterials SCAG 2020 $690,000 $1,978,400 CVAG TPPS 2010 Update LA QUIN FRED WARING DR Adams St Dune Palms Rd Dune Palms Rd to Porta Maria Rd- FW6A2 FW6B1 Arterials �CVAG $6,156, 11111 2012 RTP 2012 RTP LA QUINTA MADISON ST Ave 52 Ave 50 Widen from 1 to 2 lanes Arterials SCAG 2017 $12,023,000 $690,000 $6,156,720 $12,023,000 LAKE ELSINORE Auto Center Dr (Casino Dr) Franklin St Diamond Dr (Railroad Cyn Rd) Widen bridge over San Jacinto River from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $9,000,000 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study LAKE ELSINOP LAKE ELSINORE LAKE ELSINORE Corydon Ave Diamond Franklin (integral to Railroad) Miss Mission 1-15 interchange Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG $2,278,000 $711,000 $37,483,000 2012 RTP 2012 RTP LAKE ELSINORE Franklin St Avenue 6 Canyon Estates Dr Widen street and bridge over I-15 from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2035 $1,222,000 $9,000,000 $2,278,000 $711,000 $37,483,000 $1,222,000 LAKE ELSINORE Grand Ave Machado St SR-74 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2032 $2,658,000 $1,531,000 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study T LAKE ELSINORE LAKE ELSINORE Grand Ave Grand Ave Toft SR-74 (Riverside) Arterials WRCOG WRCOG $1,531,000 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP LAKE ELSINORE 1-15 LAKE ELSINORE 1-15 at Second St (Chaney Ave) at Malaga Rd LAKE ELSINORE 1-15 at Riverside Dr and Camino del ---Mw7 L/I $2,658,000 $0 $0 Construct new 4 lane arterial connecting overcross over 1-15 Arterials SCAG 2032 $42,640,000 $42,640,000 Lakeview Terrace Construct new 4 lane OC over I-15 Arterials SCAG 2028 $30,685,908 btwn Collier Ave and Dexter Ave Construct new 4 lane OC over I-15 Arterials SCAG 2022 $30,604,000 $30,685,908 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study LAKE ELSINO LIKE ELSINORE 1-15 W. interchange Arterials WRCOG WRCOG $18,328,000 $2,074,000 2012 RTP 2012 RTP LAKE ELSINORE Lake St 1-15 Lincoln St Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $32,000,000 $15,937,000 $30,604,000 $18,328,000 $2,074,000 $32,000,000 LAKE ELSINORE Malaga Rd Mission Tr Casino Dr/Lakeview Terrace Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2030 $9,700,000 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study LAKASINORE Mission Railroad Canyon."undy Canyon Rd Arterials W 2012 RTP 2012 RTP LAKE ELSINORE Mission Tr Railroad Canyon Rd Corydon St Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $7,243,000 LAKE ELSINORE Nichols Rd Collier Ave El Toro Rd Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2035 $8,480,000 $9,700,000 $0 $7,243,000 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study LAKE ELSINORE LAKE ELSINORE Nichols Rd Nichols Rd 1-15 1-15 interchange Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG $3,751,000 $37,483,000 $8,480,000 $3,751,000 $37,483,000 Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study LAKE ELSINORE WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study LAKE ELSINORE Railroad Canyon Railroad Canyon 451-15 Canyon Hills 1-1interchange Arterials Arterials SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan MAX VALUE $3,410,000 $37,483,000 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP LAKE ELSINORE SR-74 (Grand Ave) LAKE ELSINORE LAKE ELSINORE LAKE ELSINORE MENIFEE IMENIFEE WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study MENIFEE WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study MENIFEE WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study MENIFEE SR-74 (Riverside Dr) Riverside Dr (SR- 74) Lakeshore Dr Temescal Canyon T-15 Ortega Hwy (SR- 74) Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2035 $11,000,000 $6,407,000 Grand Ave Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials (Lake Temescal Canyon Temescal Wash Bridge Briggs ewport�i Scott Ethanac Rd Sherman Rd Ethanac Rd Ethanac Rd Ethanac Rd Arterials Arterials Arterials SCAG 2030 $12,000,000 $15,730,000 WRCOG $4,143,000 WRCOG $2,382,000 WRCOG $9,079,000 $3,410,000 $37,483,000 $11,000,000 $12,000,000 $4,143,000 $2,382,000 $9,079,000 'Matthews Rd Goetz Rd 11F Murrietta Murrietta 1-215 1-215 Interchange (Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Widen from 2 to 4 lanesAMH Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP MENIFEE Garbani Rd 1-215 Menifee Rd Reconstruct and widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2027 $43,027,000 $1,826,000 WRCOG $4,968,000 WRCOG $4,529,000 WRCOG $18,328,000 SCAG 2030 $2,251,000 MENIFEE Garbani Rd Bradley Rd 1-215 Construct 4-lane arterial Arterials SCAG 2030 $2,558,000 $43,027,000 $4,968,000 $4,529,000 $18,328,000 $2,251,000 $2,558,000 MENIFEE Goetz Rd Juanita Dr LesserLn Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2027 $7,513,000 $7,766,000 MENIFEE Goetz Rd Normandy Rd Juanita Dr Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2027 $2,000,000 $7,513,000 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study MENIFEE WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study MENIFEE WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study MENIFEE i Goetz Rd Holland Holland Newport Rd Antelope 1-215 overcrossing Arterials Arterials Arterials $0 $10,067,000 $6,781,000 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study MENIFEE MENIFEE MENIFEE MENIFEE MENIFEE MENIFEE MENIFEE MENIFEE MENIFEE MENIFEE MENWE MENIFEE MENIFEE MENIFEE MENIFEE MENIFEE MENIFEE MENIFEE MENIFEE MENIFEE MENIFEE McCall Blvd McCall Blvd McCall Blvd McCall Blvd Menifee Rd Menifee Rd Menifee Rd Menifee Rd Menifee Rd Menifee Rd ifee Rim Menifee Rd Murrieta Rd Murrieta Rd Murrieta Rd Newport Rd Newport Rd Newport Rd Newport Rd Newport Rd Newport Rd Aspel Rd Menifee Menifee Rd Aspel Rd SR-79 (Winchester) �R-79 (Winchester) Warren Rd Holland Rd Garbani Rd Garbani Rd Ramona Expwy Aldergate Newport Rd Scott Scott Rd SR-74 (Pinacate Rd) Newport Rd Holland Murrieta City Limit Salt Creili. Air Simpson Rd Aldergate Dr Ethanac Rd McCall Newport Rd Goetz Rd 1-215 Murrieta Rd 1-215 'Mr Menifee McCall Blvd Newport Rd Bundy Canyon Murrieta Rd Menifee Rd 1-215 Interchange Lindenberger Lindenberger SR-79 (Winchester) Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Construct 4 lane arterial Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Construct 4 lane arterial Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Construct 6 lane arterial Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arlerial� Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterial Arterials Arterials SCAG WRCOG WRCOG SCAG SCAG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG SCAG WRCOG WRCOG SCAG SCAG SCAG - 111 COG WRCOG WRCOG $2,924,000 $3,645,000 $6,794,000 $2,957,000 $19,552,000 $6,069,000 $5,921,000 $16,228,000 $3,085,000 $22,944,000 $2,840,000 $0 $13,236,000 $7,664,000 $2,972,000 $1,938,000 $4,121,000 $6,098,000 $37, $0 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $10,067,000 $6,781,000 $2,924,000 $3,645,000 $13,236,000 $7,664,000 $6,794,000 $2,957,000 $19,552,000 $1,938,000 $6,069,000 $5,921,000 $0 $0 $16,228,000 $3,085,000 $22,944,000 $37,483,000 $0 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2016 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2016 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP Lead Agency MENIFEE MENIFEE MENIFEE MENIFEE Route Name Scott Rd From Murrieta Rd (Scott Rd 1-215 To Scott Scott Rd 1-215 1-215 EI Centro Briggs Interchange Description Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Widen Scott Rd from 4 to 6 lanes between 1-215 and El Centro Project Type Arterials Arterials r Arterial Arterials Source SCAG Completion Year SCAG rr W RCO� WRCOG 2022 SCAG Project Cost $6,094,000 2025 $8,500,000 MENIFEE MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY SR-74 Alessandro Blvd Alessandro Blvd Matthews Rd Briggs Perris Blvd Nason St Frederick St Perris Blvd WIDEN FROM 2 TO 6 LANES Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials Arterials WRCOG SCAG 2022 Arterials SCAG 2022 $13,000,000 $5,300,000 MORENO VALLEY Alessandro Blvd MORENO VALLEY Alessandro Blvd MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY Alessandro Blvd Cactus Cactus Cactus Ave Day Day Day a Eucalyptus Ave Eucalyptus Ave Eucalyptus Ave Eucalyptus Ave Eucalyptus Ave Eucalyptus Ave Frederick Gilman Springs Gilman Springs Heacock Heacock Heacock Heacock St Heacock St-SI Heacock St-SI 1-215 Nason St Moreno Beach 1-215 1-215 Nason St Ironwood Ave SR-60 SR-60 1-215 Towngate Blv Frederick St Heacock Kitching Moreno Beach SR-60 SR-60 SR-60 Cactus Reche Vista Perris Blvd Moreno Beach Dr GILMAN SPRINGS Heacock Interchange Redlands Blvd Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Widen from 2 to 4 lanes SR-60 Interchange Eucalyptus ITowngate Blv Frederick Heacock Kitching Moreno Beach Dr Theodore Alessandro Alessandro Interchange San Michele Rd Cactus San Michele Rd Harley Knox Heacock Bridge Lateral A IEucalyptus Dracaea Cactus Ave Fir Eucalyptus Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Street Improvement / Widening 2 to 4 lanes gaps Street Improvement / Widening 2 to 4 lanes gaps Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG SCAG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG 2022 $7,449,000 WRCOG Total Project Cost $11,569,000 $6,076,000 $37,483,000 $5,634,000 $17,113,000 $7,087,000 $4,989,000 $12,297,000 $6,830,000 $37,483,000 $0 $18,328,000 $0 CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan MAX VALUE $6,094,000 $8,500,000 $6,076,000 $37,483,000 $5,634,000 $13,000,000 $5,300,000 $7,087,000 $4,989,000 $12,297,000 $6,830,000 $37,483,000 $7,449,000 $0 $18,328,000 $0 Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials rterials Arterials Arterials SCAG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG 2022 2022 2022 $3,848,000 $7,500,000 $1,800,000 $105,000 $3,773,000 $0 $0 $0 $244,000 $14,231,000 $0 $4,978,000 $18,328,000 $11,938,000 $0 $2,209,000 ans MORENO VALLEY Heacock St-SI Ironwood Ave Manzanita Ave Street Improvement / Widening 2 to 4 lanes gaps Arterials SCAG 2022 $57,000 $3,848,000 $0 $0 $0 $244,000 $14,231,000 $0 $4,978,000 $18,328,000 $11,938,000 $0 $2,209,000 $7,500,000 $1,800,000 $105,000 $57,000 MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY Indian St Indian St Bridge over Channel Lateral A Ironwood Ave Ironwood Ave Ironwood Ave Lasselle St San Michele Rd Superi. NNason St Harley Knox Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes San Michele Rd 'Redlands Blvd SR-60 Day Eucalyptus Day Alessandro Construct bridge to close roadway gap Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY Lasselle St Lasselle St diu Alessandro Blvd. John F. Kennedy John F. Kennedy Arterials Oleander Arterials SCAG SCAG SCAG WRCOG SCAG WRCOG WRCOG 2022 2022 J $4,134,000 $2,880,000 $8,063,000 $2,300,000 MORENO VALLEY Moreno Beach Dr Reche Canyon Rd SR-60 MORENO VALLEY Nason St Elder Ave Ironwood Ave Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes Widen 2 to 4 lanes / Street Improvement Arterials SCAG 2022 $6,000,000 Arterials SCAG 2022 $1,000,000 MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY Naso Nas Alessandro interchange Arterials Arterials MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY Perris Blvd Reche Vista Dr Manzanita Ave Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2022 Perris Blvd Ironwood Ave Sunnymead Bld Widen from 4 to 6 Lanes Arterials SCAG 2022 Perris Blvd Dracaea Fir Widen from 4 to 6 lanes / Street Improvement Arterials SCAG 2023 $3,000,000 $1,930,000 $36,000 $3,349,000 $0 r ■ $4,134,000 $2,880,000 $8,063,000 $3,349,000 $0 $2,300,000 $0 $0 $6,879,000 $0 $0 $6,000,000 $28,889,000 $37,483,000 $1,000,000 $28,889,000 $37,483,000 $3,000,000 $521,000 $1,930,000 $36,000 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY Perris Blvd Perris Blvd Perris Blvd Perris Blvd Pigeon Pass Rd Reche Vista SR-60 Sunnymead Cactus Ave Cantarini MORENO VALLEY WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study MORENO VALLEY 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP 2012 RTP MORENO VALLEY Pigeon Pass Rd Pigeon Pass/CETAP A Cantarini Corridor Ironwood Ave Interchange Cactus Harley Knox Ironwood Ave SR-60 Reche Canyon Rd 1Reche Vista Dr Reche Canyon Rd Reche Vista Dr �J Redlands Blvd Moreno Valley City Limit Moreno Valley City Limit Spruce Ave Ironwood Ave Moreno Beach Dr Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Locust Ave Heacock Ironwood Ave Widen 2 to 4 lanes / Street Improvement Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG SCAG WRCOG • Arterials SCAG MORENO VALLEY Redlands Blvd Ironwood Ave Kalmia Ave Widen 2 to 4 lanes / Street Improvement Arterials SCAG MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY MORENO VALLEY WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study MORENO VALLEY WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study MORENO VALLEY 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP 2012 RTP MURRIETA MURRIETA MURRIETA MU- RRIETA MU- RRIET MURRIETA Redlands Blvd Redlands Blvd San Michele Rd SR-60 Theodore Theodore Antelope Road California Oaks Califomia Oaks Clinton Keith Rd Clinton Keith Rd Clinton Keith Rd Kalmia Ave SR-60 Heacock St Graham St OC Clinton Keith Road Jefferson Toulon Dr Coppercraft Locust Ave Indian Ave Eucalyptus Interchange Scott Road Clinton Keith R 1-215 Whitewood Ave Toulon Dr Widen 2 to 4 lanes / Street Improvement Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Construct 4 through lane OC (2 lanes each dir), add signals at Hemlock, left -turn pocket lanes at both intersections, and add pedestrian sidewalk (Approx 1/4 miles) on OC both sides Construct - Realign Antelope Rd from Clinton Keith Rd. to Arterials Scott Road - 4 through lanes, 2 lane in each direction. Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials SCAG SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan MAX VALUE 2022 2022 $6,000,000 $25,000,000 2022 2022 2022 $2,000,000 $884,000 $372,000 MirmadlIMI SCAG SCAG WRCOG WRCOG SCAG WRCOG WRCOG MURRIETA Elm Street Adams Avenue Jackson Avenue WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study MURRIETA WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study MURRIETA 2012 RTP 2012 RTP French Valley (Date) French Valley (Date) _ Murrieta Hot , Winchester Creek Springs Winchester Creek ,Margarita MURRIETA Guava Avenue Washington Avenue Monroe Avenue Widen from 2 to 4 lanes with 1-15 overcrossing Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials SCAG SCAG F 2022 2022 2030 2030 WRCOG WRCOG SCAG 2030 2030 $1,900,000 $20,100,000 $20,000,000 $35,501,000 $1,645,000 $25,000,000 $9,467, $18,328, $2,012, $26,454, $3,252, $2,412, $10,000,000 $37,483, $1,309 $37,483, $1,595 $2,467, $2,226, $2,416, MURRIETA Ivy Street Jefferson Avenue Washington Avenue Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2023 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study MURRIETA 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP MURRIETA MURRIETA MURRIETA MURRIETA MURRIETA I MURRIETA MURRIETA MURRIETA Jefferson Ave Nutmeg St Jefferson Ave Nutmeg St Jefferson Ave Palomar Murrieta Hot _ Springs IilifAlamiii Jefferso Los Alamos Rd. - I Hancock Ave. north side Jefferson Ave Madison Ave. Monroe Ave. tilurneta Hot Springs Rd. Murrieta Hot Springs Rd. Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Palomar St Nutmeg Cherry I-215 Whitewood Ave. Widen from 4 to 6 Lanes Construct 6 lane arterial Widening from 4 to 6 lanes. Date St. Widen from 2 to 4 lane Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterial 'Arterials SCAG SCAG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG SCAG 2035 2035 2035 $2,000,000 $0 $4,002, $9,555,000 Arterials Los Alamos Ave. Construct a 4 lane facility - Monroe Ave. from Murrieta Hot Arterials Springs Rd. to Los Alamos Rd. SCAG SCAG 2030 2023 $5,221,000 $2,000,000 $15,000,000 $15,000,000 $23,857 $6,071, JUU $9,46 r,000 D00 $18,328,000 J00 $2,012,000 J00 $26,454,000 $6,000,000 $0 $0 D00 $3,252,000 $25,000,000 $0 $0 J00 $2,412,000 $2,000,000 I $884,000 $372,000 D00 $37,483,000 $1,900,000 $20,100,000 D00 $1,309,000 D00 $37,483,000 $20,000,000 J00 $1,595,000 $0 $0 D00 $35,501,000 D00 $2,226,000 $0 $1,645,000 $25,000,000 D00 $2,416,000 $0 $0 $10,000,000 $2,000,000 J00 $4,002,000 $9,555,000 J00 $5,221,000 J00 $6,071,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 $15,000,000 $15,000,000 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update • • • • a • ra.Fr •azr��� • .ra3a�r• . �mr• • • WRCOG Total RCTC Measure A MURRIETA Murrieta Hot Margarita Rd Springs Rd SR-79 (Winchester) Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials ear SCAG 2020 $4,500,000 $3,001,000 $4,500,000 Murrieta Hot MURRIETA Springs Rd Murrieta Hot MURRIETA Springs Rd Jefferson 1-215 Jefferson 1-215 Margarita Clinton Keith Rd ` 1r Arterials Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG $0 $0 $0 — $0 $0 MURRIE Nutmeg * $0 MURRIETA (Whitewood Rd. (Keller Rd Clinton Keith Rd Construct 4 lane arterial Arterials SCAG 2020 $8,342,000 $2,977,000 $8,342,000 MURRIE Whitewood Rd. Menifee City Limit Whitewood Rd. Clinton Keith Road Whitewood Rd. Los Alamos Murrieta Hot Whitewood Rd. Springs ynez Jackson Keller m. Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG $0 $0 $0 $7,278,000 $0 $0 MURRIETA MURRIETA MURRIETA MURRIETA Los Alamos Ave. Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Jackson SR-79 (Winchester) $0 $0 $7,278,000 $0 NORCO 1st St Parkridge Ave Hamner Ave Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2022 $1,616,000 $764,000 $1,616,000 NORCO NORCO Mai 1st St Parkridge Ave Mountain Mountain Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG 764,00. $0 Hamner Ave $0 $0 NORCO 2nd St River Rd Hamner Ave Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (segment of WRCOG project on 2nd St from River to 1-15) Arterials SCAG 2020 $4,641,000 $0 NORCO 2nd St NORCO 6th NORCO 6th NORCO Arlington NORCO California River Rd Hamner I-15 North Arlington I-15 California interchange Arlington Ave 6th Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG $4,641,000 $4,275,000 $0 $18,328,000 $2,898,000 $4,934,000 $4,641,000 $0 $18,328,000 $2,898,000 Arterials $4,934,000 NORCO Corydon Ave River Rd Norco Dr Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2030 $5,743,000 $7,372,000 $5,743,000 NORCO Hamner Cota Street Hamner Ave Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2023 $1,111,000 $1,111,000 NORCO NORCO NORCO Hamner Hidden Valley Hidden Valley Santa Ana River 1-15 Hamner Hidden Valley Pk Norco Hills 1-15 Arterials Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG -Ni $15,366,000 $0 0 $15,366,000 $0 $0 NORCO Hillside Ave 1st St Hidden Valley Pkwy Construct 2 lane arterial Arterials SCAG 2027 $1,602,000 $1,602,000 NORCO Norco Dr Corydon Ave Hamner Ave Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2024 $4,549,000 $6,056,000 $4,549,000 NORCO NORCO mia Archibald Ave Arlington Ave Corydon Arterials Arterials ` $0 $1,434,000 $0 WRCOG $1,434,000 PALM DESERT COOK ST Br. at Whitewater Chnl Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2021 $13,785,000 $13,785,000 $13,785,000 PALM DESERT COOK ST Country Club Whitewater Brg. Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2021 $8,791,000 $7,777,100 $8,791,000 PALM DESERT COOK ST Whitewater Br. Fred Waring Dr Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2021 $3,292,000 $3,292,380 $3,292,380 PALM DESERT Cook Street Frank Sinatra Country Club Dr. Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2021 $10,859,000 $10,858,848 $10,859,000 PALM DESERT CDORUNTRY CLUB Monterey Ave Portola Ave Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $7,559,000 $3,426,192 $7,559,000 PALM DESERT Country Club Drive Eldorado Dr Oasis Club Drive Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $4,391,000 $3,659,040 $4,391,000 PALM DESERT Country Club Drive Portola Avenue Cook Street Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $4,191,000 $4,191,000 PALM DESERT Country Club Drive Cook Street Eldorado Dr Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2027 $3,725,000 $3,725,568 $3,725,568 PALM DESERT Country Club Drive Oasis Club Drive Washington Street Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2030 $3,203,000 $3,584,700 $3,203,000 PALM DESERT FDR NK SINATRA Monterey Ave Portola Ave Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $6,858,000 $4,608,630 $6,858,000 PALM DESERT DR NK SINATRA Portola Ave Cook St Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $5,034,000 $2,951,000 $5,034,000 $6,751,000 DESERT DR NK SINATRA Cook Tamarisk Row Dr CVAG .,751,000 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update 2012 RTP 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A MAX VALUE Expenditure Plan PALM DESERT FDR NK SINATRA Cook St Eldorado Dr Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $5,450,000 $0 PALM DESERT FDR NK SINATRA Eldorado Dr Tamarisk Row Dr Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $1,301,000 $0 PALM DESERT GERALD FORD DR Cook St Frank Sinatra Dr Widen from 3 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2027 $1,250,000 $1,781,550 $1,250,000 PALM DESERT Highway 74 Hwy 111 El Paseo f Arterials CVAG $451,584 $451,584 PALM DESERT Highway 74 El Paseo Mesa View Dr Arterials CVAG $2,976,600 $2,976,600 PALM DESERT Highway 74 Mesa View Dr S Palm Desert City Limits Arterials CVAG $11,044,800 $11,044,800 PALM DESERT MONTEREY AVE Fred Waring Dr. Clancy Lane incl. Br. At Whitewater River Arterials CVAG $12,271,166 $12,271,166 PALM DESERT MONTEREY AVE Clancy Lane Country Club Dr MNT3-6 Arterials CVAG $3,235,300 $3,235,300 PALM DESERT MONTEREY AVE Gerald Ford Dr Dinah Shore Dr MNT6-6 Arterials CVAG $1,881,792 $1,881,792 PALM DESERT MONTEREY AVE Hwy 111 Fred Waring Dr Arterials CVAG $1,161,600 _ $1,161,600 PALM DESERT PORTOLA AVE Magnesia Falls Dr Country Club Dr Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $9,084,000 $4,989,600 $9,084,000 PALM DESERT PORTOLA AVE Country Club Dr 2Sinatra Dr,070' Dr Frank Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $6,154,000 $3,850,000 $6,154,000 PALM DESERT PORTOLA AVE Hwy 111 Magnesia Falls Dr Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $898,000 $3,922,020 $898,000 PALM DESERT PORTOLA AVE Frank Sinatra Dr Julie Dr Arterials CVAG $2,704,0- $2,704,000 PALM DESERT Portola Avenue 1,500' N/O Frank Sinatra Drive 2,000' S/O Gerald Ford Drive Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $3,250,000 $3,250,000 PALM SPRINGS CROSSLEY RD Dinah Shore Dr. Fairway Cr Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $3,158,000 $3,158,000 PALM SPRINGS CROSSLEY RD Sunny Dunes Rd Dinah Shore Dr. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2023 $2,183,000 $2,183,000 PALM SPRINGS CROSSLEY RD / GOLF CLUB DR N. Bank of Wash S. Bank of Wash New bridge over Palm Canyon Wash. Arterials SCAG 2025 $50,644,000 $50,644,000 1ALM SPRINGS CROSSLEY RD/ Ramon Rd Mesquite Ave CROSLYI 'rterials CVAG $1,953,600 $1,953,600 GOLF CLUB DR _ PALM SPRINGS CROSSLEY RD/ Mesquite Ave GOLF CLUB DR Ave 34 CROSLY2 _ Arterials CVAG $2,465,400 $2,465,400 PALM SPRINGS CROSSLEY RD/ Br. At Palm Cyn Arterials CVAG $6,827,200 $6,827,200 GOLF CLUB DR Chnl PALM SPRINGS I DILLON RD I SR-62 Indian Ave Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $14,850,000 $10,340,800 $14,850,000 PALM SPRINGS E PALM CYN Dr Sunrise Way Farrell Dr Arterials CVA $1,848,000 $1,848,000 PALM SPRINGS E PALM CYN Dr Farrell Dr Gene Autry Trail Arterials CVAG $5,411,000 incl. Bridge at Palm Canyon Wash $5,411,000 PALM SPRINGS E PALM CYN Dr Palm Canyon Dr. Sunrise Way Arterials CVAG 2,882,950 $3,882,950 (PALM SPRINGS GENE AUTRY TRAIL N. Bank of Whitewater River S. Bank of New bridge Whitewater River Arterials SCAG 2020 $111,500,000 $225,682,800 $111,500,000 GENE AUTRY Intersection of Gene PALM SPRINGS Autry Trail and Dinah Shore Dr Arterials $1,070,901 $1,070,901 TRAIL Mesquite Ave PALM SPRINGS INDIAN AVE 119th Ave 300 ft. south of 18th Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (segment of CVAG project on Ave. Indian Ave from 19th to Dillon) Arterials SCAG 2025 $8,267,000 $0 PALM SPRINGS INDIAN AVE Old Palm Spring City Limit RR Xing (Future Br. At Whitewater Rvr)- IND1 Arterials CVAG $166,270,000 $166,270,000 PALM SPRINGS INDIAN AVE 20th Ave 19th Ave (incl. Intersection of Indian Ave & 20th Ave)- IND3 IND4 Arterials CVAG $3,378,500 $3,378,500 PALM SPRINGS INDIAN AVE 19th Ave Dillon Rd IND5 Arterials CVAG $9,071,040 $9,071,040 PALM SPRINGS DR IAN CANYON Alejo Rd Racquet Club Rd. Arterials CVAG $14,058,650 $14,058,650 PALM SPRINGS DR IAN CANYON Ramon Rd Alejo Rd Arterials CVAG $6,897,330 $6,897,330 PALM SPRINGS INDIAN CANYON DR Racquet Club Rd Old Palm Springs City Limit Arterials CVAG $6,242,000 $6,242,000 PALM SPRINGS N. INDIAN CANYON DR. N. Bank of Whitewater River S. Bank of Whitewater River New bridge to replace existing low water crossing at Whitewater River. Arterials SCAG 2031 $129,260,000 $129,260,000 PALM SPRINGS N. PALM CYN DR Alejo Rd Tahquitz Cyn Rd Widen from 3 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $3,460,000 $3,460,000 PALM SPRINGS Palm Canyon Dr Ramon Rd E Palm Canyon Dr. incl. Br. At Tahquitz Creek $6,304,660 $6,304,660 CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update 2012 RTP 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2016 RTP 2016 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan MAX VALUE HALM SHKINUb calm Canyon ur PALM SPRINGS Palm Canyon Dr Alejo Rd Vista Chino Ramon Rd HLGI\13 HLGN4 Arterials cVAU Arterials CVAG $5,3UtS,/6U $3,345,350 $b,306,/61) Alejo Rd $3,345,350 PALM SPRINGS RAMON RD S. Indian Cyn Sunrise Way (Incl. Baristo Storm Chnl Xing) Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2031 $131,798,000 $131,798,000 PALM SPRINGS RAMON RD S. Palm Cyn Dr S. Indian Cyn Dr Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2021 $1,201,000 $1,201,000 PALM SPRINGS PALM SPRINGS PALM SPRINGS RAMON RD RAMON RD RAMON Palm Canyon Dr. Sunrise Way El Cielo Rd. Sunrise Way El Cielo Rd Gene Autry Trail ` I ' Arterials Arterials Arterials CVAG CVAG CVAG $9,165,220 $6,484,800 $10,366,800 $9,165,220 $6,484,800 $10,366,800 PALM SPRINGS S. PALM CYN DR Tahquitz Cyn Rd Ramon Rd Widen from 3 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $3,626,000 $3,626,000 PALM SPRINGS Salvia Rd. Garnett Hill Gene Autry Tr. Construct 4 lane arterial connector Arterials SCAG 2031 $9,600,000 $9,600,000 PALM SPRINGS Sunrise Parkway N. Indian Canyon Dr North Palm Canyon Drive (SR 111) Construct/extend 4 lane arterial connector Arterials SCAG 2031 $15,800,000 $15,800,000 PALM SPRINGS Sunrise Parkway Sunrise Way North of San Rafael Dr N. Indian Canyon Dr. Construct/extend 4 lane arterial connector Arterials SCAG 2025 $12,700,000 $12,700,000 PALM SPRINGS Vista Chino N. Palm Canyon Dr Sunrise Way Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2031 $6,970,000 $9,778,800 $6,970,000 PALM SPRINGS PALM SPRINGS Vista Chino Vista Chino _ Gene Autry Trail 'Sunrise Way #Gene hitewater River Autry Trail incl. Future Whitewater River Bridge VC3 VC4 (incl. Intersection of Vista Chino and Gene Autry Tr) Arterials Arterials VA $68,638,500 $6,092,259 $68,638,500 CVAG $6,092,259 PERRIS "A" Street Nuevo Rd 4th St Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes Arterials SCAG 2020 $7,500,000 $7,500,000 PERRIS 11th St/Case Rd Perris Blvd Goetz Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2020 $2,000,000 $1,514,000 $2,000,000 PERRIS Case Rd Goetz Rd 1-215 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes, including 2 bridges over San Jacinto River and interchange at 1-215 Arterials SCAG 2022 $60,000,000 $11,878,000 $60,000,000 PERRIS Case Rd Sanrjacinto River brid•= Arterials WRCp $1,183,000 $1,183,000 PERRIS Dunlap Orange Ellis Ave Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2022 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 PERRIS Ellis Ave SR-74 1-215 Interchange railroad crossing Construct 2 lane arterial and 2 lane grade separation over BNSF RR (Keep grade separation in arterial section) Arterials SCAG 2030 $15,407,000 $9,646,000 $15,407,000 PERRIS PERRIS Ellis Ave Ellis Ave 1-215 BNSF San Jacinto Branch Arterials WRCOG Arterials WRCOG $37,483,000 $15,312,000 $37,483,000 $15,312,000 PERRIS Ethanac Rd Goetz Rd 1-215 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2020 $4,000,000 Widen from 2 to 6 Lanes, including bridge over San Jacinto SCAG $10,500,000 $8,801,000 PERRIS Ethanac Rd Goetz Rd Keystone Dr Storm Channel. Arterials 2020 $4,000,000 $10,500,000 PERRIS PERRIS Ethanac Rd Ethanac Rd San Jacinto River bridge 1-215 Sherman Arterials WRCOG WRC• $7,748,000 1,754,000 $11,872,000 $7,748,000 Arterials $1,754,000 Evans Rd Nuevo Rd 1-215 Construct 4 lane arterial Arterials SCAG 2022 $17,494,000 $17,494,000 IPERRIS PERRIS Evans Rd Orange Ave Nuevo Rd Construct 4 lane arterial Arterials SCAG 2017 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 PERRIS PERRIS PERRIS PERRIS PERRIS PERRIS Evans Rd Evans Rd Evans Rd Evans Rd Evans Rd Evans Rd Harley Knox Ramona Morgan Rider Placentia Ave San Jacinto River Ramona Morgan Rider St Placentia Ave Nuevo bridge Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials WRC I, • WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG $0 $1,762,000 $1,472,000 $0 $2,501,000 $7,748 $1,762,000 $1,472,000 widen 0 to 4 lanes $0 $2,501,000 $7,748 PERRIS Goetz Rd Case Rd IEthanac Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2024 $18,000,000 $5,942,000 $18,000,000 PERRIS Goetz Rd Lesser Ln Ethanac Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2022 $7,000,000 $3,097,000 $7,000,000 PERRIS Goetz Rd PERRIS Harley Knox Blvd. PERRIS Harley Knox Blvd. PERRIS Harley Knox Blvd. PERRIS Harley Knox Blvd. San Jacinto River 1-215 1-215 Indian Perris bridge Indian Ave Interchange Perris Evans ` I Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG $3,874,000 $7,709,000 $18,328,000 $0 $10,368,000 $3,874,000 $7,709,000 $18,328,000 $0 $10,368,000 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year PERRIS PERRIS Indian Ave North City Limit Orange Ave Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Mapes Ave Goetz Rd West City Limit Construct 4 lane arterial PERRIS PERRIS Markham St McPherson Rd Wade Ethanac Rd Redlands Ave Mapes Ave Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Construct 2 lane arterial Arterials Arterials SCAG SCAG 2020 SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan MAX VALUE $9,000,000 2022 $7,000,000 Arterials Arterials SCAG SCAG 2020 $6,000,000 2030 $3,100,000 $9,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study PERRIS PERRIS PERRIS WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study PERRIS Mid -County Mid -County Mid -County (Placentia) Mid -County (Placentia) Perris Valley Storm Channel bridge Perris Evans Rd. 1-215 Perris 1-215 I Interchange Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG $8,717,000 $23,708,000 $9,459,000 $37,483,000 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP PERRIS Morgan St Indian Ave Bradley Rd PERRIS PERRIS PERRIS Morgan St Mountain Ave Murrieta Rd Nevada McPherson Case Rd Indian Ave Construct 4 lane arterial Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2030 $15,000,000 A St Ethanac Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials Arterials Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG SCAG SCAG 2017 2030 2020 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $7,000,000 $3,100,000 $8,717,000 $23,708,000 $9,459,000 $37,483,000 $15,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 Widen from 2 to 4 Lanes, including bridge over Perris Vali 2016 RTP PERRIS Nuevo Rd Evans Rd Wilson Av Storm Drain Arterials SCAG $7,500,000 �I $7,000,000 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study PERRIS PERRIS PERRIS PERRIS Nuevo Rd Nuevo Rd Nuevo Rd Nuevo Rd 1-215 1-215 Murrieta Perris Valley Storm Channel Murrieta Interchange Dunlap Dr bridge Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG $6,831 $18,328,000 $2,295,000 $2,905,000 2016 RTP 2012 RTP PERRIS PERRIS Nuevo Rd 'Orange Ave Perris Blvd Indian Ave Dunlap Dr Dunlap Dr Widen from 4 to 6 Lanes Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials Arterials SCAG SCAG 2030 2030 $5,500,000 $23,000,000 $7,500,000 $6,831 $18,328,000 $2,295,000 $2,905,000 $5,500,000 $23,000,000 2012 RTP PERRIS 2012 RTP dins PERRIS Perris Blvd Perris Blvd Nuevo Rd Ramona Expwy 11 th St Nuevo Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials Arterials SCAG SCAG 2020 2020 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $8,794,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study PERRIS PERRIS PERRIS PERRIS PERRIS PERRIS PERRIS PERRIS WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study PERRIS 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP PERRIS PERRIS Perris Blvd Perris Blvd Perris Blvd Perris Blvd °MITPlacentia Ave Ramona Expwy Ramona Expwy Ramona Expwy amry Expwy Redlands Ave Harley Knox Ramona Citrus 1-215 overcrossing Indian Ave Evans Rd 1-215 Perris Evans Rd Harley Knox Blvd. Ramona Citrus Nuevo bridge Murrieta Rd Rider St Perris Evans Mid -County (2,800 ft E of Rider) Placentia Ave Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Construct 4 lane arterial Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG SCAG SCAG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG SCAG 2020 $15,000,000 $5,929,000 $7,423,000 $0 $2,905,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,929,000 $7,423,000 $0 $2,905,000 $25,000,000 $10,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $15,000,000 Redlands Ave Placentia Ave Ellis Ave Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 PERRIS PERRIS Rider St Nevada Evans Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2030 $15,000,000 $15,000,000 San Jacinto Ave A St Redlands Ave Widen from 2 to 4 lanes, including bridge over 1-215. Arterials SCAG 2030 $25,000,000 $25,000,000 PERRIS San Jacinto Ave Redlands Ave Dunlap Dr Widen from 2 to 6 lanes, including bridge over Perris Valley Arterials Storn Drain. SCAG 2030 $15,000,000 $15,000,000 2012 RTP 2012 RTP Am PERRIS PERRIS San Jacinto Ave San Jacinto Ave Navajo Construct 4 lane arteria West City Limit Navajo Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials 1111MME1.1,30 IP $4,500,000 Arterials SCAG 2030 $4,500,000 $4,500,000 $4,500,000 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study PERRIS SR-74 (Matthews) 1-215 Ethanac Rd Arterials WRCOG $0 $0 2012 RTP PERRIS 2012 RTP PERRIS Watson Webster Ave A St McPherson Rd Harley Knox Blvd. Markham Construct 4 lane arterial Construct 6 lane arterial Arterials Arterials SCAG SCAG 2030 2020 $8,000,000 $8,000,000 $8,000,000 $8,000,000 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP PERRIS Webster Ave Markham RANCHO MIRAGE BOB HOPE DR Frank Sinatra Dr Ramona Expwy Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2020 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 Gerald Ford Dr Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2017 $5,820,000 $4,422,600 $5,820,000 RANCHO MIRAGE FRANK SINATRA DR Intersection of Frank Sinatra Dr. Intersection improvements at Frank Sinatra Dr. and Bob Hope Dr. Arterials SCAG 2018 $1,500,000 $966,654 $1,500,000 RANCHO MIRAGE FRANK SINATRA DR Whitewater River Bridge at Frank Sinatra Drive Replace a 4 lane at grade low-water crossing with a new 4 lane bridge Arterials SCAG 2018 $39,390,000 $29,422,848 $39,390,000 CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan MAX VALUE RANCHO MIRAGE pR 'vr` J"v^"`^ RANCHO MIRAGE Gerald Ford Dr II ILVI.Glall111 VI Frank Sinatra Dr Intersection of Gerald Ford Dr. and Arterials Arterials CVAG CVAG $1,497,366 $1,497,366 $1,099,332 $1,099,332 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Alessandro Blvd Trautwein Rd 1-215 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2030 $6,118,000 $0 $6,118,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY Alessandro Blvd Alessandro Blvd Trautwein Rd Vista Grande Vista Grande 1-215 Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG $0 $0 $0 $0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY AVE 48 Van Buren St to W W of Hwy 86 Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2027 $3,918,000 $3,918,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY AVE 52 Jackson St Calhoun St Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2035 $2,086,000 $2,086,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD SPRR to E side of Br. at Coachella Vlly Storm Chnl SR86S Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2027 $15,600,000 $15,600,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY AVE 56 /AIRPORT BLVD Harrison St Tyler St Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2029 $4,759,000 $4,759,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY AVE 56 /AIRPORT BLVD Tyler St Polk St Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2026 $3,883,000 $3,883,200 $3,883,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY AVE 56 /AIRPORT BLVD Monroe St Jackson St Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2033 $3,894,000 $3,894,440 $3,894,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY AVE 56 /AIRPORT BLVD Jackson St 0.25 miles W of Van Buren St Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2031 $2,645,000 $2,645,280 $2,645,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY AVE 56 /AIRPORT BLVD Polk St Palm St Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2024 $1,414,000 $1,414,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY AVE 56 / AIRPORT BLVD (SOUTH SIDE) 0.25 mi. W of Van Buren St Harrison St Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2033 $5,853,000 $5,853,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY AVE 58 Jackson St Van Buren St Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2030 $4,371,000 $4,371,840 $4,371,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY AVE 58 Monroe St Jackson St Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2032 $3,618,000 $3,618,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY AVE 62 Fillmore St Pierce St Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2033 $25,959,000 $25,959,040 $25,959,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY AVE 62 Pierce St SR86S Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2030 $7,714,000 $7,714,200 $7,714,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY AVE 62 Polk St Fillmore St Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2035 $10,148,000 $10,148,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY AVE 62 Jackson St Van Buren St Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2034 $8,105,000 $8,105,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY AVE 62 Van Buren St Harrison St Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2033 $8,041,000 $8,041,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY AVE 62 Monroe St Jackson St Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2035 $6,772,000 $6,772,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY AVE 62 liir Harrison St RIVERSIDE COUNTY AVE 62 Tyler St yler St Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG $5,628,000 Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG $5,628,000 $5,628,000 $5,628,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY AVE 66 Ave 66 Br./Low Water Xing btwn w/o Coachella Valley Storm Water Chnl and Perce St Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2030 $3,334,000 $3,334,320 $3,334,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Benton Rd SR-79 Eastern Bypass Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2030 $7,145,000 $7,145,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOB HOPE DR Dinah Shore Ramon Rd Widening of the south bound lane from 2 to 3 lanes. Arterials SCAG 2025 $3,123,000 $4,903,360 $3,123,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Briggs Rd Scott Rd RdRj79 (Winchester Construct 4 lane arterial Arterials SCAG 2035 $19,153,000 $19,153,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Briggs Rd Simpson Rd Newport Rd Construct 4 lane arterial Arterials SCAG 2035 $17,370,000 $17,370,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Briggs Rd SRa�74 (Pinacate Simpson Rd Construct 4 lane arterial Arterials SCAG 2035 $14,863,000 $14,883,000 $14,863,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Briggs Rd Newport Rd Scott Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2035 $9,048,000 $4,540,000 $9,048,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Butterfield Stage Murrieta Hot SR-79 (Winchester) Construct 4 lane arterial Arterials SCAG 2030 $40,674,000 $40,674,000 Rd+ Pourroy Rd Springs Rd Harley John Rd Harvil 1-215 Temescal Canyon !interchange Arteria WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG 1 WRCOG 1 $5,178,000 $58,286,000 $846,000 $3,322,000 $73,660,0001 RIVERSIDE COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY Cajalcoobrante Cajalco Harley John Harvil 1-15 11-15 $5,178,000 Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials $58,286,000 Cajalco Cajalco 1Cajalco $846,000 $3,322,000 $73,660,000 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion SCAG Project Cost Year WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan MAX VALUE RIVERSIDE COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY Cajalco Cajalco Temescal Canyon La Sierra Temescal Wash bridge La Sierra Ellpbrante Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG $24,862,000 $3,391,000 $47,323,000 $24,862,000 $3,391,000 Cajalco Center St Arteri l_ $47,323,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Mt Vernon Ave Reche Canyon Rd Construct 41ane arterial Arterials SCAG 2035 $15,639,000 $15,639,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY CRDASE SCHOOL 1-10 Ramon Rd Construct 4 lane arterial Arterials SCAG 2030 $21,183,000 $21,183,600 $21,183,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Cherry Valley Blvd Noble St Highland Springs Construct 4 lane arterial Arterials SCAG 2035 $10,519,000 $10,519,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Cherry Valley Blvd Desert Lawn Dr Noble St Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2035 $9,608,000 $9,608,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Clinton Keith Rd (Phase III & IV) Meadowlark Ln SR-79 Widen from 3 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2027 $28,650,000 $28,650,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY DILLON RD Indian Ave Palm Dr Widen from 2 to 4 lanes, including a new bridge at Mission Cr. Arterials SCAG 2027 $11,550,000 $13,612,680 $11,550,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY DILLON RD Palm Dr Mountain View Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2027 $5,541,000 $5,037,120 $5,541,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY DILLON RD Whitewater Br. Hwy 111 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2025 $3,285,000 $4,550,520 $3,285,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY DILLON RD Br. at Whitewater Chn1 Easterly Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2030 $1,265,000 $1,265,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY DILLON RD L&amp;amp; Intersection of Dillon Rd Palm Dr Widen from 4 to 6 lanes SCAG $956,000 -11=Er $956,000 Easterly RIVERSIDE COUNTY Domenigoni Pkwy RdR�79 (Winchester Warren Rd Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2035 $15,110,000 $9,221,000 $15,110,000 RIVERSIDE COUN Domenigoni cwy San Diego Aqueduct Arterials ' COG , 1111 $2,905,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY El Cerrito Rd 1-15 Ontario Ave Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2030 $1,763,000 $1,656,000 $1,763,000 $3,594,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY El Sobrant Mockingbird Canyon Rd Arterials WRCOG $3,594,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Ellis Ave Post Rd SR-74 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2035 $7,830,000 $7,830,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Ethanac Rd SR-74 Keystone Dr Construct 4 lane arterial Arterials SCAG 2030 $6,393,000 $6,370,000 $6,393,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Gilman Springs Sanderson Ave State St Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2035 $8,208,000 $8,208,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Gilman Springs Rd Bridge St Sanderson Ave Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2030 $8,752,000 $8,778,000 $8,778,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Harley John Rd Washington St Cajalco Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2030 $3,779,000 $3,535,000 $3,779,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY Rd Washington St Scottsdale Scottsdale Arterials WRCOG r $0 Harley Harley John Cajalco Rd Arterials WRCOG $3, ,000 $0 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Horsethief Canyon Rd Temescal Canyon Rd 1-15 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2030 $3,692,000 $3,692,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INDIAN AVE 19th Ave Dillon Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2027 $9,071,000 $9,071,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INDIAN AVE Dillon Rd 14th Ave Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2026 $5,344,000 $5,344,000 $5,344,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INDIAN AVE 14th Ave Pierson Blvd Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2027 $4,715,000 $4,715,040 $4,715,040 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INDIAN AVE 20th Ave 19th Ave Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2022 $2,422,000 $2,422,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INDIAN AVE Intersection of Indian Ave and 20th Ave Northerly Widen from 3 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2021 $956,000 $956,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY McCall Blvd Menifee Rd SR-79 (Winchester) RR struct 2 lane arterial incl. grade separation over BNSF Arterials SCAG 2035 $80,000,000 $80,000,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY McCall Blvd SR-79(Winchester Rd) Warren Rd Construct 2 lane arterial incl. grade separation over BNSF RR Arterials SCAG 2035 $23,249,000 $23,249,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Mid -County (Ramona) WRCOG $13,987,000 $13,987,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY MONTEREY AVE 1-10 Ramon Rd Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2032 $3,625,000 $3,625,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY MOUNTAIN VIEW Dillon Rd 20th Ave Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2024 $5,125,000 $5,125,920 $5,125,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Pourroy Rd SR-79 (Eastern Bypass) Construct 4 lane arterial Arterials SCAG 2030 $9,755,000 $9,755,000 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year RIVERSIDE COUNTY Nuevo Rd Dunlap Dr RIVERSIDE COUNTY Pigeon Pass Rd. Corridor Mt Vernon Ave Menifee Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Hidden Springs Rd CONSTRUCT A NEW 4-LANE PIGEON PASS RD CORRIDOR FACILITY Arterials Arterials SCAG SCAG 2030 2035 SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan MAX VALUE $8,604,000 $33,327,000 $8,604,000 $33,327,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY RAMON RD Monterey Ave Thousand Palms Cyn Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2029 $14,428,000 $14,428,440 $14,428,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY RAMON RD Intersection of Ramon Rd &amp;amp; Varner Rd Date Garden Dr. Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2030 $188,000 $188,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Ramona Expwy Pico Ave Bridge St Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2035 $43,065,000 $35,441,000 $43,065,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Ramona Expwy Rider St Pico Ave Widen from 4 to 6 lanes RIVERSIDE COUNTY Reche Canyon Rd San Bemardino Co Line Reche Vista Dr Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2035 $3,012,000 $3,012,000 Arterials SCAG 2030 $17,429,000 $25,956,000 $17,429,000 2012 RTP RIVERSIDE COUNTY Reche Vista Dr jr. cock St/Perris Reche Canyon Rd WIDEN RECHE VISTA DR 2 TO 4 LNS (and segment from Reche Vista to Barton/Hunts) Arterials $3,386,000 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP RIVERSIDE COUNTY Sanderson Ave (SR- Gillman Springs Rd 79) (at SR-79) Ramona Expwy Widen from 4 to 6 lanes RIVERSIDE COUNTY Scott Rd El Centro SR-79 (Winchester Rd) Widen from 2 to 6 lanes RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR 195 Ave 66 / SR86 IC btwn w/o Buchanan St and e/o SR86 Widen from 2 to 6 lanes RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-74 1-15 Ethanac Rd Arterials SCAG 2030 $22,965,000 $22,965,000 Arterials SCAG 2030 $16,500,000 $16,500,000 Arterials SCAG 2035 $46,934,000 $46,934,000 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2035 $20,440,000 $16,753,000 $20,440,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-74 (Ethanac) Matthews Rd SR-79 (Winchester) Widen from 2 to 4 lanes (Matthews to Briggs). Widen from 4 to 6 lanes(Briggs to SR-79). Arterials SCAG 2035 $16,537,000 $16,537,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-79 Hunter Rd Domenigoni Pkwy Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2030 $100,147,000 $100,147,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SR-79 (Eastern Bypass) SR79 (Winchester Rd near Scott Rd) 1-15 Construct 4 lane arterial. Most of this project overlaps with WRCOG SR-79 from Murrieta Hot Springs to Jefferson and 2012 RTP SR-79 from Hunter to Domenigoni, so the MAX VALUE column only contains the value for 1 .5 miles of the project. Assuming cost per mile per lane: $4,000,000 Arterials SCAG 2030 $260,167,000 $24,000,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Temescal Canyon Rd El Cerrito Rd. Indian Truck Trail Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2030 $22,665,000 $22,665,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Temescal Canyon Rd Indian Truck Trail New Temescal Wash, 0.22 mi. W/O Lake St. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes RIVERSIDE COUNTY TWO BUNCH PALMS TR Indian Ave Little Morongo Rd Arterials SCAG 2035 $15,962,000 $15,962,000 Construct 6 lane arterial Arterials SCAG 2030 $10,727,000 $10,727,040 $10,727,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Van Buren Blvd Mockingbird Canyon Rd Wood Rd Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2019 $12,928,000 $22,182,000 $12,928,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Van Buren Blvd Orange Terrace Pkwy Opportunity Way Widen from 4 to 6 lanes (segment of larger WRCOG project on Van Buren Blvd from Orange Terrace Pkwy to 1-215) Arterials SCAG 2025 $2,900,000 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study RIVERSIDE COUNTY Van Buren Blvd Orangece Pkwy 1-215 WRCOG $9,489,000 2012 RTP 2012 RTP RIVERSIDE COUNTY VAN BUREN ST Indio Blvd Ave 48 Widen from 2 to 3 lanes. Arterials SCAG 2028 $4,054,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY VARNER RD Washington St Adams St Widen from 3 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2032 $898,000 $0 $9,489,000 $4,054,000 $898,000 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year RIVERSIDE COUNTY Washington St Hermosa Dr Harley John Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASHINGTON ST 1-10 Ave 38 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials Arterials SCAG SCAG 2030 SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan MAX VALUE 2026 $12,112,000 $3,192,000 $11,794,000 $3,192,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Wood Rd Krameria Ave Cajalco Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2030 $8,799,000 $8,892,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) ITS Countywide ITS Inland Empire Lump Sum (Grade Crossing Improvements, IE 511, Regional Mobility Manager, etc.) Arterials SCAG 2039 $65,780,000 RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Arlington Ave Magnolia Ave Alessandro Blvd Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2021 $13,494,000 $9,805,000 RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Canyon Crest Dr Country Club Via Vista Widen 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2018 $6,000,000 $3,223,000 RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Central Ave Magnolia Ave SR91 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes btwn SR-91 and Magnolia Arterials SCAG RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Iowa Ave North City Limit Blaine St Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Overlook Pkwy Chateau Ridge Ln Sandtrack Rd Construct missing 4 lane links Arterials SCAG RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Tyler St Wells Ave Arlington Ave Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2021 2021 2021 2021 RIVERSIDE, CITY OF VAN BUREN BLVD JACKSON ST GARFIELD Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2021 $2,730,000 $8,559,000 $10,000,000 $5,650,000 $20,000,000 $6,804,000 $12,112,000 $3,192,000 $8,799,000 $65,780,000 $13,494,000 $6,000,000 $2,730,000 $8,559,000 $10,000,000 $5,650,000 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study RIVERSIDE, CITY OF VAN BUREN BLVD Wood RIVERSIDE, CITY OF VAN BUREN BLVD SR-91 RIVERSIDE, CITY OF VAN BUREN BLVD Santa Ana River Trautwein Mockingbird Canyon SR-91 RIVERSIDE, CITY OF VAN BUREN BLVD Trautwein Rd Orange Terrace Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterial WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG $0 $15,020,000 $6,414,000 $2,499,000 2012 RTP 2012 RTP RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Washington St Victoria Ave Hermosa Dr Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2021 $7,732,000 $10,343,000 RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Wood Rd John F Kennedy Dr Van Buren Blvd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2021 $4,445,000 $1,041,000 $20,000,000 $0 $15,020,000 $6,414,000 $2,499,000 $7,732,000 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study RIVERSIDE, CITY OF 14th RIVERSIDE, CITY OF 1st RIVERSIDE, CITY OF 3rd RIVERSIDE, CITY OF ADAMS ST RIVERSIDE, CITY OF ADAMS ST RIVERSIDE, CITY OF ADAMS ST RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Alessandro Blvd RIVERSIDE, CITY OF RIVERSIDE, CITY OF RIVERSIDE, CITY OF RIVERSIDE, CITY OF RIVERSIDE, CITY OF RIVERSIDE, CITY OF RIVERSIDE, CITY OF RIVERSIDE, CITY OF RIVERSIDE, CITY OF RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Arlington Ave Arlington Ave Buena Vista Market Market Chicago SR-91 SR-91 BNSF Arlington North SR-91 Santa Ana River Martin Luther King Main 1-215 Arlington Ave Lincoln railroad crossing Trautwein Magnolia interchange Redwood Canyon Crest Dr Martin Luther King Central Canyon Crest Dr Central Canyon Crest Dr Via Vista Central Ave Central Ave Central Ave Central Ave Chicago SR-91 Alessandro Van Buren Country Club Alessandro I-215/SR-60 Magnolia SR-91 Magnolia Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG $0 $657,000 $0 $0 $0 $14,268,000 $0 $5,067,000 $18,328,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,678,000 $0 $0 $4,445,000 $0 $657,000 $0 $0 $0 $14,268,000 $0 $5,067,000 $18,328,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,678,000 $0 $0 Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study RIVERSIDE, CITY OF CHICAGO AV WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study RIVERSIDE, CITY OF RIVERSIDE, CITY OF RIVERSIDE, CITY OF CHICAGO AV CHICAGO AV Columbia RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Columbia RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Iowa Ave RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Iowa Ave WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study RIVERSIDE, CITY OF JFK WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study RIVERSIDE, CITY OF La Sierra WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study RIVERSIDE, CITY OF La Sierra WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study RIVERSIDE, CITY OF La Sierra RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Lemon (NB One way) RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Lincoln RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Lincoln RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Lincoln Lincoln RIVERSIDE, CITY OF RIVERSIDE, CITY OF RIVERSIDE, CITY OF RIVERSIDE, CITY OF RIVERSIDE, CITY OF RIVERSIDE, CITY OF MADISON ST MADISON ST Magnolia Magnolia Magnolia WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Magnolia WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Main St WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Market St RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Martin Luther King RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Mission Inn RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Overlook Pkwy RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Overlook Pkwy RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Overlook Pkwy RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Overlook Pkwy RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Overlook Pkwy RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Overlook Pkwy RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Redwood (SB One way) RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Trautwein RIVERSIDE, CITY OF TYLERST RIVERSIDE, CITY OF TYLER ST RIVERSIDE, CITY OF I TYLER ST Alessandro Spruce BNSF Main 1-215 Center 3rd Trautwein Rd Arlington SR-91 INDIANA AVE Mission Inn Van Buren Jefferson Washington Victoria Ave SR-91 BNSF BNSF Railroad BNSF Tyler Harrison St 1st 14th Ave 14th Ave Redwood Sandtrack Washington Bodewin/Via Montecito Crystal View Alessandro Arroyo Via Vista Mission Inn Spruce Columbia railroad crossing Iowa interchange 3rd University Wood Rd SR-91 INDIANA AVE Victoria University Jefferson Washington Victoria Arlington Ave Victoria railroad crossing Tyler railroad crossing Harrison St 14th San Bernardino County Santa Ana River I-215/SR-60 Lemon Alessandro Bodewin/Via Montecito Crystal View Via Vista bridge Sandtrack Rd University Van Buren Magnolia interchange 'MAGNOLIA AVE Hole Alessandro SR-91 SR-91 Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG j� WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG Total Project Cost $0 $0 $30,624,000 $0 $18,328,000 $9,955,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,373,000 $3,600,000 $0 $0 $14,268,000 $0 $14,268,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,627,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,836,000 $1,527,000 $9,686,000 $1,338,000 $0 $0 $0 $37,483,000 $0 RCTC Measure A mai $0 $0 $30,624,000 $0 $18,328,000 $9,955,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,373,000 $3,600,000 $0 $0 $14,268,000 $0 $14,268,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,627,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,836,000 $1,527,000 $9,686,000 $1,338,000 $0 $0 $0 $37,483,000 $0 Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan MAX VALUE WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study RIVERSIDE, CITY OF TYLER ST RIVERSIDE, CITY OF University RIVERSIDE, CITY OF University RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Victoria Hole Redwood SR-91 Madison RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Wood Rd Van Buren RIVERSIDE, CITY OF Wood Rdr IBergamont Wells SR-91 I-215/SR-60 Washington Bergamont Krameria Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $464,000 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP SAN JACINTO Cawston Ave Esplanade Ave Ramona Expway Construct 4 lane arterial Arterials SCAG 2022 $4,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $464,000 $4,500,000 SAN JACINTO SAN JACINTO Cottonwood Ave Warren Rd State St Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2020 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 Esplanade Ave Warren Rd State St Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2018 $10,553,000 $10,514,000 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study SAN JACINTO SAN JACINTO SAN JACINTO SAN JACINTO Esplanade Ave Esplanade Ave Gilman Springs Gilman Springs Ramona Mountain Sanderson Massacre Canyon Wash Mountain State St State St bridge Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG $2,014,000 $0 $7,575,000 $969,000 2012 RTP SAN JACINTO Hewitt St WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study SAN JACINTO WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study SAN JACINTO 2012 RTP 2012 RTP Mid -County (Ramona) Mid -County (Ramona) Main St Warren Rd Sanderson/SR-79 (Hemet Bypass) SAN JACINTO SAN JACINTO Palm Ave 'Seventh St Palm Ave Esplanade Ave South City Limit Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Sanderson Ave interchange Ramona Blvd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials Arterials SCAG SCAG 20301 2022 $3,500,OOO1 $5,000,000 Seventh St Construct 4 lane arterial Arterials SCAG 2022 $1,900,000 $10,514,000 $2,014,000 $0 $7,575,000 $969,000 $3,500,000 $8,694,000 $37,483,000 $5,000,000 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study SAN JACINTO SAN JACINTO SAN JACINTO SAN JACINTO Ramona Ramona Ramona Ramona Sanderson State Main Cedar State St Main Cedar SR-74 Arterial�� Arterials Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG $24,031,000 $13,406,000 $20,940,000 $0 I 2012 RTP SAN JACINTO 'Ramona Expwy (Phase III) Eagle Rd Lake Park Dr Widening from 4 to 6 lanes Arterials SCAG 2022 $10,600,000 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study SAN JACINTO Sanderson Ramona �splanade Ave Arterials WRCOG $0 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP SAN JACINTO SAN JACINTO SAN JACINTO Seventh St Seventh St Soboba Rd Cawston Ave Ramona Expway (currently Mountain Ave.) Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2030 $9,200,000 $1,900,000 $24,031,000 $13,406,000 $20,940,000 $0 $10,600,000 $0 $9,200,000 Warren Rd Cawston Ave Construct 4 lane arterial Arterials SCAG 2030 $8,000,000 $8,000,000 SAN JACINTO Chabela Dr City Limit Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2022 $4,000,000 SR-79 - San Jacinto Ave. North Ramona Blvd 7th St Widen from 2 to 4 lanes. No value in MAX VALUE because of overlap with RCTC Summary-SR-79- from Gilman Arterials Springs Rd to Domenigoni Pkwy SCAG 2022 $6,870,000 $1,241,000 $4,000,000 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study SAN JACINTO SAN JACINTO SAN JACINTO SAN JACINTO 11111 SR-79 (San Jacinto) State State State �h Ramona San Jacinto River Quandt Ranch SR-74 Esplanade Ave bridge Ramona —1.111111Viap with RCTC Summary SR-79 from Gilman Springs Rd to Domenigoni Pkwy Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG $0 $0 $4,843,000 $0 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP SAN JACINTO State St Gillman Springs Rd Quandt Ranch Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2020 SAN JACINTO Warren Rd Ramona Expwy Esplanade Ave Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2022 TEMECULA Diaz Road Dendy Parkway Rancho California Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials SCAG 2023 $5,718,000 $6,000,000 $12,000,000 $2,264,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,843,000 $0 $5,718,000 $10,330,000 $6,000,000 TEMECULA Diaz Road North City Limits Dendy Parkway Construct 4 lane arterial Arterials SCAG 2023 $3,024,000 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study TEMECULA TEMECULA WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study ,TEMECULA French Valley (Cherry) French Valley (Date) French Valley (Date) Murrieta Creek Margarita Rd 1-15 Arteria Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG $8,136,000 $0 $73,660,000 $12,000,000 $3,024,000 $8,136,000 $0 $73,660,000 2012 RTP Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year TEMECULA WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study TEMECULA WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study TEMECULA WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study TEMECULA WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study TEMECULA WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study TEMECULA WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP TEMECULA TEMECULA TEMECULA TEMECULA TEMECULA French Valley (Western Bypass Segment 1) French Valley (Date) French Valley (Cherry) Jefferson Margarita Old Town Front Pechanga Pkwy Pechange Pkwy Rancho California Rd Rancho California Rd Rancho California Rd TEMECULA Rancho Way WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study TEMECULA WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study TEMECULA WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study TEMECULA 2012 RTP TEMECULA WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study TEMECULA WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study TEMECULA WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2016 RTP J 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) Ynez Rd Ynez Rd Jefferson Cherry Murrieta Hot Springs Rancho California SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) Via Gilberto Jefferson Ave 1-15 W Margarita Rd Diaz Rd. Pechanga Pkwy SR-79 (Winchester) Murrieta Hot Springs SR-79 (Winchester) 1-15 SR-79 South I-15 (Temecula Pkwy) Western Bypass (Diaz) Western Bypass (Vincent) TEMECULA Western Bypass (Vincent) TEMECULAAWestern Bypass (Vincent) TEMECULA Ynez Rd VARIOUS AGENCIES Arterial Improvements (Cherry 1-15 Rancho California Murrieta Creek Rancho Vista Rd Countywide Diaz Rd Jefferson Diaz Rancho California Rd SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) I-15/SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) Via Gilberto Pechanga Pkwy (Margarita Rd 1 interchange Butterfield Stage Margarita Rd. Butterfield Stage Jefferson interchange Pechanga Pkwy Rancho California Rd interchange SR-79 (Front) bridge La Paz St VARIOUS AGENCIES Arterial Improvements Western County VARIOUS AGENCIES VARIOUS AGENCIES VARIOUS AGENCIES WILDOMAR WILDOMAR WILDOMAR 1WILDOMAR WILDOMAR WILDOMAR WILDOMAR WILDOMAR Arterial Improvements ITS ITS Baxter Rd lir Baxter Rd Baxter Rd (Bundy Canyon Rd Bundy Canyon Rd Bundy Canyon Rd Bundy Canyon Rd Bundy Canyon Rd Coachella Valley Countywide Countywide 1-15 Central St 1 Construct 6 lane arterial Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Construct Rancho Way - 4 lane local arterial from Diaz Rd. to Margarita Rd. Overlap with Task 2 Transportatior�yystem Needs and Deficiencies Draft Roadway Needs, SR-79 from 1-15 to SR- 371 Overlap Widen from 6 to 8 lanes. No value in MAX VALUE because of overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies Draft Roadway Needs, SR-79 from 1-15 to SR- 371 Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Widen from 2 to 4 lane WIDEN/CONSTRUCT REGIONAL ARTERIALS. No value in MAX VALUE because of overlap. WESTERN COUNTY WIDEN/REHABILITATE ARTERIAL IMPROVEMENTS EASTERN COUNTY WIDEN/RECONSTRUCT/REHABILITATE REGIONAL ARTERIALS ITS Lump Sum for Riverside County arterials. 75% / 25% western/eastern county split ITS Lump Sum for Riverside County arterials. 75% / 25% western/eastern county split Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials 1-15 1-15 1-15 Sunset Mission Trail 1-15 Palomar St interchange Murrieta Rd interchange Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials SCAG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG SCAG WRCOG WRCOG SCAG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG SCAG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG SCAG Arterials WRCOG 2018 2023 2020 2026 2026 2039 2039 2025 SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan MAX VALUE $20,353,000 $11,464,000 $7,349,000 $9,883,000 $36,000,000 $2,163,000 $3,701,000 $553,031,000 $211,437,000 $116,699,000 $91,864,015 $91,864,015 $17,929,000 $4,115,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,216,000 $18,328,000 $16,126,000 $18,328,000 $1,907,000 $20,353,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,883,000 $18,328,000 $16,126,000 $36,000,000 $0 $0 $18,328,000 $0 $3,878,OOO1 $37,483,000 $16,146,000 $5,812,000 $5,812,000 $3,701,000 $1,099,000 $18,328,000 $14,698,000 $11,702,000 $2,996,000 $3,878,000 $37,483,000 $16,146,000 $211,437,000 $116,699,000 $68,898,011 $22,966,004 $17,929,000 $1,099,000 $18,328,000 $30,279,000 $0 $0 $4,710,000 $18,328,000 $3,635,000 $18,328,000 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2012 RTP WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year W ILDOMAR Central St Baxter Rd Palomar St Widen from 2 to 4 lanes W ILDOMAR Central St Grand Ave Palomar St Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials Arterials WILDOM linton Keith W ILDOMAR W ILDOMAR OMAR Clinton Keith Rd Grand Ave iss11V ion 1-15 Ortega Hwy (SR- 74) Bundy Canyon W ILDOMAR Palomar St W ILDOMAR W ILDOMAR Palomar St Palomar St Mission Trail Clinton Keith Road Mission Coppercraft Central St Palomar St ,Jefferson Jefferson Clinton Keith Widen from 2 to 6 lanes Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials SCAG SCAG WRC SCAG SCAG WRCOG SCAG WRCOG WRCOG 2030 2030 2020 2025 2025 SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan MAX VALUE $2,801,000 $1,937,000 $18,700,000 $22,400,000 $28,000,000 $3,705,000 $2,572,000 $14,765,000 $35,146,000 $0 $10,491,000 $2,190,000 $8,301,000 $2,801,000 $1,937,000 $0 $18,700,000 $22,400,000 $0 $28,000,000 $0 CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update 20th Ave 20th Ave 20TH Ave 20th Ave AVE 56/ AIRPORT BLVD Ave 58 Ave 58 AVE 66 Little Morongo Rd Indian Ave Palm Dr Worsley Rd Harrison St Monroe St Palm Dr Little Morongo Rd Mountain View Rd Indian Ave Tyler St Jackson St Van Buren St Harrison St (SR-86) Future Ave 66 SR- 86S IC - 66A missing link missing link- 20B Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG $7,056,480 $9,976,000 $6,556,800 $15,654,000 $4,759,680 $3,618,240 $4,371,840 $46,934,500 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update Benton Rd Briggs Briggs Rd Butterfield Stage Butterfield Stage Butterfield Stage Butterfield Stage Butterfield Stage Butterfield Stage Butterfield Stage Butterfield Stage Center (Main) Center (Main) Center(Main) Cherry Valley Cherry Valley Cherry Valley Cherry Valley Cherry Valley Clinton Keith Clinton Keith Dillon Rd Dillon Rd SR-79 Scott Salt Creek Murrieta Hot Springs Calle Chapos La Serena Rancho California Pauba Eastern Bypass SR-79 (Winchester) Bridge Calle Chapos La Serena Rancho California Rd Pauba SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) SR-79 (Winchester) Auld Murrieta Hot Auld Springs Rd Tucalota Creek bridge 1-215 BNSF 1-215 Noble St 1-10 San Timoteo Wash Bellflower Highland Springs Whitewood Rd (East) Warm Springs Creek Mountain View Rd Thousand Palms Cyn Rd interchange railroad crossing Mount Vernon Desert Lawn interchange bridge Noble St Bellflower SR-79 bridge Bennett Rd Sunny Rock Rd Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG 1 CVAG CVAG $7,152,000 $10,098,000 $5,812,000 $0 $0 $3,081,000 $2,909,000 $5,786,000 $7,805,000 $15,267,000 $3,874,000 $18,328,000 $14,268,000 $7,544,000 $10,107,000 $37,483,000 $2,905,000 $8,752,000 $1,311,000 $22,681,000 $34,870,000 $0 $7,056,480 $9,976,000 $6,556,800 $15,654,000 $4,759,680 $3,618,240 $4,371,840 $46,934,500 $7,152,000 $10,098,000 $5,812,000 $10,857,360 $24,368,640 $0 $0 $3,081,000 $2,909,000 $5,786,000 $7,805,000 $15,267,000 $3,874,000 $18,328,000 $14,268,000 $7,544,000 $10,107,000 $37,483,000 $2,905,000 $8,752,000 $1,311,000 $22,681,000 $34,870,000 $10,857,360 $24,368,640 Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan MAX VALUE CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update Dillon Rd Bennett Rd Thousand Palms Cyn Rd incl. Br. At Wide Cyn Chnl Dillon Rd Sunny Rock Rd Ave 44 incl. Br. Over All -Amer. Canal Arterials Arterials CVAG CVAG $28,621,360 $23,706,360 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study Dos Lagos (Weirick) Ellis Ave Ethanac Rd Temescal Canyon 1-15 Post SR-74 BNSF San Jacinto railroad crossing Branch Gilman Springs Alessandro Blvd. bridge Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG $0 $7,885,000 $30,624,000 $17,036,000 $28,621,360 $23,706,360 $0 $7,885,000 $30,624,000 CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update Hacienda Ave Indian Ave Little Morongo Rd Hacienda Ave SR62 Indian Ave Arterials Arterials CVAG CVAG $11,341,440 $18,009,000 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study Horsethief Canyon Temescal Canyon 1-15 Indian Truck Trail Temescal Canyon 1-15 La Sierra La Sierra Victoria Ave El Sobrante El Sobrante Cajalco Rd Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials WRCOG $505,000 WRCOG $0 WRCOG $0 WRCOG $0 $17,036,000 $11,341,440 $18,009,000 $505,000 $0 $0 CVAG TPPS 2010 Update Little Morongo Rd Dillon Rd 20th Ave Arterials CVAG $17,012,160 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study Live Oak Canyon Oak Valley (STC) San Bernardino County Menifee Rd Ramona Menifee Rd Nuevo Rd Mid -County Evans Rd Nuevo SR-74 (Pinacate Rd) Ramona (2,800 ft E of Rider) Mid -County Ramona (2,800 ft E (Ramona) of Rider) Pico Ave Mid -County San Jacinto River bridge (Ramona) Mockingbird Van Buren El Sobrante Canyon Vernon/CETAP Corridor Center Pigeon Pass Murrieta Hot Springs Rd SR-79 (Winchester) Pourroy Nuevo Rd Dunlap Dr Menifee Rd Nuevo Rd San Jacinto River bridge San Bernardino Beaumont City Oak Valley (STC) County Limits Oak Valley (STC) UP railroad crossing Pala Pechanga San Diego County Arterials WRCOG Arterials WRCOG Arterials WRCOG Arterials WRCOG Arterials WRCOG Arterials WRCOG Arterials WRCOG Arterials WRCOG Arterials WRCOG Arterials WRCOG Arterials WRCOG Arterials WRCOG Arterials WRCOG Arterials WRCOG $0 $7,292,000 $12,115,000 $8,947,000 $1,311,000 $25,184,000 $11,262,000 $2,345,000 $0 $5,947,000 $3,874,000 $0 $15,312,000 $0 $0 $17,012,160 $0 $7,292,000 $12,115,000 $8,947,000 $1,311,000 $25,184,000 $11,262,000 $2,345,000 $0 $5,947,000 $3,874,000 $0 $15,312,000 � CVAG TPPS 2010 Update 1 'Palm Dr 120th Ave Dillon Rd Arterials I CVAG $2,639,736 $0 $2,639,736 Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan MAX VALUE CVAG TPPS 2010 Update Palm Dr Varner Rd 20th Ave Arterials CVAG $1,439,856 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update Pigeon Pass/CETAP Corridor Post Potrero Potrero Cantarini Mount Vernon Santa Rosa Mine Ellis Ave 4th 1st Reche Canyon Rd Reche Vista San Timoteo Redlands Ave Canyon S Valley Pkwy S Valley Pkwy/ Ave 60 S Valley Pkwy/ Ave 60 S Valley Pkwy/ Ave 60 S Valley Pkwy/Ave 62 Harrison St Monroe St JACKSON ST Van Buren Polk St 1st SR-79 (beaumont) Moreno Valley City Limit Locust Polk St Jackson St Van Buren Harrison St (SR-86) Fillmore St Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG $26,198,000 $0 $1,340,000 $6,963,000 $0 $0 $11,256,000 $4,177,440 $4,424,640 $4,952,640 $10,148,160 $1,439,856 $26,198,000 $0 $1,340,000 $6,963,000 $0 $0 $11,256,000 $4,177,440 $4,424,640 $4,952,640 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study uvprnr: TI !RAF Nav c cti rh Scott Rd SR-74 SR-74 SR-79 (Beaumont) SR-79 (Eastern Bypass) SR-79 (Eastern Briggs Briggs Ethanac Rd Mellow Santa Gertrudis Creek �Ai irnhu Rnarl SR-79 (Winchester) SR-79 (Winchester) Ellis Ave California bridge Pala Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials �rfcrialc WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG VVPrnal $9,048,000 $10,493,000 $0 $0 $1,938,000 SCR naa nnn WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study Bypass) SR-79 (Eastern Bypass) SR-79 (Eastern Bypass) SR-79 (Eastern Bypass)/Anza SR-79 (Eastern Bypass)/Anza SR-79 (Eastern Bypass)/Anza SR-79 (Eastern Bypass)/Anza SR-79 (Eastern Bypass)/Anza SR-79 (Eastern Bypass)/Washi SR-79 (Eastern Bypass)NWashi SR-79 (Hemet Bypass) Pala Rainbow Creek Borel Vino 1-15 bridge Vino SR-79 (Constance) SR-79 (Constance) Santa Rita Temecula Creek Santa Rita SR-79 (Winchester Rd) Tucalota Creek SR-74 (Florida) Bridge Murphy Road Borel Bridge Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Domenigoni Pkwy Duplicate with SR-19(Winchester) from SR-74 (Florida) to Arterials Domenigoni Pkwy? WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG $16,319,000 $1,938,000 $13,830,000 $15,369,000 $3,902,000 $969,000 $6,060,000 $13,454,000 $969,000 $19,170,000 $10,148,160 $9,048,000 $10,493,000 $0 $0 $1,938,000 $5,066,000 $16,319,000 $1,938,000 $13,830,000 $15,369,000 $3,902,000 $969,000 $6,060,000 $13,454,000 $969,000 $19,170,000 Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year i WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study �WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study SR-79 (Hemet Bypass) SR-79 (Hemet Bypass) SR-79 (Lamb Canyon) SR-79 (North Ramona) SR-79 (San Jacinto Bypass) SR-79(Sanderson) SR-79 (Sanderson) San Diego Aqueduct Domenigoni California State Mid -County (Ramona) Gilman Springs bridge Winchester Creek Gilman Springs San Jacinto SR-74 (Florida) Ramona San Jacinto River bridge SR-79 (Winchester) Domenigoni SR-79 (Winchester) Keller SR-79 (Winchester) Thompson SR-79 (Winchester) La Alba SR-79 (Winchester) Hunter SR-79 (Winchester) Temescal Canyon Rd Temescal Canyon Rd Temescal Canyon Rd Temescal Canyon Rd Temescal Canyon Rd Temescal Canyon Rd Temescal Canyon Rd Temescal Canyon Rd Temescal Canyon Rd Temescal Canyon Rd SR-74 (Florida) Ontario Tuscany Dos Lagos Leroy Dawson Canyon 1-15 1-15 Park Canyon Indian Truck Trail Indian Wash Keller Thompson La Alba Hunter Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials No MAX VALUE because of overlap with RCTC Summary Arterials SR-79 from Gilman Springs Rd to Domenigoni No MAX VALUE because of overlap No MAX VALUE because of overlap No MAX VALUE because of overlap No MAX VALUE because of overlap No MAX VALUE because of overlap Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Domenigoni Pkwy Overlap with RCTC Summary SR-79 from Gilman Springs Arterials Rd to Domenigoni Pkwy Tuscany Dos Lagos Leroy Dawson Canyon 1-15 interchange Park Canyon Indian Truck Trail 1-15 bridge Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan MAX VALUE $5,812,000 $8,930,000 $0 $0 $38,695,000 $5,708,000 $13,506,000 $0 $0 $9,117,000 $2,533,000 $0 $0 $1,769,000 $0 $3,777,000 $6,456,000 $0 $18,328,000 $13,192,000 $8,720,000 $8,798,000 $987,000 $5,812,000 $8,930,000 $0 $0 $38,695,000 $0 $13,506,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,769,000 $0 $3,777,000 $6,456,000 $0 $18,328,000 $13,192,000 $8,720,000 $8,798,000 CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update Thousand Palms Rd TWO BUNCH PALMS TR Varner Rd Varner Rd Varner Rd Washington St Worsley Rd Worsley Rd Worsley Rd Ramon Rd SR62 20th Ave Ave 38 Monterey Ave Ave 38 Two Bunch Palm Tr. Dillon Rd 120th Ave Dillon Rd Indian Ave Palm Dr Washington Street Chase School Rd Ramon Rd Pierson Blvd Two Bunch Palm Tr. Dillon Rd Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials Arterials { CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG $11,684,200 $18,692,100 $8,775,700 $9,128,650 $7,598,000 $24,960,050 $3,874,400 $5,477,600 $3,179,5201 $987,000 $11,684,200 $18,692,100 $8,775,700 $9,128,650 $7,598,000 $24,960,050 $3,874,400 $5,477,600 $3,179,520 Lead Agency Route Name From Description Project Type Source Completion Year Future traffic forecasts do not justify expanding the current roadway capacity SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan MAX VALUE RCTC RCTC Strategic Assessment Grade Separations 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year BANNING 22ND ST 1-10 LINCOLN ST GRADE SEPARATION - 2 LANES OVER UPRR TRACKS Grade Separations SCAG 2028 SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan MAX VALUE $45,000,000 BANNING HARGRAVE ST 1-10 LINCOLN ST GRADE SEPARATION - 2 LANES OVER UPRR Grade Separations SCAG 2026 $50,000,000 BANNING SAN GORGONIO AV 1-10 LINCOLN ST GRADE SEPARATION - 2 LANES OVER UPRR TRACKS Grade Separations SCAG 2030 $55,000,000 BEAUMONT CALIFORNIA AVE 3RD ST 1-10 GRADE SEPARATION - 2 LANES OVER UPRR TRACKS Grade Separations SCAG 2028 $39,000,000 $45,000,000 $50,000,000 $55,000,000 $39,000,000 BEAUMONT VIELE AV B STREET LUIS ESTRADA RD GRADE SEPARATION - 2 LANES AT UPRR Grade Separations SCAG 2035 $50,000,000 CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CATHEDRAL CITY DA VALL Vista Chino Varner Rd Incl. Br. Over RR, Future Da Vali 1-10 IC, and Br. At Long Cyn Chnl Grad VA 91 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CATHEDRAL CITY Landau Vista Chino 1-10 Construct new 6-lane road, including OC of UPRR Grade Separations CATHEDRAL CITY 'Landau CATHEDRAL CITY 1 Landau Vista Chino Verona Rd Verona Rd I-10 IC incl. bridge over RR, and Future Landau Blvd 1-10 IC, Grade Separations missing link COACHELLA COACHELLA AVE 48 AVE 50 Grade Separation at Hwy 111/SPRR Ave De Oro Cabazon Dr. COACHELLA AVE 52 Shady Ln Hwy 111 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes SCAG 2030 $16,100,000 Grade Separations � CVAG I r lop $0 $0 incl. Grade Separation Hwy 111/SPRR incl. intersection of Ave 52 and Hwy 111 and grade Separation at Hwy 111/SPRR i 'Grade Separations Grade Separations (Grade Separations r SCAG CVAG CVAG 2027 $10,000,000 $81,399,500 $50,000,000 $91,122,060 780,000 $80,619,500 $7,991,260 $6,325,338 2012 RTP COACHELLA AVE 54 Hwy 111 Fillmore Construct 4-lane Bridge Grade Separations SCAG 2025 $34,937,000 CVAG TPPS 2010 Update COACHELLA AVE 56/ AIRPORT I Polk St BLVD SR-86S Incl. Grade Sep. over Hwy 111,SPRR, and Br. At WhiAlter Chnl ade Separations CVAG $21,576,164 2012 RTP 2016 RTP COACHELLA CVAG TPPS 2010 Update 2012 RTP 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update CVAG TPPS 2010 Update 2012 RTP 2012 RTP 2012 RTP JURUPA VALLEY JURUPA VALLEY LA QUINTA MENIFEE SR-86S (PM 17.81 to 18.81) BELLGRAVE AV JURUPA RD Adams St Menifee Rd PALM DESERT PALM DESERT Key Largo Ave PORTOLA AVE RIVERSIDE COUNTY AVE 62 at Ave 54 Sampson Ave Fred Waring Dr BAIN ST CEDAR ST SR-74 (Pinacate Rd) Dinah Shore Dinah Shore Dr. btwn SR-111 Ramp; Fillmore Walker Ln 1-1gIC RUTILE ST E'LY OF FELSPAR ST Simpson Rd Varner Rd I-10 IC Construct 4 lane bridge/interchange and ramps across SR- 86S rade Separation - 2 Lanes over BNSF RR Tracks incl. Br. Over RR and Future Madison St 1-10 IC GRADE SEPARATION - 2 LANES OVER UPRR TRACKS 1 Grade Separations Grade Separations Grade Sparatiozi._ Grade Separations GRADE SEPARATION - 2 LANES OVER UPRR TRACKS Grade Separations Bridge at Whitewater Chnl- ADM1 goodir Widen from 2 to 4 lanes incl. grade separation over RR (Grade sep portion is not part of grade sep list and should remain here) Grade Separations Grade Separations incl. Bridge over I-10 and RR Grade Separations incl. Br. Over RR and Future Portola Ave 1-10 IC—ML Grade Separations SCAG SCAG CVAG SCAG SCAG CVAG SCAG CVAG CVAG WEST OF SR 111 WEST OF SR 86 S GRADE SEPARATION - 2 LANES AT UPRR TRACKS AND SR111 Grade Separations SCAG 2035 2022 2030 2027 2031 $64,710,000 $25,000,000 $117,159,000 $39,176,000 $98,554,000 $7,411,000 RIVERSIDE, CITY OF ADAMS ST INDIANA AVE LINCOLN ST GRADE SEPARATION - 4 LANES OVER BNSF RR Grade Separations SCAG 2035 $110,337,000 RIVERSIDE, CITY OF CHICAGO AV THORTON ST COLUMBIA AVE GRADE SEPARATION TRACKS - 4 LANES OVER BNSF RR Grade Separations SCAG 2035 $100,000,000 $84,724,050 $12,060,600 $26,948,400 $84,585,500 $16,100,000 $0 $0 $10,000,000 $7,991,260 $6,325,338 $34,937,000 $21,576,164 $64,710,000 $25,000,000 $84,724,050 $117,159,000 $101,228,000 $12,060,600 $39,176,000 $26,948,400 $84,585,500 $98,554,000 $110,337,000 $100,000,000 2012 RTP 2012 RTP liMiliFERSIDE, CITY OF PIERCE ST �AGNOLIA AVE11.111NDIA RIVERSIDE, CITY OF SPRUCE ST SR-91 I-215 (BNSF) GRADE SEPARATION TRACKS GRADE SEPARATION TRACKS - 3 LANES OVER BNSF RR - 4 LANES OVER BNSF RR 11.11 Grade Separations Grade Separations SCAG SCAG 2035 $40,000,000 $40,000,000 2012 RTP CVAG TPPS 2010 Update RIVERSIDE, CITY OF TYLER ST SR-91 AVE 66 Future traffic forecasts do not justify expanding the current roadway capacity COMANCHE AVE GRADE SEPARATION TRACKS - 4 LANES OVER BNSF RR Grade separation at HWY 111/SPRR- 66C Grade Separations Grade Separations SCAG CVAG 2030 $100,000,OOO1 $56,500,000 $100,000,000 $56,500,000 RCTC RCTC Strategic Assessment Transit- Intercity Rail Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan MAX VALUE RCTC Summary of Current Plan CVAG Proposed intercity route between LA Union Station and Riverside County. Cost Outline: Rolling stock - $80 million, Stations - $60 million, Maintenance facilities - $15 million. (2010 Dollars) Coachella Valley http://californiastaterailplan.dot.ca.gov/docs/Final_Copy_201 Rail LA Union Station Riverside County 3_CSRP.pdf Transit - Intercity Rail 2013 CSRP $155, 000, 000 Future traffic forecasts do not justify expanding the current roadway capacity $155,000, 000 RCTC RCTC Strategic Assessment Transit- Commuter/Regional Rail I-N 2012 RTP Lead Agency RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) Route Name Metrolink Commuter Rail From Countywide To Countywide Description Metrolink Improvements(track and rolling stock) (part of the Metrolink Service and Station Improvements project) Project Type Transit - Commuter/Regional Rail Source SCAG Completion Year 2035 SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost RCTC Measure A Expenditure Plan MAX VALUE $0 $10,000,000 2016 RTP RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) Metrolink Expansion of La Sierra Station La Sierra Station al-— La Sierra Station Expansion of La Sierra Station (part of the Metrolink Service and Station Improvements project) 2025 $3,000,000 $0 — 2012 RTP RIVERSIDE COUNTY l Perris Valley Line Ex City of Perris City of San Jacinto EXTENSION TO SAN JACINTO Cost taken from 2012 SCAG RTP Project List, Financially - Constrained Projects http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Documents/2012/draft/SR/2012dR TP_ProjectList.pdf Transit - Commuter/Regional Rail SCAG $2,035 $201,716,000 $201,716,000 2012 RTP RIVERSIDE COUNTY Perris Valley Line Ex City of Perris City of Temecula METROLINK PERRIS VALLEY LINE COMMUTER RAIL EXTENSION TO TEMECULA (along 1-215) , =16.5 miles. Cost taken from 2012 SCAG RTP Project List, Financially - Constrained Projects http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Documents/2012/draft/SR/2012dR TP_ProjectList.pdf Transit- Commuter/Regional Rail SCAG $450,258,000 $450,258,000 2012 RTP RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) Service Improvement - Riverside line, 91 line, &amp; IEOC line Throughout Riverside, Orange Count , &am y p' Los Angeles County Throughout Riverside, Orange , &am County, p' Los Angeles County METROLINK COMMUTER RAIL EXISTING LINES SERVICES EXPANSION - RIVERSIDE, 91, AND IEOC LINES (p art of the Metrolink Service and Station Improvements project) Transit - Commuter/Regional Rail Commuter/Re g SCAG 2035 $10,000,000 $0 RCTC Summary of Current Plans and Policies Metrolink Service and Station Improvements parking, new train engines and coaches http://www.rctc.org/uploads/media_items/sr-91- implementation-plan.original.pdf Transit- Commuter/Regional Rail SR-91lir Implementation Plan 2020 $335,000,000 TC Summary of Current Plans and Policies Metrolink Short- Term Expansion Plan (2014) IEOC and 91 Line, adding 8 IEOC trains and 20 91 Line trains for a total of 59 daily trains (part of the Metrolink Service and Station Improvements project) http://www.rctc.org/uploads/media_items/sr-91- implementation-plan.original.pdf Transit- Commuter/Regional Rail SR-91 Implementation Plan 2014 $0 RCTC Regional Transit Needs (Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies) Transit hubs. 5 hubs at $50 million/hub. Transit - Commuter/Regional Rail Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies $250,000,000 Future traffic forecasts do not justify expanding the current roadway capacity RCTC Strategic Assessment Transit -Basic Local Bus I-N Lead Agency CITY OF RIVERSIDE Route Name Capitalized Preventative Maintenance From City of Riverside To City of Riverside Description Capitalized Preventative Maintenance Project Type Transit - Basic Local Bus Source SCAG Completion Year 2026 SCAG Project Cost $400,OOO1 MAX VALUE $400,000 2016 RTP 2016 RTP CITY OF RIVERSIDE Replacement Buses City of Riverside City of Riverside Replacement CNG buses for paratransit services. (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Transit - Basic Local Bus SCAG 2026 $567,000 $0 2012 RTP RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) Economic Development Western County Infrastructure and facility improvements incentives Transit - Basic Local Bus SCAG 2039 $38,571,000 $38,571,000 2012 RTP RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY 40' Buses (Directly- Operated) Expansion Western Riverside County Western Riverside County 40' bus expansion (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Transit -Basic Local Bus SCAG 2035 $51,217,000 $0 2012 RTP RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY 40' Buses (Directly- Operated) Replacement Western Riverside County Western Riverside County 40' bus replacements (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Transit -Basic Local Bus SCAG 2035 $238,610,000 $0 2012 RTP RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Associated Transit Enhancements Western Riverside County Service Area Western Riverside County Bus stop enhancements (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Transit -Basic Local Bus SCAG 2035 $17,000,000 $0 2012 RTP RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Multimodal Transit Center City of Riverside City of Riverside Engineering and Construction of Multimodal Transit Center (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Transit - Basic Local Bus SCAG 2030 $25,000,000 $0 2016 RTP RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Non -Revenue Support Cars Expansion Western Riverside County Western Riverside County Non -revenue support cars expansion. Transit - Basic Local Bus SCAG 2040 $1,288,000 $1,288,000 2016 RTP RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Non -Revenue Support Cars Replacement Western Riverside County Western Riverside County Non -revenue support cars replacement. Transit - Basic Local Bus SCAG 2040 $5,279,000 $5,279,000 2016 RTP RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Non -Revenue Support Trucks Western Riverside County Western Riverside County Non -revenue support trucks expansion. Transit - Basic Local Bus SCAG 2040 $1,854,000 $1,854,000 2016 RTP RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Non -Revenue Support Trucks Replacement Western Riverside County Western Riverside County Non -revenue support trucks replacement Transit - Basic Local Bus SCAG 2010 $6,736,000 $6,736,000 2016 RTP RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Operating & Maintenance Facilities/Support Infrastructure Master Plan and Implementation Western Riverside County Western Riverside County Prepare Operating & Maintenance Facilities/Support Infrastructure Master Plan . A.Transit - Basic Local Bus SCAG 2035 $50,000,000 $50,000,000 2012 RTP RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Technology Infrastructure Upgrade and Modernization Western Riverside County Western Riverside County Consistent with the Technology Strategic Plan, system upgrades, real time passenger information, fare collection, and operations management technologies. (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Transit -Basic Local Bus SCAG 2030 $45,000,000 $0 2012 RTP RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Transit Center Rehabilitation and Modernization Western Riverside County Western Riverside County Transit center upgrade (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Transit -Basic Local Bus SCAG 2030 $20,000,000 $0 2016 RTP RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Trolley Bus Expansion Western Riverside County Western Riverside County Trolley bus expansion (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Transit - Basic Local Bus SCAG 2035 $0 Lead Agency RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Route Name Trolley Bus Replacement From Western Riverside County To Western Riverside County Description Replacement trolley buses (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Project Type Transit - Basic Local Bus Source SCAG Completion Year 2040 SCAG Project Cost $2,215,000 MAX VALUE $0 2016 RTP 2016 RTP RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Type II Buses (Dial- A -Ride) Expansion Western Riverside County Western Riverside County Expansion equipment for paratransit (Dial -A -Ride) transit service (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Transit - Basic Local Bus SCAG 2035 $3,605,000 $0 2016 RTP RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Type II Buses (Dial- A -Ride) Replacement Western Riverside unty #County Western Riverside Replacement partransit (Dial -A -Ride) Type II buses (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Transit - Basic Local Bus SCAG 2040 $31,219,000 $0 2012 RTP RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Type VII Buses (Contract -Operated) Expansion Western Riverside County Western Riverside County Type VII bus expansion (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Transit -Basic Local Bus SCAG 2035 $14,847,000 $56,356,000 $0 2012 RTP RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Type VII Buses (Contract -Operated) Replacement Western Riverside County Western Riverside County Type VII bus replacements (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Transit -Basic Local Bus SCAG 2040 $0 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY UCR Transit Hub UCR Transit hub at the University of California, Riverside (UCR). (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Transit - Basic Local Bus SCAG 2035 $15,000,000 $0 2016 RTP UCR 2012 RTP SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Associated Transit Enhancements Coachella Valley Coachella Valley Purchase more amenities for installation at bus stops (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Transit - Basic Local Bus SCAG 2025 $5,068,000 $0 2012 RTP SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Bus Rapid Transit Coachella Valley Coachella Valley Implement Bus Rapid Service/BRT on Highway 111 based (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Transit - Basic Local Bus SCAG 2030 $11,743,000 $0 2012 RTP SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Capitalized Preventative Maintenance Coachella Valley Thousand Palms Coachella Valley Equipment for continued facility maintenance, repair and replacement. (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Transit - Basic Local Bus SCAG 2025 $270,000 $0 - SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Center of Excellence - Learning Center at Thousand Palms Facility Thousand Palms Construct new learning center to train and educate students in transit, hydrogen, CNG, and administration industry. Transit - Basic Local Bus SCAG 2025 $20,000,01, $20,000,000 2012 RTP SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Expansion Bus Purchases Coachella Valley Coachella Valley Purchase additional buses for service improvements (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Transit - Basic Local Bus SCAG 2025 $10,000,000 $0 2012 RTP SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY GFI fareboxes, Smartcards, Security Systems Coachella Valley Coachella Valley Install security systems in SunLine buses and acquire new fareboxes with smartcard technology and capabilities. (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Transit - Basic Local Bus SCAG 2025 $2,429,000 $0 2012 RTP SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Miscellaneous Maintenance Equipment Coachella Valley Coachella Valley Purchase various maintenance equipment for the Maintenance Department. (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Transit - Basic Local Bus SCAG 2025 $200,000 $0 2016 RTP SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY New Information Technology (IT) Project _ Purchase and implementation of new IT equipment. lir (No max value because of potential overlap with Task Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Transit - Basic Local Bus SCAG 2025 $300,000 $0 Coachella Valley Coachella Valley Lead Agency SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Route Name New Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Program From Coachella Valley To Coachella Valley Description Purchase and implementation of new ITS equipment. (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Project Type Transit - Basic Local Bus Source SCAG Completion Year 2025 SCAG Project Cost $1,500,000 MAX VALUE $0 2016 RTP 2016 RTP SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY New Maintenance and Operations Facility at Division II in Indio, CA Indio Indio Construct new operations and maintenance facility at the Indio Division (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Transit - Basic Local Bus SCAG 2025 $20,000,000 $0 2016 RTP SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY New Operations and Maintenance Facility at Thousand Palms Division Thousand Palms Thousand Palms Construct new facility at Thousand Palms (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Transit - Basic Local Bus SCAG 2025 $45,000,000 $0 2012 RTP SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Non -Revenue Support Vehicles Coachella Valley Coachella Valley Purchase of replacement and expansion vehicles (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Transit - Basic Local Bus SCAG 2025 $200,000 $0 2012 RTP SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Paratransit Service Improvements Coachella Valley Coachella Valley Service improvements for seniors and persons with disabilities. (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Transit - Basic Local Bus SCAG 2025 $19,500,000 $0 2012 RTP SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Preventive Maintenance Coachella Valley Coachella Valley Purchase vehicle parts and pay for labor cost associated with ongoing maintenance of revenue vehicles (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Transit - Basic Local Bus SCAG 2040 $1,500,000 $0 2012 RTP SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Replacement Bus Purchases Coachella Valley Coachella Valley Purchase additional replacement buses for fixed route (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Transit - Basic Local Bus SCAG 2025 $11,517,000 $0 2012 RTP SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Transfer Location Improvement Coachella Valley Coachella Valley . dIdIILy 1111p1VVtl111tl111 lV al.l.vnulwudLe dUWl1V11d1 beIVIUC routes (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transit - Basic Local Bus SCAG 2025 $6,178,000 $0 2012 RTP SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Transit Centers Coachella Valley Coachella Valley Construct 3 transit centers in Coachella Valley (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Transit - Basic Local Bus SCAG 2025 $8,374,000 $0 2012 RTP VARIOUS AGENCIES ITS Countywide Fully integrated transit ops, management, and traveler information system/BRT/Bus Signal Priority (No max value because of potential overlap with Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies basic local bus capital costs) Transit - Basic Local Bus SCAG 2020 $5,000,000 $0 RCTC Transit Needs (Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies) Estimated capital expenditures to meet Riverside County's bus transit needs by 2020 Transit - Basic Local Bus Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies $0 RCTC Transit Needs (Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies) Estimated capital expenditures to meet Riverside County's bus transit needs by 2030. 75°/n / 25% Western/Eastern county split Transit - Basic Local Bus Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies $98,531,589 RCTC Transit Needs (Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies) Estimated capital expenditures to meet Riverside County's bus transit needs by 2030. 75% / 25% Western/Eastern county split Transit - Basic Local Bus Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies $32,843,863 RCTC Transit Needs (Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies) Estimated capital expenditures to meet Riverside County's bus transit needs by 2030. 75% / 25% Western/Eastern county split Transit - Basic Local Bus Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies $98,531,589 RCTC Transit Needs (Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies) Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year SCAG Project Cost MAX VALUE Estimated capital expenditures to meet Riverside County's bus transit needs by 2030. 75°/n / 25% Western/Eastern county split Transit - Basic Local Bus Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies $32,843,863 RCTC Transit Needs (Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies) Estimated capital expenditures to meet Riverside County's bus transit needs by 2040 75% / 25% Western/Eastern county split Transit - Basic Local Bus Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies $152,902,755 RCTC Transit Needs (Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies) Estimated capital expenditures to meet Riverside County's bus transit needs by 2040 75% / 25% Western/Eastern county split Transit - Basic Local Bus Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies $50,967,585 RCTC Transit Needs (Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies) Estimated capital expenditures to meet Riverside County's bus transit needs by 2040 75% / 25% Western/Eastern county split Transit - Basic Local Bus Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies $152,902,755 RCTC Transit Needs (Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies) Estimated capital expenditures to meet Riverside County's bus transit needs by 2040 75% / 25% Western/Eastern county split Transit - Basic Local Bus Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies $50,967,585 Future traffic forecasts do not justify expanding the current roadway capacity Riverside County Strategic Assessment: Transit Project Needs Analysis Trip -Making Projections and Operating Expenses Transit systems in Riverside County, documented in the Task 2 Existing and Future Transportation Conditions Report (including access to Metrolink services) provided 16.8 million trips during the fiscal year of 13/14 with an operating expense of $119.6 million. The baseline total trips and costs shown in Table 1 are documented in the Short Range Transit Plans prepared by the County's transit programs. These totals include an annual $5.6 million of costs as part of the Specialized Transportation Program and 578,000 unlinked passenger trips not reported in the Short Range Transit Plans totals. The baseline 2013/2014 trips represent 7.5 trips per capita based on the California Department of Finance population estimates of 2.26 million county residents. While trips per capita in Riverside County are well below the SCAG regional average of 34 trips per capita, trips per capita still reflect an upward trend in the county over the past five years despite significant population increases (Riverside County is s the second -fastest growing county in California according to the U.S. Census). Growing trips by a conservative two percent increase annually between 2014 and 2040 increases countywide trips to 25.7 million and represents a 53% increase over baseline transit trips taken in FY 2013/14 (Table 1). A two percent annual growth rate is well -below the five percent increases experienced by the County's transit services in recent years and is being used in this analysis to represent a conservative assessment of transit use between now and 2040. Table 1: Projected 2020, 2030, and 2040 Transit Trips, Revenue Hours, and Operating Costs Increased Trip -Making at 2% per Year: 2013/14 thru 2040 Riverside County Total Population (DOF) Total Unlinked Passenger Trips, Including Metrolink Revenue Hours Operating Costs Trips per Capita Trips per Revenue Hour Cost per Revenue Hour Increased Revenue Hours over Prior Period BASELINE Actual 2013/14 2,255,059 16,807,171 1,114,577 $119,643,974 7.5 15.1 $105.01 n/a Projected Projected Projected 2020 2030 2040 2,478,059 2,862,915 3,215,291 18,927,604 21,072,704 25,687,508 1,307,774 1,662,137 2,169,558 $176,795,035 $261,113,390 $441,775,788 7.6 14.5 $135.19 193,197 7.4 12.7 $21.8.31 354,363 8.0 11.8 $355.60 507,421 To develop an operating cost estimate for additional transit service needs in Riverside County, revenue hours were projected from the unlinked trips presented in Table 1. Revenue hours were calculated by applying an increase of 1.35% (from RTA's SRTP) to the number of additional trips provided, and then by adding these to the prior period's revenue hours. Increased trip -making was projected to be generated through a combination of new services, increased frequency and coverage of existing transit services, and likely increases in transit mode shares. Operating costs presented in Table 1 were generated using the current overall cost per revenue hour of $105.01, derived by dividing baseline total operating costs of $119 million into total revenue hours. This cost per revenue hour rate was increased annually by 1.2%, based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (CPI) for 2013, to calculate total annual operating costs as well as operating costs for 2020, 2030, and 2040. The expected $441.7 million total for operating costs by 2040 will include the need to provide increased services/service levels to accommodate Riverside County residents, about one million more users by 2040 compared to 2013/14. Capital Expenses to Address Bus Transit Deficiencies An estimate of capital expenses, exclusive of rail cars, is presented in Table 2 for 2020, 2030, and 2040. Rolling stock estimates were derived from the baseline number of vehicles by mode (fixed route, demand response and specialized Transportation) and applied proportionally to the revenue hours projected for each period to calculate the total vehicles by mode. Baseline fixed route bus costs defined at $500,000 and appreciated; while small buses were defined to cost between $100,000 and $200,000, and also appreciated. Table 2: Estimated Capital Expenditures to Meet Riverside County's Bus Transit Needs by 2020, 2030, and 2040 Rolling Stock and Capital Expenditures Baseline Vehicles 2020 2030 2040 Trains Total Transit Vehicles in Peak Service 664 Revenue Hours: 1,515,315 Vehicles: 779 Revenue Hours: 1,925,914 Vehicles: 990 Revenue Hours: 2,513,862 Vehicles: 1,293 Vehicles - Fixed Route 389 228 $114,106,996 290 $ 174,031,358 379 $ 265,020,052 Vehicles - Demand Response Small Bus 221 259 $ 38,896,112 330 $ 74,153,464 430 $ 118,300,358 Vehicles - Specialized Transportation - Small Buses 54 63 $ 5,385,616 81 $ 10,066,081 105 $ 18,920,271 Bus Stop Amenities Transfer Location Enhancements and Improvements Capital Expense Total by Period $ 2,000,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,500,000 $161,888,724 $ 262,750,904 $ 407,740,681 Considering the longer, anticipated useful life of 40-foot buses, half of the potential fixed -route fleet is proposed for replacement for each 10-year interval (2020, 2030, and 2040). As shown in Table 2, for bus stop amenities and bus transfer facilities, placeholder amounts were included for each horizon year. These values are conservative and could easily go up or down depending upon local circumstances and funding opportunities. An estimate of $162 million in capital funded will be needed to meet (all of) the expected bus transit system needs in Riverside County by 2020. Estimates increase to $263 million needed by 2030 and $408 million by 2040. Annual capital costs needed within each ten-year period, will be equivalent to investments of $26 to $40 million annually. Where Will Anticipated New Transit Services be Located? Additional bus transit services will be generated through various system improvements, including: • Increased frequencies of existing services and new services. Many bus routes in Riverside County currently provide hourly frequencies. Many of the RTA and SunLine routes consider hourly of more frequencies during peak periods. Redesigning the system to offer more frequent services (15, 30 minute intervals), in particular, to core routes such as selected RapidLink routes, is currently an important objective of RTA (referred to in RTA's January 2015 Comprehensive Operational Analysis). SunLine services will have a parallel objective of increasing service frequencies for key routes in the Coachella Valley. • Increased coverage of existing and new services. Increasing the bus transit system and route coverage will be another critical objective as this county's population continues to grow. Continued land use infill development is anticipated in many areas, which will lead to higher densities conducive to transit use. Urban centers and/or corridors in Western Riverside are likely to continue to grow (e.g., Corona -Riverside, Moreno Valley -Perris, Beaumont -Banning, Hemet -San Jacinto and Lake Elsinore-Wildomar-Menifee-Murrieta-Temecula) and require additional transit system coverage into the future. In Coachella Valley, additional population growth in Indio and other eastern communities will also required expanded transit coverage. • Increased need for specialized transportation services. Transit services for specialized service providers will remain an important, albeit small, alternative for some Riverside County residents given projected increases in senior citizens and other constituents requiring community mobility. Continuing these programs will provide mobility choices for some and support mobility for others who cannot use any other form of public transportation. • New Intercity Services. Intercity -services will become increasingly important to enable transportation system users the opportunity to choose alternatives modes and connectivity to work, shopping, and other destinations. o Supporting the development of intercity rail travel through the east -west corridor of Coachella Valley to Riverside, through Banning and Beaumont will be more important into the future. o Supporting the development of intercity rail north -south travel between south western Riverside County and downtown Riverside also will be important. New and expanded services can help improve transportation system access to critical employment and health care services north to San Bernardino County and south to San Diego County. RCTC Strategic Assessment Transit -Enhanced Local Bus I-N Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year RCTC Transit Needs (Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies) RCTC Transit Needs (Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies) Future traffic forecasts do not justify expanding the current roadway capacity ENHANCED LOCAL BUS SERVICE 2040 Capital Cost (from Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies list: $407,740,681 2040 Capital Cost (from Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies, updated to increase trips per capita): $556,381,749 For capital cost, assuming $556,381,749 minus $407,740,681? 75% / 25% Western/Eastern county split ENHANCED LOCAL BUS SERVICE 2040 Capital Cost (from Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies list: $407,740,681 2040 Capital Cost (from Task 2 Transportation System Needs and Deficiencies, updated to increase trips per capita): $556,381,749 For capital cost, assuming $556,381,749 minus $407,740,681? 75% / 25% Western/Eastern County split Transit - Enhanced Local Bus Transit - Enhanced Local Bus SCAG Project Cost MAX VALUE $111,480, 801 $37,160,267 Increased Trip -Making at 2% per Year, with Inflation: 2013/14 thru 2040 Riverside County Total Population (DOF) Total Unlinked Passenger Trips, Including Metrolink Revenue Hours Operating Costs Trips per Capita Trips per Revenue Hour Cost per Revenue Hour Increased Revenue Hours over Prior Period BASELINE Actual 2013/14 2,255,059 18,950,503 1,291,458 $146,671,288 8.4 14.7 $113.57 n/a Projected 2020 Projected 2030 Projected 2040 2,478,059 2,862,915 24,117,102 1,634,106 $234,825,458 9.7 14.8 $143.70 342,648 34,624,354 2,325,843 $475,713,290 12.1 14.9 $204.53 691,737 3,215,291 51,747,453 3,442,816 $1,042,346,400 16.1 15.0 $302.76 1,116,973 Baseline: Population: RCTC FY 2014-15 Mid -Year Revenue Projections - Department of Finance January 1, 2013 Demographic Research Unit Passenger Trips: Rail: Fixed -Route Demand Res Spec Transit Revenue Hours: Rail: Fixed -Route Demand Res Spec Transit Operating Costs: Rail: Fixed -Route Demand Res Spec Transit See Trip Share Worksheet Tab FY 16-FY 18 Short Range Transit Plans for Reporting Year FY 13-14 FY 16-FY 18 Short Range Transit Plans for Reporting Year FY 13-14 FY 16-FY 18 Short Range Transit Plans for Reporting Year FY 13-14 Riverside County Public Transportation: Annual Countywide Performance Report FY 2013/2014 - June 2015, Appendix B page 25. FR & DR (1,097,399) - Rail (17,178) - Spec Trans (176,881) FY 16-FY 18 Short Range Transit Plans for Reporting Year FY 13-14 FY 16-FY 18 Short Range Transit Plans for Reporting Year FY 13-14 FY 16-FY 18 Short Range Transit Plans for Reporting Year FY 13-14 Calculation from Specialized Transit Program Year End Reports to RCiC, Includes hours from volunteer driver programs FR & DR (90,596,326) - Rail (51,702,000) - Spec Trans (4,372,962) FY 16-FY 18 Short Range Transit Plans for Reporting Year FY 13-14 FY 16-FY 18 Short Range Transit Plans for Reporting Year FY 13-14 FY 16-FY 18 Short Range Transit Plans for Reporting Year FY 13-14 Calculation from Specialized Transit Program Year End Reports to ROTC, Includes hours from volunteer driver programs Percent Increase between Baseline and 2040 Projections: Riverside County Population, California Department of Finance, Report P-1 State and County Projections July 1, 2015 through 2060 Passenger Trips: Increased annually by 4.1% each year Revenue Hours: Based on baseline revenue hours of 1,291,458 revenue hours, increased by 4% annually Operating Cost: A conservative annual inflation rate of 4% held constant in relation to cost per revenue hour. This is below historical transit inflation rates above 5%. 43% 173% 167% 611% 92% 2% 167% 2013/14 2019/2020 2029/2030 2039/2040 0.42331181 Op's Cost 4% inflation increase 1 146,671,288 2 158,639,665 3 171,584,662 4 185,585,970 5 200,729,785 6 217,109,336 7 234,825,458 8 253,987,215 9 274,712,572 10 297,129,118 11 321,374,854 12 347,599,042 13 375,963,123 14 406,641,714 15 439,823,678 16 475,713,290 17 514,531,495 18 556,517,265 19 601,929,074 20 651,046,486 21 704,171,879 22 761,632,305 23 823,781,501 24 891,002,071 25 963,707,840 26 1,042,346,400 $113.57 $118.11 $122.84 $127.75 $132.86 $138.18 $143.70 $149.45 $155.43 $161.65 $168.11 $174.84 $181.83 $189.10 $196.67 $204.53 $212.72 $221.22 $230.07 $239.28 $248.85 $258.80 $269.15 $279.92 $291.12 $302.76 Rev Hours 1,291,458 14.70 1,343,116 14.69 1,396,841 14.70 1,452,715 14.72 1,510,823 14.73 1,571,256 14.74 1,634,106 14.76 1,699,471 14.77 1,767,449 14.79 1,838,147 14.80 1,911,673 14.82 1,988,140 14.83 2,067,666 14.84 2,150,373 14.86 2,236,387 14.87 2,325,843 14.89 2,418,877 14.90 2,515,632 14.92 2,616,257 14.93 2,720,907 14.94 2,829,744 14.96 2,942,933 14.97 3,060,651 14.99 3,183,077 15.00 3,310,400 15.02 3,442,816 15.03 Trips 18,950,503 19,727,473.6 20,536,300.0 21,378,288.3 22,254,798.2 23,167,244.9 24,117,101.9 25,105,903.1 26,135,245.1 27,206,790.2 28,322,268.6 29,483,481.6 30,692,304.3 31,950,688.8 33,260,667.1 34,624,354.4 36,043,952.9 37,521,755.0 39,060,147.0 40,661,613.0 42,328,739.1 44,064,217.4 45,870,850.3 47,751,555.2 49,709,369.0 51,747,453.1 8.4 Op's Cost Rev Hours Trips 9.7 1.2% 12.1 1.2% 5.54 % 5.54 % 4% 4% 2% 2% 16.1 1.2% 5.54% 4% 2% RCTC RCTC Strategic Assessment Transit -Regional Express Bus I-N 2012 RTP Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) Park -and -Ride Facility Transit - Regional Express Bus SCAG 2018 SCAG Project Cost MAX VALUE $4,500,000 2016 RTP 2016 RTP 2016 RTP RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) Park -and -Ride Facilities RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) Rideshare RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Countywide Countywide Countywide Countywide Park -and -Ride facilities RCTC Commuter Assistance Program Transit - Regional Express Bus Transit - Regional Express Bus Bus Rapid Transit Infrastructure Western Riverside Western Riverside Bus Rapid Transit Instrastructure for RTA's additional Transit - Regional Improvements County County RapidLink routes. Express Bus SCAG SCAG SCAG 2020 2036 2035 $12,000,000 $12,000,000 1 $10,000,000 2012 RTP 2016 RTP Mr_ 2012 RTP RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Central Spine Service RapidLink Service RIVERSIDE TRANSIT Riverside/Moreno AGENCY Valley/Perris RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Regional Flyer Vehicle Fleet Western Riverside County - Corona to Moreno Valley Western Riverside County Western Riverside County Equipment for commuter transit service Transit - Regional Express Bus Transit - Regional Planning and development for RapidLink service da. Express Bus Bus service expansion of RTA. Transit - Regional Express Bus SCAG SCAG 2020 $13,200,000 $4,500,000 $12,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $13,200,000 2030 SCAG 2024 $25,000,000 $17,600,000 $25,000,000 $17,600,000 2012 RTP RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Transit Center in Banning/Beaumont/ Calimesa area Banning/ Beaumont/ Calimesa area Banning/ Beaumont/ Calimesa area Regional transit center for mass transit service Transit - Regional Express Bus SCAG 2035 $8,000,000 $8,000,000 2012 RTP RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY 2012 RTP 2012 RTP RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Transit Center in Jurupa Valley Jurupa Valley Jurupa Valley Regional transit center for bus service in the northwest area of Riverside county. Transit - Regional Express Bus SCAG 2035 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 I ransit Center in Lake Elsinore/Canyon I ake area Transit Center in Moreno Valley Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake Moreno Valley Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake Moreno Valley Regional transit center for mass transit service in central western Riverside County along 1-15 corridor. Regional Transit Center Transit - Regional Express Bus SCAG 2035 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 Transit - Regional Express Bus SCAG 2035 $6,000,000 $6,000,000 2012 RTP SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Park -and -Ride Lots Coachella Valley Coachella Valley Acquire property and construct 3 Park and Ride Lots Transit - Regional Express Bus SCAG 2030 $13,496,000 RCTC Summary of Current Plans and Policies Express Bus Improvements Express bus improvements between Orange County and Transit - Regional Riverside County Express Bus SR-91 Implementation Plan Future traffic forecasts do not justify expanding the current roadway capacity $13,496,000 $9,500,000 Miles Cycle Time Headway Number of Number of O&M Cost Xpress Bus Service (one way) (minutes) (minutes) vehicles Bus Hours (per day) Annual O&M Cost Notes 1-15 Corridor (Corona- Temecula/Murrieta) 1-79 Corridor (Temecula/Murrieta-Hemet-Beaumont) SR-74 east corridor (service to Hemet) SR-74 west corridor (service to Lake Elsinore) 1-215 corridor SR-60 (Downtown Riverside -Beaumont) SR-91 corridor Assuming vehicle travels at 35mph, 30 minute headways, 14 hrs/day. For annual O&M cost, assumed service 6 days per week, 52 weeks per year. 36 158 30 6 84 $7,851 $2,449,400 35 minutes total layover and recovery time (5 minute layover, 15 minute recovery time at each end of route) Assuming vehicle travels at 30mph, 30 minute headways, 14 hrs/day. For annual O&M cost, assumed service 6 days per week, 52 weeks per year. 38 187 30 7 98 $9,159 $2,857,633 35 minutes total layover and recovery time (5 minute layover, 15 minute recovery time at each end of route) Assuming vehicle travels at 30 mph, 30 minute headways, 14 hrs/day. For annual O&M cost, assumed service 6 days per week, 52 weeks per year. 17 98 30 4 56 $5,234 $1,632,933 30 minutes total recovery time (15 minute recovery time at each end of route) Assuming vehicle travels at 30 mph, 30 minute headways, 14 hrs/day. For annual O&M cost, assumed service 6 days per week, 52 weeks per year. 10 70 30 3 42 $3,925 $1,224,700 30 minutes total recovery time (15 minute recovery time at each end of route) Assuming vehicle travels at 30mph, 30 minute headways, 14 hrs/day. For annual O&M cost, assumed service 6 days per week, 52 weeks per year. 37 188 30 7 98 $9,159 $2,857,633 40 minutes total layover and recovery time (5 minute layovers, 15 minute recovery time at each end of route) Assuming vehicle travels at 35mph, 30 minute headways, 14 hrs/day. For annual O&M cost, assumed service 6 days per week, 52 weeks per year. 24 117 30 4 56 $5,234 $1,632,933 35 minutes total layover and recovery time (5 minute layover, 15 minute recovery time at each end of route) Assuming vehicle travels at 30mph, 30 minute headways, 14 hrs/day. For annual 0&M cost, assumed service 6 days per week, 52 weeks per year. 20 115 30 4 56 $5,234 $1,632,933 35 minutes total layover and recovery time (5 minute layover, 15 minute recovery time at each end of route) TOTAL EXPRESS BUS SERVICE O&M $14,288,165 Cycle time= (2*distance)/speed * 60 + layover&recovery time RTA Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Hour for Commuter Bus: $91.40, Bus: $88.30 SunLine Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Hour for Bus: $98.62 OmniTrans Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Hour for Bus: $92.95 Source: National Transit Database 2013 Average operating cost per bus hour: $93.46 RCTC RCTC Strategic Assessment Non-Motorized/Active Transportation I-N CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG 7th St. Arthur St AVE 34 Ave 50 Ave 54 Ave 58 AVE 58/ AVE 61 diagonal path AVE 6 AVE 60 AVE 60/ AVE 65 diagonal path AVE 61 AVE 62 AVE 63 AVE 64 AVE 65 AVE 66 10th Ave Ave 66 Crossley Rd Coachella city limit Harrison St to Tyler St SR-86 Ave 58/Hwy 86 Blythe city limit Polk St to Whitewater River Ave 60 Lincoln St Monroe St Harrison St Harrison St Polk St East of Tyler St to Polk St Hobson Way Ave 70 Whitewater Wash Pierce St And Coachella city limit to Grapefruit Blvd Buchanan St Ave 60/Ave 65 diagonal path C&D Blvd Pierce St to Lincoln St Ave 63 Coachella Canal Coachella Canal Fillmore St Pierce St and to Ave 66 Pierce St Whitewater River to Lincoln St and to just east of Coachella Canal Rd Class I bikeway project, 1.5 miles (Blythe) Class I bikeway project, 1.8 miles (County of Riverside, Coachella Valley) Class I bikeway project, 0.5 miles (Palm Springs) Class I bikeway project, 1.5 miles (County of Riverside, Coachella Valley) Class I bikeway proejct, Coachella Valley) Class I bikeway project, Coachella Valley) Class I bikeway project, Coachella Valley) Class I bikeway project, Verde Valley) Class I bikeway project, Coachella Valley) Class I bikeway project, Coachella Valley) Class I bikeway project, Coachella Valley) Class I bikeway project, Coachella Valley) Class I bikeway project, Coachella Valley) Class I bikeway project, Coachella Valley) Class I bikeway project, Coachella Valley) Class I bikeway project, Coachella Valley) 1.3 miles (County of Riverside, 1.6 miles (County of Riverside, 2.5 miles (County of Riverside, 2.0 miles (County of Riverside, Palo 3.1 miles (County of Riverside, 2.5 miles (County of Riverside, 1.5 miles (County of Riverside, 11.0 miles (County of Riverside, 3.0 miles (County of Riverside, 5.5 miles (County of Riverside, 2.0 miles (County of Riverside, 8.6 miles (County of Riverside, Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost MAX VALUE i $1,500,000 $1,800,000 $500,000 $1,500,000 $1,300,000 $1,600,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $3,100,000 $1,500,000 $1,800,000 $500,000 $1,500,000 $1,300,000 $1,600,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $3,100,000 $2,500,000 $1,500,000 $550,000 $3,000,000 $5,500,000 $2,000,000 $8,600,000 $2,500,000 $1,500,000 $550,000 $3,000,000 CVAG AVE 70 Arthur St Cleveland St Class I bikeway project, Coachella Valley) 1.0 miles (County of Riverside, Non-motorized/Active Transportation CVAG 2010 NMTP Update $1,000,000 CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG AZ & CA Railroad Corridor AZ & CA Railroad Corridor Northern city limit Northwest end of Palo Verde Valley Southern city limit to Blind Canyon Cholla Dr Blind Canyon Mission Creek Buchanan St Airport Blvd 8th Ave. at AZ & CA Railroad Corridor Neighbours Blvd C Canal Path Canal Path Cleveland St Coachella Canal Coachella Canal Colorado River Ave 70 Western city limit (Harrison St) Coachella city limit Northern city limit Southern city limit Blythe city limit at Ave 8 Just west of Cholla Dr to new schools north of Mission Lakes Blvd Desert Hot Springs city limit Ave 60 .25 miles north of Chanslor Way Blythe city limit Salton Sea Trail Southern city limit Parkside Dr Southern city limit Class I bikeway project, Class I bikeway project, Palo Verde Valley) Class I bikeway project, Class I bikeway project, Coachella Valley) Class I bikeway project, Coachella Valley) Class I bikeway project, Class I bikeway project, Verde Valley) Class I bikeway project, Coachella Valley) 3.2 miles (Blythe) 20.5 miles (County of Riverside, 0.9 miles (Desert Hot Springs) 0.7 miles (County of Riverside, 2.0 miles (County of Riverside, 2.1 miles (Blythe) 1.0 miles (County of Riverside, Palo 0.5 miles (County of Riverside, Class I bikeway project, 4.1 miles (Cocahella) Class I bikeway project, 16.0 miles (County of Riverside, Coachella Valley) Class I bikeway project, 8.7 miles (Blythe) Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update $3,200,000 $20,500,000 $900,000 $700,000 $2,000,000 $2,100,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $4,100,000 $16,000,000 $8,700,000 $5,500,000 $2,000,000 $8,600,000 $1,000,OOO1 $3,200,000 $20,500,000 $900,000 $700,000 $2,000,000 $2,100,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $4,100,000 $16,000,000 $8,700,000 Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost MAX VALUE CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG RCTC Summary of Current Plan CVAG CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG Colorado River Clark Ranch Rd. to Blythe city limit to Class !bikeway project, 22.2 miles (County of Riverside, Blythe city limit Connector between 1-10 and Hwy 62 1-10 Fwy Connector to Coachella Canal Industrial Way Connector to Whitewater River Grapefruit Blvd Crossley Rd CV Link Dale Killer Rd De Frain Blvd Desert View Ave East side of Shady Ln. Extending from north end of Frederick Fillmore St Flood control channel Grant St Grant St 1-10 parallel 1-10 parallel path Lincoln St Lincoln St Long Canyon Path Long Canyon Wash Main Canal Midblock between Ave 51 and Ave 52 Van Buren St Mid -Valley Bike Path (SPRR corridor) Ramon Rd Palm Springs Ave 64 4th Ave Miracle Hill Rd Ave 54 Ave 48 Imperial County line Palo Verde Valley) Class I bikeway project, 2.4 miles (County of Riverside, Hwy 62 Coachella Valley) Coachella Canal Class I bikeway project, 0.1 miles (Cocahella) Whitewater River Class !bikeway project, 0.6 miles (Cocahella) Ave 34 Class I bikeway project, 1.0 miles (Palm Springs) Alternative transportation network largely following Coachella Whitewater River Channel Class I bikeway project, 1.0 miles (County of Riverside, Ave 66 Coachella Valley) Western city limit between 8th Ave. and 10th Ave. Mountain View Rd 9th St Mitchell Dr Ave 62 to Ave 64 Ave 65 to Ave 66 Blind Canyon Ave 62 SR-111 Verbena Dr Hammond Rd Salton Sea Trail Whitewater River Garnet Ave Western city limit Eastern city limit Ave 60 Ave 66 Northern city limit Joshua Tree National Park Ave 8 Salton Sea Trail Ave 68 1-10 parallel path Cathedral City city limit Class I bikeway project, 2.8 miles (Blythe) Class I bikeway project, 0.5 miles (Desert Hot Springs) Class I bikeway project 1.5 miles (Coachella) Class I bikeway project, 0.3 miles (Cocahella) Class I bikeway project, 1.5 miles (County of Riverside, Coachella Valley) Class I bikeway project, 0.7 Class I bikeway project, 3.5 Coachella Valley) Class I bikeway project, 1.7 Coachella Valley) Class I bikeway project, 1.0 Coachella Valley) Class !bikeway project, 4.6 Class I bikeway project, 5.0 Coachella Valley) Class I bikeway project, 1.0 Coachella Valley) Class !bikeway project, 1.8 Class I bikeway project, 5.2 Coachella Valley) Class !bikeway project, 10.1 miles (County of Riverside, Colorado River Palo Verde Valley) miles (Desert Hot Springs) miles (County of Riverside, miles (County of Riverside, miles (County of Riverside, miles (Cathedral City) miles (County of Riverside, miles (County of Riverside, Frederick St Western city limit Eastern city limit Mid -way between Jackson and Van Buren Streets Ave 58 Mid -way between Monroe and Jackson Streets Mid -way between Polk and Fillmore Streets Ave 52 Ave 60 Ave 64 Ave 54 Ave 65 miles (Cathedral City) miles (County of Riverside, Class I bikeway project, 0.5 miles (Cocahella) Class !bikeway project, 7.0 miles (Palm Desert) Class !bikeway project, 2.0 miles (County of Riverside, Coachella Valley) Class I bikeway project, 1.2 miles (County of Riverside, Coachella Valley) Class !bikeway project, 3.0 miles (County of Riverside, Coachella Valley) Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CV Link Master Plan CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update I I I $22,200,000 $2,400,000 $100,000 $600,000 $1,000,000 $100,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,800,000 $500,000 $1,500,000 $300,000 $1,500,000 $700,000 $3,500,000 $1,700,000 $1,000,000 $4,600,000 $5,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,800,000 $5,200,000 $10,100,000 $500,000 $7,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,200,000 $3,000,000 $22,200,000 $2,400,000 $100,000 $600,000 $1,000,000 $100,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,800,000 $500,000 $1,500,000 $300,000 $1,500,000 $700,000 $3,500,000 $1,700,000 $1,000,000 $4,600,000 $5,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,800,000 $5,200,000 $10,100,000 $500,000 $7,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,200,000 $3,000,000 Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost MAX VALUE CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG CVAG Mission Creek Mission Creek Mission Creek Mission Springs Park Mountain View Rd Murray Canyon North side of Hacienda Ave Palm Canyon Wash Palm Canyon Wash Palm Dr. parallel path Palm Valley Channel Pierce St Polk St Quail Run Salton Sea Trail Southern Pacific Railroad Southern Pacific Railroad SR-86 parallel Tahquitz Creek Path Tyler St Tyler St Tyler St West Side of UPRR corridor Whitewater River Whitewater River Whitewater River Whitewater River Whitewater River Mission Lakes Blvd 1-10 Fwy Desert Hot Spings city limit Park Lane through the park Desert View Ave S Palm Canyon Dr Long Canyon S Palm Canyon Dr South Palm Canyon Dr 1-10 parallel path Western city limit Ave 52 to Ave 60 Ave 62 Palo Verde Community College Whitewater River Northern city limit Cathedral City city limit Dillon Rd Calle Palo Fierro Dillon Rd Ave 54 Ave 64 Northern city limit Palm Springs city limit to Ramon Rd; Landau Blvd to Cathedral Canyon Dr Indio city limit Western city limit Washington St Northern city limit to Frank Sinatra Dr Pierson Blvd Whitewater Wash Palm Springs city limit Camino Campanero just west of Avenida Descanso Hacienda Ave Palm Canyon Wash Corsini Elementary School Gene Autry Trail Palm Springs city limit Varner Rd Painters Path Ave 62 to Ave 64 Ave 66 Wells Rd. Cleveland St Eastern city limit Ramon Rd Ave 86 Tahquitz Canyon Visitor Center Vista Del Norte Airport Blvd Ave 65 Southern city limit Date Palm Dr to Rancho Mirage city limit Southern city limit Eastern city limit Jefferson St Bob Hope Dr to eastern city limit Class I bikeway project, Class I bikeway project, Class I bikeway project, Coachella Valley) Class I bikeway project, Class I bikeway project, Class I bikeway project, Class I bikeway project, Class !bikeway project, Class I bikeway project, Coachella Valley) Class I bikeway project, Class !bikeway project, Class !bikeway project, Coachella Valley) Class !bikeway project, Coachella Valley) Class !bikeway project, Class I bikeway project, Coachella Valley) Class I bikeway project, Class I bikeway project, Coachella Valley) Class I bikeway project, Coachella Valley) Class I bikeway project, Class I bikeway project, Class !bikeway project, Coachella Valley) Class !bikeway project, Coachella Valley) Class I bikeway project, Class !bikeway project, Class !bikeway project, Class !bikeway project, Class I bikeway project, 1.2 miles (Desert Hot Springs) 2.4 miles (Palm Springs) 4.9 miles (County of Riverside, 0.3 miles (Desert Hot Springs) 0.2 miles (Desert Hot Springs) 1.8 miles (Palm Springs) 0.3 miles (Desert Hot Springs) 4.9 miles (Palm Springs) 0.5 miles (County of Riverside, 0.9 miles (Cathedral City) 2.7 miles (Palm Desert) 5.0 miles (County of Riverside, 2.0 miles (County of Riverside, 1.4 miles (Blythe) 6.3 miles (County of Riverside, 0.7 miles (Rancho Mirage) 2.8 miles (County of Riverside, 10.9 miles (County of Riverside, 0.6 miles (Palm Springs) 0.5 miles (Coachella) 1.0 miles (County of Riverside, 0.5 miles (County of Riverside, 4.4 miles (Coachella) 2.8 miles (Cathedral City) 5.1 miles (Cocahella) 5.5 miles (Indio) 1.7 miles (La Quinta) Class !bikeway project, 1.4 miles (Rancho Mirage) Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update i $1,200,000 $2,400,000-1 $4,900,000 $335,330 $200,000 $1,800,000 $300,000 $4,900,000 $500,000 $900,000 $2,700,000 $5,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,400,000 $6,300,000 $700,000 $2,800,000 $10,900,000 $600,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $4,400,000 $2,800,000 $5,100,000 $5,500,000 $1,700,000 $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $2,400,000 $4,900,000 $335,330 $200,000 $1,800,000 $300,000 $4,900,000 $500,000 $900,000 $2,700,000 $5,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,400,000 $6,300,000 $700,000 $2,800,000 $10,900,000 $600,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $4,400,000 $2,800,000 $5,100,000 $5,500,000 $1,700,000 $1,400,000 CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year CVAG CVAG f Whitewater Canyon to Palm Springs city limit; unincorporated County gap in Palm Whitewater River Springs Whitewater Wash 1-10 Fwy 2012 RTP VARIOUS AGENCIES Non -motorized Countywide Unincorporated county gap between Indio and Coachella; Coachella city limit Class I bikeway project, 35.1 miles (County of Riverside, Non-motorized/Active to the Salton Sea Coachella Valley) Cathedral City city limit Class !bikeway project, 11.5 miles (Palm Springs) Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Various pedestrian and bikeway non -motorized improvement projects. No value in MAX VALUE because of potential overlap with projects from WRCOG and CVAG NMTPs. Non-motorized/Active Transportation CVAG 2010 NMTP Update CVAG 2010 NMTP Update SCAG 2040 SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost MAX VALUE $96,000,000 $35,100,000 $11,500,000 $35,100,000 $11,500,000 WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG 215 South Corridor Jackson Theodore St and Alessandro -Davis Alessandro Blvd Warm Springs Creek Davis Rd and San Jacinto River Cucamonga Creek - Mission Cucamonga Creek Bellgrave El Sobrante-Lake Perris Eagle Valley Gibbel-Fairview Searl Pkwy Hidden Valley -La Sierra Arlington Ave Lake Elsinore- Murrieta/Temecula Creek Lasselle-Perris Valley Channel Nichols -Perris Boulevard Union St between Palomar and Grand Perris Valley Channel between Sinclair and San Jacinto Ave between Mapes and Case Rd Oak Valley -San Jacinto River Potrero Blvd Salt Creek- Domenigoni Canyon Hills San Diego Canal from Domenigoni to Scott Rd and Washington St from Benton Rd to San Diego Canal- Northeast end of Eastern Bypass Temecula La Sierra Gibbel Rd La Sierra Murrieta Creek/Temecula Creek Bridge Street Searl/Lyon Class 1 / II bikeway project (Class I section = ti a (NMT cost estimate: $281,000 [includes more than just Class 1 WRCOG 2010 section]) Non-motorized/Active NMTP For cost estimate, assumed $1 million/mile Class 1 / II bikeway project (Class I section = 5 miles) (NMTP cost estimate: $5,300,000 [includes more than just Class section]) For cost estimate, assumed $1 million/mile Class 1 / II bikeway project (Class !section = 4 miles) (NMTP cost estimate: $2,100,000 [includes more than just Class! section]) For cost estimate, assumed $1 million/mile Class 1 / II / III bikeway project (Class I section = 4 miles) (NMTP cost estimate: $12,200,000 [includes more than just Class I section]) For cost estimate, assumed $1 million/mile Class 1 bikeway project (Class !section = 2.5 miles) (NMTP cost estimate: $2,250,000 [includes more than just Class! section]) For cost estimate, assumed $1 million/mile Class 1 / II bikeway project (Class !section < 1 mile) (NMTP cost estimate: $450,000 [includes more than just Class! section]) For cost estimate, assumed $1 million/mile Class 1 / II bikeway project (Class !section = 20 miles) (NMTP cost estimate: $10,700,000 [includes more than just Class !section]) For cost estimate, assumed $1 million/mile Class 1 / II bikeway project (Class !section = 4 mile) (NMTP cost estimate: $2,000,000 [includes more than just Class section]) For cost estimate, assumed $1 million/mile Class 1 / II bikeway project (Class !section = 1 mile) (NMTP cost estimate: $370,000 [includes more than just Class! section]) For cost estimate, assumed $1 million/mile Class 1 bikeway project (Class !section = 9.8 miles) (NMTP cost estimate: $14,750,000 [includes more than just Class! section]) For cost estimate, assumed $1 million/mile Class 1 / II bikeway project (Class !section = 15 miles) (NMTP cost estimate: $10,500,000 [includes more than just Class !section]) For cost estimate, assumed $1 million/mile Class I / II bikeway project (Class I section = 8 miles) (NMTP cost estimate: $5,500,000 [includes more than just Class I section]) For cost estimate, assumed $1 million/mile Transportation WRCOG 2010 Non-motorized/Active NMTP Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG 2010 Non-motorized/Active NMTP Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG 2010 Non-motorized/Active NMTP Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG 2010 NMTP $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,500,000 $1,000,000 $20,000,000 $4,000,000 $9,800,000 $15,000,000 $8,000,000 $0 $1,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,500,000 $1,000,000 $20,000,000 $4,000,000 $1,000,000 $9,800,000 $15,000,000 $8,000,000 Lead Agency Route Name From To Description Project Type Source Completion Year SCAG Project Cost WRCOG Total Project Cost CVAG Project Cost MAX VALUE WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG WRCOG 2010 NMTP San Jacinto River - Bautista Creek San Jacinto - Diamond Valley San Timoteo- Interstate 10 Pass Area Santa Ana River Trail SR-91 Corridor - Magnolia Three Creeks Van Buren - Washington San Jacinto Ave and Pico Ave San Diego Canal between Esplanade Ave and Domenigoni Hathaway Green River Golf Course Auto Center Dr Leon Rd and Auld Rd Mission Blvd Class I / II bikeway project (Class I section = 22 miles) (NMTP cost estimate: $26,000,000 [includes more than just Class I section]) Bautista Creek For cost estimate, assumed $1 million/mile Class I / II bikeway project (Class I section = 4.5 miles) (NMTP cost estimate: $2,400,000 [includes more than just Class I section]) For cost estimate, assumed $1 million/mile Class I / II bikeway project (Class I section = 2 miles) (NMTP cost estimate: $3,900,000 [includes more than just Class I section]) Ramon Rd For cost estimate, assumed $1 million/mile Class I bikeway project (Class I section = 28 miles) (NMTP cost estimate: $17,200,000 [includes more than just Class I section]) Hamner For cost estimate, assumed $1 million/mile Class I / II bikeway project (Class I section = 3.5 miles) (NMTP cost estimate: $2,300,000 [includes more than just Class I section]) Radio Rd For cost estimate, assumed $1 million/mile Class I / II bikeway project (Class I section = 6 miles) (NMTP cost estimate: $3,300,000 [includes more than just Winchester Rd and Class I section]) Diaz Rd For cost estimate, assumed $1 million/mile Class I / II bikeway project (Class I section = 2.5 miles) (NMTP cost estimate: $1,600,000 [includes more than just Class I section]) SR-60 For cost estimate, assumed $1 million/mile Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation Non-motorized/Active Transportation WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG 2010 NMTP WRCOG 2010 NMTP $22,000,000 $4,500,000 $2,000,000 $28,000,000 $3,500,000 $6,000,000 $2,500,000 1 Future traffic forecasts do not justify expanding the current roadway capacity $22,000,000 $4,500,000 $2,000,000 $28,000,000 $3,500,000 $6,000,000 $2,500,000 RCTC Riverside County Strategic Assessment Appendix D: Funding Gap Analysis d Technical Memorandum Date: January 6, 2016 Project: RCTC Strategic Assessment To: Aaron Hake, RCTC Front Adam Christian, HDR Copies to: RCTC Strategic Assessment Theresia Trevino, RCTC JD Douglas, HDR Shirley Medina, RCTC Stephen Decker, HDR Subject: Task 4 Funding Gap Analysis Introduction In support of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Strategic Assessment, this Tech Memo presents an inventory of existing and potential revenue sources that might be available over the next 24 years for the implementation of future transportation needs in Riverside County. Revenue sources at the federal, State, and local levels were identified and analyzed for their future funding potential, both for capital improvements and transit operations and maintenance (O&M). Estimates for each revenue source were developed based on a combination of factors, including 1) the assumed continuation of prior year funding amounts, 2) planning documents from the relevant programming agencies, 3) independent forecasts, and 4) consultations with RCTC staff. Revenue sources were assigned to one of three categories: • Category A — existing revenues reasonably expected to be available countywide in the future, including those from formula programs or ongoing levies/fee programs (example: TUMF) • Category B — existing unprogrammed revenues that Riverside County might realistically secure on a discretionary or competitive basis (example: cap and trade grants) • Category C — "strategy revenues" — potential new sources that are contingent upon the implementation of future federal or State legislation or project -specific funding mechanisms (example: mileage -based user fees, highway or express lane tolls) This approach allows RCTC to gauge not only the total amount of revenue achievable from various sources and programs, but also the level of certainty associated with future funding streams. Of the three categories, Category A generally represents the highest level of certainty for planning purposes.' The County's ability to access funds from the programs in Category B is There are, of course, caveats to any assumption of continued funding availability. Many factors could adversely affect future levels of revenue that have historically been provided by the programs listed in Category A. Federal formula programs are subject to reauthorization by Congress; dramatic fluctuations in gas tax revenues that fund the 1 RCTC Strategic Assessment not guaranteed, but a realistic share of revenue can (and should) be targeted for the County's future transportation needs. Category C revenue sources are highly uncertain, subject to varying degrees of political and market risk, but all have been or are being considered by the relevant legislative bodies or project sponsors. For Category C, available revenue forecasts from existing planning studies have been used to provide as realistic an estimate of potential funding from each source as possible. A total of 43 federal, State, and local sources were identified and classified among the three categories, summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1. Inventory of Funding Sources, by Category Category A Category B Category C Federal 5307- Urbanized Area Formula Program 5309 Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants Federal Gas Tax Increase 5337 - State of Good Repair Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 5339 - Bus and Bus Facilities Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) 5311 - Rural Formula Program 5310 - Enhanced Mobility for Elderly/Disabled Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) State Active Transportation Program (ATP)-County Share Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) - Highway Mileage -Based User Fees (MBUF) Cap and Trade-LCTOP Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) - Rail State Gas Tax Increase TDA Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Sales Tax Active Transportation Program (ATP)-Statewide TDA State Transit Assistance (STA) Funds AQMD Carl Moyer Program Regional Improvement Program (RIP) Cap and Trade -Affordable Housing & Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Cap and Trade -Transit & Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) Cap and Trade -High Speed Rail (HSR) CPUC Highway -Rail Crossing Section 130 Program CPUC Grade Separation Section 190 Program State Operating Assistance for Intercity Rail RIP and IIP have resulted in no new programming capacity in the 2016 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). 2 RCTC Strategic Assessment Local Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) City General Funds Mid County Parkway (MCP) Toll Revenues County of Riverside Development Impact Fees Private Railroad Funds Measure A'/z cent Sales Tax for Transportation Additional'/4 Cent Local Sales Transportation Tax (20 years) SR 91 Toll Revenues Vehicle License Fee Increase 1-15 Express Lane Toll Revenues Freeway Mitigation Fee Local Gas Tax Subvention to Cities and Counties City Funds - Maintenance of Effort (MOE) RCTC Investment Income Farebox Revenues Assumptions In general, annual revenue projections for the various cap and trade programs (LCTOP, HSR, TICRP & AHSC) are based on a combination of the February and May 2015 Air Resource Board (ARB) auction results and ARB Resolution 13-7, which governs the number and pricing of carbon allowances sold in future years. All values shown in the above tables are expressed in constant 2015 dollars. This means that any increases in future year funding amounts reflect real growth in purchasing power above and beyond the rate of inflation. All revenue sources derived from the State or local sales tax, for example, including LTF and Measure A, are assumed to achieve an average annual real growth rate of 2 percent. All programs funded by cap -and -trade auction revenues are also assumed to increase their annual yield in real terms, given ARB regulations requiring the price floor for carbon allowances to be raised a minimum of 5 percent annually, a rate in excess of the historical inflation rate. Conversely, the local gas tax subvention and TDA STA funds assumed to decrease in real terms over the analysis period, reflecting the ongoing loss of fuel tax purchasing power in the absence of inflation indexing. All other revenue sources are assumed to remain constant in real terms. This assumption is subject to a high level of uncertainty, as both Congress and the State Legislature contemplate a long-term, sustainable solution to transportation funding and various proposals are being floated to enact alternative —and in some cases, more robust —sources of revenue. Table 12 (in the Appendix) documents in greater detail the assumptions used to generate the preliminary funding estimates for each source. 3 01 Results RCTC Strategic Assessment Table 2 provides a summary of the aggregate capital improvement funding identified or considered achievable for Categories A, B, and C, while Table 3 provides a summary of aggregate capital costs over FY 2016 through FY 2039, consistent with the analysis period being reviewed for the Strategic Assessment. (Transit operations and maintenance funding is discussed in a separate section below.) Table 2. Total Estimated Revenue for Capital Improvements (2016-2039), by Category Funding Category Amount (in millions, 2015 $) Percent Category A $6,114 45% Category B $1,363 10% Category C $6,058 45% Total $13,535 100% Table 3. Total Estimated Cost of Capital Improvements (2016-2039), by Mode/Project Type Mode/Project Type Amount (in millions, 2015 $) Freeways & Interchanges $8,724 Arterials $9,990 Grade Separations $1,528 Transit - Intercity Rail $155 Transit - Commuter/Regional Rail $1,237 Transit - Bus Capital $1,092 Non-motorized/Active Transportation $642 Total $23,367 In total, almost $13.5 billion in future and potential funding for capital improvements was identified, comprised of $6.1 billion in Category A funding (45 percent), $1.4 billion in Category B funding (10 percent), and $6.1 billion in Category C funding (45 percent). Exhibits 4-6 (in the Appendix) document the composition of estimated revenues in Category A, Category B, and Category C, respectively. Category A, B, and C sources cover 58 percent of the overall identified need of $23.4 billion, leaving a funding gap of $7.8 billion across all modes over the analysis period. Because Category C revenues entail a high degree of uncertainty, a more conservative approach to the funding gap analysis might instead focus only on Category A and B revenues that flow from existing programs. Together, Category A and B revenues are anticipated to provide only 32 percent of the overall identified need. In this scenario, excluding Category C revenues, the capital funding gap increases to $15.9 billion. 4 RCTC Strategic Assessment Exhibit 1. Composition of Total Estimated Revenues (millions of dollars) ■ Category A ■ Category B ■ Category C Funding Gap Discussion of the overall funding gap offers a limited understanding of the outlook for future transportation funding in the County. For one, the funding gap varies considerably by mode/project type, based on the funding levels and eligibility criteria associated with each of the 40 sources identified in Table 1 above. For example, arterials and grade separations are among the most underfunded project types, while the intercity rail modal category shows the greatest potential to attract sufficient funding for 100 percent of the estimated need. Second, certain modes/project types are disproportionately exposed to the additional risks and probability of success entailed in securing Category B and C revenues. Exhibit 2. Composition of Estimated Revenues by Mode/Project Type Non-motorized/Active Transportation Transit - Bus Capital Transit - Commuter/Regional Rail Intercity Rail Grade Separations Arterials Freeways & Interchanges 0% 20% 40% ■ Category A ■ Category B 60% 80% 100% 5 RCTC Strategic Assessment As shown in Exhibit 2 above, of all modes/project types, transit bus capital derives the largest share (67 percent) of its projected funding from Category A revenues in the form of federal and State formula funds, followed by freeway/interchange projects (33 percent) and non- motorized/active transportation (31 percent). By contrast, commuter/regional rail (7 percent), grade separation (10 percent), and intercity rail (14 percent) projects have the lowest share of Category A revenues relative to their overall need. In terms of Category B revenue distribution, the intercity rail, non-motorized/active transportation and commuter/regional rail modal categories appear well -positioned to benefit from a broad range of discretionary programs, achieving 60 percent, 59 percent, and 48 percent of their overall funding need, respectively, once Category B revenues are taken into account. In fact, these modal categories are projected to secure an above -average percentage of their long-term funding need, despite having relatively little or no funding identified in Category A. By comparison, freeway/interchange and arterial projects have a larger share of Category A funding identified than do intercity rail, non-motorized/active transportation and commuter/regional rail projects, but far fewer opportunities for discretionary grants or funding programs included in Category B, as many federal and State discretionary programs increasingly prioritize multimodal mobility or greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions in their selection criteria, making it difficult for standalone roadway capacity enhancements to perform well . Freeway/interchange projects also face the greatest risk exposure to the uncertainties associated with Category C revenues, the largest share of which is anticipated to come from the implementation of a mileage -based user fee (MBUF). The Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) assumes that a MBUF will become operational by 2026 and ultimately replace the gas tax. SCAG's annual revenue yield calculation is based on a charge of 5 cents per mile. This analysis assumes a lower charge of 1.5 cents per mile, consistent with the rates being charged by the State of Oregon's recently completed pilot project. At the rate of 1.5 cents per mile, the MBUF generates $5.1 billion for the County over the analysis period, but only $2.6 billion of this amount is assumed to be expended on projects included in the Table 3 cost estimate, with the remainder flowing to local cities and the County for local roadway improvements and maintenance, and major maintenance on freeways/interchanges (which were not included in the cost estimate). Of the $2.6 billion, $2.2 billion is allocated to freeways/interchanges, $223 million to arterials, and $102 million to transit bus capital, reflecting the likelihood that the MBUF will supplement or augment the declining levels of TDA STA funds currently derived from the 1.75 percent sales tax on diesel fuel. Category C revenues also include toll -based revenues for the Mid -County Parkway (MCP) and contributions from private railroads for grade separations. For the MCP, toll revenues are insufficient to cover project capital and operating costs; hence the ability to generate toll -based revenues is itself contingent upon the identification of other sources of upfront public funding required to construct the project and initiate toll operations. Due to voter -approved limitations on the issuance of Measure A -backed debt, the County faces constraints in providing upfront funding for the MCP. Therefore, while toll revenue estimates for the MCP have been previously 6 RCTC Strategic Assessment quantified in a 2006 traffic and revenue study and included in this analysis, RCTC's ability to access these revenues faces significant challenges. Allocation of Projected Revenues Many funding sources are eligible to be used for multiple modes and/or for both capital improvements and operating costs. For these sources, the HDR Team allocated a percentage of the estimated funding to one or more modes/uses based on historical use of funds and future project eligibility. For example, CMAQ can be flexibly used for high -occupancy vehicle lanes or managed lanes (included in "freeways & interchanges"), grade separations, transit capital and operations, and active transportation projects. While the County has traditionally used CMAQ for HOV and managed lanes, there may be fewer eligible CMAQ expenditures on freeways in the future, leading to a redistribution of the County's annual apportionment toward other modes and project types. Accordingly, this funding analysis allocates a portion of future CMAQ funding to a broader portfolio of eligible modes/uses. To take another example, FTA Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula funds can be used for either transit bus capital or operations. Historically, there has been a 25/75 split between capital and operations in the use of FTA Section 5307 funds among recipient agencies in the County. This percentage was therefore carried forward to estimate the amount of funding available for transit bus capital. In other cases, the allocation strategy represents the HDR Team's best judgment of the potential distribution of revenues by mode/project type, but other allocation strategies might be equally plausible. TIGER discretionary funds can be used for any surface transportation project. This analysis assumes a cumulative award of $125 million in TIGER grants to the County through 2040; of which 25 percent is allocated to grade separations; 50 percent to commuter/regional rail, and 25 percent to non-motorized/active transportation projects. Other modes/project types may also be successful in capturing TIGER funds. That said, the Category A and B sources that can be flexibly used among multiple modes/project types do not account for a large percentage of total revenues; therefore, the potential skewing effects of the allocation strategies used in this analysis are likely to be limited. A summary of the allocation strategy for each source can be found in Tables 8 through 10 in the Appendix. To calculate the funding gap, revenue allocations were made for each funding source among the various modes/project types, then compared against total project costs by mode/project type. Any costs in excess of the aggregate revenue derived from Categories A, B, and C was considered an unfunded need (i.e., "funding gap"). Table 4 compares revenues and costs, and summarizes the funding gap by mode/project type. FN RCTC Strategic Assessment Table 4. Funding Gap By Mode/Project Type (in millions) Modal Category A Revenue B Category C Total Total Costs % Funded Funding Gap Freeways & Interchanges $2,880 $59 $4,670 $7,609 $8,724 87% $1,115 Arterials $2,034 $220 $1,017 $3,270 $9,990 33% $6,720 Grade Separations $152 $247 $187 $585 $1,528 38% $943 Transit - Intercity Rail $21 $71 $0 $92 $155 60% $63 Transit — Commuter/Reg $92 $504 $0 $595 $1,237 48% $642 Transit - Bus Capital $734 $57 $78 $869 $1,092 80% $223 Nonmotorized/ Active Transpo $200 $176 $107 $484 $641 75% $157 Total $6,114 $1,334 $6,058 $13,506 $23,367 58% $9,861 Freeways/Interchanges. Measure A and the toll -based financing of SR 91 and the 1-15 Express Lanes provide the largest share of future funding for freeways/interchanges. Some additional public funding from traditional federal and State programs such as CMAQ, RSTP, IIP and RIP is also projected to be available; however, the combination of Category A and B sources, at $2.93 billion, will provide only 34 percent of the overall identified need. Category C revenues for freeways/interchanges assume a sizable share of MBUF and toll -based financing of the MCP. Arterials. Similar to the previous category, the majority of funding for arterials is expected to come from local sources such as Measure A, TUMF, County development impact fees, the local gas tax subvention and City general funds, specifically those pledged under Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirements for receiving Measure A Local Streets and Roads (LSR) funding. It is assumed that cities will expend 10 percent of their local gas tax dollars and pledged MOE funds on arterial improvements located within their jurisdictions. Some additional federal funding is anticipated to be available through the RSTP and the discretionary Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). If enacted, the implementation of a MBUF to replace the gas tax is also projected to augment funding for arterials, as gas tax revenues have historically funded regional road improvements but are increasingly used for maintenance of the existing system rather than capacity enhancements. Cumulatively, these sources provide approximately 33 percent of the identified funding need for arterials. Grade Separations. The projects identified in this category are located along existing UPRR and BNSF freight rail lines; these are separate from additional grade separations that may be needed for Metrolink extensions along other corridors. RCTC's 2008 Grade Separation Strategy document identifies a likely funding scenario for grade separations in the County using a 8 RCTC Strategic Assessment combination of potential federal, State, local, and private sources for these projects. This analysis largely follows the RCTC funding strategy, assuming that a portion of the CMAQ apportionment and California Public Utilities Commission Section 130 and 190 funding will be available. At the local level, it is assumed that cities and the County will contribute 5 percent of their total Measure A LSR funding toward grade separation projects. Finally, freight railroads will be expected to contribute a 10 percent share of the total project costs. In the aggregate, these sources cover 38 percent of the identified need. Transit Intercity Rail. Based on the projected funding availability from multiple federal and State discretionary programs, there is likely to be sufficient revenue to meet 60 percent of the County's intercity rail capital needs, which consist of the implementation of augmented Amtrak service on the Coachella Valley San Gorgonio Pass corridor. This is contingent upon the County's aggressive pursuit of IIP funds through the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) funds. While a local match is not currently required to secure either IIP or TIRCP funds, it is likely to make applications for funding more competitive. CVAG has committed 10 percent of its TDA funds for this purpose, estimated to generate $21 million over the analysis period. Transit Commuter/Regional Rail. The largest share of funding for this modal category is derived from the 25 percent ongoing appropriation of cap and trade revenues for the State's high-speed rail (HSR) system. The Metrolink extension to Temecula/Murrieta has been identified as a potential shared use corridor for commuter rail and Phase II of the HSR system from Los Angeles to San Diego via the Inland Empire, making it eligible for future HSR cap and trade revenues after the anticipated completion of the Phase I "backbone" system from Los Angeles to San Francisco in 2029. This analysis assumes that 50 percent of the estimated $458 million cost of the Metrolink extension to Temecula/Murrieta will be funded by HSR cap and trade revenues. In addition, a portion of future CMAQ funds can be used to fund Metrolink commuter rail extensions. The analysis also targets a modest amount of TIGER discretionary grants to fund project elements such as new multimodal station facilities along the new commuter rail corridors. In total, 48 percent of the overall funding need is identified through a combination of these sources. Transit Bus Capital. 80 percent of estimated needs in this category are provided for through an array of formula -based federal and State programs, including FTA 5307, 5310, 5337, and 5339, supplemented by various grant opportunities. Non-motorized/active transportation. A combination of ATP County and statewide funds, CMAQ, and RIP funds cover 75 percent of needs in this modal category. While only a small percentage of the County RIP share has historically been programmed for active transportation projects, it is assumed that an increasing share will be directed toward such projects in the future in order to comply with evolving California Transportation Commission (CTC) guidelines on STIP programming criteria. Due to declining STIP revenues, the CTC has indicated that, beginning in FY 2016, it will prioritize RIP funding for projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, per Executive Order B-30-15. Since active transportation projects generally assume 9 FN RCTC Strategic Assessment some level of mode shift from auto to walking or biking, these are likely to be more competitive for future RIP funds. Transit Operations and Maintenance Funding Gap The HDR Team estimated the total 2040 annual transit O&M costs (in 2015 dollars), consisting of existing and enhanced bus services (local, regional, express), expanded Metrolink service on both the Riverside and Inland Empire/Orange County lines (from 9 to 56 trains per day), the initiation of new commuter/regional rail service on the Metrolink extensions to Perris Valley and Temecula/Murrieta, and expanded intercity rail service on the Coachella Valley line via Amtrak (2 daily roundtrips). In calculating the funding gap for transit O&M, this analysis differentiates between the cost of existing services and that of new/expanded services. There are two distinct drivers of the future transit O&M funding gap: 1) potential O&M cost growth of existing services in excess of existing revenue growth; 2) the O&M cost of new/expanded service for which additional revenue must be identified. This analysis does not address the potential funding gap associated with the risk of O&M cost growth exceeding revenue growth for existing services. Instead, the assumption is that existing services will continue to be funded using existing sources, with the growth in O&M costs for these existing services constrained by available revenues. Future fare increases are assumed to play a role in funding existing levels of service should O&M costs increase faster than revenue. Riverside Transit Agency's Comprehensive Operational Analysis, for example, identifies potential fare increases at regular intervals in the future (FY 2018, 2021, and 2024). In addition, available revenues for transit O&M may be higher than forecast, particularly from some federal programs (i.e., Section 5307) that base their funding formula on population. To the extent that the County's population is forecast to increase at a faster rate than other counties in California, there is the potential for real increases in the County's share of formula funding over time. (This analysis conservatively assumes no future increases in federal formula funds, as outlined in Table 11 in the Appendix). In summary, cost containment strategies by service providers, fare increases, and additional revenue growth all support the assumption that existing levels of service can be maintained with the projected levels of transit O&M funding from existing sources. These existing sources are therefore assumed to be fully committed; in other words, they will not generate any additional capacity to fund new or expanded services. The existing sources assumed to be fully committed include: • FTA 5307 — Urbanized Area Formula Program • FTA 5310 — Enhanced Mobility for Elderly/Disabled • FTA 5311 — Rural Formula Program • Local Transportation Funds • Measure A • Farebox Revenues 10 FN RCTC Strategic Assessment To isolate the cost of new and expanded service, the HDR Team netted out the cost of existing services based on actual costs reported by regional, municipal, and specialized transit operators in the County, as summarized below in Table 5. Table 5. Existing vs. New/Expanded Countywide Transit O&M Costs Annual O&M Cost (in millions $) Total 2040 Countywide Transit O&M Annual Cost $561.6 (Less Existing Annual O&M Cost) ($156.0) Metrolink ($14.0) RTA ($75.5) SunLine ($52.5) Municipal Operators ($3.2) Specialized Transit ($10.8) Total - 2040 Countywide Transit O&M Annual Cost — New/Expanded Services $405.6 The 260% total increase in annual O&M costs from $156.0 million to $561.6 million (in 2015 dollars) is driven by an assumed doubling of average transit trips per capita, compounded by population growth in the County over the 2025-2040 analysis period. The $405.6 million annual cost of new and expanded transit services will require additional revenues above and beyond what is currently available. The sources identified for new and expanded services include: • Farebox revenues. For an estimate of farebox revenues, the funding gap analysis assumed existing rates of farebox recovery by mode: 17.5% for bus passengers and 44% for both Metrolink and Amtrak passengers. The blended countywide farebox recovery rate is currently 23.3% for all modes. In the future, the blended farebox recovery rate increases to 33.3%, as most of the cost growth in transit services occurs in intercity and commuter rail, as shown in Table 6 below. Table 6. Blended Farebox Recovery Rate for New/Expanded Transit Services (in millions $) Mode Total Annual O&M Cost Farebox Recovery Farebox Revenues Intercity Rail $30.2 44.00% $13.3 Commuter/Regional Rail $126.2 44.00% $55.5 Basic Local Bus $246.4 17.49% $43.1 Enhanced Local Bus $144.6 17.49% $25.3 Regional Express Bus $14.3 17.49% $2.5 Projected Farebox Revenues 33.28% $139.7 11 RCTC Strategic Assessment • Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program. CMAQ funds are eligible to be used during the first five years of operations for new transit services, but are not currently used for this purpose in the County. This analysis assumes that 25% of the County's total apportionment of CMAQ funds over the next 24 years will be used for transit O&M, or on average $7.6 million per year. • Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP). Funded by cap and trade auction revenues, this formula -based program initiated in FY 2014/15 is expected to generate approximately $3.3 million in new transit O&M funding annually on a countywide basis. • State Operating Assistance. Other Amtrak intercity rail corridors in the State, including Pacific Surfliner, Capital Corridor, and San Joaquin, currently receive a State operating subsidy that covers the cost of service net of farebox revenues. This analysis assumes that the State will provide the same level of operating assistance for the Coachella Valley rail corridor, $16.9 million annually ($30.2 million minus $13.3 million in farebox revenues, as shown under "intercity rail" in Table 6 above). In total, these sources are anticipated to cover 41 percent of the cost of new and expanded transit services, leaving an estimated unfunded annual transit O&M need of $238.2 million. Table 7. Calculation of Annual Unfunded Transit O&M Need for New/Expanded Transit Services fi. .. .� Total 2040 Countywide Transit O&M Cost - New/Expanded $405.6 Less Projected Funding Sources 41.3% ($167.4) Farebox Revenues ($139.7) CMAQ ($7.6) LCTOP ($3.3) State Operating Assistance for Intercity Rail (Net of Farebox Recovery) ($16.9) Unfunded Need — 2040 Countywide Transit O&M - New/Expanded 58.7% $238.2 As shown in Exhibit 3 below, the combination of existing transit revenues, future farebox revenues, and additional operating funds from federal and State programs amounts to 58 percent of the total 2040 annual O&M funding need. RCTC Strategic Assessment Exhibit 3. Estimated 2040 Annual Transit O&M Funding Sources $16.9 Million 3% ❑ Existing Revenue ❑CMAQ $156.0 Million $238.2 Million 28% $3.3 Million 1% $7.6 Million 1% ■ Future Farebox Revenues ❑LCTOP ❑ State Operating Assistance for Intercity Rail ❑ Unfunded Need RCTC Strategic Assessment Appendix Funding Projections and Revenue Allocations by Source Tables 8 through 10 below provide a source -by -source breakdown of each of the Category totals. Please note that the totals in each category do not match the Category totals shown in Table 2 above, due to the fact that the revenue allocations across modes/project types are less than 100 percent for many of the sources. Table 11 provides a more detailed breakdown of the revenue allocations for Measure A, which are based on the FY 2014/15 apportionment to the various Measure A programs. Table 8. Category A Revenue Estimates and Allocations, by Program (in millions) Category A Federal Funds Total (2016- 2039) Average Annual o a)a 0) c 0 U 0 0 ci, a) E u .i -t - co o coa)o o cn m 0 _ Fs CC L c (7, 2 Allocation To c o a) � N C5C CC Cco U •) c_ 2 .s cC Ta :' a 7 m }' c 2 cts U C 2 a) U U Q- c O " a� c .c 2(T3 2 > U Q � c) N. o 2 o 0 E 2- , c o m Z To o I — 5307- Urbanized Area Formula Program $703.0 $29.3 25% 25% 5337 - State of Good Repair - State of Good Repair $139.5 $ 5.8 100 % 100% 5339 - Bus and Bus Facilities $ 53.0 $ 2.2 100 100% 5311 - Rural Formula Program $ 22.6 $ 0.9 0% 0% 0% 5310 - Enhanced Mobility for Elderly/Disabled $ 69.4 $ 2.9 55% 0% 550k Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) $732.3 $ 30.5 30% 10% 13 0/0 13% 25% 10% 100% Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) $630.3 $ 26.3 50% 50% 100% RCTC Strategic Assessment Category A State Funds Total (2016- 2039) Average Annual to N 0) co c O 02$ a) co u u) .co ir.) -t - (I) O . u) d -o m O Fs CC L O .� c 2 Allocation To c o cr) a) � N CCC5C O U .� c— 2Ts cC To :. (6 °� .c c 2 06 � C O p a) c., Q-c O c .7) c,c 2( 2 > U Q Li '+� 'a19, o 0 n E N c c o2 Z To o Active Transportation Program (ATP)- County Share $ 78.1 $ 3.3 100 % 100% Cap and Trade-LCTOP $114.7 $ 4.8 100 % 100% TDA Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Sales Tax $2,528.8 $ 105.4 0% 0% TDA State Transit Assistance (STA) Funds $258.0 $ 10.7 8% 92% 0% 100% Regional Improvement Program (RIP) $491.0 $ 20.5 90% 10% 100% Local Funds Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) $638.5 $26.6 100% 100% County of Riverside Development Impact Fees $ 93.6 $ 3.9 100% 100% Measure A $5,181.7 $ 215.9 42% 12% 1 % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 56% (Less Measure A Debt Service) $(1,236.4) $ (51.5) 100% 100% SR 91 Net Toll Revenues $1,260.6 $ 52.5 100% 100% (Less SR 91 Debt Service - 2013 Bonds) $(261.3) $ (10.9) 100% 100% (Less SR 91 Debt Service - TIFIA) $(347.4) $ (14.5) 100% 100% (Less SR 91 Debt Service - Additional TIFIA Payments) $(33.4) $(1.4) 100% 100% 1-15 Express Lane Toll Revenues $556.2 $22.2 100% 100% (Less 1-15 Express Lanes O&M) $(236.5) $(9.5) 100% 100% 1 F)1 RCTC Strategic Assessment Category A Gas Tax Subvention to Cities and Counties Total (2016- 2039) $1,662.5 Average Annual $ 69.3 u) 0 0) cm c O 02$ a) 0 2 u a) ' -c - 10% N O � . u) -cp m O co CC L O c 12 Allocation To c O a a) � 0 CCC5CC E O U c— 2 'Fs (1 :' 0- (6 co °� c 2 06 C O F_ w O 0 0- m Oc c,c ( 2 > U Q � 0 i '+� o -tC o0 2- c c O 2 Z u o 10% City Funds - Maintenance of Effort (MOE) $1,155.8 $ 48.2 10% 10% RCTC Investment Income $ 59.0 $ 2.5 100% 100% Subtotal - Category A $14,313.6 $ 596.4 Table 9. Category B Revenue Estimates and Allocations, by Program (in millions) — co co C To c To06 .- N > o O > L •- a C (6 U 0 = co Q c 0 p) C O_ O C O m Q 0 (6 i N (6 o-c T O RS y u i .�. i 0 i O c O O U O <A •N E •N •t/l (I) E a N c c E c c c c (p ui -� U 1— HU 1— H2 ZH H Category B Total (2016- Average Allocation 2039) Annual Federal Funds 5309 Fixed Guideway Capital Investment $ - $- 100% 100% Grants 2 F71 RCTC Strategic Assessment p) � >, as as 3 U 0 N ca N -, O co Q u 0 o — ca > L LE. i <n C co rY Ts C a � i 5 N E C E To ` m U c i N C °6 N p to Q C c to °' C' H2 a) > U Q o c i N (6 O o E a C To H Category B Total (2016- 2039) Average Annual c o 1— Allocation 1— 1— ZH Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) $220.0 $ 9.2 100% 100% Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) $125.0 $ 5.2 25% 50% 25% 100% State Funds Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) - Highway $58.8 $ 2.5 100% 100% Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) - Rail $57.1 $ 2.4 100% 100% Active Transportation Program (ATP)- Statewide $87.8 $ 3.7 100% 100% AQMD Carl Moyer Program $ - $- 100% 100% Cap and Trade -Affordable Housing & Sustainable Communities (AHSC) $229.3 $ 9.6 25% 25% 50% Cap and Trade -Transit & Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) $424.3 $ 17.7 32% 18% 50% 100% Cap and Trade -High Speed Rail (HSR) $1,888.3 $ 78.7 12% 12% CPUC Highway -Rail Crossing Section 130 Program $23.0 $ 1.0 100% 100% CPUC Grade Separation Section 190 Program $23.0 $ 1.0 100% 100% State Operating Assistance for Intercity Rail n/a $ 16.9 100% Local Funds City General Funds $ - $- Subtotal - Category B $2,916.6 $116.66 3 F)1 RCTC Strategic Assessment Table 10. Category C Revenue Estimates and Allocations, by Program (in millions) C >, co 3 co U N w co 1° N -c c g .i Q N (n � -0 2 — co w .2 C ' (i C 2 .co II Ta _ ° agi - 6 7 E C E 2 O To Q m U 7 m .' C 2 xs c o ,� Q 0 O c _ C .r � C c 2 �c a) .> Q 0 , 0 L (6 O f, O O E P C p 2 To O u_ c - 0 c.)2 Z Category C Total (2015- 2039) Average Annual Allocations Federal Funds HR 680 Federal Gas Excise Tax Increase $587.0 $24.5 47% 47% 5% 100% State Funds State Gas Price -Based Excise Tax (PBET) Increase $924.0 $37.0 45% 5% 5% 55% State Diesel Excise Tax Increase $616.1 $24.6 45% 5% 5% 55% Mileage -Based User Fees (MBUF) $3,883.6 $211.5 44% 4% 2% 50% Local Funds Measure A2 —'/ Cent Sales Tax $2,240.0 $93.3 42% 12% 2% 56% Vehicle License Fee Increase $422.3 $16.9 50°/0 50% Freeway Mitigation Fee $585.2 $23.4 100% Mid County Parkway (MCP) Toll Revenues $383.5 $15.3 100% 100% (Less MCP O&M Costs) $(186.6) $(7.5) 100% (Less MCP Debt Service) $(43.4) $(1.7) 100% 100% Private Railroad Funds $152.8 $ 6.1 100% 100% Subtotal - Category C $7,525.3 $ 301.2 4 RCTC Strategic Assessment Table 11. Measure A Revenue Estimates and Allocations, by Mode/Project Type (in millions) MEASURE A PROGRAM ALLOCATION (PROJECTION) FY 2014/15 Revised 1/14/15 cn a) _c c u, 2 u_ .o Q u o Q a) -c O _ � .L a) �', � C 1-2 To c o o) t c= O U ~ �a cz U j .r y 2 � a.)c > U C Q O � T N-t O C E 2 � H o Z Program Allocation Total Revenues 167,000,000 Less: Administration 2,900,000 APPORTIONMENT TO PROGRAMS 164,100,000 Western County Highway Improvements $37,613,000 100% New Corridors $13,644,000 100% Public Transit Commuter Rail $7,523,000 Intercity Bus $1,881,000 Specialized Transit -Operations $2,351,000 Specialized Transit-CTSA $783,000 Commuter Services $1,844,000 Regional Arterial $11,063,000 100% Local Streets & Roads $35,769,000 5% Bond Financing $9,956,000 100% Economic Development Projects $1,475,000 SUBTOTAL -Western County $123,902,000 5 F)1 RCTC Strategic Assessment MEASURE A PROGRAM ALLOCATION (PROJECTION) FY 2014/15 (Revised (1/14/15) V) o) al (6 C 06 v) m 3 a)Cri u @ -C Q c o Q to o -o E /� cC T N - ., c 2 ~ C o ct •� E E � o U 7) 2 ~ a 7 00 :' � m L � o o Q o -a cri N L o w o c E m c ~ 0 z mlore Ia... ' Allocatio■ Coachella Valley Highways & Regional Arterials $19,488,000 50% 50% Local Street & Roads $13,642,000 5% Specialized & Public Transit $5,846,000 SUBTOTAL -Coachella Valley $38,976,000 Palo Verde Valley Local Street & Roads $1,222,000 5% SUBTOTAL -Palo Verde Valley $1,222,000 DOTAL Weighted Allocations 56.5% 42.5% 12.5% 6 RCTC Strategic Assessment Table 12. Source and Methodology for Estimating Revenue Sources, by Category Program Funding Estimate Source Assumptions Federal Funds — Category A 5307- Urbanized Area Formula Assumes no annual increase in future funding 5337-Bus and Bus Facilities Assumes no annual increase in future funding 5339-State of Good Repair Assumes no annual increase in future funding 5311-Rural Assumes no annual increase in future funding 5310 — Enhanced Mobility Assumes no annual increase in future funding CMAO 2014-15 Estimated Apportionments (rev 11 /4/2013) Assumes no annual increase in future funding RSTP http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/feder al/rstp/rstp-esti mates 110413. pdf Assumes no annual increase in future funding State Funds — Category A Active Transportation Program (ATP)— County Share http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ctcbo oks/2013/1213/25 4.4.pdf — SCAG estimated to receive $25.4M annually over FY 17-19. This analysis uses County population as a percentage of MPO population as basis for funding estimate and assumes continuation of funding levels in future years Cap and Trade -Low Carbon Transportation Operations Program (LCTOP) http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/MassTrans/Doc s-Pdfs/3228-ggrf/2014- 2015.1owcarbon.eligibility.list.pdf Based on actual Riverside County share of cap - and -trade revenues in FY 14/15. Assumes continuation of this formula share in future years. TDA Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Sales Tax FY 15/16 Budget, Table 1 -Sources Assumes continuation of 2% annual increase reflected in RCTC FY 15/16 Budget TDA State Transit Assistance (STA) Funds FY 15/16 Budget, Table 1 -Sources Assumes 2% annual decrease from FY 15/16 levels due to lack of fuel tax inflation indexing Regional Improvement Program (RIP) 2014 County STIP Shares - 5 Year Rolling Average Based on actual RIP funds programmed thru FY 19; thereafter, a 5-year rolling average. Approximately $20M per year. Local Funds — Category A TUMF FY 15/16 Budget, Table 1 -Sources Assumes continuation of $12M annual estimate reflected in RCTC FY 15/16 Budget County of Riverside Development Impact Fees (DIF) http://www.countyofriverside.us/Portals/0 /DIF/DIF%20Study%20Update%20Draft %20Final%20Report%2012-18-13.pdf Based on long-range estimate in 2012 DIF Study 0 RCTC Strategic Assessment Program Funding Estimate Source Assumptions Measure A FY 15/16 Budget, Table 1 - Sources Assumes continuation of 2% annual increase in sales tax receipts reflected in RCTC FY 15/16 Budget (Less Measure A Debt Service) 2013 Series A OS -Debt Service Schedule -Page 9 Reflects debt service schedule for all outstanding Measure A bonds comprised of 2009, 2010, and 2013 series SR 91 Net Toll Revenues 2013 Series OS - Page 65 Uses SR 91 Traffic & Revenue forecast (Less SR 91 Debt Service - 2013 Bonds) 2013 Series OS - Page 65 Reflects debt service schedule for 2013 SR 91 toll revenue bonds (Less SR 91 Debt Service - TIFIA) 2013 Series OS - Page 65 Reflects debt service schedule for SR 91 TIFIA loan (Less SR 91 Debt Service — Additional TIFIA Payments) 2013 Series OS - Page 65 Reflects additional payments for SR 91 TIFIA loan in 2018-2022 1-15 Express Lanes Stantec 1-15 Express Lane T&R Level 2 forecasts, Table 21 T&R forecast 2012 dollars were not escalated to 2015 dollars. (Less 1-15 O&M Costs) I-15 Preliminary Toll Feasibility Study, April 19, 2007 Local Gas Tax Subvention to Cities and Counties State Controller's Office - Monthly Highway User Tax Payments FY 14/15 amount reflects actual City and County receipts, per the SCO. FY 15/16 reflects anticipated reduction in HUT 2103 funds flowing to cities and counties as a result of the downward adjustment in the price -based excise tax. This adjustment by the BOE occurs annually as a result of the 2011 gas tax swap legislation RCTC Investment Income FY 15/16 Budget, Table 1 - Sources Assumes continuation of investment income annual amount reflected in RCTC FY 15/16 Budget Category B Federal Funds — Category 5309 Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants Per RCTC staff, no future transit projects in the County are anticipated to compete for 5309 funds. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) http://www.dot.ca.pov/hp/LocalPrograms/ Uses County population as a percentage of State population as basis for funding estimate. HSIP/2015/Cycle/0207/HSIP-Cycle7- announcement.pdf Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Assumes $600M annual appropriation Based on County's share of national population, multiplied by average annual appropriation for TIGER program Over 25 yrs, this amounts to approx $125M, or an average of one TIGER award every 5 years now through 2039, assuming average award amount of $25M. State Funds 1 RCTC Strategic Assessment Program Funding Estimate Source Assumptions Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) - Highway Page 10 - http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ocip/ archives/stip2014/2014_itip.pdf Uses County population as a percentage of State population as basis for funding estimate. Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) - Rail Page 13 - http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ocip/ archives/stip2014/2014_itip.pdf Coachella Valley intercity rail project provides opportunity to compete for future funds. This analysis uses the County's percentage of total State -supported intercity rail track -miles as basis for funding estimate. ATP- Statewide ATP Draft Fund Estimate (1/22/2015) Competitive statewide program. Based on County population share as a percentage of State population as basis for funding estimate. AQMD Carl Moyer Program http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/aqmd- forms/moyer/carlmoyer2014.pdf?sfvrsn= 4 No future projects in the County are anticipated to compete for Carl Moyer funds. Cap and Trade - Affordable Housing & Sustainable Communities (AHSC) ARB Resolution 13-7 Assumes award of at least one TOD Project annually, with average award amount of $10-11 M per Project. Cap and Trade -Transit Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) See above. Based on County population share as a percentage of State population as basis for funding estimate. Cap and Trade -High Speed Rail (HSR) See above. Based on the percentage of Phase II LA to SD Inland Empire alignment located in Riverside County (50 out of 170 miles). Assumes HSR funding is available for Phase II starting in 2028 (one-year prior to scheduled completion of LA to SF core system in 2029, per 2014 CAHSR Business Plan assumption). CPUC Highway -Rail Crossing Section 130 Program htt //www.dot.ca. ov/h /rail/ uide_sect p' g q g — 130.htm - $15M available per year Based on Count population share as a percentage y p p p g of State population as basis for funding estimate. CPUC Grade Separation Section 190 Program http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/DF 5 D 52 78-7 D D E-46 B 8-9A F 0- 9180C245E4B9/0/Sec190CaltransAlloca tions19882015v201508.x1s - $15M available per year Based on County population share as a percentage of State population as basis for funding estimate. State Operating Assistance for Intercity Rail Assumes State subsidy for operating costs net of farebox revenues. Local Funds City General Funds No additional City discretionary funds assumed beyond the 5% of Measure A LSR funds for grade separations (see Table 11) and City funds pledged under the Measure A LSR Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirements 2 RCTC Strategic Assessment Program Funding Estimate Source Assumptions Catego State Funds — Category C Mileage- Based User Fees (MBUF) SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS Assumes implementation of MBUF in 2025, consistent with SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS assumption. SCAG revenue estimate assumes levy of 5 cents per mile, significantly higher than most pilot programs. This analysis discounts SCAG revenue estimate to be consistent with Oregon's 1.5 cent per mile levy. In all likelihood, gas tax would be phased out upon implementation of MBUF. Local Funds — Category C Mid County Parkway (MCP) Toll Revenues MCP Toll Feasibility Study October 2006 - Slide 10 Assumes tolling of MCP and uses T&R forecasts produced by 2006 Parsons Brinckerhoff feasibility study. Opening year assumed to be 2020. (Less MCP Debt Service) Assumes toll revenue -backed bonding capacity of $88M. Debt service amount based on indicative 30- year level repayment schedule at interest rate of 6.5% and minimum coverage ratio of 1.50x. Private Railroad Funds 10 percent of grade separation costs will be funded by private railroad contributions. Exhibit 4. Composition of Category A Revenues ®Category A ■Category B Category C Funding Gap On millions) Federal Formula Funds $1,586 State Formula Funds $827 TUMF/Impact Fees $732 Measure A $1,689 Toll Revenues $938 Other Local Funds $282 Misc $59 Total $6,114 3 RCTC Strategic Assessment Exhibit 5. Composition of Category B Revenues Category A ■ Category B Category C (in millions) Federal Grants $345 State Grants STIP Interregional Improvement Program $902 $116 Total $1,363 Funding Gap Exhibit 6. Composition of Category C Revenues (in millions) Federal Gas Tax Increase $587 State Gas Tax Increase $847 Mileage -Based User Fees $1,957 Measure A2 - 20-year 114¢ Increase $1,265 Vehicle License Fee Increase $422 Freeway Mitigation Fee $585 Toll Revenues $241 Private Railroad Funds $153 Total $6,058 �CategoryA ■Category B ■Category C Funding Gap 4 RCTC Riverside County Strategic Assessment Appendix E: Attitude Research e RCTC Riverside County Strategic Assessment Task 5: Attitude Research I-N RCTC Riverside County Strategic Assessment Table of Contents Polling Results 1 Polling Results Summary 2 August and October Combined Survey Results 7 Stakeholder Outreach 19 Summit Breakout Questions 20 Stakeholder Summits and On -Line Comments Summary 22 Trend Summary by Location 26 On -Line Comments Summary 28 Perris Summit 40 Riverside Summit 46 Temecula Summit 52 Palm Desert Summit 57 Winchester Summit 65 Compilation of Emailed Comments 70 RCTC Riverside County Strategic Assessment Polling Results I-31 1 RCTC Riverside County Strategic Assessment Polling Results Summary FN 2 RCTC Riverside County Strategic Assessment Polling Results Summary Public opinion polling was conducted to gauge voter attitudes on transportation issues. In August 2015 and again in October 2015, representative samples of 400 registered voters were polled. The questions posed during each poll were similar, with the addition of slightly more specific questions as the series progressed. The poll results are highlighted below, with full results in the August and October Combined Survey Results sections. `Is (a) a high, medium, or low priority local issue for you?"The (a) answers are shown below, with the transportation -related responses highlighted. Of the local issues, reducing highway traffic congestion and maintaining local roads and filling potholes were both considered higher priorities by a majority of the respondents, although not overwhelmingly so. Transit was not listed as a high priority by the majority of the respondents. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% Which Local Issues are Priorities? ■ No Opinion 20% 10% ■ Low 0% — T ■ Medium J`�� °,ac ��ay goo oc, . o00 goo e�,�..• a.oa. ta\' `a5 `` e� Q� ey r° • ���` ca r t�` High .(00 cco� ether (5§` ��°y ,§\ t�° 4° . (3 \ `eye z �a Sa\c4o a\44 cask\ • ` a\��a (P. ``cs% °`a\�o o�a� a�aP�` o`a\,p� o c. K.° a� J \ � \ 6\� Q� \° aJ ,,\o \oc as o' s�os ��-� •.o40 a``�p0 co'\ ,c 40 �o•'\� \�\�� oy�e \�� e�to Qa.a Qua ��� `�� ��� \�\�a ��`��` Q\ao. ��4` c�+ ate` �\a to a` Qa cp a� k49 Source: Aug and Oct 2015 JMM "Would you favor or oppose increasing the Riverside County sales tax by one-half cent or one -quarter cent for 20 years for local transportation projects?" The responses are fairly equally spread between favoring and opposing any size sales tax, regardless of when the poll was taken, as shown below. 3 RCTC Riverside County Strategic Assessment 100% 90% 80% 70% 60 % 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Favor or oppose increasing the County sales tax for local transportation projects? One -quarter cent for 20 One-half cent for 20 years years ■ No Opinion ■ Oppose Favor Source: Aug and Oct 2015 JMM Poll "Could you afford increasing the County sales tax by one-half cent or one -quarter cent for 20 years?" The majority of respondents (just over half), stated that they could afford a sales tax increase. 100% 90% 80 % 70 % 60 % 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Could you afford increasing the County sales tax by _ over 20 years? One -quarter cent ■ No Opinion ■ No/Not Afford Yes/Afford One-half cent Source: Aug and Oct 2015 JMM Poll 4 RCTC Riverside County Strategic Assessment "If Riverside County voters approved a sales tax increase, would you have a great deal, some or very little confidence the money would be well spent? The majority of respondents had very little confidence that the money would be well spent, indicating a lack of trust in local government. This is quite different than the August 2015 poll and the 2014 poll numbers when respondents were asked "Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with how your local city government / RCTC is performing their job?". 25-30% of the respondents were not satisfied with their local city government and 15-18% were not satisfied with RCTC, indicating higher levels of satisfaction or no opinion. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Confidence that the sales tax increase money would be well spent? ■ No Opinion ■ Very Little Some Great Deal Source: Aug and Oct 2015 JMM Poll "To help fund transportation in California, would you favor or oppose (a) ?"A small majority favored Fast - Track lanes, which would allow people driving alone to pay a toll to use carpool lanes. Overall, however, respondents were mainly opposed to new revenue sources. 5 RCTC Riverside County Strategic Assessment 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% To help fund Transportation - what would you support? ■ No Opinion ■ Oppose Favor P. \a•C` �e�� `e�� •as`ee :tees Oo� ga•t- e\off a`-e' pa`'e z.a eN�a ,aye �a �� \eat \\e ec• o`e•o� e so a per arc eey a+ .T . acp� ;a+� \•a\��� �re�a\e sae a+ \�`�e �\��% •��� "e° ire ctea e'b C. C`�� �� O'k SL Source: Aug and Oct 20151MM Poll 6 RCTC Riverside County Strategic Assessment August and October Combined Survey Results FN 7 N=800 (+/- 3.60) RIVERSIDE JMM-15-1007 J.MOORE METHODS 1127 llth St. #1050 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916-444-2727) (FAX-444-6457) SAMPLE: 1 2 CLUSTER #: START TIME: END TIME: Hello, may I please speak with ? NOTE : ONLY THE NAME ON THE SAMPLE SHEET QUALIFIES FOR THE INTERVIEW. Hello, I'm with JMM Research. We're conducting a public opinion survey among registered voters in Riverside today. The survey takes 14-16 minutes, it covers a variety of current local political issues, and it's all multiple choice and very easy to participate. Can you give me 14-16 minutes to participate in the survey? IF NO or NOT NOW, OFFER TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT FOR LATER : I can call you back at a time that is better for you, if you would like to participate in the survey. ( SCHEDULE A FIRM APPOINTMENT TIME ) 1. Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with how (a) is performing their job ? (800) DIS- NO SATI SATI OPIN * your local city government. 52 29 19 * the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. 38 22 40 * the Riverside County Transportation Commission. 36 17 47 * the California State Legislature. 33 51 16 Next I'll ask your opinion of several local issues. 2. Is (a) a high, medium or low priority local issue for you ? ROTATE: EVEN DOWN. 1 NO ODD UP. ... 2 HIGH MED LOW OPIN * reducing crime and gang activity. 78 15 6 1 * providing more jobs. 75 17 7 1 * improving local water supplies. 75 16 7 2 * reducing highway traffic congestion. 68 22 9 1 * improving local public schools. 63 19 13 5 * maintaining local roads and filling potholes. 61 34 4 1 * reducing air pollution. 50 25 23 2 * controlling costs of local government employee salaries and benefits. 48 32 16 4 * planning for more growth and development. 45 28 22 5 * expanding Metro -Link and AMTRAK rail services. 33 27 37 3 * expanding local bus services. 27 30 37 6 1. Riverside County officials are considering placing a measure on the ballot to increase funding for local transportation projects. 3a. Is more tax revenue needed to improve the local transportation system in Riverside County and local cities ? YES/MORE TAX REVENUE NEEDED. 32 NO/MORE TAX REVENUE NOT NEEDED. 57 DON'T KNOW. 11 I'll ask your opinion of possible transportation projects. 3b. Is (a) a high, medium or low priority for you ? ROTATE: EVEN DOWN. 1 NO ODD UP. ... 2 HIGH MEDI LOW OPIN * fixing potholes and resurfacing roads. 64 27 9 0 * widening congested highways in the county. 58 27 14 1 * providing freeway tow -truck service to quickly clear accidents. 49 31 18 2 * expanding older interchanges on major highways. 45 38 15 2 * improving walking and bike routes to schools. 44 32 21 3 * building roadway underpasses or overpasses to reduce traffic backup at train track crossings. 41 27 29 3 * expanding commuter ride -sharing programs. 33 36 29 2 * expanding Metro -Link and AMTRAK rail services to new areas of Riverside County. 33 33 32 2 * preserving habitat for endangered species to offset impacts from new transportation projects. 33 28 38 1 * connecting regional recreation trails for hiking and walking. 31 33 35 1 * expanding public transit bus services. 29 36 32 3 * creating bike lanes on existing city streets and building new bike paths in local communities. 29 32 39 0 * building entirely new highways in the county. 26 35 36 3 * build charging stations for electric vehicles. 21 28 48 3 * widening highways by building toll lanes for drivers to use if they choose. 21 27 50 2 4a. Would you favor or oppose increasing the Riverside County sales tax by (a) for local transportation projects ? (800) NO FAVR OPPS OPIN al. one-half cent for 20 years. 46 49 5 a2. one -quarter cent for 20 years 2. 46 48 6 4b. Could you afford increasing the County sales tax by (a) ? (800) YES/ NOT NO AFFD AFFD OPIN al. one-half cent for 20 years. 54 42 4 a2. one -quarter cent for 20 years. 58 38 4 5a. If Riverside County voters approved a sales tax increase, would you have a great deal, some or very little confidence the money would be well spent ? (800) GREAT DEAL. 10 SOME. 29 VERY LITTLE. 58 NO OPINION. 3 5b. Would you have more confidence the money would be well spent if it was overseen by a taxpayers oversight committee ? YES. 63 NO. 30 NO OPINION. 7 Now I'll ask your opinion of options for a local ballot measure to improve the Riverside County transportation system. 6a. Would you favor or oppose increasing the County sales tax by ONE -QUARTER CENT (a) ? ROTATE: EVEN DOWN. 1 NO ODD UP. ... 2 FAVR OPPS OPIN * for 4 years to maintain roads and fill potholes. 51 46 3 * for 8 years to maintain roads and fill potholes. 46 51 3 * for 12 years to maintain roads and fill potholes. 42 55 3 3. Now I'll ask your opinion of projects that could be included in a plan to increase the County sales tax by one -quarter cent for 8 to 12 years. 6b. Would you favor or oppose increasing the County sales tax by ONE -QUARTER CENT to (a) ? IF FAVOR, ASK: Do you favor strongly or somewhat? FAVR FAVR NO STRG SOME OPPS OPIN * rebuild or widen older bridges that don't meet (74) current safety standards. 52 22 23 3 (68) * maintain roads and fill potholes. 51 17 30 2 * provide transit services for seniors, disabled (71) persons and veterans. 47 24 27 2 * build new infrastructure to attract more jobs and (63) economic development to Riverside County. 45 18 33 4 * build safer routes for children to bike or (62) walk to school. 44 18 34 4 * expand public transportation bus services to (62) access employment and education centers. 43 19 33 5 * provide freeway tow -truck service to quickly (57) clear accidents. 42 15 37 6 * build roadway underpasses and overpasses to reduce (58) traffic backup at railroad crossings. 39 19 38 4 * fund active transportation improvements including bike lanes, improve pedestrian (57) facilities and access. 36 21 39 4 * increase the frequency of Metrolink commuter (55) trains or Amtrak service on existing routes. 36 19 35 10 (58) * expand older interchanges on major highways. 35 23 36 6 * build clean fuel and electric car recharging (52) stations. 32 20 43 5 * build recreational facilities and protect water quality from the impacts of transportation (51) projects. 31 20 39 10 4. 6c. Having heard this list of projects, would you favor or oppose increasing the County sales tax by ONE -QUARTER CENT (a) ? ROTATE: EVEN DOWN. 1 ODD UP. ... 2 NO FAVR OPPS OPIN * for 8 years. 49 46 5 * for 12 years. 41 54 5 Moving on. If voters decided to increase the County sales tax by ONE-HALF CENT for 20 years, several large highway and rail projects could also be completed. I'll ask your opinion of some of these projects. 7a. Would you support or oppose increasing the Riverside County sales tax by ONE-HALF CENT FOR 20 YEARS to help pay for (a) ? IF SUPPORT, ASK: Do you support strongly or somewhat? SUPP SUPP NO STRG SOME OPPS OPIN * daily Amtrak rail service connecting the Coachella Valley to Riverside, Orange County and Los (59) Angeles. 39 20 33 8 * accelerating upgrades of the State Route 91/State (51) Route 71 interchange. 34 17 35 14 * accelerating upgrades of the Interstate 10/State (53) Route 60 interchange. 33 20 35 12 * extending an existing rail line to connect (48) Riverside to San Jacinto and Hemet via Perris. 28 20 40 12 (45) * accelerating the widening of Interstate 15. 27 18 49 6 * improving Interstate 10 in the eastern Coachella (41) Valley. 22 19 45 14 * constructing a new State Route 79 connecting San Jacinto, Hemet and Winchester to the Beaumont/ (38) Banning Pass area. 22 16 47 15 * making safety improvements to State Route 86 in (37) the Coachella Valley. 19 18 40 23 * constructing the Mid County Parkway between San (35) Jacinto and Perris. 19 16 47 18 5. 7b. Having heard this list of projects, would you favor or oppose increasing the County sales tax by a ONE-HALF CENT for 20 years ? FAVOR. 41 OPPOSE. 55 NO OPINION. 4 8a. In 2002, Riverside County voters approved Measure A, a half -cent sales tax increase to improve the local transportation system. Do you remember Measure A ? (800) YES/REMEMBER. 34 NO. 66 8b. If the 2002 Measure A half -cent transportation sales tax plan was on the ballot again today, would you likely support or oppose it ? (800) SUPPORT. 36 OPPOSE. 49 NO OPINION. 15 8c. (a) ? NO YES NO OPIN * Would you support setting aside more natural areas in order to help protect and maintain water supplies. 81 15 4 * Do you think having a high -quality transportation system is needed to have a strong local economy. (800) . 70 25 5 * Is traffic congestion significantly costing you time and money. (800) 52 47 1 * Do you think expanding AMTRAK and Metro -Link rail service will significantly reduce traffic congestion. 52 45 3 * Would you support purchasing land to set aside as open space to help reduce growth and urban sprawl. 52 41 7 * Would you support setting aside more publicly -accessible open space to offset the impacts of transportation projects. (800) 50 38 12 * Would you favor or oppose building a high speed train between Northern and Southern California that would connect with Riverside and San Bernardino Counties 47 46 7 * Do you believe the sales tax rate in your local community is currently too high. 45 49 6 * Are poorly maintained roads and potholes damaging your vehicle and significantly costing you money. 44 55 1 * Do you think expanding local bus services will significantly reduce traffic congestion. 44 51 5 * Do you think building housing near bus and train stations is a better approach for future housing. (800). 43 44 13 * Do you think adding "Fast -Track" express toll lanes to help pay for widening highways will significantly reduce traffic congestion. 39 55 6 * Do you think improving the county transportation system will encourage too much growth and urban sprawl. (800) . * Do you have confidence that local elected leaders will spend the revenues from the Measure A half -cent sales tax effectively. 7. 31 59 10 29 61 10 Moving on. 9a. Highway 91 between the Orange County line and Highway 55 currently has an "Express Lane" for carpool drivers and people driving alone to use if they choose to pay a toll. Are you aware of this ? YES/AWARE. 78 Do you ever use the Highway 91 Express toll lanes ? NO/NOT AWARE. 22 YES/USE. 52 * NO/DO NOT USE. 48 9b. Construction has begun to build an additional general purpose lane on Highway 91 and extend the two "Express Lanes" from the Orange County line, into Riverside County. This project will be completed in 2017. Are you aware of this new project ? YES/AWARE. 43 ... Will you likely use the new Highway 91 Express toll lanes ? NO/NOT AWARE. 57 YES/USE. 59 * NO/DO NOT USE. 41 * IF YES/USE HIGHWAY 91 IN Q7a OR Q7b, ASK: 10a. Do you think the Highway 91 toll lanes (a) ? ROTATE: EVEN DOWN. 1 YES/ NO/ NO ODD UP. ... 2 AGRE DISA OPIN * are well -maintained and in good condition. 85 10 5 * help save time for people in a hurry. 83 13 4 * are worth the cost when you're in a hurry. 79 15 6 * are a good alternative for commuters. 78 19 3 * help reduce stressful driving. 78 18 4 * save both time and money when people are in a hurry. 77 19 4 * are being well -managed and operated. 74 14 12 * provide a more reliable way to reach your destination. 72 25 3 * help reduce wear -and -tear on your vehicle. 67 28 5 * help reduce traffic in the non -toll lanes. 58 39 3 * charge too much for people like yourself. 57 37 6 * are safer than driving in the non -toll lanes. 54 40 6 10b. Do you approve of this additional Highway 91 express toll lane project into Riverside County ? APPROVE. 56 DISAPPROVE. 26 NO DIFFERENCE. . 12 NO OPINION. 6 8. lla. Riverside County transportation officials are also planning to build Fast -Track express toll lanes on a 14-mile segment of the I-15 freeway between Highway 60 and the southern edge of the City of Corona. Are you aware of this ? YES/AWARE. 16 NO/NOT AWARE. 84 llb. Do you approve of this new I-15, "Fast -Track" express toll lane plan ? APPROVE. 48 DISAPPROVE. 28 NO DIFFERENCE. 13 NO OPINION. 11 12a. These new "Fast -Track" express toll lanes are being built by a public agency called the Riverside County Transportation Commission. Are you aware of this ? YES/AWARE. 18 NO/NOT AWARE. 82 Now I'll ask your opinion of several ways the Riverside County Transportation Commission could provide transportation -related information to the public. 12b. Would (a) _ be an easy way for you to receive transportation - related information ? ROTATE: EVEN DOWN. 1 NO ODD UP. ... 2 YES NO OPIN * information on television. 75 23 2 * electronic highway message signs. 74 24 2 * signs along a roadway. 74 24 2 * information in the mail. 61 38 1 * a website. 60 39 1 * e-mail messages. 56 42 2 * information in newspapers. 50 49 1 * a mobile phone "app". 49 49 2 * social media like Facebook. 44 55 1 * text messages. 43 57 0 * social media like Twitter. 23 75 2 13. Would you be more likely to use public transit if you could purchase tickets and see bus and train schedules from a mobile phone app ? YES. 50 NO. 44 NO OPINION. 6 9. On another transportation subject. State and regional transportation planners are considering several ways to fund future transportation system maintenance and improvements, locally and statewide. I'll ask your opinion of the options being considered. 14. To help fund transportation in California, would you favor or oppose (a) ? NO FAVR OPPS OPIN * building more "Fast -Track" lanes to allow people driving alone to pay a toll to use carpool lanes. 56 41 3 * increasing building fees on new development. 49 45 6 * increasing the state sales tax by one -quarter cent. 37 61 2 * replacing the state gas tax with a new system that charges drivers a fee based on how many miles they drive each year, rather than paying a gas tax. 32 61 7 * increasing vehicle license fees from to to 20 of a a vehicle's value. 25 74 1 * increasing local gas taxes by 5 cents a gallon. 12 87 1 And now just a few confidential questions for classification purposes. Your name and number are not attached to your answers. This information is kept strictly confidential and used only to classify your opinions. dl. In terms of your political outlook, do you consider yourself a Conservative, a Moderate or a Liberal ? CONSERVATIVE 44 MODERATE 29 LIBERAL 22 DON'T KNOW 5 d2. Are you a member of any of the following ethnic or minority groups ? (READ LIST - CIRCLE ALL THEY SAY) Are you ... ? YES hispanic or latino. 17 asian. 2 black/african-american. 8 or none of the above. 78 10. d3. For statistical purposes only : What was the approximate total income of your household last year. Was it .... $ 30,000 or less 17 $ 30,000 - 60,000 22 $ 60,000 - 90,000 20 or $ 90,000 or more 28 ( REFUSED ) 13 d4. Regarding taxes and government, would you prefer less government and lower taxes, or slightly higher taxes for better government services ? LESS GOVT/LOWER TAXES. 62 BETTER GOVT/HIGHER TAXES. 28 NO OPINION. 10 d5. Do you commute to work in Riverside County or do you work outside Riverside County ? INSIDE RIVERSIDE COUNTY. 69 OUTSIDE RIVERSIDE COUNTY 31 .. In which County do you work ? NO/DON'T COMMUTE. 0 LOS ANGELES. 25 SAN BERNARDINO. 22 ORANGE. 20 SAN DIEGO. 17 OTHER. 16 d6. Are your home and place of employment in the same city ? YES. 29 NO. 35 NOT EMPLOYED. 36 d7. How long does your home -to -work commute take, on average ? LESS THAN 15 MINUTES. 18 15-30 MINUTES. 16 30-45 MINUTES. 9 MORE THAN 45 MINUTES. 17 DON'T COMMUTE. 40 d8. Can you walk or bike to your workplace ? YES/CAN WALK. 14 YES/CAN BIKE. 6 NO. 80 Thank you very much, goodday / goodnight . DEMO = 36 REPB = 42 OTHR = 22 MALE = 46 FEML = 54 18-29 = 9 30-39 = 11 40-49 = 13 50-59 = 18 60-69 = 22 70+ = 27 11. RCTC Riverside County Strategic Assessment Stakeholder Outreach I-31 19 RCTC Riverside County Strategic Assessment Summit Breakout Questions FN 20 RCTC Riverside County Strategic Assessment Summit Breakout Group Questions JOBS AND THE ECONOMY 1. What transportation projects or programs will be most beneficial for helping the Riverside County economy grow and reducing workers commute times? 2. What are the biggest challenges to achieving those changes, and what are the best strategies to overcome the challenges? TECHNOLOGYAND INNOIVATION 3. What are the most important changes needed to make it possible or convenient for people to use alternative modes of transportation? 4. What are the biggest challenges to achieving those changes, and what are the best strategies to overcome the challenges? 5. What are the innovations or technological changes that could beneficially change transportation in Riverside County in the next 20 years? ACCESS FOR ALL 6. What are the most important changes needed so that non -drivers -- including seniors, students, and people with special needs -- can get where they need to go? 7. What are the biggest challenges to achieving those changes, and what are the best strategies to overcome the challenges? ENVIRONMENT 8. What would be the best new transportation policies or programs to help protect the Riverside County environment without hurting people's ability to get where they need to go? 9. What are the biggest challenges to achieving those changes, and what are the best strategies to overcome the challenges? 21 RCTC Riverside County Strategic Assessment Stakeholder Summits and On -Line Comments Summary FN 22 RCTC Riverside County Strategic Assessment Stakeholder Summits & On-line Comments Summary Five Stakeholder Summits were held in order to identify key issues and challenges, and to foster discussion amongst thought leaders in the community. Held in Perris (8/26/15), Riverside (8/29/15), Temecula (9/2/15), Palm Desert (9/3/15), and Winchester (9/23/15), the Summits enabled participants to focus on trends and discuss four main topics: jobs and the economy, technology and innovation, access for all, and the environment. Notes from the Summits are located in the following sections. The questions posed to the participants and the most commonly mentioned trends within each group are summarized below. Jobs and the Economy. 1. What transportation projects or programs will be most beneficial for helping the Riverside County economy grow and reducing workers commute times? • local jobs • improve transit systems: connections, frequency, hours, schedule, access • improve a key highway/roadway corridor (different corridors were identified as priorities in each part of the county) 2. What are the biggest challenges to achieving those changes, and what are the best strategies to overcome the challenges? • Funding Technology and Innovation. 3. What are the most important changes needed to make it possible or convenient for people to use alternative modes of transportation? • alternative modes of transportation and energy fuel • technology improvement and training • improving connectivity between modes and to key destinations 4. What are the biggest challenges to achieving those changes, and what are the best strategies to overcome the challenges? • access to information 5. What are the innovations or technological changes that could beneficially change transportation in Riverside County in the next 20 years? • no response noted (ed. note: but presumably similar to Q3 above) Access for All. 6. What are the most important changes needed so that non -drivers -- including seniors, students, and people with special needs -- can get where they need to go? • bike friendlier (ed. note: presumably this is referring to bike -friendly policies and street design) • additional senior and disabled transportation services • safety 23 RCTC Riverside County Strategic Assessment 7. What are the biggest challenges to achieving those changes, and what are the best strategies to overcome the challenges? • funding • politics Environment. 8. What would be the best new transportation policies or programs to help protect the Riverside County environment without hurting people's ability to get where they need to go? • more green transportation options • promote public transit system and alternative modes 9. What are the biggest challenges to achieving those changes, and what are the best strategies to overcome the challenges? • funding Overall Themes Each community summit had similar themes and challenges that were identified within all of the groups. Universally, every single community and group identified funding as the biggest challenge to improving transportation and mobility. Concerns: • safety issues around construction sites and on -going construction activities • concerns regarding accessibility to public transportation, including: o safer sidewalks and bus ramps, o better connections between transit systems, • concerns with improving public transit, including: o extended hours of service, o more routes and improved frequencies, o access to information on availability and schedules, o access to alternate modes and use of alternative fuels, o affordability Challenges: • funding • collaboration between agencies and officials On -Line Summary The community was invited to email their additional comments and concerns, and were also encouraged to fill out a Comments Card online. The list of responses is located in the 'Compilation of Emailed Comments' section. The following are the key themes identified in the comments and concerns received: • Maximize capacity through the use of existing infrastructure and information technology. • The County benefits when the nexus between transportation and land use planning is met. • Recognize the need for better connectivity between rural (affordable) and urban centers. 24 RCTC Riverside County Strategic Assessment • Generate transportation policy by respecting the needs of the users and how it makes their lives better and more convenient. I-31 25 RCTC Riverside County Strategic Assessment Trend Summary by Location FN 26 8wpun;- sapowanpewalle pue walsAs llsueJl aggnd alowwd - suol3do uonepodsuw3 uaaJB wow - sanllod - 8u!pun;- Ala;es- seaVues UonepodsueJ1 palges!p pue blues leuo!1!ppe- Jmlpuau; aglq - uonewoom Ol ssaaae - Bwwe n pue luawanwdw! Aeolougaa3- lan;Allaua pue uonepodsueJl;o sapow annewalle - 8ulpun;- ssaaae'alnpayas'swnoy'AauanbaJ; 'suollaauuoa:swalsAs l!suen anwdw! - sgof!nal- dnoaJad pauolwaw lsoW 8ulpun; pue s3soa - slepgo pue sapuaee uaamlaq uoµwogepoa- 8ulpun;- 81.lpun;- slan; annewalle pue sapow annewalle - uo!iewmu! 03 ssaaae - sapowannewaAe'ssaaae'smoy sapow amua3le o3 ssaaae'sa3na Ammepwoge'sa3nw'swnoy 'mow 'suopaauuoa:walsAs l!sueJlanaldw!- 'smoy'suo!laauuoa:walsAs llsue4 anwdw!-'Aauenbaw;'suonaeuuoo:walsAs oueJ;Ja31aq- eavues Ilw pue snq wow- aavues le;uaJ aglq - ABolouyaal uaaoS wow - uoneulpwooaJapaq- 8ulpun;- sa3nco awow - uonepodsueJl spaau lealpaw'saawas puedxa- saq!q Jo; sa3noJ a;es- neyalaaym/palges!p Jo; swalsAs 11suen uo Aulglssaaae wow - 8ulpun;;o sadA33uaJaglp- 3aedwlaplganaulaala- sauoydpews o3 anp uonae4s1p- salnpayasvom annewallea elnoauaofsannuaawJaAoldwa- Ian; ABwaua pue sapow annewalle - AauanbaJ; pue 'ewlnpayas'euluueld Jallaq - (ala 'ueolsapad'13J9 'snq 'I!w) sapow uaamlaq All upeuuoa anwdw! - 8ulpun; pue slsoo - sqof pool paau - swa3sAsllsuen Jay;o y3!m suo!laauuoa pue salnoJ puedxa - £Z/6 JalsaLpum 8wpun;- s3aspu!weu!eueya- sapueSe wowwano8 uaamlaq ssaaowd augweaJls- salnpayas pala88els'8uwaodoea'8unnwwoaa!al :uonsa8uoa area of sannewalle aSeJnoaue - lepow-wnw;o asn Japaq - A;a;es pue 'eupped'sauel aglq- salnw 'swnoy'suol3aauuoa Japaq - uonewo;w o3 ssaaae Jo;sdde- salnw 'wog'Aauanban:walsAs l!sueJl anwdw! - -'sJea walls'samq :sapow annewa;le - sqof yoa3-lq paau - (aeuwO 'o8a!0 ues) saqunoa uaamlaq uonaauum - Z/6 elnaaway elep;o Jlael - uoneJogepoa- 8ulpun;- Jallaq swalsAs 3lsueJl aggnd alowwd - uondo uonepodsueJl uaaw8- swalsAs 3lsueJl puedxa'sq.; wow - slan; annewal! e'al egsapu loodma :sapow annewalle alowwd - uonewwo;ulolssaaae- 8uanpopd ul sanss! - samod- 8ulpun;- sawco wow pue'AauanbaJ; awow'swnoy papualxa'suollaauuoa ova;es pue wapaq - slxel agll'values Jo; aapuas snq Jallaq - AmmepJoge- s:law win 'aged :Jappuap; aglq - (sayouaq pue swallays wa33aq paau) swwo;s lsnp pue way - saawas l!sueJl aggnd;o uondavad anpe8au - A)3 3o uopelndod Iwaua8 Jo; 3awalul;o gael - saalwas snq ssawdxa 'slooduen'saglq/swea d!z :sapow angewalle - s3lsueJ3 aping uo p!m - Swpun;- (Dawes ;o smog pue salnm pap.) uonepodsuw3 apgnd o3ssaaae pue spew anadw!- sapow annewalle pue swalsAs llsueij uaamlaq suo!laauuoa Jallaq - f/6 pasea wled 8ulpun;- salnpagas pue Awmellene uo uogewwo;u! of ssa»e'salnoJ wow'eD0.1.;o smoy papuKxa 'swa35Asllsuen uaamlaq suonaauuoaJapaq 'sdweJ snq pue sglemapp Ja;es:8wpwaw 'uonepodsueJlapgnd olAw!glssaaae- suononJlsuoa puncoe sans! Ala;es pue sawnnae suonanwlsuoa - Ian;/ABJaua en!3ewage-ASolouyaalpue maw snopen:uonewwo;ulolA3plqlssaaae- (sJomow paads'eugg8q) sl000;wd Ala;es aseanul pue'smolap pueswnsop uo uonew.lool O1 ssaaae :sanssl uw3anJ3suoa- sseaowd uo!palas u! AaueJedsueJ3- 8ulpun;- sdweJ snq pue sglemapls wow :Ala;es - salnoJ aJOw pue 'may papualxa'suonaauuoawa33aq- syled pue sauel ellm'sasnq uo sgaeJ elm oallpuau;-alllq - panes!, pue 9o!uas Jo;Anepadsa '8ululeJl pue luawanwdw) ASolouyoa3- "'sle3!dsoy'sgof :suopeuosep Aaq o3 Allelaadse 'swalsAs 3lsueJl uaamlaq uogoauuoa Japaq - uonewwo;u! ol novae - 8ulpun;- SuPluNlauluaa-ma a 8ueya'uonepodsuen apgnd;o uondeawad - sgof le.! wow peJlle - uonepodsuwl ;o sapow luwaglp uaamlaq suoµaauuoa - uonepodsuw3 apgnd o3Almssaaae pue AauanbaJ; asewau! - uonsaeuoay3lm dlay o; uonepodsuenla sapow anpewa;le- 6Z/8 aplswanm sanunoo/sapppue'sapuaee 3uwaglp'sleplgo uaaJnlaq uoneJogegoo- 8u!pun;pue slsoa- sapu-e-lelp'sloodJ ea 'uonelJodsueJ3 ssew 'swim :suol3do lualamp - uonepodsuw;wow of Awcpssaaae - saaeld Jaw ul pagwom wq;sweJ80.1d/swalsAs Jap!suoa of - Aleuolsln a aq o3- eu!pun- swelled asn-pu el 8u pueya - sweJBad load Jea pue uonepodsuenssew alowwd- sJoppwoa a;wpm puedxa of uopwogepoo Jallaq - sang pe uaamlaq pue slelawa palaala uaamlaq Aaualslsuoa - spaau lepads pue palpoq-alge 8u1wwo;ul/euneanpa- sanunoa uaamlaq suollaauuoa wew3Janaq - slaHan'salnpayas 'sa3nw'A3plgepene :uonewwo;ul 03 ssaaae- palgeslp pue swo!uas wo; Allepadsa'swalsAs aply-e-le!a/ssaaaV wow - sapuaee uaannlaq uoneulpwooa- lads auo W w; uogewwo)w Sopa8 - 3sw algeuoseaJ pue'8ulule4 luawdlnba paau 'ABolouyaal;o asn Jo;- A1!Ilglssaaae pue'uonsaeuoa'Ma;es anwdw! dlay q!nA 3ey3 A8olouyaal pue suonenouw - walsAs 3lsuen. ssaaaewow- sa8eu8!s pue'sauel elm wow alewa'anwdwl- 8ulpun;'s;soo- 31u110.4ayqJaplsuoa'euolossagelssaaoJd- uonewo;w 03 Awlglssaaae pue 'uonwogepoa'dlywauped - leluaw avq - yaweW Aq AaneA ouaJoA wql wopuwoa 1saAA-lse3 - Awouoaa Ivo! dlay pue sqof wan ley) slaafwd uogepodsueJl- A3lswan!p )wage., ley; sqof wow - 9Z/8 swad satrapy, meld 5.103003 wind sa8uapeq) :q dnoa wouruwlnu3 :b dnoJ9 saeualleq) :E dnoJ9 I lV wo; ssaaoV :E tlnw9 salualleq) :Z dnoa A8olouyoal9 uopenouul :Zdnw9 sa8uapeq) :Z tlnwg Awouoa3 +8 sqof :y dnoJ9 Sd11089 aNV NOI1V)Ol A9 A8V W W fK 22381 RCTC Riverside County Strategic Assessment FN On -Line Comments Summary 28 Marketing Strategy • Community Outreach • Facilitation • Communications • Graphic Design PEA KATFIERINE PADILLA Sr A_CIATES ON-LINECOMMENTSSUMMARY PROJECT Riverside CountyTransportationCommission SUMMARY JomelRosel NAME: (RCTC) Transportation Summits BY: OVERVIEW: The community was invited to email their additional comments and concerns, and were also encouraged to fill out a Comments Card online. The following are the key comments and concerns received. KEYTHEMES NOTED 1. Maximize capacity through the use of existing infrastructure and information technology. 2. The County benefits when the nexus between transportation and land use planning is met. 3. Recognize the need for better connectivity between rural (affordable) and urban centers. 4. Generate transportation policy by respecting the needs of the users and how it makes their lives better and more convenient. COMMENTS RECEIVED JOBSAND ECONOMY: 1. RepairsandImprovements: 1.1. Riverside is ranked number ten in the nation after D.C., Los Angeles, Boston and other major cities as "highest traffic congestion" and all I see are more stop signs and dangerous freeway exits (such as the Mission Inn Exit) into our fair city. This national rating should give those at City Hall pause for thought. 1.2. A truck only lane along the 1-10 1.3. Good development planning keeping awayfrom sprawl 1.4. An east -west corridor where Moreno Valley and March needs help; connections through Desert Hot Springs to the Joshua Tree National Park; expansion of various freeways including 1-215 and 1-15 1.5. Build out Highway 74 or have another good highway to drive between Orange County and the Inland Empire 1.6. Improve the 91 Freeway in terms of lanes going in both directions 1.7. CV Link 1.8. More busing 1.9. Commuter rail access to Riverside 1.10. Light rail to the Coachella Valley, greater connectivity for eastern Coachella Valley 440 Tamarac Drive, Pasadena, CA 91105 kpadilla@katherinepadilla.com - © 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 WPM fratherinepadilla.com 85 Page 2 of 11 1.11. Mass transit system from the Inland Empire to the Coachella Valley and alternative to the 10- freeway between the IE and Coachella Valley 1.12. Expanding Cajalco to four lanes to better connect the 215 and 15 would reduce commute time and dramatically reduce the traffic on the 215/60 interchange which is always at capacity in the morning 1.13. Ethanac/74connections would betterconnectRomo/Homeland residence and reducetraffic on the 215 and through downtown Perris 1.14. Highway funding: put into road into road improvements for existing roads. Dial back new road construction. 1.15. Add rails and buses 1.16. Mid -County Parkway,91fwyinterchangeimprovements 1.17. 91 Freeway is full of holes and lanes which are not easily viewable 1.18. Improving sidewalks, bicycle paths, and transitservices 1.19. Completing the Perris Railway system, and continuing the expansion of the RTA bus lines 1.20. Bus number 15 to Desert Edge could be maintained and even extended to the firehouse in Sky Valley 1.21. Widening and improving the I-15 and Temescal Canyon Road in Temescal Valley should be a priority 1.22. TrainTravel 1.23. Consideration for a highway through the Cleveland National Forest to south OCsimilar tothe 74, north of Lake Elsinore 1.24. Expand the lanes down at least to Indian Truck Trail Road, ideally all the way to San Diego County(Escondido) 1.25. Highway 60 solution in light of MV approval to put 14K more trips on the road per day 1.26. Freeway from Lake Elsinore to SanJuan Capistrano 1.27. Freeway from Caljalco Rd to Irvine 1.28. Repaving and widening the Scott Rd.overpass, along with installation of complete guardrails on the South side 1.29. Regional Trails, community trails and an investment in quality trailheadsthat will draw more userstoalternativetransportation 1.30. Give prioritytomaintaining/repairing existing infrastructure 1.31. Discourage newtransportation projects which enable or encourage further loss of agriculture and other open space lands and which require workers to commute more than five miles between home and work 1.32. Adding a bridge at Vista Chino for the large wash that is regularly flooded and disrupts traffic for days 1.33. Increased bus service especially in North Palm Springs area 1.34. Get more bus lines to Center Street in Riverside to start early enough or go past 6 which makes it very hard for those that work 8-5 1.35. Need to place speed limit signs going South on Bradley from McCall in Sun City/Menifee 1.36. 215 merging to the I-15 South needs attention to traffic flow 1.37. MORNING Pass Transit controlled and operated Commuter Linkfrom San Gorgonio Pass to Palm Springs/Coachella Valleyarea 1.38. Improve "First4 Miles" access from homes to Pass Area Transit Hubs 2. Jobs: 440 Tamarac Drive, Pasadena, CA 91105 kpadilla@katherinepadilla.com - © 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 WPMfrathe7rinepadilacom 86 Page 3 of 11 2.1. Increase minorityand veteran employmentopportunitiesthrough certifications, apprentice programs, and alliances with business organizations, colleges, and universities 2.2. affordable housing programs close to job centers and shopping destinations will make for a sound economy as we reduce oil -dependency 2.3. Bring in high paying jobs, (not warehouses) 2.4. increase busing into the rural areas 2.5. encourage staggered work and college times 3. Challenges: 3.1. Political will - elect new supervisors and city councils 3.2. Bureaucracy and political hamstringing, overbidding and underbidding the work could also cause delays 3.3. Funding and Countywide support for the projects— Federal, State and Regional funding sources to answerthe funding question and education for understanding 3.4. Funding and planning 3.5.$$$ and environmental - best strategies? That's the million dollar question 3.6. Making surethe county general plan reflects higher density with many public transportation centers 3.7. The PROCESS: from funding to design to environmental review to construction, the process is too long and costly 3.8. Being able to utilize our fair share of the cap and trade funds, overcoming negative political will to block progress essential for the greater good of the greatest number 3.9. Keeping people employed when the transportation projects are done 3.10. Lack of technical education at the high school and college level needed to fill the job pipeline 3.11. Workingwith "outsiders" and special interest groups 3.12. Funding and continuous traffic which makes it difficult to close the 91 for construction 3.13. Blockers like Rancho Mirage with their own agenda 3.14. Overcoming old ways of thinking (CV Link) 3.15. Pedestrian and bicycle/skateboard amenities tend to be an afterthought 3.16. Increasing the ridership and telling people about the service 3.17. Residentsfocused on cars 3.18. Alternative strategy put in alternate route around the badlands for truck traffic 3.19. Environmentalimpact 3.20. Environmentalists opposing routes, showing howwildlife adaptsto changes 3.21. Land speculators and developers gain wealth by urbanizing rural landscapes at the expense of natural resources and public health 3.22. Often a close relationship between urban and transportation planners seems to encourage projects which ultimately lead to a decline in open spaces. This problem might be reduced if an ethics code strictly forbade such personal contacts. 3.23. Pass Transit appropriating fleet of Vans/Autos for service 3.24. Setting up relevant schedules for resident pick-up/return 3.25. Setting up affordable fairs for First 4-10: $5 round trip is a fair fare 3.26. The current trend towards out of control growth without higher paying jobs to support it is destroying any quality of life left in Riverside County. We need to give tax breaks to companies willing to stagger their worktimes. 440 Tamarac Drive, Pasadena, CA 91105 kpadilla@katherinepadilla.com - © 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 i 1V1V.frathe7rinepadilacom 87 Page 4of 11 INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY 1. Suggestedchanges: 1.1. Rail and lots of bus routes 1.2. Masstransit: a way to reach their final destination and convenient schedule 1.3. More frequent commuter buses and trains 1.4. Havethe Metrolink/buses run later 1.5. Proper incentive for people to use the alternative modes 1.6. Availability in location and availability in time schedules 1.7. Provide more buses especially in the rural areas 1.8. Add infrastructure and expand the existing ride schedule 1.9. Enough time schedule options and boarding sites 1.10. Younger generation would love to be able to head to LA or OC for the night and ride a train then bus to their home 1.11. Infographics and other marketing materials explaining cost/time savings, employersubsidized tickets etc 1.12. Parking close to transit boarding areas 1.13. Ensure that pedestrian and biking routes link housing centers with job locations 1.14. Universal Fare Pass 1.15. Fair fares for First 4-10: $5 round trip is fair and affordable 1.16. Implement a robust public information education campaign highlighting existingtransit optionsand programs 1.17. A rebranding effort for RTA to make more people try the bus system 1.18. Create an information platform that combines all transit information in one place and make it availableto mobile devices 1.19. Connectivity via home computers or i-phones 1.20. Many companies could develop ways for their workers to do their jobs at home via the internet even if it requires them to drive to work a couple of days a week instead of every day 1.21. Providing incentives for all businesses and public parking areas to install electric vehicle charging stations will also improve mobility over the next 15 years 1.22. Pedelecs, get to work while getting your workout 1.23. Use modern systems to charge drivers whenever they park their cars, and apply the proceeds to improve conditionsfor pedestrians and bicyclists 1.24. It needs to be practical and inviting. Think trees, shade and nature. 1.25. Replace minimum parking requirementsfor new construction with limits on off-street parking 1.26. Use technology to financially reward each person who does not drive to work 1.27. There needs to be another stop at the store on Hacienda at Mountain View for bus 15 1.28. Transportation services serving local residents within Temescal Valley and a light commuter rail line branching from the 91 Corridor south to San Diego 1.29. Utilize a scan in scan out system for buses to better understand where people are going and coming to make more efficient stops/routes 1.30. Availability and information about how to connect with other people one would feel safe ridingwith 1.31. Permit new housing only sufficient to house workers for jobs within a five mile radius and affordable to those same workers 1.32. Signal coordination problem: 4th at Ave. D, C on 4th street 440 Tamarac Dr.6e, PaNadena, CA 91105 kpadilla@katherinepadilla.eom - © 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 i 1V1V.frathe7rinepadilacom 88 Page 5 of 11 1.33. "First4-10 Miles" from Pass Area homes to nearest transit hubs (Calimesa Stater Brothers, Beaumont OakValleyCenter/City Hall/Walmart/Future LOSSAN Rail Stop 1.34. Building infrastructure/purchasingfleetstosupportall-electrictransitsystem 1.35. Getting trail access along Metrolink rail corridors 2. Challenges: 2.1. Political will - elect new supervisors and city councils 2.2. Cooperation from all Cities 2.3. Allocation offunding (caused by an uncompromising bureaucratic committee) 2.4. Cost and Funding 2.5. Creation of an information platform for those who are less technology savvy 2.6. The wrong belief that it is the public's choice to drive their own cars solo 2.7. Getting all the transportation agencies an incentive to work together in a Universal Fare Pass, and then marketing it 2.8. Getting people to accept other forms of transportation, reminding them of the horrible traffic messes that occur if everyone drove in the next 20 years 2.9. The biggest challenges to charging for parking and rewarding workers who don't drive are the "free -lunch" syndrome, and fear that the city or county next door is allowing "free" parking — once people understand the congestion -reduction and otheradvantages of a pay -for -service economy, thesefactors disappear 2.10. Viable trails for bicycles or electric carts, bus system 2.11. One challenge is counting ridership: The 15 bus feeds passengers to the 14 bus and the 111 bus. The raw ridership figures do not reflect this 2.12. Look to Europe on how they successfully focused on fast rail transport 2.13. Environmentalimpact 2.14. Make more locations and pick up and drop offs more timely 2.15. Inabilityto connect with residents 2.16. E-mails 2.17. Lack of contiguous land— require development to pay for and include trails 2.18. Most people seem to prefer to sit on their butts while traveling to and from work (and for the rest of the day as well). Relatively cheap private transportation enables people to use their butts too much, and their legs too little, for their own health. 2.19. Establishment of a data base with some kind of screening tool 2.20. Acquiring New Buses, vans and autos 2.21. Setting up all electric infrastructure to support all -electric public transit fleet 2.22. Convincing companiesto keep their workers at home through tax incentives 2.23. Resistance to change 3. Suggestedtechnologicalinnovations: 3.1. Convenient ways for drivers to pay electronically for parking and for using the roads (especially during rush hour) 3.2. Utilization of technology like UBER for pick up and drop off would be a game changer 3.3. On-demandtransportation 3.4. Pay people who don't drive to work, can greatly reduce congestion and reduce vehicle miles traveled 440 Tamarac Drive, Pasadena, CA 91105 kpadilla@katherinepadilla.com - © 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 WWW.frathe7rinepadilacom 89 Page 6 of 11 3.5. Having county government workers do their jobs at home, and forcing colleges to increase their internet courses with qualified instructors 3.6. Stop climate change—eliminatefossilfuelsintransportation 3.7. Alternativefuels 3.8. Zero emission vehicles will decrease the levels of air pollutants 3.9. Adding a rail line for commuters to access Ariz and Los Angeles would decrease the amount of traffic on the highway and pollution 3.10. Advances in technology to improve safety for non -vehicle travelers, such as the "connected vehicles: grants from the US DOT 3.11. Universal fare card 3.12. Nice transit stations which have enclosed waiting areas with restrooms, European style 3.13. CV Link & Light Rail between Riverside and the Coachella Valley 3.14. Either synchronized smart intersections, or roundabouts, that keep traffic flowing, lower speed limits with narrower lanes, bike and NEV paths 3.15. "Next -bus" applications that allow transit users to know when their bus will arrive 3.16. Electronic ways to call for and pay for a ride(bus/van/shuttle/cab) will make transit far more convenientand useful 3.17. Mobiletechnology 3.18. Public wayfinding systems designed around USER DATA 3.19. Better communication with the public, included publicizing a numberto call when individuals have ideas or complaints; a better system to get the word out to the public and identify problems. (Not everyone takes the newspaper and not all communicate using the Internet.) 3.20. Easy ticket sales under a unified well designed RTA branded service (mess this up and Uber & Lyft will leave the RTA in the dust) 3.21. There are places for three bicycles on the front of each bus —adding better access would allow more people to use the service 3.22. Creative Thinking 3.23. Enticing businesses to want to operate in Riverside county and blending those with our community such that you could enjoy higher standard of living but could get to work quickly and easily by simply walking or biking 3.24. Driver -less buses will definitely be possible in the future 3.25. No -noise motors and wheels 3.26. Workingfrom remote offices or home via technology advancements in communication 3.27. Restrict commuter vehicles to two seats, or to the number of passengers, if more than two 3.28. Winchester on ramp signs for traffic going north is an issue for people going south 3.29. Setting up infrastructure and vehicles to support all -electric public transit fleet ACCESS FOR ALL 1. Suggested changes: 1.1 increase funding for public transit (ratio of public transit vs. highways should shift more towards transit) 1.2 we need to work on the smaller communities to have transportation access, then, improve the bike, bus, and rail system while fixing all the freeways. 440 Tamarac Drive, Pasadena, CA 91105 kpadilla@katherinepadilla.com - © 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 i 1V1V.frathe7rinepadilacom 90 Page 7 of 11 1.3 Why are we not including rails in the middle of the freeways and have standing platforms since construction is being renovated anyway?? I think we are losing that capability while we are just focusing on renovating and repairing freeways! 1.4 Rail and buses --lots of stops 1.5 Employed special needs needing swing shift transportation to and from 1.6 Good small shuttles systems so that there are ways to get from large centers to other areas 1.7 Enhance public transportation options throughout the rural areas, add routes, reduce wait times, and extend service hours 1.8 Improve the perception of public transit: better information sharing, make it fun, safe, accessible, provide wifi, create more bus lanes, focus on the quality of space while waiting at each transit stop by providing more shade shelters, misters, better information at transit stops, and lighting 1.9 Increase taxes on gasoline or have tolls on highways for solo cars on weekdays 1.10 Hundreds of elderly customers ride their bikes in the Country Clubs, but unwilling to brave it with 70mph cars on arterial roads 1.11 Bus and paratransit services must become more convenient, connected, and transparent, and the costs must be widely shared with the community that benefits from having fewer automobiles on the road 1.12 Shorter wait times (more busses/trains in rotation) 1.13 4 hour bussing (It needs to happen, riverside is huge, it takes hours to ride from Elsinore to Perris) 1.14 Unquestionable the TRIP program sponsored bythe Independent Living Partnership (ILP) 1.15 Again, dial -a -ride or similar need to serve the areas south ofCajalco 1.16 Recognition by transit that some people are not ABLE to use their services 1.17 Bus Service Marked for Seniors to get to Food stores, Medical services, Shopping Centers 1.18 Do a public/private partnership with UBER and/or LIFT 1.19 If people don't have a smart phone provide one for them 1.20 Accesslnformation 1.21 More bus routes, special rates for seniors 1.22 Alternative transportation needs to be more than an afterthought 1.23 Locations for accessing need to be central, not tucked away in undesirable land 1.24 Affordableand accessible publictransportation 1.25 Safe pedestrian and biking paths/trails 1.26 More bus lines for longer hours with more direct rides from Desert Hot Springs area to Indio 1.27 Commuter rail system to connect the population centers of the Inland Empire with Los Angeles, San Diego, and/or other cities on the coast already served by rail 1.28 There needs to be rail connection to Ontario Airport 1.29 McCall exit into Sun City need to be widened 1.30 The freeway exit from H-60 on to 1-215 North 1.31 Needs attention to signage, street/hwy marking and consistency for exit and entrances. (Drivers not familiar with directions get confused with different directions.) 1.32 Need to consider more roundabout like Yucaipa and Rancho California Road in wine country area 1.33 First 4-10 miles from homes to transit hubs are the most critical. People need public transit to pick them up at their doorstep and take them to nearest transit Hub. In Beaumont (west end) our nearest hubs are Calimesa Stater Brothers, Beaumont City Hall, Beaumont Walmart 440 Tamara,: L)if r L'acadena.C;l91105 kpadilla@katherinepadilla.eom - © 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 i 1V1V.frathe7rinepadilacom 91 Page 8 of 11 1.34 The need for a truly interconnected intermodal system 1.35 Busing in rural areas including at night 1.36 A robust, convenient bus system 2. Challenges: 2.1 Political will. Elect new supervisors and city council 2.2 Politicians who want to be re-elected are unwilling to make laws which they believe will anger voters, even if in reality, most commuters would like to have good Alternative Transportation options to get to and from work. 2.3 Full Cooperation 2.4 Pre-planningdevelopmentsand housing 2.5 Funding, politics, and priorities 2.6 Cost, Bond issues, state or federal funds 2.7 Money is the challenge, More money is the answer (beg, borrow, and steal it) 2.8 Recognize that many users are reliant on transit, understand that the idea that Riverside county is car -centric is changing rapidly, attention to better service from employees 2.9 A more robust, safe, well -signed active transportation network 2.10 Seniors having the option to contact a transportation advocate on the phone who will guide them through trip planning 2.11 First and last mile connectors 2.12 Lower speed limits 2.13 Better intersections to keep drive -time the same 2.14 Less smog 2.15 More NEV and bike access on arterials 2.16 Silos, work rules, and customs often resist change 2.17 Getting the Word Out 2.18 Building stop areas 2.19 Require transit support of alternative services for low-income, very sick and disabled without family 2.20 Highly visible bus colors and markings for easy identification and published schedules 2.21 Having people who understandstransportation, information technology, economicmarkets and have a desire to do good all in the same location working together. Take the time to hire the right people and have a well developed strategic plan. 2.22 Inabilitytocommunicatetransportation availability 2.23 The mindset of our communities is cars and roads - make it fun and desirable to try other means 2.24 Parking areas at least 100 yards distant from destination centers (with special dispensation for those whose indolence -related health issues already confer invalid status) 2.25 Add a fuel tax (or vehicle use tax) sufficient to compensate the State for related public health issues 2.26 Willingness of the current bus line to expand 2.27 Purchasing public transit vehiclesto provide service 2.28 Redirecting transportation tax dollars to subsidize First 4-10 fares; $5 round trip from home - to -hub -and -back is fair fare for Pass Area residents due to the distances they have to travel to 440 Tamarac Drive, Pasadena, CA 91105 kpadilla@katherinepadilla.com - © 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 i 1V1V.fratherinepadilla.com 92 Page 9 of 11 reach their local transit hubs from home. Balance of revenues needed to support cost of operating program should come from subsidies 2.29 All the expansions going on with our colleges expanding the medical training portion, yet the impact of these expansions is having huge negative effects on our roads and freeways 2.30 Not enough Uber like competitors for bus routes ENVIRONMENT: 1. SuggestedChanges: 1.1. California -we are not flat lands and we do not want to lose ourstate's esthetics! 1.2. Rail and buses and lots of stops 1.3. Corridor 15/215 trains and connecting buses 1.4. Increase transit services to the rural areas 1.5. Provide incentives for carpooling and ride sharing 1.6. Astreamlined environmental approval process 1.7. Cross-countrycollaborationto expand wildlifecorridors 1.8. Focus on the nexus of land use and transportation and advocate for more transit oriented 1.9. Implementation of complete streets initiatives by local communities as required by state law 1.10. CV Link Access 1.11. Well -spaced bus stops 1.12. Growing the Clean Sunline bus routes 1.13. A moratorium on construction of any new pavement would put everyone on notice that change is imminent, and encourage planning for infill development, while freeing up funds 1.14. Infrastructure to fuel alternative fuel vehicles and our need to incentivise people to "opt in" to public transportation. If you market the transit system as being "green" people will feel better about using it. 1.15. Fast, clean rail service 1.16. Light rail would eliminate the need for massive freeway construction through the South County, reducing congestion and emissions 1.17. Improve access, locations, and timeliness of publictransportations 1.18. Improve number of lanes on highways and also give a better alternate route in areas like Temescal Valley our only other alternate route now is a two lane Temescal Canyon Road outside ofthe I-15 1.19. Require growth of industry and housing to contribute to support of transportation services 1.20. A big tunnel could be built between Corona and Lake Elsinore West 1.21. Eliminatenoise 1.22. Eliminate pollution 1.23. Improvement of existing roads, such as the Scott Rd. overpass 1.24. Trails along sensitive areas help protect them 1.25. Restrict commutertrafficto existing high density urban areas and the arterials which already linkthem 1.26. Prohibit leap frog urbanization and creation of new urban centers and associated transportation infrastructure in rural areas which lack an excess ofjobs 1.27. A bridge over the wash at Vista Chino and increased bus service 1.28. Setting up all electric public transit fleet and electric infrastructure to support it, and work with cities who are developing recharging stations to include public transit vehicles 440 Tamarac Drive, Pasadena, CA 91105 kpadilla@katherinepadilla.com - © 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 WWW.frathe7rinepadilacom 93 Page 10 of 11 1.29. Restructure ratios used in funding transportation projects and programs 1.30. Encouraging private companies to provide vans for their workers and stagger worktimes 1.31. Ban any more warehouses that pollute our air, clog our roadways and FWYs and pay below poverty level, forcing us to subsidize their workers and families 1.32. Installing wildlife crossings, overpasses or underpasses to keep established habitat available to wildlife 2. Challenges: 2.1. Political will - elect new supervisors and city councils 2.2. Making enough time schedules and finding funding 2.3. Funding and Cost 2.4. Lack of vision — residents of gated communities would benefit by better connections to public transit 2.5. Transportation planning has a significant impact on public health and community quality of life 2.6. Integrate public health initiatives within the design of the transportation network 2.7. Benefitting from the cultural and demographic changesthat are more favorable toward public and activetransportationopportunities 2.8. Reminding people that CVLink is already funded, only maintenance needs our funding (Goldenvoice pays for it?), keep it on track, give locals and tourists a great place to enjoy our environment without driving thereto enjoy it. 2.9. The "color of money" and political inertia makes it difficult to move funds from planned projects to more timely investments. Too few policy makers understand the advantages of compact cities, and the costs of sprawl. Education can help, especially at budget time. 2.10. Funding and buy -in by agencies are the biggest challenges and community meetings to educate the public and Federal/State grant programs 2.11. This really comes down to how well you can brand and market the service you're trying to expand on. Judging by this awful form I would say you have a ways to go. 2.12. People's Attitudes and Elected Officials' Attitudes 2.13. Funding and environmental impact, statefunding 2.14. Money and horribly slow and painful approval process 2.15. Gaining political buy -in 2.16. Currenttechnology 2.17. Researchand development 2.18. Fears that there will be objections from litigious environmental groups 2.19. The corrupting power of monied interests to distort and co-opt planning efforts away from the broader needs and interests ofthe public 2.20. This can be at least partially corrected by adopting codes of ethics which prohibit any government official (elected or not) from participating in any planning approval process which would benefit the economic interests of that official or of any person or entity who contributesfinanciallytothat official 2.21. Having the different agencies establish a mutual goal to improve transportation needs with a desire to actually take action 2.22. CALTRANS has a long standing culture of supporting pollution generating/land depleting sprawl via its almost exclusive emphasis on new highway projects. This culture has to change. Need to rewrite transportation legislation to achieve new ratios. 2.23. Re: all electric public transit: getting funds to build infrastructure/fleets to support all electric publictransitsystem. 440 Tamara,: L)if r L'acadena.C;1y1105 kpadilla@katherinepadilla.eom - © 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 WPMfrathe7rinepadilacom 94 Page 1 11of 11 2.24. The biggest challenge is to get our leaders to step back from the "growth mentality". 440 Tamarac Drive, Pasadena, CA 91105 �+ kpadilla@katherinepadilla.com -.--- ® 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 W1V1V. fratheri nepadilla. co m 95 RCTC Riverside County Strategic Assessment FN Perris Summit August 26, 2015 40 Marketing Strategy • Community Outreach • Facilitation • Communications • Graphic Design MEETINGNOTES PROJECT NAME: Riverside County Transportation Commission(RCTC): Transportation Summit #1-Mid-County PEA KATFIERINE PADILLA Sr A_CIATES TEAM KatherineOtanez Padilla, MEMBER(S) Sam Gennawey, Thelma Herrera PRESENT NUMBER OF 23 (from sign -in list) MEETING Perris City Council Chambers ATTENDEES: LOCATION: Perris City Hall, 101 N. D St., Perris, CA MEETING Wednesday, August 26, 2015 NOTES BY: James Zazueta, KPA DATE/TIME: 6: 3 0-8 : 3 0 P M MEETING OVERVIEW: After a 15 minute introduction, the meeting was broken into 4 groups based on subject interests. They were: (Group 1-Jobs) (Group 2-Inovation) (Group 3-Access) (Group 4- Environment). Within these four groups summit participants brought up their main concern and issues to discuss and these were recorded on panels and on notes. COMMENTS: Will our comments to RCTC be heard by city councils? A: Yes, RCTS provides feedback to your elected officials. 1. Group 1-Jobs and the Economy 1.1. More transportation jobs to Riverside County which should reflect diversity 1.2. East-West Corridor thru Moreno Valley by March which needs help. 1.3. Rent Bike 1.4. Needs Money 1.5. Process Challenges-Takessolong— Metro -link --«What's being thought about it? 1.6. Challenges: Better pipeline to know opportunity 2. Group 2 - Innovation 2.1. Bike Lanes/MoreSignage 2.2. How about a toll -booth? 2.3. Land limitations for expanding bike lanes 2.4. More access to transit will boost economy, safety, energy. 2.5. Far SRSeveryone 2.6. Bigger TV too! 2.7. Where do I get a Transponder? 2.8. Coordinate with a new business building infrastructure, with focused coordination. 2.9. Widening Private Land -Expenses 2.10. Incentives 440 Tamarac Drive, Pasadena, CA 91105 kpadilla@katherinepadilla.com - © 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 W1V1V. frathe?ri nepadilla. co m 97 Page 2 of 5 2.10.1. Uber-IessCapitalInvesting 2.10.2. If we want to lead in technology -teach me/provide I -Pad 2.10.3. Media campaign for culture change 2.10.4. Make it reasonable 2.11. Challenges 2.11.1. Getting information in one spot for all info/personal smart touch app-one system -One for all systems/universal fare 2.11.2. Coordinationbetweenagencies 2.11.3. To unite all systems 3. Group3-Access 3.1. Are there access programs in Riverside County? 3.2. Dial -A -Ride: Funding to assist seniors to get to transportation venues— Not Accessible in my rural areas 3.3. See if RCTC and SANBAG can cooperate in Hi -Grove, for trains that go between counties and could use the facilities that we have which would be good 3.4. Educate— Let people know: Separate Challenges -Able Bodied and Special Needs 3.5. Commission needs to work together to help people 3.6. Consistency in education for elected officials and between all cities 4. Group 4-Environment 4.1. Cross -County Collaboration to expand wildlife corridors. 4.2. Promote MassTransportation 4.3. Incentives to Car-pool 4.4. Challenges 4.4.1. Where to find funds 4.4.2. To be a visionary 4.4.3. Public/Private Partnership-(UberSystem) 4.4.4. Visit otherCountries. 4.4.5. Apply Lessons Learned. 4.4.6. Access— Everyone will have access with complete system with new legislature and policy. Main Concerns and Issues for Subject Groups: 1. Group 1—Jobs 1.1. ChamberofCommerce/OtherPartnerships 1.2. East/WestCorridors 1.3. Accessibility pipelineforminorityemployment 1.4. Certificationsforprocurement 1.5. Training and Apprentice programs for community college students 1.6. Increase Quality of Life 1.7. Increase opportunities for maintenance needs of system 440 Tamara,: L)if r Pacadena.C;l91105 kpadilla@katherinepadilla.eom - © 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 i 1V1V.fratherinepadilla.com 98 Page 3 of 5 1.8. Extend Cajalco to 4lanes 1.9. MCP 1.10. Ethanac Extension 1.11. 60/125 Jam —Wider? Bottlenecks! 1.12. Warehouses in Moreno Valley, Perris and Riverside —they are everywhere! (60+March AFB) 1.13. D. Street in Perris once Metro-link/PUL Station and 1215 construction done? 1.14. How to get people to coming to Perris station around downtown area or divert to surrounding stations? A lot of people will come 1.15. Veterans —outreach to help them get jobs created thru transportation 1.16. Employment —how will people find out about opportunities? RCTC responsible for a lot but don't see employment and minority representation issues 1.17. Jobs that go with Transportation Projects 1.18. Have Transportation Projects that will help the local economy 1.19. ChallengestoAchieveChanges/Strategies 1.19.1. Partnerships, collaboratives and accessibility to information at all levels 1.19.2. Outsiders who object to projects 1.19.3. Keeping people employed when transportation projects are done —are they temp jobs? 1.19.4. Costs 1.19.5. Time it takes 1.19.6. Finding money to build 1.19.7. WorkingwithConservationgroups 1.19.8. Sales Tax Increase 1.19.9. VLFlncrease 1.19.10. Lack of Technical education at High School and Community Colleges 1.19.11. Fillingthe pipeline 1.19.12. Need for employment APP 2. Group 2a—Innovation 2.1. APP shared database for all lines/modes 2.2. Safety (Important to Use) 2.3. Correct Facilities 2.4. TrafficConcerns 2.5. Need Information (Time/Schedules-How to get there) 2.6. Neighborhoodshuttles/Pick-uptomaindestination/transfercenter 2.7. Coordinates schedule for buses and trains 2.8. Purchasing Tickets - No Locations » remote access/boarding passes/buy on-line 2.9. More charging stations for electric cars 2.10. More accessible chargingstations 3. Group 2b-Innovation 440 Tamarac Drive, Pasadena, CA 91105 kpadilla@katherinepadilla.com - ® 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 WPM fratherinepadilla.com 99 Page 4of 5 3.1. APP»one source for info»Caltrans—traffictimes>metro-link-train times>RTA—Late Bus Schedules>TVforthosewithoutsmartphones 3.2. Reducing driving— people love their cars— how to get them out of them >making it more convenient (advantageous) to walk orto take mass transit. 3.3. Bike -lanes— need to by land/right of way>getting bike lanes used 3.4. Economic challenges— difficultto buy vehicles 3.5. Signage 3.6. Events (Cyclavia) 3.7. PartnerwithCommunicationCompanies>ticketsfromhome>notifications>locaITV 3.8. Need access to transit > will boost local economy 3.9. Schedules - long times on buses to destinations 3.10. SmartTransit Systems 3.10.1. One method of payment for all systems 3.10.2. Allconnected 3.10.3. Kiosks at every station (tickets, info, phone charging stations) 3.11. Planning you trip— how do you get there from here? 3.12. Incentive— physical activity > technology that tracks steps 4. Group3—Access 4.1. Groups: capable of driving, walks to get around, assistance needed to get around 4.2. Challenges: Difficult to get assistance for seniors and the disabled 4.3. Lack of educational information about existing programs 4.4. Solutions: Neighborhood Support— Neighborsdriving seniors, disabled 4.5. Adequatefacilitiesfor pedestrians 4.6. Additionalfundingforsenior/disabledtransportation services 4.7. Awareness of existing tra nsportation services in the region 4.8. Communitysupport 4.9. Varietyoftransit-related programs 4.10. Channels of Communications to the Public: 4.10.1. Use of technology— I-phoneApps. 4.10.2. Newspaper articles, Schedules of bus service 4.10.3. T.V. Channels in senior communities 4.10.4. Presentationstoseniorcommunities 4.10.5. City Commissioners at RCTC be Ambassadors to get the word out to the communities 4.10.6. Bicycle safety education 4.10.7. Longer hours for transit services 4.10.8. Carpool/Vanpool awareness/opportunities options 5. Group4—Environment 5.1. Promote cross -county collaboration. 5.2. Q1-Continue to Promote Mass Transit for Ease 5.3. Specificallyto wildlife corridors expanding reserve design 440 Tamarac Dr.6e, Patiadena, CA 91105 kpadilla@katherinepadilla.eom - © 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 i 1V1V.fratherinepadilla.com 100 Page 1 5of 5 5.4. Dedicated truck lanes/hours oftransportation freeway use needed 5.5. Incentive logistics industry to stagger work hours and delivery times 5.6. Employee incentivesto carpool 5.7. Business district incentive for carpool lanes 5.8. AB32 and SB375 meet the mandates and incorporate into new plan 5.9. Carbon sequestration and avoidance in a future plan 5.9.1. I.E.—Plants Restoration 5.9.2. I.E.—Changing land use patterns to retain natural habitat 5.10. Incorporate use of reversible lanes. 5.11. Q2— Funding Innovation —Be Visionary 5.11.1. Strategies Public/Private Partnership Workingwith non -profits Visit other states and countries to incorporate some of their visionary strategies 440 Tamarac Drive, Pasadena, CA 91105 �+ kpadilla@katherinepadilla.com -.--- ® 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 W1V1V. frathe?ri nepadilla. co m 101 RCTC Riverside County Strategic Assessment FN Riverside Summit August 29, 2015 46 Marketing Strategy • Community Outreach • Facilitation • Communications • Graphic Design MEETINGNOTES PROJECT NAME: NUMBER OF ATTENDEES: RiversideCountyTransportationCommission (RCTC) Transportation Summits 26 (per sign -in sheet) MEETING August 29, 2015 DATE/TIME: 10:00 AM - Noon TEAM MEMBER(S) PRESENT: MEETING LOCATION: PEA KATFIERINE PADILLA Sr A_CIATES KatherineOtanezPadilla, Sam Gennaway,Thelma Herrera California Ba ptist University Lloyd and Laura Copenbarger Presidential Dining Room, D223 8432 Magnolia Avenue Riverside, CA92504 NOTES BY: Jomel Rosel, KPA MEETING OVERVIEW: After a 15 minute introduction, the meeting was broken into 4 groups based on subject interests. They were: Group 1-Jobs, Group 2-Inovation, Group 3-Access, and Group 4- Environment). Within these four groups summit participants brought up their main concern and issues to discuss and these were recorded on panels and on notes. COMMENTS MINI -GROUP DISCUSSIONS 1. Group1 1.1. Goods movement, rapid transit 15/91 direct link 1.2. Land use collaboration with school districts 1.3. Congestion nearschools, alternative modes 1.4. Trucks in/out of Moreno Valley 1.5. Light rail:frequency—Metrolink 1.6. Dedicated truck lanes 1.7. Intermodal rail/bus hubs 1.8. Increase publictransitfrequency 1.9. Increase parkingfees 1.10. Vanburen/Alessandrofailedtrafficvolumes 1.11. Publictransit perception 1.12. Attract more local jobs 1.13. Affordable housing/nearjobs 1.14. Reduce/rationingtraveltime 1.15. Funding, changing the culture 1.16. Implement 15/91 corridor Rapid transit 1.17. VLF increase —public transit 440 Tamarac Drive, Pasadena, CA 91105 kpadilla@katherinepadilla.com ® 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 WPM frathe?ri nepadilla. co m 103 Page 2 of 5 1.18. Better way to deliver information 1.19. Move away from car -centric 1.20. Alternative modes 1.21. Interconnected system for all modes 2. Group 2.1. Accessible and better interconnection to key destinations 2.1.1. Jobs 2.1.2. Hospitals 2.1.3. Clearly defined destinations and transferstations,wayfinding 2.2. Technology improvementsforseniors, disabled 2.3. Comfort amenities (for all) 2.3.1. Shade 2.3.2. Seating 2.4. More integrated planning; destroy silos 2.5. Techtraining 2.5.1. Seniors 2.5.2. Disabled 2.5.3. Students 2.5.4. Affinitygroups(bicyclists) 2.6. Security/safety/communications 2.6.1. On buses 2.6.2. On trails 2.7. Betterconnected trails 2.8. Telecommuting 2.8.1. Reducetrips 2.8.2. Work at home 2.8.3. Satelliteoffices 2.9. More flexibletravelalternatives 2.9.1. Smaller shuttle bus services 2.10. Interconnection of bustransit systems 2.11. PPP(bikeshare) 3. Group 3.1. More bike racks on buses 3.2. Bike access —bikes on buses 3.3. Lack of sidewalks and ramps at bus stops 3.4. Pedestrian safety 3.5. JurupaValley/Eastvale—more transit services 3.6. Weekend bus service —connection services, need extended hours 3.7. Need Dial -A -Ride services to adjacent cities 3.8. Additional routes to non -service areas not covered by RTA—La Sierra & Ora ngecrest 3.9. Bus service to new developments 3.10. Intergovernmentalcoordinationaroundcrossjurisdictionservices 3.11. Build infrastructure prior to or with new development 3.12. Information on services available is not readily accessible to public 3.13. Education/communicationneeded:GovernmentHPeople 3.13.1. Portland as a model of communication on transit services 440 Tamarac Dr.6e, Patiadena, CA 91105 kpadilla@katherinepadilla.eom - © 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 fratherinepadilla.com 104 Page 1 3of 5 3.14. Limited train service on weekends and weekdays 3.15. Bike path gap from West Corona to Riverside 3.16. Funding —equity in funding 3.17. Transparency in selection process 3.18. Rail activity to outlining areas 4. Group4: Environment—CBU 4.1. Construction 4.1.1. Closures 4.1.2. Detours 4.1.3. Lack of monitoring, i.e., speeding, big rigs 4.1.4. Noise pollution 4.1.5. Safety issues 4.1.6. Lack of communication— need coordination with law enforcement 4.1.7. Project materials that are green sustainable 4.2. Construction lighting 4.2.1. Interfere with motorists 4.3. Mitigation ofconstruction 4.4. Improve/increasefrequencyoftransit 4.5. Later Metrolinkservice between Riverside -San Bernardino 4.6. Express bus service 4.6.1. Signal pre-emption 4.6.2. Special lanes 4.7. Communication 4.7.1. Promote benefits 4.7.2. Qua ntifyenvironmentaIbenefits 4.7.3. Newspaper, editorial, advertising on bus side = "this bus saved" 4.7.4. Outreach consultant —campaign 4.7.5. Promote existingservices 4.7.6. PSA, radio, "ride a bus" day 4.7.7. "ride your bike to work" day 4.7.8. Incentives 4.7.9. Pre-taxtransit pass 4.7.10. Multipass — rail, bus, toll 4.8. Live Feed on road conditions 4.8.1. Improve 511 accuracy 4.8.2. Help reduce congestion 4.9. Clean energy —alternative fuel WHOLEGROUPDISCUSSION: 1. Group 1 1.1. Advertise RCTC's services:transit, services, direct 1.2. Land use collaboration incentive/decentives—congestionatschools 1.3. Truck routes needed limit hours 1.4. Light rail— increase frequency —transit hubs 1.5. Increase collaboration 1.6. Reduce transittime 1.7. Rapid transit needed 440 Tamarac Drive, Pasadena, CA 91105 -..----+ kpadilla@katherinepadilla.com -.--- ® 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 i 1V1V.fratherinepadilla.com 105 Page 4 of 5 1.8. No structure on 15 project that makes commuter link efficient 1.9. Mixed use building —multi -modal transportation, need affordable 1.10. Communication make transsexy 1.11. Challenges: 1.11.1. Lower cost 1.11.2. Car -centricity —transportation thought process 1.11.3. Focus on moving people faster/efficiently without cars 2. Group2 2.1. Better connections 2.1.1. Trails 2.1.2. Bus routes 2.1.3. Cities 2.1.4. Agencies/cities/counties 2.1.5. RCTC San Bag 2.2. Bike share evenly distributed 2.2.1. Riverside has bike share with showers 2.3. Flex bike storage 2.4. Teach/Advertisehowto use technology 2.5. Telecommuting 2.6. Human resource integration—Telecom/IT 2.7. Security/personal problem 2.7.1. Need call boxes — need to feel safe 2.8. Flexible travel options —bus, shuttle, interconnected transit 3. Group3 3.1. Citiesworkonsidewalks/ramps 3.2. Smaller cities have to work on services 3.3. Access 3.4. Funding needs to be addressed 3.5. Better access — dial a ride to cities (can't get to doctors) 3.6. Education campaign — use senior centers and stores so all can learn to use transit system 3.7. Metrolink limited hours and access 3.8. Safety —people can't get to transportation—accesstobusstopsprobleminHemet 4. Group 4.1. Mitigateconstruction impacts 4.1.1. Problem with lack of communication: no monitoring of traffic, i.e., big rigs on Magnolia 4.2. Live feed road closures/conditions—UPDATE INFO needed for construction 4.3. Poor lighting on sites 4.4. Communicate Rapid Systems benefits —promote RCTC's services, i.e., employers provide fares, run on natural gas 4.4.1. Europass—good model 4.4.2. RCTC provides internet on buses 5. Miscellaneous 5.1. Gas taxes should go to roads and transportation 440 Tamara,: L)if r 1'acadena.C;l91105 kpadilla@katherinepadilla.eom - ® 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 i 1V1V.fratherinepadilla.com 106 Page 1 5of 5 5.1.1. Transparency onfundings —show project selected 5.2. Transit police needed to monitor for safety 5.3. More affordable housing need trans 5.4. RTA working on IT system for schedule using an app makes it easier to buy bus pass — integrationwithcities/agencies 5.4.1. App can use shared app, live updates 5.5. Has to enrich lives so they can use 440 Tamarac Drive, Pasadena, CA 91105 �+ kpadilla@katherinepadilla.com -.--- ® 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 W1V1V. frathe?ri nepadilla. co m 107 RCTC Riverside County Strategic Assessment FN Temecula Summit September 2, 2015 52 Marketing Strategy • Community Outreach • Facilitation • Communications • Graphic Design MEETINGNOTES PROJECT NAME: NUMBER OF ATTENDEES: MEETING Wednesday, September 2, 2015 DATE/TIME: (RCTC)Transportation Summit #2 13 (from sign in sheet) 6:30-8:30 PM RiversideCountyTransportationCommission TEAM MEMBER(S) PRESENT: MEETING LOCATION: NOTES BY: PEA KATFIERINE PADILLA Sr A_CIATES KatherineOtanezPadilla, Sam Gennawey,Thelma Herrera HarvestonCenter,40135Village Road, Temecula, CA 92591 James Zazueta, KPA MEETING OVERVIEW: After a 15 minute introduction, the meeting was broken into 4 groups based on subject interests. They were: (Group 1-Jobs) (Group 2-Inovation) (Group 3-Access) (Group 4- Environment). Within these four groups summit participants brought up their main concerns and issues to discuss and these were recorded on panels. COMMENTS 1. Group 1—Jobs 1.1. Adding additional access from Orange County to San Diego (East-West) 1.2. Toll lanes - Access to airports to Orange County and San Diego 1.3. Need to attract High -Tech Jobs where people live. 1.4. "Mainline" should go to other communities. 2. Group 2— Innovation 2.1. Raised bike trails 2.2. Add more transit 2.3. More viable for biking and walking>currentinfrastructure. 2.4. Use technology apps, so easier for public transit info 2.5. Note: Uber changed the Taxi industry 2.6. Utilizing Riverside County Outlook Internet Web Access. 2.7. More creative ways using transit. 2.8. Education and outreach information critical 2.9. I ncrease safetythrough connected vehicles 2.10. Develop street cars to connect destinations to housing— less fees for Developers 2.11. Incentives — VMT— Fees offer funding 2.12. Change land use policies 2.13. Major incentive for Developers TOD 440 Tamarac Drive, Pasadena, CA 91105 kpadilla@katherinepadilla.com 11 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 i 1V1V.fratherinepadilla.com 109 Page 2 of 4 3. Group 3—Access 3.1. Class II bike lanes not always safe— use creative ideas —floating parking— raised bike lanes 3.2. Better transit for college —first and last mile to transit 3.3. Transit Hub —i.e.Temecula: that connect to master trail 3.4. Moremulti-usetrails— multi -use trails doesn't work everywhere 3.5. Educate and make awareness high of safety 4. Group 4— Environment 4.1. Encourage Telecommuting 4.2. Streamline CEQA 4.3. Better use of multi -modal 4.4. Different schedules to reorder traffic 4.5. Incentivize carpools to increase usage 4.6. Challenges 4.6.1. Changingmind-sets 4.6.2. Confirming the general plan, so traffic uses travel modes and employees get hours. 5. Group 1—Jobs: 2 Projects/Programs most beneficial to Riverside County 5.1. Alternative East/Westcorridor 5.2. Greater use of toll lanes 5.3. Mainline improvements and east-westbypass 5.4. Better access from OC to SJ 5.5. Access via air traffic —including to/from airports (especially southwest county) 5.6. French Valley for commercial flights 5.7. Solving peak hr. congestion especially 215/15 split 5.8. Attract jobs to the area — Hi -tech Jobs 5.9. Expand 1-15 South to San Diego County (from SR-60 to County line) 5.10. Expand 215 continued 5.11. French Valley interchange and 215 southbound —alleviate Scott Road/Winchester 5.12. Expand Etha nac to 74 (Straighten) 5.13. Link ELS to Menifee/Hemet access 5.14. Additional lanes on Scott Road and especially interchange improvements 6. Group 2— Innovation: Change to Infrastructure 6.1. Walking 6.2. Biking 6.3. MultiuseTrails 6.4. More Transit, Less Cars 6.5. More forms of mass transportation —with increased frequency and distances 6.6. New software APPS to purchase tickets with increased convenience and ease 6.7. Better land use —Easement, public, Private for Transit 440 Tamara,: L)if r L'acadena.C;lylI05 kpadilla@katherinepadilla.eom - © 323.258.5384 W1V1V.fratherinepadilla.com ® 323.258.5076 110 Page 3 of 4 6.8. Land Use, Zoning 6.8.1. Connect housing with transit 6.8.2.Change zoning laws to provide incentives 6.8.3. Lower requirement on high density housing 6.8.4.TOD's that connect to job's 6.8.5.Affordable Housing 6.8.6.Technology to improve safety for non -vehicle travelers "connected vehicles" U.S. DOT grant 6.9. Info and Education 6.9.1.Target specificgroups 6.9.2.0utreach, buildingawareness 7. Group2—Innovation:Challenges 7.1. Infrastructure based on existing sprawl vs town center, high density design 7.2. Safety 7.3. Transit Priority Area 7.4. Increase propertyvalue 7.5. I ncrease re-developmentopportunities 7.6. Connecting areas of interest i.e. old town to the mall 8. Group 3—Access 8.1. Raised bike lanes 8.2. Multi-usetrails 8.3. Better access to transit and colleges 8.4. Transit Hub— Bus, Bike, other Transportation 8.5. Class two bike lanes 8.6. Safe Access on Bikes —wide, buffered 8.7. More specialized, dedicated streets, corridors 8.8. Float parking to outside 8.9. Education 9. Group 3 —Access—Challenges 9.1. Use technology for publicsafety campaigns 9.2. First and last mile connectivity 9.3. Providecorridors 10. Group 4— Environment:Two New Policies/Programs 10.1. Streamline process with State and Federal agencies (less red tape) 10.2. StreamlineCEQA/NEPA-CEQAreciprocity 10.3. Cultural change to have better use of transportation options > mass transit, car/van pool etc. 10.4. More incentives for individuals and for agencies to create new programs 440 Tamarac Dr.6e, 1'aNadena, CA 9110; kpadilla@katherinepadilla.eom - is 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 i 1V1V.fratherinepadilla.com 111 Page 1 4of 4 10.5. More carpool lanes 10.6. Lane use/Transportationconnections 10.7. Extend PVLto Temecula 11. Group-4-Environment:Challenges 11.1. Funding 11.2. Changing habits with land use > more walkable communities 11.3. Change habits to use more travel modes 11.4. Get employers to also be involved —alternative work schedules 11.5. Make funding gofurther 11.6. Regulatory relief (CEQAReciprocity) 11.7. Politics- CA Legislature —Certain area like Riverside County are still expanding 440 Tamarac Drive, Pasadena, CA 91105 - - kpadilla®katherinepadilla.com - ® 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 www.lzathe7rinepadilla.com 112 RCTC Riverside County Strategic Assessment FN Palm Desert Summit September 3, 2015 57 Marketing Strategy • Community Outreach • Facilitation • Communications • Graphic Design MEETINGNOTES PEA KATFIERINE PADILLA Sr A_CIATES PROJECT Riverside CountyTransportationCommission TEAM Katherine OtanezPadilla, Sam NAME: (RCTC) Transportation Summits MEMBER(S) Gennaway,Thelma Herrera PRESENT: NUMBER OF 200 MEETING UC Riverside Palm Desert Center ATTENDEES: LOCATION: 75080 Frank Sinatra Drive, Bldg. B Palm Desert, CA92211 MEETING Thursday, September3, 2015 DATE/TIME: 6:30-8:30 PM NOTES BY: JamesZazueta, KPA MEETING OVERVIEW: After a 15 minute introduction, the meeting was broken into 4 groups based on subject interests. They were: (Group 1-Jobs) (Group 2-Inovation) (Group 3-Access) (Group 4- Environment). Within these four groups summit participants brought up their main concern and issues to discuss and these were recorded on panels and on notes. COMMENTS 1. Group 1—Jobs 1.1. Bicycle lanes (class II), need additional Network connections 1.2. Trolley lines adjacent to freeways —get people off freeways— provide transit connections 1.3. Metro -link —inside and outside rail lines 1.4. OverpassatChiriacoSummit(bike/pedestrian) 1.5. 3rd lane I-10 grade (Trucks) 1.6. 1-10 Bridge collapse etc. (contingency plan) 1.7. Frontageroad 1.8. Changingtransportation in CV; Green 1.9. CV Link/Active Transportation>youth>sustainability 1.10. ActiveTransportation 1.10.1. Neededucation 1.10.2. Need formal ridesharing programs or partial public transportation programs 1.10.3. Safetyconcerns 1.10.4. Public Transportation (love of) Hard for job sustainability 1.10.5. Freight movement— utilize existing trades/spurs to move goods in, out, across Riverside County to create jobs 1.11. -Smarter Infrastructure 1.11.1. Technology 440 Tamarac Drive, Pasadena, CA 91105 kpadilla@katherinepadilla.com ® 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 W1V1V. frathe?ri nepadilla. co m 114 Page 2 of 7 1.11.2. Auto -vehicles 1.11.3. Round -about 1.11.4. Reducecommutetimes 1.11.5. Industrial development in North West Coachella Valley could come, but need Interstate- 10 access 1.11.6. More traffic and transit connections to City of Joshua Tree, not the Park 1.12. Salton Sea 1.12.1. East Coachella Valley (ECV) has no transit planning. 1.12.2. ECV has very limited rural transit resources. 1.12.3. Political opposition to moving projects forward in the Salton Sea area. 1.12.4. Environmental opposition 1.12.5. How to spend funding sources 1.12.6. Needforwardthinking 1.12.7. Do a fundraising competition 1.12.8. CVAG looks forward, with a jobs focus. 1.13. Challenges 1.13.1. Funding 1.13.2. MeasureA 1.13.3. State Funding Sources 1.13.4. Do more outreach, marketing to attract jobs 1.13.5. Utilizetheinternet 1.13.6. Solar(CommunitySolar) 2. Group 2— Innovation 2.1. Access to APPS on the bus. 2.2. Van -pool 2.3. Access to the internet—To be able to use the web 2.4. Access to WIFI on the bus 2.5. Zipcar/Bike 2.6. Town hall meeting in eastern CV to brainstorm ideas 2.7. Develop express bus service to designated places 2.8. Make perceptions of the town hall meetings safe, accessible and fun 2.9. Challenges 2.9.1. The lack of Internet services amongst the general population of eastern Coachella Valley 2.9.2. Negative perception of mass transit services 2.9.3. Extreme heat and dust storms for most of the year 2.9.4. Plexi-glass damage on wind shields on most vehicles 2.9.5. Need shaded bus shelters with benches 2.9.6. There is a definite lack of city planning, because in some parts of Coachella Valley there are no sidewalks or bike trails 2.9.7. There is a definite need for better city lighting through -out the cities of eastern Coachella Valley. 440 Tamarac Drive, Pasadena, CA 91105 kpadilla@katherinepadilla.com - © 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 WPM fratherinepadilla.com 115 Page 3 of 7 3. Group3a—Access 3.1. Bike path program is not a transportation program it is a safety issue. 3.2. Transit funds are needed for rural North Shore Salton Sea Oasis. 3.3. More focus on developing bicycle lanes and bikes on buses. Suggest looking at the City of Chicago, II as a model for Bikes on Buses. 3.4. Economical —Funding —Affordable: Cannot access transit services if we can't afford them. 3.5. Coachella Valley seniors have transportation issues that require the use of taxis 3.6. Especially taxis service to medical facilities that must be made affordable 3.7. Some seniors need funding to help pay for basic taxis services 3.8. The Route 15 bus service needs to be extended to other service areas in Coachella Valley 3.9. Bike to Bus service needs to be improved on the Sunline Transit Agency system 3.10. Safe walking paths to buses and safer bike networks needed 3.11. Better bus connections with sidewalksand expanded amenities needed 3.12. At Indian Canyon there is no bus service and the next bus service is 5 miles away, which is a (big issue) for many stakeholders and community members 3.13. Buses for local school students are an issue, because they have a real long waits when they have to transfer to "Sun" bus service 3.14. Having to deal with "alcohol drinking" or "drunk" bus passengers are a real safety issue that many students have to deal with on a daily basis 3.15. The System needs to be revamped 3.16. Park and ride/Carpool should be supported and encouraged 3.17. The Sunline bus system sky valley route is bad 3.18. The Desert Hot Springs route is not transit 3.19. Need access from the PASS system from Banning to Cabazon to Desert Hot Springs 3.20. Need a SunlineTransit Agency System route restructure (Report for 2015) 3.21. Large unserved areas with after school transportation services, east of Indio in the towns of Thermal and Mecca 3.22. Wider road designs needed to provide safe access to bicycles out in the rural areas 3.23. Would like to request from RCTC a needs assessment because of bus frequency issues 3.24. Master Plan development is ahead of time for mass transit 3.25. Need more bus shelters! 3.26. The Indio Caltrans Bus Shelter is unacceptable 3.27. Suggest more late evening and holiday bus service routes in Coachella Valley 3.28. Need friendlier Bus Drivers who are more sensitive to the issues 3.29. Suggest youth transit passes to encourage more young people to ride buses in CV 3.30. SecuritySafety 3.31. ADA certification and access to photos 3.32. More places to buy bus fares and passes 3.33. Prioritylssues 3.33.1. Integrated transit system to the entire riverside county region with access to the outer areas. 440 Tamarac Dr.6e, 1'atiadena, CA 91105 kpadilla@katherinepadilla.eom - © 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 i 1V1V.frathe7rinepadilacom 116 Page 4 of 7 3.33.2. Also suggest more bike lanes with expanded bike and car sharing programs 3.33.3. It is also suggested that more modes of mass transit be quickly developed and that existing transit services be greatly expanded 3.33.4. Quality of transit services needs to be improved with greater rider safety, bus driver cultural sensitivity and shorter ride times 3.33.5. Affordability of transit services for everyone 3.33.6. Mass Transportation Information campaigns need to be greatly promoted in the Coachella Valley 3.33.7. The San Gorgonio Pass (SGP) area needs expanded access to Senior Taxi services 3.33.8. Also need expanded mass transit services from the SGP area to the Coachella Valley 4. Group3b—Access:Opportunities 4.1. Coachella Valley needs to provide more infrastructure for pedestrians, bicycles and expanded publictransportation services 4.2. Facilitated car pools, ride shares, and shuttles 4.3. Research into what other countries and other parts of the U.S. are doing to deal with developing alternative and efficient masstransportation systems 4.4. Need to integrate transit modes and be cost effective 4.5. Create software APP to coordinate sharing of transit modes to use resources most efficiently 4.6. Public transportation is especially needed for students who may not own cars or have reliable meansoftransportation 4.7. More attention on alternative modes of transportation especially in eastern Coachella Valley 4.8. There needs to be improvements in getting college students to the College of the Desert with the suggestion of better bus routes and schedules 4.9. Non -Traditional modes of mass transit needs to be examined— Not just the local Sunline TransitAgency 4.10. Need to look at clusters or statistical patterns for specific needs or events 4.11. Need to provide incentives for schools to use other modes of transportation 4.12. Suggest solar electric shuttles which are more energy efficient in the Coachella Valley 4.13. Don't settle with buying standard types of big diesel buses 4.14. Use existing specialty Vans for focused services at off times of the day 4.15. Use what we do have more efficiently 4.16. Better transit solutions for less money 4.17. Pockets of need exist around the Coachella Valley 4.18. Don't forget about the existing infrastructure— needs upkeep - use efficiently 4.19. Take care of what you have before you spend money elsewhere 4.20. Safety (Shelter from Sun, paved sidewalks, Street lighting) 5. Group3b—Challenges 5.1. Fundinglssue 5.2. Information/Awareness/Feedback 5.3. Give, Share, Rank, etc 440 Tamarac Drive, Pasadena, CA 91105 kpadilla@katherinepadilla.com - ® 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 W1V1V.lzathe7rinepadilla.cone 117 Page 5 of 7 5.4. Healthbenefits 5.5. Developing equitable rubric to make sure all decisions made fairly and transparently 5.6. Waysto prioritize with other public agencies especially law enforcement agencies 5.7. Provide information that is culturally competent 5.8. Information in that language for that area 5.9. Information in various modes— print, electronic 5.10. Politics 5.11. Land -use decisions 5.12. Provide mechanismsto access transit services within a reasonable walking distance. 5.13. Jobs/Housing balance in certain areas of the community 5.14. Special needs for disabled versus able bodied adults —special paving, lighting etc. which overall is more difficult to move around as a disabled person 5.15. Community mostly affected by the decisions need to be able to vote on the matters 5.16. Live in silos but need to be more involved in the process/gain understanding 5.17. Needcommunityengagement 5.18. Trying to make meetings like this more accessible to all including those who had no means or difficulty getting to this summit 5.19. Need to work on getting community attachment to issues and to being informed 6. Group3b—Opportunities 6.1. Improving facilities that exist for the people —locations, bus routes, software APPS 6.2. Address needs of people in various areas 6.3. Challenges 6.3.1. Information/Awareness/Feedback 6.3.2. Fair and equitable prioritization 7. Group4a—Environment 7.1. The main challenge is funding! 7.2. Need to increase car pool and car -sharing programs. 7.3. Best use of funding! 7.4. Need a public transit center in east Coachella Valley with transit links to and from Blythe, the Imperial Valley and Mexicali. 7.5. Need to expand the purchase of alternative fuel, Sunline Transit Agency buses 7.6. Need smaller, electric Tesla buses that are more energy efficient, with a view towards the development of light rail 7.7. To work to overcome: re -prioritize CV Link to pay for transit »>DHSshould receive AQMD mitigation money 7.8. Need to increase transit services to the rural areas of the Coachella Valley 7.9. Many rural areas are unnerved and are heavily reliant on cars with some people not owning them 7.10. We are all connected to the Earth! 7.11. Need to enforce cap/trade—eliminate or ban subsidies to the fossil fuel industry 440 Tamarac Dr.6e, Patiadena, CA 91105 kpadilla@katherinepadilla.eom - © 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 WPM fratherinepadilla.com 118 Page 6 of 7 7.12. Legislativeadvocacyneeded 7.13. Need incentives to make public transit more robust 7.14. No incentives for residents to care or get involved in the political change process 7.15. Profitability of local transit lines 7.16. Young people and students care about the commons and the future of public transit 7.17. Make the case to the gated communities so they care! —there workforce uses mass transit 7.18. Research AAA auto insurers —tools forre-education — coloring book format —how to use seat belts —how to use public buses etc 7.19. Challenges 7.19.1. The sheer political will of Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC)to bring about the necessary changes 7.19.2. Cost of maintenance of cars, insurance, gas, low-income 8. Group4b—Environment 8.1. More trains —expand public transportation 8.2. Proper use of Measure A 8.3. Walking paths/Carbon neutral access 8.4. No CV Link 8.5. Green Cars 8.6. Transportation Options 8.7. GreenTransportation 8.8. Natural Gas —Transit Buses 8.9. Land planning/Access for all 8.10. Sync traffic lights 8.11. Modern Monorail train thru wash 8.12. Fix pot holes on the streets— should not cost $100 million to fix 8.13. Challenges 8.13.1. Walking Paths 8.13.2. Spend wisely 8.13.3. Collaboration 8.13.4. Lack of data 8.13.5. Equitabledistribution 8.13.6. Not willing to give up cans 8.13.7. Major challenge to change behavior 8.13.8. Lack of input from the unincorporated communities of eastern Coachella Valley. 8.13.9. Lack of education 8.13.10. No Motorized Vehicles 9. Final Comments 9.1. Suggest monitoring air quality during any construction project in Coachella Valley 9.2. 133K Acres in Desert Hot Springs dedicating Worsley Road as a new destination 440Tamara,: L)if r Pacadena.C;l91103 kpadilla@katherinepadilla.eom - © 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 i 1V1V.fratherinepadilla.com 119 Page 1 7of 7 9.3. Have meetings in disadvantaged communities 9.4. Closer access for bus stops (3 miles to far) 9.5. Encourage youth to attend Transit Summits 9.6. Hold meetings at the Mecca Boys and Girls club 9.7. Ban crude oil by rail —oppose it! 9.8. Also, take public health into consideration in the transportation plan 9.9. Public education —Teens and Youth need to learn how to take public transportation 440 Tamarac Drive, Pasadena, CA 91105 �+ kpadilla@katherinepadilla.com -.--- ® 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 W1V1V. fratheri nepadilla. co m 120 RCTC Riverside County Strategic Assessment FN Winchester Summit September 26, 2015 65 Marketing Strategy • Community Outreach • Facilitation • Communications • Graphic Design MEETINGNOTES PROJECT NAME: NUMBER OF ATTENDEES: RiversideCountyTransportationCommission (RCTC) Transportation Summits 20 (per sign -in sheet) MEETING September 23, 2015 DATE/TIME: 6:30 - 8:30 PM TEAM MEMBER(S) PRESENT: PEA KATFIERINE PADILLA Sr A_CIATES Katherine Otanez Padilla, Sam Gennaway,Thelma Herrera MEETING Winchester Park Community Ce nter LOCATION: 32665 Haddock St. Winchester, CA92596 NOTES BY: Jomel Rosel, KPA MEETING OVERVIEW: After a 15 minute introduction, the meeting was broken into 4 groups based on subject interests. They were: Group 1-Jobs, Group 2-Inovation, Group 3-Access, and Group 4- Environment). Within these four groups summit participants brought up their main concern and issues to discuss and these were recorded on panels and on notes. COMMENTS MINI -GROUP DISCUSSIONS 1. Group 1: Jobs and Economy 1.1. Use existing/widen existing corridors: Scott Rd/Bundy Cyn SR74 1.2. Metrolink extension to San Jacinto 1.3. Extend also to Temecula(North/South) 1.4. Can't build way out —trails (regional) 1.5. Need local jobs —efforts to grow local jobs 1.6. Concentrated communities, not urban sprawl 1.7. MCP & 79 so businesses can move here 1.8. Accessibilityto Interstate: MCP/79—Metrolink 1.9. Metrolink (Sa n Jacinto line) already exists 1.10. Challenges: 1.10.1. Funding 1.10.2. Maintenance costs 1.10.3. Operations costs 1.10.4. Environmental constraints 1.10.5. Lowest bid not always best way 1.10.6. Overlapping NEPA/CEQA(CEQAreform) 1.10.7. Partnering to solve cultural issues 1.10.8. Public/private partnerships(landowners) 440 Tamarac Drive, Pasadena, CA 91105 kpadilla@katherinepadilla.com ® 323.258.5384 WWW.frathe?rinepadilla.com ® 323.258.5076 122 Page 2 of 4 2. Group 2: Innovation and Technology 2.1. Top changes to use alternative modes: 2.1.1. Betterplanning 2.1.2. Zoning changes— more mixed -use, TOD more density 2.1.3. Improve connectivity between modes (rail, bus, BRT, pedestrians, etc) 2.1.4. Betterschedulingand frequency 2.1.5. Universal publictransit pass/fare system 2.2. Opportunities: 2.2.1. Solar energy to be used more (e.g.: Disney people movers) 2.2.2. Electricvehiclesand solar charging opportunities 2.2.3. Autonomous/driver-less vehicles 2.2.4. Improve health via air quality 2.2.5. Employersto incentivize alternative work schedules: 2.2.5.1. Financial 2.2.5.2. Telecommuting 2.2.5.3. Peak hourspreading 2.2.5.4. Rideshare 2.2.6. Reversiblelanes 2.2.7. Employer to analyze rosters of employees to optimize commute times/distances 2.3. Challenges: 2.3.1. Distracteddriving(smartphones) 2.3.2. Getting rid of SOV 2.3.3. Electricvehicle impact 2.3.3.1. Range 2.3.3.2. Solarcharging 2.3.4. Differenttypesoffunding 2.3.5. Air quality 3. Group 3: Access for All 3.1. More wheelchair access on buses, trains, etc 3.2. Creating safer routes for bicycles (bike -friendly) 3.3. More bike lanes 3.4. Transportation for medical needs, expand services 3.5. Specialized transportation for students with special needs 3.6. Expand service hours 3.7. More bus -rapid transit service 3.8. Expand and complete trails system 3.9. Public outreach for special services 3.10. Expand Metrolinkthrough Winchester to Hemet 3.11. Better services in the first and last mile 3.12. Trolley service to Diamond Valley Lake 3.13. More local bus lines in Hemet 3.14. Offer more free service to police 3.15. More money, more volunteer drivers 3.16. More comprehensivegeneralplanning/long range planning 440 fanrara, I)ri�c, Pa1adena, C';1 91105 kpadilla@katherinepadilla.eom © 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 123 W1V1V.fratherinepadilla.com Page 3 of 4 3.17. Better coordination with cities 4. Group4:Environment 4.1. More green technology forvehicles 4.2. More chargingstations 4.3. Bike renting services 4.4. Improve the trails 4.5. More open space 4.6. More bus and rail services 4.7. Moreair-conditioned buses 4.8. Challenges: same as Access for All GROUPDISCUSSION: 1. Group 1: Jobs and Economy 1.1. Extend Metrolink from Riverside to Hemet, and San Jacinto to Temecula 1.2. SR79, SR74, Mid City Parkway, Bundy Canyon 1.3. Regional Trail System as CV Link be safe 1.4. Need local jobs to reverse flow 1.5. Compact and TOD communities to transit for numbers and jobs 1.6. Challenges: 1.6.1. How to maintain Adjunct and operational costs 1.6.2. Cultural issues, NEPA, CEQA, Reduce constraints 1.6.3. Develop PPP 1.6.4. Better connectivity between modes 1.6.5. Route, frequency, i.e. Metrolink needed forflexibility 1.6.6. TAP —universal system helpful, efficient, and useful 1.7. Strategies: 1.7.1. Reduce SOV 1.7.2. Solar/renewable energy 1.7.3. Charging stations for improved range 1.7.4. Driverlessvehicles,capacityenhancer 1.7.5. All to contribute to better air quality 1.7.6. Alternativeworkschedulesneeded,telecommuting,rideshare 1.7.7. Job switching/swap jobs to change/reduce commute times 2. Q&A 2.1. 2.2. How do we know this info will be used? Which data to be used for growth projection? 2.2.1. SCAG data 2.2.2. Regional linked to reducing GHGSCap &trade funds, federal money for blanket funds 2.2.3. RCTC poised to apply for grants with cities and counties too 2.3. Will input be prioritized? 2.3.1. BD will provide on which projects to pursue 2.4. How much emphasis SR79 being on historical list— is it helpful? 440 Tamarac Dr.6e, PaNadena, CA 91105 kpadilla@katherinepadilla.eom - © 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 i 1V1V.fratherinepadilla.com 124 Page 4of 4 2.4.1. Only available via formulas (federal funds) $60 mil/yr 2.4.2. Got the red -tape don't make CEQA, NEQAso hard 3. Group 3: Access for All 3.1. Most important:Transportation for medical needs —expand services 3.2. No/little/limited North -South services from Hemet to Riverside Dr, or long in duration 3.3. Challenges/strategies: 3.3.1. More money needed 3.3.2. Bettercoordination 4. Group 4: Environment —notes on chart verbatim 4.1. Rent bike/solution — family outing 4.2. Extend Metrolink from Riverside to Hemet 4.3. Students checks out bike and text sent for reassurance to parents 440 Tamarac Drive, Pasadena, CA 91105 kpadilla®katherinepadilla.com — ® 323.258.5384 ® 323.258.5076 www. katherinepadilla.com 125 RCTC Riverside County Strategic Assessment FN Compilation of Emailed Comments As of October 6, 2015 70 1. What two transportation projects or programs will be most beneficial for helping the Riverside County economy grow and reducing workers commute times? • rail and buses. more jobs closer to homes • Mid -County Parkway,91 fwy interchange improvements • good development planning keeping away from sprawl • INCREASE MINORITY AND VETERAN EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH CERTIFICATIONS, APPRENTICE PROGRAMS, AND ALLIANCIES WITH BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS, COLLEGES, AND UNIVERSITIES. REFLECT THE • DIVERSITY WITHIN THE COUNTY. • BOLD IDEAS: A TRUCK ONLY LANE ALONG THE 1-10; AN EAST -WEST CORRIDOR WHERE MORENO VALLEY AND MARCH NEEDS HELP; CONNECTIONS THROUGH DESERT HOT SPRINGS TO THE JOSHUA TREE NATIONAL PARK; EXPANSION ON OF VARIOUS FREEWAYS INCLUDING 1-215 AND 1-15, AND DOZENS MORE. • Build out Highway 74 or have another good highway to drive between Orange County and the Inland Empire. Improve the 91 Freeway in terms of lanes going in both directions. This highway is perpetually clogged with traffic, on weekdays, weekends, holidays, morning &amp; night. It is full of holes and lanes which are not easily viewable. It is the worst interstate and one of the most badly maintained roads I have ever driven on and I've lived in Michigan, Minnesota, Maryland, LA County, San Diego County, Riverside County and Orange County. • Increase taxes on gasoline or have tolls on highways for solo cars on weekdays • CV Link & More Busing • CV Link(and bike friendly streets) and Commuter rail access to Riverside • Light rail to the Coachella Valley, greater connectivity for eastern Coachella Valley • Improving sidewalks, bicycle paths, and transit services, along with"complete streets" and affordable housing programs close to job centers and shopping destinations will make for a sound economy as we reduce oil -dependency. Providing incentives for all businesses and public parking areas to install electric vehicle charging stations will also improve mobility over the next 15years. • Mass transit system from the Inland Empire to the Coachella Valley and alternative to the 10- freeway between the IE and Coachella Valley. • Completing the Perris Railway system, and continuing the expansion of the RTA bus lines. • I do not know about all of Riverside County but I would benefit if the bus number 15 to Desert Edge could be maintained and even extended to the firehouse in Sky Valley. It is a 2.5 mile walk to the nearest stop now and those who make that walk sometimes do so with a cane or walker. I do. • TrainTravel • Widening and improving the I-15 and Temescal Canyon Road inTemescal Valley should be a priority, especially with the thousands of new homes being built. Second, consideration fora highway through the Cleveland National Forest to south OC similar to the 74, north of Lake Elsinore.. • Please expand the lanes down at least to Indian Truck Trail Road. Ideally if they could afford what would be best is do it all the way to San Diego County (Escondido) where they did their huge upgrade. Look at all that open space and access you would open up. Right now I routinely drive down to Otay Mesa and main bottle neck is Temecula Murrieta. I also would like to see connector bus service in Temescal Valley. The one bus you have put in that stops at Tom's Farm is a HUGE success. It gets used a lot as proof of people given an 127 alternative they will use. • Highway 60 solution in light of MV approval to put 14K more trips on the road per day • Expanding Cajalco to four lanes to better connect the 215 and 15 would reduce commute time and dramatically reduce the traffic on the 215/60 interchange which is always at capacity in the morning. • Freeway from Lake Elsinore to San Juan Capistrano. 2. Freeway from Cajalco Rd to Irvine. • Repaving and widening the Scott Rd.Overpass, along with installation of complete guardrails on the South side. • Regional Trails, community trails and an investment in quality trailheads that will draw more userstoalternativetransportation. • Give priorityto nnaintaining/repairing existing infrastructure. 2) Discourage new transportation projects which enable or encourage further loss of agriculture and other open space lands and which require workers to commute more than five miles between home and work.. • Adding a bridge at Vista Chino for the large wash that is regularly flooded and disrupts traffic for days. Increased bus service especially in North Palm Springs area. • Ethanac/74 connections would better connect Romo/Homeland residence and reduce traffic on the 215 and through downtown Perris. • MORNING Pass Transit controlled and operated Commuter Link from San Gorgonio Pass to Palm Springs/Coachella Valley area (see Pass Transit Route 120 for comparable) Note: RTA 220 does not work because Pass Area Residents are not given MORNING/AFTERNOON access to Coachella Valley economy. Pass Transit would be best operator here. 2. Improve "First 4 Miles "access from homes to Pass Area Transit Hubs (Calimesa Stater Bros. Beaumont City Hall/Walmart) use Sunline Regulatory Administration Programs as base model. • Bring in high paying jobs, (not warehouses), increase busing into the rural areas, encourage staggered work and college times. 128 2. What are the two biggest challenges to achieving those changes, and what are the best strategies to overcomethechallenges? • political will. elect new supervisors and city councils • $$$ and environmental. best strategies?thatsthe million dollar question • making sure the county general plan reflects higher density with many public transportation centers • THE PROCESS: FROM FUNDING TO DESIGN TO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW TO CONSTRUCTION, THE PROCESS IS TOO LONG AND COSTLY. • KEEPING PEOPLE EMPLOYEED WHEN THE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS ARE DONE. • LACK OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION AT THE HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE LEVEL NEEDED TO FILL THE JOB PIPELINE. • WORKING WITH "OUTSIDERS" AND SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS. • Funding and continuous traffic which makes it difficult to close the 91 for construction. • Politicians who want to be re-elected are unwilling to make laws which they believe will anger voters. In reality, most commuters would like to have good Alternative Transportation options to get to and from work. • Blockers like Rancho Mirage with their own agenda & Costs • Overcoming old ways of thinking(CV Link), and funding and planning(Metrorail) • Being able to utilize our fair share of the cap and trade funds, overcoming negative political will to block progress essential for the greater good of the greatest number. • Pedestrian and bicycle/skateboard amenities tend to be an afterthought. Few policy makers are aware ofthe fiscal advantages of compact developments that are convenient for pedestrians and transit services. See, e.g. http://www.strongtowns.org/the-cost-of-auto-orientation Budgets tend to assume continued sprawling development. The best strategy to reduce sprawl is to stop subsidizing it. • Funding and Countywide support for the projects. Federal, State and Regional funding sources to answerthe funding question and education for understanding • Bureaucracy and political hamstringing, overbidding and underbiddingthework could also cause delays. • Increasing the ridership and telling people about the service. Most of my neighbors do not understand all the advantages of using the services. It could be an alternative for students. • Residents focused on cars • Environmental impact ofthe [highway through the Cleveland National Forest to south Oa Funding. • Environmental Impact Studies. I am a Health Safety and Environmental Manager for a living. This state looks at EPA as the 500 pound gorilla in the room and allows them to act that way. They forget they work for us. I am all for protecting and looking at best ways to preserve but not to the point where compromise goes out the window and they end up stifling good productive ideas. People wonder why businesses and people leave this state. It is the political ineptness. No one wants to work together. It is all about what is in it for me politically. Sorry for digressing. Since we know this is time consuming start it now. Look long term and address what we know takes time anyways even though we know we don't have money now. The other thing that would help commute is go for getting higher paid manufacturing jobs out here. If I can make the money I make in Orange and LA County here who wouldn't want to stay off the roads. Also, encourage kids to loo k at trades also. This is a skill we are losing in our country since we spent so much time focusing on the 129 importance of college. • Major project funding commitment. Alternative strategy put in alternate route around the badlands fortrucktraffic.? • Funding and environmental concerns. Riverside County needs to come up with an additional funding source to Measure A and TUMF. Possible fixes to this is an additional loca .5 cent sales tax, a local gas tax (1-2 cents), vehicle license fee, or a county wide infrastructure bond tied to property tax (that would be a rough one). • Environmentalists opposing routes, Showing how wildlife adapts to changes, Money • Cost? • Funding is the biggest challenge, lack of "trails are priorities"is second. Give users great options and more will come. • Land speculators and developers gain wealth by urbanizing rural landscapes at the expense of natural resources and public health. A rural/open space land conversion tax might discourage such endeavors. 2) Often a close relationship between urban and transportation planners seems to encourage projects which ultimately lead to a decline in open spaces. This problem might be reduced if an ethics code strictly forbade such personal contacts. • Funding is probably the biggest challenge and then getting all the agencies involved to agree to the projects. • Local Elected and other Transit Officials/Reps need to get out of the way of their own egos (not approving project unless they get credit for it) and see benefits for Pass Area residents Job access to Coachella Valley Economy. 2. Pass Transit appropriating fleet of Vans/Autos for service. Setting up relevant schedules for resident pick-up/return. 3. Setting up affordable fairs for First 4-10: $5 round trip is a fair fare. • The biggest challenge is getting our leaders to understand and admit that the current trend towards out of control growth without higher paying jobs to support it is destroying any quality of life left in Riverside County. We need to give tax breaks to companies willing to stagger their work times. Allowing the warehouse industry that provide low paying and temp. jobs will give Riverside the truck stop image and permanently destroy any hope of this county progressing in a positive way. Don't look at John Hussing as your expert in economic recovery. His only fix is warehouses and he doesn't have a clue towards the truth in respect towards the typical pay scale in this business. 130 3. What are the two most important changes needed to make it possible or convenient for people to use alternative modes oftransportation? • Rail and lots of bus routes. • Add infrastructure and expand the existing ride schedule • enough time schedule options and boarding sites • IMPLEMENT A ROBUST PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION CAMPAIGN HIGHLIGHTING EXISTING TRANSIT OPTIONS AND PROGRAMS. • CREATE AN INFORMATION PLATFORM THAT COMBINES ALL TRANSIT INFORMATION IN ONE PLACE AND MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO MOBILE DEVICES. FOR EXAMPLE, THE USER CAN COMPARE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS VERSUS BUS AND RAIL SCHEDULES. THEN, THEY CAN PURCHASE A UNIVERSAL FARE TICKET ONLINE FOR ALL MODES INCLUDING PUBLIC TRANSIT, TOLL ROADS, LOCAL SYSTEMS, AND LAST MILE CONNECTORS (UBER/LYFT, ETC.). • Parking close to transit boarding areas. More frequent commuter buses and trains. • A Universal Fare Pass • Connect the communities with CV Link & Busing • Pedelecs, get to work while getting you&#039;re workout. • Use modern systems to charge drivers whenever they park their cars, and apply the proceeds to improve conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists. Replace minimum parking requirements for new construction with limits on off-street parking, and use technology to financially reward each person who does not drive to work. • mass transit: a way to reach their final destination and convenient schedule • proper incentive for people to use the alternative modes. infographics and other marketing materials explaining cost/timesavings,employer subsidized tickets etc. • There needs to be another stop at the store on Hacienda at Mountain View for bus 15. • People's AttitudesAwayfromUsingtheAutomobile • Transportation services serving local residents within Temescal Valley. In consideration of the senior population of Trilogy, this would be helpful. Additionally, consideration of light commuter rail line branching from the 91 Corridor south to San Diego. • Availability in location and availability in time schedules. • No idea - buses are inherently less convenient. • A rebranding effort for RTAto make more people try the bus system. Utilize a scan in scan out system for buses to better understand where people are going and coming to make more efficient stops/routes. Have the Metrolink/buses run later. The younger generation would love to be able to head to LA or OC for the night and ride a train then bus to their home. • Connectivity via home computers or iPhones. Parking. • Creation of more bus routes • It needs to be practical and inviting. Think trees, shade and nature. • Ensure that pedestrian and biking routes link housing centers with job locations. Permit new housing only sufficient to house workers for jobs within a five mile radius and affordable to those same workers. • Availability and information about how to connect with other people one would feel safe riding with • "First 4-10 Miles" from Pass Area homes to nearest transit hubs (Calimesa Stater Brothers, Beaumont Oak Valley Center/City Hall/Walmart/Future LOSSAN Rail Stop. 2. Fair fares for First 4-10: $5 round trip is fair and affordable. 3. Building infrastructure/purchasing fleets to support all- electric transit system. Beaumont is debating charging station, but station 131 should also support charging of all electric buses and other transit vehicles • Many companies could develop ways for their workers to do their jobs at home via the internet even if it requires them to drive to work a couple of days a week instead of every day. Provide more buses especially in the rural areas • Getting trail access along Metrolink rail corridors 132 4. What are the two biggest challenges to achieving those changes, and what are the best strategies to overcomethechallenges? • political will. elect new supervisors and city councils • funding • FUNDING. • THE CREATION OF AN INFORMATION PLATFORM FOR THOSE WHO ARE LESS TECHNOLOGY SAVVY. • Funding and the wrong belief that it is the public&#039;s choice to drive their own cars solo. Most people commuting between the Inland Empire and San Diego or Orange County (and I did both for years) would welcome good alternative transportation. • Getting all the transportation agencies an incentive to work together in a Universal Fare Pass, and then marketing it. • Cooperation from all Cities & Costs • Getting people to accept other forms of transportation, reminding them of the horrible traffic messes that occur if eveyone drove in the next 20 years. • The biggest challenges to charging for parking and rewarding workers who don't drive are the"free-lunch" syndrome, and fear that the city or county next door is allowing "free" parking. Once people understand the congestion -reduction and other advantages of a pay - for -service economy, these factors disappear. • viable trails for bicycles or electric carts, bus system. • The biggest challenges are:1. public apathy (failure to incentivise) 2. Poor allocation of funding (caused byan uncompromising bureaucraticcommittee) • One challenge is counting ridership. The 15 bus feeds passengers to the 14 bus and the 111 bus. The raw ridership figures do not reflect this. • Look to Europe on how they successfully focused on fast rail transport. • Again,funding; environmental impact. • The simple answers is make more locations and pick up and drop offs more timely. What I would suggest is do interviews and studies of people presently using system say at bus stop and Tom's farm. Ask them what would help improve. They are using now and am sure will tell you. • Money and changing minds. Give away Bus/ Metorlink passes at UCR/RCC to push people to try them. Word of mouth do wonders • Inability to connect with residents. Emails. • Funding and lack of contiguous land. Require development to pay for and include trails. • Most people seem to prefer to sit on their butts while traveling to and from work (and for the rest of the day as well). Relatively cheap private transportation enables people to use their butts too much, and their legs too little, for their own health. • Establishment of a data base with some kind of screening tool. • Acquiring New Buses, vans and autos. Setting up all electric infrastructure to support all- electric public transit fleet. • Convincing companies to keep their workers at home through tax incentives • Resistance to change 133 5. What are the two innovations or technological changes that could beneficially change transportation in Riverside County in the next 20 years? • Stop climate change. eliminate fossil fuels in transportation • sandag&#039;s plans have many good ones • ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVE SAFETY FOR NON -VEHICLE TRAVELERS SUCH AS THE "CONNECTED VEHICLES" GRANTS FROM THE U.S DOT. • UNIVERSAL FARE CARD. • Nice transit stations which have enclosed waiting areas with restrooms; European style • CV Link & Light Rail between Riverside and the Coachella Valley • Either synchronized smart intersections, or roundabouts, that keep traffic flowing, lower speed limits with narrower lanes, bike and NEV paths. • Convenient ways for drivers to pay electronically for parking and for using the roads (especially during rush hour), together with paying people who don't drive to work, can greatly reduce congestion and reduce vehicle miles traveled. "Next -bus" applications that allowtransit users to know when their bus will arrive, and electronic ways to call for and pay for a ride (bus/van/shuttle/cab) will make transit far more convenient and useful. • Mobile technology and alternative fuels • Public wayfindingsystems designed around USER DATA . Easy ticket sales under a unified well designed RTA branded service (mess this up and Uber & Lyft will leave the RTA in the dust) • There are places for three bicycles on the front of each bus. Cyclists are often left behind because all those slots are used. As there are large distances and some find walking a challenge adding better access would allow more people to use the service. • Creative Thinking • Enticing businesses to want to operate in Riverside county and blending those with our community such that you could enjoy higher standard of living but could get to work quickly and easily by simply walking or biking. • Driver -less buses will definitely be possible in the future. Additionally the utilization of technology like UBER for pick up and drop off would be a game changer. • No -noise motors and wheels. On -demand transportation. • Workingfrom remote offices or home via technology advancements in communication. • Zero emission vehicles will decrease the levels of air pollutants. 2) Restrict commuter vehicles to two seats, or to the number of passengers, if more than two. • Adding a rail line for commuters to access AZ and Los Angeles would decrease the amount of traffic on the highway and pollution. • Setting up infrastructure and vehicles to support all -electric public transit fleet. Beaumont is debating recharging station, but needs to plan for recharging all -electric buses and other electric transit vehicles as well as privately owned vehicles. 2. Restructure public funding for transportation. Public Transit should receive at least 50% of all state and local transit dollars. Repairing and upgrading EXISTING roads and highways should take 40% (110/Hwy60 Interchange in Beaumont needs upgrade). New roads/highways should only take 10% of State/Local Transit tax dollars. • Having county government workers do their jobs at home, Forcing colleges to increase their internet courses with qualified instructors that can do this. 134 6. What are the two most important changes needed so that non -drivers -- including seniors, students, and people with special needs -- can get where they need to go? • rail and buses --lots of stops • Unemployed(?)special needs needing swing shifttransportation to and from • good small shuttles systems so that there are ways to get from large centers to other areas • ENHANCE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS THROUGHOUT THE RURAL AREAS. ADD ROUTES, REDUCE WAIT TIMES, AND EXTEND SERVICE HOURS. • IMPROVE THE PERCEPTION OF PUBLIC TRANSIT. BETTER INFORMATION SHARING. MAKE IT FUN, SAFE, ACCESSIBLE. PROVIDE WI-FI, CREATE MORE EXPRESS BUS LANES, FOCUS ON THE QUALITY OF SPACE WHILE WAITING AT EACH TRANSIT STOP BY PROVIDING MORE SHADE SHELTERS, MISTERS, BETTER INFORMATION AT TRANSIT STOPS, AND LIGHTING. • CV Link & Busing • I've got hundreds of elderly customers riding their bikes in the Country Clubs, but unwilling to brave it with 70mph cars on arterial roads. • Bus and paratransit services must become more convenient, connected, and transparent, and the costs must be widely shared with the community that benefits from having fewer automobiles on the road. We are on the threshold of huge benefits from electronic services that will make scheduling more dynamic, and permit services to be tailored to demand, 24-hours per day. • Shorter wait times (more busses/trains in rotation) 2.24 hour bussing (It needs to happen, riverside is huge, it takes hours to ride from Elsinore to Perris) • Unquestionable the TRIP program sponsored by the Independent Living Partnership(ILP) • Again, dial -a -ride or similar need to serve the areas south of Cajalco. • Recognition by transit that some people are not ABLE to use their services • Bus Service Marked for Seniors to get to Food stores, Medical services, Shopping Centers. • Do a public/private partnership with UBER and/or LYFT. If people don't have a smart phone, provide one for them. The amount of time, money and resource to send a county owned dial a ride does not pencil out when you can be simply subsidizing the costs for the act to be cost effective for existing business. • Access. Information. • More bus routes, special rates for seniors • Alternative transportation needs to be more than an afterthought. Locations for accessing need to be central, not tucked away in undesirable land. • Affordable and accessible public transportation. 2) safe pedestrian and biking paths/trails • More bus lines for longer hours with more direct rides from Desert Hot Springs area to Indio. • First 4-10 miles from homes to transit hubs are the most critical. People need public transit to pick them up at their doorstep and take them to nearest transit Hub. In Beaumont (west end) our nearest hubs are Calimesa Stater Brothers, Beaumont City Hall, Beaumont Walmart. Advantages: removes security risk of parking cars at transit hubs. Takes cares off the road. Dramatically increases public transit ridership. • busing in rural areas including at night • a robust, convenient bus system 135 7. What are the two biggest challenges to achieving those changes, and what are the best strategies to overcomethechallenges? • Political will. elect new supervisors and city councils • pre-planningdevelopmentsand housing • FUNDING, POLITICS, AND PRIORITIES. • RECOGNIZE THAT MANY USERS ARE RELIANT ON TRANSIT. UNDERSTAND THAT THE IDEA THAT RIVERSIDE COUNTY IS CAR -CENTRIC IS CHANGING RAPIDLY. ATTENTION TO BETTER SERVICE FROM EMPLOYEES, A MORE ROBUST, SAFE, WELL -SIGNED ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK, SENIORS HAVING THE OPTION TO CONTACT A TRANSPORTATION ADVOCATE ON THE PHONE WHO WILL GUIDE THEM THROUGH TRIP PLANNING, ETC. FIRST AND LAST MILE CONNECTORS. • Full Cooperation & Money • Lower speed limits, better intersections to keep drive time the same, less smog, more NEV and bike access on arterials. • Silos, work rules, and customs often resist change. The 20% fare -box recovery rule needs to be loosened. We should consider the transition that the ports and railroads have made to containerized goods movement, and learn lessons from that experience (which still has a way to go). • Money is the challenge, More money is the answer (beg, borrow, and steal it) • Funding Support and Getting the Word Out • Funding; building stop areas. • Require transit support of alternative services for low-income, very sick and disabled without family • Highly visible bus colors and markings for easy identification and published schedules. • Inability to communicate transportation availability • Cost, Bond issues, state or federal funds • [The mindset of our communities is cars and roads. Make it fun and desirable to try other means. • Affordable private automobiles and relatively cheap fuels encourage people to sit on their fat asses and drive more than they should, thereby increasing the rates of coronary and other indolence- related health issues. This pattern might be discouraged by siting parking areas at least 100 yards distant from destination centers (with special dispensation for those whose indolence -related health issues already confer invalid status). 2) Add a fuel tax (or vehicle use tax) sufficient to compensate the State for related public health issues. • Funding and the willingness of the current bus line to expand. • Purchasing public transit vehicles to provide service. 2. Redirecting transportation tax dollars to subsidize First 4-10 fares. $5 round trip from home -to -hub -and -back is fair fare for Pass Area residents due to the distances they have to travel to reach their local transit hubs from home. Balance of revenues needed to support cost of operating program should come from subsidies. • All the expansions going on with our colleges expanding the medical training portion, yet the impact of these expansions is having huge negative effects on our roads and freeways. • not enough Uber like competitors for bus routes • 136 8. What would be the two best new transportation policies or programs to help protect the Riverside County environment without hurting peoples ability to get where they need to go? • rail and buses and lots of stops • corridor 15/215 trains and connecting buses • INCREASE TRANSIT SERVICES TO THE RURAL AREAS. PROVIDE GREATER INCENTIVES FOR CARPOOLING AND RIDE SHARING. • A STREAMLINED ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVAL PROCESS. • CROSS COUNTY COLLABORATION TO EXPAND WILDLIFE CORRIDORS. • FOCUS ON THE NEXUS OF LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION AND ADVOCATE FOR MORE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT • THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPLETE STREETS INIATIVES BY LOCAL COMMUNITIES AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. • CV Link Access & well -spaced bus stops • CV Link and growing the Clean Sunline bus routes. • A moratorium on construction of any new pavement would put everyone on notice that change is imminent, and encourage planning for infill development, while freeing up funds. Money is badly needed for repair of existing roads, and upgrades to the bus system. Shifting goods movement from trucks to trains would relieve some congestion and reduce oil consumption. • Infrastructure to fuel alternative fuel vehicles • You need to incentivize people to "opt in" to public transportation. If you market the transit system as being "green" people will feel better about using it. • Fast, clean rail service • Light rail would eliminate the need for massive freeway construction through the South County, reducing congestion and emissions. Look at alternatives in hybrid technology for rail systems. • Improve access, locations, and timeliness of public transportations. Improve number of lanes on highways and also give a better alternate route in areas like Temescal Valley our only other alternate route now is a two lane Temescal Canyon Road outside of the I- 15. • Require growth of industry and housing to contribute to support of transportation services • I still believe that a big tunnel could be built between Corona and Lake Elsinore West. The first proposal was nonsense to have one-way traffic switch from morning and afternoon. The Swiss have a BIG boring machine that could be used to make 2 Tunnels for one way in each direction and electricity and water. • Eliminate noise. Eliminate pollution. • Improvement of existing roads, such as the Scott Rd. overpass. • Trails along sensitive areas help protect them. Build more and you&#039;11 have good people looking out for violators. • Restrict commuter traffic to existing high density urban areas and the arterials which already link them. 2) Prohibit leap frog urbanization and creation of new urban centers and associated transportation infrastructure in rural areas which lack an excess of jobs; thus. Discourage new transportation infrastructurewhich serves primarilycommuter traffic. • A bridge over the wash at Vista Chino and increased bus service. • Setting up all electric public transit fleet and electric infrastructure to support it. Work with cities who are developing recharging stations to include public transit vehicles. 2. Restructure ratios used in funding (federal/state/local transportation tax dollars) 137 transportation projects and programs. At least 50% of all transportation funds should go towards public transit operations, projects and subsidies (such as First 4-10 miles). 40% of transportation dollars should go towards repairing/maintaining and improving EXISTING roads and highways. 10% should go towards new road/highway projects. • Encouraging private companies to provide vans for their workers and stagger work times. Ban any more warehouses that pollute our air, clog our roadways and FWYs and pay below poverty level, forcing us to subsidize their workers and families • installing wildlife crossings, overpasses or underpasses to keep established habitat available to wildlife 138 9. What are the two biggest challenges to achieving those changes, and what are the best strategies to overcomethechallenges? • Political will. elect new supervisors and city councils • making enough time schedules and findingfunding • FUNDING. • THE LACK OF VISION. FOR EXAMPLE, RESIDENTS OF GATED COMMUNITIES WOULD BENEFIT BY BETTER CONNECTIONS TO PUBLIC TRANSIT. • TRANSPORTATION PLANNING HAS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND COMMUNITY QUALITY OF LIFE. INTEGRATE PUBLIC HEALTH INITATIVES WITHIN THE DESIGN OF THE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK. • BENEFITTING FROM THE CULTURAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES THAT ARE MORE FAVORABLE TOWARD PUBLIC AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION OPPORTUNITIES. • Costs • Reminding people that CVLink is already funded, only maintenance needs our funding(Goldenvoice pays for it?), keep it on track, give locals and tourists a great place to enjoy our environment without driving their to enjoy it. • The "color of money" and political inertia makes it difficult to move funds from planned projects to more timely investments. Too few policy makers understand the advantages of compact cities, and the costs of sprawl. Education can help, especially at budget time. • funding and buy -in by agencies are the biggest challenges and community meetings to educate the public and Federal/State grant programs • This really comes down to how well you can brand and market the service you're trying to expand on. Judging by this awful form I would say you have a ways to go. • People'sAttitudesand Elected Officials' Attitudes • Funding and environmental impact; state funding. • MONEY and horribly slow and painful approval process. Our planning department is embarrassing. You talk to any business and that is one of their biggest reason for not doing anything out here. It cost so much money and takes for every. For example, I built a simple 3 1/2 car garage in my community. From concept to actually built to where we could use took 2 frea kin yearsi i i i i It also cost over $10,000 if permit fees. That is ridiculous for a non inhabitable structure. That is one simple example. The Money can be addressed at routinely looking at projects you have going. I am sure you can see some that are not giving you return. If so stop doing them and use that money elsewhere where you are getting return. Thanks for giving opportunity to speak. • Gaining political buy -in • I would certainly check the Swiss and have them make a proposal. They tunnel through the ALPS mountains, much more challenging than our aggravated HILL. (Comments are for ACCESS FOR ALL, but consider them). • Current technology. Research and development • Fears that there will be objections from litigious environmental groups. • The corrupting power of monied interests to distort and co-opt planning efforts away from the broader needs and interests of the public. 2) This can be at least partially corrected by adopting codes of ethics which prohibit any government official (elected or not) from participating in any planning approval process which would benefit the economic interests of that official or of any person or entity who contributes financially to that official. • Having the different agencies establish a mutual goal to improve transportation needs 139 with a desire to actually take action. • CALTRANS has a long standing culture of supporting pollution generating/land depleting sprawl via its almost exclusive emphasis on new highway projects. This culture has to change. CALTRANS mandates have to be redirected towards 50% or more on Public Transit Support and projects. 40% on repairing and maintaining EXISTING roads/highways. 10% on building new roads/highways. State and Local laws (measure A RivCo) have traditionally favored new highway construction. Need to rewrite transportation legislation to achieve new ratios. 2. Re: all electric public transit: getting funds to build infrastructure/fleets to support all electric public transit system. • The biggest challenge is to get our leaders to step back from the "growth mentality". It's not just the traffic prison we now live in, it's also the unsustainable attitude our leaders still feel about growth. It's time to concentrate on quality of live and how far we've strayed from that. I can't believe I'm even wasting my time writing this because this is just a phony way of making it look like you care about what we think. 140 Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Transportation policy is quickly becoming the #1 issue in this region— Riverside County Transportation Commission is coordinating the effort countywide and is undergoing a strategic planning process that you should be involved in— Mr. Aaron Hake can send you thedetails. Keep sending us your ideas at the city level to improve our systems — I hope we can balance out the jobs/housing balance so people don't need to commute as much or as far. And we are committed to public transportation as well as active transportation to encourage our residents to get out of their cares to get around town. Thanks again for your input. RIVERSIDE PRIDE!!! Rusty Bailey Mayor City of Riverside Dear Mr. Hernandez, I heard on channel 4's Nightly News this past week that 'little ole Riverside' is ranked number ten in the nation after D.C., Los Angeles, Boston and other major cities as "highest traffic congestion" and all I see are more stop signs and dangerous freeway exits (such as the Mission Inn Exit) into our fair city. This national rating should give those at City Hall pause for thought LindsayB.Abercrombie Ron Roy— Beaumont— not sure if he can attend tonight's summit. He may fill out a comment online but wanted verbally relay his opinions: Funding: - Measure A: increase funding for public transit (ratio of public transit vs. highways should shift more towards transit) - Highway funding: put into road into road improvements for existing roads. Dial back new road construction. -I support state vehicle registration fee increases. Aaron Hake GovernmentRelations Manager RiversideCountyTransportation Commission Aurora, it was a pleasure to meet you as well at our board meeting. I am forwarding this comments to our consultant compiling public feedback for the Strategic Assessment. Hope you had a great weekend. - Aaron Sent from my iPad 141 On Sep 12, 2015, at 10:47 PM, "Achavez5068@aol.com" <Achavez5068@aol.com>wrote: It was nice to meet you at the RCTC Board Meeting. Transportation dollars need to be utilized first for those cities that have no public transportation. RCTC could work with those cities and upgrade their infrastructure to have access to public transportation. The middle level cities need transportation dollars to run their systems more efficiently with times, routes, and schedules. The larger cities may already be up and running. But, do they work with surrounding systems to collaborate for bettertransportation improvements? Are they already have too much on their plate to work with other cities? Or, would they like to see better congruent working relationships regarding transportation?They may feel why should they bother with other transportation systems while they are busy working on their own? Possible old time war wounds that may hinder communications? Sometimes, you have to be sensitive to some of these issues. Talk to you soon! Thank you for all your efforts! From Aurora Chavez In a message dated 9/4/201510:24:10 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, ahake@RCTC.orgwrites: Ms. Chavez, Thank you for writing with these comments. I am forwarding them, along with the link and Facebook comment you reference, to the consultant who is conducting the Strategic Assessment for RCTC. As you have additional thoughts or information you'd like to share with us, please continue to do so! Indeed, there are many transportation challenges in our region and there are no quick answers to any of them. That is why we are engaging in this collaborative effort to better understand the needs, desires, and resources in Riverside County. Have a great weekend, -Aaron Metrolink needsfixing. http://www.pe.com/articles/concerns- 779258-crash-metrolink.html 142 Mary Shelton on Facebook on her Sept. 3 post was very eloquent in her review of the Metrolink problems because she is a passenger. I couldn't copy her post on here for you. It would be very valuable information to the discussions RCTC have been having on transportation. Right now as it stands, we need to work on the smaller communities to have transportation access. Then, improve the bike, bus, and rail system while fixing all the freeways. A lot on the Transportation plate! But, there are NO quick solve alls! I know the streetcar project has been pushed on the residents so I can understand why they are opposed to it. California us not flat lands and we do not want to lose our state's esthetics! Why are we not including rails in the middle of the freeways and have standing platforms since construction is being renovated anyway?? I think we are losing that capability while we are just focusing on renovatingand repairingfreeways! Thank you for reading my comments. Sincerely, AuroraChavez CommunityAdvocate 143 DearCommissioners: I am a resident of Temecula with some knowledge of transportation issues from having served (39 years ago) in the transportation group of the U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. I was not able to attend the RCTC meeting here on September 2, but would appreciate the chance to offer these brief comments on the Riverside County transportation budget and long-range needs, if you are still acceptingcitizen input. I urge you to begin planning for, and appropriating funds for, the creation of a commuter rail system to connect the population centers of the Inland Empire with Los Angeles, San Diego, and/or other cities on the coast already served by rail. A commuter line, for example, running from the Temecula/Murrieta area to Oceanside along the I-15 and CA-76 corridors, would give more than 300,000 residents of SW Riverside County and Northern San Diego County easy access to all coastal destinations, including LA and San Diego. This would greatly improve air quality in the region, save countless commuter hours, reduce fuel consumption and rush hour car accidents. Perhaps more important to the overall economy of the county and the region, it would enable seniors, young people, and military families to live in Riverside County and still have access to the abundance of jobs, colleges, night life, and recreational opportunities along the coast. No other transportation alternative will adequately serve the needs of Riverside County residents twenty or thirty years from now. Thank you for your serious consideration of my views. Sincerely, Mary Ames Temecula 951-506- 0274 144 It was nice to meet you at the RCTC Board Meeting. Transportation dollars need to be utilized first for those cities that have no public transportation. RCTC could work with those cities and upgrade their infrastructure to have access to public transportation. The middle level cities need transportation dollars to run their systems more efficiently with times, routes, and schedules. The larger cities may already be up and running. But, do they work with surrounding systemsto collaborate for bettertransportation improvements? Are they already have too much on their plate to work with other cities? Or, would they like to see better congruent working relationships regarding transportation?They may feel why should they bother with other transportation systems while they are busy working on their own? Possible old time war wounds that may hinder communications? Sometimes, you have to be sensitive to some of these issues. Talk to you soon! Thank you for all your efforts! From Aurora Chavez Good morning. I will not be able to make the meeting, but please consider getting more bus lines to Center Street in Riverside. The county has a very nice facility for low income, but the lines don't start early enough or go past 6 which makes it very hard for those that work 8-5. Thanks Deana At the looks of our freeways, there seems no question as to how the Transportation Commission should spend the funds: Repair our badly worn roads and bridges. And any available funds should be used for necessary and not recreational expenditures! NormaCircle Ms. Danos Purcell, Thank you so much for taking the time to write and to attend the summit last night. I am glad you found the process worthwhile. We at RCTCvery much valued the thoughtful input from residents throughout the Coachella Valley. Riverside County has many transportation challenges, however we have a very 145 bright future. Hearing from our constituents is important as we help our elected leaders plan for the future. Please feel free to be in touch going forward. We will post the results of all 5 summits at www.rctc.org/summits sometime in October. We will be sure to send email notifications out when that happens. Feel free to share the website with your friends and neighbors so they can also provide feedback to us. Have a great weekend, -Aaron Good morning. I would like to take this time to thank you for holding the summit at UCR yesterday evening. Public outreach is an integral and very important aspect of transportation planning and I commend the work that was done yesterday. I think the entire event was handled exceptionally well. As I listened to all of the groups make their presentations one overarching element came out clearly to me - not one mentioned wanting more freeway improvements. The need for a truly interconnected intermodalsystem became abundantly clear. Obviously each group had specific needs that they wanted to touch on but the fact that better more frequent and interconnected bus service, rail service; both light & heavy, car & bike sharing, and safe bike & pedestrian pathways were all mentioned was a breath of fresh air to me. Again, thank you for holding the summit and I look forward to seeing the results and maybe attending another summit in the near future. Jacqueline Danos Purcell 760-861- 8508(cel1) 146 Report on activities regarding the Transportation Summit. Discussion questions and Telephone information were included in the discussions. On September 8, 2015 at the Municipal Advisory Committee (MAC) meeting (Meadowbrook/ Perris) at the Moses -Schaffer Community Center, I made a presentation regarding the topics raised at the transportation summit. (Approx.25 attendees) On September 14, 2015 a monthly meeting of the National Active & Retired Federal Employees (NARFE) I made another presentation regarding the topics raised at the transportation summit (Approx. 15 attendees) (It should be noted that most responders use 1-115 North and South regularly.) The following points of information and suggestions are included below: - There needs to be rail connection to Ontario Airport - McCall exit into Sun City need to be widened Need to place speed limit signs going South on Bradley from McCall in Sun City/Menifee - The freeway exit from H-60 on to 1-215 North - needs attention to signage, street/hwy marking and consistency for exit and entrances. (Drivers not familiar with directions get confused with different directions.) 215 merging to the 1-15 South needs attention to traffic flow. (1-215 traffic could benefit from freeway marking or signs when merging to 1-15 South ) Winchester on ramp signs for traffic going north is an issue for people going south. (Earlier notice for traffic going north should be noted.) Street notice on road to show 1-15 South and I- 15 North. Need to consider more roundabout like Yucaipa and Rancho California Road in wine country area. Other comments received included better communication with the public. Examples included publicizing a number to call when individuals have ideas or complaints; a better system to get the word out to the public and identify problems. (Not everyone takes the newspaper and not all communicate using the Internet. One other major complaint was regarding the Signal coordination problem. Example being right now regarding the synchronizing the signs on 4t" at Ave. D and C on 4t" street. Avenue C signal (at the Perris Station outlet) is on hold at the same time Avenue D (going to on ramp of 1215 freeway. It is important that the timing be looked at to prevent blocking of noth West traffic. Respectfully submitted: Mary Venerable, CAC member 147 ATTACHMENT 7 RCTC Riverside County Strategic Assessment Appendix F: Outreach to Partner Agencies f �� RCTC Strategic Assessment Task 6: Outreach to Partner Agencies RCTC Strategic Assessment F)1 Partner Agency Survey Results 1 Partner Agency Survey Results Local agencies were surveyed in order to identify their priorities for their jurisdiction as well as for the region as a whole. Figure 1 identifies the individual jurisdictions' high priority categories: fixing potholes and resurfacing roads is the highest priority, followed by expanding older interchanges on major highways and improving walk and bike routes to schools. Figure 2 identifies the categories ranked by the cities as high priority for the region: expanding older interchanges on major highways ranked highest followed closely by fixing potholes and resurfacing roads and widening congested arterial roads. The detailed survey results are provided after Figure 2. FN 2 Figure 1: Partner Agency Survey Results: Categories Ranked as High Priority for Individual Jurisdictions 20 18 15 14 12 10 Categories Ranked as High Priority for Individual Jurisdictions 's' 44_. l cF. ��,1 b �' z.�4r".ca,4mk,0a `N b\�a a re �'' C'leto �• & 4a4? % ee' ��'��� e �e 040 o,.4 ,tieQ° � � r �� .6m. 6 a$a� e .a�,-:.rsi ee+jb e� ��p� o Sq�acQ ¢ ' }cQ ig , �+ t �� 5 1 �e %. Os •e' fia c �r` e 1 06' &� `'`) a J. 3 Figure 2: Partner Agency Survey Results: Categories Ranked as High Priority for the Region 18 15 14 12 10 8 0 Categories Ranked as a High Priority for the Region , Ra� 4, 4" �p�� � 4" Q" e("66' , :C / / / / / F o, iti g7'° yti� �� 0 ,fit fia � p5 4. e ��0 � c� � t� .�c`) i�o Q?' d fit} � � ti�a [� / � za� �p Q '\ C°� : � e+c�' c� ,p'� � � ��yia °S� Q �e Rey �3 a 4dLrog� �oP r6 �J�a <� � ° ��Q�a cr Pied' ,3. e `�� �° ya`�� 3a ,Z a� y�e t� ��� 4, ♦F�a � � y a`4 �\a�<�O �� �� o R��`�a� f* �`�w° c��at4� \ q` i� C� `�� 46 IPa �ici' f'i• a e ce �t �49 O.# 4 RCTC Strategic Assessment City/County Survey 1. Is_a high, medium, or low priority for your jurisdiction? High Medium Low Active Transportation A Improving walk and bike routes to schools 14 6 3 B Creating bike lanes on existing city streets and building new separated off-street bike paths 10 9 5 C Connecting and building regional recreation trails for hiking and walking 12 8 3 Major Highways D Widening congested highways in the county 10 8 6 E Widening highways by building toll lanes for drivers to use if they choose 3 6 15 F Building entirely new highways in the county 6 12 6 G Expanding older interchanges on major highways 16 6 2 Arterial Roads and Local Streets H Fixing potholes and resurfacing roads 20 3 1 I Widening congested arterial roads in the county 13 6 5 J Building entirely new arterial roads in the county 9 9 6 K Building roadway underpasses or overpasses to reduce traffic backup at train track crossings 11 5 8 Rail and Transit L Expanding paratransit and specialized transit services 3 15 6 M Expanding public transit bus services 6 12 6 N Increasing Metrolink frequency and providing more service in both directions 6 11 6 Expanding Metrolink and Amtrak rail services to new areas of Riverside County 8 8 8 Other P Building charging stations for electric vehicles 6 12 6 Q Expanding commuter ridesharing programs 2 15 7 R Providing freeway tow -truck service to quickly clear accidents 5 5 14 S Preserving habitat for endangered species from new transportation projects 3 12 8 5 RCTC Strategic Assessment Survey 2. Is_a high, medium, or low priority for Riverside County as a region? High Medium Low Active Transportation A Improving walk and bike routes to schools 12 7 2 B Creating bike lanes on existing city streets and building new separated off-street bike paths g 10 3 C Connecting and building regional recreation trails for hiking and walking 10 9 3 Major Highways D Widening congested highways in the county 11 8 3 E Widening highways by building toll lanes for drivers to use if they choose 5 12 5 F Building entirely new highways in the county 10 6 6 G Expanding older interchanges on major highways 17 4 1 Arterial Roads and Local Streets H Fixing potholes and resurfacing roads 16 4 2 I Widening congested arterial roads in the county 14 6 2 J Building entirely new arterial roads in the county 10 8 4 K Building roadway underpasses or overpasses to reduce traffic backup at train track crossings 9 5 8 Rail and Transit L Expanding paratransit and specialized transit services 4 14 4 M Expanding public transit bus services 7 12 3 N Increasing Metrolink frequency and providing more service in both directions 11 6 5 Expanding Metrolink and Amtrak rail services to new areas of Riverside County 13 6 3 Other P Building charging stations for electric vehicles 3 14 5 Q Expanding commuter ridesharing programs 4 14 5 R Providing freeway tow -truck service to quickly clear accidents 2 11 9 S Preserving habitat for endangered species from new transportation projects 2 11 7 I-)R 6 RCTC Strategic Assessment Survey 3. Which one project category is the top priority for meeting your jurisdiction's future transportation needs? ➢ Major Highways and Interchanges ➢ Updating Older Interchanges ➢ Major Highways ➢ Major Highways ➢ Arterial Roads and Streets; In Need of Funding to Install Infrastructure and Repave/Widen North Indian Canyon Drive ➢ Construction of the Realignment of State Highway 79 N ➢ Widening Arterials ➢ Roadway Repair and Maintenance ➢ Freeway Interchanges ➢ Signal Synchronization Valley -Wide ➢ Scott Road/I-215 Interchange ➢ Fix Potholes and Resurface Existing Roads; Major Highways Specifically 60 Truck Climbing, 60 Corridor Widening, Frontage Road Along 215 ➢ New East-West Arterials ➢ Expanding Truck Routes ➢ Arterial Roads and Local Streets ➢ Build Out the Planned Road Improvements and Maintain Thereafter ➢ Major Highways; Millenial Transit Patterns ➢ Arterial Roads and Local Streets ➢ Major Highways; Arterial Roads and Local Streets ➢ Arterial Roads and Local Streets — Fixing Potholes and Resurfacing Roads 4. Is there adequate funding available for your jurisdiction's top priority project category (in Question 5)? Yes 3 No 17 5. Which one project category should be the top priority for meeting Riverside County's future transportation needs? ➢ Rail and Transit ➢ Resurfacing Roads ➢ Freeway Congestion ➢ Arterial Roads and Local Streets ➢ Adding Additional Highway Entrance and Exits on Interstate 10 to Meet Demands in Rapidly Growing Areas 7 RCTC Strategic Assessment Survey ➢ Major Highways: G-Expanding Interchanges ➢ Major Highways ➢ Arterial Roads and Streets ➢ Freeway Widening ➢ Interchange Improvements ➢ Rail Service to Coachella Valley ➢ Creating New Corridors ➢ Expanding Metrolink Service ➢ Expanding Existing Interchanges to Full Capacity ➢ Fixing Potholes and Resurfacing Existing Streets ➢ New Local Arterials ➢ Expanding Freeway Lanes ➢ Increasing Road/Intersection Capacity ➢ Rail and Transit ➢ New Highways ➢ Major Highways ➢ Arterial Roads and Local Streets 6. Do you believe new revenue is needed to fund the top priority projects in your jurisdiction and throughout Riverside County, or do you believe that existing funding can be reprioritized to meet these needs, or both? New Revenue Needed 15 Can Reprioritize Existing Funds 4 Both 4 7. What is the best strategy (besides getting new sources of funding) that could help your jurisdiction achieve its transportation goals? ➢ Local Job Creation ➢ Working on Projects Jointly with the County, Caltrans, and RCTC ➢ Support for Grant Applications ➢ Getting Projects Prioritized in the Regional Plan ➢ Adequately Funding the Federal Highway Trust Fund with New Revenue Sources from Taxing the Repatriation of Offshore Businesses ➢ Ensuring Existing Funding Sources ➢ Limit Overhead and Project Time Completion ➢ Updating General Plan and Partnering with other Agencies 8 RCTC Strategic Assessment Survey ➢ Better Discussion on Project Priorities and their Impacts on Disadvantaged Communities ➢ Continuing Focus on Project Prioritization on a Strategic Basis to Ensure Maximum Benefit from Funds Received ➢ Planning ➢ Work with Developers to Build Infrastructure ➢ Do More Within Existing Right of Way to Increase Vehicular Capacity While Encouraging Other Modes of Transportation ➢ Good Plans Exist, Funding Makes Them Happen ➢ Completely Revamping Environmental Process and Caltrans Involvement in Project Approval; Better and More Efficient Representation of the Jurisdiction and Sub -Region by RCTC at the Regional (SCAG) level to Secure Additional Prioritized Funding ➢ Create High Paying Jobs Locally to Reduce Commuter Traffic ➢ Minimal Maintenance ➢ Reduce Review Process and Environmental Requirements ➢ Measure A, Gas Tax Fund Continued Reliability, Reduce/Maintain Existing Zoning Densities ➢ Embrace the "Sharing" Economy ➢ Streamline the Approval Process; Less Environmental Restrictions ➢ Streamline Processing Projects at the State and Federal Level ➢ Prioritize/Transfer/Swap State and Federal Funds for Regional Projects; Provide Local Funds with Less Strings for Arterial Roads and Local Street Projects 8. Describe the #1 goal of your jurisdiction (in any aspect) for the next 10-20 years ➢ Lessen Long Distance Commute through Local Job Creation and Maximize Local and Regional Circulation Capabilities ➢ Repairing and Repaving City Streets ➢ Interchange Improvements ➢ Additional Access Across 1-10 to Link the Northern City Area to the Rest of the City for Access and Public Safety Access ➢ Securing a New Highway Interchange on 1-10 to Service Eastern Coachella and Anchoring Improvement to the Avenue 50 Corridor ➢ Securing Long Term Funding Sources for Maintenance ➢ Limit Overhead and Project Time Completion ➢ Construct Infrastructure to Attract Development that would Meet the Demands of the Community in Terms of Additional Retail, Restaurant, and Service Establishments ➢ Highway 79 Realignment; Extension of Metrolink from Perris to Hemet ➢ Enhance Neglected Road Infrastructure to Support Current and Future New Development ➢ Roadway Maintenance ➢ Freeway Interchanges ➢ Economic Development through High Quality New Commercial Development and Redevelopment ➢ Improve Traffic Circulation 9 RCTC RCTC Strategic Assessment ➢ Resurfacing Existing Streets; Transportation Infrastructure Improvements Along 60 ➢ Economic Development ➢ Find Funding for Local Streets and Roads, Horse Trails, and other Government Infrastructure ➢ Improve Arterial Systems and New Interchanges ➢ Continue Our Successful Pattern of Land Use, Maintain Existing and Planned Infrastructure in Light of Lost RDA Revenue ➢ New Highway ➢ Implementing Infrastructure Projects — French Valley Parkway Interchange ➢ Expand Local Interchanges 9. What is the best strategy (besides getting new sources of funding) that could help Riverside County achieve its transportation goals? ➢ Encourage and Facilitate Rail and Transit ➢ Pursue New Funding Sources ➢ Funding is the Issue ➢ Federal Funding of the Highway Trust Fund ➢ Ensuring Existing Funding Sources ➢ Limit Overhead and Project Time Completion ➢ Reprioritizing Available Funding Not Being Used ➢ Understanding the Unique and Disadvantaged Situations of Cities like Hemet and San Jacinto ➢ Continuing Focus on Project Prioritization on a Strategic Basis to Ensure Maximum Benefit from Funds Received ➢ Public and Local Government Outreach ➢ Reprioritize Existing Funds ➢ Provide Better Mass Transit Options for Residents ➢ Good Plans Exist, Funding Makes Them Happen ➢ Partner with Local Jurisdictions for Street Improvements and Street Construction ; Better System of Impact Fees, Economic Development, Streamlining the Approval Process through RCTC/Caltrans ➢ Create High Paying Jobs Locally to Reduce Commuter Traffic ➢ Encouraging Mass Transportation ➢ Reduce Review Process and Environmental Requirements ➢ Reduce Allowable Densities ➢ Rail and Other Options to the West ➢ Streamline the Approval Process; Less Environmental Restrictions ➢ Streamline Processing Projects at the State and Federal Level; Hold Quarterly Meetings with Caltrans Local Assistance Division to Help Achieve Transportation Goals ➢ Provide Grant Writing Assistance for Smaller Agencies and/or Group Small Agency Projects in Grant Application to Bring More State Competitive Funding Locally 10 RCTC Strategic Assessment Adjacent County Plans and Policies FN 20 SANBAG Summary The focus of SANBAG's Countywide Transportation Plan is to develop and maintain a sustainable transportation system that considers and accommodates the needs of all users and transportation modes in San Bernardino County. As the state of California has shifted away from its emphasis on mobility and congestion towards a focus on overall sustainability, San Bernardino County has planned its transportation projects moving forward to include: (1) improvements on mobility for both highway and transit travel, (2) increased opportunities for active transportation, and (3) technological advancements to achieve air quality standards and GHG reduction goals. Despite the state -level shift towards environmental sustainability, SANBAG maintains that automobile congestion relief on the county's highway and arterial network will remain a priority for transportation investment. In terms of the priorities and policies related to travel between San Bernardino County and Riverside County, the CTP identifies a need to maximize the efficiency of the county's transportation system and coordinate transportation systems with other counties, especially given the heavy daily trip interactions San Bernardino has with Riverside. Long-range plans Planned projects needed to achieve those plans • 1-15 Express Lanes from Riverside County Line to 1-215 • 1-215 Widening from Riverside County Line to 1-10 Reduce travel times for both highway • 1-10 Truck Climbing Lane from Live Oak to Riverside County Line and transit travel • Completion of 1-10 to Riverside Co. Line with HOV or Express Lanes • Carpool and vanpool services, including expanded regional vanpool services • Downtown San Bernardino Passenger Rail Project • San Bernardino Transit Center • Redlands Passenger Rail Project Increase the share of people • Active Transportation Projects supportable by grants and carpooling, bicycling, walking, and Transportation Development Act funds taking transit • SANBAG partners with RCTC to provide rideshare program assistance through the Inland Empire Commuter Services (IECS) Program • Baseline plan for Metrolink expansion (50 daily trains) Policies • Improve safety and mobility for all modes of travel • Coordinate transportation systems with other counties through the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy • Promote the funding of transportation needs through collaboration with local, state, federal, and private stakeholders 21 Priorities • Transportation funding o State and federal funding levels are no longer sufficient in meeting operations and maintenance needs for new and expanding transportation infrastructure. As the region continues to grow, local funds now represent over 50% of the transportation infrastructure revenue in San Bernardino County. • Congestion relief and economic competitiveness o Despite a shift in statewide emphasis from mobility towards sustainability, the need for congestion relief cannot be ignored. San Bernardino County must continue to maintain its freeway and interchange network. • System preservation and operations o SANBAG should partner with Caltrans and local jurisdictions to ensure that the county's street and highway infrastructure receive routine maintenance. • Land use o Promoting TOD as part of a strategy for economic growth and achieving SB 375 targets. SANBAG must demonstrate a commitment to the rail/transit infrastructure that will attract TOD developers. • Transit system connectivity o Improve interconnectivity and coordination across transit and ridesharing modes to provide greater customer service at an affordable cost o Better coordination across transit systems (in terms of ease of transfers, fare media, first/last mile connections) (pg. 18) • Attainment of air quality standards • Sustainability and GHG reduction. 22 SANBAG Corridor Improvements Lead Agency Route From To Description Year Complete Project Cost Fontana Etiwanda Ave I-10 Riverside County Line Widen from 4 to 6 lanes 2020 $2,635 Redlands Live Oak C n Rd y East Redlands City limits San Timoteo C n Rd y Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 2025 $5,829 Redlands San Timoteo Cyn Rd RR Crossing Live Oak Cyn Rd Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 2035 $6,895 SANBAG I-215 Orange Show Rd Spruce St/SR-91 Add 1 HOV lane in each direction 2015 $182,802 SANBAG I-10 Ford St Riverside County Line Add 1 HOV lane each direction 2030 $106,800 SANBAG I-10 Live Oak Canyon Rd Riverside County Line Construct eastbound truck climbing lane including transition between county line and Calimesa Blvd 2023 $50,000 Colton Reche Canyon Rd South Crystal Ridge Riverside County Line Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 2025 $2,570 I-)R 23 OCTA Summary The OCTA Long Range Transportation Plan focuses on four goals and objectives established by the OCTA Board of Directors and members of the public: (1) deliver on commitments and prioritize Measure M2 projects, (2) improve overall transportation system performance, (3) expand system choices and improve multimodal integration, and (4) support sustainability in terms of maximizing financial resources, maintaining existing infrastructure, and protecting Orange County's natural environment. The foundation of OCTA's long-range plan is the Measure M2 projects. Measure M2 project commitments include reducing freeway bottlenecks, making arterial capacity improvements, expanding Metrolink, and improving local transit service. The Long Range Transportation Plan also contains a Conceptual Plan section which includes projects and improvements that have already been identified but for various reasons are not yet ready to be included in the Plan (mentions Major Investment Studies but does not specifically include Corridors A or B). In terms of the plans and policies related to travel between Orange County and Riverside County, the LRTP has a focus on inter -county collaboration and connectivity, with prioritized projects such as the 91 Express Lanes Extension into Riverside County. Long-range plans Planned projects needed to achieve those plans Improve Transportation System Performance o Reduce delay from congestion 0 Increase facility speeds • SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project between SR-241 and Pierce St (Riverside County) • Regional Capacity Program (M2 Project O) Increase transit ridership and expand transit service • High frequency Metrolink service 0 4 additional trains will operate daily on the Orange County Line and 4 additional trains will operation daily on the 91 Line over the baseline condition. In total, 20 additional trains will operate in Orange County above 2010 service levels. • Anaheim Rapid Connection Fixed Guideway • Santa Ana/Garden Grove Fixed Guideway • Transit Extensions to Metrolink Program (Operations) • Senior Mobility Program • Community Based Circulators Program Support sustainability • Vanpool operations • OC Bikeways Policies • Optimize transportation systems • Collaborate on inter -county connectivity, collaborate with other planning agencies for regional solutions • Explore incentives to single -occupant automobile trips 24 Priorities • Measure M2 projects (OCTA's Long Range Transportation Plan outlines a Preferred Plan that completes Measure M2 transportation improvements and adds discretionary projects to reduce congestion and improve mobility) • Eliminate bottlenecks and reduce delay on freeways, toll roads, and arterials • Improve transit modes through enhanced service, frequency, convenience, and choices • Ongoing maintenance of street and highway facilities • Increase regional accessibility in order to reduce VMT • Expand and enhance Transportation Demand Management practices to reduce barriers to alternative travel modes and attract commuters away from single - occupant vehicle travel 25 SANDAG Summary Like the other long-range transportation plans, SANDAG's RTP and the projects identified in it have a focus on promoting overall sustainability. The SANDAG vision for the 2050 RTP seeks to create a transportation network that provides better links between where people live, work, and play by providing more efficient options for transit and active transportation. SANDAG also projected significant interregional commuting between its county and Riverside County. As such, SANDAG's RTP also has a strong focus on coordinating its land use and transportation efforts with its surrounding counties. In terms of the plans related to travel between San Diego County and Riverside County, SANDAG's RTP mentions commuter -targeted projects and programs such as the California High -Speed Rail and 1-15 Interregional Partnership Program. Long-range plans Planned projects needed to achieve those plans Improve mobility on highways and regional arterial networks • I-15 HOV/Managed Lanes, toll lanes • Use of 1-15 Managed Lanes during off-peak periods for goods movement Offer more travel choices 0 High-speed rail 0 Vanpools 0 1-15 BRT service 0 Safe Routes to Transit 0 Bicycle and pedestrian connections to facilitate first- and last -mile access to high - frequency transit service Policies • Tailor transportation improvements to better connect people with jobs and other activities • Provide transportation choices to better connect the San Diego region with neighboring counties • Manage the efficiency of the transportation system to improve traffic flow • Reduce bottlenecks and increase safety by improving operations • Make transportation investments that result in healthy and sustainable communities Priorities • Improve the efficiency of the regional transportation system • Complete missing links in the regional highway system • Complete the Regional Arterial System • Develop a Managed Lane network that will serve many transportation modes • Improve mobility, reduce greenhouse gases, and increase travel choices • Safe Routes to Transit 26 SANDAG Corridor Improvements Lead Agency Route From To Description Year Complete Project Cost ($ Millions- YOE Dollars) SANDAL I-15 SR 78 Riverside County Add 2 toll lanes in each direction (in addition to the existing 8 freeway lanes) 2050 $2,392 27 IVAG Summary Most of the following information comes from the Imperial County Long Range Transportation Plan 2013 Update. The SCAG RTP didn't contain much information about plans or projects regarding inter -county issues between Imperial County and Riverside County. The list of prioritized projects provided in the 2013 Update predominately contains highway and arterial improvement projects, given Imperial County's significant role in the goods movement system. The report also identifies projected population growth and development in the county, so the plan has been updated to mention the need for congestion management and transit improvements. The improvement projects mentioned in the 2013 Update related to travel between Imperial County and Riverside County mostly concern corridor segments which touch the Riverside County Line, but do not necessarily cross into Riverside. Long-range plans Planned projects needed to achieve those plans Improve mobility and safety on highways • SR-78: from SR-115 to Riverside County Line - Provide operational and safety improvements, intersection improvements • Implementation of ITS strategies Policies (referenced in the 2013 Update but actually from the 2008 Imperial County circulation plan) o Reduce vehicle miles o Reduce total number of daily peak -hour vehicle trips o Better utilize the circulation system through the development of TDM and Transportation Systems Management programs o Improve pedestrian and bus traffic operations Priorities o Congestion management to respond to population growth and development in the county, as well as to address the projected increase in traffic (especially truck traffic) related to border crossings IVAG Corridor Improvements Lead I Route I From I To Agency Description Year Complete I Project Cost ($1,000's) Ca!trans I SR-111 I Young Road I Riverside Widen from 2 to 4 lanes County Line 2025-2035 28 Table 1: Comparison Table of Inter -county Projects Project Scenario San Bernardino County side Riverside County side Plan Discrepancies/Differences -215 Bi-County Gap Closure Baseline • Existing is 3 general purpose lanes each direction • Along 1-215 corridor between Orange Show Rd in San Bernardino County and Spruce St/Sr-91 in Riverside County o Add one HOV lane in each direction o Reconstruct 1-215 and Barton Road interchange (SBD) o Reconstruct 1-215 and Washington Street interchange (SBD) • Existing is 3 general purpose lanes each direction • Construct one HOV lane in each direction from the 60/91/215 interchange to Orange Show Rd in San Bernardino County • No difference I-10 Truck Climbing Lane Baseline • Eastbound truck -climbing lane from Live Oak to Riverside County line • Eastbound truck climbing lane from the San Bernardino County line to SR-60 • No difference Completion of 1-10 to Riverside County Line with HOV or Express Lanes Aggressive • Existing is 4 general purpose lanes each direction • 1-10 from Ford St to Riverside County Line. Add one HOV lane in each direction • Existing is 3 general purpose lanes each direction • No plans for HOV lane addition on 1-10 in Riverside County Reche Canyon Road Aggressive • Reche Canyon Rd from South Crystal Ridge to Riverside County Line, widen from 2 to 4 lanes • Plans to widen Reche Canyon Road from San Bernardino County line to Heacock St from 2 to 4 lanes (WRCOG TUMF) • No difference San Timoteo Canyon Road Aggressive • Existing is 2 lanes • San Timoteo Canyon Rd from RR Crossing to Live Oak Canyon Rd, widen from 2 to 4 lanes • Existing is 2 lanes • On San Bernardino County side San Timoteo Canyon Rd is 4 lanes, on Riverside County side it's 2 lanes Etiwanda Avenue Baseline • Existing is 4 lanes • Widen Etiwanda Ave from Riverside County Line to 1-10 from 4 to 6 lanes • Existing is 6 lanes • No difference (already a 6- lane facility in Riverside County) Live Oak Canyon Road Aggressive • Existing is 2 lanes • Widen Live Oak Canyon Rd from San Timoteo Canyon Rd to East Redlands city limits from 2 to 4 lanes • Existing is 2 lanes • On San Bernardino County side it's 4 lanes, on Riverside County side it's 2 lanes 29 Project Scenario Orange County side Riverside County side Plan Discrepancies/Differences SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project between SR-241 and Pierce St (Riverside County) Eliminate bottlenecks on SR-91 (from SR- 55 to SR-71) M2/Preferred • Existing is 2 express lanes plus 5 general purpose lanes in each direction Note: RC-OC MIS envisions the addition of a 4 lane facility (MIS Corridor A) from SR-241 to 1-15 and a 41ane facility (Irvine -Corona Expressway) between SR-241 and Cajalco Rd. • Existing is 1 HOV lane plus 4 general purpose lanes in each direction • Convert existing HOV lane to express lane and add a second express lane in each direction between the Orange County line and 1-15 • Add one general purpose lane in each direction from the Orange County line to I - 15 • Will become 2 express lanes plus 5 general purpose lanes in each direction between Orange County line and 1-15 Note: RC-OC MIS envisions the addition of a 4 lane facility (MIS Corridor A) from SR-241 to 1-15 and a 41ane facility (Irvine -Corona Expressway) between SR-241 and Cajalco Rd. • No difference Project Scenario San Diego County side Riverside County side Plan Discrepancies/Differences 1-15 Revenue Constrained Scenario • 1-15 from SR-78 to Riverside County, existing is 8 freeway lanes, 2 toll lanes in each direction • Use of 1-15 Managed Lanes during off- peak periods for goods movement p p g • Existing is 8 general purpose lanes • Add 1 general purpose lane each direction from SR-60 to San Diego County Line • San Diego County includes plans to add 4 reversible toll lanes with goods movement during off peak periods • No toll lanes planned on the Riverside County side Project Scenario Imperial County side Riverside County side Plan Discrepancies/Differences SR-111 Unconstrained, Long-term • Existing is 2 lanes • From Young Road to Riverside County Line, • Widen from 2 to 4 lanes • Existing is 2 lanes • On Imperial County side it's 4 lanes, on Riverside County side it's 2 lanes 30 CALIFORNIA ROAD CHARGE PILOT PROGRAM UPDATE RCTC'S 2016 WORKSHOP January 28, 2016 Why a Road Charge? MOP IL MN Mom iherti giyComm-Marl • Senate Bill 1077 created the California Road Charge Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) • TAC recommendations describe a pilot that will: — Offer drivers a choice in mileage recording methods; — Protect drivers' privacy and personal information; — Determine the impacts of a road charge on various income levels; — Determine the impacts of a road charge on urban and rural drivers; — Seek participation from at least 5,000 vehicles that represent the geographic, demographic and socioeconomic diversity of our state; and — Does not cost participants anything. • Need 5,000 volunteer participants to ensure the pilot study is robust and effective — Volunteers should represent the geographic, demographic, and socioeconomic diversity of our state As we use less fossil fuels to cover more ground, the gas tax can't keep up and California's transportation system is now experiencing a funding shortfall, which totals $5.7 billion a year. i ac Volunteer Sign Up MN Mom lherti Cu�,giy Comm -Marl Sign up at www.CaliforniaRoadChargePilot.com Riverside Jaunty Transportation Commission ,Trztyrro,,weridoncommission CETAP Corridors County Transportation Update J .Juan C. Perez, Director Transportation & Land Management Agency January 28-29, 2016 Implementing the CETAP Vision Goal is to get improvements on the ground as soon as possible, in an incremental way, given: ➢ Funding Constraints ➢ Environmental Challenges ➢ Community Impacts ➢ Benefits of using multiple routes CETAP Corridors ,January 28-29, 2016 Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor ➢ "Support the analysis of the feasibility of developing Cajalco Expressway and Ethanac Expressway as Intra-County corridors to support the intent of the East-West Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore CETAP Corridor." ➢ "The Goal is to pursue both Cajalco and Ethanac as high- speed, limited access expressway facilities capable of moving substantial traffic." 11 Riverside County Transportation Comas6 County of Riverside General Plan CETAP Corridors ,January 28-29, 2016 Bees Sou oe: RCTD (2010), AECDM (2015), County of Rives ide j2011) Cajalco Expressway MIME DRAFT - CONCEPTUAL: Legend r. — Alternative 1 Alternative 2C � -' — Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternatives 1, 2C. & 4 - - Alternatives 1 & 2C - - Alternatives 1 8.4 - - Alternatives 3 & 4 Alternatives 1. 2C. 3, & 4 Alternatives 1 — 4 Cajalco Road Widening Project Cajalco Improvement Project Timeline ➢ Advertised Request for Proposal for consultant services November 2009 ➢ Selected consultant January 20101 started Scope and Fee Negotiations ➢ Federal Funding Approval August 2010 ➢ Federal Pre Contract Award process concluded November 2010 ➢ Approved consultant contract for Engineering/Environmental Document December 2010 ➢ CEQA public scoping meetings September 2011 ➢ First set of Right -of -Entries +1000 properties concluded May 2012 CETAP Corridors ,January 28-29, 2016 Cajalco Improvement Project Timeline (continued) ➢ Ca!trans Notification of Environmental Impact Statement in the Federal Register September 2012 ➢ Public NEPA Scoping meetings October 2012 ➢ Second round of right-of-way for environmental surveys - 750+ rights of entry received by February 2015 ➢ Have been conducting environmental surveys 2012-2015 ➢ Working to prepare EIR/EIS for public review - 2016 ➢ Target public circulation of draft EIR/EIS in 2017 CETAP Corridors ,January 28-29, 2016 Existing SR 74 NICHOLS ROAD EXTENSION � F . ELSINORE RCTC r.' CaudyTrparlalinnCswms®EarMom PERRIS "/ETHANAC ROAD ETHANAC RDAs GAP CLOSURE SAN JACINTO RIVER EAST ETHANAC ROAD CONNECTION MENIFEE il° CETAP Corridors ,January 28-29, 2016 Ethanac r Ethanac / SR 74 / El Toro Expressway NICHOLSAOAD LAKE WIMP!: uw:nu SAN JACINTO RIVER ETHANAC GOOD HOPE WASH w PROJECT LENGTH - 11.9 MI PERRIS CETAP Corridors ,January 28-29, 2016 CONSTRUCTION NOTES: Q WIDEN 300 FT LONG OVERCROSSING FROM 45 FT T0103 FT WIDE. (6 FOOT SIDEWALKS, 8 FOOT SHOULDERS, TWO 12 FOOT THROUGH LANES, AND DOUBLE LEFT TURN LANES) © INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL fl 1♦r ' 1'f i LEGEND: SINGLE ALIGNMENT RED ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT NICHOLS ROAD EXTENSION CONCEPTUAL ALIGNMENT STUDY 30 CONSTRUCT 300 FT OF ADDITIONAL OFF -RAMP LANE O CONSTRUCT 400 FT OF ADDITIONAL ON -RAMP LANE AND 360 FOOT TAPER ® CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE CULVERT ;l CITY OF LAKE COUNTY OF Rh _l d IM.I GREEN ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE . ' BLUE ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE / r "-' �' CITYBOUNDARY ® ,1 ` COUN R INTERIM SECTION I E%ISiRIG 120'-a-R/W W LANE ELSINORE PROPSED WO' RA MINTY OF RIVERSIDE D'-o• SRO 7V a- r1'-0" 1r-a' 14'- 7 n'-0" IlLo' \111 2$ 2% SHID- t aor ar eor imr 111.11Mom Aeor9do Co rir Trasprialon Can®or CETAP Corridors January 28-29, 2016 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ETHANAC ROAD GAP CLOSURE PROJECT FROM WEST SR-74 TO THE 1-215 INTERCHANGE LEGEND: PROPOSED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT ■ ■ CITY BOUNDARY l+! DIRECTION OF WATER FLOW PROPOSED RAN SWALE ETHANAC ROAD 41' 41' PROPOSED RAN 5' 10' 12' 14' 14' 12' 10' 5' SHLD 42% b 4 2%ff 0 58 FT AC ON 1.5 FTAGG. BASE TYPICAL SECTION SHLD SWALE COUNTY- OF RIVERSIDE= CITY OF PERRIS CITY OF MENIFEE- NM MEE Ewald' Coolly Tiusyasldlae Ourdsdan CETAP Corridors ,January 28-29, 2016 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ETHANAC ROAD GAP CLOSURE PROJECT FROM THE 1-215 INTERCHANGE TO EAST END RAILROAD CROSSING ,- P RRIS LEGEND: PROPOSED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT Q FREEWAY BRIDGE WIDENING _ RAILROAD CROSSING STRUCTURE ■ ■ CITY BOUNDARY EXISTING RAILROAD TRACKS F,EN g 7?1:7-7..:.. Mit RALLROAG CROSSING ALTERNATIVES: 3A - UNDERPASS CROSSING 313 - OVERHEAD CROSSING 3C-AT-GRADE CROSSING rrr`1 1000' 2000' M iS 6rs lmy,imprlibr Emulsion County General Plan Policies ➢ "Prioritize the improvement of Cajalco Expressway. Coordinate and work with RCTC, WRCOG and the Cities of Riverside, Corona, Perris, Moreno Valley, San Jacinto, and Hemet to develop a phasing plan for Cajalco Expressway and the Mid County Parkway that ensures equity in the funding and capacity improvements on each project." ➢ "Coordinate and work with RCTC, WRCOG, and the Cities of Lake Elsinore, Menifee, and Perris to develop a phasing plan for Ethanac Expressway." CETAP Corridors ,January 28-29, 2016 Moreno Valley to San Bernardino Corridor ➢ "Possible extensions and improvements to Pigeon Pass Road and Reche Canyon Road into San Bernardino County are also considered components of the CETAP concept for the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino corridor by RCTC, and the County of Riverside will participate in evaluating these facilities as funding becomes available." County General Plan CETAP Corridors ,January 28-29, 2016 MORENO VALLEY TO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CETAP CORRIDOR RECHE CANYON ROADIPIGEON PASS ROAD D IRONWOOD AVE MORENO VALLEY =`Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS„ Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METE, Esri China*(Hoag Ko sFi (Tha land),'To WrayOpmyindia, O OpenStreetMap contributors, and the G I S User Community Rough Ballpark Cost Estimates ➢ Cajalco Expressway - $350 Million ➢ Ethanac Expressway - $200 Million ➢ Reche Canyon and Pigeon Pass Corridors - $300 Million 11_ Riverside County Transportation Comas6 CETAP Corridors ,January 28-29, 2016 (:),U EST I Riverside [aunty Transportation (omission CETAP Corridors ,January 28-29, 2016 RCTC Workshop CETAP Corridors January 29, 2016 Riverside County Integrated Project "RCIP" • Three-part Program First of its kind effort to integrate these critical elements: 1) General Plan —Blueprint for future land use 2) Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) 3) Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) Inv The Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan MSHCP • First of its kind in the nation, and one of the largest: — 1.26 million acres — 146 species covered • 500,000 acres designated for preservation • 392,775 acres preserved so far (79 percent of goal) • $437 million invested so far • RCTC committed $153 million; $133 million already spent • Designed to accommodate and mitigate impacts of the CETAP corridors (MCP) and other projects Inv CETAP Effort • Guidance by a 30-member Committee: ➢ Federal Agencies ➢ Local Agencies ➢ Property Associations ➢ Building Industry Association ➢ Sierra Club ➢Audubon Society ➢ Endangered Habitats League ➢ Property Owners ➢ Commissioners Four Priority Corridors pir Moreno Valley to Redlands/Lo a Linda • Strong opposition in San Bernardino County • Focus on Reche Canyon Road and Pigeon Pass Road arterials Inv North South Corridor • Many corridor alignments studied • 1-215 corridor between Newport Road and San Diego County line designated CETAP corridor • Includes French Valley Parkway External Corridor Riverside to Orange County • SR-91 Implementation Plan Options • Widen SR-74 • New Corridor A - on SR-91 alignment or new 4 to 6 lane corridor north of Corona • New Corridor B -alignment through Cleveland National Forest/Irvine-Corona Expressway (ICE) • ROCA ➢ feasibility analysis ➢ groundwater testing ➢ final actions • r911 ION , 01-._ • ROCA Actions on ICE Corridor 2010 RCTC _ Riverside ConnlyLonsporin ion Commission • Defer the ICE tunnel project — Until such time as financial considerations and/or technological advancements warrant re-examination • Revise the ground water monitoring program from its current form — Work with the Forest Service to transfer the equipment and provide $200,000 to assist with water monitoring efforts • Assign review and discussion of tunnel considerations to the SR-91 Advisory Committee • Identify remaining funds available from the federal grant and recommend project allocation for the remainder of the grant balance CETAP- East West Corridor - HCLE •Study area encompassed 1000 sq. miles •14 alternatives evaluated, 120+ miles •Modeling showed alternatives in the northern part of the study area provided the greatest transportation benefit Tier 1 EIR/EIS RCTC INEwn` Riverside [oumy Lonsporinrion tommission • Circulated for public comment July 2002 • Included transit only alternatives (bus and commuter rail) which were rejected because they did not provide a comparable level of benefit for travelers as the highway alternatives. (In terms of reductions in travel time and congestion relief) Public nvo vem L RCTC Riverside Conn), onsporiorion Commission • Planning efforts: 1999 - 2003 • 21 public meetings specific to transportation issues • In addition to the 30-member committee Inv TivP Original Mid County Parkway e Build Alternatives from 1-15 to SR-79 ALTERNATIVE 9 AMC RCTC LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 9 (IVPS DV)* 501101 LAKE MATHEWS (ALTERNATIVES 4, 5) GENERAL PLAN (ALTERNATIVES 6,7) L. COMMON TO ALTERNATIVES PERRIS VALLEY STORM DRAIN 4, 5, 6, 7 (ALTERNATIVES 4, 6) 1 t —N PERRIS SOUTH (ALTERNATIVES 5, T) 1 COMMON TO ALL Variation Propowd C.rnncctians Original Project i 3G RCTC tam Riverside [oumy Lonsporinrion tommission Public / Stakeholder Input . i • 2003 to 2004 - - Agency Partnership Agreement — Purpose and Need Statement — Preliminary set of Alternative Alignments • 2004 to 2005 - - Caltrans Value Analysis Studies — Refinement of set of Alternative Alignments y • 2005 to 2008 - - Technical Studies — Draft EIR/EIS mir eo- L Recap of MCP Original Project DEIR/DEIS Public Review Period and Comments Received (October 2008 —January 2009) RCTC _ Riverside Conn), onsporiorion Commission • Three public information meetings, two public hearings, 1st District public meeting • Commission extended comment deadline to January 8, 2009 ➢ Providing a total 90-day comment period • Over 4,500 newsletters with comment cards were sent out in October 2008 • Over 3,100 comments received Inv ey Theme in Public Comments RCTC :.NEffme` Riverside [oumy Lonsporinrion tommission • Concerns regarding issues in the western portion of the project area between 1-15 and 1-215, including impacts to the communities and to existing habitat reserves RCTC Action 2009 RCTC INE•m Riverside [oumy Lonsporinrion tommission 1) Focus MCP limits to 1-215 and SR-79 in response to comments received on the Draft EIR/EIS; and 2) Maintain a long term plan for a future east - west CETAP corridor between 1-215 and 1-15. Alternatives No Longer Considered Mid County Parkway Modified Alternatives :.9f3h„ • ':••- • :PP! : ' .. • "; , :`.!• • r. : ' '• ',•••-• • ' .: • . • •••• •• . • . • •‘,. • • , . • .• N.i.i7:: ' •-.j ,.,...e......,.....:::•.,... ., . .. -,',,,•.,, .,..:"_ . f.. , 1 : 1 s..1 „ ......., . . W. ''•''''.° .....' ' -':. :L.'.... : •2:.:',..-..,‘..-,:.,,,'. •:.. • • • • ?:'•'''''..,.re.,',::::....:.,..:. '':, ,'••• ••, • • • ' , ::,-- ?•,..'..v4.'..'4.,,'•••• 1 : :'.:,.••••••;. .or ,f'•'.i.3:0:1.,—!....: ' . .... ' r J,e•• :' -..;'::1:-.' p ,.. 1 ;.>•iii,",,Ni", 4' y. ...• •::', • ,, •'.,. '••• ‘• • :: .. 'e. :.••••:;;''' - • i'''..:'''..7. '.:-: ;;i: '. ,.1. ''': •,,•:..:.'; '' : '" ... ,' . .,•.-,, . % ...7.•.-......,... ',. ; • .."....7•7l .'!•';; .''•'' .'1. ' .'fi°••H::::::'• . ...', • •:, , ' ‘''' '..:,'.». '•!).''.'...;:.e.;.....) . : . :,;•:•1:!.•....,,, , •:] %: '....• ''' - ' :'. ..''' ." ••••-•'• • •:: A• •" --'..,' • ;,!'.'''' e'`'6. '.!,1.-..: ' ' ".:'...° - • -• ., . •• 11 '' ' ,•'`""-••:A ' l• ' '•1 • ' 'fatiiiiiit.-:'. .. .. . 7' L.Lj L ▪ _ Riverside CoumyLonsporinrion tommission • June 2003 —Accelerate CETAP internal east -west corridor (HCLE) to project level environmental document — corridor to be identified along Cajalco Road/Ramona Expressway • Sept. 2007 —Designate Alt. 9 (32-mile) as RCTC's locally preferred alternative • July 2009 —Focus project limits to I-215 to SR-79 • April 2015 — Requesting to certify and approve MCP Total of 33 actions Inv Mid County Parkway Current RTP Projects _ Riverside ConnlyLonsporin ion Commission CONSTRAINED PLAN • MCP from SR-79 to 1-215 • CETAP Corridor 1-215 to 1-15 • Cajalco Road Widening STRATEGIC PLAN • Irvine -Corona Expressway (ICE) • Corridor A - SR-91 alignment or new 4 to 6 lane corridor north of Corona Commission Workshop Pro'ect U •date - January 29, 2016 Airil°' I imeni COACHELLA VALLEY- SAN GORGONIO PASS RAIL CORRIDOR SERVICE roject Planning Process I°P Task 1: Project Work Plan & Outreach Plan Define Project Approach Identify Stakeholder Outreach Task 2: Preliminary Service Planning and Alternatives Identify Service Patterns/Alternatives Develop Ridership and Cost Projections Task 3: Environmental Documentation Environmental Outreach & Scoping Identify impacts and Mitigations Task 4: Service Development Plan Finalize Planning Documents to be eligible for Federal Funds' roject Schedule and Status ■ Phase 1 Tasks 1 and z complete and submitted to FRA for Approval ■ Phase z FRA Grant Obligation -February 2o16 ■ Phase z CalTrans Funds Transfer Agreement - March 2016 ■ Phase z Task 3 Service NEPA Document EIS/R April 2016 /Complete November 2017 Task 4 Service Development Plan (SDP) May 2016 /Complete December 2017 Task 4 Final Performance Report - April 2018 suture nges in rtation1";.fh&ii\- A Look At Technology and • • • %VA Its Role in Building a Sustainable t Transportation ems David Ungemah Ungemah@pbworld.com AGENDA 4Big Changes in Society Big Changes in Transportation 4What We Can Do...Now floWSP VALUE OF TRANSPORTATION Mobility and connectivity vital to the economy 4 Requires efficient movement of people and goods Most of the system i 50+ years old Almost all of the system lacks active operations management floWSP PARSONS BIG CHANGES IN SOCIETY tell us where we are going. floWSP BRINCICERHOFF PARSONS LO ECONOMIC TRENDS + f am+ .+ th i a."f �" �EEMOFr F y* . P ■ .fad � ti a m1. 4440 i r i r MA" ▪ NIFIFAM iF I 4,4rI I 9E1015 �� * r f.% � +ice N Er `�� 1 + �t $ IAA � r t � �. w � F �*ri'F rim ri � #� � Rr PIL 2211 w11 vrin i f1*.f �++ a Sri •▪ lbetra WWI i� __� floWSP A PARSONS MAJOR SOCIO DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS Trend 1. National population is growing more slowly. 2. Aging population, especially among 65+ cohort. 3. Greater racial diversity across population. 4. Blurring of city and suburb. 5. Increase in multi -generational and large households. 6. Digital connectivity complements physical connectivity. The Effects of Socic-Demographics ali. Future Travel Demand Implication 1. Changing preferences for travel. 2. VMT overall continues to grow. 3. Economic contribution declines per capita. 4. Work trips as percentage of all trips decline per capita. 5. Decreased VMT per capita and auto ownership (especially among young people). 6. Increased non -motorized, carpooling, and transit trips. Source: NCHRP Report 750 Volume 6, The Effects of Socio Demographics on Future Travel Demand, 2015 fpWSP THE DIGITAL GENERATION 1:‘, 4 Digital Natives, born after internet became ubiquitous Approximately 25 percent of U.S. Population Interdependent with digital world Affects all aspects of social and professional behaviors and preferences floWSP BRINCICERHOFF PARSONS UNDERSTANDING SOCIO-ECONOMIC TRENDS „„„„„„„„„ "We the growing reality that today young people don't seem to be ,,as„ interested in cars as p generations. Jim Lentz President of Toyota tioWSP BRINCKERHOFF PARSONS 11 CUSTOMIZATION EXPECTATION Technology is More Intimate and Pervasive Data Integration and Contextual Personalization 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111, floWSP 12 RISE OF THE SHARING ECONOMY 4 Pervasive economic impacts of Great Recession al Underemployment ■ Increase in short-term / part-time work 4 Freelance / continuous temporary employment Technological networks engaged for individual economic pursuits THE GREAT TRUST SHIFT: FROM INSTITUTIONS TO INDIVIDUALS INSTITUTIONAL TRUST PEER TRUST floWSP PARSONS 13 NETWORK OF TRUST 4 "Reputation and Trust" oriented information 4 Choices driven more by peer ratings 4 Information on options is now broadly distributed, rather than in the hands of a few Instant communication on multiple platforms No need to rely on third parties 4 Expectation is INSTANTANEOUS r 4/CHECK OUR REVIEWS Angie%list 14 DIGITIZATION OF MONEY ifSift lIpii13119 111wH [02 81AS [iE T • $21.0C 4 Significant reduction in cash reliance Expectation that electronic payments are accepted instead of cash, and, can be done using trusted sources Affects all service providers PayPai 0 Pay with Square VISA MasterCard. ,wnewi RESS joWSP BRINCICERHOFF PARSONS System automata industrial control logic Big data informing micro decisions in real t Personalized interfaces Advanced compu algorithms remov+ �sw . _ •lE t- -li.f0 -0-K �a4wl�: _lO.9l 'owlWl H.a floWSP OUR TRANSPORTATION FUTURE ... responding to the Big Changes in Society, ,Economy, and Technology. joWSP BRINCKERHOFF PARSONS #1: REDEFINING THE "PEAK PERIOD" floWSP PARSONS DEVIATION FROM TRADITIONAL PEAK PERIOD 4 Population and employment growth only a subset of overall traffic growth 4 Yields a rethinking of a peak period and how to manage demand 4 Travel time variability giving way to travel time predictability and reliability Sharing Economy + 0 Continuous Temporary Employees Big Shifts in Time and Places of Work floWSP BRINCICERHOFF PARSONS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE 4 Reorient services towards expanded concept of peak period travel 4 Continuous collection of useful transportation data Travel demand ■ Conditions awareness Personalized recommendations Flexible systems of response Peak I Peak + I Off -Peak floWSP #2: CONNECTED SOCIETIES CONNECTED TRAVEL RIDESOURCING IS THE FIRST STAGE Typical customers ■ Less likely to own vehicle ■ Young, educated, and higher income ■ Drive less frequently Drivers' motivation is income ■ Passengers and drivers do not share destinations Ridesourcing is complementary to transit ■ 60%+ of ridesourcing trips were not well served by transit ■ Increasing use for access to transit stations ■ 50% had more than one passenger - AVO of 2.8 22 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE Already providing product lines for "similar destination" pairings with discounted rates Competition gives way to connection and collaboration Use of ridesourcing for first -mile / last -mile transit connections Dallas Atlanta Durham . Vairon, raira Back Get there with transit. dP51ma i-On k, . -lest transii vpllvn. PII4O NOW Back ,_a . pcie Fromm Origin To: Destination Hop in your P.ck up in QGot on bus 5e floWSP VFW, 13D6 Back •sure op7urr 1 J Hop in your Uber Pick up in ;n..... MEM Gat on bus Sd Sec the EOM Arrive et your #3: INFRASTRUCTURE ADOPTS INDUSTRIAL CONTROLS AND AUTOMATION ESTIMATED TRAVEL TIME - - - tioWSP AUTOMATION TO PREVENT CONGESTION -› Recapturing capacity throughout all hours of day Flow control and infrastructure management ■ Big data / distributed interfaces ■ Coordinated metering System -wide distribution of access ■ Use of pricing for individual choice Au °mated applications M1 Managed Motorways (Melbourne) ■ Integrated Corridor Management "ffiWSP mirairsiiiimomomanimanom: a) c c c a) a) o x o_Q w T c O N }' U CD c Q O OU u) -'E'. _ > c U Ocp- N CO � E CI � co c C6 � c N °D ° a) � E E a) += a) -0 co 0_ c (D E ( E L- ° T IN #4: TRANSPORTATION AS A SERVICE joWSP 27 FUTURE INFRASTRUCTURE Current design standards to accommodate human error and deviation Future design: vehicle automation, connection, and decisioning Condensed and more efficient use of infrastructure with no lane markings with no traffic signals anizing clusters of vehicle shapes joWSP IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE Relationship between vehicle and person changes Vehicles as subscription requires storage On -demand travel changes the VMT and capacity equation floWSP HAT CAN WE DO OW? joWSP PARSONS BE REALISTIC ABOUT WHERE WE ARE 4 Most transformational change is outside the agency's purview ■ Current position is reactive, not assertive ■ Changes will happen whether we want them to or not -> We can use existing technologies, processes, and methodologies to improve our systems — TODAY ■ Building more is only the first step ■ Commit to managing and operating existing infrastructure to best extent possible WE CAN PREVENT CONGESTION! REQUIRES A FUNDAMENTAL COMMITMENT TO MANAGE ROADWAY CAPACITY TO AVOID TRAFFIC FLOW BREAKDOWNS lowsp PARsoNs 32 SOLVING CONGESTION REQUIRES... Provision of base level infrastructure to accommodate growth Commitment to active routinely manage infrastructure Sufficient capital and annua operations funding to accomplish both floWSP BRINCKERHOFF PARSONS CAN ENHANCE CESSIBILITY! BY PROVIDING NEW MEANS OF CONNECTING WITH EXISTING TRANSIT SYSTEMS floWSP PARSONS 34 ENHANCING CONNECTIVITY REQUIRES... 4 Reorienting services to connecting people and goods from wherever to wherever 4 Actively collaborate with the private sector for addressing the whole trip 4 Embrace acquisition, distribution, and use of big data to fine tune service and personalize experience joWSP FINAL THOUGHT Operations - oriented focus Agency culture for flexibility It all starts with thinking of infrastructure as an ongoing operations opportunity Responsive to new technologies and systems iffiWSP hWSP The Future of Transportation in Riverside County: What We Can Do About It January 28, 2016 Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Tronsporndion Commission Yes, if... ME�Ra,. Making Decisions RCTC The "Sweet Spot" Public Input Financial Technical 3 iu R MEIR Riverside County Population and Employment Growth (2012-2040) Population 2012 Population 2040 Population Absolute Difference (2012-2040) Pct. Difference (2012-2040) Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Western Riverside County Total Riverside Co. 431, 206 25,783 1,787,928 2,444,917 697,744 43,473 2,430,010 3,171,227 266,538 17,690 642,310 926,310 62% 69% 36% 41% Employment 2012 Employment 2040 Employment Absolute Difference (2012-2040) Pct. Difference (2012-2040) Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Western Riverside County Total Riverside Co. 148,174 5,080 463,433 616,687 294,174 10,763 848,829 1,153, 766 146,000 5,683 385,396 537,079 99 112% 83% 87% 4 Jobs/Housing Ratio Despite having the highest employment and population growth, Riverside County is expected to have the lowest jobs/housing ratio in Southern California. 2012 Population 2040 Population Los Angeles 9,922,731 11,517,461 Orange 3,071,544 3,464,493 Riverside 2,244,917 3,171,227 San Bernardino 2,067,978 2,725,029 Ventura Total SCAG Region 835,432 18,322,197 962,806 22,123,389 Pop Difference 2012 Employment 2040 Employment Emp Difference 2012 Jobs to Households 2040 Jobs to Households 16% 4,235,143 5,213,136 23% 13% 1,526,227 1,898,685 24% 41% 616,687 1,153,770 87% 32% 659,463 1,028,205 56% 15% 332,250 420,211 26% 21% 7,428,836 9,838,616 32% 1.30 1.53 0.89 1.07 1.23 1.26 1.32 1.65 1.10 1.20 1.35 1.33 5 w 4 s r �� • ,. 7�11 �l ommraii.k.ffitikr� ..�5 �ip � lifft 11� .. 4 �u MEIR 2040 Travel Patterns niers' RCTC rtahon ommml Most trips will be within Riverside County, speaking to the need to improve transportation internal to the county. Los Angeles County Orange County Tripsto other desti nati ons: �UZI $% Miles N 0 15 San 8emardino County 11% Riverside County CAES 79% 79% San Diego County 9 %' 4 9 % salba Ste 111 imperial County Arizona ,.Base year 513-•+ ,.Future year 0000 Interlintrazonal trip flows .'. Congestion Will Grow Countywide RCTC • Ontario • Colton • Redlands Chine • San Bernardino County Mira Loma�� Calimesa I • Moreno • Cherry Norco • Corona • .��'--- San Perris d Jacinto • Hemet Valle Sun City East Hemet I=. Vista Canyon • Lake Winchestef Riverside • Valley Beaumont Valley • �� • • Banning Lake Elsinore Orange County Mission Viejo San Juan Capistrano • San Clemente • IR" Wildomar' • . Mumeta •' ' Temecula • - n ~ Aguanga Fallbrook • San Diego County Desert Hot Springs • Palm Thousand `Springs\ ♦L .palms Cathedral • Ci y '\ Idylhviltl I Rancho• Indian• • Mirage ` Wells a • Indio '--� La Ouinta Coachella - Roadways Over Capacity - Existing • t Riverside County Thermal Mecca Oasis Joshua Tree NP Salton See , ORiverside County • Incorporated City 10 Miles Unincorporated Area • Ontario China Mira. • { Loma � • —x r Riverside Memo Corona ,,,, Orange County Mission Viejo San Juan Capistrano • • Colton • Redlands Calimesa San Bernardino County oesen Hot Moreno \ Cherry Springs rin s Valley Beaumont• Valley • �• z San t 71; Lake•l , • Elsinore • Canyon es\ Lake r Wildman • • San Clemente • Perris • Banning - Jeeinto Hemp Valle Fast Hemet • Vista • wlncnester J • MC' Murrieta • Temecula Aguanga •. Idyllwild t \Palmner Thousand iSprigs �Palm� `1 Cathedral 1•�City .r Rancho Mirage l Indian`,,,, ♦ , Wells,•tl dio La 4uinta Coachell� r Thermal Mecca � �N[:psis Riverside County ehl,:. - _ NP I 10 Miles Blythe = alltimok San Diego County Sean sea Roadways Over Capacity - Existing - Roadways Over Capacity - Future Riverside County • Incorporated City Unincorporated Area 7 ME�Ra,. Transit Service Levels we RCTC rtahon ommm7 Lower development densities equate to lower transit ridership. Annual Transit Service Hours per Capita Annual Transit Trips per Capita Los Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino San Diego Ventura r 1.50 0.89 0.45 0.39 1.04 0.36 60.7 20.8 10.0 9.3 30.7 6.5 8 Measure A: Completed RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission Western County • 60/215 East Junction Project • 74/215 Interchange Project • 1-215 South Project • 1-215 Bi-County Gap Closure • 1-215 Central Project • SR-91/La Sierra Avenue Interchange Project • SR-91/Van Buren Boulevard Bridge and Interchange Project • SR-91/Green River Road Interchange Project • 1-215 Widening — Southbound — Blaine Street to Martin Luther King Boulevard) • I-215/Van Buren Boulevard Interchange • SR-74 Curve Widening • Grade Separations: Auto Center Drive, Columbia Avenue, Iowa Avenue, Jurupa Avenue, Magnolia Avenue, Riverside Avenue, and Streeter Avenue • Perris Valley Line — 24 mile commuter rail extension terminating in Perris (2016) Coachella Valley • SR-111: o Make Improvements and Widen SR-111 through Indian Wells (Phases I -IV) o Washington Street Intersection Improvement (La Quinta) • 1-10/Palm Drive/Gene Autry Trail • 1-10/Indian Canyon Drive • I-10/Bob Hope Drive/Ramon Road Interchange • 1-10/Date Palm Drive • I-10/Monterey Avenue Interchange Project • Grade Separation Projects: Avenue 48/Dillon Road, Avenue 50, and Avenue 52 9 Measure A: Under Construction Alp illka RCTC 1 1. Riverside County Transportation Commission Western County Coachella Valley • 91 Project — Tolled Express Lanes • SR-91 HOV Project • Grade Separation Projects: Clay Street, Magnolia Avenue, and Sunset Avenue • I-10/Jefferson Street Interchange Project • Avenue 56 / Airport Boulevard Grade Separation Project 10 • Measure A: Future RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission Western County • 1-15 Express Lanes Project • SR-60 — Add Truck Climbing and Descending Lane, Badlands area east of Moreno Valley • 71/91 Interchange Project • SR-71 Corridor Improvement Project • SR-79 Realignment Project • Mid County Parkway • 1-215 North Project • 10/60Interchange • 1-10 Truck Climbing Lane Coachella Valley • SR-111: o Signal Synchronization Project o Intersection improvements and Street Widening in Cathedral City o Widening Project in Indian Wells from Cook Street to the Eastern City Limit o Madison Street to Rubidoux Street — Street Improvement Project (Indio) • SR-86Interchanges • 1-10 Interchange Projects o 1-10 / Monroe Street o 1-10 / Jackson Street • Whitewater River Bridge Crossing (Avenue 50) • Avenue 48 Widening (Jackson Street to Van Buren Street) • SR-86/Avenue 50 Interchange Project • Avenue 66 Grade Separation Project 11 Measure A: Funding Splits Western County *Bond Financing-8% *Economic Development In ntives -1 *Highways - 3 *Local Streets and Roads - 29% *New Corridors =11% GPublicTransit-12 *Regional Arterials -9 Coachella Valley +Highways and Regional Arterials - 50% *Loral Streets and Roads -35% *Public Transit -15% Palo Verde Malley *Local Streets and Roads -100% 1.1.1M� Riverside [aunty Iroreporminn Comnisvim 12 s Funding Sources for Capital Improvements 2016-2039 Funding Gap 111111 $9.833 Billion 42% MEM Riverside County Transportation Commission $6.114 Billion 26% $6.058 Billion 26% ■ Existing Programs ■ Discretionary Grants Possible New $1.363 Billion Sources 6% 13 What We Can Coun Existing Funds: $6.114 billion Non-motorized/Active Transportation Transit - Bus Capital Transit - Commuter/Regional Rail Intercity Rail Grade Separations Arterials Freeways & Interchanges ti Additional Funds Needed $441 million $357 million $1.145 billion $134 million $1.376 billion $7.956 billion $5.843 billion 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% $17.508 billion = TOTAL GAP 14 • Historical performance of the County in securing discretionary (Category B) revenues from key programs in the past five years (where applicable); • Compared to annual target goal, typically based on County population share, to identify areas of excellence and potential improvement . Program Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Years Inventoried Annual Average Target 2011-2015 $4.0 $5.2 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 2011-2015 $8.8 $9.2 Active Transportation Program (ATP) 2014-2015 $11.6 $3.7 Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) 2015 $3.1 $9.6 Transit & Intercity Rail Capital Program (TI RCP) 2015 $5.5 $17.7 CPUC Grade Separation Section 190 Program 2011-2015 $5.0 $1.0 % of Target 77% 96% 316% 32% 31% 520% 15 �u /40 MEIR What We Could Get veers RCTC rnmon emmm7 Discretionary Funds add $1.363 billion Non-motorized/Active Transportation Transit - Bus Capital Transit - Commuter/Regional Rail Intercity Rail Grade Separations Arterials Freeways & Interchanges I Li Additional Funds Needed $265 million $300 million $642 million $63 million $1.129 billion $7.736 billion $5.785 billion 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% $16.157 billion TOTAL GAP Category A Category B 16 Possible New Sources RCTC niersi.e ounry ronsportuhon ommissien Category A Category B Category C Funding Gap (in millions) Federal Gas Tax Increase $587 State Gas Tax Increase $847 Mileage -Based User Fees (plus State Gas Tax) $1,957 Measure A2: 20-year 1/4C $1,265 Vehicle License Fee Increase $422 Freeway Mitigation Fee $585 Toll Revenues $241 Private Railroad Funds Total $153 $6.058 billion 17 Status of the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund Billions of Dollars 100 so 60 40 20 0 - 20 - 40 - 60 - s0 - 2006 Actual Projected I Outlays End -of -Year Balance or Shortfall Receipts i zoos 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 CONGRES:DiuNAL BUDGET OFFICE 18 iu MEIR Funding for Rail and Transit O&M by 2040 RCTC Funding Gap $16.9 Million 3% $3.3 Million 1% $139.7 Million 25% $7.6 Million 1% ❑ Existing Revenue ❑ Future Farebox Revenues ❑ CMAQ ❑ LCTO P ❑ State Operating Assistance for Intercity Rail ❑ Unfunded Need 19 Intermission Riverside County Tronsportdon Commission 20 What The Public Told Us Riverside County Tronsportotion Commission 21 ME�Ra,. �.0 Transportation Summits • Perris • Riverside • Temecula • Winchester • Palm Desert • Blythe Workshop Over 200+ attendees RCTC Summits: What We Heard 1. Maximize capacity through the use of existing infrastructure and information technology. 2. The County benefits when the nexus between transportation and land use planning is met. 3. Recognize the need for better connectivity between rural (affordable) and urban centers. 4. Generate transportation policy by respecting the needs of users and how it makes their lives better and more convenient. NM Riverside County Transportation Commission 23 Public Opinion Research August and October 2015 800 Likely Voters Countywide Riverside County Tronsportotion Commission 24 Views of Government aCTC 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40 30% 20% 10% 0% — No Opinion ■ Dissatisfied Satisfied Local City Government Riverside County Board Riverside County California State of Supervisors Transportation Legislature Commision 25 Source. Aug and Oct 2015 JMM Poll 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 Priority Issues 1 ■ No Opinion ■ Low ■ Medium High � ••oos qs `°\ o°\" o�es `°� Jew• e( k•�(., mac, O•oa`� ▪ °ke,\9N •Ae� `fir °ter °\\� vQ\° °AcSe�J cekJ cIi-ee a � \ i,�� Q�°J\a �o�'a\� _Cr °°a\� a�a�\ a�`\�� et'� r C\ �' SL �\,°`a Q \� � �Q a �o e o`r�+ o».. Q`e\e•�� `\\osk o• ' - ,• •(\0 �•c• o- ‘�o Qua aS\ (o� k"9 26 Source: Aug and Oct 2015.1MM Poll Most Popular Transportation Improvements 100°% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Fixing Widening Expanding Providing Improving More Expanding Expanding bus More bike Building new potholes and congested older freeway tow- walking and underpasses Metrolink and service lanes and bike highways pesurfacing highways interchange truck service bike routes to or overpasses Amtrak to Roads school new areas paths ■ No Opinion ■ Low Medium ■ High 27 Source: Aug and Oct 2015 JMM Poll Revenue Options MOP AN RCTC 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ■ No Opinion ■ Oppose Favor \area ���� �`e,�� a ee s�eeh \., ��� e\off a��e �a�e e��e ek�a e, o� z rye �� , <6 �a �� _\eat \ce e�� ore �� Sao ate\ per the e h a• ''?▪ ). .per °\ .2, 1 7 • tea,\(° e4eta a`\.($0 \.`te \tee �� fie,\ 28 Source: Aug and Oct 2015 JMM Poll ME�Ra,. Making Decisions RCTC The "Sweet Spot" Public Input Financial Technical 29 • Riverside County will continue growing: ➢ Jobs/Housing ratio will remain out of balance; ➢ Transportation within the county must be addressed; ➢ Congestion will outpace projects; • More integrated transportation and land use planning across government agencies is needed to optimize county infrastructure and prepare for future growth. 30 ME�Ra,. Conclusions • Despite historic levels of investment in transportation, the public is very unaware of RCTC or Measure A (we're not getting credit); • The public supports tolling. Tolling can provide: ➢ Opportunity for RCTC to reintroduce itself to public ➢ Opportunity to look at additional projects, solutions 31 Jib illks Conclusions RCTC rve MAU ommissien • New revenue is necessary to meet needs and expectations; ➢ Operations funding for rail and transit cannot be overlooked, especially if service is to expand; • The public supports transportation but is not ready today to approve new taxes or fees; • Even after securing all potential revenue, the gap will be large: ➢ How we use infrastructure and technology must change to help close the gap. 32 Yes, if... Riverside County Tronsportotion Commission 1. Planning for the Future 2. Maximizing Our Assets 3. Increasing Funding 4. Communicate More 34 ME�Ra,. Planning for the Future RCTC NMMEE� Riverside County Tronsportotion Commission ✓ Countywide Transportation Plan ✓ Evaluate new tolling options ✓ RCTC leads on rail projects ✓ New 10-Yr Measure A Delivery Plan ➢ Focus on deferred projects ➢ CETAP evaluation 35 Maximize Our Assets RCTC 111..M� Riverside County Tronsportotion Commission ✓ Optimize existing funding sources ➢ 2019 Measure A Expenditure Plan Update ➢ Integration of all projects across modes ➢ Aggressively seek competitive grants ➢ Re-evaluate funding allocations (among bus/rail, etc.) ✓ Prioritization and Phasing Assessment ➢ Where/how can we get projects for the best value? ➢ How can technology help reduce needs? ✓ Pursue project delivery policy reform ✓ Enhance Commuter Assistance Program 36 ME�Ra,. Maximize Our Assets RCTC NMMEE� Riverside County Tronsportotion Commission ✓ Effectuate development of TOD around rail/transit. ✓ Promote development/expansion of employment centers supported by multi -modal transportation. ✓ Enhance transit service levels to low-income and transit dependent communities. ✓ Make RivCo transportation system more "user friendly" and visible to the public 37 ME�Ra,. Increase Funding RCTC NMM� Riverside County Tronsportotion Commission ✓ Encourage new state and federal funding ✓ Submit a new sales tax measure to voters in 2018 or 2020 ✓ Tolling ✓ Consider a truck impact mitigation fee and/or development mitigation fee for highways ✓ Address future transit and rail operations and maintenance shortfalls 38 ME�Ra,. Communicate More NM MEE Riverside County Tronsportotion Commission ✓ Ongoing public education and engagement ✓ Enhance existing stakeholder engagement ✓ Customer -service focus: ➢ Develop outreach and feedback mechanisms for customer communication 39 Recommended Actions Riverside County Tronsportotion Commission 40 Recommendations RCTC wersi a oonty ronsportahon mmissien Four items for FY 2016/17 Commission Budget: 1) Countywide Integrated Long Range Transportation Plan 2) "Next Generation" toll feasibility study 3) "Next Generation" rail feasibility study 4) Long-term communications and customer/public engagement �_. -�-- q Recommendations RCTC Four policy items: 1) Integration of projects across modes 2) Update funding allocation policies 3) Begin 2019-2029 Measure A Delivery Plan 4) Adopt as a Commission objective to submit an additional local sales tax measure to Riverside County voters on the November 2018 or 2020 ballot 42