Loading...
05 May 23, 2016 Western Riverside County Programs and ProjectsRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TIME: 1:30 p.m. DATE: Monday, May 23, 2016 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside  COMMITTEE MEMBERS  Ben Benoit, Chair / Timothy Walker, City of Wildomar Deborah Franklin, Vice Chair / Art Welch, City of Banning Karen Spiegel / Randy Fox, City of Corona Adam Rush / Clint Lorimore, City of Eastvale Frank Johnston / Brian Berkson, City of Jurupa Valley Scott Mann / John Denver, City of Menifee Yxstian Gutierrez / Jesse Molina, City of Moreno Valley Berwin Hanna / Ted Hoffman, City of Norco Daryl Busch / Rita Rogers, City of Perris Andrew Kotyuk / Crystal Ruiz, City of San Jacinto Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside, District I Marion Ashley, County of Riverside, District V  STAFF  Anne Mayer, Executive Director John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director  AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY  Air Quality, Capital Projects, Communications and Outreach Programs, Intermodal Programs, Motorist Services, New Corridors, Regional Agencies/Regional Planning, Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), Specific Transit Projects, State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program, and Provide Policy Direction on Transportation Programs and Projects related to Western Riverside County and other areas as may be prescribed by the Commission. Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. COMM-WRC-00029 Riverside County Transportation Commission TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Riverside County Transportation Commission Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board May 18, 2016 Possible Conflicts of Interest Issues -Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Agenda of May 23, 2016 The April 25 agenda of the WRC Programs and Projects Committee includes items which may raise possible conflicts of interest. A RCTC member may not participate in any discussion or action concerning a contract or amendment if a campaign contribution of more than $250 is received in the past 12 months or 3 months following the conclusion from any entity or individual listed. Agenda Item No. 10 -Agreement with Nossaman LLP for On-Call Strategic Partnership Advisor Services Consultant(s): Nossaman LLP Corey Boock, Partner 777 South Figueroa Street, 34th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tara Byerly From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Importance: Tara Byerly Wednesday, May 18, 2016 3:38 PM Tara Byerly Alexandra Rackerby; Jennifer Harmon RCTC: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Agenda -05.23.2016 High Good afternoon WRC Programs and Projects Committee Members: Attached is the link to the WRC Programs and projects Committee Agenda for the meeting scheduled @ 1:30 p.m. on Monday, May 23. http://www.rctc.org/uploads/media items/western-riverside-county-programs-and-projects-committee-may-23- 2016.original.pdf Conflict of Conflict of Interest Form.pdf Interest Memo.pdf Also, attached for your review and information is the conflict of interest memo and form. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Respectfully, <Tara S. (]Jyer(y 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 WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 1:30 p.m. Monday, May 23, 2016 BOARD ROOM County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor Riverside, 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, Government Code Section 54954.2, and the Federal Transit Administration Title VI, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141 if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, including accessibility and translation services. Assistance is provided free of charge. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting time will assist staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide assistance at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ATTENDANCE / ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS – Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Committee may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Committee, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. Also, the Committee may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Committee shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda which are not listed on the agenda. Board members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee May 23, 2016 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – APRIL 25, 2016 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are less than 2/3 of the Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) 7. RATIFY EXPENDITURES FOR CONSTRUCTION ZONE ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM AND OTHER STATE FURNISHED MATERIALS FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Page 1 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Ratify the scope of state furnished materials (SFM) defined in the design-build cooperative Agreement No. 12-31-070-00, as amended, between the Commission and Caltrans for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) to include Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program (COZEEP) and other SFM in the amount of $4.3 million, plus a contingency amount of $400,000, for a total amount not to exceed $4.7 million; 2) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve the use of the contingency amount as may be required for the project; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. RIVERSIDE 91 EXPRESS LANES ORDINANCE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF TOLL VIOLATIONS Page 4 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the introduction of and introduce Ordinance No. 16-001, “An Ordinance of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Establishing Ordinance No. 16-001 Relating to the Administration of Tolls and the Enforcement of Toll Violations for the Riverside 91 Express Lanes”; 2) Approve the toll evasion penalties for a violation of Ordinance No. 16-001 in the amounts identified in Schedule A of Ordinance No. 16-001; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee May 23, 2016 Page 3 9. SECTION 214 FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FOR INTERSTATE 15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT Page 17 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 16-31-096-00 between Riverside County Transportation Commission and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District, for Section 214 funding agreement in the amount of $15,000, plus a contingency amount of $45,000, for a total amount not to exceed $60,000; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve the use of the contingency amount as may be required for the project; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. AGREEMENT WITH NOSSAMAN LLP FOR ON-CALL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP ADVISOR SERVICES Page 28 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-66-028-13, Amendment No. 10 to Agreement No. 06-66-028-00, with Nossaman LLP (Nossaman) for the on-call strategic partnership advisor services by extending the contract term to December 31, 2020, and augmenting the agreement in the amount of $5.7 million, plus a contingency amount of $300,000, for an additional amount of $6 million, and a total amount not to exceed $14,352,935; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve the use of the contingency amount as may be required for the project; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee May 23, 2016 Page 4 11. RESOLUTION 16-011 REGARDING THE INTERSTATE 15 EXPRESS LANES TOLL POLICY GOALS AND TOLL POLICIES Page 40 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 16-011, “Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding Interstate 15 Express Lanes Toll Policy Goals and Toll Policies”; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. INTERSTATE 15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Page 91 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. PROPOSED METROLINK BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016/17 Page 93 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt the Fiscal Year 2016/17 Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) operating and capital budget, which results in a total operating and capital subsidy of $19,233,000 from the Commission; 2) Support an amendment to the FY 2016/17 SCRRA operating and capital budget in an amount not to exceed $6 million for the expansion of the Riverside Downtown Layover Facility and additional track improvements on the corridor; 3) Receive and file a report on the Commission’s portion of the FY 2016/17 SCRRA operating and capital budget; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee May 23, 2016 Page 5 14. FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL SUPERVISION Page 140 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 16-45-094-00 with the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to provide supervision and operation of the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program in Riverside County in an amount not to exceed $793,181; 2) Authorize the Chair, or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 15. AMENDMENT TO FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL AGREEMENT Page 153 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 11-45-053-05, Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. 11-45-053-00, with Tri-City Towing, Inc. (Tri-City) to provide Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) services on Beat No. 7 for an additional amount of $60,000, and a total amount not to exceed $1,110,000; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 16. FISCAL YEAR 2016/17 MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE BUSPOOL SUBSIDY FUNDING CONTINUATION REQUESTS Page 158 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Authorize payment of $1,645/month maximum subsidy per buspool for the period July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017, to the existing Riverside, Riverside II, and Mira Loma buspools; 2) Require subsidy recipients to meet monthly buspool reporting requirements as supporting documentation to receive payments; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee May 23, 2016 Page 6 17. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meeting/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 18. ADJOURNMENT The next Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 1:30 p.m., Monday, June 27, 2016, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE County of Riverside, District I County of Riverside, District V City of Banning City of Corona City of Eastvale City of Jurupa Valley City of Menifee City of Moreno Valley City of Norco City of Perris City of San Jacinto City of Wildomar ROLL CALL May 23, 2016 Present ~ ~ LI ~ LI LI LI ~ LI jlf Absent LI LI LI J{ LI ~ j!t' LI LI pr LI JOIN US FOR THE 27TH ANN UAL DEMOGRAPHIC WORKSHOP The Southern California Association of Governments and the University of Southern California Sol Price School of Public Policy are pleased to invite you to the 27th Annual Demographic Workshop at the California Science Center on Monday, June 13, 2016. This year's program, "The Continued Rise of the Millennials?" provides new insights and research on this important demographic group and what that means for the region's future, including housing, employment and services. The program will include guest speakers and panels related to this topic and will be attended by over 150 thought leaders, business representatives and city officials. MONDAY, JUNE 13, 2016 II 8a.m. -3p.m. Continental breakfast served at 7:30am. Register online at www.scag.ca.gov/demographics Early bird registration (ends May 31): $75/person Registration (after May 31): $100/person Student registration : $50/person Continental breakfast and lunch included For more information, contact John Cho (213) 236-1847 or choj@scag .ca .gov 7 hours of CM credit is available for this event )LPPORTING PARTNE-1'.l; www.scag .ca .gov/demograph ics USC Price J') 1 en< J B.Jre, Ci' form a St tf' (en< Data C€ -.tpr, Sol Price School of Public Policy C l1forn1a DE: part me rt c' F inane e C di forr i Depci t'1wnt r,' 1-1~ J n., ilnd C ;n unity 0€-v"lopn ent uc.c opL :.it1or "yr arr' s R search ( oup SAVE THE DATE 27THANNUAL DEMOGRAPHIC WORKSHOP MONDAY, JUNE 13, 2016 8:00a.m . -3:00p.m . California Science Center Loker Conference Center 700 Exposition Park Drive Los Angeles, CA 90037 www.scag.ca.gov/demographics Pres ent ed b\,I USC Price Sol Price School of Public Policy AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE Monday, April 25, 2016 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee was called to order by Chair Pro Tem Adam Rush at 1:32 p.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Commissioner Kevin Jeffries led the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Members Absent Marion Ashley Ben Benoit Daryl Busch Deborah Franklin Berwin Hanna Yxstian Gutierrez Kevin Jeffries Andrew Kotyuk Frank Johnston Scott Mann Adam Rush Karen Spiegel 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Arnold San Miguel, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), announced SCAG is hosting an active transportation leadership symposium for elected officials on May 4, 11:30 a.m. - 3 p.m. at the La Quinta Resort. RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes April 25, 2016 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – OCTOBER 26, 2015 M/S/C (Hanna/Johnston) to approve the minutes as submitted. 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the agenda. 7. EXPRESS LANES PRIVACY POLICY Jennifer Crosson, Toll Operations Manager, presented the scope of the express lanes privacy policy. M/S/C (Ashley/Mann) to: 1) Adopt Resolution 16-008, “Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the Express Lanes Privacy Policy”; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE LA SIERRA STATION PARKING LOT EXPANSION PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVAL OF THE LA SIERRA STATION PARKING LOT EXPANSION PROJECT Patti Castillo, Capital Projects Manager, presented the details of the adoption of resolution certifying the La Sierra Station parking lot expansion project initial study/mitigated negative declaration and approval of the La Sierra Station parking lot expansion project. M/S/C (Johnston/Spiegel) to: 1) Adopt Resolution No 16-009, “Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approving a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the La Sierra Station Parking Lot Expansion Project and Approving the Project”; 2) Approve the La Sierra Station Parking lot expansion project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes April 25, 2016 Page 3 9. AGREEMENTS FOR ON-CALL PAINTING SERVICES FOR THE COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS AND RIVERSIDE DOWNTOWN OPERATIONS CONTROL CENTER Hector Casillas, Senior Management Analyst, presented the scope of the agreements for on-call painting services for the commuter rail stations and Riverside Downtown Operations Control Center. M/S/C (Mann/Busch) to: 1) Award the following agreements to provide on-call painting services for a three-year term, and two two-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount of $1.2 million, plus a contingency amount of $150,000, for a total amount not to exceed an aggregate value of $1,350,000; a. Agreement No. 16-24-013-00 with Interlog Corporation dba Interlog Construction; and b. Agreement No. 16-24-076-00 with U.S. National Corp. dba Jimenez Painting Company; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, including option years, on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to execute task orders awarded to contractors under the terms of the agreements; 4) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work as may be required for the project; and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. AGREEMENT FOR ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE, INSPECTION, AND REPAIR SERVICES Hector Casillas presented the scope of the agreement for elevator maintenance, inspection, and repair services. At Commissioner Karen Spiegel’s request, Hector Casillas clarified it is the consultants responsibility to ensure the elevator permits are valid. Anne Mayer, Executive Director, added staff will follow up with regard to Commissioner Spiegel’s concern regarding expired permits. M/S/C (Spiegel/Ashley) to: 1) Award Agreement No. 16-24-060-00 to Pacific Coast Elevator dba Amtech Elevator Services (Amtech) for the provision of elevator maintenance, inspection, and repair services for a three-year term, and two two-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount of $550,000, plus a contingency amount of $55,000, for a total amount not RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes April 25, 2016 Page 4 to exceed $605,000; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement, including option years, on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to execute task orders awarded to the contractor under the terms of the agreement; 4) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve contingency work up to the total not to exceed amount as required for these services; and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. FISCAL YEAR 2016/17 SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS AGREEMENT FOR INLAND EMPIRE RIDESHARE AND 511 SERVICES Brian Cunanan, Commuter and Motorist Assistance Manager, presented the details of the Fiscal Year 2016/17 San Bernardino Associated Governments agreement for Inland Empire Rideshare and 511 Services. Commissioner Adam Rush commented there are inconsistencies between IE511 and social media content. Anne Mayer responded the issue is being resolved and the IE511 updates will come from the Caltrans quick map. M/S/C (Johnston/Mann) to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 16-41-088-00 with San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) as part of the Commission’s continuing bi- county partnership with SANBAG to deliver commuter/employer rideshare services and operation of the Inland Empire 511 (IE511) system for fiscal year 2016/17 in an amount not to exceed $1.5 million; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. RCTC WRC Programs and Projects Committee Minutes April 25, 2016 Page 5 12. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT 12A. Commissioner Karen Spiegel thanked Anne Mayer and staff for attending the recent Corona City Council meeting. 12B. Anne Mayer announced the I-15 Express Lanes DBE/SBE Summit will be held on Thursday, April 28, at 9:00 a.m. in Corona at the Circle City Center. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 1:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 23, 2016 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: David Thomas, Toll Project Manager THROUGH: Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director SUBJECT: Ratify Expenditures for Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program and Other State Furnished Materials for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Ratify the scope of state furnished materials (SFM) defined in the design-build cooperative Agreement No. 12-31-070-00, as amended, between the Commission and Caltrans for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) to include Construction Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program (COZEEP) and other SFM in the amount of $4.3 million, plus a contingency amount of $400,000, for a total amount not to exceed $4.7 million; 2) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve the use of the contingency amount as may be required for the project; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its July 14, 2010 meeting, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 10-026 as part of the authorization for issuance of toll revenue bonds to finance the SR-91 CIP costs related to the design-build phase. The agenda item also included approval of the form of the agreement and authorized the Executive Director to approve and execute the agreement as well as any amendments to the agreement. The agreement was executed on July 25, 2012. The agreement included terms for the Commission to pay Caltrans for SFM, which at the time contemplated primarily signal control items estimated at a cost of $79,902. Amendment No. 3 to the agreement, approved and executed by the Executive Director in February 2014, amended the original agreement to broaden the definition of SFM to include COZEEP. An estimate of the costs for COZEEP services was not required in the amendment. Through this amendment, Caltrans agreed to allow the Commission to utilize its statewide COZEEP contract, which eliminated the need for a separate agreement between the Commission and California Highway Patrol for COZEEP services. Agenda Item 7 1 The current estimate of total SFM is $4.7 million, which includes $223,000 for various signal control items, $4,077,000 for COZEEP services, and a contingency of $400,000. The original estimate for signal control items was based on the scope and unit prices known in 2012 at the time the agreement was executed and has been updated to reflect the design-builder’s final design and current unit prices. It should also be noted the design-builder for the SR-91 CIP is responsible for reimbursing the Commission for all COZEEP costs; therefore, all COZEEP costs are passed through to the design-builder. The SFM costs are included in the SR-91 CIP budget of $1,407,000,000. Staff recommends Commission ratification of the expanded scope of SFM and the related total cost of $4.7 million, which includes a $400,000 contingency. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Yes Year: FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 Amount: $3,151,000 $1,549,000 Source of Funds: Sales Tax and Toll Bond Proceeds Budget Adjustment: No No GL/Project Accounting No.: 003028 81602 00072 0000 262 31 81601 (Signal Controllers) $243,000 003028 81304 00104 0000 262 31 81301 (COZEEP) $4,457,000 003028 81304 00104 0000 262 31 81301 (COZEEP reimbursements) ($4,457,000) Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 05/12/2016 Attachment: SFM Cost Estimate Breakdown Agenda Item 7 2 FY16 FY17 TOTAL COZEEP $2,966,000 $1,111,000 $4,077,000 Signal Control Items: Model 332L Cabinets $19,300 $19,300 Model 334L Cabinets $26,200 $26,200 Model 2070 ATCs $16,100 $16,100 Model 2070 Communication Cards $1,000 $1,000 Model 170 Controllers $24,300 $24,300 Model 200 Switch Packs $2,400 $2,400 Model 210 Monitors $2,300 $2,300 Model 222 Vehicle Detectors $18,000 $18,000 Model 242 Isolators $1,400 $1,400 Model 420 Output Files $6,000 $6,000 External BBS Cabinets $6,200 $6,200 Battery Backup Systems $8,300 $8,300 Modem Harnesses $400 $400 Model 334LX Cabinets $53,100 $53,100 Model 342LX Cabinets $18,000 $18,000 Model 2070 Modems for FO $15,600 $15,600 Model 2070 Modems for GPS $2,800 $2,800 Model 204 Flasher Units $300 $300 Padlocks $1,300 $1,300 Contingency $400,000 $400,000 $3,151,000 $1,549,000 $4,700,000 Attachment A - SFM Cost Estimate Breakdown 3 BLANK AGENDA ITEM 8 BLANK Agenda Item 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 23, 2016 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Jennifer Crosson, Toll Operations Manager THROUGH: Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director SUBJECT: Riverside 91 Express Lanes Ordinance for Enforcement of Toll Violations STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the introduction of and introduce Ordinance No. 16-001, “An Ordinance of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Establishing Ordinance No. 16-001 Relating to the Administration of Tolls and the Enforcement of Toll Violations for the Riverside 91 Express Lanes”; 2) Approve the toll evasion penalties for a violation of Ordinance No. 16-001 in the amounts identified in Schedule A of Ordinance No. 16-001; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission will operate the Riverside 91 Express Lanes (a toll highway) and will require users to have a transponder associated with a valid FasTrak™ account in order to pay a toll. California Vehicle Code (CVC) 23302, et seq., establishes that it is unlawful for a person to evade payment of a toll, including failure to have a transponder, on a toll highway and provides that such acts are subject to civil penalties. CVC 40250, et seq., provides for the enforcement of civil penalties for violations of CVC 23302.5 and any ordinance enacted by local authorities pursuant to civil administrative procedures set for in Article 4 of Chapter 1 of Division 17 of the Code. In order to process toll violations and enforce penalties, the Commission must adopt an ordinance establishing the administrative procedures and penalties to ensure compliance with statute and fairness of the treatment of violators. The enforcement of toll evasion violations is critical to the protection of revenue collection on the Riverside 91 Express Lanes. The proposed ordinance establishes administrative procedures for the issuance of toll evasion violation notices, the processing of contested violations, the escalation of delinquent violations to allowable collection methods, and the termination of the process in accordance with the statutes. 4 Agenda Item 8 The ordinance also establishes the initial penalty schedule for the Riverside 91 Express Lanes, as set forth in Schedule A of the proposed ordinance. The proposed penalty structure is within the limits of CVC 40258 and is equal to those imposed by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) on the existing Orange County 91 Express Lanes. The three-party agreement with OCTA; Cofiroute USA, LLC as the operator; and the Commission contemplates the Commission will adopt the same violation processes and toll evasion penalty schedule as OCTA. The goal of the toll evasion penalty structure is two-fold: discourage persons from failing to pay a toll at the time of travel and to recover tolls lost to violations and the cost to recover such tolls. The Riverside 91 Express Lanes financial plan contemplates a toll evasion program, as outlined in the ordinance, will be in place utilized to collect tolls and penalties from customers who fail to pay their toll at the time of travel. The proposed ordinance provides for the Commission’s Executive Director to amend the penalty amount from time to time provided that any amended penalty amounts do not exceed the amounts set forth in the CVC. Any amendments to the penalties shall be posted on the 91 Express Lanes and Commission websites 90 days in advance of the enactment. Adoption of Ordinance No. 16-001 for enforcement of toll violations for the Riverside 91 Express Lanes will allow the Commission to process toll evasion violations for motorists who use the Riverside 91 Express Lanes but fail to pay the toll at the time of travel. The establishment of a toll enforcement program is critical to the protection of toll revenue and ensures compliance with statute and fairness of the treatment of violators. Failure to adopt the ordinance for enforcement of toll violations for the 91 Express Lanes could have a negative fiscal impact, as the Commission would not be able to recover its costs in enforcing toll violations. Attachment: Ordinance No. 16-001 for Enforcement of Toll Violations for the Riverside 91 Express Lanes 5 ORDINANCE NO. 16-001 AN ORDINANCE OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ESTABLISHING ORDINANCE NO. 16-001 RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF TOLLS AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF TOLL VIOLATIONS FOR THE RIVERSIDE 91 EXPRESS LANES WHEREAS, Section 130244 (c) of the Public Utilities Code authorizes the Riverside County Transportation Commission to collect tolls on the Riverside County portion of State Highway Route 91; and WHEREAS, Section 23302.5 of the California Vehicle Code (“Code”) provides that it is unlawful for a person to evade or attempt to evade the payment of tolls or other charges on any vehicular crossing or toll highway, and provides that such acts are subject to civil penalties; and WHEREAS, Section 40250, et seq., of Chapter 1 of Division 17 of the Code provides for enforcement of civil penalties for violation of Code Section 23302.5 and any ordinance enacted by local authorities pursuant to civil administrative procedures set forth in Article 4 of Chapter 1 of Division 17 of the Code; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County portion of the State Highway Route 91 toll facility (“91 Express Lanes”), which is owned, maintained and operated by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (“Commission”) constitutes a “toll highway” for the purposes of section 23302.5 of the Code; and WHEREAS, the Commission deems it necessary to establish penalties for passing through the Commission portion of the 91 Express Lanes toll facility without payment of the proper toll, pursuant to section 23302.5 and 40250, et. seq., of the Code and to establish the procedures for issuing of violation notices and enforcement of penalties, consistent with sections 40250, et seq., of the Code. NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMMISSION DOES HEREBY ORDAIN THAT ORDINANCE NO. 16-001 RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF TOLLS AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF TOLL POLICIES FOR THE COMMISSION IS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Definitions The following terms shall have the meanings as set forth below: a) “Code” shall mean the California Vehicle Code. b) “Commission” shall mean the Riverside County Transportation Commission. c) “91 Express Lanes” shall mean the toll facility on State Route 91 east of the Orange/Riverside County line and extending east to McKinley Street in the City of Corona and south onto Interstate 15. d) “Department” shall mean the California Department of Motor Vehicles or other state’s department of motor vehicles. 6 e) “Due Date” shall mean the date specified in the Notice of Toll Evasion Violation or the Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation, as applicable, by which payment of the Penalty or affidavit of non-liability or written explanation of the contest must be received by the Processing Agency, which date shall provide no less than the minimum time required by the relevant Code section for such receipt. f) “Motorists” shall mean and include the Registered Owner, rentee, lessee and driver of a Vehicle. g) “Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation” shall mean the written notice provided to the Registered Owner of a Vehicle when the payment of the Penalty or completion of an affidavit of non-liability or written explanation of contest has not been returned by the due date. h) “Notice of Toll Evasion Violation” shall mean the written notice provided to the Registered Owner of a Vehicle which has committed a Violation. i) “Processing Agency” shall mean the entity under contract with the Commission, which may be a private vendor or another public agency, as provided in Code Section 40252, for the processing of the Notice of Toll Evasion and Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasions. j) “Registered Owner” shall mean a person registered by the Department as the owner of a Vehicle or a person registered as the owner of the Vehicle by the appropriate agency or authority of another state, the District of Columbia, or a territory or possession of the United States. k) “Repeat Violator” shall mean any Registered Owner for whom more than five violations have been issued within the preceding 12-month period. l) “Toll” shall mean the monetary charges established by the Commission for use of the 91 Express Lanes. m) “Toll Enforcement Officer” shall mean any member of the California Highway Patrol or any employee or contractor of Commission whose duties include the enforcement of the payment of tolls. n) “Toll Evasion Penalty” or “Penalty” shall mean, but is not limited to, any late payment penalty, administrative fee, fine, assessment, and costs of collection as provided by law. o) “Transponder” shall mean a FasTrak electronic device issued by any toll operator that meets the specifications of California Code of Regulations Title 21 and is used to pay Toll(s) electronically. p) “Vehicle” shall mean any vehicle as defined in California Vehicle Code Section 670. q) “Violation” shall mean the commission of any activity proscribed in Section 2(a) hereof. 7 Section 2. Payment of Proper Toll a) All Vehicles travelling on the 91 Express Lanes shall have a Transponder located in or on the Vehicle in a location so as to be visible for the purpose of enforcement at all times when the Vehicle is located on the 91 Express Lanes, unless otherwise permitted by the operating policies of the Commission, as proscribed by Code Section 23302 (a)(2). b) The Transponder shall be associated with an account with a balance sufficient to pay the Toll amount as proscribed by Code Section 23302 (a)(1). c) Vehicles qualifying for a 3+ carpool discount shall pass through the designated 3+ carpool lane to receive any available carpool discount. d) Vehicles using the designated carpool lane without the qualifying number of vehicle occupants will be subject to citation by the California Highway Patrol and the payment of the full price Toll charge. Section 3. Liability for Failure to Pay Toll a) No person shall cause a Vehicle to pass through or attempt to pass through the 91 Express Lanes without payment of the proper Toll for the Vehicle. b) Except as provided herein, the Registered Owner(s), driver, rentee or lessee of a Vehicle which is the subject of any Violation shall be jointly and severally liable for the Penalties imposed under this ordinance, unless the Registered Owner can show that the Vehicle was used without the express or implied consent of the Registered Owner. Anyone who pays any Penalty pursuant to this Ordinance shall have the right to recover the same from the driver, rentee or lessee. c) The driver, rentee or lessee of a Vehicle who is not the owner of the Vehicle may contest the Notice of Toll Evasion Violation in accordance with this Ordinance. d) Any Motorists assessed a Penalty for a Violation shall be deemed to be charged with a non- criminal, civil violation, pursuant to Section 23302.5 subdivision (a) of the Code. Section 4. Penalties and Processing of Violation(s) a) The Penalties for a Violation of this Ordinance shall be the amounts set forth in the Schedule of Penalties, attached hereto as Schedule A and incorporated by reference herein. The Schedule of Penalties, as proscribed under Schedule A, may be amended from time to time by the Commission’s Executive Director provided they do not exceed the amounts set forth in Code Section 40258(a). Any amendments to the Penalties shall be posted on the 91 Express Lanes and Commission website 90 days in advance of enactment. b) If a Vehicle is found by automated devices, by visual observation, or otherwise, to have evaded Tolls on the 91 Express Lanes, the Commission or the Processing Agency shall, within 21 days of the Violation, deliver by first-class mail a Notice of Toll Evasion Violation to the Registered Owner at the address as shown on the record of the Department. If accurate information concerning the identity and address of the Registered Owner is not available to the Processing Agency within 21 days of the Violation, the Processing Agency shall have an additional 45 calendar days to obtain such information and forward the Notice of Toll Evasion. Where the 8 Registered Owner is a Repeat Violator, the Processing Agency shall forward the Notice of Toll Evasion Violation within 90 calendar days of the Violation. c) The Processing Agency shall use its best efforts to obtain accurate information concerning the identity and address of the Registered Owner for the purpose of forwarding a Notice of Toll Evasion Violation. d) Toll evasion Penalties shall be collected as civil penalties. Section 5. Notice of Toll Evasion Violation a) The Notice of Toll Evasion Violation shall contain (1) the date, approximate time and location of the alleged violation, (2) the section of the Code allegedly violated, (3) the Vehicle license plate number, and if practicable, the make and registration expiration date of the Vehicle (4) the Penalty due for the Violation, (5) the procedure to follow for payment of the amount due, including the address of the person authorized to receive payments (6) a statement in bold that payments may be sent through the mail (7) the Due Date for payment, contesting the Notice or submission of the affidavit of non-liability and (8) a clear and concise explanation of the procedures for contesting the violation and appealing an adverse decision pursuant to Code section 40255 and 40256. b) The Notice of Toll Evasion Violation shall contain, or be accompanied with, an affidavit of non- liability and information of what constitutes non-liability, information as to the effect of executing the affidavit, and instructions for returning the affidavit to the issuing agency, as further specified below. Section 6. Basis for Non-Liability; Return of Affidavit of Non-Liability a) If the affidavit of non-liability is returned to the Processing Agency by the Due Date set forth in the Notice of Toll Evasion Violation together with proof that the driver at the time of the Violation did not possess express or implied consent to drive the Vehicle evidenced by a stolen vehicle police report, and if the Processing Agency is satisfied that the Registered Owner is not responsible for the Violation, the Processing Agency shall terminate proceedings against the originally served Registered Owner and proceed against the unauthorized driver at the time of the Violation. b) If the affidavit of non-liability is returned to the Processing Agency by the Due Date set forth in the Notice of Toll Evasion Violation with proof that the Registered Owner given the Notice of Toll Evasion Violation has made a bona fide sale or transfer of the Vehicle and has delivered possession thereof to the purchaser prior to the date of the alleged Violation and either (1) has complied with section 5602 of the Code, or (2) the Processing Agency is satisfied with evidence establishing that the transfer of ownership and possession of the Vehicle occurred prior to the date of the alleged Violation, and has obtained verification from the Department of either of the foregoing, then the Processing Agency shall terminate proceedings against the originally served Registered Owner and proceed against the new owner of the Vehicle. 9 c) If the affidavit of non-liability is returned to the Processing Agency by the Due Date on the Notice of Toll Evasion Violation together with proof of an executed written rental agreement or lease between a bona fide renting or leasing company and its customer that identifies the rentee or lessee and provides the driver’s license number, name and address of the rentee or lessee, the Processing Agency shall serve or mail to the rentee or lessee identified in the affidavit of non-liability a Notice of Toll Evasion Violation. Section 7. Dismissal of Notice of Toll Evasion Violation a) If, after a copy of a Notice of Toll Evasion Violation has been sent to the Motorist, the Processing Agency determines that due to failure of proof of apparent Violation the Notice of Toll Evasion Violation should be dismissed, the Processing Agency shall cancel the Notice of Toll Evasion Violation, and the Motorist shall be notified by first-class mail. b) Under no circumstances shall a personal relationship with any law enforcement officer, public official, law enforcement agency, processing agency or toll operations agency or entity be ground for dismissal of the Violation. c) If non-liability has been established pursuant to an affidavit of non-liability as detailed in Section 6 of this Ordinance, proceedings against the party found not liable shall terminate, unless otherwise specified in Section 6 above. d) If the description of the Vehicle in the Notice of Toll Evasion Violation does not match the corresponding information on the registration card for that Vehicle, the Processing Agency may, on written request of the Motorists, cancel the Notice of Toll Evasion Violation without the necessity of appearance by that person. e) If the full amount of the Penalty is received by the person authorized to receive it by the Due Date, and there is no contest as to that Violation, proceedings under this Ordinance shall terminate. Section 8. Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation; Failure to Pay Penalties a) If payment of the Penalty is not received by the Processing Agency by the Due Date on the Notice of Toll Evasion Violation, and proceedings hereunder have not otherwise been terminated, the Processing Agency shall deliver by first-class mail to the Registered Owner a Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation. b) The Processing Agency shall provide to the Registered Owner, upon request, a photo-static copy of the original Notice of Toll Evasion Violation Notice or an electronically produced facsimile of the original Notice of the Toll Evasion Violation within 15 days of a request. The Commission may charge a fee sufficient to recover the actual cost of providing the copy, not to exceed two dollars ($2). Until the Processing Agency complies with the request for a copy of the original Notice of Toll Evasion Violation, the Processing Agency may not proceed to collection of the Penalty due. c) The Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation shall contain information required to be contained in the original Notice of Toll Evasion Violation and additionally, shall contain a notice to the Registered Owner that, unless the Registered Owner pays the Penalty, contests the 10 Violation pursuant to the procedure set forth in the Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation, or completes and returns to the Processing Agency an affidavit of non-liability, as provided with the Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation, within the Due Date set forth in the Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation: (1) the Penalty shall be considered a debt due and owing to the Commission, (2) the renewal of the Vehicle registration shall be contingent upon compliance with the Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation at the Commission’s election and (3) the Commission may seek recovery of the debt in any lawful manner, as provided for in section 13 below. d) The Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation shall contain, or be accompanied with, an affidavit of non-liability and information of what constitutes non-liability, information as to the effect of executing the affidavit, and instructions for returning the affidavit to the Processing Agency. Non-liability may be established pursuant to an affidavit of non-liability returned to the Processing Agency by the Due Date set forth in the Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation, on any basis set forth in Section 6 of this Ordinance. e) If a rentee or lessee identified by a bona fide renting or leasing company in the affidavit of non- liability, in accordance with the requirements in Section 6(c) above, is forwarded the Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation, and the rentee or lessee does not pay the Penalty, contest the Violation pursuant to the procedure set forth in the Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation, or complete and return to the Processing Agency an affidavit of non-liability, as provided with the Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation, within the Due Date set forth in the Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation, the Penalty shall be considered a debt due and owing the Commission and the Commission may seek recovery in any lawful manner, as provided for in section 13 below. Section 9. Payment After Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation a) Unless paragraph (b) below applies, if a Motorist who was mailed a Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation pursuant to section 8, or any other person who presents the Notice of Toll Evasion Violation or Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation, deposits the Penalty due with a person authorized to receive it, then the Processing Agency shall terminate all proceedings where the amount deposited satisfies the amount due. If the Registered Owner, by appearance or by mail, makes payment to the Processing Agency by the Due Date set forth in the Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation, the Penalty shall consist of the amount of the Penalty set forth in the notice, without any additional administrative fees or charges. b) If the Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation has been filed with the Department pursuant to subdivision (a) of Code section 40267 or a civil judgment has been entered pursuant to Code section 40267(b) and payment of the Penalty together with the administrative fee of the Department and the administrative service fee of the Processing Agency for costs of service and any applicable assessment is received, the Processing Agency shall immediately transmit the payment information to the Department in the manner prescribed by the Department, and terminate proceeding on the Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation. 11 Section 10. Contest of Notice of Toll Evasion Violation or Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation a) A person may contest a Notice of Toll Evasion Violation or Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation by the Due Date set forth in the applicable notice. b) The Processing Agency shall establish and implement a fair and impartial investigation process to investigate the circumstance of the notice with respect to the contestant’s written explanation of reasons for contesting a Violation. The Processing Agency shall investigate with its own records and staff the circumstances of the notice with respect to the contestant’s written explanation of reasons for contesting the Violation. If based upon the results of that investigation, the Processing Agency is satisfied that the Violation did not occur or that the Registered Owner was not responsible for the Violation, the Processing Agency shall cancel the Notice of Toll Evasion Violation or Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation and make an adequate record of the reasons for cancelling the notice. The Processing Agency shall mail the results of the investigation to the person who contested the Notice of Toll Evasion Violation or the Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation. c) A person who contests a Notice of Toll Evasion Violation or Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation and is not satisfied with the results of the investigation may, within 15 days of the mailing of the results of the investigation, deposit the amount determined pursuant to paragraph (d) below, and request an administrative review. An administrative review shall be held within 90 calendar days following the receipt of the request for an administrative review accompanied by the required deposit amount. The person requesting the administrative review may request one continuance, not to exceed 21 calendar days. The person requesting the administrative review shall indicate to the Processing Agency his or her election for a review by mail or personal conference. d) The deposit for requesting an administrative review shall be as follows: 1) Except as provided herein, an individual seeking an administrative review shall deposit the full amount of the Penalty due at the time of the request. 2) For Violations arising out of the same set of operative facts and belonging to the same Registered Owner, the maximum amount of the Penalty to be deposited shall be a) two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or b) two hundred fifty dollars ($250) plus ten (10) percent of Penalty above one thousand dollars ($1,000), whichever is greater. 3) Individuals unable to pay the required deposit may apply for a hardship exception. e) If the person requesting an administrative review is a minor, that person shall be permitted to appear at an administrative review or admit responsibility for a Violation without the necessity of the appointment of a guardian. The Processing Agency may proceed against that person in the same manner as if that person were an adult. f) As evidence of the Violation, the Processing Agency shall produce the Notice of Toll Evasion Violation or a copy thereof, information received from the Department identifying the Registered Owner of the Vehicle, and a statement under penalty of perjury from the person authorized to issue a notice of Violation that the Tolls or other charges and any applicable fee were not paid in accordance with the Commission’s policies. This documentation in proper form shall be prima facie evidence of the Violation. 12 Section 11. Hearing Officers; Administrative Reviews a) The Commission’s Executive Director shall designate a hearing officer or reviewer to conduct administrative reviews. The hearing officer shall demonstrate the qualifications, training and objectivity necessary to perform fair and impartial reviews. The hearing officer’s employment, performance evaluation, compensation and benefits shall not be directly or indirectly linked to the outcome of reviews or the revenue generated by such reviews. b) Reviews shall be conducted in accordance with the written procedures established by the Processing Agency, which shall ensure fair and impartial review of contested Toll evasion Violations. The hearing officer’s final decision may be delivered personally or by first-class mail. c) If a notice of appeal to the California Superior Court is not filed within the period set forth in section 12, the decision of the hearing officer shall be deemed final. Section 12. Appeal to Superior Court A person who requests an administrative review and is not satisfied with the results of the review, may within 20 days after the mailing of the administrative review final decision, seek review by filing an appeal to the California Superior Court. The matter shall be heard de novo, except that the contents of the Processing Agency’s file in the case on appeal shall be received in evidence. For the purpose of computing the 20-day period, Section 1013 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be applicable. The Processing Agency shall admit into evidence as prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, a copy of the Notice of Toll Evasion Violation and/or Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation. A copy of the notice of appeal shall be served in person or by first-class mail upon the Processing Agency by the contestant. The fee for filing the notice of appeal shall be the amount specified in Section 40256 of the Code. If the appellant prevails this fee, together with any deposit of the Penalty made by the contestant, shall be promptly refunded by the Processing Agency in accordance with the judgment of the court. Section 13. Collection of Unpaid Penalties If payment is not received within the time periods set forth herein, and no contest has been timely filed, or has been resolved in favor of Commission, Commission and the Processing Agency are authorized to proceed under one or more of the following options for the collection of unpaid Penalties: a) Transmit an itemization of unpaid Penalties to the Department for collection with the registration of the Vehicle. Commission shall pay the fees assessed by the Department associated with the recording of the Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation and may charge the amount of the fee to the Motorist. b) If more than four hundred dollars ($400) in unpaid Penalties have been accrued by any person or Registered Owner, Commission may file proof of that fact with the Superior Court with the same effect as a civil judgment. Execution may be levied and other measures may be taken for the collection of the judgment as are authorized for the collection of any unpaid civil judgment entered against a defendant in an action on a debt. The court may assess costs against a judgment debtor to be paid upon satisfaction of the judgment. The Processing Agency shall mail a notice by first-class mail to the person or Registered Owner indicating that a judgment shall be 13 entered for the unpaid Penalties, fees and costs and that after 30 days from the date of the mailing of the notice, the judgment shall have the same effect as an entry of judgment against a judgment debtor. The person or Registered Owner shall also be notified at that time that execution may be levied against his or her assets, liens may be placed against his or her property, his or her wages may be garnished, and other steps may be taken to satisfy the judgment amount. The notice shall include all information required by Code section 40267. The filing fee and any costs of the collection shall be added to the judgment amount. c) If the Processing Agency has determined that registration of the Vehicle has not been renewed for 60 days beyond the renewal date, and the Penalty has not been collected by the Department pursuant to section 4770 of the Code, file proof of unpaid Penalties with the court with the same effect as a civil judgment as provided above, except that if the amount of the unpaid Penalty is not more than four hundred dollars ($400), the filling fee shall be collectible by the court from the debtor. d) Contract with a collection agency to collect the Penalty amounts. e) Submit a request to the California State Controller for an offset of unpaid Penalty amounts owing by a Motorist against any amount owing the person or entity by a claim for a refund from the Franchise Tax Board under Personal Income Tax Law or the Bank and Corporation Law or from winnings in the California State Lottery, as authorized by California Government Code section 12419.10. Commission shall provide a notice of intent to request an offset by first-class mail to the Motorist 30 days prior to the request date, or within such time as required by law. f) Pursue such other remedies and enforcement procedures that are authorized under laws of the State of California. Section 14. Termination of Proceedings The Commission and/or the Processing Agency shall terminate proceedings on the Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation: a) Upon receipt of collected Penalties and administrative fees remitted by the Department under Section 4772 for that Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation. b) If the Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation was returned to the Processing Agency pursuant to section 4774 and five years have elapsed since the date of the Violation. c) The Processing Agency received information, which it verified, that the Penalty has been paid to the Department pursuant to Section 4772. d) If the Registered Owner of the Vehicle provides proof to the Processing Agency that he or she was not the registered owner on the date of the toll evasion violation. Section 15. Confidentiality Any information obtained through the use of automated devices during the enforcement of Violations hereunder shall not be used for any purpose other than to identify and obtain the mailing address 14 information of the Toll evasion violator in order to facilitate the serving of Notices of Toll Evasion Violations and Notices of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violations. Section 16. Other Notices Nothing herein shall prohibit the Commission or the Processing Agency from establishing informal methods of notifying Motorists of Violations and from collecting Tolls and Penalties for Violations through such means. Section 17. Implementation The Executive Director of the Commission is hereby authorized and directed to develop procedures, forms, documents and directives which may be necessary to implement the terms of this Ordinance and may delegate his/her duties and obligation under this Ordinance to the Toll Program Director. Section 18. Severability If any term, covenant or condition of this Ordinance shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, then the remainder of this Ordinance shall not be affected and each remaining provision shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law unless any of the stated purposes of this Ordinance would be defeated. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of June, 2016. _____________________________________ Scott Matas, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: _____________________________________ Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 15 Schedule “A” Schedule of Penalties Stage Penalty Initial Penalty Assessed with Notice of Toll Evasion Violation (NTEV) $25.00 Added Penalty Assessed with Notice of Delinquent Toll Evasion Violation (NDTEV) $30.00 Total Penalty Assessed with NDTEV (Initial NTEV Penalty + NDTEV Added Penalty) $55.00 Added Penalty Assessed upon Assignment to Collection Agency $25.00 Total Penalty Assessed upon Assignment to Collection Agency (Total NDTEV Penalty + Added Penalty on Assignment to Collections) $80.00 Collection Demand Notices*: First violation in one year Second violation in one year Third and additional violations in one year $20.00 $70.00 $120.00/violation * Collection demand notice penalties are in addition to the total Penalty assessed upon assignment to the collection agency. 16 BLANK AGENDA ITEM 9 BLANK RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 23, 2016 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Lisa DaSilva, Toll Project Manager THROUGH: Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director SUBJECT: Section 214 Funding Agreement with the Army Corps of Engineers for Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 16-31-096-00 between Riverside County Transportation Commission and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District, for Section 214 funding agreement in the amount of $15,000, plus a contingency amount of $45,000, for a total amount not to exceed $60,000; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve the use of the contingency amount as may be required for the project; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project proposes to design and construct one to two express lanes mostly in the undeveloped median from Cajalco Road in the city of Corona to the State Route 60 interchange in the cities of Eastvale and Jurupa Valley. There are 11 bridges within the Project limits that need to be widened to accommodate the express lanes. DISCUSSION: Within the project, the Santa Ana River Bridge, which is a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) facility, needs to be widened. Since it is a USACE facility, all modifications to the bridge that affect the Santa Ana River must be reviewed and approved by USACE and a Section 408 permit must be issued prior to the start of construction on the bridge. The permit review process is very lengthy and can be expedited by a memorandum of agreement between Commission and USACE Los Angeles District, Section 214 funding agreement. Expediting USACE’s permit review process via the Section 214 funding agreement helps mitigate the schedule risk to obtain the Section 408 permit from USACE. Agenda Item 9 17 Agreement No. 16-31-096-00 with the USACE is the vehicle by which the Commission will pay for expedited permit evaluation-related services for a Section 408 permit. The $15,000 base amount included in this funding agreement is the estimated minimal USACE cost for expedited permit evaluation-related services. Depending on the complexity of the Section 408 permit submittal, the permit evaluation-related services may increase up to $60,000, resulting in the need for a $45,000 contingency for this agreement. Staff recommends the Commission approve Agreement No 16-31-096-00 with the USACE Los Angeles District for a Section 214 funding agreement in an amount not to exceed of $60,000. Further, staff recommends to authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission and authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve the use of the contingency amount as may be required for the project. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Yes Year: FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 Amount: $5,000 $55,000 Source of Funds: 2009 Measure A Western County Highway funds/Proceeds from Commercial Paper, TIFIA Loan, and Toll Revenue Bonds Budget Adjustment: No No GLA No.: 003027 81020 262 31 81002 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 05/12/2016 Attachment: Agreement No. 16-31-096-00 with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District Agenda Item 9 18 Memorandum of Agreement 1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Riverside County Transportation Commission MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS LOS ANGELES DISTRICT THIS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (“MOU’) is entered into as of this first day of [month][day], 2016, between the Riverside County Transportation Commission (hereinafter “Commission”) and the Los Angeles District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (hereinafter “Corps”), collectively referred to as “the Parties.” RECITALS WHEREAS, the Corps has jurisdiction over requests to alter or modify completed federal flood risk management facilities; and WHEREAS, Section 214 of the Federal Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Public Law 106-541 (“WRDA 2000”), as amended by Public Law 111-120, provides as follows: (a) IN GENERAL. - The Secretary [of the Army], after public notice, may accept and expend funds contributed by non-Federal public entities to expedite the evaluation of permits under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army. (b) EFFECT ON PERMITTING. - In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall ensure that the use of funds accepted under subsection (a) will not impact impartial decision- making with respect to permits, either substantively or procedurally. WHEREAS, the authority provided under section 214 of the WRDA 2000 is presently in effect until December 31, 2016; and WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Army has delegated the responsibility of carrying out Section 214 of the WRDA 2000 to the Chief of Engineers and his delegated representatives; and WHEREAS, the Chief of Engineers, by memorandum dated June 18, 2010, authorized the District and Division Engineers of the Corps to accept and expend funds contributed by non- Federal public entities subject to certain limitations; and WHEREAS, the Corps has indicated it is not able, without additional resources, to expedite the evaluation of Commission; and WHEREAS, the Commission believes it is in the best interests of the taxpayers of the County of Riverside to provide funds to the Corps pursuant to this MOA to streamline and expedite Corps environmental review under section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. § 408) (hereinafter “Section 408”) for Commission-designated priority projects as more fully described in Article II.D. of this MOA; and 19 Memorandum of Agreement 2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Riverside County Transportation Commission WHEREAS, this MOA is intended to: (1) enable the Parties to fully consider, address, and protect environmental resources, including but not limited to impacts to existing and completed Corps’ flood risk management systems or facilities, early in the development of proposed actions; (2) avoid conflicts late in project development through close coordination during early planning and development stages; (3) provide sufficient information to the Corps for timely analysis of project effects and to assist the Commission in developing appropriate mitigation measures; (4) maximize the effective use of limited Corps resources by focusing attention on projects that would have most effect on completed federal flood risk management facilities; (5) provide a mechanism for expediting project coordination when necessary; and (6) provide procedures for resolving disputes in this resource partnering effort. NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows: AGREEMENT Article I. - PURPOSE AND AUTHORITIES A. This MOA is entered into by the Parties for the purpose of establishing a mutual framework governing the respective responsibilities of the Parties for the acceptance and expenditure of funds contributed by the Commission to provide expedited permit evaluation- related services for the Commission-designated priority projects under the jurisdiction of the Corps. This MOA is not intended as the exclusive means of obtaining review of projects proposed by the Commission. This MOA is a vehicle by which the Commission will obtain expedited permit evaluation-related services, outside of the ordinary Corps review process. B. Commission enters into this MOA pursuant to its authority under section 130221 of the California Public Utilities Code. The Corps enters into this MOA pursuant to its authority under section 214 of the WRDA 2000, as amended. C. This MOA is specific to Section 408 permit application review only. A separate agreement will be required between the Commission and the Corps to expedite environmental technical assistance, coordination services, review, and concurrence of documentation prepared to comply with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 (as amended). Article II. - SCOPE OF WORK A. Commission will provide funds to the Corps to expedite permit evaluation related services for Commission-designated priority projects under the jurisdiction of the Corps. B. The Corps’ operations and maintenance expenses are funded as a Congressionally appropriated line item in the annual Federal budget. Funds received from the Commission will be added to the Corps’ Operations budget in accordance with the provisions of section 214 of WRDA 2000. The Corps will provide staffing resources dedicated to expediting permit evaluation related services, as described in Article II.D., below, for Commission-designated priority projects and/or other programmatic efforts to support efficient decision-making related to Commission’s Section 408 permitting needs. 20 Memorandum of Agreement 3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Riverside County Transportation Commission C. The Corps will establish a separate internal financial account to track receipt and expenditure of the funds associated with its review of permit applications submitted by the Commission. Corps’ personnel will charge their time and expenses against the account when they perform work to either expedite Section 408 permit evaluation related requests designated by the Commission as a priority or undertake other programmatic efforts to support efficient decision-making related to the Commission’s permitting needs. Corps personnel will focus on the work as prioritized by Commission, and if no or few projects are designated by Commission as a priority, Corps personnel will then work on other programmatic efforts for Commission. D. Funds contributed by the Commission hereunder will be expended by the Corps to defray the costs of its staff (including salary, associated benefits, overhead and travel expenses) and other costs in order to expedite the evaluation of priority permit applications designated by Commission. The Corps may expend Commission funds to perform select duties, including but not limited to technical analyses and writing, Agency Technical Review, real estate evaluation, risk analysis, copying or other clerical/support tasks, acquisition of data, site visits, training, travel, coordination activities, additional personnel (including support/clerical staff), contracting for technical services (e.g., structural risk evaluation, geotechnical analysis, hydraulic and hydrological engineering review), environmental documentation preparation and review; any other permit evaluation related responsibilities that may be mutually agreed upon; and meeting coordination for the purpose of augmenting resources available to the Corps for expediting priority projects and activities designated by Commission. E. The Corps will not expend Commission’s funds for costs associated with the review of the Corps’ work undertaken by supervisors or other persons or elements of the Corps in the decision-making chain of command. However, if a supervisor is performing staff work and not supervisory oversight, funds may be used. F. If the funds provided by Commission are expended and not replenished, any remaining priority permit applications will be handled like those of any permit applicant. Article III. - INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATIONS To provide for consistent and effective communication between the Parties, each party will appoint a Principal Representative to serve as its central point of contact on matters relating to this MOA. Additional representatives may also be appointed to serve as points of contact on specific actions or issues. Each party will issue a letter to the other designating the Principal Representative for each party within fifteen (15) days of MOA execution. The Principal Representative for each party may be changed upon written notification to the other party. Article IV. - RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES A. Commission will provide adequate resources, to fund existing or additional Corps personnel for the purpose of timely review of designated priority projects and other identified activities. To facilitate the Corps’ reviews and activities, Commission will: 1. Provide adequate information regarding projects, scheduling requirements, and other specific activities to initiate permit evaluation. Information required for the Corps to 21 Memorandum of Agreement 4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Riverside County Transportation Commission deem a permit application complete thereby allowing initiation of the permit review process can be found in applicable Section 408 guidance, including but not limited to the Memorandum for Subordinate Commands, Policy and Procedural Guidance for the Processing Requests to Alter US Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects Pursuant to 33 USC 408, dated September 30, 2015, and the Memorandum for Major Subordinate Commands, Clarification Guidance on the Policy and Procedural Guidance for the Approval of Modification and Alteration of Corps of Engineer Projects, dated November 17, 2008, copies of which have been provided to Commission. Upon request, Commission shall provide supplemental information necessary to complete the permit application. Additional information required to complete the permit evaluation process may exceed what is needed to initiate the process. On a case-by-case basis, if requested by the Corps, Commission shall provide such additional information so as to ensure the Corps can effectively accomplish the required review. 2. In consultation with the Corps, schedule the Corps’ involvement in the priority projects identified by Commission. The project(s) designated as a priority by Commission are listed in Appendix A to this MOA. The list may be changed by Commission’s Principal Representative without requiring an amendment to this MOA. Such changes shall be submitted to the Corps’ Principal Representative in writing and will be effective upon receipt thereof. 3. To the best of its ability, ensure the participation of all essential personnel during the permit evaluation process. 4. Work closely with the Corps to adjust priorities and schedules in order to optimize available Corps staff resources. If overlaps or conflicts occur among priority projects, then Commission will work with the Corps to identify procedures to handle such overlaps or resolve the conflicts. B. The Corps shall assign qualified personnel to evaluate the Commission’s priority permit applications and prioritized associated tasks within projected funding levels provided under this MOA. The Corps shall use the funds provided to defray the costs of salaries and associated benefits and to reimburse travel expenses in order to: 1. Expedite review of Commission’s priority projects in accordance with the purpose, terms, and conditions of this MOA or any amendments thereto. The Corps shall not redirect resources from, or otherwise postpone, other non-priority projects submitted by Commission through the standard Corps review process. 2. Following any pre-application meetings and/or discussions to clarify the scope of anticipated permit application review processes, provide Commission with an estimated schedule to complete the permit evaluation process for each application submitted. Commission shall be able to comment on these schedules and adjust their priorities per Appendix A, or provide additional resources per Article V. E, below. 3. Consult on a monthly basis with Commission regarding an adjustment of priorities or establishment of relative priorities if the current and/or projected workload of 22 Memorandum of Agreement 5 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Riverside County Transportation Commission priority projects and activities exceeds the Corps’ ability to provide the services specified herein or negotiate additional funding in accordance with Article V.E, below. 4. Provide Commission a brief quarterly summary report of progress made under this MOA, or in accordance with the alternative schedule as agreed by the Parties to this MOA. Progress will be itemized for each permit application review completed during the quarter for each permit application pending at the end of the quarter. This report will describe achievements, including any improvements the Corps has documented in coordinating and improving the efficiency of the environmental reviews, and will summarize expenditures to date. The report also will identify any recommendations for improving consultation and coordination among the Parties to this MOA. The fourth quarter report shall include a summary of the annual progress made under this MOA. All reports shall not exceed five (5) pages. 5. Meet with Commission as needed to discuss progress under this MOA. 6. Prior to expiration of the MOA, hold a final meeting with the Commission’s Principal Representative to review a summary of permit streamlining and other activities under this MOA, as well as provide recommendations for future coordination between the Parties. Article V. - FUNDING A. and B. are RESERVED and subject to negotiation. C. Within 30 days of execution of this MOU, Commission shall pay the anticipated costs expected to be incurred through December 31,2019, at the level specified in the Corps’ Cost Proposal. Maximum payable under this MOA shall not exceed $15,000. Expediting of permit evaluation related activities as specified in this MOA will be undertaken by the Corps only after funds have been transferred to the Corps. Prior to the start of each funding period, Commission shall send a check, or provide by electronic fund transfer, the amount specified in paragraph C of this Article, payable to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District Finance and Accounting Officer P.O. Box 532711 Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325 Attn: Stephen Vaughn E. The Corps will provide the Commission a written notice when 80% of the funding has been expended. If the Corps’ actual costs for providing the agreed upon level of service will exceed the amount of funds available, Commission will either initiate an amendment to this MOA to increase the funding amount, or agree to a reduced level of service. If Commission opts to increase the funding level, the Corps will expeditiously process the amendment and use the Corps’ best efforts to ensure that there is no interruption to the Corps work on Commission’s priority projects. 23 Memorandum of Agreement 6 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Riverside County Transportation Commission F. Additional payments by Commission to the Corps, in an amount and schedule mutually agreed to by the Parties, may be made when priority projects are added to Appendix A. G. The Corps will carry over any unexpended funds from year to year, or will refund such unobligated funds if this MOA is terminated or expires. H. Commission may elect to extend the services of the Corps beyond December 31, 2019, subject to 1) additional funding being provided by Commission and 2) written amendment to this MOA. Article VI. - APPLICABLE LAWS The applicable statutes, regulations, policies, directives, and procedures of the United States will govern this MOA and all documents and actions pursuant to it. Unless otherwise required by law, all expediting of permit applications undertaken by the Corps will be governed by Corps regulations, policies and procedures. Article VII.- DISPUTE RESOLUTION In the event of a dispute, the Parties agree to use their best efforts to resolve the dispute in an informal fashion through consultation and communication, or other forms of non-binding alternative dispute resolution mutually acceptable to the Parties. The Parties agree that, in the event such measures fail to resolve the dispute, they shall refer the dispute for resolution to an appropriate forum in accordance with Federal law. Article VIII. - PUBLIC INFORMATION Justification and explanation of Commission’s programs or projects before other agencies, departments and offices will not be the responsibility of the Corps. The Corps may provide, upon request from Commission, any assistance necessary to support justification or explanations of activities conducted under this MOA. In general, the Corps is responsible only for public information regarding Corps regulatory activities. Commission will give the Corps, as appropriate, advance notice before making formal, official statements regarding activities funded under this MOA. Article IX – AMENDMENT, MODIFICATION, AND TERMINATION A. This MOA may be modified or amended only by written, mutual agreement of the Parties. B. Either party reserves the right to terminate its participation in this MOA without cause upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to the other parties. In the event of termination, Commission will continue to be responsible for all costs incurred by the Corps in performing expedited environmental permit review services up to the time of notice and for the costs of closing out or transferring any ongoing contracts in support of the provision of services by the Corps under this MOA. 24 Memorandum of Agreement 7 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Riverside County Transportation Commission C. Within ninety (90) calendar days of termination of the MOA, or the expiration of the MOA, the Corps shall provide Commission with a final statement of expenditures. Within sixty (60) calendar days after submittal of the Corps’ final statement of expenditures, the Corps shall directly remit to Commission the unexpended balance of the advance payment, if any. Funds may be provided to Commission either by check or electronic funds transfer. Article X. - MISCELLANEOUS A. This MOA will not affect any pre-existing or independent relationships or obligations between Parties. B. The Corps’ participation in this MOA does not imply endorsement of Commission projects nor does it diminish, modify, or otherwise affect Corps statutory or regulatory authorities. C. Under the provisions of section 214 of the WRDA 2000 as extended, no funds may be accepted or expended by the Corps pursuant to this MOA after December 31, 2019. D. If any provision of this MOA is determined to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will remain in force and unaffected to the fullest extent permitted by law and regulation. E. This MOA, including any documents incorporated by reference or attachments thereto, constitute the entire agreement between the Parties. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged herein and shall be of no further force or effect. Article XI. - EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION This MOA will be effective on the date of signature by the last Party. This MOA shall remain in force until whichever of these events occurs first: 1) December 31, 2019; or 2) the MOA is terminated pursuant to Article IX.B. [REMAINDER LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK] 25 Memorandum of Agreement 8 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Riverside County Transportation Commission IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this MOA is executed by Commission acting by and through its authorized officer and by the Los Angeles District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers through its authorized officer. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: Date: Anne Mayer Executive Director, RCTC APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: _________________________________ James Donich General Counsel U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, LOS ANGELES DISTRICT By: Date: Name Chief, Asset Management Division 26 Memorandum of Agreement 9 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Riverside County Transportation Commission Appendix A: Commission’s Priority Projects (Dated: April 15, 2016) The list of Commission’s Priority Projects under this MOA includes the following proposed projects: 1. Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project The project proposes to construct tolled express lanes on a portion of Interstate 15 (I-15) within Riverside County to improve existing and future traffic operations and mainline travel times, expand travel choice, increase travel time reliability, and expand the tolled express lane network. The project would construct one to two tolled express lanes between post miles (PM) 36.8 and 51.4 in Riverside County, a distance of 14.6 miles. Based on preliminary engineering, this area constitutes the extent of planned lane improvements and is identified as the project limits. The lane improvements are located within Riverside County, California and run through the cities of Corona, Norco, Eastvale, and Jurupa Valley and portions of unincorporated Riverside County. The 408 facility that would be affected by the project is the Santa Ana River. The project requires the closing of the gap between the 2 bridges to allow for a median area for express lanes to be implemented. 27 BLANK AGENDA ITEM 10 BLANK RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 23, 2016 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Lisa DaSilva, Toll Project Manager THROUGH: Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director SUBJECT: Agreement with Nossaman LLP for On-Call Strategic Partnership Advisor Services STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 06-66-028-13, Amendment No. 10 to Agreement No. 06-66-028-00, with Nossaman LLP (Nossaman) for the on-call strategic partnership advisor services by extending the contract term to December 31, 2020, and augmenting the agreement in the amount of $5.7 million, plus a contingency amount of $300,000, for an additional amount of $6 million, and a total amount not to exceed $14,352,935; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve the use of the contingency amount as may be required for the project; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In February 2006, following a competitive procurement process, the Commission approved an agreement with Nossaman for the purpose of providing strategic partnership advisor services for innovative project financing and evaluation of potential toll road corridors in Riverside County, specifically the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) and Interstate 15 Express Lanes project. Nossaman has been integral in negotiating, preparing, and executing various agreements related to the SR-91 CIP with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Cofiroute USA LLC, California Transportation Commission, and Caltrans. With the support of Nossaman, the SR-91 CIP developed letters of interest, prepared the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) application, and completed the TIFIA loan agreement negotiations including its terms and conditions. Nossaman was also essential in assisting the project and construction management team in the development and execution of the various design-build Agenda Item 10 28 procurement documents such as the request for qualifications prequalification, risk allocation workshops, design-build contract, contract industry review process, and proposal evaluations, selection, and negotiations. Nossaman has also been engaged in the I-15 Express Lanes Project since 2006, in the areas of toll feasibility, method of project delivery, and tolling authority; however, approximately 67 percent of the $8,352,935 authorized agreement amount, as summarized below, is related to the SR-91 CIP. Commission Authorized Amount Commission Authorized Contingency Commission Authorized Total Nossaman Contract Original Authorization 150,000$ -$ 150,000$ 150,000$ No. 11 75,000 - 75,000 75,000 No. 2 (50,000) - (50,000) (50,000) No. 3 150,000 - 150,000 150,000 No. 42 250,000 - 250,000 250,000 No. 53 - - - - No. 6 800,000 - 800,000 800,000 No. 7 2,083,035 - 2,083,035 2,083,035 No. 84 1,878,900 376,000 2,254,900 1,878,900 No. 95 2,400,000 240,000 2,640,000 2,776,000 Subtotal 7,736,935 616,000 8,352,935 8,112,935 No. 10 (proposed)6 5,700,000 300,000 6,000,000 5,700,000 Totals 13,436,935$ 916,000$ 14,352,935$ 13,812,935$ Amendments 6 Includes time extension to December 31, 2020 1 Includes time extension to February 9, 2008 2 Includes time extension to February 9, 2012 3 Provides for services to SANBAG at no cost to the Commission 4 Includes time extension to February 9, 2014 5 Includes time extension to March 9, 2018 DISCUSSION: In summer 2015, the I-15 Express Lanes project team began developing its procurement strategies, which resulted in two independent and competitively bid procurements. The first procurement includes the toll services provider who will provide design, implementation, and a minimum of five years of operations/maintenance of the tolling system. The second procurement, design-build contract, will include the design and construction of the express lanes. Agenda Item 10 29 This two-procurement approach differed from the SR-91 CIP in two areas. First, for the SR-91 CIP staff negotiated sole-source contracts for design, implementation, and operations/maintenance with the existing toll operator to achieve economies of scale and consistency with OCTA and therefore did not conduct a competitive procurement. Secondly, the I-15 Express Lanes project lead procurement responsibility is being performed by Nossaman rather than the project and construction management team. Amendment No. 10 to Agreement No. 06-66-028-00 includes the scope, cost, and assumed duration to complete these procurement and contract administration services by Nossaman for the I-15 Express Lanes project. Staff developed and negotiated with Nossaman the following scope of services, as further described in Exhibit A to the attachment, related to the procurement phase of the I-15 Express Lanes project at a cost of $4.5 million: • Assist with agreements and negotiations with Caltrans, Federal Highway Administration, and other agency stakeholders; • Lead in drafting procurement documents; • Lead in responding to proposer questions; • Lead the selection, negotiations, and award process; and • Lead with analysis, response and defense to any bid, proposal, or award protests. For the contract administration phase of the I-15 Express Lanes project, staff developed and negotiated with Nossaman the following scope of services, as further described in Exhibit A to the attachment, at a cost of $1.2 million: • Develop and administer contract administration training workshops for the Commission and technical advisory staff; • Assist with contract interpretation, analysis, and administration during the design and construction phase; and • Assist with change order and claims management. Amendment No. 10 with Nossaman in the amount of $5.7 million plus a contingency amount of $300,000, for an additional amount of $6 million for strategic partnership advisor services related to the I-15 Express Lanes project is attached. The agreement also extends the term to December 31, 2020, or the anticipated completion of development and construction of the I-15 Express Lanes project. This approach is consistent with the SR-91 CIP and provides continuity of legal/procurement counsel through the contract administration phase. The schedule for the next phases of the I-15 Express Lanes project is as follows: Award Toll Services Provider Contract Early 2017 Award Design-Build Contract Spring 2017 Financial Close Summer 2017 Start of Construction Spring 2018 I-15 Express Lanes open to traffic 2020 Agenda Item 10 30 Staff recommends the Commission approve Agreement No. 06-66-028-13, Amendment No. 10 to Agreement No. 06-66-028-00, with Nossaman for the on-call strategic partnership advisor services by extending the contract term to December 31, 2020, and augmenting the agreement in the amount of $5.7 million, plus a contingency of $300,000, for an additional amount of $6 million, and a total authorized contract value of $14,352,935. Further, staff recommends the Commission authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission and authorize the Executive Director or designee to approve the use of the contingency amount as may be required for the project Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Yes N/A Year: FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18+ Amount: $500,000 $3,500,000 $2,000,000 Source of Funds: 2009 Measure A Western County Highway funds/Proceeds from Commercial Paper, TIFIA Loan, and Toll Revenue Bonds Budget Adjustment: No Yes N/A GLA No.: 003027 65102 262 31 65102 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 05/13/2016 Attachment: Agreement No. 06-66-028-13 with Nossaman LLP Agenda Item 10 31 17336.00000\1514236.2 1 Agreement No. 06-66-028-13 AMENDMENT NO. 10 TO AGREEMENT FOR STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP ADVISOR SERVICES WITH NOSSAMAN LLP 1. PARTIES AND DATE This Amendment No. 10 to the Agreement for Strategic Partnership Advisor Services is made and entered into as of this ______ day of ___________, 2016, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (“Commission”) and NOSSAMAN LLP, a ("Consultant"). 2. RECITALS 2.1 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an agreement dated April 10, 2006 for the purpose of providing Strategic Partnership Advisor Services (as amended, the "Master Agreement"). The not to exceed amount of the Master Agreement is set at One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000). 2.2 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 1 to the Master Agreement, dated July 27, 2006, for the purpose of increasing the not to exceed amount of the Master Agreement by Seventy- Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000). 2.3 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 2 to the Master Agreement, dated October 26, 2006, for the purpose of reducing the not to exceed amount of the Master Agreement by Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000). 2.4 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 3 to the Master Agreement, dated April 9, 2007, for the purpose of increasing the not to exceed amount of the Master Agreement by One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000). 2.5 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 4 to the Master Agreement, dated February 8, 2008, for the purpose 32 17336.00000\1514236.2 2 of incorporating additional services into the Scope of Services of the Master Agreement, modifying the Consultant’s hourly billing rates, extending the term and increasing the not to exceed amount of the Master Agreement by Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000). 2.6 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 5 to the Master Agreement, dated July 16, 2008, for the purpose of making consulting services available to the San Bernardino Associated Governments through the Master Agreement. 2.7 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 6 to the Master Agreement, dated January 27, 2010 and Amended and Restated Amendment No. 6 to the Master Agreement, dated March 10, 2010, for the purpose of increasing the total not to exceed amount of the Master Agreement by Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($800,000) and to modify the Consultant’s hourly billing ra tes. 2.8 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 7 to the Master Agreement, dated December 21, 2010, for the purpose of increasing the total not to exceed amount of the Master Agreement by Two Million Eighty-Three Thousand Thirty-Five Dollars ($2,083,035). 2.9 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 8 to the Master Agreement, dated February 9, 2012, for the purpose of increasing the total not to exceed amount of the Master Agreement by One Million Eight Hundred Seventy-Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($1,878,900), and extending the term (the “Third Extended Term”) to end February 9, 2014, unless earlier terminated as provided in the Master Agreement. 2.10 By letter dated May 22, 2013 (“Contingency Release Letter”), the Commission authorized the release the Board allocated contingency funds in the sum of Three Hundred Seventy Six Thousand Dollars ($376,000) to cover Extra Work, as that term is defined in the Master Agreement. 2.11 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 9 to the Master Agreement, dated August 26, 2013, to identify the Contingency Release letter within the formal amendments to the Master Agreement, increasing the total not to exceed amount of the Master Agreement by Eight Million One Hundred Twelve Thousand Hundred Nine 33 17336.00000\1514236.2 3 Thirty-Five Dollars ($8,112,935), and extending the term (the “Fourth Extended Term”) to end March 9, 2018, unless earlier terminated as provided in the Master Agreement. 2.12 The parties now desire to amend the Master Agreement in order to extend the term of the Master Agreement, and provide additional compensation for the continued provision of Strategic Partnership Advisor Services. 3. TERMS 3.1 The term of the Master Agreement shall be extended for an additional term (the “Fifth Extended Term”) beginning March 9, 2018 and ending on December 31, 2020, unless earlier terminated as provided in the Master Agreement. 3.2 The maximum compensation for Services performed pursuant to this Amendment shall be Five Million Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($5,700,000), as further set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3.3 The total not-to-exceed amount of the Master Agreement, as amended by this Amendment No. 10, shall be increased from Eight Million One Hundred Twelve Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty-Five Dollars ($8,112,935) to Thirteen Million Eight Hundred Twelve Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty- Five Dollars ($13,812,935). 3.4 The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Amendment No. 10 by reference as though fully set forth herein. 3.5 Except as amended by this Amendment, all provisions of the Master Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 1 through No. 9, including without limitation the indemnity and insurance provisions, shall remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties under this Amendment. [Signatures on following page] 34 17336.00000\1514236.2 4 SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT NO. 06-66-028-13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the date first herein above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY NOSSAMAN LLP TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: _____________________________ By: _________________________ Scott Matas, Chair Signature __________________________ Name __________________________ Title APPROVED AS TO FORM: Attest: By: _____________________________ By: ________________________ Best Best & Krieger LLP Its: Secretary Counsel to the Riverside County Transportation Commission * A corporation requires the signatures of two corporate officers. One signature shall be that of the chairman of board, the president or any vice president and the second signature (on the attest line) shall be that of the secretary, any assistant secretary, the chief financial officer or any assistant treasurer of such corporation. If the above persons are not the intended signators, evidence of signature authority shall be provided to the Commission. 35 Exhibit C 17336.00000\1514236.2 EXHIBIT "A" COMPENSATION [attached behind this page] 36 BLANK SCOPE OF SERVICES In support for the design-build procurement of the I-15 HOT Lanes Design-Build Project (“Project”), NOSSAMAN LLP (“Nossaman”) will provide the following services: PROCUREMENT PHASE  Participate in weekly team calls  Participation in procurement strategies discussion (e.g., including toll services as part of the DB procurement, on its own, or part of a separate toll services procurement. When does it make sense to bring them on, etc.)  Assistance with agreements and negotiations with Caltrans, FHWA and other agency stakeholders, including the design-build coop agreement, toll facilities agreement  Lead in drafting of RFQs  Lead with proposer Q&A re: RFQs and RFQ document revisions (addenda)  Lead with drafting of RFQ Evaluation Manuals  Assist with training of the Commission personnel and consultant personnel on RFQ evaluation process and procedures  Participate and lead with oversight of RFQ evaluations  Lead in drafting of RFPs (Instructions to Proposers)  Lead in drafting of Design-Build Contract documents  Lead in drafting of Toll Services Contract documents  Review and comment on drafts of the Technical Provisions drafted by the Commission and/or technical advisor  Coordinate with and among co-consultants, including technical advisor  Lead industry review process, including proposer workshops, one on one meetings, proposer Q&A and document revisions  Participate in post-RFP issuance procurement processes, including proposer workshops, one on one meetings, alternative technical concept (ATC) review and approval process, review and response to proposer Q&A and document revisions (addenda)  Lead with drafting of RFP Evaluation Manuals  Lead with training of the Commission personnel and consultant personnel on RFP evaluation processes and procedures  Participate and lead with oversight of RFP evaluations  Lead with analysis, response and defense to any bid or proposal protests  Lead negotiations with apparent best value Proposers and Design-Build Contract and Toll Services Contract finalization  Assist with Design-Build Contract and Toll Services Contract award and execution process  Assistance with preparation of materials for presentations, briefings and other materials to Commission board and committees and senior staff and other stakeholders, as needed  Assist Commission with any applications under SEP-14 or SEP-15 (as well as other similar, related or new programs authorized under FAST or any future reauthorizations)  Assist Commission with any applications under TIFIA (or any replacement program) and negotiation of any TIFIA documents  Assist Commission with any toll revenue bonds in coordination with Commission’s financial advisor and other counsel (issuer’s counsel, bond counsel, etc.) 37  Assist Commission with financial close process  Coordinate with and among co-consultants, including technical advisor and financial advisors  Other Project-related tasks directed by the Commission to implement the procurement and Project CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION PHASE  Develop and administer Contract administration training workshops for the Commission and technical advisor staff  Assist with issuance of notice to proceed(s)  Participate in regularly scheduled contract administration calls  Assist with Design-Build Contract and Toll Services Contract interpretation, analysis and administration issues  Assist with change order, claims management strategy  Review, analyze and respond to design-build contractor and toll services provider change order requests  Review, analyze and research the Commission/design-builder change order requests  Assist in drafting of, review and negotiation of change orders  Assist with prosecution of any Design-Build Contract and Toll Services Contract disputes  Coordinate with and among co-consultants, including technical advisor and financial advisors  Other Project-related tasks directed by the Commission to implement the procurement and Project BUDGET ESTIMATE  Total budget for Procurement Phase for Design-Build Contract and Toll Services Contract: $4.5 million (including expenses)  Total budget for Contract Administration Phase /Construction for Design-Build Contract and Toll Services Contract: $1.2 million (including expenses) PRELIMINARY ASSUMPTIONS ● RFQ shall be based on prior Nossaman precedent for shortlisting RFQs ● Design-Build Contract and RFP will use SR-91 design-build documents as precedent and only moderate to medium changes will be required for Project ● Technical provisions will use SR-91 technical provisions as precedent and only moderate to medium changes will be required for Project ● Procurement period of 15-18 months from issuance of Toll Services Procurement RFQ to award/notice to proceed ● Shortlist following RFQs of no more than 4 proposers ● TIFIA process and documentation shall be generally consistent with SR-91 ● Suitable technical advisor and the Commission personnel properly performing their respective scopes of work ● Although part of scope, budget estimate excludes legal fees relating to the following items (budget amendment to contract would be required): ○ SOQ or Proposal protests or other procurement challenges 38 ○ Contract Administration ○ A Best and Final Offer (BAFO) ● BB&K will provide services in its role as Commission’s general counsel in the same manner as with the SR-91 project ● Insurance issues will be addressed by the Commission or a third party insurance advisor contracted to the Commission or the technical advisor ● Budget estimate is an estimate and not a guaranty or a cap on fees and expenses. ● Rates shall increase annually in the manner consistent with past practice ● Estimates of budget allocations across phases are estimates and shall not be caps on fees and expenses for the respective phases ● Fees and expenses may vary across phases from estimated numbers, but remain subject to the overall budget authorization 39 BLANK AGENDA ITEM 11 BLANK RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 23, 2016 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Jennifer Crosson, Toll Operations Manager THROUGH: Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director SUBJECT: Resolution 16-011 Regarding the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Toll Policy Goals and Toll Policies STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 16-011, “Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding Interstate 15 Express Lanes Toll Policy Goals and Toll Policies”; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The establishment of toll policy goals and toll policies are necessary to support planning the I-15 Express Lanes design, project financing activities, and procurement of a toll services provider and design-build contractor, and guide future operations. The toll policy goals provide a foundation for the development of the detailed toll policies and will help to guide future decisions related to the operation of the I-15 Express Lanes. Staff, with consultant support, created toll policy goals and toll policies based on requirements of the Commission’s I-15 tolling authority, legislative requirements, national express lane experience, and specific factors related to the I-15 Express Lanes project. Staff then presented the proposed toll policy goals and toll policies through a series of three Interstate 15 Corridor Improvement Project Ad Hoc Committee meetings to receive input and questions from Committee members. The attached report provides final recommendations by staff of six toll policy goals and 24 toll policies based on the input of the ad hoc committee. The report provides a table that summarizes each toll policy and the toll policy goal it supports. Following the summary table is a detailed description of each policy, background information, and an assessment that supports the recommended policy. The recommended toll policy goals and toll policies are summarized below. Agenda Item 11 40 Toll Policy Goals 1. Provide Express Lane customers with a safe, reliable, and congestion free trip. 2. Deliver exceptional, consistent, and responsive customer service. 3. Enact toll policies that balance commute choice and lane availability for all customers. 4. Provide the infrastructure and an incentive for ridesharing and increased transit use as an alternative to driving alone. 5. Generate sufficient revenue to meet express lane financial obligations to pay current and long-term costs. 6. Use surplus revenues for transportation improvements exclusively within the I-15 corridor. These toll policy goals seek to balance the Commission’s commitment to improving mobility while providing exceptional customer service and meeting financial obligations. Toll Policies Twenty-four toll policies have been developed as the framework for deploying and operating the I-15 Express Lanes. These toll policies will help achieve the toll policy goals. # Policy Topic Area Policy Recommendation Toll Policy Goal(s) Met 1 Toll Pricing Objectives Optimize person throughput in the corridor while meeting debt obligations. 1,3,4,5 2 Toll Pricing Objectives Establish toll pricing to routinely achieve free-flow speeds of 60-65 mph, always exceeding the 45 mph federal minimum requirement. 1 3 Hours of Operation Charge tolls 24 hours a day, seven days a week. 3,5 4 Carpool Occupancy Requirement Define carpools as vehicles occupied by 3 or more persons. 3,4 5 Toll Interoperability Adopt the national interoperability standard for automated toll collection systems when adopted by the toll industry. 2 6 Toll Interoperability Adopt the new state interoperability standard for automated toll collection systems when adopted by the California Toll Operators Committee. 2 Agenda Item 11 41 # Policy Topic Area Policy Recommendation Toll Policy Goal(s) Met 7 Project Development Costs Fund project development costs by current and future Measure A sales tax, toll revenue, and state and federal grants. 3,5 8 Operations and Maintenance Costs Fund operations, maintenance, and toll enforcement costs by toll revenue. 2,5 9 Project Repayment Repay Measure A sales tax bonds and toll revenue bonds with future Measure A and toll revenue, respectively. 5 10 Use of Revenue Use surplus revenue to fund increase I-15 corridor transportation investments. 2,3,6 11 Enforcement Enforce I-15 Express Lanes toll violations through agreement with the California Highway Patrol and any future state or federal toll violation laws. 1,2 12 Operations and Maintenance Responsibilities Maintain Express Lanes and toll systems as a responsibility of RCTC. 1,2 13 Operations and Maintenance Responsibilities Perform customer service patrol and incident management as a responsibility of RCTC in cooperation with Caltrans and other jurisdictions. 1,2 14 Operations and Maintenance Responsibilities Provide customer service and the account relationships as a responsibility of RCTC. 2,5 15 Signage Provide toll signage meeting the latest California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices Standards. 1,2 16 Express Bus Integration Encourage express bus use through toll policies and Express Lane Operations. 3,4,6 17 Design – Facility Ingress and Egress Design the roadway and ingress and egress locations meeting Caltrans design standards where feasible and practical. 1,2 18 Design – Number of Lanes Construct and operate two Express Lanes in each direction where possible. 1,2,5 19 Toll Pricing Method Use Dynamic Pricing to determine the toll price. 1,3,5 20 Toll Exemptions and Discounts Provide toll discounts according to legislation and for operations and maintenance vehicles. 1,2 21 Toll Payment Method Require all vehicles to have a transponder at time of travel. 1,2,4 Agenda Item 11 42 # Policy Topic Area Policy Recommendation Toll Policy Goal(s) Met 22 Mobile Interface Implement Mobile Web for FasTrak™ customers, but defer the Mobile Toll Payment Application. 1,2,3 23 High Occupancy Vehicle Declaration Options Identify HOV3+ carpool customers via a switchable transponder. 1,2,4 24 Express Lane Operations Facility Locate the call center, customer service center and traffic management center and administration in close proximity to the Express Lanes. 2 Implementation of Goals and Policies Adoption of the toll policy goals and toll policies will allow staff to continue planning and developing the I-15 Express Lanes with a focus on meeting the proposed goals and ensuring adherence to the related policies. Additionally, adoption of the toll policy goals and toll policies supports the project’s traffic and revenue study and project financing activities currently underway. There is no fiscal impact related to the toll policy goals and toll policies. Attachment: Resolution No. 16-011 Regarding I-15 Toll Policy Goals and Toll Policies Agenda Item 11 43 RESOLUTION NO. 16-011 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REGARDING THE INTERSTATE 15 EXPRESS LANES TOLL POLICY GOALS AND TOLL POLICIES WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the Commission) will soon embark on construction and system development for the I-15 Express Lanes; WHEREAS, the Commission has received legislative and regulatory approval to build and operate a toll facility along Interstate15; WHEREAS, a significant portion of the project includes the addition of two tolled Express Lanes from Cajalco Road to State Route 60; WHEREAS, the project requires significant financing to complete the design-build construction and toll system installation; WHEREAS, toll revenue will be the source of debt service repayment for toll revenue bonds and a federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act loan; WHEREAS, the success of the project requires clear and measurable toll policy goals; WHEREAS, the success of the project requires defined and workable toll policies; and WHEREAS, the Commission currently retains the authority to add, delete, or otherwise modify its policies and procedures. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Riverside County Transportation Commission as follows; Section 1. The Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby adopts the I-15 Express Lanes Toll Policy attached as Exhibit A. The details of the policy shall be approved by the Commission during its actions on June 8th. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of June, 2016. _____________________________________ Scott Matas, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: _________________________________ Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board 44 BLANK Toll Policy Report FINAL DRAFT | May 9, 2016 I-15 Express Lanes Project i 45   46 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Toll Policy Goals ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Toll Policy Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Toll Policy Descriptions ...................................................................................................................... 6 1 – 2. Toll Pricing Objectives ................................................................................................................... 6 3. Hours of Operation ....................................................................................................................... 7 4. Carpool Occupancy Requirement ................................................................................................. 8 5 – 6. Toll Interoperability .................................................................................................................... 10 7. Project Development Costs ........................................................................................................ 12 8. Operations and Maintenance Costs ........................................................................................... 14 9. Project Repayment ..................................................................................................................... 16 10. Use of Revenue ........................................................................................................................... 17 11. Enforcement ............................................................................................................................... 18 12 – 14. Operations and Maintenance Responsibilities ........................................................................... 20 15. Signage ........................................................................................................................................ 22 16. Express Bus Integration .............................................................................................................. 23 17. Design – Facility Ingress and Egress ............................................................................................ 25 18. Design – Number of Lanes .......................................................................................................... 27 19. Toll Pricing Method..................................................................................................................... 28 20. Toll Exemptions and Discounts ................................................................................................... 30 21. Toll Payment Method ................................................................................................................. 33 22. Mobile Interface ......................................................................................................................... 35 23. High Occupancy Vehicle Declaration Options ............................................................................ 36 24. Express Lane Operations Facility ................................................................................................ 38 I-15 Express Lanes Project i 47   48 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report Introduction This report provides a description of the toll policies that form the basis for the Concept of Operations, which serves as the framework for the ultimate design of the I-15 Express Lanes Project. These toll policies will also be used as key assumptions for the I-15 Express Lanes Traffic and Revenue Study prepared separately. The I-15 Express Lanes Project will generally include two tolled express lanes in each direction on Interstate 15 (I-15) in Riverside County between Cajalco Road in Corona and the State Route 60 (SR-60) interchange, a distance of approximately 15 miles. The Project is being developed by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) in partnership with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Express Lanes are intended to improve current and projected future congestion by adding capacity that can be managed and operated in a manner consistent with the policies described in this document. RCTC developed a set of toll policy goals that provided a foundation for the development of the policies described in this document. These goals are described in the next section, followed by a table summarizing each of the toll policies and how each policy achieves the stated goals. I-15 Express Lanes Project 1 49   50 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report Toll Policy Goals Description: In partnership with federal, state, regional, and local agencies, RCTC develops and oversees transportation plans, policies, funding programs, and both short-term and long-range solutions that address the county’s increasing mobility, accessibility, and environmental needs. The establishment of Express Lanes on I-15 within the County has the potential to assist Riverside County in meeting many of its mobility, air quality, and funding challenges. Vital to this effort are toll policies which fulfill RCTC’s goals and objectives for transportation system performance and revenue sustainability. RCTC’s toll policy goals and objectives are guidelines for developing specific policies and business rules that inform the toll collection aspects of the design and operation of the I-15 Express Lanes. Given the corridor’s adjacency to the SR-91 corridor, and the more recent effort by RCTC in setting policies and goals for Express Lanes in that corridor, the toll policy goals for I-15 are similar to those developed by RCTC for the Riverside 91 Express Lanes to provide for regional consistency. Background: RCTC, in cooperation with the Caltrans, is proposing a project to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion on a portion of I-15. The project proposes to construct two tolled Express Lanes generally in each direction between the I-15/Cajalco Road interchange and the I-15/SR-60 interchange. All proposed improvements are anticipated to be constructed within existing Caltrans right of way, with the majority of the improvements occurring within the existing I-I5 median. According to the I-15 Tolled Express Lane Corridor Improvement Program Draft Forecast Traffic Volume Development Report, the primary purpose of the project is to address current and future (2040) travel demand and improve traffic operations on the I-15 corridor, which has been identified as a corridor that needs capacity improvements to address existing and projected capacity deficiencies from the accelerated growth and development that has taken place in communities along the I-15 corridor and is expected to continue. As a result of the on-going accelerated growth and development, the I-15 corridor will experience increased congestion, longer commute times, increased energy consumption, air pollution, higher accident rates and the degradation of the freeway mainline, local interchanges, and the adjacent local arterials. The operational breakdown of these facilities is expected to have significant adverse impacts on the economic vitality of the region and the transport of goods and services along this corridor. I-15 Express Lanes Project 2 51 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report Recommendation: RCTC staff recommends the following goals for the I-15 Express Lanes: 1. Provide Express Lane customers with a safe, reliable, and congestion free trip. 2. Deliver exceptional, consistent, and responsive customer service. 3. Enact toll policies that balance commute choice and lane availability for all customers. 4. Provide the infrastructure and an incentive for ridesharing and increased transit use as an alternative to driving alone. 5. Generate sufficient revenue to meet Express Lane financial obligations to pay current and long- term costs. 6. Use surplus revenues for transportation improvements exclusively within the Interstate 15 corridor. I-15 Express Lanes Project 3 52 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report Toll Policy Summary # Policy Topic Area Policy Recommendation Toll Policy Goal(s) Met Page 1 Toll Pricing Objectives Optimize person throughput in the corridor while meeting debt obligations. 1,3,4,5 6 2 Toll Pricing Objectives Establish toll pricing to routinely achieve free-flow speeds of 60-65 mph, always exceeding the 45 mph federal minimum requirement. 1 6 3 Hours of Operation Charge tolls 24 hours a day, seven days a week. 3,5 7 4 Carpool Occupancy Requirement Define carpools as vehicles occupied by 3 or more persons. 3,4 8 5 Toll Interoperability Adopt the national interoperability standard for automated toll collection systems when adopted by the toll industry. 2 10 6 Toll Interoperability Adopt the new state interoperability standard for automated toll collection systems when adopted by the California Toll Operators Committee. 2 10 7 Project Development Costs Fund project development costs by current and future Measure A sales tax, toll revenue, and state and federal grants. 3,5 12 8 Operations and Maintenance Costs Fund operations, maintenance, and toll enforcement costs by toll revenue. 2,5 14 9 Project Repayment Repay Measure A sales tax bonds and toll revenue bonds with future Measure A and toll revenue, respectively. 5 16 10 Use of Revenue Use surplus revenue to fund Interstate 15 corridor transportation investments. 2,3,6 17 11 Enforcement Enforce I-15 Express Lanes toll violations through agreement with the California Highway Patrol and any future state or federal toll violation laws. 1,2 18 12 Operations and Maintenance Responsibilities Maintain Express Lanes and toll systems as a responsibility of RCTC. 1,2 20 I-15 Express Lanes Project 4 53 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report # Policy Topic Area Policy Recommendation Toll Policy Goal(s) Met Page 13 Operations and Maintenance Responsibilities Perform customer service patrol and incident management as a responsibility of RCTC in cooperation with Caltrans and other jurisdictions. 1,2 20 14 Operations and Maintenance Responsibilities Provide customer service and the account relationships as a responsibility of RCTC. 2,5 20 15 Signage Provide toll signage meeting the latest California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices Standards. 1,2 22 16 Express Bus Integration Encourage express bus use through toll policies and Express Lane operations. 3,4,6 23 17 Design – Facility Ingress and Egress Design the roadway and ingress and egress locations meeting Caltrans design standards where feasible and practical. 1,2 25 18 Design – Number of Lanes Construct and operate two Express Lanes in each direction where possible. 1,2,5 27 19 Toll Pricing Method Use Dynamic Pricing to determine the toll price. 1,3,5 28 20 Toll Exemptions and Discounts Provide toll discounts according to legislation and for operations and maintenance vehicles. 1,2 30 21 Toll Payment Method Require all vehicles to have a transponder at time of travel. 1,2,4 33 22 Mobile Interface Implement Mobile Web for FasTrak® customers, but defer the Mobile Toll Payment Application. 1,2,3 35 23 High Occupancy Vehicle Declaration Options Identify HOV3+ carpool customers via a switchable transponder. 1,2,4 36 24 Express Lane Operations Facility Locate the call center, customer service center and traffic management center and administration in close proximity to the Express Lanes. 2 38 I-15 Express Lanes Project 5 54 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report 1 – 2. Toll Pricing Objectives Description: Express lane pricing serves as a tool to regulate demand and preserve optimal operating conditions. A primary goal of express lanes is to maintain priority access for high occupancy vehicles (HOVs), buses and vanpools to achieve high person throughput. In addition, federal requirements specify minimum operating conditions for HOV and express lanes and prescribe the use of pricing as a means of meeting those requirements. Express lane pricing also generates revenue that can be used to support project development, operating and maintenance costs, and other improvements. Recommendation: 1. Optimize person throughput in the corridor while meeting debt obligations. 2. Establish toll pricing to routinely achieve free-flow speeds of 60-65 mph, always exceeding the 45 mph federal minimum requirement Background: A common goal of express lane projects around the country is to optimize the performance of the lanes using pricing. The performance of express lanes can be measured in a number of ways, including person throughput. And although not often stated as a primary goal of express lanes, revenue generation is another measure of performance. Optimizing person throughput in express lanes is achieved by maintaining priority service for HOVs, buses and vanpools by offering toll discounts and ensuring that the express lanes maintain free-flow conditions for these vehicles. Federal requirements define a degraded HOV or express lane facility as one that does not meet a minimum average operating speed of 45 mph for 90 percent of the time over a 180-day monitoring period during weekday peak hours. The requirements specify varying the toll charged to vehicles to bring a degraded facility into compliance. As described in Section 19, dynamic pricing will be used to manage demand in the Express Lanes. The pricing algorithm used to calculate the toll rates can be calibrated to ensure that free-flow speeds of 60-65 mph are routinely achieved in the Express Lanes. Additionally, tolls can be set to ensure that the project generates revenue that will be used to service debt obligations. Assessment: Optimizing person throughput is a common goal of express lane projects and is achieved by using pricing as a mechanism to maintain priority access for vehicles carrying multiple occupants. Pricing will also be used to ensure that the federal minimum operating requirements are met and that the Express Lanes generate revenue necessary to service debt obligations. I-15 Express Lanes Project 6 55 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report 3. Hours of Operation Description: Express lane hours of operation define when toll collection will occur. Toll collection can occur during traditionally defined peak periods or extended peak periods (part time), or can occur 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (full-time). Under part-time operations, all passenger vehicles would be allowed to access the Express Lanes during off-peak hours. Under full-time operations, a minimum toll rate would be charged during off-peak hours. Recommendation: Charge tolls 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Background: Express lanes hours of operation generally fall into one of the following categories: 1. Part-time operations – Toll collection occurs during defined periods of the day. When toll collection is not in effect, the express lanes are open to all vehicles. Toll collection can occur during defined morning and evening peak periods (e.g., 5am-9am and 3pm-7pm) or during extended daytime hours (e.g., 5am-7pm). 2. Full time operations – Toll collection is in effect 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. During non- peak times, the toll rate is often set to a minimum rate. All HOV lanes in the Southern California region operate full time, with the exception of SR-14 between Santa Clarita and Palmdale and SR-60 from Day Street to Redlands Boulevard. This is because Southern California freeways experience sustained hours of congestion, with relatively short off-peak hours. Under such conditions, part-time HOV operation would not be viable. Similar to the region’s HOV facilities, all current and planned express lane facilities within the SCAG region are operating or will be operating with full-time tolling. The 91 Express Lanes in Orange County and the extension into Riverside County operate 24/7, and the I-15 Express Lanes project planned in San Bernardino County has also adopted a 24/7 policy. Having consistent policy helps enforcement and may contribute to a better understanding and reliance on the express lanes network whenever congestion occurs. Assessment: Full-time tolling on the I-15 Express Lanes is recommended to maximize efficient operation of the Express Lanes and general purpose lanes, and to be consistent with adjoining express lane facilities on the SR 91 and the planned I-15 Express Lanes in San Bernardino County. I-15 Express Lanes Project 7 56 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report 4. Carpool Occupancy Requirement Description: The HOV occupancy definition establishes the minimum occupancy requirements for discounted and/or free travel within express lanes. This is important because there will be different traffic and revenue results if carpools are defined as two or more persons per vehicle (HOV-2+) or three or more persons per vehicle (HOV-3+). Recommendation: Define carpools as vehicles occupied by 3 or more persons. Background: Under Federal requirement (23 USC § 166), HOV and express lanes facilities must maintain a minimum speed of 45 mph. Caltrans has the responsibility of maintaining operations for the state’s HOV lanes, which includes the authority to make operational changes (including occupancy) provided they are compliant with federal and state regulations. Multiple sections of California law pertain to HOV policies on express lanes. The specific legislative authorization given to each facility in the state typically provides that particular entity the authority to set rates and HOV policies on the respective facilities. RCTC’s application for the I-15 Express Lanes Project approved by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) states that vehicles with three or more occupants will be allowed entry into the Express Lanes at no cost initially. The Application acknowledges that it may be necessary to charge for HOV-3+ in the future as demand for the Express Lanes increases. According to the 2013 CA HOV Lane Degradation Report published by Caltrans, many HOV facilities in the Southern California region are currently experiencing various degrees of performance degradation with a HOV-2+ minimum occupancy requirement. As the region’s express lanes network expands, and demand increases, the need to increase the minimum occupancy requirement becomes more apparent. Currently, there are three existing and four planned (excluding this Project) express lane facilities in southern California. The current practices for carpool occupancy policy are summarized as follows: Existing Facilities • Metro I-10 ExpressLanes – HOV-3+ toll-free during peak periods; HOV-2+ toll-free all other times • Metro I-110 ExpressLanes – HOV-2+ toll-free I-15 Express Lanes Project 8 57 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report • OCTA 91 Express Lanes – HOV-3+ toll-free, with the exception of eastbound PM peak period operating with discount toll rates for HOV-3+ Planned Facilities • OCTA 405 Express Lanes –Pending results of the Traffic and Revenue Study • SANBAG I-10 Express Lanes – HOV-3+ toll-free • SANBAG I-15 Express Lanes – HOV-3+ toll-free • Riverside 91 Express Lanes – HOV-3+ toll-free, with the exception of eastbound PM peak period operating with discount toll rates for HOV-3+ Assessment: HOV-3+ is recommended as the minimum occupancy requirement for discounted travel for the I-15 Express Lanes. This is consistent with policy recommendations in the SCAG Regional Express Lanes Concept of Operations and the adjoining SR-91 in Orange/Riverside Counties and future I-15 Express Lanes in San Bernardino County. I-15 Express Lanes Project 9 58 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report 5 – 6. Toll Interoperability Description: Toll interoperability refers to the ability for customers to use multiple toll facilities with a single toll account. Currently, there are various tolling protocols used across the United States to communicate between the in-vehicle toll transponders and roadside toll readers and only a few of the systems allow a customer to use the same toll transponder at other facilities across state lines. There are national and state initiatives to adopt new interoperability standards. Recommendation: 5. Adopt the national interoperability standard for automated toll collection systems when adopted by the toll industry. 6. Adopt the new state interoperability standard for automated toll collection systems when adopted by the California Toll Operators Committee. Background: The protocol for the exchange of transponder information for toll facilities in California is specified by Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations. The transponders used by California toll agencies are commonly referred to as Title 21 transponders. These transponders are branded as FasTrak® and can be used on any of the California toll facilities. California is the only state currently using the Title 21 transponders. In 2012, the federal government passed Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, MAP-21, calling for a national toll interoperability by 2016. The International Bridge, Tunnel, and Turnpike, Authority (IBTTA) is the worldwide association representing toll facility owners and operators and the businesses that that serve them. IBTTA has formed an Interoperability Committee that is working to advance the goal of achieving national interoperability by 2016. They are in the process of selecting the transponder protocols that will undergo further testing and analysis. The Title 21 transponders are not being considered for the national standard. Concurrent with the efforts of IBTTA, the California Toll Operators Committee (CTOC), which was formed to facilitate interoperability within California, has developed a Transition Plan to replace the legacy California protocol (referred to as “Title 21”) with a newer and less expensive protocol (referred to as Switchable Title 21 Legacy Title 21 WSDOT 6C Sticker I-15 Express Lanes Project 10 59 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report “6C”). This plan proposes that all toll facilities in the state be able to recognize the 6C protocol by 2018 with full transition by 2020. The 6C protocol is also one of the final protocols being evaluated for the national standard and CTOC is represented in the discussions regarding national interoperability. Assessment: The I-15 Express Lanes will be consistent with the interoperability standards currently being assessed at the national and state levels. In doing so, I-15 Express Lanes customers will only have to establish a single toll account to travel on all toll facilities in the state and, depending on the outcome of the national interoperability discussions, may be able to use their account to travel on toll facilities across the country. I-15 Express Lanes Project 11 60 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report 7. Project Development Costs Description: The I-15 Express Lanes will require funding for project capital costs, necessary for the final design, construction, and initial deployment of the Express Lanes. Capital costs include all items necessary to build new lanes or retrofit existing lanes in order to provide an Express Lane facility, including infrastructure construction, toll collection implementation, and equipment. The funds for capital costs may come from a number of sources, including Riverside County “Measure A” sales tax revenue or state and federal grants. In addition, bonds could be issued or a federal loan obtained for capital costs that are leveraged based on these dedicated tax revenue sources and/or toll revenues from the actual Express Lane facility. Recommendation: Fund project development costs by current and future Measure A sales tax, toll revenue, and state and federal grants. Background: Riverside County Measure A Sales Tax Measure A is a Riverside County half-cent sales tax dedicated to transportation. Voters approved the Measure A program in 1988, which has raised over $1 billion for major highway and local road projects throughout Riverside County. Voters extended Measure A in 2002, ensuring that the program will continue to fund transportation improvements through 2039. Federal Funding In addition to local funding through Measure A, there are multiple federal programs facilitated through the FHWA that could potentially be used to fund the I-15 Express Lanes. These programs are intended to award funds to projects that upgrade facilities in order to reduce congestion or improve safety. These sources could include, but are not limited to, the Surface Transportation Program, the Highway Safety Improvement Program, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds, or a loan awarded through the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA). I-15 Express Lanes Project 12 61 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report State Funding California state funding could potentially be available through the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The CTC administers the STIP, which awards funds to eligible highway projects programmed by county transportation agencies. Bonds Many express lane projects throughout the country require some level of financing or debt. A limited tax obligation bond is issued by a government entity which is secured by a pledge of a specific tax revenue and can be used to fund certain capital improvements. However, the ability of a priced managed lane to collect toll revenue creates a dedicated funding source, which could be used to issue and repay a bond. These toll revenue bonds are the most popular to be issued by toll facilities. The authorizing statute for the I-15 Express Lanes (Streets & Highways Code Section 149.8) permits RCTC to issue bonds to finance the project. Assessment: Financing a project through the issuance of bonds or other means, allows for projects to offer the public more immediate benefits of transportation infrastructure, while spreading the costs of that infrastructure over the life of a project. In this way, the additional interest cost paid by the agency is outweighed by the mobility and economic benefits of having the project available more quickly. Capital costs for the I-15 Express Lanes are to be funded through current and future Riverside County Measure A sales tax revenues and project toll revenues through bond and TIFIA loan financing. Specifically, the recommendation is that sales tax revenue bonds may be issued by RCTC and repaid through Measure A sales tax revenues, while toll revenue bonds may also be issued and a TIFIA loan executed with repayment ensured through toll revenues collected by the I-15 Express Lane facility. In addition, it is recommended that additional State and Federal discretionary grant opportunities are sought to supplement project funding. RCTC’s project plan of finance is currently being developed as part of project financing activities and will be brought for Board approval in the future. I-15 Express Lanes Project 13 62 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report 8. Operations and Maintenance Costs Description: The I-15 Express Lanes will require funding for ongoing operation and maintenance costs associated with the project. Toll collection and dedication to enhanced traveler benefits make express lanes unique when compared to other highway projects, and often require greater resources and funding for the operation and maintenance of these services. The cost of express lane operations includes toll collection, standard operations, enhanced enforcement, incident response services, and toll system and facility maintenance. Operation and maintenance activities require a dedicated funding source in order to be viable, which could include local, state, or federal revenues, in addition to actual toll revenues collected as part of the project. Recommendation: Fund operations, maintenance, and toll enforcement costs by toll revenue. Background: As with all transportation infrastructure, a dependable and dedicated source of funding is necessary for operations and maintenance. This is especially true for express lanes, where enhanced services can be necessary to offer reliable travel time savings to toll paying customers. Express lanes are also unique in that the revenue collected from tolls is able to be used as a dedicated source of operation and maintenance funding. The following are general express lanes operations and maintenance costs: Toll Collection Costs Toll collection costs include all costs associated with processing tolls payments, including the labor and materials required to manage customer accounts, perform license plate image reviews, process toll violations and provide general customer service. In addition, the cost of distributing and managing transponder inventory is included. Standard Operation Costs Standard operation includes costs associated with labor and equipment necessary to manage express lane operations, including personnel to monitor traffic and toll operations, generate reports, public outreach, management and oversight, etc. I-15 Express Lanes Project 14 63 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report Enhanced Enforcement In order to manage express lanes demand, it is important that the vehicles using express lanes are either paying the posted toll or meeting the HOV requirement. A thorough enforcement program including the presence of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) is necessary to maintain motorist compliance. Incident Response Services In order to offer a dependable travel time savings, it is important that incident response resources be available to remove any disabled vehicles or objects which may prevent free-flow conditions. Toll System and Facility Maintenance Maintenance costs associated with express lanes include the inspection, upkeep, and replacement of the facility itself and items necessary for toll operation including roadside toll collection equipment and infrastructure, communications infrastructure, and all other hardware and software elements. Assessment: It is recommended that operation and maintenance costs for the I-15 Express Lanes be funded through toll revenue. Under this assumption, the resources and services necessary for Express Lanes operations will be funded from the project itself. Funding operations through project revenue will require that Express Lane tolls are set at a rate that ensures mobility and travel time benefits to customers, while also generating sufficient revenue to effectively operate the Express Lanes and meet debt obligations. I-15 Express Lanes Project 15 64 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report 9. Project Repayment Description: As described in Section 7, sales tax and toll revenue bonds are anticipated to be issued by RCTC and a federal TIFIA loan executed to finance the I-15 Express Lanes development costs. Sales tax revenue bonds are to be backed by future Measure A tax revenues and toll revenue bonds are to be backed by future revenues generated by the Express Lanes. Therefore, funds for the repayment of these bonds will be obtained through revenues to be generated by the Measure A sales tax and operation of the Express Lanes. Recommendation: Repay Measure A sales tax bonds and toll revenue bonds with future Measure A and toll revenue, respectively. Background: The authorizing statute for the I-15 Express Lanes (Streets & Highways Code Section 149.8) permits RCTC to issue bonds to finance the project. It is RCTC’s intent to issue bonds backed by both Measure A sales tax revenues and future toll revenues and to repay the bonds using these revenue sources. Assessment: Consistent with the obligations of issuing bonds, RCTC will repay bonds using revenues generated by Measure A sales taxes and Express Lane tolls. I-15 Express Lanes Project 16 65   66 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report 10. Use of Revenue Description: Express lanes charge tolls and generate toll revenue as a normal function of operation. The I-15 Express Lanes will require an expenditure plan for all revenue, outlining what activities or functions will be funded from collected toll payments. As stated in Section 9, it is recommended that toll revenues should be used toward repayment of bond debt issued on behalf of the project and also to fund facility operations, maintenance, and enforcement. However, net excess revenue may remain after payments toward operation and maintenance costs and debt service obligations. There are multiple projects and programs which could be funded through the net excess toll revenue from the I-15 Express Lanes. Recommendation: Use surplus revenue to fund Interstate 15 corridor transportation investments. Background: The goal of most express lane facilities is to generate enough revenue to cover basic operations and maintenance, meet debt obligations (if applicable), as well as to fund replacement and upkeep to the extent that adequate revenue is available. Other facilities dedicate portions of net excess revenue to fund enhanced transit operations within the express lane facility, such as I-15 in San Diego and I-95 in South Florida. Statutes for the Metro I-110 and I-10 ExpressLanes in Los Angeles County state that toll revenue must first cover the costs incurred in connection with implementation/operation of the program. Metro reinvests surplus toll revenue into the corridor through a grant program. In addition, the 91 Express Lanes in Orange County have adopted the policy of directing net excess revenues to capital improvements within the SR-91 corridor. The authorizing statute for the I-15 Express Lanes (Streets & Highways Code Section 149.8) permits excess toll revenues to be used for the following purposes: (A) To enhance transit service designed to reduce traffic congestion on I-15 or to expand travel options along I-15. Eligible expenses include transit operating costs, acquisition of transit vehicles and transit capital improvements. (B) To make operational or capacity improvements designed to reduce congestion or improve the flow of traffic on I-15. Eligible expenses include any phase of project delivery to make capital improvements to onramps, connector roads, roadways, bridges, or other structures on I-15. Assessment: The toll revenue collected as part of the I-15 Express Lanes operations will be used primarily to fund operation, maintenance, and enforcement costs of the facility, as well as to meet debt obligations for any revenue bonds issued as part of the project. Any remaining net excess revenue will be used to fund transportation improvements within the I-15 Express Lanes corridor consistent with authorizing statute. I-15 Express Lanes Project 17 67 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report 11. Enforcement Description: Express lanes require effective enforcement policies and programs to operate successfully. Enforcement of vehicle occupancy requirements and toll payment is critical to protecting eligible vehicles’ travel time savings and safety. Visible and effective enforcement promotes fairness and maintains the integrity of the facility to help gain acceptance among users and nonusers. Recommendation: Enforce 1-15 Express Lane toll violations through agreement with the California Highway Patrol and any future state or federal toll violation laws. Background: Adequate and effective enforcement policies and incident management are integral elements to express lanes operations to ensure that the facilities are operating at the intended level of performance. Enforcement of vehicle occupancy and/or toll payment requirements is critical to protecting eligible users’ travel-time savings and safety. Visible and effective enforcement promotes fairness and maintains the integrity of the facility to help gain acceptance among users and non-users. The enforcement concept for many express lane facilities around the country involves a combination of manual and automated enforcement strategies. Manual enforcement requires CHP officers to be present during the peak hours to serve as a visual deterrent and to monitor vehicles to ensure they are complying with express lane operating policies. Observation areas are provided at strategic locations for officers to park and monitor beacons that illuminate when a vehicle passes through with a switchable transponder (see Section 23 of this report) set to a high-occupancy setting. Beacon lights provide a visual cue for officers to visually inspect the vehicle to verify whether it meets the occupancy requirement. The beacons can also be used to indicate when no transponder or an invalid transponder was detected and can be strategically placed to support stationary enforcement as well as enforcement by officers driving the corridor. CHP will also be relied upon to enforce all other moving violations, including illegal crossing of the express lanes buffer and the requirement for vehicles to have properly mounted license plates. In addition to manual enforcement, License Plate Recognition (LPR) cameras will be located at toll points to capture the license plates of vehicles for which no transponder was detected. If the license plate is I-15 Express Lanes Project 18 68 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report able to be matched to an account, then the toll amount will be deducted from the account. Otherwise, the license plate information is sent to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to determine the address of the registered owner for issuance of a toll violation. In the Southern California region, HOV and express lanes enforcements are generally conducted by the CHP in conjunction with automatic tolling systems. The four operating express lane facilities in Southern California, Metro I-10 ExpressLanes, Metro I-110 ExpressLanes, OCTA 91 Express Lanes, and SANDAG’s I- 15 Express Lanes are all under contract with CHP to conduct violation enforcement. These facilities also employ beacon lights and CHP observation areas where possible. Assessment: Given national experience, including experience with the four express lanes operated in Southern California, manual enforcement is a proven component of successful express lane operations. The presence of CHP vehicles instills confidence to customers and serves as a deterrent for those that may violate. RCTC will establish an agreement with CHP officers to enforce the I-15 Express Lanes and provide CHP the necessary tools such as enforcement beacon lights and access to transponder information to effectively enforce. In addition, LPR cameras will be used to enforce the requirement for vehicles to carry a transponder. I-15 Express Lanes Project 19 69   70 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report 12 – 14. Operations and Maintenance Responsibilities Description: Express lanes operations and maintenance responsibilities can be managed in a number of ways. These responsibilities include the maintenance of all equipment associated with the toll system, providing oversight of operations and incident management, and providing customer service to manage customer accounts. Each of these responsibilities is integral to the overall performance and operation of the express lanes. Express lane implementing agencies can use agency staff, contract staff or share responsibilities with other agencies. Recommendations: 12. Maintain Express Lanes and toll systems as a responsibility of RCTC. 13. Perform customer service patrol and incident management as a responsibility of RCTC in cooperation with Caltrans and other jurisdictions. 14. Provide customer service and the account relationships as a responsibility of RCTC. Background: Express lane operation and maintenance functions require dedicated resources to maintain hardware and software, monitor performance and manage customer accounts. These functions are described in more detail below. Toll Systems Maintenance The maintenance of toll systems includes the inspection, upkeep, and replacement of the items necessary for toll operations and the supporting infrastructure. Roadside toll collection equipment, communication network components, servers and workstations are all elements of a working toll system that require routine maintenance. Most express lane operating agencies enter into contracts with toll service providers to not only design and construct the toll systems, but also to operate and maintain them for some period of time. The toll system providers are required to develop maintenance tracking systems that keep track of the maintenance requirements for all elements of the toll system. These systems send alerts when there is an equipment malfunction, track maintenance response times, and keep track of equipment inventory. Performance Monitoring and Incident Management An important component of express lane operations is the ability to monitor traffic performance in real- time to ensure that the express lanes are maintaining optimum conditions. This is accomplished using roadside vehicle detection equipment and closed-circuit television cameras that send real time information to a facility where operators can monitor. Operators have the ability to override the toll system (e.g., display a message such as “HOV ONLY”) when conditions warrant and to coordinate with I-15 Express Lanes Project 20 71 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report Caltrans, CHP and other jurisdictions as needed. In addition, operators have the ability to dispatch tow trucks to clear incidents. Some express lane operators choose to co-locate their express lane monitoring functions within a regional monitoring center and others choose to establish a dedicated monitoring facility. An example of a regional monitoring center is the Inland Empire Transportation Management Center (IETMC), which serves as an intermodal traffic management facility for San Bernardino and Riverside Counties and is staffed by both Caltrans and CHP personnel. The IETMC opened to service in 2011 and is located in the City of Fontana at the interchange of the I-15 and I-210. Customer Service Customer service includes all of the functions related to account management, payment processing, transponder distribution, violation processing and providing general customer support. Some of these support activities, often referred to as “back office” activities, can take place at offsite facilities. Examples of activities that can be performed offsite include call taking and license plate image review. However, the location(s) of some customer service functions are ideally located in close proximity to the express lanes, including walk-in customer service, customer call center and transponder distribution. Assessment: Express lane operating agencies typically procure a contractor to carry out customer service responsibilities due to the amount of specialized systems and labor required. RCTC will contract with a toll services provider to design, implement, operate and maintain all aspects of the I-15 Express Lanes toll system. The RCTC Operations Center (see Section 24) will serve as the hub of all customer, maintenance, and operating activities. Inland Empire Transportation I-15 Express Lanes Project 21 72 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report 15. Signage Description: The California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (California MUTCD) provides uniform standards and specifications for all traffic signage in California. The most recent version of the California MUTCD, published in 2014, includes signing guidelines and requirements for express lane facilities. These requirements are intended to standardize the way that express lanes throughout the state are signed to make it easier for the traveling public to understand express lane operating requirements. Recommendation: Provide toll signage meeting the latest California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices standards. Background: The general signing requirements for all new highway projects, including express lanes, must comply with the 2014 California MUTCD. The California MUTCD includes requirements for different types of express lane configurations and operating requirements. Of particular relevance to the I-15 Express Lanes, are those signs that depict a restricted access facility where all vehicles in the express lanes are required to have a FasTrak® account. Express lane signs included in the California MUTCD generally fall into the following categories: • Overhead-mounted signs designating the start and end of the express lanes as well as intermediate access points. • Overhead-mounted pricing signs that display the toll amount to given downstream locations. In accordance with the guidance in the MUTCD, pricing signs display the current toll to no more than two downstream destinations. Changeable message elements will be used to indicate the toll rate to travel to the destination shown. These signs will also specify the HOV occupancy requirement and that a FasTrak® account is required for vehicles to use the facility. • Median mounted and overhead signs that display the carpool occupancy requirement, the FasTrak® account requirement and hours of operation. Assessment: The I-15 Express Lanes signage will conform to the standards in the California MUTCD. The design and implementation of the signage will be the result of several sign workshops and plan reviews that will include Caltrans and the FHWA. Example Pricing Sign I-15 Express Lanes Project 22 73 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report 16. Express Bus Integration Description: Transit is an important component in express lanes. If managed through variable pricing to maintain a minimum level of service, express lanes create efficient and reliable transit corridors compared to previously congested freeways. Of the existing HOV and express lanes facilities in the southern California region, most are already served by express bus services. Operating express bus service on express lanes offers several key benefits: • Shortens Travel Times • Improves Travel Time Reliability • Lowers Operating Costs • Increases Person Throughput • Encourages Carpooling and Transit Use • Addresses Equity Concerns • Builds Public Support Recommendations: Encourage express bus use through toll policies and Express Lane operations. Background: Currently, the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) provides eight express bus services throughout Riverside County, with one route (CommuterLink Express 206) providing service along I-15 between Temecula and Corona. The CommuterLink Express – Route 206 (Temecula-Murrieta-Lake Elsinore- North Main Corona Metrolink Station) runs daily during weekdays on approximately 30-minute headways, and the general fare costs $3.00 each way (free with valid Metrolink Pass). Route 206 provides connections for commuters travelling from Riverside County to other regions via the North Main Corona Metrolink station. In anticipation of the 91 Express Lanes extension in Riverside County, the RTA already has two new RapidLink express bus routes programmed for deployment in 2017. These two routes, RapidLink 200 and 205, will provide connections between Riverside and Anaheim as well as Temecula and Anaheim via the 91 Express Lanes. The proposed I-15 Express Lanes will provide the opportunity for further expansion of express bus services along the corridor. Similar to express bus benefits, the I-15 Express Lanes can provide opportunities for enhancing and promoting carpooling/vanpooling by commuters. Currently, there are eight Caltrans Park and Ride lots along the I-15 corridor within Riverside County. Of the eight existing lots, three are located within the I- 15 Express Lanes Project corridor: RTA CommuterLink Express services Nicholas Ventrone / The Transit Coalition I-15 Express Lanes Project 23 74 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report • Canyon Community Church Park And Ride (1504 Taber Street, Corona) – 75 spaces • Norco @ 6th Street Park And Ride (3945 Old Hamner Road, Norco) – 100 spaces • Mira Loma Park and Ride (12105 Limonite Avenue, Mira Loma) – 76 spaces Specialized Transit Services It should be noted that not only will the fixed route bus service discussed benefit from the I-15 Express Lanes, but also the Specialized Transportation Program funded by RCTC via Measure A funding along with federal funding from the Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom (NF) programs. These specialized transit services (Dial-A-Ride paratransit) will most likely use the I-15 Express Lanes. In addition, a handful of non-profit and special criteria providers that operate specialized transportation will also benefit from using the I-15 Express Lanes. Physical and Policy Considerations Many of the physical design considerations for integrating bus service are similar to express lanes and HOV lanes, which have well-established design criteria. Besides the physical design, each express lane project has a unique set of policies in place that influences how well transit is integrated in a particular corridor. Establishing a set of policies that improves transit service and capacity is also often essential in building public support for often controversial toll lane projects and helps to neutralize the perception that Express Lanes are “Lexus Lanes” that primarily benefit those with higher incomes. Assessment: Encouraging transit and offering benefits for express bus service is a key component of the I-15 Express Lanes project. Coordination with RTA will take place during the design of the Express Lanes to ensure that transit needs are taken into consideration. I-15 Express Lanes Project 24 75 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report 17. Design – Facility Ingress and Egress Description: This policy is related to the design of access locations, where vehicles can enter and exit the I-15 Express Lanes. Regulating access is one of the fundamental tools to manage traffic flow in the express lanes, and therefore, it is important to select the access points and design treatment early in the planning phase along with the separation type to help minimize weaving conditions. Recommendation: Design the roadway and ingress and egress locations meeting Caltrans design standards where feasible and practical. Background: Access treatments for express lane facilities fall into the following three categories: Grade-separated direct access drop ramps Grade-separated drop ramps provide access to and from the express lanes using dedicated grade direct access ramps. These types of ramps generally provide access from adjacent freeways/arterials and park and ride facilities for express bus operations, and are desirable where sufficient right-of-way and high traffic volumes in both the express lanes and general purpose lanes warrant the need for such exclusive access. An example of a grade-separated drop ramp is the SR-91 eastbound direct connector to the southbound I-15 and vice versa being constructed as part of RCTC’s SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project. At-grade limited access At-grade limited access provides access to and from the express lanes at designated locations, typically through at-grade access openings that serve as ingress, egress or combined ingress and egress. Physical barriers or painted striping separates the express lanes from the adjacent general purpose lanes between access locations. Three different approaches for providing at-grade limited access include: • Weave zones – provides combined ingress and egress by short breaks to the physical barriers or striping at designated locations. • Weave lanes – similar to weave zones, except movement is facilitated by a change lane, which isolates the weaving from both the express lanes and the general purpose lanes, thereby minimizing the potential for unstable flow. • Merge lanes – provide dedicated and separated ingress and egress (acceleration and deceleration) lanes. The merge lanes allow drivers the opportunity to adjust their speeds to At-grade limited access configuration on LA Metro ExpressLanes I-15 Express Lanes Project 25 76 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report match the lane they are merging into. This design treatment further reduces the potential for unstable flow, as conflicts are avoided in the access lane. Continuous access Continuous access allows vehicles to enter and exit the express lanes for the entire stretch without any specific ingress/egress treatments. The striping that separates the express lanes from the general purpose lanes are generally skip striped. Assessment: A limited access configuration is recommended for the I-15 Express Lanes because it can reduce toll evasion, ensure greater access control, and is consistent with the access configuration of existing Southern California HOV and express lanes. Further, a limited access configuration is less complicated to design and has a far lower construction cost than direct access ramps and does not require as much toll equipment as may be required for continuous access. Vehicles will be able to access the express lanes at intermediate access points that provide access to local exits and interchanges. Between these points, access will be restricted to prevent weaving and improve overall mobility. A map of proposed access locations is accessible at http://i15project.info/express_lanes_access.php. I-15 Express Lanes Project 26 77 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report 18. Design – Number of Lanes Description: The number of express lanes to be implemented for a particular project is dependent upon several variables, including traffic congestion, occupancy requirements and availability of existing right of way. The Project Approval Document for the I-15 Express Lanes generally includes a two lane configuration in each direction based on traffic and engineering analysis. This configuration is intended to add capacity, improve operations and fits within existing right of way. Recommendation: Construct and operate two Express Lanes in each direction where possible. Background: A number of criteria must be considered when evaluating the capacity needs of an express lanes project. These include existing and projected traffic congestion, toll discount policies, and the cost and availability of right of way. Some express lane projects simply convert an existing HOV lane to an express lane, others convert an existing lane and construct an additional lane (e.g., LA Metro I-10 ExpressLanes), and others construct an entirely new lane or lanes (e.g., I-680SB Express Lane in the Bay Area). There are currently no existing HOV lanes within the I-15 project limits. The preliminary engineering performed as part of the project identified a need for a two lane configuration in each direction to serve future traffic demand. This configuration fits within the existing right of way and helps to ensure that the facility will be able to sustain a high level of service. Assessment: The recommendation for a two lane configuration in each direction where possible is consistent with the project schematics and serves projected traffic demand while fitting within existing right of way. Two lane configuration on LA Metro I-10 ExpressLanes I-15 Express Lanes Project 27 78 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report 19. Toll Pricing Method Description: Express lanes use pricing to manage the number of toll paying customers using the facility. Managing the number of users allows the express lanes to meet performance goals such as those described in Section 1 and Section 2. Variable pricing is to be used to manage traffic, whereby the cost to use the express lanes is directly related to the level of demand for the express lanes. As demand increases, raising the tolls will help manage demand in order to maintain federal performance requirements. Conversely, the price decreases as demand decreases to incentivize more vehicles to utilize the available capacity. Two variable pricing methods are currently in use on facilities across the country: time-of-day pricing and dynamic pricing. Recommendation: Use Dynamic Pricing to determine the toll price. Background: Time-of-Day Pricing Time-of-day pricing employs a fixed toll rate schedule with different toll rates by travel direction, time of day and day of the week. Time-of-day pricing is actively used on the 91 Express Lanes and on express lanes in Denver and Houston. Time-of-day pricing is effective when traffic patterns remain relatively consistent over time. For instance, if congestion reaches the same level at the same time every Monday, then a static price that is capable of maintaining the desired level of traffic volume can be used for that time period. With time-of-day pricing, tolls vary according to a fixed schedule, with different prices charged based on direction of travel, day of the week, and hour of the day. The toll rates are determined based on historical travel conditions in the corridor, and vary according to demand and congestion. The performance of express lane facilities using time-of-day pricing requires evaluation on a regular basis to ensure that free flow conditions are being maintained in the express lanes. If travel conditions on the express lanes deteriorate over time, the rates should be increased. Similarly, rates can also be lowered when the express lanes are found to have excess capacity that is not being used effectively. On the 91 Express Lanes, performance is monitored daily and evaluated every three months. I-15 Express Lanes Project 28 79 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report Dynamic Pricing Dynamic pricing employs toll rates that vary in real time based on actual travel conditions detected in the corridor. Dynamic pricing is actively used on most California express lanes, including I-10 and I-110 (Los Angeles), I-15 (San Diego), I-680 (Alameda County), and I-880 / SR-237 (San Jose). Dynamic pricing is effective on facilities that have a high level of variability in congestion throughout each day and from day to day. For instance, if a facility does not have a peak period that is consistent from one day to the next or has a high rate of incidents that impact traffic, dynamic pricing allows for the adjustment of the price to match the actual real-time traffic conditions. Dynamic pricing provides a real-time monitoring and response capability for express lane operations. Dynamic pricing requires capital investment for both the algorithm and the traffic detection system and also requires ongoing monitoring and maintenance of the pricing algorithm and traffic detection system. Like the time-of-day pricing, dynamic pricing requires variable message signs to communicate price to customers. Assessment: In order to be responsive to real-time traffic conditions that may vary from day to day, it is recommended that the I-15 Express Lanes use dynamic pricing. Despite the higher capital costs of deployment as compared to time-of-day pricing, dynamic pricing will be valuable to manage traffic and ensure the facility provides reliable travel at all times. The ability to readily adjust pricing and manage demand through dynamic pricing will allow for flexibility, particular in the critical area of overlap with the 91 Express Lanes that use time-of-day pricing. I-15 Express Lanes Project 29 80 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report 20. Toll Exemptions and Discounts Description: Toll discounts and exemptions are required by legislation, law and by agreement with project partners. Discounts have an impact on revenue, operations, customer service center systems and enforcement. It is important to establish toll discounts or exemptions at an early stage to allow for the evaluation of operational impacts and for inclusion in system design. Recommendation: Provide toll discounts according to legislation and for operations and maintenance vehicles. Background: A review of project agreements and legislation suggested that the following vehicle types require evaluation for toll discounts. Transit One of the primary goals of express lane facilities is to offer enhanced transit service. California Vehicle Code defines qualifying mass transit, paratransit and vanpool vehicles, including those that are publically or privately funded. These vehicles will be allowed to travel toll-free in the I-15 Express Lanes at all times. With the passage of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (the FAST Act) on December 4, 2015, U.S. Code was amended to enable privately-owned buses servicing the public to utilize toll facilities under the same rates, terms and conditions as other public transportation vehicles. RCTC will establish agreements with operators to facilitate toll-free travel at all times. High-Occupancy Vehicles The application for the I-15 Express Lanes project approved by the CTC and the Federal Agreement between RCTC, FHWA and Caltrans provide direction with regard to the tolling of HOVs. In both instances, HOVs are defined as vehicles with three or more occupants (HOV-3+). The authorizing statute for the Express Lanes (Streets & Highways Code Section 149.8) also specifies free travel for HOV-3+ vehicles initially upon opening. There is no mechanism to regulate the demand of HOV-3+ vehicles when there is a 100% toll discount. As the HOV-3+ volume becomes an increasingly larger percentage of the total I-15 Express Lanes traffic, it will become increasingly difficult for the dynamic pricing algorithm to effectively manage demand and preserve free flow operations in the I-15 Express Lanes. Therefore, it is recommended that the speeds in the I-15 Express Lanes be monitored to determine when the lanes are being degraded. If the average speed in the Express Lanes drops to 60 mph three or more times in a thirty day period after three months of operation, the HOV-3+ discount will be reduced to 50%. The 100% discount will be in place I-15 Express Lanes Project 30 81 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report for at least the first three months of operation to allow for customers to adjust to the new facility and to incentivize use of the I-15 Express Lanes by carpoolers. Motorcycles California Vehicle Code 21655.5(b) provides for free passage on preferential lanes for motorcycles. Motorcycle toll transactions will be processed either through a transponder or by reading their license plate. Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) Legislation (AB 1721), enacted as California Vehicle Code Section 5205.5, allows motorists driving ZEVs displaying a DMV-issued Clean Air Vehicle decal to travel in express lanes with a toll-free or reduced rate toll. The statute does not mandate the rate of reduction. The existing legislation is set to expire January 1, 2019 ahead of the I-15 Express Lanes planned opening. Similar to the treatment of HOV-3+ vehicles, the toll discount for ZEVs will be reduced to 50% if average speeds drop below 60 mph more than three times in a thirty day period after three months of operation. Emergency Vehicles California Vehicle Code 23301.5 provides for toll exemption for specifically identifiable emergency vehicles being driven while responding to or returning from an urgent or emergency call, engaged in an urgent or emergency response, or engaging in a fire station coverage assignment directly related to an emergency response. The common method of processing these tolls is through a “non-revenue” account where the transaction is processed by the back office and posted to the account in order to provide a method of monitoring usage. RCTC will establish agreements with the local emergency providers that will outline the specific rules for these non-revenue accounts. Maintenance and Operation Vehicles In order to facilitate access to express lanes for the purposes of performing various maintenance tasks or performing operational checks and testing, it is common for tolling authorities to grant toll- exemption for vehicles being driven for these maintenance purposes. The common method of processing these tolls is through a “non-revenue” account where the transaction is processed by the back office and posted to the account in order to provide a method of monitoring usage. Assessment: In general, vehicles that are eligible to utilize HOV lanes in accordance with applicable federal or state law will be allowed discounted access to the I-15 Express Lanes. This includes buses (public transit and privately operated tour buses), vanpools, motorcycles, HOV 3+ vehicles, ZEVs, emergency vehicles, law White and Green Clean Air Vehicle Decals for HOV Lane Use State of California / Dept. of Motor Vehicles I-15 Express Lanes Project 31 82 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report enforcement vehicles, and operation and maintenance vehicles. The following discount policies are recommended for each of these vehicle types: • In-service public transit vehicles, private buses, vanpools, and motorcycles will be 100% discounted (toll free) at all times. • All HOV-3+ and zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) will be 100% discounted (toll free) for the first three months of operation. The discount will be reduced to 50% if the average speed in the Express Lanes drops below 60 mph three or more times in a thirty day period after three months of operation. • Emergency, law enforcement and Express Lanes maintenance vehicles will be 100% discounted (toll free) at all times. I-15 Express Lanes Project 32 83 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report 21. Toll Payment Method Description: Electronic toll collection systems use automatic vehicle identification (AVI) technology to toll vehicles. These AVI systems use in-vehicle transponders and/or LPR cameras to identify vehicles for toll payment. Some facilities require that all vehicles have a transponder as the primary means of toll collection and use LPR cameras as a backup to capture vehicles that don’t have a transponder or that have a transponder that fails to be detected. Other facilities allow vehicles to travel without a transponder and use LPR cameras as the primary means of toll collection; this system is known as pay by plate tolling. Recommendation: Require all vehicles to have a transponder at time of travel. Background: Transponder-Based Toll Collection Electronic toll collection using transponders is a proven technology with high accuracy. The cost associated with the systems needed to process transponder transactions is lower than systems which allow for toll payment by license plate. In addition, as California transitions from the legacy battery- operated transponders to the new, less expensive 6C transponders, the cost for a transponder based toll collection system will decrease even further making transponder based toll collection a far more efficient method of collecting tolls. Most toll facilities that rely on transponders for toll collection also include LPR cameras to capture vehicles without a transponder to minimize revenue leakage. The license plate images are used to associate the transaction with a toll account when a transponder is not read or to look up the registered owner’s address for collection of the toll through a toll violation process. As described in Section 23, HOVs are able to use switchable transponders to indicate their vehicle occupancy status and receive the appropriate toll discount. Pay by Plate Pay by plate utilizes LPR cameras and Optical Character Recognition technology to identify a vehicle’s license plate number. The automatically generated plate number is independently verified and validated by toll operators in the customer service center, thereby increasing operational costs per toll transaction. This technology is currently being used on Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) toll facilities in Orange County, on all toll facilities in the Denver Metro Area (including express lanes), all Dallas / Ft. Worth area toll facilities (including express lanes), Loop 375 express lanes in El Paso, and on License-plate tolling equipment Craig F. Walker / The Denver Post I-15 Express Lanes Project 33 84 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report the SR-520 and I-405 express lanes in the Seattle area. The license plate numbers are collected and the name and addresses of the registered users are requested from the state DMV, from which bills for all the tolls incurred during a specific period are aggregated and sent out to collect payment. Pay by plate tolling not only requires more processing costs, but it results in more revenue loss due to unidentifiable plates and registered owners and lengthens the amount of time to collect toll revenue. In a pay by plate scenario, HOVs are required to register their license plate in advance of making a trip so the toll system can apply the appropriate toll discount. Assessment: Because toll payment by transponder is a proven, accurate solution with a lower transaction cost as compared to pay by plate, it is recommended that RCTC open the I-15 Express Lanes with a requirement that all vehicles have a transponder. Opening with a transponder requirement will encourage motorists to open an account and obtain a transponder. LPR cameras will be used to enforce this requirement and identify vehicles that don’t carry a transponder. This policy also allows HOVs to declare their status using a switchable transponder as described in Section 23. I-15 Express Lanes Project 34 85 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report 22. Mobile Interface Description: Easy access to express lanes information is important to gain customer understanding and compliance. Most toll facilities across the country maintain a website where users can find information about the toll policies and access account information and many of these websites are accessible in a mobile format. In addition, some facilities provide mobile applications that allow users to review recent toll activity and pay tolls without a transponder. Recommendation: Implement Mobile Web for FasTrak® customers, but defer the Mobile Toll Payment Application. Background: Toll facilities across the country provide different mobile interfaces for customers as described below. Mobile Website Many websites currently include desktop and mobile versions. The mobile versions are intended to be viewed from a mobile device such as a smartphone or tablet and typically include the same functionality as the desktop site. A mobile website for express lanes could allow customers to access general express lane information (operating policies, requirements for use, etc.) and to access account information. Mobile Toll Payment Application Depending upon business rules, some toll facilities allow users to user mobile devices to pay tolls without the use of a transponder. For example, the TCA facilities in Southern California allow users to pay tolls from a mobile application within five days before or after a trip is made. Assessment: RCTC will require all users to carry a transponder (see Section 21), which is inconsistent with the idea of allowing users to pay tolls using a mobile application. Therefore, a Mobile Payment Application will not be deployed. However, users will have access to a mobile website to access Express Lanes information and to make changes or payments to their account. Transportation Corridor Agency Mobile Application Interface I-15 Express Lanes Project 35 86 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report 23. High Occupancy Vehicle Declaration Options Description: The primary function of HOV declaration is two-fold: 1) provide a mechanism to easily separate toll payers from those eligible to receive toll discounts, and 2) enable the efficient and effective enforcement of occupancy violations. Two methods of occupancy declaration were considered: the use of self-declaration lanes and switchable transponders. Recommendation: Identify HOV-3+ carpool customers via a switchable transponder. Background: There are different ways that express lanes can require toll-paying and toll-free vehicles to use the express lanes. In Southern California, the carpool declaration options generally fall under the “declaration lane” method (as used by the OCTA 91 Express Lanes and the Riverside 91 Express Lanes currently under construction), and the switchable transponder method (as deployed on the I-110 and I- 10 ExpressLanes in Los Angeles County). Self-Declaration Lanes Many first generation express lanes involved conversion of pre-existing, barrier-separated HOV lanes with adequate right-of-way for positive separation between toll payers and carpoolers. Known as the “declaration lane” option, this was the mechanism designed and implemented on SR-91 in Orange County, the first express lanes facility which opened in 1995. It will also be utilized on the 91 Express Lanes that are under construction in Riverside County. Declaration lane solutions require eligible carpools to diverge from the main travel lanes to a separated lane at toll zones. These vehicles are charged an appropriate discounted or zero-value toll, and (if present) occupancy is validated by enforcement personnel via visual scan. Vehicles without a transponder are considered violators – the same as if they traveled through the main toll lanes without a transponder. Switchable Transponders Single occupancy vehicles (SOV) lane tolling zone with separate declaration lane FHWA Office of Operation/ Proposed I-95 Managed Lanes I-15 Express Lanes Project 36 87 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report This method provides a technological method for declaring carpool status on the express lanes through a “switchable” transponder, as implemented on I- 10 and I-110 in Los Angeles. Switchable transponders allow the customer to self-declare their occupancy status on the transponder itself. The Los Angeles transponder transmits multiple identifications (IDs), in order to associate the correct toll for a vehicle based upon its occupancy status. These IDs can be associated with a single occupancy vehicle, HOV-2, and HOV-3+ setting directly on the transponder. For compliant HOVs, the user declares the vehicle’s status on the transponder (e.g., sliding the switch to “HOV2” or “HOV3+”), and the appropriate toll rate would be collected. If the same vehicle is being operated without the required occupancy, it would be required to declare appropriately on the transponder and the correct toll would be collected. If no transponder is present (or if it is malfunctioning), LPR (mounted on gantries or median poles) would be used to collect full toll payment from the user (regardless of occupancy status). Assessment: It is recommended that the I-15 Express Lanes use switchable transponders for declaring occupancy. Switchable transponders have been successfully deployed on other toll facilities in the state and nationally. Also, as compared to declaration lanes, switchable transponders are more inexpensive to deploy and do not require drivers to make weaving maneuvers while in the Express Lanes, which may improve operational efficiency. With the enforcement strategy described in Section 11, CHP will have the tools necessary to enforce the proper use of the switchable transponder so that violation rates can be kept to a minimum. Example Switchable Transponder I-15 Express Lanes Project 37 88 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report 24. Express Lane Operations Facility Description: The I-15 Express Lanes will require a facility to house various components of the operations, including a walk-in customer service center, customer call center, back office operations, image processing, finance and administration, system administration and maintenance and traffic management center. RCTC will provide the facility and the toll systems provider will supply the equipment, systems and staff to perform the services. Recommendation: Locate the call center, customer service center and traffic management center and administration in close proximity to the Express Lanes. Background: As described in Sections 12-14, RCTC will have the responsibility for I-15 Express Lanes maintenance, traffic management and customer service functions. These functions would ideally be located in a single facility to centralize I-15 Express Lanes operations and create synergies associated with co-located services. Four toll agencies operate in Southern California and each of them has a facility or facilities which house the toll operations functions. Toll programs across the nation have experimented with remote staff working from a contractor owned or sub-contracted facility. While this model has been successful for some, it has the potential to degrade service, complicate supervisory functions and prohibit the synergy gained from co-location of services. The 91 Express Lanes toll operations staff is being provided under a joint agreement with OCTA. The 91 Express Lanes call center and walk in staff are located at a leased facility near SR-91 and McKinley Street in the city of Corona. The other toll operation services are located in a leased facility near SR-91 and Weir Canyon Road in the city of Anaheim. RCTC’s agreement with OCTA to share toll operation services expires in June of 2021. RCTC is currently procuring a toll operator for the I-15 Express Lanes which will require a facility to house the toll operator and RCTC toll operations staff, equipment and walk-in customer service location. I-15 Express Lanes Project 38 89 I-15 Express Lanes Project Toll Policy Report Assessment: I-15 Express Lanes operations and maintenance are the responsibility of RCTC. To ensure that the goals for the I-15 Express Lanes are met, RCTC will be best served by co-locating the required services in a facility in close proximity to the I-15 Express Lanes. The 91 Express Lanes have set the precedent for local operations and customer service. Therefore, it is recommended that the customer service, traffic management and other administrative functions be located in the local area adjacent to the I-15 corridor, with a specific site to be determined. This facility will be referred to as the RCTC Operations Center, or ROC. I-15 Express Lanes Project 39 90 1 May 23, 2016 Toll Policy Goals and Toll Policies Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Purpose •Planning •Financing •Procurements •Operations 2 Process Interstate 15 Corridor Improvement Project Ad Hoc Committee 3 Workshops Peer Reviews Federal Highway Administration and Caltrans 91 and SANBAG Express Lane Teams Evaluated National Practice Consultants Other Express Lane Operators 3 Toll Policy Goals 4 1.Provide Express Lane customers with a safe,reliable,andcongestionfreetrip. 2.Deliver exceptional,consistent,and responsive customerservice. 3.Enact toll policies that balance commute choice and laneavailabilityforallcustomers. 4.Provide the infrastructure and an incentive for ridesharingandincreasedtransituseasanalternativetodrivingalone. 5.Generate sufficient revenue to meet express lane financialobligationstopaycurrentandlong-term costs. 6.Use surplus revenues for transportation improvementsexclusivelywithintheInterstate15corridor. Toll Policy Summary 5 •24 Toll Policies broken into five main categories –Facility Design –Operation –Toll Pricing –Toll Collection –Funding Sources and Uses •Each policy supports one or more toll policy goal •Compliant with law •Reflect a balance of financial objectives,corridorperformance,and customer service Facility Design 6 •Construct two Express Lanes in each direction where possible •Provide ingress/egress locations that meet Caltrans standards •Provide signage compliant with California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Device Standards •Locate operations center (call center,processing, traffic management)in close proximity to Express Lanes. Operation 7 •24 hours a day,seven days a week •Provide Freeway Service Patrol and incident management •Customer service and account relationships responsibility of RCTC •Implement a Mobile Web for customer service •Maintain Express Lanes as responsibility of RCTC •Encourage express bus usage Toll Pricing 8 •Optimize person throughput while meeting debt obligations •Use dynamic pricing to achieve free flow speeds of 60-65,always exceeding federal minimum of 45 mph •Carpool defined as three or more occupants •Provide discounts as required by law and for operations and maintenance vehicles Toll Collection 9 •Adopt National Interoperability standards •Adopt California Interoperability standards •Utilize CHP and existing law to enforce toll payment •Require all vehicles to have a transponder •Utilize a switchable transponder to identify eligible carpoolers Funding Sources and Uses 10 •Fund project development costs with Measure A sales tax,toll revenue and state and federal grants •Fund operations,maintenance,and enforcement costs with toll revenue •Repay Measure A and toll revenue bonds with future Measure A and toll revenue •Use surplus revenue to fund future I-15 transportation investments Review •6 Toll Policy Goals that improve mobility, provide excellent customer service,and meet financial obligations •24 Toll Policies that support the goals,inform planning and development and will support a successful operation. 11 Questions? 12 Entry/Exit Points 13 15 to 91 Express Lane Differences 14 15 Express Lanes 91 Express Lanes Facility Design Multiple Ingress/Egress County Line Ingress/Egress Toll Pricing Method Dynamic Processing Time of Day Pricing HOV Declaration Switchable Transponder Declaration Lane Mobile Interface Mobile Web Standard Web Carpool Discount HOV3+ 100%initially and then 50% HOV3+100%discount except during peak;50% EB Monday through Friday from 4 PM to 6 PM Disabled Plate and Disabled Veteran No discount 100%discount except during peak;50%EB Monday through Friday from 4 PM to 6 PM AGENDA ITEM 12 BLANK RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 23, 2016 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Interstate 15 Express Lanes Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Project Overview In December 2006, the Commission adopted the 2009 Measure A Western Riverside County Highway 10-Year Delivery Plan (10-Year Delivery Plan) to advance development of high priority projects in the renewed Measure A program. The 10-Year Delivery Plan calls for the development of tolled express lane corridors within State Route 91 and I-15. The I-15 Express Lanes project will reduce congestion within the I-15 corridor and provide travel options for carpoolers and toll payers. The project extends approximately 15 miles from Cajalco Road in Corona to SR-60 just south of the San Bernardino County line. The project typically features two tolled express lanes in each direction. Traffic and Revenue Study An integral part of determining the financial feasibility of a tolling project is the Traffic and Revenue Study. The Commission, through its traffic and revenue consultant, has conducted several of these studies for the I-15 Express Lanes since the adoption of the 10-Year Delivery Plan to help guide the project development work and to support project decisions. As the project developed its scope, cost, and schedule from its early stages to its more defined current stage, the Traffic and Revenue Study was updated to reflect current project data as well as regional data that influence the Traffic and Revenue Study results. The proposed toll policies for the I-15 Express Lanes were used in conjunction with socio- economic trends, traffic volume and speed data, traveler origin-destination information, and Agenda Item 12 91 land use planning to estimate future regional traffic growth. From this comprehensive traffic model, appropriate toll rates and annual toll revenue for the 50-year period of operation are estimated. Project Financing Typically the last Traffic and Revenue Study update is performed during the final stages of the project’s development. As such, the Traffic and Revenue Study is attached to this agenda report, and staff is seeking Commission adoption to support upcoming project financing activities. These project financing activities include updating the project’s plan of finance, submission of a loan application for a federal Transportation Investment Finance Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan, potential sale of Measure A bonds, sale of toll revenue bonds, and other financing activities. The annual toll revenue generated from the Traffic and Revenue serves as a critical input to the I-15 Express Lanes financial model. This annual toll revenue plus many other factors are used to help determine the amount of Measure A sales tax, toll revenue bonds, and TIFIA loan funds required to finance the project. This Traffic and Revenue Study is prepared to support the Commission in obtaining investment-grade bond ratings in the future. There is no direct fiscal impact related to the adoption of the Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue study. Attachment: I-15 Express Lanes Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study, dated May 11, 2016 (Posted on Commission Website) Agenda Item 12 92 I-15 Express Lanes Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission May 11, 2016 ATTACHMENT 1 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Table of Contents Executive Summary 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1.1 1.1 PURPOSE AND FOCUS OF THE STUDY .......................................................................... 1.1 1.2 THE CONSULTANT TEAM................................................................................................. 1.1 1.3 OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT ........................................................................................... 1.1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING ........................................................................2.2 2.1 THE I-15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT AND SETTING ........................................................ 2.2 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...............................................................................................3.5 3.1 OVERVIEW OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ................................................................... 3.5 3.1.1 Other Major Roadways ............................................................................... 3.6 3.1.2 Public Transportation ................................................................................... 3.7 3.2 DATA COLLECTION PROGRAM .................................................................................. 3.10 3.2.1 Screenline Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 3.11 3.2.2 Mainline Traffic Counts ............................................................................. 3.14 3.2.3 Ramp Counts ............................................................................................. 3.16 3.2.4 Arterial Traffic Counts ................................................................................ 3.17 3.3 I-15 CORRIDOR TRAFFIC DATA ................................................................................... 3.18 3.3.1 I-15 Travel Speeds ...................................................................................... 3.19 3.3.2 Mainline Traffic by Hour ............................................................................ 3.26 3.3.3 Ramp Volumes ........................................................................................... 3.29 3.3.4 Mainline Traffic – Demand Adjusted and Balanced Traffic by Hour ............................................................................................................. 3.31 3.3.5 Heavy Vehicle Composition .................................................................... 3.33 3.3.6 Seasonality of Traffic ................................................................................. 3.35 3.3.7 Balanced Traffic Network ......................................................................... 3.35 3.3.8 I-15 Mainline Traffic by Day of Week ...................................................... 3.39 3.3.9 Origin-Destination Patterns on I-15 .......................................................... 3.42 3.3.10 SR 91 Travel Speeds and Traffic Counts .................................................. 3.52 3.3.11 Orange County SR 91 Express Lanes ....................................................... 3.61 4.0 SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES AND LAND USE .......................................................4.64 4.1 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................... 4.64 4.1.1 Study Area Employment Summary ......................................................... 4.65 4.1.2 Study Area Household Summary ............................................................. 4.70 4.2 FORECAST METHODOLOGY........................................................................................ 4.72 4.3 HISTORICAL DATA AND TRENDS IN THE STUDY AREA ............................................... 4.77 4.3.1 Historical Study Area Employment Trends .............................................. 4.77 4.3.2 Historical Study Area Household Trends ................................................. 4.82 4.4 EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS .......................................................................................... 4.85 4.4.1 Comparative Third Party Forecasts: Long-Term .................................... 4.86 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY 4.4.2 Study Area Employment Forecast .......................................................... 4.87 4.5 HOUSEHOLD FORECAST .............................................................................................. 4.89 4.5.1 Study Area Comparative Forecasts........................................................ 4.89 4.5.2 Study Area Household Forecasts............................................................. 4.91 4.5.3 Study Area Median Household Income Forecasts ............................... 4.93 4.6 KEY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE STUDY AREA ................................................................... 4.94 4.6.1 I-15 Corridor – North of SR-91 .................................................................... 4.95 4.6.2 I-15 Corridor – South of SR-91 ................................................................... 4.98 4.6.3 Orange County Focus Areas ................................................................. 4.100 5.0 MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND CALIBRATION ........................................................... 5.104 5.1 TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL .......................................................................................... 5.104 5.1.1 Model Structure and Development ...................................................... 5.104 5.1.2 Model Calibration ................................................................................... 5.111 5.1.3 Preparation of Highway Networks ........................................................ 5.124 5.2 MARKET SHARE MODEL ............................................................................................. 5.127 5.2.1 Model Structure and Development – Market Share Model .............. 5.127 5.3 MICRO-SIMULATION MODEL ..................................................................................... 5.130 5.3.1 Micro-simulation Model Development and Calibration .................... 5.130 6.0 TRAFFIC AND REVENUE FORECAST ......................................................................... 6.140 6.1 FORECAST METHODOLOGY...................................................................................... 6.140 6.2 FORECAST ASSUMPTIONS .......................................................................................... 6.140 6.2.1 I-15 Express Lanes Configuration ........................................................... 6.140 6.2.2 Regional Network Improvements .......................................................... 6.143 6.2.3 Toll Policy and Pricing .............................................................................. 6.145 6.3 REGIONAL TRAFFIC FORECASTS ............................................................................... 6.148 6.3.1 Screenline Traffic Growth ....................................................................... 6.149 6.3.2 I-15 Global Traffic Growth ...................................................................... 6.149 6.4 I-15 EXPRESS LANES FORECAST ................................................................................. 6.152 6.4.1 Annual Traffic and Revenue Forecast .................................................. 6.152 6.4.2 Weekday Traffic and Revenue Forecasts ............................................ 6.157 6.4.3 Impact of Network Improvements in 2027, 2030, and 2035 .............. 6.183 6.4.4 I-15 Express Lanes Operations ................................................................ 6.198 LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1: Metrolink Average Weekday Ridership and Boardings ................................... 3.10 Table 3-2: Traffic on North-South Screenlines ....................................................................... 3.13 Table 3-3: Traffic on East-West Screenlines........................................................................... 3.14 Table 3-4: I-15 NB Travel Speeds ............................................................................................ 3.25 Table 3-5 : I-15 SB Travel Speeds ............................................................................................ 3.25 Table 3-6: Average Weekday Northbound Ramp Volumes ............................................. 3.30 Table 3-7: Average Weekday Southbound Ramp Volumes ............................................. 3.31 Table 3-8: I-15 Seasonality Factors for Average Weekdays (Tuesday-Thursday) ............ 3.35 Table 3-9: Origin-Destination Matrix, I-15 NB AM ................................................................. 3.50 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Table 3-10: Origin-Destination Matrix, I-15 NB PM ................................................................ 3.50 Table 3-11: Origin-Destination Matrix, I-15 SB AM ................................................................ 3.51 Table 3-12: Origin-Destination Matrix, I-15 SB PM ................................................................. 3.51 Table 3-13: Westbound SR 91 Travel Speeds, I-15 to west of SR 55 – 6-10 AM ................. 3.54 Table 3-14: Eastbound SR 91 Travel Speeds, west of SR 55 to I-15 – 6-10 AM .................. 3.56 Table 3-15: Eastbound SR 91 Travel Speeds, west of SR 55 to I-15 – 3-7 PM ..................... 3.58 Table 3-16: Westbound SR 91 Travel Speeds, I-15 to SR 55 – 3-7 PM ................................. 3.60 Table 3-17: SR 91 Express Lanes – FY 2015 Traffic and Revenue ........................................ 3.62 Table 4-1: Base Case Study Area Employment and Household Forecast (thousands) ................................................................................................................ 4.65 Table 4-2: Jobs per Household by County ........................................................................... 4.71 Table 4-3: RivTAM Forecast Variable Methodology ........................................................... 4.76 Table 4-4: SANDAG Forecast Variable Methodology ........................................................ 4.77 Table 4-5: Total Employment Growth by County, 1995 to 2015 ........................................ 4.78 Table 4-6: Inland Empire Job Growth/Loss by Sector, 2007 to 2010 ................................. 4.80 Table 4-7: Inland Empire Employment Growth/Loss by Sector 2010-2014 ....................... 4.81 Table 4-8: Growth of Total Residential Building Permits in the Study Area ...................... 4.83 Table 4-9: Annual Building Permits Issued in the Study Area, 2007 to 2015f .................... 4.84 Table 4-10: Comparisons of Long-Term Employment Projections (thousands) ............... 4.87 Table 4-11: Base Case Employment Forecast by County (thousands) ............................ 4.88 Table 4-12: Comparison of Long-Term Household Projections (thousands) .................... 4.90 Table 4-13: Historical Study Area Median Home Prices ..................................................... 4.91 Table 4-14: Base Case Household Forecast by County (thousands) ............................... 4.92 Table 4-15: Base Case Median Household Income Forecast (2015 Dollars) ................... 4.93 Table 5-1: AM Peak Period Calibration Results – Speed (mph) ...................................... 5.112 Table 5-2: Midday Period Calibration Results - Speed (mph) ......................................... 5.113 Table 5-3: PM Peak Period Calibration Results - Speed (mph) ........................................ 5.114 Table 5-4: Night Period Calibration Results – Speed (mph) ............................................. 5.115 Table 5-5: Calibration Results at Screenlines ...................................................................... 5.117 Table 5-6: Calibration Results – Northbound I-15 Daily Corridor Volume ....................... 5.118 Table 5-7: Calibration Results – Southbound I-15 Daily Corridor Volume....................... 5.118 Table 5-8: Calibration Results – Northbound I-15 AM, Midday, PM, and Night Volumes ................................................................................................................... 5.119 Table 5-9: Calibration Results – Southbound I-15 AM, Midday, PM, and Night Volumes ................................................................................................................... 5.120 Table 5-10: Key Network Changes (2015) .......................................................................... 5.124 Table 5-11: Key Network Changes: 2016-2025 .................................................................. 5.125 Table 5-12: Key Network Changes: 2026-2035 .................................................................. 5.126 Table 5-13: Number of Lanes, Existing Conditions on I-15 ................................................ 5.132 Table 5-14: Origin-Destination Matrix, I-15 NB AM ............................................................. 5.133 Table 5-15: Origin-Destination Matrix, I-15 NB PM .............................................................. 5.133 Table 5-16: Origin-Destination Matrix, I-15 SB AM .............................................................. 5.133 Table 5-17: Origin-Destination Matrix, I-15 SB PM ............................................................... 5.134 Table 5-18: Micro-Simulation model Northbound AM Spot Speeds ............................... 5.135 Table 5-19: Northbound I-15– Actual vs. Model Volume – AM Peak Period ................. 5.135 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Table 5-20: Micro-Simulation model Southbound AM Spot Speeds ............................... 5.136 Table 5-21: Southbound I-15– Actual vs. Model Volume – AM Peak Period ................. 5.136 Table 5-22: Micro-Simulation model Northbound PM Spot Speeds ................................ 5.138 Table 5-23: Northbound I-15– Actual vs. Model Volume – PM Peak Period .................. 5.138 Table 5-24: Micro-Simulation model Southbound PM Spot Speeds ............................... 5.139 Table 5-25: Southbound I-15– Actual vs. Model Volume – PM Peak Period .................. 5.139 Table 6-1: Number of Lanes and Segment Distance ....................................................... 6.143 Table 6-2: I-15 Express Lanes Pricing Policy ........................................................................ 6.146 Table 6-3: I-15 Corridor Regional and Sub-Region Trip Growth ....................................... 6.148 Table 6-4: Regional Economic Growth by County ........................................................... 6.148 Table 6-5: I-15 ELP Base Case Traffic and Revenue Forecast (2015$’s) ......................... 6.153 Table 6-6: Typical Weekday, Friday, and Weekend T&R Comparison........................... 6.155 Table 6-7: Express Lane Traffic and Revenue Annualization Factors ............................. 6.155 Table 6-8: Ramp-Up of Traffic and Revenue ..................................................................... 6.156 Table 6-9: Weekday Revenue, Transactions, and Average Toll - 2025 .......................... 6.158 Table 6-10: Weekday Revenue, Express Traffic, and Full Tolls by Segment – 2025 ....... 6.161 Table 6-11: I-15 Global & Express Traffic, GP Speed, & Tolls Charged – 2025, 7 to 8 AM ............................................................................................................................. 6.163 Table 6-12: I-15 Global and Express Traffic, GP Speed, and Tolls Charge – 2025, 5 to 6 PM ..................................................................................................................... 6.164 Table 6-13: Weekday Revenue, Transactions, and Average Toll - 2035 ........................ 6.172 Table 6-14: Weekday Revenue, Traffic, and Full Tolls by Segment – 2035 ..................... 6.174 Table 6-15: I-15 Global & Express Traffic, GP Speed, and Tolls Charged – 2035, 7 to 8 AM.......................................................................................................................... 6.176 Table 6-16: I-15 Global & Express Traffic, GP Speed, and Tolls Charged – 2035, 5 to 6 PM .......................................................................................................................... 6.177 Table 6-17: Average Weekday Transactions and Revenue, Impact of 2027 Project .. 6.185 Table 6-18: Average Weekday Transactions and Revenue, Impact of 2030 Project .. 6.188 Table 6-19: Average Weekday Transactions and Revenue, Impact of 2035 Projects ..................................................................................................................... 6.194 Table 6-20: HOV Share Change .......................................................................................... 6.196 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1: I-15 ELP Corridor ...................................................................................................... 2.2 Figure 2-2: I-15 Express Lanes Access Points and Number of Lanes ................................... 2.4 Figure 3-1: I-15 T&R Model Corridor Subarea ......................................................................... 3.6 Figure 3-2: Metrolink Route Map .............................................................................................. 3.9 Figure 3-3: Screenline Map ..................................................................................................... 3.12 Figure 3-4: Mainline Count Locations ................................................................................... 3.15 Figure 3-5: Ramp Count Locations ........................................................................................ 3.17 Figure 3-6: Arterial Count Locations ...................................................................................... 3.18 Figure 3-7: I-15 NB AM Travel Time Run ................................................................................. 3.20 Figure 3-8: I-15 SB AM Travel Time Run .................................................................................. 3.21 Figure 3-9: I-15 SB PM Travel Time Run ................................................................................... 3.23 Figure 3-10: I-15 NB PM Travel Time Run ................................................................................ 3.24 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Figure 3-11: I-15 NB Weekday Traffic Profiles – South of Cajalco Road ........................... 3.26 Figure 3-12: I-15 SB Weekday Traffic Profiles – South of Cajalco Road ............................ 3.27 Figure 3-13: I-15 NB Weekday Traffic Profile – Limonite Avenue to Sixth Street ............... 3.28 Figure 3-14: I-15 SB Weekday Traffic Profile – Limonite Avenue to Sixth Street ................ 3.29 Figure 3-15: Weekday Hourly Traffic Profile – South of Cajalco Road .............................. 3.32 Figure 3-16: Hourly Traffic Profile – Limonite Avenue to Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road ........................................................................................................................... 3.33 Figure 3-17: I-15 Weekday Vehicle Composition – South of Cajalco Road .................... 3.34 Figure 3-18: I-15 Vehicle Composition – South of Limonite Avenue ................................. 3.34 Figure 3-19: I-15 Daily Traffic Stick Diagram .......................................................................... 3.36 Figure 3-20: I-15 Stick Diagram – 7 to 8 AM Travel Demand .............................................. 3.37 Figure 3-21: I-15 Stick Diagram – 5 to 6 PM Travel Demand............................................... 3.38 Figure 3-22: I-15 NB Volumes by Day of Week – South of Cajalco Road ......................... 3.40 Figure 3-23: I-15 SB Volumes by Day of Week – South of Cajalco Road.......................... 3.40 Figure 3-24: I-15 NB Volumes by Day of Week – South of Limonite Avenue .................... 3.41 Figure 3-25: I-15 SB Volumes by Day of Week – South of Limonite Avenue ..................... 3.41 Figure 3-26: Origin-Destination Data Collection Program ................................................. 3.43 Figure 3-27: Origins and Destinations to/from south of Cajalco Road ............................. 3.45 Figure 3-28: Origins and Destinations to/from SR 91 west .................................................. 3.47 Figure 3-29: Origins and Destinations to/from north of Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road ........................................................................................................................... 3.49 Figure 3-30: Westbound SR 91 GP Lane Travel Time Run – AM Peak ................................ 3.53 Figure 3-31: Eastbound SR 91 GP Lane Travel Time Run – AM Peak ................................. 3.55 Figure 3-32: SR 91 Eastbound GP Lanes, Travel Time Run – PM Peak ............................... 3.57 Figure 3-33: SR 91 Westbound GP Lanes, Travel Time Run – PM Peak .............................. 3.59 Figure 3-34: SR 91 Global Traffic by Hour – Riverside-Orange County Line ..................... 3.61 Figure 3-35: Eastbound 91 Express Lanes Traffic and Tolls – Average Tuesday- Thursday ..................................................................................................................... 3.62 Figure 3-36: Westbound 91 Express Lanes Traffic and Tolls – Average Tuesday- Thursday ..................................................................................................................... 3.63 Figure 3-37: SR 91 Global & Express Traffic by Hour – Riverside-Orange County Line .... 3.63 Figure 4-1: Historical and Forecast Study Area Employment Gains and Total Employment .............................................................................................................. 4.66 Figure 4-2: Historical and Base Case Study Area Employment Forecasts ....................... 4.67 Figure 4-3: Historical and Forecast Study Area Household Gains and Forecast ............ 4.71 Figure 4-4: Historical and Base Case Household Forecasts ............................................... 4.72 Figure 4-5: Map of the Study Area ....................................................................................... 4.73 Figure 4-6: Illustration of the WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Land Use Forecast Model Methodology............................................................................................................. 4.75 Figure 4-7: Inland Empire Job Growth/Loss by Sector, 2007 to 2010 ............................... 4.79 Figure 4-8: Inland Empire Employment Growth/Loss by Sector 2010-2014 ...................... 4.81 Figure 4-9: Study Area Residential Building Permit Issuance, 2005 to 2015 ...................... 4.85 Figure 4-10: Map of Focus Areas north of SR-91 .................................................................. 4.96 Figure 4-11: Map of Focus Areas South of SR-91 ................................................................. 4.99 Figure 4-12: Map of Orange County Focus Areas ............................................................ 4.101 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Figure 5-1: Model Structure with Toll Diversion Assignment Model ................................. 5.105 Figure 5-2: Sub-Area Model Boundary................................................................................ 5.108 Figure 5-3: Corridor Level Model Boundary ....................................................................... 5.109 Figure 5-4: Screenline Locations .......................................................................................... 5.116 Figure 5-5: I-15 OD Patterns Calibration, Peak Direction, South of Cajalco Road ....... 5.121 Figure 5-6: I-15 OD Patterns Calibration, Peak Direction, SR 91 West of I-15 ................. 5.122 Figure 5-7: I-15 OD Patterns Calibration, Peak Direction, North of Cantu Galleano ... 5.123 Figure 5-8: SR 91 Westbound Global and Express Traffic ................................................. 5.128 Figure 5-9: SR 91 Westbound Express Lanes Tolls Charged .............................................. 5.128 Figure 5-10: SR 91 Westbound Express Market Share Curves – Full Toll Traffic ............... 5.129 Figure 5-11: Existing Conditions Micro-Simulation Model Extents .................................... 5.131 Figure 6-1: I-15 Express Lanes Access Points and Number of Lanes ............................... 6.142 Figure 6-2: OCTA SR 91 Express Lanes Toll Schedule – July 1, 2015 (FY 2016) ................ 6.147 Figure 6-3: Weekday Traffic – North-South Screenlines .................................................... 6.149 Figure 6-4: I-15 Northbound Global Traffic ......................................................................... 6.151 Figure 6-5: I-15 Southbound Global Traffic ......................................................................... 6.151 Figure 6-6: HOV-3+ Share of All Express Traffic - 2025 ....................................................... 6.159 Figure 6-7: I-15 ELP Northbound, between Limonite Avenue and 6th Street - 2025 ...... 6.165 Figure 6-8: I-15 ELP Northbound, south of Magnolia Avenue - 2025............................... 6.166 Figure 6-9: I-15 ELP Southbound, between Limonite Avenue and 6th Street - 2025 ...... 6.167 Figure 6-10: I-15 ELP Southbound, south of Magnolia Avenue - 2025 ............................ 6.168 Figure 6-11: Travel Demand Model vs. Market Share Model Capture Rate, 2025 SB I-15 ELP, Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd to Hidden Valley Parkway ...................... 6.170 Figure 6-12: HOV-3+ Share of All Express Traffic - 2035 ..................................................... 6.173 Figure 6-13: I-15 ELP Northbound, between Limonite Avenue and 6th Street – 2035 ... 6.178 Figure 6-14: I-15 ELP Northbound, south of Magnolia Avenue - 2035 ............................ 6.179 Figure 6-15: I-15 ELP Southbound, between Limonite Avenue and 6th Street - 2035.... 6.180 Figure 6-16: I-15 ELP Southbound, south of Magnolia Avenue - 2035 ............................ 6.181 Figure 6-17: Travel Demand Model vs. Market Share Model Capture Rate, 2035 SB I-15 ELP, Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd to Hidden Valley Parkway ...................... 6.182 Figure 6-18: I-15 Northbound Global Traffic, Impact of I-15 South Express Lanes ......... 6.184 Figure 6-19: I-15 Southbound Global Traffic, Impact of I-15 South Express Lanes ........ 6.184 Figure 6-20: Impact of I-15 South EL on I-15 ELP Revenue ................................................ 6.186 Figure 6-21: Northbound Global Traffic, Impact of Widening Temescal Canyon Road ......................................................................................................................... 6.187 Figure 6-22: Southbound Global Traffic, Impact of Widening Temescal Canyon Road ......................................................................................................................... 6.187 Figure 6-23 Impact of Temescal Canyon Road on I-15 ELP Revenue ............................ 6.189 Figure 6-24: 2026 to 2035 Improvements ............................................................................ 6.191 Figure 6-25: Northbound Global Traffic, Impact of 2035 Improvements ....................... 6.192 Figure 6-26: Southbound Global Traffic, Impact of 2035 Improvements ....................... 6.193 Figure 6-27 Impact of 2035 Improvements on I-15 ELP Revenue .................................... 6.195 Figure 6-28: Existing Carpool Lanes in Southern California .............................................. 6.197 Figure 6-29: Simulation Model of SR 91/ I-15 Interchange – PM Peak Hour ................... 6.199 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Figure 6-30: Simulation Model of I-15 at the Magnolia Ave Interchange – PM Peak Hour ................................................................................................................ 6.200 Figure 6-31: Simulation Model of I-15 at the Ontario Ave Interchange – PM Peak Hour .......................................................................................................................... 6.201 Figure 6-32: Simulation Model of I-15 at the El Cerrito Rd Interchange – PM Peak Hour .......................................................................................................................... 6.202 Figure 6-33: Simulation Model of I-15 at the Cajalco Rd Interchange – PM Peak Hour .......................................................................................................................... 6.203 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Executive Summary ES-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 Introduction Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (“Stantec”) was retained by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) to conduct a toll traffic and revenue study of the proposed I-15 Express Lanes Project (I-15 ELP) in Riverside County, California. This study includes forecasts of likely toll traffic and revenue for fiscal years 2021 through 2070 (the “Forecast Period”). Stantec had the overall lead for the Traffic and Revenue Investment Grade Study and was responsible for project management and coordination, data collection, calibrating and validating the T&R forecasting models, and ultimately forecasting traffic and gross toll revenues. WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc. (“PB”) provided the socioeconomic and land use review of employment, population, and household projections used in the T&R model. The T&R forecasting process involved an extensive traffic data collection plan, the development and calibration of a T&R forecasting model including the regional RivTAM travel demand model, and the development of future year socio-economic forecasts. ES.2 Project Description The I-15 Express Lanes Project (ELP) would build generally four express lanes in the median of the I-15 freeway in Riverside County between Cajalco Road to the south and SR 60 to the north, a length of nearly 15 miles. Figure ES-1 highlights in red the location of the proposed I-15 ELP. The section of I-15 where the proposed I-15 ELP would be built is used by commuters traveling between the generally residential areas in Riverside County and the employment centers in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. The I-15 freeway is a critical link to and from the SR 91, SR 60, and I-10 freeways. The relatively high cost of living in Orange County has caused many people with jobs there to seek lower cost housing options in places such as the Inland Empire . This relationship between coastal and inland communities results in strong traffic demand along linkages between the two areas, such as SR 91 and the proposed I-15 ELP. The Inland Empire is poised to experience the strongest percentage employment and household growth in the Study Area over the Forecast Period and the I-15 ELP is well located to benefit from this growth. The I-15 ELP would be an all-electronic dynamically priced facility. Motorists wanting to use the lanes would be required to mount a toll transponder (FasTrak) in their vehicle. The price of the lanes would change throughout the day in reaction to usage of the facility. As demand increases, the price would also increase. The facility is priced to ensure free-flow, but is neither revenue maximizing nor throughput maximizing. HOV-3+ and zero emission vehicles (ZEV’s) with I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Executive Summary ES-2 the appropriate clean air vehicle sticker and a switchable transponder would receive a 50 percent discount. Figure ES-1: I-15 ELP Corridor ES.3 Existing Traffic Conditions Average weekday traffic on I-15 is between 140,000 and 190,000 vehicles per day on its 6 to 8 lanes. In addition to commuter traffic, it is a road that is used by recreational traffic as well as truck traffic. The roadway is chronically congested, with the worst delays observed on northbound I-15 in the morning, and southbound I-15 in the evening. Regional forecasts of population, households, and employment suggest that demand for the I-15 freeway would continue to rise. The I-15 ELP would serve as a means to accommodate projected traffic growth, and offer a reliable trip to travelers in this corridor. Motorists using the I-15 corridor in Riverside County between Cajalco Road and SR 60 experience recurring and extensive delays during the morning and evening peak hours. The generally three-lane per direction freeway gets heavily congested in the northbound direction during the morning, both south of El Cerrito Road, and north of SR 91, and is heavily congested in the southbound direction south of SR 91. During the AM, it is typical for drivers to experience stop San Diego Las Vegas I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Executive Summary ES-3 and go conditions between SR 91 and SR 60 for a period of two hours. Some segments of I-15 operate at travel speeds below 20 mph. South of SR 91, the I-15 segments south of El Cerrito Road are congested with delays lasting for nearly three hours. The worst delays exist on the northbound I-15 approach to Cajalco Road, which marks the southern terminus of the I-15 ELP. The most intense delays occur on southbound I-15 during the PM peak period, when motorists experience recurring stop-and-go congestion between SR 91 and Cajalco Road, and travel speeds can also drop below 20 mph. This condition regularly persists for several hours during the PM peak period, starting as early as 3 PM and often not resolved until past 7 PM. ES.4 Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use Employment in the Study Area, which consists of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, is forecast to grow by 1.4 million jobs from 7.2 to 8.6 million during the Forecast Period, a compound annual growth rate of 0.9 percent. Households in the Study Area will grow by 1.3 million over the Forecast Period from 5.8 to 7.0 million, a 1.0% compound annual growth rate. Housing growth will closely track job growth region-wide, although housing production will vary by market due to differing levels of developable land availability and housing affordability by submarket. For example, the Inland Empire1 is poised to grow at a more rapid pace as compared to Orange and Los Angeles Counties due to higher levels of available land and lower housing prices relative to Orange County and other coastal areas . Table ES-1 presents a summary of the Base Case Study Area employment and household forecasts. Table ES-1: Base Case Study Area Employment and Household Forecast (thousands) 1 For the purposes of this analysis, the “Inland Empire” is defined as Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Employment 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Total Employment 7,231 7,830 8,040 8,313 8,650 Period 2015-20 2020-25 2025-30 2030-35 2015-35 Incremental Growth 599 210 273 337 1,419 Average Annual Growth 120 42 55 67 71 CAGR [1]1.61% 0.53% 0.67% 0.80% 0.90% Households 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Total Households 5,764 6,186 6,478 6,750 7,032 Period 2015-20 2020-25 2025-30 2030-35 2015-35 Incremental Growth 422 292 273 281 1,268 Average Annual Growth 84 58 55 56 63.40 CAGR 1.42% 0.93% 0.83% 0.82% 1.00% [1] Compound Annual Growth Rate I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Executive Summary ES-4 ES.5 Model Development and Calibration The T&R forecasting process relied primarily on the traffic forecasts produced by Stantec’s travel demand model but supported by a market-share model, and VISSIM micro-simulation model. Stantec’s travel demand model starts with the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RivTAM) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) models, and adapts them for use in forecasting I-15 Express Lane Project traffic and revenue. Stantec’s market share model is developed from the revealed preference of existing Orange County SR 91 Express Lanes users. Toll traffic capture rates were developed, correlating with corridor congestion and toll rates. Finally, a micro-simulation model, developed in VISSIM, was used to model the likely operations of the I-15 corridor including the I-15 Express Lanes. The various models were calibrated and validated, and adapted to predict future traffic and revenue. ES.6 Traffic and Revenue Forecast The I-15 ELP is forecast to generate $9.58 million (2015 $’s) during its first 12 months of operations (fiscal year 2021 starting July 1, 2020). The forecast shown in Table ES-2 assumes the toll policy and pricing as described in Section 6.2.3 of this report. The facility would be all-electronic and dynamically priced while offering HOV-3+ carpools and ZEV’s with a transponder a 50 percent discount. Tolls are set to vary with demand for the express lanes; as traffic rises, tolls also rise. The forecast also assumes the facility is ramping up over a two-year period and therefore experiences rapid traffic, toll, and revenue growth. By the third year, ramp-up is expected to be complete and the I-15 ELP would generate $20.45 million (2015 $’s). The underlying rate of toll traffic growth between the opening year and 2035 is 4 percent per year. Toll rate growth, which would rise along with increases in toll traffic, would range from 4 to 5 percent per year. Revenue growth between opening year and 2035 would range from 8 to 9 percent per year, respectively. This steady pace of growth is interrupted in years 2027, 2030, and 2035 when various regional roadway improvements are assumed to be completed. Revenue in year 2027 would increase by almost 23 percent to $34.7 million, and by 12 percent in 2028 to $39.0 million largely due to the assumed completion of the I-15 South Express Lanes. The I-15 South Express Lanes are expected to divert more traffic to the I-15 corridor, would improve the operations at the southern terminus near Cajalco Road, and would increase the amount of HOV-3+ vehicles using the I-15 ELP. The combination of these three factors makes the I-15 ELP more attractive and increases the facility’s traffic and revenue potential. By 2030, the widening of the parallel arterial Temescal Canyon Road between El Cerrito Road and Indian Truck Trail alleviates some of the I-15 congestion and results in a 13 percent revenue drop to $36.7 million. Revenue resumes a growth trend of 9 percent per year until 2035, when a series of arterial widenings and an assumed change in regional HOV policy requiring HOV-3+ carpools rather than HOV-2+ induce a 33 percent revenue drop to $35.4 million in 2035. After 2035, the forecasts assume a slower rate of revenue growth of 1.9 percent per year until 2050. The slower rate of revenue growth is due to the assumption of a global traffic growth rate of only 0.5 percent per year between 2035 and 2050. Between 2050 and 2069, the T&R forecast assumes a nominal growth rate of 1 percent per year. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Executive Summary ES-5 Table ES-2: I-15 Express Lanes, Base Case Traffic and Revenue (2015$’s) Forecast * Transactions are defined as volume recorded in each Express Lane segment. Each time a vehicle passes through a segment, they are recorded as a transaction. A full-length trip is recorded as 7 transactions. Fiscal Year Calendar Year Starting Full Toll Txns (excl HOV) y/y % Change Toll Txns (incl HOV) y/y % Change HOT Transactions y/y % Change HOV Only y/y % Change % HOV Revenue, 2015$'s y/y % Change Average Toll / Transaction y/y % Change 2021 2020 20,828,000 - 26,432,000 - 26,432,000 - 5,604,000 -21%$9,580,000 -$0.36 - 2022 2021 26,271,000 26%33,344,000 26%33,344,000 26%7,073,000 26% 21%$15,097,000 58%$0.45 25% 2023 2022 32,102,000 22%40,752,000 22%40,752,000 22%8,650,000 22% 21%$20,446,000 35%$0.50 11% 2024 2023 33,344,000 4%42,335,000 4%42,335,000 4%8,991,000 4% 21%$22,152,000 8%$0.52 4% 2025 2024 34,636,000 4%43,981,000 4%43,981,000 4%9,345,000 4% 21%$24,001,000 8%$0.55 4% 2026 2025 35,977,000 4%45,690,000 4%45,690,000 4%9,713,000 4% 21%$26,004,000 8%$0.57 4% 2027 2026 37,369,000 4%47,465,000 4%47,465,000 4%10,096,000 4% 21%$28,175,000 8%$0.59 4% 2028 2027 38,616,000 3%50,711,000 7%50,711,000 7%12,095,000 20% 24%$34,753,000 23%$0.69 15% 2029 2028 40,049,000 4%53,121,000 5%53,121,000 5%13,072,000 8% 25%$39,032,000 12%$0.73 7% 2030 2029 41,600,000 4%55,187,000 4%55,187,000 4%13,587,000 4% 25%$42,290,000 8%$0.77 4% 2031 2030 41,304,000 -1%54,782,000 -1%54,782,000 -1%13,478,000 -1%25%$36,745,000 -13%$0.67 -12% 2032 2031 43,110,000 4%57,186,000 4%57,186,000 4%14,076,000 4% 25%$40,196,000 9%$0.70 5% 2033 2032 44,995,000 4%59,696,000 4%59,696,000 4%14,701,000 4% 25%$43,971,000 9%$0.74 5% 2034 2033 46,961,000 4%62,316,000 4%62,316,000 4%15,355,000 4% 25%$48,100,000 9%$0.77 5% 2035 2034 49,013,000 4%65,050,000 4%65,050,000 4%16,037,000 4% 25%$52,618,000 9%$0.81 5% 2036 2035 45,476,000 -7%55,763,000 -14%55,763,000 -14%10,287,000 -36%18%$35,415,000 -33%$0.64 -21% 2037 2036 45,914,000 1.0% 56,304,000 1.0% 56,304,000 1.0% 10,390,000 1.0%18%$36,074,000 1.9% $0.64 0.9% 2038 2037 46,356,000 1.0% 56,850,000 1.0% 56,850,000 1.0% 10,494,000 1.0%18%$36,745,000 1.9% $0.65 0.9% 2039 2038 46,803,000 1.0% 57,402,000 1.0% 57,402,000 1.0% 10,599,000 1.0%18%$37,429,000 1.9% $0.65 0.9% 2040 2039 47,254,000 1.0% 57,959,000 1.0% 57,959,000 1.0% 10,705,000 1.0%18%$38,125,000 1.9% $0.66 0.9% 2041 2040 47,709,000 1.0% 58,521,000 1.0% 58,521,000 1.0% 10,812,000 1.0%18%$38,835,000 1.9% $0.66 0.9% 2042 2041 48,168,000 1.0% 59,088,000 1.0% 59,088,000 1.0% 10,920,000 1.0%18%$39,558,000 1.9% $0.67 0.9% 2043 2042 48,632,000 1.0% 59,661,000 1.0% 59,661,000 1.0% 11,029,000 1.0%18%$40,294,000 1.9% $0.68 0.9% 2044 2043 49,100,000 1.0% 60,240,000 1.0% 60,240,000 1.0% 11,140,000 1.0%18%$41,044,000 1.9% $0.68 0.9% 2045 2044 49,573,000 1.0% 60,824,000 1.0% 60,824,000 1.0% 11,251,000 1.0%18%$41,808,000 1.9% $0.69 0.9% 2046 2045 50,051,000 1.0% 61,414,000 1.0% 61,414,000 1.0% 11,363,000 1.0%19%$42,586,000 1.9% $0.69 0.9% 2047 2046 50,533,000 1.0% 62,010,000 1.0% 62,010,000 1.0% 11,477,000 1.0%19%$43,378,000 1.9% $0.70 0.9% 2048 2047 51,019,000 1.0% 62,611,000 1.0% 62,611,000 1.0% 11,592,000 1.0%19%$44,186,000 1.9% $0.71 0.9% 2049 2048 51,510,000 1.0% 63,218,000 1.0% 63,218,000 1.0% 11,708,000 1.0%19%$45,008,000 1.9% $0.71 0.9% 2050 2049 52,006,000 1.0% 63,831,000 1.0% 63,831,000 1.0% 11,825,000 1.0%19%$45,846,000 1.9% $0.72 0.9% 2051 2050 52,507,000 1.0% 64,450,000 1.0% 64,450,000 1.0% 11,943,000 1.0%19%$46,699,000 1.9% $0.72 0.9% 2052 2051 52,770,000 0.5% 64,773,000 0.5% 64,773,000 0.5% 12,003,000 0.5%19%$47,167,000 1.0% $0.73 0.5% 2053 2052 53,034,000 0.5% 65,097,000 0.5% 65,097,000 0.5% 12,063,000 0.5%19%$47,640,000 1.0% $0.73 0.5% 2054 2053 53,299,000 0.5% 65,422,000 0.5% 65,422,000 0.5% 12,123,000 0.5%19%$48,117,000 1.0% $0.74 0.5% 2055 2054 53,565,000 0.5% 65,749,000 0.5% 65,749,000 0.5% 12,184,000 0.5%19%$48,600,000 1.0% $0.74 0.5% 2056 2055 53,833,000 0.5% 66,078,000 0.5% 66,078,000 0.5% 12,245,000 0.5%19%$49,087,000 1.0% $0.74 0.5% 2057 2056 54,102,000 0.5% 66,409,000 0.5% 66,409,000 0.5% 12,307,000 0.5%19%$49,579,000 1.0% $0.75 0.5% 2058 2057 54,373,000 0.5% 66,741,000 0.5% 66,741,000 0.5% 12,368,000 0.5%19%$50,076,000 1.0% $0.75 0.5% 2059 2058 54,644,000 0.5% 67,074,000 0.5% 67,074,000 0.5% 12,430,000 0.5%19%$50,578,000 1.0% $0.75 0.5% 2060 2059 54,918,000 0.5% 67,410,000 0.5% 67,410,000 0.5% 12,492,000 0.5%19%$51,085,000 1.0% $0.76 0.5% 2061 2060 55,192,000 0.5% 67,746,000 0.5% 67,746,000 0.5% 12,554,000 0.5%19%$51,597,000 1.0% $0.76 0.5% 2062 2061 55,468,000 0.5% 68,085,000 0.5% 68,085,000 0.5% 12,617,000 0.5%19%$52,114,000 1.0% $0.77 0.5% 2063 2062 55,745,000 0.5% 68,425,000 0.5% 68,425,000 0.5% 12,680,000 0.5%19%$52,637,000 1.0% $0.77 0.5% 2064 2063 56,025,000 0.5% 68,768,000 0.5% 68,768,000 0.5% 12,743,000 0.5%19%$53,165,000 1.0% $0.77 0.5% 2065 2064 56,305,000 0.5% 69,112,000 0.5% 69,112,000 0.5% 12,807,000 0.5%19%$53,698,000 1.0% $0.78 0.5% 2066 2065 56,586,000 0.5% 69,457,000 0.5% 69,457,000 0.5% 12,871,000 0.5%19%$54,236,000 1.0% $0.78 0.5% 2067 2066 56,869,000 0.5% 69,805,000 0.5% 69,805,000 0.5% 12,936,000 0.5%19%$54,780,000 1.0% $0.78 0.5% 2068 2067 57,154,000 0.5% 70,154,000 0.5% 70,154,000 0.5% 13,000,000 0.5%19%$55,329,000 1.0% $0.79 0.5% 2069 2068 57,439,000 0.5% 70,505,000 0.5% 70,505,000 0.5% 13,066,000 0.5%19%$55,884,000 1.0% $0.79 0.5% 2070 2069 57,726,000 0.5% 70,857,000 0.5% 70,857,000 0.5% 13,131,000 0.5%19%$56,444,000 1.0% $0.80 0.5% I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Introduction 1.1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (“Stantec”) was retained by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) to conduct a toll traffic and revenue study of the proposed I-15 Express Lanes Project (I-15 ELP) in Riverside County, California. This study includes forecasts of likely toll traffic and revenue for fiscal years 2021 through 2070. 1.1 PURPOSE AND FOCUS OF THE STUDY The primary focus of this study was to complete an investment grade traffic and revenue forecast for the proposed I-15 ELP. Our efforts included traffic data collection, the development and calibration of T&R forecasting models, and independent socioeconomic forecasts. 1.2 THE CONSULTANT TEAM Stantec had the overall lead for the Traffic and Revenue Investment Grade Study and was responsible for project management and coordination, data collection, calibrating and validating the T&R forecasting models, and ultimately forecasting traffic and gross toll revenues. WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc. (“PB”) provided the socioeconomic and land use review of employment, population, and household projections used in the T&R model. 1.3 OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT The following is a brief description of the contents of each chapter:  Chapter 2: Project Description and Setting – describes the I-15 Express Lanes Project’s setting and purpose.  Chapter 3: Existing Traffic Conditions – summarizes the traffic data collected throughout the study area including traffic volumes, travel speeds, and OD patterns.  Chapter 4: Socio-Economic Variables and Land Use – describes the assessment of the regional area’s economy and the study area forecast of future year occupied households, population, and employment.  Chapter 5: Model Development and Calibration – explains the modeling methodology used to forecast I-15 ELP traffic and revenue. This includes a discussion of the regional travel demand modeling, market share modeling, and micro-simulation models.  Chapter 6: Traffic and Revenue Forecast –presents the methodology and T&R forecasts. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Project Description and Setting 2.2 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING 2.1 THE I-15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT AND SETTING The I-15 Express Lanes Project (ELP) would build generally four express lanes in the median of the I-15 freeway in Riverside County, California between Cajalco Road to the south and SR 60 to the north, a length of nearly 15 miles. The section of I-15 where the proposed I-15 ELP would be built is used by commuters traveling between the generally residential areas in Riverside County and the employment centers in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. The I-15 freeway is a critical link to and from the SR 91, SR 60, and I-10 freeways. Figure 2-1: I-15 ELP Corridor Average weekday traffic on I-15 is between 140,000 and 190,000 vehicles per day on its 6 to 8 lanes. In addition to commuter traffic, it is a road that is used by recreational traffic as well as truck traffic. The roadway is chronically congested, with the worst delays observed on northbound I-15 in the morning, and southbound I-15 in the evening. Regional forecasts of population, households, and employment suggest that demand for the I-15 freeway would San Diego Las Vegas I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Project Description and Setting 2.3 continue to rise. The I-15 ELP would serve as a means to accommodate projected traffic growth, and offer a reliable trip to travelers in this corridor. The I-15 ELP would be available to two-axle vehicles with a transponder; trucks with multiple axles would be prohibited. The facility would be all-electronic and dynamically priced. Tolls would be set based on the level of congestion in the corridor. As demand for the I-15 ELP rises, tolls would increase accordingly. HOV-3+ carpools and zero emission vehicles (ZEV’s) with a switchable transponder would be charged a toll that is discounted by 50 percent. Upon its expected opening on July 1, 2020, access between the I-15 ELP and the adjacent general purpose lanes would be permitted via a series of mixing areas listed below, and depicted in Figure 2-2: 1) Northern Terminus south of SR 60 – NB egress to GP lanes and SB Ingress from GP Lanes 2) Between Limonite Avenue and 6th Street – Both ingress and egress, to and from Limonite Avenue to the north and 6th Street to the south. 3) Between 6th Street and 2nd Street – Both ingress and egress, to and from 6th Street to the north and 2nd Street to the south. 4) Between Hidden Valley Parkway and SR 91 – SB egress and NB ingress only, to and from SR 91 and Magnolia Avenue to the south. 5) SR 91 Express Direct Connector to/ from I-15 Express Lanes south of SR 91 – NB Egress and SB Ingress to / from the SR 91 Express Lanes extension in Riverside County. 6) Between Magnolia Avenue and Ontario Avenue – Both ingress and egress, to and from Magnolia Avenue to the north and Ontario Avenue to the south. 7) Between El Cerrito Road and Cajalco Road – SB egress to Cajalco Road and NB ingress from Cajalco Road. 8) Southern Terminus at Cajalco Road – SB egress to GP lanes south of Cajalco Road and NB ingress from GP lanes south of Cajalco Road. In addition to the opening year access noted above, by 2035 a direct connector ramp is expected to be built connecting the RCTC 91 Express Lanes to with the I-15 Express Lanes to the north. While the I-15 ELP generally has two-lanes per direction, three sections of the I-15 ELP would be one-lane per direction. These single lane sections are located at the southern end of the corridor, the northern end of the corridor, and in the middle in the vicinity of the SR 91/ I-15 interchange between Hidden Valley Parkway and the Magnolia Avenue-Ontario Avenue mixing area. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Project Description and Setting 2.4 Figure 2-2: I-15 Express Lanes Access Points and Number of Lanes 2 1 1 Southern Terminus Northern Terminus 2 2 1 2 2 2 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.5 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS Average weekday traffic on I-15 is between 140,000 and 190,000 vehicles per day on its 6 to 8 lanes. In addition to commuter traffic, it is a road that is used by recreational traffic as well as truck traffic. The roadway is chronically congested, with the worst delays observed on northbound I-15 in the morning, and southbound I-15 in the evening. Regional forecasts of population, households, and employment suggest that demand for the I-15 freeway would continue to rise. The I-15 ELP would serve as a means to accommodate projected traffic growth, and offer a reliable trip to travelers in this corridor. Motorists using the I-15 corridor in Riverside County between Cajalco Road and SR 60 experience recurring and extensive delays during the morning and evening peak hours. The generally three-lane per direction freeway gets heavily congested in the northbound direction during the morning, both south of El Cerrito Road, and north of SR 91, and is heavily congested in the southbound direction south of SR 91. During the AM, it is typical for drivers to experience stop and go conditions between SR 91 and SR 60 for a period of two hours. Some segments of I-15 operate at travel speeds below 20 mph. South of SR 91, the I-15 segments south of El Cerrito Road are congested with delays lasting for nearly three hours. The worst delays exist on the northbound I-15 approach to Cajalco Road, which marks the southern terminus of the I-15 ELP. The most intense delays occur on southbound I-15 during the PM peak period, when motorists experience recurring stop-and-go congestion between SR 91 and Cajalco Road, and travel speeds can also drop below 20 mph. This condition regularly persists for several hours during the PM peak period, starting as early as 3 PM and often not resolved until past 7 PM. 3.1 OVERVIEW OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I-15 in Riverside County is a heavily traveled freeway that experiences extensive and recurring congestion in both the morning and evening. This chapter discusses existing traffic conditions in and around the I-15 Express Lanes Project (ELP) corridor. I-15 is a principal connection between the residential communities in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, with the employment centers in Orange and Los Angeles Counties. In addition it is a major route for traffic traveling between San Diego to the south, and points north including Las Vegas. The “I -15 ELP corridor” is defined as extending from SR 60 in the north to Cajalco Road in northwestern Riverside County. North of the corridor, I-15 traverses San Bernardino County and merges with I-215 before entering Cajon Pass en route to Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, and the Canadian border in Montana. South of the corridor, I-15 runs through Temescal Valley and Lake Elsinore before merging with I-215. South of the merge, I-15 enters San Diego County, where it becomes SR 15 following its intersection with I-8. Given the I-15’s regional significance, the I-15 T&R model’s focus area (the “Corridor Subarea”) is broader, and as shown in Figure 3-1 includes Orange County, Los Angeles County, and San Bernardino County in addition to Riverside County. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.6 Figure 3-1: I-15 T&R Model Corridor Subarea 3.1.1 Other Major Roadways Other major roadways in the Corridor Subarea include SR 91, SR 60, SR 71, I-10, and I-215. SR 91 is an east-west freeway that extends from its interchange with I-215 in Downtown Riverside to I-110 in Los Angeles. It divides the I-15 corridor into two parts, with many vehicles that use I-15 also using SR 91. As the only direct freeway link between Orange County and Riverside County, SR 91 is heavily traveled and heavily congested, with nearly 300,000 vehicles per day on its 12 lanes traversing the county line. In 1995, the SR 91 Express Lanes were built between SR-55 and the Orange/Riverside county line to relieve this congestion. The first express lanes in the United States, these lanes provide travel time savings to high occupancy vehicles (HOVs) and toll- paying low occupancy vehicles. The rest of the SR 91 has HOV lanes (2 occupants or more allowed) for nearly its entire length. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is currently extending the existing 91 Express Lanes from the Orange/Riverside County line to I-15 by converting the existing HOV lane (HOV-2+) to an express lane. Eastbound express lane users would be able to continue eastbound on SR 91 past the I-15 interchange, or take a direct connector to the proposed southbound I-15 Express Lanes. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.7 SR 60 is an east-west freeway that extends from I-10 in Beaumont in the east to I-10 in Downtown Los Angeles in the west. Its intersection with I-15 is the northern terminus of the I-15 Express Lanes Project (I-15 ELP). HOV lanes are present along the entire length of SR 60. I-10 is an east-west freeway that spans the southern United States from Jacksonville, FL in the east to Santa Monica, CA in the west. The I-10’s interchange with I-15 is over three miles north of the project corridor. West of the study area on I-10, the Metro Express Lanes are available for buses, HOVs, and toll-paying vehicles from I-605 to I-5. Additionally, I-10 has HOV lanes (HOV-2+ carpools) from SR 71 to I-15. SR 71 is a southeast-northwest roadway that extends from SR 91 in the south to I-10 and SR-57 in the north along the east side of Chino Hills . SR 71is a limited-access highway with the exception of two signalized T-intersections in Pomona. HOV lanes are present on SR 71 between Euclid Avenue and SR 60. Given its southeast-northwest alignment, SR 71 is a shorter alternative in distance than I-15 for drivers coming from Lake Elsinore and going to Los Angeles County via SR 60 or I-10. I-215 is a north-south freeway that splits from I-15 in Murrieta to the south and merges with I-15 north of San Bernardino. Between these endpoints, I-215 is a shorter alternative than I-15 by over five miles. However, for travel between the I-15/I-215 interchange and the SR 60/I-15 interchange, I-15 is shorter by approximately 3 miles. HOV lanes are available on the section of I- 215/SR 60 south of SR 91 as well as from SR 91 through the I-10 interchange. 3.1.2 Public Transportation The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) provides public transportation within Riverside County. The RTA’s route 206 traverses the I-15 project corridor from its southern extent to Magnolia Avenue, connecting Temecula, Murrieta, and Lake Elsinore with the Corona Transit Center in downtown Corona. Ten northbound and eleven southbound bus trips service this route on weekdays. The RTA’s route 3 runs parallel to the I -15 corridor, traversing Main Street and Hamner Avenue from Bellegrave Avenue (north of Limonite Avenue) to Tenth Street (northwest of Magnolia Avenue). 29 northbound and 28 southbound bus trips service this route on weekdays, while 13 round-trips service this route on weekends. Metrolink provides regional rail service for the Southern California region. The three lines that serve the study area are the 91 Line, the Inland Empire-Orange County Line and the Riverside Line. As shown in Figure 3-2 the Inland Empire-Orange County (IE-OC) Line extends southwestward from San Bernardino to Orange County via the Santa Ana Canyon , with two stations in both Riverside and Corona. The line’s closest station to the I-15 corridor is the North Main Corona Station, at the intersection of North Main Street and Grand Boulevard. In Orange County, the line serves stations in Anaheim, Orange, Santa Ana, Tustin, Irvine, Laguna Niguel, San Juan Capistrano, and San Clemente. South of San Clemente, the Inland Empire-Orange County Line terminates at the Oceanside Transit Center in San Diego County. The line offers eight roundtrip trains on weekdays and two per day on weekends. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.8 The 91 Line originates in Downtown Riverside and follows the same alignment as the Inland Empire-Orange County Line through Corona and the Santa Ana Canyon. On the west side of the canyon, the line serves stations in Fullerton, Buena Park, and Norwalk before terminating at Union Station in Los Angeles. The line offers four westbound trains and five eastbound trains on weekdays and two roundtrip trains per day on weekends. From its origin in Downtown Riverside, the Riverside Line extends northwest through Jurupa Valley to Ontario, where it is closest to the I-15 corridor. From Ontario, the line continues west to Union Station in Los Angeles, with stations in Pomona, Industry, and Montebello along the way. Six round-trip trains serve the line on weekdays. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.9 Figure 3-2: Metrolink Route Map Source: www.metrolinktrains.com I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.10 Ridership on the three lines is generally light compared to travel along the SR 91, with average weekday ridership of as low as 2,515 riders per weekday on the SR 91 Line in FY 2015, to a high of 4,822 on the Riverside Line. By comparison, weekday traffic crossing the Riverside-Orange County Line via SR 91 averages over 140,000 vehicles per day in each direction. I-15 weekday traffic ranges from 70,000 to 95,000 vehicles per day in each direction. Boardings at the four stations along SR 91 in the study area (West Corona, North Main Corona, Riverside-La Sierra, and Riverside-Downtown) range from a low of 391 per weekday at the West Corona station to 1,129 per weekday at the Riverside-Downtown station. These statistics, shown in Table 3-1, further highlight the relatively low usage of Metrolink compared to the volume of freeway traffic. Table 3-1: Metrolink Average Weekday Ridership and Boardings Metrolink Line Average Weekday Ridership, FY 2015 Inland Empire-Orange County Line 4,775 SR 91 Line 2,515 Riverside Line 4,822 Metrolink Station Average Weekday Boardings, FY 2016 Q1 West Corona 391 North Main Corona 984 Riverside-La Sierra 708 Riverside-Downtown 1,129 Source: Metrolink 3.2 DATA COLLECTION PROGRAM Traffic data in the I-15 corridor and study area were collected over a span of three weeks in June 2015. The data collected include traffic volumes, speeds, travel times, and origin-destination patterns. Supplemental traffic data collected in September 2015 were also incorporated. The focus of the count program was to record typical weekday traffic along the I- 15 as well as critical parallel routes and feeder routes. Weekend traffic were also recorded at select locations along I-15. In addition to the freeway mainlines, traffic along all ramps along I-15 between and including Cajalco Road to the south and SR 60 to the north were counted. Traffic volumes on critical arterials, such as Main Street located west of I-15 between SR 91 and SR 60, were recorded for several weekdays. Origin-destination patterns along the I-15 were recorded for a span of two weeks to gain an understanding of the most popular trip pairs and trip lengths. Lastly, travel speeds along I-15, SR 91, and various arterials were collected via a combination of travel time runs and publicly available sources. Traffic volume data came from several sources, including Stantec’s independent count program, which included redundant counts at various locations along I-15, and third party sources. These third party sources include the Caltrans Freeway Performance Measurement System (PeMS) for various mainline and ramp locations along I-15 and elsewhere in the study area. PeMS is a database that collects and archives traffic volumes and speeds from Caltrans’ loop detectors located on California’s freeways and ramps. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.11 The PeMS database has numerous continuous traffic counts along I-15 in Riverside County. PeMS data for I-15 were downloaded from January 2014 through June 2015. These data were used as a secondary data source, and to analyze the seasonality of traffic on I-15 and the region. Hourly traffic volume data were also provided by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) for the SR 91 Express Lanes as well as by the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) for the San Joaquin Hills, Foothill, and Eastern Toll Roads in Orange County. 3.2.1 Screenline Traffic Volumes Ten screenlines were identified to establish model calibration benchmarks. The screenlines measure traffic traveling north and south, or east and west across several parallel roadways. A critical element of travel demand model calibration is to ensure the model is assigning an appropriate amount of traffic north-south and east-west, and that the screenline traffic is appropriately distributed amongst each of the roadways included in the screenline. The screenline analysis also provides insight into how the I-15 corridor’s traffic compares against other parallel roadways and how they relate to intersecting east-west roadways. Five screenlines were drawn across north-south roadways (numbered 1 to 5), and five screenlines were drawn across east-west roadways (lettered A to E). Figure 3-3 shows the location of the ten screenlines. All five north-south screenlines include I-15. Both Screenline 3 and 4 intersect I-15 between SR 91 and SR 60. Screenlines 1 and 2 compare north-south traffic volumes north of the project corridor from SR 57 to I-215 including arterial roadways. Screenline 5 compares northwest-southeast traffic volumes from I-15 to I-10. The five east-west screenlines do not include I-15, but instead measure traffic on roadways that are regionally significant, and can be considered feeders of I-15. Screenlines A and B compare east-west traffic volumes on the west and east side of I-15, respectively. Screenline C compares north-south volumes on SR 55, SR 57, and SR 241 in Orange County. Screenline D compares east- west traffic volumes through the Santa Ana Mountains. Screenline E compares east-west traffic on SR 91 in Corona to arterial alternatives. Screenline traffic data were largely collected via the project’s indep endent count program, the PeMS database, the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA), and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.12 Figure 3-3: Screenline Map Traffic volumes from the north-south screenlines (numbers 1 to 5) show that the region’s north-south freeways represent the largest share of traffic although arterials capture a significant share of traffic. Table 3-2 lists traffic volumes by roadway at each screenline. I-15 accounts for a I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.13 substantial share of each of the screenline’s traffic. The share ranges from 32 percent at Screenline 1, north of the I-10, to as high as 58 percent at Screenline 4, north of SR 91. Table 3-2: Traffic on North-South Screenlines Traffic volumes from the east-west screenlines (letters A to E) are comprised almost entirely of the region’s east-west freeways, namely I-10, SR 60, and SR 91. Both SR 91 and SR 60 are especially meaningful to the I-15. SR 91 would directly connect with the I-15 ELP, while SR 60 is the project’s northern boundary. Table 3-3 shows traffic by roadway for each of the east-west screenlines. DESCRIPTION SEG_TYPE SOURCE Daily Volume NORTH OF I-10 Volume % of Total SR-57 GP - Covina and Via Verde Freeway PeMs 195,927 35% I-15 - Foothill and 4th St Freeway PeMS 180,451 32% I-215 GP - I-10 and Orange Show Rd Freeway Stantec 181,642 33% 558,020 100% NORTH OF SR-60 Volume % of Total SR-57 GP - Temple Ave and Sunset Crossing Rd Freeway PeMs 154,356 26% SR-71-Between Old Pomona Rd and Rio Ranch Rd Freeway PeMs 41,601 7% SR-83 - SR-60 and Philadelphia St Arterial Stantec 34,087 6% I-15 - SR-60 and E Jurupa St Freeway Stantec 200,705 34% I-215 GP & HOV - SR-60 and Columbia Ave Freeway Stantec 162,117 27% 592,866 100% SOUTH OF SR-60 Volume % of Total SR-71 GP&HOV - Pine Ave and Central Ave Freeway Stantec 74,964 25% SR-83 - Pine Ave and Bickmore Ave Arterial Stantec 16,074 5% Archibald Rd - 65th St and Limonite Ave Arterial Stantec 19,411 6% Hamner Ave - Oakdale and Limonite Ave Arterial Stantec 23,907 8% I-15 - 6th St and Limonite Ave Freeway Stantec 152,236 50% Van Buren Blvd - Limonite and Jurupa Rd Arterial Stantec 19,313 6% 305,906 100% NORTH OF SR-91 Volume % of Total SR-71 GP - N of SR-91 Freeway Stantec 78,438 29% N Main St - River Rd and Parkridge Ave Arterial Stantec 35,619 13% I-15 - SR-91 and Hidden Valley Pkwy Freeway Stantec 157,380 58% 271,437 100% SOUTH-EAST OF SR-91 Volume % of Total I-15 - Weirick and Cajalco Freeway Stantec 147,643 21% Temescal Cyn - Old Butterfield Stage and Cajalco Rd Arterial Stantec 9,370 1% Van Buren Blvd - Mockinbird Cyn and Victoria Ave Arterial Stantec 55,081 8% Central Ave - Nottingham Rd and Hawarden Dr Arterial Stantec 39,579 6% I-215 GP&HOV - SR-91 and Blaine St Freeway Stantec 259,298 38% I-10 GP - at Mountain View Ave Freeway PeMs 180,255 26% 691,224 100% 1 2 3 4 5 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.14 Table 3-3: Traffic on East-West Screenlines *Note, % of total may not total 100% due to rounding 3.2.2 Mainline Traffic Counts Mainline traffic volumes along I-15 are depicted in Figure 3-4 and were recorded at locations between:  Cajalco Road and Dos Lagos Drive (northbound and southbound)  Hidden Valley Parkway and SR 91 (northbound only)  Second Street and Hidden Valley Parkway (southbound only)  Limonite Avenue and Sixth Street (northbound and southbound)  SR 60 and Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road (northbound and southbound) WEST OF I-15 Volume % of Total I-10 GP - N Milliken Ave and N Haven Ave Freeway Stantec 244,992 34% SR-60 GP&HOV - Hamner and S Haven Ave Freeway Stantec 246,695 34% SR-91 GP&HOV - I-15 and S Main St Freeway Stantec 225,398 31% 717,085 100% EAST OF I-15 Volume % of Total I-10 GP - I-15 and E Etiwanda Ave Freeway Stantec 201,023 34% SR-60 GP&HOV - East of I-15 Freeway PeMs 180,832 31% SR-91 GP&HOV - I-15 and McKinley Ave Freeway Stantec 209,996 35% 591,851 100% Through SR-55 and SR-57 Volume % of Total SR-57 GP&HOV - Lincoln and Taft Ave Freeway PeMs 259,548 48% SR-55 GP&HOV - Lincoln and Katella Ave Freeway PeMs 220,637 41% FETC - Windy Ridge Toll Plaza Freeway TCA 56,155 10% 536,340 100% Through Santa Ana Mountains Volume % of Total SR-60 GP&HOV - Phillips Ranch off & Diamond Bar Freeway Stantec 238,638 44% SR-91 GP&XL - West of OC/RC County line Freeway Stantec, OCTA 286,538 53% SR-74 - South of Tenaja Truck Trail Freeway Stantec 13,653 3% 538,828 100% Downtown Corona Volume % of Total Railroad St - N Grant and N Sherman Ave Arterial Stantec 11,330 3% SR-91 GP&HOV - Lincoln and Maple St Freeway Stantec 245,681 75% W 6th St - S Sherman and S Lincoln Ave Arterial Stantec 34,336 10% W Ontario Ave - S Lincoln Ave and Oak Ave Arterial Stantec 37,776 11% 329,124 100% B C D E A I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.15 Additional mainline counts were collected on freeways in the study area. The locations of these counts are listed below and shown in Figure 3-4.  I-10 between North Haven Avenue and North Milliken Avenue  I-10 between I-15 and North Etiwanda Street  SR 60 between North Haven Avenue and North Milliken Avenue  SR 60 between SR 91 and 3rd Street  I-215 between SR 60 and Columbia Avenue  I-215 between I-10 and West Orange Show Road  SR 71 between Pine Avenue and Soquel Canyon Parkway  SR 91 between I-15 and McKinley Avenue  SR 91 at the border of Orange County and Riverside County Additional mainline count data was provided by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) for its SR 91 Express Lanes and by the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) for the Windy Ridge Toll Plaza on SR-241. Additionally, as part of a concurrent study, traffic data were collected in September 2015 on SR 91 at the border of Orange County and Riverside County. Figure 3-4: Mainline Count Locations Traffic data were collected with a variety of technologies including Wavetronix and video. Other sources include OCTA and TCA. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.16 3.2.3 Ramp Counts Traffic volumes on all I-15 ramps between and including Cajalco Road and SR 60 were recorded as part of the count program. This includes all local on/off ramps and direct connectors to SR 91 and SR 60. The locations of ramp counts are shown in Figure 3-5, and listed below:  SR 60  Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road  Limonite Avenue  Sixth Street  Second Street  Hidden Valley Parkway  SR 91  Magnolia Avenue  Ontario Avenue  El Cerrito Road  Cajalco Road Traffic volumes on several SR 91 on and off ramps were also recorded. The ramps at Serfas Club Drive and Green River Road were surveyed, and their data included as part of the modeling effort. Also, as part of a concurrent study, ramp volumes were collected on SR 91 intersections with South Weir Canyon Road, Gypsum Canyon Road, and SR 241. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.17 Figure 3-5: Ramp Count Locations Local on/off ramps were surveyed using pneumatic tube counters, while direct connectors were surveyed using Wavetronix counters. 3.2.4 Arterial Traffic Counts Traffic along numerous regionally and locally significant arterial roadways were recorded. The I-15 corridor has several parallel local roadways that are signalized roadways which operate at lower performance levels than the I-15 and other freeways, but still offer meaningful alternatives to travel along I-15 and SR 91. Understanding the balance of traffic between I-15 versus area arterials is an important part of the model calibration and forecasting process. Arterial count locations are listed below and depicted in Figure 3-6:  South Euclid Avenue between Philadelphia Street and SR 60  South Euclid Avenue between Bickmore Avenue and Pine Avenue  Archibald Avenue between Limonite Avenue and 65th Street  West Ontario Avenue between Oak Avenue and South Lincoln Avenue  West Sixth Street between South Sherman Avenue and South Lincoln Avenue  Railroad Street between North Lincoln Avenue and North Smith Avenue  River Road between Cota Street and North Main Street  North Main Street between River Road and Parkridge Avenue  Hamner Avenue between Sixth Street and Citrus Street  Hamner Avenue between Limonite Avenue and Oakdale Street I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.18  Temescal Canyon Road South of Cajalco Road  Van Buren Boulevard between Victoria Avenue and Cleveland Avenue  Van Buren Boulevard between Limonite Avenue and 56th Street  Central Avenue between Victoria Avenue and Nottingham Road  SR-74 (Ortega Highway) in the Santa Ana Mountains. Figure 3-6: Arterial Count Locations Traffic on arterials were recorded using pneumatic tube counters. 3.3 I-15 CORRIDOR TRAFFIC DATA The I-15 ELP corridor extends from Cajalco Road in the south to SR 60 in the north. From the count program mainline results, Stantec identified the corridor’s day-of-week variation, directional split, and vehicle composition. The count program also indicated the most popular on and off ramps in the corridor. Stantec applied seasonality factors to the count program’s ramp and mainline results to convert June counts to average annual weekday volumes. These ramp and mainline volumes were combined to create a balanced network for the corridor. The results of an origin-destination survey further established travel patterns in the corridor. Stantec performed travel time runs in the corridor to understand its congestion patterns. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.19 3.3.1 I-15 Travel Speeds Motorists using the I-15 corridor in Riverside County between Cajalco Road and SR 60 experience recurring and extensive delays during the morning and evening peak hours. The generally three-lane per direction freeway gets heavily congested in the northbound direction during the morning, both south of El Cerrito Road, and north of SR 91, and is heavily congested in the southbound direction south of SR 91. During the AM, it is typical for drivers to experience stop and go conditions between SR 91 and SR 60 for a period of two hours. Some segments of I-15 operate at travel speeds below 20 mph. South of SR 91, the I-15 segments south of El Cerrito Road are congested with delays lasting for nearly three hours. The worst delays exist on the northbound I-15 approach to Cajalco Road, which marks the southern terminus of the I-15 ELP. The most intense delays occur on southbound I-15 during the PM peak period, when motorists experience recurring stop-and-go congestion between SR 91 and Cajalco Road, and travel speeds can also drop below 20 mph. This condition regularly persists for several hours during the PM peak period, starting as early as 3 PM and often not resolved until past 7 PM. Stantec’s observations of corridor travel speeds included over 80 travel time runs in the I-15 corridor, concurrent with the June 2015 count program. These travel time runs entail drivers travelling on I-15 with GPS recorders in the vehicle. Figure 3-7 and Figure 3-8 show the instantaneous speeds of representative travel time runs during the AM period on I-15 NB and I-15 SB, respectively. The following is a detailed discussion of Stantec’s review of corridor congestion. AM Peak Period Travel Speeds Northbound speeds south of Cajalco Road are mostly below 35 mph due to the bottleneck caused by heavy on-ramp traffic from Cajalco Road. Between Cajalco Road and SR 91, northbound speeds are generally free-flow, with lower on ramp volumes. A fourth lane is available on northbound I-15 north of Ontario Avenue. This capacity added by this lane results in improved travel speeds. North of SR 91, northbound vehicles slow down at the Second Street interchange, where the number of lanes drops from four to three. Speeds are generally below 35 mph for the next 4 to 5 miles. Delays are attributable to high travel demand, including over 1,000 vehicles entering the northbound I-15 from the Limonite Avenue on-ramp during the AM peak hour. Drivers then experience free-flow speeds through Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road. North of Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road, speeds drop below 20 mph due to a choke point north of the corridor. Southbound traffic operates with less delay than the northbound I-15 but still has congestion sections between SR 60 and Second Street. South of Second Street, a lane is added to the corridor which provides the capacity needed for drivers to experience free-flow conditions south of Second Street through the end of the corridor at Cajalco Road. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.20 Figure 3-7: I-15 NB AM Travel Time Run Source: Stantec floating car travel time runs. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.21 Figure 3-8: I-15 SB AM Travel Time Run Source: Stantec floating car travel time runs. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.22 PM Peak Period Travel Speeds The heaviest delay on southbound I-15 occurs during the PM peak period. Delays are regularly observed between SR 60 and Limonite Avenue, and between SR 91 and Cajalco Road. The worst delays are present on the section between SR 91 and El Cerrito Road, where congestion is present for a period of more than four hours . Figure 3-9 and Figure 3-10 show the speeds of representative travel time runs during the PM period on I-15 SB and I-15 NB, respectively. Southbound speeds are below 35 mph and often below 20 mph from SR 60 through Cantu- Galleano Ranch Road. South of Limonite Avenue, southbound speeds are above 50 mph until the SR 91 interchange. South of SR 91, drivers experience heavy congestion for the 4 miles between SR 91 and El Cerrito Road. The trip between SR 91 and El Cerrito Road averages approximately 20 miles per hour. Congestion is caused by heavy demand, over 6,000 vehicles per hour approaching I-15 south of El Cerrito Road. While four GP lanes are available between SR 91 and El Cerrito Road, the fourth lane exits to El Cerrito Road, leaving only three GP lanes for the remaining traffic. This lane drop along with heavy travel demand results in stop and go traffic over a period of several hours during the PM peak period. Vehicles in the queue are often at a standstill and rarely travel above 35 mph. South of the El Cerrito lane drop, speeds through the south end of the corridor are generally free-flow. Northbound speeds through the corridor are generally 50 mph or higher with the exception of the area around Second Street and between Sixth Street and Limonite Avenue. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.23 Figure 3-9: I-15 SB PM Travel Time Run Source: Stantec floating car travel time runs. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.24 Figure 3-10: I-15 NB PM Travel Time Run Source: Stantec floating car travel time runs. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.25 To identify the average speed along a segment of the corridor, the length of the segment is divided by the recorded travel time. Table 3-4 and Table 3-5 show the aggregated average speeds by segment for I-15 northbound and southbound, respectively. In the northbound direction, average speeds are lowest during the AM peak period, specifically between Dos Lagos Drive and Cajalco Road from 7:00-8:30 AM and between Hidden Valley Parkway and Limonite Avenue from 6:30-8:00 AM. During the PM period, northbound average segment speeds drop below 50 mph from Hidden Valley Parkway to Limonite Avenue between 3:30-6:30 PM. Table 3-4: I-15 NB Travel Speeds In the southbound direction, average segment speeds are generally above 55 mph during the AM peak period, with the exception of the section between SR 60 and Sixth Street from 7:30-8:00 AM. During the PM peak period, average speeds below 45 mph occur in three segments from 3:30-6:00 PM. Additionally, the bottleneck caused by the lane drop at El Cerrito Road results in average speeds below 30 mph for the entire peak period. Table 3-5 : I-15 SB Travel Speeds Segment Dist. (mi)6-630 AM630-7 AM7-730 AM730-8AM8-830AM830-9AM9-930AM930-10AM3-330 PM330-4PM4-430 PM430-5 PM5-530 PM530-6 PM6-630 PM630-7 PMCantu-Galleano Ranch Road to SR-60 0.68 68 64 41 64 54 58 73 64 62 45 76 68 58 76 Limonite Avenue to Cantu Galleano Ranch Road 1.74 69 38 39 40 48 61 70 64 67 61 68 68 62 66 69 Sixth Street to Limonite Avenue 2.69 67 35 29 34 41 61 70 65 58 46 46 49 52 46 36 69 Second Street to Sixth Street 1.91 75 38 30 28 66 75 67 70 69 60 47 50 40 42 45 69 Hidden Valley Parkway to Second Street 0.79 79 17 27 13 71 67 68 79 67 70 47 72 35 52 60 74 SR-91 EB on ramp to Hidden Valley Parkway 1.11 77 54 68 57 74 74 68 72 67 71 69 72 69 72 75 74 SR-91 overpass to SR-91 EB on ramp 0.51 74 77 67 72 71 67 71 68 69 75 71 66 77 77 SR-91 off ramp to SR-91 overpass 0.47 65 76 67 70 70 62 73 68 70 75 65 65 77 70 Magnolia Avenue to SR-91 off ramp 0.49 63 68 63 56 57 56 66 50 54 64 63 57 73 60 North Ontario Avenue to Magnolia Avenue 1.59 67 66 65 61 66 66 64 56 63 64 70 64 54 67 El Cerrito Road to North Ontario Avenue 0.92 65 66 72 67 65 67 68 65 72 70 72 70 69 Cajalco Road to El Cerrito Road 1.05 50 53 53 50 49 57 65 62 52 70 64 68 54 68 Dos Lagos Drive to Cajalco Road 1.12 37 20 21 25 37 69 63 64 56 68 67 61 68 Speeds (mph) 0-30 30-45 45-55 55-65 >65 Segment Dist. (mi)6-630 AM630-7 AM7-730 AM730-8AM8-830AM830-9AM9-930AM930-10AM3-330 PM330-4PM4-430 PM430-5 PM5-530 PM530-6 PM6-630 PM630-7 PMSR-60 to Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road 1.20 69 69 55 46 71 70 74 63 23 29 26 40 24 66 74 Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road to Limonite Avenue 1.79 72 72 69 43 71 70 71 60 31 27 26 46 37 59 72 Limonite Avenue to Sixth Street 2.69 66 66 66 53 67 67 70 48 38 46 42 52 63 59 72 Sixth Street to Second Street 1.94 66 66 65 57 60 69 73 49 46 57 54 68 62 71 70 Second Street to Hidden Valley Parkway 0.76 70 70 73 68 65 73 74 72 72 70 63 72 66 72 66 72 Hidden Valley Parkway to SR-91 WB exit 0.77 63 63 66 67 60 63 64 69 66 69 65 64 65 73 65 73 SR-91 WB exit to SR-91 overpass 0.37 74 74 63 61 61 67 64 70 67 70 63 67 63 64 74 SR-91 overpass to SR-91 EB on ramp 0.24 62 62 62 61 61 72 62 69 62 67 63 54 63 64 62 SR-91 EB on ramp to Magnolia Avenue 1.18 67 67 66 63 59 69 62 60 65 54 28 16 21 30 51 Magnolia Avenue to Ontario Avenue 1.57 69 69 68 65 61 68 63 66 64 23 17 20 11 29 21 Ontario Avenue to El Cerrito Road 0.85 64 64 71 67 67 75 73 71 29 26 26 29 20 23 25 El Cerrito Road to Cajalco Road 0.74 79 79 69 62 50 71 64 74 50 40 43 67 35 35 53 Cajalco Road to Dos Lagos Drive 1.00 64 64 65 63 63 72 69 60 51 45 46 57 Speeds (mph) 0-30 30-45 45-55 55-65 >65 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.26 3.3.2 Mainline Traffic by Hour Northbound I-15 traffic south of SR 91 is heaviest during the morning peak hours with demand ramping up quickly as early as 5 AM. Figure 3-11 shows traffic volumes on northbound I-15 by hour and day of week south of Cajalco Road. In the northbound direction, there is a distinct AM peak period with a maximum hourly volume of over 5,000 vehicles between 6 and 7 AM. This volume represents 6.8 percent of the average weekday volume. However, the traffic drop recorded during the 7 to 8 AM and 8 to 9 AM hours indicates that I-15 is traffic flow is constricted during that time due to downstream bottlenecks. Travel speeds recorded during the 7 to 8 AM and 8 to 9 AM hours show the segment between Dos Lagos Road and Cajalco Road operating at just over 20 mph between 7 and 8 AM and improving to just under 30 mph between 8 and 9 AM. The data indicate that while traffic counts are low in this area between 7 and 9 AM, travel demand is still high. During the rest of the day, demand declines before increasing over 4,000 vehicles per hour during the early evening rush hours, and then rapidly declining throughout the rest of the evening and early morning hours. The data demonstrate little variation between traffic on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, but Friday travel demand is more broadly distributed. On Fridays, demand is higher than it is on the other weekdays by late morning and continues to be elevated through midnight. This pattern of higher late day demand on Friday may be indicative of recreational traffic destined for points north, including Las Vegas. Figure 3-11: I-15 NB Weekday Traffic Profiles – South of Cajalco Road 49 21 29 66 59 68 64 66 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMTraffic Volume (vehicles) Hour Beginning Tue-Thu Speed (mph)Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Tue-Thu I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.27 In the southbound direction south of SR 91, peak volumes occur between 3 and 7 PM. During that time, the maximum average hourly Tuesday to Thursday volume is almost 5,500 vehicles and occurs during the 4 to 5 PM hour, as illustrated in Figure 3-12. This volume represents 7.1 percent of the 24-hour weekday volume. Travel speeds in this segment range from 45 to 51 mph during the PM peak period, but speeds upstream, as shown in Table 3-5, are low and indicative of constrained throughput south of Cajalco Road. Southbound traffic is elevated during all four hours of the 3 to 7 PM peak period, as well as the 2 to 3 PM hour preceding the peak period. Traffic volumes during other times of day, including the AM peak period are far lower than levels seen during the PM. Figure 3-12: I-15 SB Weekday Traffic Profiles – South of Cajalco Road I-15 traffic volumes north of SR 91 are more evenly distributed between the AM and PM peak periods than they are south of SR 91. This is indicative of how I-15 serves as a connection to SR 91 to the south, and SR 60 and I-10 to the north. All three of these east-west freeways are principal connections to and from employment centers toward the west in Orange County and Los Angeles. I-15 is a major route to and from these freeways. In the northbound direction, traffic peaks during both the AM and PM peak period with a maximum average hourly volume of nearly 4,700 from 6 to 7 AM, which represents 6.4 percent of the 24-hour weekday volume. Traffic peaks again between 5 and 6 PM at nearly 4,700 vehicles. Figure 3-13 shows the hourly traffic volumes by day of week between Limonite Avenue and Sixth Street on northbound I-15. Between 7 and 8 AM, travel speeds drop to 31 mph. The low travel 64 64 63 70 51 46 45 51 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMTraffic Volume (vehicles) Hour Beginning Tue-Thu Speed (mph)Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Tue-Thu I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.28 speed along with low traffic volume indicates that downstream congestion limits the amount of traffic that can be processed at this location. Travel demand during the 7 to 8 AM hour is likely greater than the roadway is able to process during this time of day. During the PM peak period, travel speeds range from 47 to 51 mph, which indicate that demand is not being constrained by any downstream bottlenecks. Figure 3-13: I-15 NB Weekday Traffic Profile – Limonite Avenue to Sixth Street In the southbound direction, I-15 traffic north of SR 91 also peaks during both the AM and PM peak periods but is heavier during the PM peak period. The AM peak period traffic profile is concentrated from 7 to 9 AM while the PM profile is distributed across the entire 3 to 7 PM peak period. As shown in Figure 3-14 the maximum average hourly volume in the AM period is about 4,800 recorded from 7 to 8 AM, while the maximum hourly volume in the PM period is around 4,650 but occurs every hour from 3 to 6 PM. AM peak travel speeds ranging from 59 to 68 mph along with little delay upstream or downstream indicate that traffic counts at this location and time of day are representative of demand. During the PM peak period, travel speed data show congestion at this location as well as congestion upstream in the vicinity of Cantu Galleano Ranch Road. This data along with the traffic counts presented indicate that PM peak period travel demand is higher than indicated by traffic counts. 46 31 49 67 51 47 49 47 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMTraffic Volume Hour Beginning Tue-Thu Speed (mph)Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Tue-Thu I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.29 Figure 3-14: I-15 SB Weekday Traffic Profile – Limonite Avenue to Sixth Street 3.3.3 Ramp Volumes Ramp volumes were collected along the entire I-15 corridor to identify the most heavily used ramps and to create balanced networks. Table 3-6 shows the average weekday daily, AM, and PM ramp volumes on I-15 northbound. The most popular on-ramps in the AM period are the on-ramps at Limonite Avenue and Cajalco Road. The volumes on these ramps during the morning are high enough to cause delay on the freeway. During the PM period, the highest on- ramp volumes are the ramps from East Ontario Avenue, Limonite Avenue, and Hidden Valley Parkway. The most utilized off-ramps during the AM period are Hidden Valley Parkway, East Ontario Avenue, and Magnolia Avenue. In the PM period, the most utilized off-ramp is Limonite Avenue. 66 59 63 68 38 44 57 65 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMTraffic Volumes Hour Beginning Tue-Thu Speed (mph)Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Tue-Thu I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.30 Table 3-6: Average Weekday Northbound Ramp Volumes Table 3-7 shows the average weekday daily, AM, and PM ramp volumes on I-15 southbound. The most popular on-ramps during the AM period other than the on-ramps from SR 91 are the ramps from Limonite Avenue and Sixth Street. In the PM period, the most popular on-ramps are from Limonite Avenue, Second Street, and East Ontario Avenue. The most popular off-ramps in the AM period aside from the off-ramps to SR 91 are Hidden Valley Parkway and Magnolia Avenue. In the PM period, the most utilized off-ramps are Magnolia Avenue and Hidden Valley Parkway. Cross-Street Ramp Daily 6-10 AM 3-7 PM On 7,633 1,925 1,874 Off 2,412 661 424 On 14,442 3,682 3,092 Off 12,556 1,934 3,852 On 9,979 2,071 2,559 Off 10,550 1,778 2,690 On 6,184 1,036 2,032 Off 9,290 2,335 2,298 On 11,146 2,286 3,172 Off 12,605 3,161 2,612 EB On 22,470 5,182 5,052 WB On 20,388 4,518 4,649 Off 56,434 11,586 12,794 SB On 6,240 956 1,246 NB On 13,438 2,777 3,034 Off 10,419 2,920 2,196 On 13,748 3,201 3,304 Off 10,155 2,998 2,043 On 5,289 1,698 1,004 Off 4,541 1,074 1,148 On 13,318 3,530 2,767 Off 4,520 757 1,308 On 144,276 32,863 33,785 Off 133,481 29,205 31,365 SR-91 Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road Limonite Avenue Sixth Street Second Street Hidden Valley Parkway Magnolia Avenue East Ontario Avenue El Cerrito Road Cajalco Road Ramp Totals I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.31 Table 3-7: Average Weekday Southbound Ramp Volumes 3.3.4 Mainline Traffic – Demand Adjusted and Balanced Traffic by Hour During periods of significant congestion, traffic counts reflect traffic throughput and not demand. Adjustments need to be made to identify the travel demand for the corridor. These adjustments utilize speed and congestion information collected as part of the study, as well as mainline and ramp traffic counts. Hourly traffic count data were adjusted to reflect demand and to balance with upstream and downstream ramp and mainline counts. These balanced and adjusted counts were used to calibrate the forecasting models. The adjusted data generally show higher volumes than counted during the most congested times of day along sections of I-15, namely the northbound I-15 between 2nd Street and SR 60 in the morning and the southbound I-15 between SR 91 and Cajalco Road during the evening. The demand adjusted and balanced hourly traffic distribution for northbound and southbound I-15 between Dos Lagos Road and Cajalco Road is shown in Figure 3-15. Northbound, counts were taken to represent demand because this traffic count measures the demand approaching the northbound I-15 ELP. Peak hour traffic in the morning is maintained at approximately 5,000 Cross-Street Ramp Daily 6-10 AM 3-7 PM Off 7,926 1,567 2,238 EB On 1,822 253 573 WB On 1,513 239 699 Off 12,685 2,360 2,999 On 12,310 2,824 3,048 Off 10,242 2,347 2,985 On 10,210 2,448 2,358 Off 6,754 2,055 1,405 On 10,209 1,802 3,105 Off 13,368 3,978 3,144 On 9,951 1,632 2,430 WB Off 18,473 3,356 4,740 EB Off 18,292 4,257 3,942 EB On 27,804 5,372 6,947 WB On 26,241 5,654 6,362 Off 21,483 4,778 5,193 On 9,345 1,594 2,506 Off 12,625 3,027 2,878 On 11,219 1,594 3,376 Off 5,233 827 1,621 On 6,621 988 2,837 Off 11,589 2,052 2,948 On 5,563 672 2,147 On 132,808 25,073 36,389 Off 138,669 30,604 34,093 Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road El Cerrito Road Cajalco Road Ramp Totals Sixth Street Second Street Hidden Valley Parkway SR-91 Magnolia Avenue East Ontario Avenue Limonite Avenue I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.32 vehicles per hour between 6 and 7 AM and declines from 7 to 8 AM due to congestion. Southbound, traffic counts are adjusted upward between 3 and 6 PM and downward between 6 and 8 PM to reflect congestion and the demand over capacity condition that exists south of Cajalco Road. From 3 to 6 PM, demand is estimated at approximately 6,000 vehicles per hour, which exceeds the counted volumes of approximately 5,500 vehicles per hour. The data were adjusted by pivoting from upstream mainline count locations and balancing traffic based on ramp counts, and adjusting based on observations of congestion. Figure 3-15: Weekday Hourly Traffic Profile – South of Cajalco Road Demand adjusted and balanced hourly traffic north of SR 91 between Limonite Avenue and Cantu Galleano Ranch Road is presented in Figure 3-16. AM peak hour demand exceeds 5,500 vehicles per hour between the 6 to 7 AM and 7 to 8 AM hours. Southbound, demand exceeds 5,000 vehicles per hour during the 5 to 6 PM peak hour. 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMNB SB I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.33 Figure 3-16: Hourly Traffic Profile – Limonite Avenue to Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road 3.3.5 Heavy Vehicle Composition Traffic data collected by Stantec in June 2015 show that approximately 10 percent of vehicles on the I-15 corridor both north and south of SR 91 are either medium or heavy trucks. Truck share is lowest during the AM peak period in the northbound direction (7 to 9 percent trucks) and the PM peak period in the southbound direction (6 percent trucks) largely because the volume of passenger cars increases greatly during those periods and directions. Figure 3-17 shows the vehicle composition by direction on I-15 south of Cajalco Road during a typical weekday. The traffic recording equipment (Wavetronix radar units) catalogue vehicles by 3 length classes: 1) less than 22 feet, 2) 22 to 40 feet, and 3) greater than 40 feet. In general, vehicles less than 22 feet long can be regarded as passenger vehicles including motorcycles, sedans, SUVs, and pick- up trucks. Vehicles between 22 and 40 feet in length are generally single unit trucks and small buses (referred to as medium trucks). Vehicles greater than 40 feet long are tractor trailer trucks (referred to as heavy trucks). Vehicles less than 22 feet (referred to as passenger vehicles) make up the majority of traffic at all times of day. In both directions, passenger vehicles are at their highest levels during peak travel periods. Figure 3-18 shows the vehicle composition by direction on I-15 south of Limonite Avenue during a typical weekday. 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMNB SB I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.34 Figure 3-17: I-15 Weekday Vehicle Composition – South of Cajalco Road Figure 3-18: I-15 Vehicle Composition – South of Limonite Avenue 90% 6% 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Less than 22' (Passenger Cars) 22'-40' (Medium Truck) Greater than 40' (Heavy Truck) Vehicle Length Southbound Daily 90% 6% 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Less than 22' (Passenger Cars) 22'-40' (Medium Truck) Greater than 40' (Heavy Truck) Vehicle Length Northbound Daily 91% 4% 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Less than 22' (Passenger Cars) 22'-40' (Medium Truck) Greater than 40' (Heavy Truck) Vehicle Length Southbound Daily 91% 5% 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Less than 22' (Passenger Cars) 22'-40' (Medium Truck) Greater than 40' (Heavy Truck) Vehicle Length Northbound Daily I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.35 3.3.6 Seasonality of Traffic The bulk of traffic data were collected in June 2015 and were adjusted to reflect an average weekday for the entire year before being used to benchmark model results. A set of “seasonality factors” were developed from Stantec’s review of traffic throughout a 12-month period. Table 3-8 shows the seasonality factors used to convert I-15 traffic volumes measured in June 2015 into equivalent annual traffic volumes. These factors are based on PeMS traffic count data on I-15 in the project area. The AM and PM peak period factors are close to 1.00, indicating that peak period traffic on I-15 in June varies little compared to the average annual traffic. The nighttime peak period factors are below 0.95, indicating that there is over 5 percent more nighttime traffic on I-15 in June than during the rest of the year. Table 3-8: I-15 Seasonality Factors for Average Weekdays (Tuesday-Thursday) 3.3.7 Balanced Traffic Network Using these seasonality factors, as well as the ramp volumes and the mainline volumes from the count program, Stantec created balanced networks for the I-15 corridor. Figure 3-19, Figure 3-20, and Figure 3-21 show the balanced network for the entire day, 7 to 8 AM hour, and the 5 to 6 PM hour. Time Period Southbound Traffic Northbound Traffic AM Peak Period 0.99 0.98 Midday Period 0.96 0.96 PM Peak Period 1.01 1.00 Night Period 0.93 0.94 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.36 Figure 3-19: I-15 Daily Traffic Stick Diagram I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.37 Figure 3-20: I-15 Stick Diagram – 7 to 8 AM Travel Demand I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.38 Figure 3-21: I-15 Stick Diagram – 5 to 6 PM Travel Demand I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.39 3.3.8 I-15 Mainline Traffic by Day of Week The I-15 is a route that serves both recreational and commuter traffic. Las Vegas is located 230 miles to the northeast, the Lake Elsinore recreational area is located 20 miles to the south, and San Diego is located 90 miles to the south. The data show that traffic on the I-15 corridor is typically higher on Fridays than traffic on an average Tuesday to Thursday. South of SR 91, Friday traffic was observed to be approximately 4 percent higher than the average Tuesday to Thursday, while north of SR 91, Friday traffic was observed to be 2.7 percent higher northbound and 1.2 percent higher southbound than traffic on an average Tuesday to Thursday. Nearly all of the traffic increase observed over the 24-hour period is concentrated during the off-peak periods. Both north and south of SR 91, midday and night period traffic on Fridays exceed that of the Tuesday to Thursday average while AM and PM peak period traffic on Fridays are similar. Figure 3-22 and Figure 3-23 compare period volumes south of Cajalco Road for Tuesday- Thursday to Friday, Saturday, and Sunday on I-15 northbound and southbound, respectively. Figure 3-24 and Figure 3-25 compare period volumes south of Limonite Avenue for Tuesday- Thursday to Friday, Saturday, and Sunday on I-15 northbound and southbound, respectively. I-15 traffic south of SR 91 on Saturdays is greater than traffic observed on both the average of Tuesday to Thursday as well as Friday. South of SR 91 Saturday traffic is almost 5 percent higher than traffic on the average Tuesday to Thursday, and about half a percent higher than recorded on Fridays. Saturday traffic is more evenly distributed throughout the midday, PM, and night periods; however, Saturday AM traffic is far lower than weekday AM traffic. Saturday traffic north of SR 91 is lower than traffic on both the average Tuesday to Thursday by 10 percent. On Sundays, daily traffic both north and south of SR 91 is lower than it is during the rest of the week. South of SR 91, northbound traffic is 10 percent lower than the average Tuesday to Thursday while southbound traffic is 18 percent lower. North of SR 91 Sunday northbound traffic is 24 percent lower than the average Tuesday to Thursday, while southbound traffic is 20 percent lower. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.40 Figure 3-22: I-15 NB Volumes by Day of Week – South of Cajalco Road Figure 3-23: I-15 SB Volumes by Day of Week – South of Cajalco Road 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 Total 6-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM 3-7 PM 7 PM-6 AMTraffic VolumeTue-Thu Fri Sat Sun 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 Total 6-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM 3-7 PM 7 PM-6 AMTraffic VolumeTues-Th Fri Sat Sun I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.41 Figure 3-24: I-15 NB Volumes by Day of Week – South of Limonite Avenue Figure 3-25: I-15 SB Volumes by Day of Week – South of Limonite Avenue 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 Total 6-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM 3-7 PM 7 PM-6 AMTraffic VolumeTues-Th Fri Sat Sun 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 Total 6-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM 3-7 PM 7 PM-6 AMTraffic VolumeTues-Th Fri Sat Sun I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.42 3.3.9 Origin-Destination Patterns on I-15 Origin-destination (OD) data on I-15 trips show that a minority of trips traverse the I-15 ELP corridor end to end (ie., Cajalco Road to/from SR 60) but instead generally are short trips between 6 and 7 miles on average, although their ultimate destination (place of business, home, etc.) may be further away. This section discusses the origins and destinations of I-15 trips, with a focus on trips to/from I-15 south of Cajalco Road, trips to/from SR 91 west of I-15, and trips to/from SR 60 and I-15 north of SR 60. OD Count Program The origin-destination survey was conducted during the first half of June 2015, from June 1 to June 12, 2015. Bluetooth sensors were deployed along various locations as depicted in Figure 3-26, and listed below:  SR 60 west of I-15  SR 60 east of I-15  I-15 between SR 60 and Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd  I-15 between Limonite Avenue and 6th Street  I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and SR 91  SR 91 west of I-15  SR 91 east of I-15  I-15 between SR 91 and Magnolia Avenue  I-15 between Dos Lagos Drive and Cajalco Road The sensors sample the I-15 corridor OD patterns by recording the number of vehicles passing through the I-15, SR 91, or SR 60 that are equipped with Bluetooth enabled devices (smartphones, Bluetooth enabled cars, etc). These sample data are then expanded based on mainline and ramp traffic counts to estimate an origin-destination volume matrix for the I-15 corridor. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.43 Figure 3-26: Origin-Destination Data Collection Program I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.44 OD Patterns – Trips to/from I-15 South Origin-destination data show that relatively few trips traverse the full 15 miles of the I-15 ELP corridor. Traffic generally uses the corridor in two halves with the SR 91 serving as a major origin and destination for traffic. Northbound I-15 AM peak period origin-destination patterns are of interest because traffic, and potential I-15 ELP usage, would be greatest in this direction and time of day. Eighteen percent of northbound trips originating from I-15 south of Cajalco Road during the AM peak period were destined for SR 60 or points north along I-15. Twenty-seven percent of those trips exited to SR 91 with 20 of the 27 percent (or three-quarters) destined for SR 91 westbound. The greatest share of trips, 41 percent, exited I-15 south of SR 91. These vehicles exited to Cajalco Road, El Cerrito Road, Ontario Avenue, or Magnolia Avenue. It is likely that a substantial share of these vehicles exiting are using the local roadways southwest of the I-15/SR 91 interchange as an alternative route to traveling on the heavily congested westbound SR 91 during the morning. Figure 3-27 illustrates OD patterns for trips observed on the northbound I-15 during the AM peak period starting south of Cajalco Road and the southbound I-15 during the PM peak period destined for points south of Cajalco Road. Trips destined for southbound I-15 south of Cajalco Road during the PM peak period can generally be interpreted as the return trip for NB AM peak trips. PM peak period “return trip” OD data show patterns that are comparable to NB AM patterns. Only 13 percent of trips traverse the full corridor, while 27 percent come from SR 91, and 48 percent from the Magnolia Avenue, Ontario Avenue, El Cerrito Road, or Cajalco Road. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.45 Figure 3-27: Origins and Destinations to/from south of Cajalco Road *OD percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding. SB PM NB AM I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.46 OD Patterns – Trips to/from SR 91 West Traffic destined for the heavily congested westbound SR 91 in the morning via I-15 mostly originates from points south of SR 91. Thirty-seven percent of trips going from northbound I-15 to westbound SR 91 come from I-15 south of Cajalco Road. Cajalco Road, El Cerrito Road, Ontario Avenue, and Magnolia Avenue collectively account for 29 percent of the origins. Southbound I-15 traffic north of SR 91 account for 34 percent of trips destined for WB SR 91 with just over half coming from SR 60 or points north along I-15. The lower share of WB SR 91 traffic coming from southbound I-15 is indicative of the availability of SR 60 to the north as an alternative for travel into Los Angeles, and to lesser extent, for travel into Orange County. Figure 3-28 illustrates OD patterns for trips coming from I-15 and destined for WB SR 91 during the AM peak period and for trips coming from SR 91 EB and destined for I-15 during the PM peak period. During the PM peak period, EB SR 91 is heavily traveled, largely by commuters returning home from employment centers to the west. Trips from EB SR 91 to I-15 are more heavily distributed to I-15 south of SR 91 than they are to north of SR 91. Twenty percent of these trips are destined for the local exits at Magnolia Avenue, Ontario Avenue, El Cerrito Road, or Cajalco Road, while 37 percent continue south on I-15 past Cajalco Road. Trips destined for northbound I-15 are split 22 percent to the local exits at Hidden Valley Parkway, 2nd Street, 6th Street, Limonite Avenue, or Cantu Galleano Ranch Road and 20 percent to SR 60 or points along I-15 north of SR 60. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.47 Figure 3-28: Origins and Destinations to/from SR 91 west *OD percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding. SB PM NB AM I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.48 OD Patterns – Trips to/from I-15 North of Cantu Galleano Ranch Road Trips destined for I-15 north of Cantu Galleano Ranch Road (SR 60 or I-15 north of SR 60) largely originate from the local entrance ramps at Hidden Valley Parkway, 2 nd Street, 6th Street, Limonite Avenue, or Cantu Galleano Ranch Road. As shown in Figure 3-29, 47 percent of trips destined for the northern end of the I-15 corridor originate from these local entrance ramps north of SR 91. Only 15 percent of those trips came from the southern end of the corridor south of Cajalco Road while another 13 percent come from the local entrance ramps between Cajalco Road and SR 91. SR 91 accounts for 25 percent of trips, with approximately two-thirds from EB SR 91. During the PM, trips on I-15 southbound north of Cantu Galleano Ranch Road are largely destined for the local exit ramps north of SR 91. As shown in Figure 3-29, 56 percent of vehicles on southbound I-15 starting north of Cantu Galleano Ranch Road exit to either Limonite Avenue, 6th Street, 2nd Street, or Hidden Valley Parkway. This pattern is consistent with the AM peak period outbound share of 47 percent. Only 14 percent traverse the entire 15-mile corridor between SR 6o and Cajalco Road and a similar percentage exit to the local ramps south of SR 91. Seventeen percent are destined for SR 91 with about 12 of the 17 percent heading westbound and 5 of the 17 percent heading eastbound. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.49 Figure 3-29: Origins and Destinations to/from north of Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road *OD percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding. Origin-destination percentages for all OD’s provide further detail on individual movements. This data for both northbound and southbound I-15 during the AM and PM peak periods are presented in Table 3-9 to Table 3-12. SB PM NB AM I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.50 Table 3-9: Origin-Destination Matrix, I-15 NB AM Table 3-10: Origin-Destination Matrix, I-15 NB PM DESTINATION ORIGIN North of SR-60 SR-60 WB SR-60 EB Cantu- Galleano Ranch Rd Limonite Ave Sixth St Second St Hidden Valley Pkwy SR-91 WB SR-91 EB Magnolia Ave Ontario Ave El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd Total Cantu- Galleano Ranch Rd 66% 26% 8%100% Limonite Ave 66% 26% 8% 1%100% Sixth St 65% 12% 7% 4% 12%100% Second St 65% 12% 7% 4% 12% 1%100% Hidden Valley Pkwy 64% 12% 6% 4% 11% 2% 1%100% SR-91 EB 37% 14% 17% 3% 9% 8% 8% 4%100% SR-91 WB 10% 19% 13% 2% 7% 19% 18% 10%100% Magnolia Ave 16% 6% 2% 1% 3% 2% 4% 9% 24% 33%100% Ontario Ave 15% 6% 2% 1% 3% 2% 4% 9% 24% 33% 1%100% El Cerrito Rd 16% 6% 2% 1% 3% 1% 4% 9% 23% 32% 2% 1%100% Cajalco Rd 15% 5% 2% 1% 3% 1% 4% 9% 22% 31% 3% 2% 1%100% South of Cajalco Rd 9% 6% 3% 0% 1% 1% 3% 8% 20% 7% 15% 16% 6% 4% 100% DESTINATION ORIGIN North of SR-60 SR-60 WB SR-60 EB Cantu- Galleano Ranch Rd Limonite Ave Sixth St Second St Hidden Valley Pkwy SR-91 WB SR-91 EB Magnolia Ave Ontario Ave El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd Total Cantu- Galleano Ranch Rd 70% 16% 14%100% Limonite Ave 69% 16% 14% 1%100% Sixth St 55% 11% 11% 2% 21%100% Second St 54% 11% 11% 2% 21% 1%100% Hidden Valley Pkwy 52% 10% 10% 2% 20% 3% 2%100% SR-91 EB 28% 8% 12% 1% 12% 16% 13% 9%100% SR-91 WB 8% 14% 6% 1% 8% 27% 21% 15%100% Magnolia Ave 19% 5% 6% 1% 9% 1% 1% 3% 21% 34%100% Ontario Ave 19% 5% 5% 1% 9% 1% 1% 3% 21% 34% 2%100% El Cerrito Rd 18% 5% 5% 1% 8% 1% 1% 3% 20% 33% 3% 2%100% Cajalco Rd 17% 5% 5% 1% 8% 1% 1% 3% 19% 31% 4% 3% 1%100% South of Cajalco Rd 4% 3% 1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 7% 32% 5% 13% 12% 7% 8% 100% I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.51 Table 3-11: Origin-Destination Matrix, I-15 SB AM Table 3-12: Origin-Destination Matrix, I-15 SB PM DESTINATION ORIGIN Cantu- Galleano Ranch Rd Limonite Ave Sixth St Second St Hidden Valley Pkwy SR-91 WB SR-91 EB Magnolia Ave Ontario Ave El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd South of Cajalco Rd Total North of SR 60 5% 9% 17% 14% 23% 7% 4% 7% 4% 1% 3% 5% 100% SR-60 EB 7% 9% 10% 8% 13% 11% 14% 1% 1% 0% 0% 25% 100% SR-60 WB 14% 20% 8% 7% 11% 13% 8% 2% 1% 0% 1% 16% 100%Cantu- Galleano Ranch Rd 1% 2% 4% 18% 17% 18% 8% 5% 1% 3% 22% 100% Limonite Ave 1% 3% 19% 17% 18% 9% 5% 1% 3% 22% 100% Sixth St 1% 10% 15% 36% 11% 7% 2% 4% 13% 100% Second St 1% 17% 40% 13% 8% 2% 5% 14% 100% Hidden Valley Pkwy 17% 41% 13% 8% 2% 5% 15% 100% SR-91 EB 23% 14% 4% 9% 50% 100% SR-91 WB 33% 21% 5% 13% 27% 100% Magnolia Ave 2% 3% 7% 88% 100% Ontario Ave 2% 4% 95% 100% El Cerrito Rd 2% 98% 100% Cajalco Rd 100% 100% DESTINATION ORIGIN Cantu- Galleano Ranch Rd Limonite Ave Sixth St Second St Hidden Valley Pkwy SR-91 WB SR-91 EB Magnolia Ave Ontario Ave El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd South of Cajalco Rd Total North of SR-60 5% 9% 14% 6% 13% 13% 4% 8% 5% 3% 5% 16% 100% SR-60 EB 18% 21% 9% 4% 8% 9% 9% 2% 1% 1% 1% 18% 100% SR-60 WB 18% 20% 15% 6% 13% 13% 5% 1% 1% 0% 1% 7% 100%Cantu- Galleano Ranch Rd 1% 6% 5% 10% 26% 19% 5% 3% 1% 3% 22% 100% Limonite Ave 3% 5% 10% 27% 20% 5% 3% 1% 3% 22% 100% Sixth St 3% 8% 12% 24% 13% 7% 4% 7% 21% 100% Second St 1% 13% 26% 15% 8% 4% 8% 24% 100% Hidden Valley Pkwy 13% 27% 15% 8% 5% 8% 24% 100% SR-91 EB 15% 8% 4% 8% 65% 100% SR-91 WB 31% 17% 9% 17% 26% 100% Magnolia Ave 1% 2% 2% 96% 100% Ontario Ave 0% 2% 98% 100% El Cerrito Rd 0% 100% 100% Cajalco Rd 100% 100% I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.52 3.3.10 SR 91 Travel Speeds and Traffic Counts SR 91 in Riverside and Orange County is a major feeder route for I-15 traffic. A substantial share of traffic originating from or destined to I-15 south of SR 91 is either destined for or came from SR 91. Regionally, SR 91 is one of three east-west freeways that connect Riverside County with Orange County and Los Angeles County. SR 91 is the most direct and highest capacity route for traffic starting from I-15 to the south destined for Orange County. The only alternative is SR 74, an arterial that winds through the Santa Ana mountains. SR 74 is not considered a significant competitor to SR 91. In Riverside County between the Riverside-Orange County Line and I-15, the SR 91 generally has four general purpose (GP) lanes in each direction and one HOV-2+ carpool lane in each direction. The RCTC is currently upgrading the SR 91 corridor between the County Line and I-15 to have five GP lanes in each direction and two Express Lanes in each direction. East of I-15, one GP lane is dropped at McKinley Street (one interchange east of I-15) leaving three GP lanes. In Orange County, SR 91 has generally 5 GP lanes per direction and two parallel Express Lanes (the “OCTA 91 Express Lanes”). Travel on SR 91 is generally heaviest in the morning in the westbound direction and during the evening in the eastbound direction. This section discusses general traffic conditions on SR 91 in Riverside and Orange County. AM Peak Period Travel on SR 91 The westbound SR 91 general purpose lanes in Riverside County are heavily congested during the AM peak period. Congestion exists between the Riverside-Orange County Line located between Green River Road and SR 241 and I-15. It is common for queues on westbound SR 91 to extend past the I-15 interchange. West of the Riverside-Orange County Line, additional GP and Express Lane capacity result in improved travel conditions. Delays still exist approaching the SR 55 / SR 91 interchange. Stantec conducted floating car travel time surveys as part of the data collection program and the results show that the approximately 18-mile trip between I-15 to N. Kraemer Blvd west of SR 55 can require 45 minutes, representing delays of over 30 minutes. The vast majority of the delay is concentrated on SR 91 in Riverside County. Westbound SR 91 traffic peaks early during the morning as shown in Table 3-13. Travel speeds on the SR 91 in Riverside and Orange County are already very low during the 6 to 7 AM hour. Spot observations of traffic from 5 to 6 AM also indicate the roadway is congested. By the 8 to 9 AM hour, operations improve and delays are largely dissipated by 10 AM. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.53 Figure 3-30: Westbound SR 91 GP Lane Travel Time Run – AM Peak Source: Stantec travel time run I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.54 Table 3-13: Westbound SR 91 Travel Speeds, I-15 to west of SR 55 – 6-10 AM Source: Stantec travel time runs. June and September 2015 The eastbound SR 91 GP lanes operate at or near free-flow speed during the morning. The reverse trip from N. Kraemer Blvd to I-15 takes 18 minutes or averages about 60 miles per hour. Travel demand in this direction is relatively light, showing far fewer motorists are reverse commuting from Orange and Los Angeles Counties into Riverside County. This free-flow condition was observed throughout the 6 to 10 AM observation period as shown in Table 3-14. WB 91 Segment Dist. (mi)6-7am7-8am8-9am9-10amDiverge from I-15 SB to WB Entrance from I-15 SB 0.50 6 43 WB Entrance from I-15 SB to WB Entrance from I-15 NB 0.20 4 40 Diverge from I-15 NB to WB Entrance from I-15 NB 1.00 WB Entrance from I-15 NB to WB Entrance from Main St 0.80 6 7 42 56 WB Entrance from Main St to WB Entrance from W Grand 0.35 9 11 45 63 WB Entrance from W Grand to WB Entrance from S Lincoln 0.61 12 13 24 60 WB Entrance from S Lincoln to WB Entrance from Maple 1.05 14 16 35 61 WB Entrance from Maple to WB Entrance from Serfas Club 0.78 35 33 36 65 WB Entrance from Serfas Club to WB Entrance from SR-71 1.66 18 25 42 52 WB Entrance from SR-71 to WB Exit to Green River 0.65 19 41 49 57 WB Exit to Green River to WB Entrance from Green River 0.46 18 40 35 34 WB Entrance from Green River to Overpass at Coal Canyon 1.67 34 45 45 58 Overpass at Coal Canyon to WB Exit to SR-241 1.02 64 63 66 72 WB Exit to SR-241 to WB Entrance from Gypsum Canyon 0.77 66 70 70 73 WB Entrance from Gypsum Canyon to WB Entrance from SR-241 0.77 74 74 72 71 WB Entrance from SR-241 to WB Entrance from Yorba Linda 1.23 68 69 72 71 WB Entrance from Yorba Linda to WB Entrance from Imperial 2.97 68 71 69 70 WB Entrance from Imperial to WB Entrance from Lakeview 1.33 33 47 38 67 WB Entrance from Lakeview to WB Exit to SR-55 0.40 30 54 36 43 WB Exit to SR-55 to WB Entrance from SR-55 0.61 56 36 22 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.55 Figure 3-31: Eastbound SR 91 GP Lane Travel Time Run – AM Peak Source: Stantec travel time run I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.56 Table 3-14: Eastbound SR 91 Travel Speeds, west of SR 55 to I-15 – 6-10 AM Source: Stantec travel time runs. June and September 2015 Eastbound 91 Segment Dist. (mi)6-7am7-8am8-9am9-10amEB Entrance from Kreamer Blvd to EB Entrance from Tustin Ave 0.70 63 57 63 63 EB Entrance from Tustin Ave to EB Exit to SR-55 0.46 63 51 61 63 EB Exit to SR-55 to EB Entrance from SR-55 0.42 59 56 59 59 EB Entrance from SR-55 to EB Entrance from Lakeview 1.05 71 71 69 68 EB Entrance from Lakeview to EB Entrance from Imperial 1.40 70 69 67 66 EB Entrance from Imperial to EB Entrance from Yorba Linda 2.96 69 69 69 69 EB Entrance from Yorba Linda to EB Exit to SR-241 0.60 72 72 71 72 EB Exit to SR-241 to EB Entrance from Gypsum Canyon 1.34 69 69 70 70 EB Entrance from Gypsum Canyon to EB Entrance from SR-241 0.21 79 73 69 72 EB Entrance from SR-241 to Overpass at Coal Canyon 1.08 70 68 68 68 Overpass at Coal Canyon to EB Exit to Green River 1.76 73 70 70 73 EB Exit to Green River to EB Entrance from Green River 0.43 75 71 67 65 EB Entrance from Green River to EB Entrance from SR-71 1.41 74 66 69 72 EB Entrance from SR-71 to EB Entrance from Serfas Club 1.21 70 66 65 64 EB Entrance from Serfas Club to EB Entrance from Maple 0.54 75 63 66 66 EB Entrance from Maple to EB Entrance from S Lincoln 1.24 72 66 65 63 EB Entrance from S Lincoln to EB Exit to W. Grand 0.16 54 62 52 35 EB Exit to W. Grand to EB Entrance from Main St 0.82 51 60 51 44 EB Entrance from Main St to Exit to I-15 0.44 57 62 55 52 Exit to I-15 to Diverge in I-15 Ramp 0.19 58 56 52 48 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.57 PM Peak Period Travel on SR 91 During the PM peak period, motorists experience slow speeds traveling eastbound on the SR 91 GP lanes in both Orange and Riverside Counties. A travel time run starting at just past 3 PM at N. Kraemer Blvd ended just past I-15 over one hour later. This approximately 18-mile trip took 66 minutes, averaging 16 miles per hour. Queues in Orange County regularly extend well past the Weir Canyon Road / Yorba Linda Blvd interchange. The delay is attributable to heavy demand entering SR 91 EB from SR 241 and Gypsum Canyon Road, as well as queues that are spilling back from Riverside County downstream. In Orange County, the SR 91 Express Lanes operate largely without delay and regularly process over 3,000 vehicles per hour during the PM peak. Continuing eastbound into Riverside County, the number of lanes drops from 5 GP and 2 Express Lanes to 4 GP lanes and 1 HOV lane east of Serfas Club Drive. This lane drop results in congestion and queuing. Past Serfas Club Drive, congestion continues as the lanes approach McKinley Street (east of I-15, but not shown on the travel time run map), where the corridor reduces from four to three GP lanes. Figure 3-32: SR 91 Eastbound GP Lanes, Travel Time Run – PM Peak Source: Stantec travel time run I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.58 Heavy delays are observed on the EB 91 GP lanes throughout the 3 to 7 PM period between Imperial Highway in Orange County and past I-15 in Riverside County. Delays have been observed on a spot basis starting at 2 PM and dissipating by 8 PM. Table 3-15 shows speeds by segment recorded via travel time runs between 3 and 7 PM. Table 3-15: Eastbound SR 91 Travel Speeds, west of SR 55 to I-15 – 3-7 PM Source: Stantec travel time runs. June and September 2015 Eastbound 91 Segment Dist. (mi)3-4 pm4-5 pm5-6 pm6-7 pmEB Entrance from Kreamer Blvd to EB Entrance from Tustin Ave 0.70 57 44 25 EB Entrance from Tustin Ave to EB Exit to SR-55 0.46 53 46 41 EB Exit to SR-55 to EB Entrance from SR-55 0.42 61 55 55 EB Entrance from SR-55 to EB Entrance from Lakeview 1.05 71 67 70 69 EB Entrance from Lakeview to EB Entrance from Imperial 1.40 69 71 71 68 EB Entrance from Imperial to EB Entrance from Yorba Linda 2.96 23 24 24 36 EB Entrance from Yorba Linda to EB Exit to SR-241 0.60 7 6 6 4 EB Exit to SR-241 to EB Entrance from Gypsum Canyon 1.34 11 12 8 16 EB Entrance from Gypsum Canyon to EB Entrance from SR-241 0.21 11 11 12 11 EB Entrance from SR-241 to Overpass at Coal Canyon 1.08 26 24 22 27 Overpass at Coal Canyon to EB Exit to Green River 1.76 22 22 25 36 EB Exit to Green River to EB Entrance from Green River 0.43 22 32 22 21 EB Entrance from Green River to EB Entrance from SR-71 1.41 17 20 22 24 EB Entrance from SR-71 to EB Entrance from Serfas Club 1.21 25 29 26 30 EB Entrance from Serfas Club to EB Entrance from Maple 0.54 33 39 44 EB Entrance from Maple to EB Entrance from S Lincoln 1.24 27 27 29 EB Entrance from S Lincoln to EB Exit to W. Grand 0.16 28 30 31 EB Exit to W. Grand to EB Entrance from Main St 0.82 30 28 28 EB Entrance from Main St to Exit to I-15 0.44 37 37 38 Exit to I-15 to Diverge in I-15 Ramp 0.19 45 41 38 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.59 Westbound SR 91 during the PM peak operates largely without delay in Riverside County but some delay is observed in Orange County approaching the SR 55 / SR 91 interchange. As shown in Figure 3-33, the 18-mile trip from I-15 to N. Kraemer Blvd west of SR 55 starting at 5:04 PM concluded 21 minutes later at 5:25 PM, averaging 51 miles per hour. Figure 3-33: SR 91 Westbound GP Lanes, Travel Time Run – PM Peak Source: Stantec travel time run Across the 3 to 7 PM period, westbound SR 91 in Riverside County largely operates without delay while westbound SR 91 between Lakeview Avenue and SR 55 is congested between 3 and 6 PM. Table 3-16 shows travel speed observations between 3 and 7 PM on the westbound SR 91 GP lanes. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.60 Table 3-16: Westbound SR 91 Travel Speeds, I-15 to SR 55 – 3-7 PM Source: Stantec travel time runs. June and September 2015 3.3.10.1 Traffic Count at the Riverside/Orange County Line Traffic counts on SR 91 recorded at the Riverside-Orange County Line, presented in Figure 3-34, demonstrate a multi-hour AM and PM peak period where demand maintains approximately 11,000 vehicles per hour. Westbound, 5 GP lanes and 1 HOV lane, widening to 2 Express Lanes are available. Eastbound, 5 GP lanes and 2 Express lanes are available to process traffic. The RCTC 91 EL initial phase project will widen this regional chokepoint by adding a 5th GP lane in each direction in Riverside County and 2 EL’s per direction. WB 91 Segment Dist. (mi)3-4 pm4-5 pm5-6 pm6-7 pmDiverge from I-15 SB to WB Entrance from I-15 SB 0.50 48 53 51 53 WB Entrance from I-15 SB to WB Entrance from I-15 NB 0.20 60 60 46 51 Diverge from I-15 NB to WB Entrance from I-15 NB 1.00 58 55 55 54 WB Entrance from I-15 NB to WB Entrance from Main St 0.80 63 61 59 63 WB Entrance from Main St to WB Entrance from W Grand 0.35 62 62 64 67 WB Entrance from W Grand to WB Entrance from S Lincoln 0.61 61 53 64 69 WB Entrance from S Lincoln to WB Entrance from Maple 1.05 65 64 64 69 WB Entrance from Maple to WB Entrance from Serfas Club 0.78 67 64 66 71 WB Entrance from Serfas Club to WB Entrance from SR-71 1.66 65 65 69 70 WB Entrance from SR-71 to WB Exit to Green River 0.65 67 64 68 67 WB Exit to Green River to WB Entrance from Green River 0.46 67 68 69 70 WB Entrance from Green River to Overpass at Coal Canyon 1.67 58 66 66 72 Overpass at Coal Canyon to WB Exit to SR-241 1.02 68 69 70 77 WB Exit to SR-241 to WB Entrance from Gypsum Canyon 0.77 60 72 66 73 WB Entrance from Gypsum Canyon to WB Entrance from SR-241 0.77 74 70 67 74 WB Entrance from SR-241 to WB Entrance from Yorba Linda 1.23 71 74 65 72 WB Entrance from Yorba Linda to WB Entrance from Imperial 2.97 59 63 68 69 WB Entrance from Imperial to WB Entrance from Lakeview 1.33 39 26 30 67 WB Entrance from Lakeview to WB Exit to SR-55 0.40 36 34 32 59 WB Exit to SR-55 to WB Entrance from SR-55 0.61 53 53 51 50 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.61 Figure 3-34: SR 91 Global Traffic by Hour – Riverside-Orange County Line 3.3.11 Orange County SR 91 Express Lanes Usage statistics on the SR 91 Express Lanes provide insight into motorists’ response to express lanes. The OCTA 91 Express Lanes extend for 10 miles from SR 55 in the west to the Riverside- Orange County Line in the east. There are two lanes per direction paralleling 5 GP lanes per direction. As shown in Table 3-17, an average of almost 36,000 vehicles per day use the 91 Express Lanes in either direction with about 28,000 of the vehicles (77 percent) paying a full toll. The remaining 23 percent are HOV-3+ carpools that are generally free, but are charged a 50 percent discounted toll between 4 and 6 PM in the eastbound direction. Gross potential toll revenue in fiscal year 2015 was $39.3 million with over 60 percent attributable to the eastbound express lanes. The average daily toll was $4.33 for travel on the eastbound lanes (full toll traffic only, excluding HOV) and $3.22 for travel on the westbound lanes. 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMWestbound SR 91 Eastbound 91 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.62 Table 3-17: SR 91 Express Lanes – FY 2015 Traffic and Revenue FY 2015 Statistics Full Facility Eastbound Westbound Gross Revenue (Annual, millions $) $39.3 $24.6 $14.7 Average Daily Traffic 35,900 19,300 16,600 Average Daily Full Toll Traffic 27,600 15,100 12,500 Average Toll (Full Toll Traffic Only) $3.82 $4.33 $3.22 Usage on the Express Lanes is highest westbound during the morning and eastbound during the evening. Westbound express lane usage regularly peaks at 2,000 vehicles per hour in the morning at a current high toll of $4.70 while eastbound express lane usage regularly peaks at over 3,000 vehicles per hour in the evening at a current high toll of $10.15 charged on Fridays from 3 to 4 PM. Tolls charged from Monday to Thursday from 4 to 5 PM range from a low of $4.85 on Monday to a high of $9.80 on Thursday. Figure 3-35 shows eastbound SR 91 Express Lanes weekday (Tuesday to Thursday average) traffic by hour and tolls charged. Figure 3-36 shows westbound SR 91 Express Lanes weekday traffic by hour and tolls charged. Usage of the Express Lanes generally increases and decreases in conjunction with global traffic, as shown in Figure 3-37. Figure 3-35: Eastbound 91 Express Lanes Traffic and Tolls – Average Tuesday-Thursday $0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00 $14.00 $16.00 0 400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000 2,400 2,800 3,200 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMEB Toll (Avg Tue-Thu)EB EL Volume I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Existing Conditions 3.63 Figure 3-36: Westbound 91 Express Lanes Traffic and Tolls – Average Tuesday-Thursday Figure 3-37: SR 91 Global & Express Traffic by Hour – Riverside-Orange County Line $0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00 $14.00 $16.00 0 400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000 2,400 2,800 3,200 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMWB Toll (Avg Tue-Thu)WB EL Volume 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMWestbound SR 91 Eastbound 91 WB EL Volume EB EL Volume I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.64 4.0 SOCIOECONOMIC VARIABLES AND LAND USE This section contains detailed forecasts and supporting commentary on socioeconomic trends in the four counties constituting the Study Area between 2015 and 2035 (the “Forecast Period”). The Study Area consists of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. Imperial, San Diego, and Ventura counties are also part of the modeled area but are not considered significant with regard to the proposed I-15 Express Lanes or the Riverside County highway network in general and the adopted forecasts from SCAG and SANDAG were therefore only validated at a cursory level for these counties. The forecast data developed by WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff for use in traffic modeling on the RCTC’s roads are referred to throughout this section as the “Base Case” forecasts . Sensitivity scenarios are covered in another section of the traffic and revenue report. 4.1 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS Employment1 in the Study Area is forecast to grow by 1.4 million jobs from 7.2 to 8.6 million during the Forecast Period, a compound annual growth rate of 0.9%. Households2 in the Study Area will grow by 1.3 million over the Forecast Period from 5.8 to 7.0 million, a 1.0% compound annual growth rate. Housing growth will closely track job growth region-wide, although housing production will vary by market due to differing levels of developable land availability and housing affordability by submarket. For example, the Inland Empire3 is poised to grow at a more rapid pace as compared to Orange and Los Angeles Counties due to higher levels of available land and lower housing prices relative to Orange County and other coastal areas . The relatively high cost of living in Orange County has caused many people with jobs there to seek lower cost housing options in places such as the Inland Empire. This relationship between coastal and inland communities results in strong traffic demand along linkages between the two areas, such as SR 91 and the proposed I-15 Express Lanes. The Inland Empire is poised to experience the strongest percentage employment and household growth in the Study Area over the Forecast Period and the I-15 Express Lanes are well located to benefit from this growth . Table 4-1 presents a summary of the Base Case Study Area employment and household forecasts. 1 “Employment,” unless otherwise stated, refers to a comprehensive measure of non-farm, at-place wage and salary jobs plus government and agricultural workers. 2 “Households,” unless otherwise stated, refers to occupied dwelling units. 3 For the purposes of this analysis, the “Inland Empire” is defined as Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.65 Table 4-1: Base Case Study Area Employment and Household Forecast (thousands) 4.1.1 Study Area Employment Summary The California Economic Development Department (EDD) reports that the Study Area added approximately 73,000 non-farm jobs annually (on average) between 1995 and 20154, a compound annual growth rate of 1.1%. Between 2007 and 2009, the Study Area lost approximately 640,000 jobs, equating to 9.1% of its total job base, bringing the total number of jobs down to approximately 6.4 million, a level not seen since the 1999 to 2000 period. Recovery from the Great Recession began very slowly in 2011 and the general consensus at that time was that growth would continue at a slow pace over many years. Since that time, however, the Study Area economy sustained four consecutive years of steady, stronger than expected growth, with annual employment increases of 2.6% in 2012, 3.2% in 2013, 2.8% in 2014, and 2.7% in 2015, resulting in an average of 189,000 jobs per year. As a result, the area has fully recovered the employment losses stemming from the Great Recession and has surpassed the previous peak in employment in 2007. Figure 4-1 shows historical and forecast employment changes in the Study Area as well as the overall level of Study Area employment at the end of each period. 4 California Employment Development Department Labor Market Information Division Employment 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Total Employment 7,231 7,830 8,040 8,313 8,650 Period 2015-20 2020-25 2025-30 2030-35 2015-35 Incremental Growth 599 210 273 337 1,419 Average Annual Growth 120 42 55 67 71 CAGR [1]1.61% 0.53% 0.67% 0.80% 0.90% Households 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Total Households 5,764 6,186 6,478 6,750 7,032 Period 2015-20 2020-25 2025-30 2030-35 2015-35 Incremental Growth 422 292 273 281 1,268 Average Annual Growth 84 58 55 56 63.40 CAGR 1.42% 0.93% 0.83% 0.82% 1.00% [1] Compound Annual Growth Rate I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.66 Figure 4-1: Historical and Forecast Study Area Employment Gains and Total Employment The Base Case forecast includes an average of 71,000 new jobs per year added to the Study Area between 2015 and 2035. This growth is due in part to the stronger than expected rebound from the Great Recession, which is forecast to continue in the short term. There are certain issues related to the cost of operating businesses in California that may hamper growth, but the highly educated workforce, industrial diversity, large established international trade industry, and population growth of the various urban cores within the Study Area wi ll support job growth in the long term. Figure 4-2 shows historical Study Area employment and the Base Case employment forecast. The black line is the linear trend line of the historical data series from 1990 to 2015. The figure shows that the past four years of consistently strong growth have caused total employment to surpass the historical trend line as of 2015. The Base Case forecast is expected to continue to accelerate past the historical trend line in the near term and flatten out over the longer term. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.67 Figure 4-2: Historical and Base Case Study Area Employment Forecasts Despite four years of strong growth, due to the dramatic losses that took place during the Great Recession, it was not until 2015 that total employment reached and surpassed pre-recession levels in the Study Area. Economic indicators suggest continued expansion in the near term, with annual employment growth between 2015 and 2018 forecast to continue in the 1.8% to 2.5% range, barring any major economic shocks. This extended period of growth, combining the full recovery period from 2011 to 2015 with continued near-term momentum, causes the Base Case forecast to surpass the historical linear trend line. Near-term employment growth will be shaped by a number of factors, including: (i) The historically low price of oil, which represents a double-edged sword in terms of economic impacts. On one hand, low oil prices are hurting the oil-producing sectors of the economy. Businesses in this sector are experiencing declining revenue and profits and increased credit risk, and as a result, its employment base will contract and capital investments will be halted. The state is ranked third in the U.S. in crude oil production behind Texas and North Dakota, and half of the state’s downstream activities, such as refinery operations, are located in the Study Area. On the other hand, these low prices represent a benefit for consumers and will positively impact consumer expenditures, a critical component of the economy. Likewise, certain businesses benefiting from resulting energy costs savings may be better positioned to make capital investments during this period. The positive consumer and business impacts will take time to filter through the economy while the negative impacts will be felt more immediately. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.68 (ii) Construction activity has increased in recent years, although the sector has not fully recovered the job losses between 2008 and 2010. Based on the unprecedented housing boom leading up to the Great Recession, the sector’s employment levels at that time were arguably unsustainable to begin with, suggesting current levels may be rightsized. Construction is typically one of the leading growth sectors in economic recovery periods due to demand that is pent-up during recessions. Historically high vacancy rates in residential and non-residential properties have mostly been absorbed during the recovery and markets (prices and inventories) have stabilized. The Inland Empire was hit particularly hard by foreclosures but the amount of distressed mortgages has declined to normal levels and new construction activity has ramped up again in recent years. (iii) The general trend of businesses doing more with less will continue into the future. This includes sharing work space, reducing square footage per employee requirements, and working from home, investments in computer technology and automation to reduce the number of workers, and outsourcing to reduce overhead and increase profits. Certain sectors, such as manufacturing, will continue to face employment headwinds due to these trends, and office users are requiring lower amounts of space per employee relative to historical standards. Non-residential development in the Inland Empire continues to be led by industrial users seeking cheap land and strong access. While business relocation to the Inland Empire is a positive in general, these uses tend to require far fewer employees per square foot, limiting the job-generating impact of these moves. (iv) Ongoing drought conditions in the region have not yet had a major impact on the economy but remain a concern. While these conditions have had a direct impact on agricultural production, they may indirectly affect other sectors such as residential construction, depending on the extent to which conservation efforts by local jurisdictions result in actions such as water tap moratoria. (v) The U.S. economy has grown despite weak global economic conditions, particularly in China. A strong dollar coupled with weakening conditions in Asia have served to reduce U.S. exports. These weaker global market conditions have contributed to the decline in the price of oil cited above . The U.S. economy has so far proven resilient to these ongoing conditions but could be negatively impacted if something like a financial crisis in China takes place . Issues with European economies will impact the U.S. as a whole but changes in Asian economies may impact California more directly and significantly. Mexico is also a major trade partner that directly impacts the Study Area. Mexican economic growth has been steady in recent years although it has fallen short of estimates. Due to its geographic location, the state’s trade activities with Mexico rely more heavily on rail and trucks, which impact the Study Area’s highway network. The recovery from the Great Recession began slowly in 2011 but gained momentum in the following years, with four years of healthy levels of expansion. In December 2015, the Fed raised short-term borrowing rates for the first time in ten years. Citing job growth trends and healthy unemployment levels, this move signals confidence in the U.S. economy’s near -term I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.69 fundamentals and a departure from the monetary policy geared towards stemming the losses from the Great Recession. Most economists remain bullish on near term economic conditions with a few of the caveats cited above. In the longer-term, the Study Area forecast reflects several fundamental characteristics of Southern California that have impacted growth in the past. (i) The diverse mix of employment in the Study Area, including high tech manufacturing (electronics, medical devices, defense equipment, etc.), leisure and hospitality jobs, retail jobs, medical services jobs to assist the aging population, and educational services jobs to fuel future innovation and economic growth. (ii) Continued migration of certain manufacturing sector components, such as distribution, which is migrating within the Study Area to less expensive operating environments such as the Inland Empire, and others (mainly less advanced manufacturing processes) that could continue moving off shore. (iii) Continued strong growth in Los Angeles County employment. The County’s growth in the most recent recovery is a significant departure from historical trends and suggests a structural shift in the role of Los Angeles County employment in the Study Area. The county has averaged over 100,000 new jobs over the past 4 years, representing 54% of Study Area job growth over the period. In previous expansionary periods, Los Angeles County's share of Study Area growth was 39% (1993 to 2001) and 30% (2002 to 2007). (iv) Continued housing / jobs imbalance in certain key parts of the Study Area, including Orange County, where the build-out of remaining vacant land is arguably within the forecast horizon (2035). Even under current plans where far more land will be dedicated for residential development than commercial, long commute times will be the norm for many Orange County workers seeking less expensive residential options outside the county . (v) The trend towards infill development in established areas may provide a counterbalancing effect to the issues noted above in (iv). Our previous analyses in the region identified underutilized coastal areas as candidates for redevelopment. In the past, these were generally considered longer-term opportunities most likely to take place near the end of the Forecast Period . However, research and field observations suggest that this trend is accelerating and will impact employment and household development patterns sooner rather than later. This is consistent with national trends showing stronger employment growth in urban cores versus suburban areas, which is a departure from the past half century or more of metropolitan growth patterns. It remains to be seen if these trends reflect a short-term, cyclical pattern driven by factors such as demographic shifts, including lifestyle preferences of the growing Millennial age group, or a permanent, structural shift that will continue to channel employment and housing demand towards urban cores in the longer term. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.70 (vi) California has developed a reputation as a challenging location to operate a business, and some businesses have relocated to more business-friendly states such as Arizona, Nevada, Texas, and Utah. Despite this reputation, during the recovery from the Great Recession, the state had one of the strongest rebounds relative to other states and the U.S. as a whole . This trend suggests that the fundamentals of the California economy remain strong despite perceptions of an unfriendly business environment. Within the Study Area, the most significant long-term employment growth is expected in the Inland Empire where Riverside and San Bernardino counties’ combined employment is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.1% over the Forecast Period. Inland Empire job growth will result from two broad trends; (i) The need for nearby “population serving” jobs to serve large numbers of new residents, and (ii) The high cost of doing business in established Orange and Los Angeles county locations, especially for companies with large land demands such as certain types of manufacturing and distribution. Transportation- and trade-related jobs have for years accounted for much of the job growth in the Inland Empire as many distribution facilities serving Ontario International Airport and the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are located there . This industry will continue to be a significant contributor to Inland Empire job growth though labor issues and changes to international shipping routes, specifically those related to the Panama Canal expansion (scheduled for completion in 2016) will temper growth in the long term. The Canal expansion will allow super-Panamax ships from Asia to directly access ports on the East Coast of the United States, potentially decreasing ship traffic to West Coast ports. After steep declines in passenger traffic from 2007 to 2013, control of Ontario International Airport is in the process of being transferred from Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) to the newly formed Ontario International Airport Authority (OIAA). Although some of the recent passenger decline is due in part to weak economic conditions, many argue that the airport was a lower priority for LAWA, and that local control will improve conditions and serve as an economic catalyst for the area. 4.1.2 Study Area Household Summary The Base Case forecast assumes that in the near term, the ongoing strength of the economy will fuel continued household formation, making up for lower levels that took place from 2004 through 2014. As a result of this pent-up demand, growth during the continued expansion from 2015 to 2020 period is expected to be higher than the historical trend, driven by a strong rebound in the Inland Empire. Figure 4-3 shows historical and forecast household gains in the Study Area. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.71 Figure 4-3: Historical and Forecast Study Area Household Gains and Forecast Overall, household formations reflect a higher number of employed persons per household in Orange, San Diego, and Los Angeles counties due to the higher proportion of dual income earning households and the daily in-migration of workers from surrounding counties. Table 4-2 shows historical and forecast jobs per household by county in the Study Area . As seen in the table, the average employment per household fell sharply between 2005 and 2010, reflecting the effect of the recession on employment in the Study Area. Employment per household is expected to return to the historical average over the Forecast Period. Table 4-2: Jobs per Household by County Figure 4-4 shows the historical trend of household growth in the Study Area compared to the Base Case forecast. As seen in the figure, it is expected that household growth in the region will move beyond the historical trendline. This is due to an initial level of higher growth in the region between 2015 and 2020 resulting from a variety of factors. These include increased household formation resulting from continued economic growth, as adult children le ave their parents’ homes or leave roommates due to stronger financial situations, growth driven by the Millennial age group, as well as positive net in-migration driven by local employment opportunities. Jobs/HH 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Los Angeles 1.40 1.25 1.32 1.28 1.20 1.29 1.32 1.31 1.31 1.33 Orange 1.43 1.34 1.49 1.55 1.38 1.48 1.51 1.49 1.50 1.51 San Bernardino 0.89 0.90 1.03 1.10 1.00 1.02 1.02 1.01 1.00 1.00 Riverside 0.79 0.78 0.92 0.97 0.79 0.91 0.87 0.81 0.77 0.73 Study Area Average 1.30 1.19 1.28 1.27 1.16 1.25 1.26 1.24 1.23 1.22 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.72 Figure 4-4: Historical and Base Case Household Forecasts In the long-term, the western portions of the Inland Empire will achieve the strongest percentage household growth, where price points are lower than most Orange and Los Angeles county markets and reasonable commutes to Orange and Los Angeles job centers remain possible, especially given current and planned expansion of tolled express lane options on SR 91 which links Inland Empire communities to the Foothill/Eastern toll road and central Orange County employment centers. A significant component of residential growth in coastal areas (especially Los Angeles County and northern portions of Orange County) will be through redevelopment of older obsolete industrial properties and denser, multifamily infill projects. Recent permitting activity suggests that this is a growing trend. In 2015, 80% of Los Angeles County permits and 65% of Orange County permits were for multifamily units, compared to 24% and 28% for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, respectively. 4.2 FORECAST METHODOLOGY Forecasts were developed using both the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RivTAM), as well as the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) traffic model . The combination of these two models includes the Study Area, San Diego, Ventura, and Imperial Counties, which, as noted earlier, are not expected to impact Riverside County highway traffic in a material way. The Study Area forecast discussed above is the aggregation of 5,211 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.73 individual traffic analysis zone (TAZ) forecasts5. As such the disaggregated TAZ forecasts can be aggregated by county, city or Focus Area to aid in the analysis. The term “Focus Areas” refers to aggregations of TAZs assembled by WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff that represent major projects or development areas that received additional attention in the modeling process due to their expected impact on the RCTC’s traffic. Figure 4-5 is a map of the Study Area, showing the core of the four counties relative to the I-15 Express Lanes. Figure 4-5: Map of the Study Area The I-15 Express Lanes are located in Riverside County, within close proximity to San Bernardino County and with access to Orange and Los Angeles counties. The forecast provides the socioeconomic inputs for 2,243 TAZs in Los Angeles County, 666 TAZs in Orange County, 1,900 TAZs in Riverside County, 402 TAZs in San Bernardino County. The specific analytical steps taken to complete the Base Case Forecasts were:  Reviewed Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) demographic forecasts including Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), San Diego Association of 5 Traffic analysis zones are geographical areas, subsets of Census Tracts, established based on traffic levels and generally bound by roadways. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.74 Governments (SANDAG), and other regional local planning agency forecasts to understand how each of those agencies expect growth to occur.  Incorporated the Base Case Forecasts into the RivTAM / SANDAG TAZ structure for use by Stantec and performed standard tests to ensure that socioeconomic model outputs flowed seamlessly into the traffic model.  Reviewed economic reports and forecasts from the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC), UCLA Anderson School, Chapman University, California State University (Fullerton), California Department of Finance, Woods & Poole, Moody’s Analytics, and other third party data sources to understand current national, state, and local trends in the critical trip production and attraction variables of households and at-place employment.  Established 2015 values for the 53 socioeconomic data model parameters at the TAZ level for use by Stantec in calibrating the traffic model. This process was also performed for the 39 variables in the SANDAG model.  Conducted interviews with local land owners, developers, real estate brokers, planning agencies and associations, and real estate development advisors . This interview program guided the land use team in uncovering issues that would impact future development in the Study Area, and confirmed focus area development potential.  Conducted field investigations of critical Focus Areas to update information on potential development capacity, entitlements, inventories, and constraints to development. These investigations supported adjustments to TAZ level allocations of new jobs and households.  Developed Study Area, county and Focus Area employment and household growth rates for the Forecast Period based on a review of historical trends from the California EDD, national and regional forecasts, economic reports, and first-hand information gathered through the interview process.  Identified candidate areas for redevelopment and infill development at higher densities and allocated development activity accordingly in various forecast years.  Using information generated through the preceding steps, prepared a Base Case forecast for the required variables (mainly households, jobs, and variations thereof) at the Study Area, county, Focus Area, and TAZ levels. Figure 4-6 presents an overview of the WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff land use model. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.75 Figure 4-6: Illustration of the WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff Land Use Forecast Model Methodology The Base Case Forecast assumes no major additions to the highway system in the area, aside from the proposed I-15 Express Lanes. As stated above, the Base Case has been developed using the RivTAM/TransCAD model structure and provides inputs to the traffic model for all 53 socioeconomic parameters. For San Diego County, the Base Case was developed using the SANDAG model structure. Some forecast parameters are directly related to, and were therefore derived from, the primary forecast parameters (total at-place employment and households) while others were adopted from the MPO base data. Table 4-3 and Table 4-4 below present each variable and the methodology used to determine its ultimate value for the RivTAM and SANDAG models respectively. MPO TAZ - Level Socioeconomic Data • SCAG – RTP 2012 Data • SANDAG – SR13 Regional /County Level Adjustments • Establishment / verification of 2015 base control totals for households and employment by county • Analysis of third - party national, regional, and local forecasts for Study Area to establish future growth estimates • Interview program with planners and other parties • ‘Focus Area’ adjustments for planned developments not yet captured in MPO forecasts TAZ Level Socioeconomic Forecast • 53 variables in RivTAM model format, and 39 variables in SANDAG format • Primary inputs are Study Area employment and households I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.76 Table 4-3: RivTAM Forecast Variable Methodology Population Variables (7) Forecast Methodology Total Population = Residential population + group quarter population + institutional population Group Quarter Population = Values adopted from MPO data Institutional Population = Values adopted from MPO data Residential Population = Base Case households * household size Population by Age (4 Categories) = Total population * % by age category adopted from MPO data Household Variables (18) Forecast Methodology Total Number of Households = Base Case Household Forecast Households by Household Size (5 Categories) = Base Case Households * share of households by category adopted from MPO data Households by Age of Household Head (4 Categories) = Base Case Households * share of households by category adopted from MPO data Households by Number of Workers (4 Categories) = Base Case Households * share of households by category adopted from MPO data Households by Household Income (4 Variables) = Base Case Households * share of households by category adopted from MPO data School Enrollment (2) Forecast Methodology K-12 School Enrollment = % of population ages 5-17 enrolled in K-12 adopted from MPO data * new age 5-17 population College / University Enrollment = % of population ages 18-24 enrolled in college adopted from MPO data * new age 18-24 population Household Income (5) Forecast Methodology Median Household Income = Real median household income growth as validated by third party forecasts Median Household Income by Income Categories (4 Categories) = Population growth * share of population adopted from MPO data Workers (4) Forecast Methodology Total Workers = Total workers adopted from MPO data and adjusted to conform with long-term employment forecast trends Workers by Earnings (3 Categories) = Total workers * share of workers in each earnings category adopted from MPO data Employment Variables (17) Forecast Methodology Total Employment = Base Case Employment Forecast Employment by Industry (13 Categories) = Base Case Employment * share of employment by industry adopted from MPO data Employment by Wage (3 Categories) = Base Case Employment * share of employment by category adopted from MPO data I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.77 Table 4-4: SANDAG Forecast Variable Methodology Population Variables (4) Forecast Methodology Total Population = Household population + civilian group quarters population + military group quarters population Civilian Group Quarter Population = Values adopted from MPO data Military Group Quarter Population = Values adopted from MPO data Household Population = Total households * household size adopted from MPO forecast Household Variables (18) Forecast Methodology Total Number of Households = Base Case Household Forecast Housing Units by Type / Total (4 Categories) = Base Case Household Forecast * share of units by category adopted from MPO data Households by Type (Single Family, Multi Family, Mobile) Family (3 Categories) = Base Case Household Forecast * share of units by category adopted from MPO data Households by Income (10 Categories) = Base Case Household Forecast * share of units by category adopted from MPO data Employment Variables (17) Forecast Methodology Total Employment = Sum of nonfarm employment, military employment, farm employment, and self employed Nonfarm Employment (13) = Base Case Employment Forecast * share of employment by industry adopted from MPO data Other Employment (3 Categories) = Forecast of farm, military, and self employed * TAZ share of total County employment 4.3 HISTORICAL DATA AND TRENDS IN THE STUDY AREA 4.3.1 Historical Study Area Employment Trends Employment in the Study Area grew from 5.8 million in 1995 to 7.2 million in 2015, corresponding to an average of 73,000 new jobs per year and a compound annual growth rate of 1.1%6. This period takes into account several economic cycles including the Great Recession and the ongoing recovery that followed. Some portions of the Study Area, specifically Los Angeles 6 Source: California EDD LMI I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.78 County and parts of Orange County, are more mature job markets that have experienced relatively slower growth rates over the long term; but overall, the Study Area has exhibited resiliency in post recessionary periods, with the redevelopment of obsolete properties in mature areas and steady growth in emerging submarkets. Table 4-5 shows that job growth by county varied significantly by period with strong percentage growth in the Inland Empire counties from 1995 to 2005 and the high level of absolute job growth in Los Angeles County from 2010 to 2015. Table 4-5: Total Employment Growth by County, 1995 to 2015 Job growth in the Inland Empire has been relatively healthy for the past 20 years, and relative to other parts of the Study Area, it has a very different employment composition stemming from fundamental characteristics of its specific stage of the socioeconomic lifecycle. While Los Angeles County and Orange County represent maturing job centers, the Inland Empire is a large, fast-growing formerly agricultural area that is now a center for industrial and distribution businesses. From the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s, it was one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the country. County 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Los Angeles 3,789,000 4,123,200 4,119,900 3,890,000 4,321,000 Period 1995-00 2000-05 2005-10 2010-15 1995-15 Incremental Growth 334,200 (3,300) (229,900) 431,000 532,000 Average Annual Growth 66,840 (660) (45,980) 86,200 26,600 CAGR 1.70% -0.02% -1.14% 2.12% 0.66% Orange 1,161,200 1,393,000 1,496,700 1,366,700 1,542,900 Period 1995-00 2000-05 2005-10 2010-15 1995-15 Incremental Growth 231,800 103,700 (130,000) 176,200 381,700 Average Annual Growth 46,360 20,740 (26,000) 35,240 19,085 CAGR 3.71% 1.45% -1.80% 2.45% 1.43% San Bernardino 446,600 541,700 650,300 611,100 679,400 Period 1995-00 2000-05 2005-10 2010-15 1995-15 Incremental Growth 95,100 108,600 (39,200) 68,300 232,800 Average Annual Growth 19,020 21,720 (7,840) 13,660 11,640 CAGR 3.94% 3.72% -1.24% 2.14% 2.12% Riverside 342,400 453,300 585,900 533,600 654,100 Period 1995-00 2000-05 2005-10 2010-15 1995-15 Incremental Growth 110,900 132,600 (52,300) 120,500 311,700 Average Annual Growth 22,180 26,520 (10,460) 24,100 15,585 CAGR 5.77% 5.27% -1.85% 4.16% 3.29% Study Area 5,739,200 6,511,200 6,852,800 6,401,400 7,197,400 Period 1995-00 2000-05 2005-10 2010-15 1995-15 Incremental Growth 772,000 341,600 (451,400) 796,000 1,458,200 Average Annual Growth 154,400 68,320 (90,280) 159,200 72,910 CAGR 2.56% 1.03% -1.35% 2.37% 1.14% I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.79 Sector specific trends reflect these distinct characteristics. Leading up to the Great Recession, the Inland Empire was undergoing an unprecedented housing boom, which led to strong but unsustainable growth in the construction sector. The Inland Empire experienced dramatic declines in housing market conditions, leading to significant job losses in the construction sector, as shown in Figure 4-7. Figure 4-7: Inland Empire Job Growth/Loss by Sector, 2007 to 2010 -47% -28% -23% -18% -15% -14% -11% -9% -9% -7% -7% -4% 4% 8% -50%-40%-30%-20%-10%0%10%20% Construction Manufacturing Mining and Logging Financial Activities Professional and Business Services Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Information Total Farm Leisure and Hospitality Other Services Transportation, Warehousing & Util. Government Educational and Health Services I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.80 Table 4-6: Inland Empire Job Growth/Loss by Sector, 2007 to 2010 The Educational and Health Services and Government sectors are typically the least sensitive to economic cycles and were the only two sectors to experience positive growth from 2007 to 2010. Every other sector declined during the period. The Transportation, Warehousing, and Utilities is a key component of the Inland Empire’s economy and the sector showed the smallest decline over the period. From 2010 to 2014, consistent with regional, state, and national trends, the Inland Empire gradually recovered from the losses of the Great Recession. While total employment rebounded, Figure 4-8 shows that the recovery was stronger in certain sectors than others. Educational and Health Services 142,200 149,300 155,000 154,100 11,900 8.4% Government 225,300 231,000 235,200 234,300 9,000 4.0% Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities 69,500 70,200 66,800 66,600 (2,900) -4.2% Other Services 41,200 40,800 37,300 38,200 (3,000) -7.3% Leisure and Hospitality 132,600 131,000 123,800 122,800 (9,800) -7.4% Farm 16,400 15,900 14,900 15,000 (1,400) -8.5% Information 15,400 14,800 14,100 14,000 (1,400) -9.1% Retail Trade 175,600 168,600 156,200 155,500 (20,100) -11.4% Wholesale Trade 56,900 54,200 49,000 48,700 (8,200) -14.4% Professional and Business Services 145,500 138,300 125,300 123,600 (21,900) -15.1% Financial Activities 49,800 46,100 42,500 41,000 (8,800) -17.7% Mining and Logging 1,300 1,200 1,100 1,000 (300) -23.1% Manufacturing 118,500 106,900 88,800 85,200 (33,300) -28.1% Construction 112,500 90,700 68,000 59,700 (52,800) -46.9% Total 1,302,700 1,259,000 1,178,000 1,159,700 (143,000) -11.0% 2007-10 Growth % Source: California Employment Development Department / Labor Market Information Division; Annual Averages Jobs Growth by Industry 2007 2008 2009 2010 2007-10 Growth I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.81 Figure 4-8: Inland Empire Employment Growth/Loss by Sector 2010-2014 Table 4-7: Inland Empire Employment Growth/Loss by Sector 2010-2014 The rebound from 2010 was driven by two of the Inland Empire’s key industries: logistics and construction. The Inland Empire has a competitive advantage with respect to logistics, with large amounts of affordable land with strong access to the ports and interstate network as a whole, that are key site criteria for distribution users. These sites are also attractive for e-commerce and -20.0% -5.3% -0.7% 8.5% 9.1% 10.0% 14.4% 20.0% 20.9% 23.5% 28.2% 28.5% 37.7% 40.7% -30.0%-20.0%-10.0%0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0% Information Farm Government Financial Activities Retail Trade Manufacturing Other Services Mining and Logging Professional and Business Services Leisure and Hospitality Educational and Health Services Wholesale Trade Construction Transportation, Warehousing and Util. Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities 66,600 68,800 73,900 79,400 87,300 93,700 27,100 40.7% Construction 59,700 59,100 62,600 70,000 77,000 82,200 22,500 37.7% Wholesale Trade 48,700 49,200 52,200 56,400 59,000 62,600 13,900 28.5% Educational and Health Services 154,100 157,600 167,200 184,500 193,600 197,500 43,400 28.2% Leisure and Hospitality 122,800 124,000 129,400 135,900 144,300 151,700 28,900 23.5% Professional and Business Services 123,600 126,000 127,500 132,400 137,800 149,400 25,800 20.9% Mining and Logging 1,000 1,000 1,200 1,200 1,300 1,200 200 20.0% Other Services 38,200 39,100 40,100 41,100 43,200 43,700 5,500 14.4% Manufacturing 85,200 85,100 86,700 87,300 90,200 93,700 8,500 10.0% Retail Trade 155,500 158,500 162,400 164,800 168,700 169,600 14,100 9.1% Financial Activities 41,000 39,900 40,900 42,200 42,700 44,500 3,500 8.5% Government 234,300 227,500 224,600 225,200 228,800 232,700 (1,600) -0.7% Farm 15,000 14,900 15,000 14,500 14,300 14,200 (800) -5.3% Information 14,000 12,200 11,700 11,500 11,200 11,200 (2,800) -20.0% Total 1,159,700 1,162,900 1,195,400 1,246,400 1,299,400 1,347,900 188,200 16.2% 2014 2015 Source: California Employment Development Department / Labor Market Information Division; Annual Averages Jobs Growth by Industry 2010 2011 2012 2013 2010-15 Growth 2010-15 Growth % I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.82 consumer goods businesses seeking distribution hubs. Amazon recently opened fulfillment centers in Moreno Valley and Redlands, and industrial development activity continues to drive commercial real estate in the region. In 2015, the Inland Empire had the highest amount of industrial construction and net absorption since 2000 and it is considered one of the strongest industrial markets in the nation. Net absorption has been higher than 20 million square feet in each of the last three years in the face of a total of almost 50 million square feet of new construction over the same period. The residential construction sector has improved but was decimated during the Great Recession and is only slowly coming back with the ramp-up of residential development activity. Other improving sectors include health care and professional services, comprised primarily of population serving businesses that are growing in line with household growth in the area. 4.3.2 Historical Study Area Household Trends Historical residential building permit data from 1996 to 2015 is shown in Table 4-8. During this period, the Study Area averaged approximately 45,000 residential units per year with 46% of these permit issuances occurring in the Inland Empire counties, 35% in Los Angeles County, and the remaining 19% taking place in Orange County. Residential permit issuance grew significantly each year between 1995 and 2004, even during the early 2000s when the short tech bubble-related recession occurred. Permit issuance in the Study Area peaked in 2004 at 87,000. During this year, over half (59%) of the building permits issued were in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. The surge in housing production between 2002 and 2006, especially in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, was in large part attributable to favorable lending terms, most simply reflected in mortgage rates. After peaking in 1981, the average annual 30-year mortgage rate trended downward until reaching a 30-year low in 2003 at under 5.5%. This borrowing environment made homes more affordable despite robust annual price increases during the late 1990s through the mid-2000s. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.83 Table 4-8: Growth of Total Residential Building Permits in the Study Area Annual permit issuance began to decline significantly in 2007 and reached a low in 2009 of 13,600 issuances. Activity has increased significantly since then, reaching 44,000 in 2015, which is significantly higher than the 2009 low but still far below the 2004 peak . The increase in activity has been driven primarily by permits in Orange County and Los Angeles County. Geographically, trends in single and multifamily product types reflect the relative levels of maturity of each county with more mature areas that are fully developed and space-constrained limited to higher density development. The long-term split between single-family detached and multifamily units built between 1995 and 2015 in the Study Area was approximately 67%/33% respectively. Single-family detached homes represented approximately 87% of the homes built in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, an area rich with undeveloped land. Orange County, which is running out of vacant land for development, falls between Los Angeles and the Inland Empire counties with approximately 65% of new homes built as detached units. Table 4-9 presents actual annual residential building permit data between 2007 and 2015. 1996 7,731 10,173 7,540 4,822 30,266 - 1997 9,829 12,261 9,747 5,448 37,285 23.2% 1998 11,226 9,704 12,527 6,127 39,584 6.2% 1999 14,060 12,239 14,154 6,767 47,220 19.3% 2000 16,968 12,520 15,025 6,471 50,984 8.0% 2001 18,294 8,611 19,012 8,405 54,322 6.5% 2002 16,454 11,796 22,255 10,219 60,724 11.8% 2003 20,903 9,248 30,353 11,899 72,403 19.2% 2004 26,529 9,256 33,446 18,017 87,248 20.5% 2005 23,948 7,143 34,373 16,635 82,099 -5.9% 2006 25,202 8,303 24,765 13,324 71,594 -12.8% 2007 19,244 7,372 12,334 7,752 46,702 -34.8% 2008 11,810 3,235 5,763 3,183 23,991 -48.6% 2009 5,138 2,143 4,072 2,263 13,616 -43.2% 2010 7,260 3,134 4,547 1,789 16,730 22.9% 2011 9,895 4,352 3,264 1,472 18,983 13.5% 2012 11,365 6,082 4,052 1,897 23,396 23.2% 2013 14,776 10,422 5,924 3,424 34,546 47.7% 2014 17,659 9,291 6,761 3,405 37,116 7.4% 2015*23,527 10,879 5,607 4,000 44,013 18.6% Total 311,818 168,164 275,521 137,319 892,822 * Annualized based on eleven months of available data Source: U.S. Census Bureau Total Y.O.Y. % ChangeYearLos Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.84 Table 4-9: Annual Building Permits Issued in the Study Area, 2007 to 2015f The increase in activity in recent years has been driven by increased multifamily development in Orange County and Los Angeles County. In 2015, these counties reached highs of 65% and 80% multifamily share of total permits. This has resulted in a departure from historical trends in which the majority of permit issuances were for single-family detached units, as shown in Figure 4-9. County 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015* Los Angeles Single Family 7,102 3,249 2,268 2,384 2,275 2,675 3,839 4,586 4,744 Multi-Family 12,142 8,561 2,870 4,876 7,620 8,690 10,937 13,073 18,782 Total 19,244 11,810 5,138 7,260 9,895 11,365 14,776 17,659 23,527 Orange Single Family 2,279 1,330 1,341 1,624 1,822 2,271 3,670 3,714 3,833 Multi-Family 5,093 1,905 802 1,510 2,530 3,811 6,752 5,577 7,045 Total 7,372 3,235 2,143 3,134 4,352 6,082 10,422 9,291 10,879 Riverside Single Family 9,717 3,820 3,406 4,027 2,275 3,107 4,432 5,074 4,279 Multi-Family 2,617 1,943 666 520 989 945 1,492 1,687 1,329 Total 12,334 5,763 4,072 4,547 3,264 4,052 5,924 6,761 5,607 San Bernardino Single Family 6,302 1,976 1,481 1,260 1,103 1,381 2,040 2,148 2,890 Multi-Family 1,450 1,207 782 529 369 516 1,384 1,257 1,111 Total 7,752 3,183 2,263 1,789 1,472 1,897 3,424 3,405 4,000 Study Area Single Family 25,400 10,375 8,496 9,295 7,475 9,434 13,981 15,522 15,746 Multi-Family 21,302 13,616 5,120 7,435 11,508 13,962 20,565 21,594 28,267 Total 46,702 23,991 13,616 16,730 18,983 23,396 34,546 37,116 44,013 * Annualized based on eleven months of available data I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.85 Figure 4-9: Study Area Residential Building Permit Issuance, 2005 to 2015 The boom and resulting bust in for-sale housing has created demand for new rental apartments in many regions throughout the country. Household preferences are gradually shifting from owner to renter for numerous reasons. After the period of declining price trends during the Great Recession, homeownership is no longer perceived as a risk-free investment. Furthermore, the transaction costs of buying and selling limits mobility by limiting a worker’s pool of job opportunities. Lastly, numerous households found themselves in homes they eventually could not afford. This segment is gradually shifting back to the rental demand pool . Supply conditions are favorable for new rental development as well. During the housing boom, a higher proportion of for-sale units were developed and rental apartments were delivered at a far lower rate compared to historical trends. Now, as demand preferences are shifting back from owner to renter, the relatively low level of new rental construction over the past decade is resulting in tight rental markets throughout the count ry and spurring ongoing development activity. 4.4 EMPLOYMENT FORECASTS This section provides detailed information on the Base Case Forecasts developed as inputs to the RivTAM model for the I-15 Express Lanes traffic and revenue forecasting effort . As outlined in the methodology section above, WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff uses third-party forecasts to assist in developing its long-term forecasts at the county level. A presentation of these forecasts is I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.86 provided first, along with commentary on current economic trends and expectations that resulted in the Base Case forecast. While household and population counts are somewhat standard across forecasting platforms, most of the forecasts reviewed have varying “definitions” of employment that are not directly comparable. As such, we offer the following terminology to help clarify the dialogue that follows:  Wage & Salary: A widely used definition of employment used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) which reports payroll employment counts based on insurance claims.  Proprietors: Persons who own businesses but are paid by distributions from business revenue, and are not part of the payroll.  Self Employed: Persons who are contract employees operate businesses as individuals or partners and are therefore not part of company payrolls. May be some overlap with Proprietors. Because of the differences in employment definitions and when the individual forecasts were developed, compound annual growth rates (CAGR) are displayed in the data tables to better capture each forecast’s spirit. 4.4.1 Comparative Third Party Forecasts: Long-Term California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Caltrans provides long-term forecasts for various socioeconomic variables. The primary data gathering source for employment is the California EDD Labor Market Information (LMI), and for households and population, the California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit. The Caltrans employment estimate for the Study Area totals 7.2 million jobs in 2015 and forecasts employment to increase to 8.7 million jobs by 2035, a 1.0% compound annual growth rate. The forecast predicts the strongest growth to occur between 2015 and 2020 at 1.4% annual growth, followed by a low of 0.8% between 2020 and 2025. Moody’s Analytics Moody’s Analytics provides independent economic and demographic projections through 2045. Moody’s gathers data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and forecasts total non-farm employment. The same BLS Current Employment Statistics (“CES”) program is used as a base for Moody’s forecasts, as well as the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) produced by the BLS. The Moody’s employment forecast for the Study Area reports 7.2 million jobs in 2015 and forecasts employment to increase to 8.6 million jobs by 2035, a 0.9% compound annual growth rate. The forecast predicts the strongest growth to occur between 2015 and 2020 at 1.6% followed by periods of lower growth ranging from 0.5% to 0.8%. Woods & Poole Economics Woods & Poole provides comprehensive economic and demographic projections through 2050. Woods & Poole’s employment forecast is unique from the others analyzed because it includes employment categories not captured in other sources, I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.87 such as self-employed workers (those with IRS Form 1099-MISC income). As a result of self-employed worker inclusion in the Woods & Poole forecast, this source has a much higher forecast of employment than other sources. Table 4-10 shows each of the employment forecasts described above along with the Base Case Forecast for the Study Area. In addition to the long- term forecasts, data from the California EDD, both annual and monthly through 20157, along with third party forecasts, were used to establish 2015 base year employment numbers for each county. Table 4-10: Comparisons of Long-Term Employment Projections (thousands) 4.4.2 Study Area Employment Forecast Total employment growth in the Study Area between 2015 and 2035 is projected to be 1.4 million jobs or an average of approximately 71,000 jobs per year (0.9% CAGR). Table 4-11 breaks this growth down by county. With an average annual rate of 1.3%, Riverside County is expected to see the strongest percentage growth, adding 10,000 jobs per year on average between 2015 and 2035. 7 Initial analysis of employment took place prior to available year-end data for 2015 Employment 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Caltrans 7,203 7,705 8,006 8,348 8,696 Moody's 7,194 7,798 8,006 8,278 8,613 Woods & Poole 10,064 10,858 11,656 12,436 13,191 Base Case 7,231 7,830 8,040 8,313 8,650 Incremental Growth 2015-20 2020-25 2025-30 2030-35 2015-35 Caltrans 502 301 342 348 1,493 Moody's 604 208 272 335 1,419 Woods & Poole 795 797 780 755 3,127 Base Case 599 210 273 337 1,419 Average Annual Growth 2015-20 2020-25 2025-30 2030-35 2015-35 Caltrans 100 60 68 70 75 Moody's 121 42 54 67 71 Woods & Poole 159 159 156 151 156 Base Case 120 42 55 67 71 CAGR 2015-20 2020-25 2025-30 2030-35 2015-35 Caltrans 1.36% 0.77% 0.84% 0.82% 0.95% Moody's 1.63% 0.53% 0.67% 0.80% 0.90% Woods & Poole 1.53% 1.43% 1.30% 1.19% 1.36% Base Case 1.61% 0.53% 0.67% 0.80% 0.90% Note: Moody's reflects total nonfarm employment; all others include farm employment I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.88 Table 4-11: Base Case Employment Forecast by County (thousands) The Inland Empire will experience the highest growth in jobs with a compound annual growth rate of 1.1% over the 20-year period for San Bernardino and Riverside counties combined. The Inland Empire counties are expected to add approximately 16,100 new jobs annually between 2015 and 2035. This is 5,000 fewer jobs annually than the average annual growth experienced between 2000 and 2015. Between 2000 and 2015, the Inland Empire counties experienced employment growth of approximately 21,100 jobs per year. Riverside County employment growth is forecast to outpace that of San Bernardino County, which is consistent with historical trends (shown in Table 4-5). From 2010 to 2015, Riverside County showed the strongest rebound from the recession, with compound annual employment growth of 4.2% compared to 2.4% in San Bernardino County. Los Angeles County will add approximately 38,000 jobs per year, though it will grow at the slowest rate of the four counties in the Study Area at 0.8% annually. Between 2000 and 2015, Los Angeles County job growth was cyclical and averaged just 16,000 jobs on an annual average basis. However, from 2012 to 2015, the county averaged over 100,000 jobs per year . With more diversity in its job base and major investments in transportation infrastructure, specifically transit, positive but moderate job growth is expected in the future. Employment 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Los Angeles 4,333 4,671 4,773 4,912 5,091 Orange 1,547 1,686 1,738 1,804 1,886 Riverside 668 739 776 820 868 San Bernardino 682 734 752 776 805 Study Area 7,231 7,830 8,040 8,313 8,650 Incremental Growth 2015-20 2020-25 2025-30 2030-35 2015-35 Los Angeles 338 102 139 179 758 Orange 139 52 66 81 339 Riverside 70 38 44 48 200 San Bernardino 52 19 24 29 122 Study Area 599 210 273 337 1,419 Average Annual Growth 2015-20 2020-25 2025-30 2030-35 2015-35 Los Angeles 68 20 28 36 38 Orange 28 10 13 16 17 Riverside 14 8 9 10 10 San Bernardino 10 4 5 6 6 Study Area 120 42 55 67 71 CAGR 2015-20 2020-25 2025-30 2030-35 2015-35 Los Angeles 1.51% 0.43% 0.58% 0.72% 0.81% Orange 1.74% 0.61% 0.75% 0.89% 0.99% Riverside 2.02% 1.00% 1.11% 1.15% 1.32% San Bernardino 1.47% 0.50% 0.62% 0.73% 0.83% Study Area 1.61% 0.53% 0.67% 0.80% 0.90% I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.89 The shortage of developable land in Los Angeles County will limit the rate of job growth there, though it will continue to have the largest employment base in the region due to the established industries and national headquarters, airport and port facilities, location relative to the coast, and diverse housing stock. Developers will continue to seek out underutilized sites to redevelop into higher density properties, both residential and commercial . Transit-oriented development around the rapidly developing transit system is still a relatively new trend in Los Angeles that will house a significant percentage of new development . Still, some Los Angeles County residents are expected to migrate east to Riverside or San Bernardino counties seeking lower costs of living. The strongest growth industries in Los Angeles are expected to be educational and professional services, as well as arts and entertainment. Orange County will see most of its long-term job growth in the same three categories as Los Angeles County but the fourth largest industry will be Finance, Investment, and Real Estate services (FIRE). Redevelopment of older residential and industrial properties in Orange County will be geared towards new higher density residential space and reuse of industrial buildings as hybrid spaces for light manufacturing and office . Higher density office space will be developed in the medium and long-term, though there is a notable movement towards shared office space and working from home which will temper the demand for office space in Orange County and other parts of the Study Area . With relatively low real estate costs, lower wages, access to a growing international airport (Ontario), and available land for both commercial expansion and workforce housing options, certain types of businesses have blossomed in the Inland Empire or relocated there from more expensive coastal locations. Warehousing, manufacturing and distribution facilities have led Inland Empire job growth in the past decade as the ports in Los Angeles County created demand for major distribution facilities that could not be located near the ports due to high land costs. Because of the growth of population expected in the long-term, a more balanced mix of population serving (retail) employment is expected, though primary job growth will continue to be focused in the distribution, manufacturing, construction, and transportation sectors . 4.5 HOUSEHOLD FORECAST 4.5.1 Study Area Comparative Forecasts As in the employment forecast section, information on third-party forecasts examined by WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff to help guide its long-term county-level forecasts is presented first, followed by details of the Base Case Forecast . The same three third-party forecasts, Woods & Poole, Moody’s Analytics, and Caltrans, which were surveyed for employment, were also surveyed for household forecasting purposes. Table 4-12 compares the growth rates from each source with the Base Case Forecast from 2015 to 2035. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.90 Table 4-12: Comparison of Long-Term Household Projections (thousands) The forecasts reflect differing long-term annual growth rates over the Forecast Period, ranging from 0.7% (Caltrans) to 1.0% (Moody’s) with significant variation between five-year periods as well. For instance, the Moody’s view is one of strong early growth followed by declines in growth longer term that are still generally higher than the other forecasts . Both Caltrans and Woods & Poole forecast strong household growth in 2015-2020 relative to later periods, but both show lower overall growth rates than Moody’s. The base case reflects rates in line with the Moody’s forecast, based on the assertion that continued strong employment will result in increased/pent up household formation in the near term, and longer-term forecasts that are closer to the long-term historical household growth rate in the Study Area (1.3%). The previous recession was caused in large part by the overbuilding of residential real estate and speculative lending practices that together resulted in large inventories of empty new and resold homes. As is typical with economic models, when inventories build and demand declines, prices fall, as reflected in the Study Area from 2007 to 2011 . Although all counties were hit by the recession, the most substantial percentage declines were realized in the Inland Empire from 2007 to 2009, as shown in Table 4-13. Households 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Caltrans 5,627 5,855 6,060 6,237 6,421 Moody's 5,764 6,186 6,478 6,750 7,032 Woods & Poole 5,964 6,270 6,521 6,725 6,889 Base Case 5,764 6,186 6,478 6,751 7,032 Incremental Growth 2015-20 2020-25 2025-30 2030-35 2015-35 Caltrans 228 206 177 184 794 Moody's 422 292 273 281 1,268 Woods & Poole 306 251 204 164 924 Base Case 422 292 273 281 1,268 Average Annual Growth 2015-20 2020-25 2025-30 2030-35 2015-35 Caltrans 46 41 35 37 40 Moody's 84 58 55 56 63 Woods & Poole 61 50 41 33 46 Base Case 84 58 55 56 63 CAGR 2015-20 2020-25 2025-30 2030-35 2015-35 Caltrans 0.80% 0.69% 0.58% 0.58% 0.66% Moody's 1.42% 0.93% 0.83% 0.82% 1.00% Woods & Poole 1.00% 0.79% 0.62% 0.48% 0.72% Base Case 1.42% 0.93% 0.83% 0.82% 1.00% I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.91 Table 4-13: Historical Study Area Median Home Prices These losses were followed by strong price increases in each county from 2011 to 2013 as the economy rebounded and the inventory of unsold homes and distressed mortgages unwound fully. Continued gains in 2014 and 2015 have led to prices in Los Angeles and Orange Counties on par with the beginning of the time period analyzed in 2007 although Inland Empire pricing has not yet fully rebounded. Many families in the Study Area have been, and will continue to be, priced out of the Orange County market and are expected to seek more affordable living arrangements in other places such as the Inland Empire. This trend is expected to continue, particularly now that Orange County prices have increased to pre-recession levels. 4.5.2 Study Area Household Forecasts Table 4-14 presents the Base Case Forecast of households. The Study Area is expected to add close to 1.3 million new households between 2015 and 2035, a compound annual rate of 1.0% over the Forecast Period. Median Home Price Oct-07 Oct-08 Oct-09 Oct-10 Oct-11 Oct-12 Oct-13 Oct-14 Oct-15 Los Angeles $518,300 $336,764 $308,280 $333,970 $307,970 $364,810 $447,130 $477,600 $509,570 Orange $699,012 $497,642 $526,842 $519,140 $484,390 $558,680 $660,080 $692,390 $704,370 Riverside $361,872 $221,870 $186,257 $205,150 $195,760 $230,730 $296,640 $321,750 $334,660 San Bernardino $284,848 $171,807 $131,578 $140,360 $132,210 $148,480 $191,330 $208,080 $231,330 Growth Rate 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2005-2015 Los Angeles -35%-8%8%-8%18%23%7%7%0% Orange -29%6%-1%-7%15%18%5%2%0% Riverside -39%-16%10%-5%18%29%8%4%-1% San Bernardino -40%-23%7%-6%12%29%9%11%-3% I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.92 Table 4-14: Base Case Household Forecast by County (thousands) About 45% of the new dwelling units forecast to be built in the Study Area will be located in the Inland Empire. These 569,000 new households represent over 1.6 million people. Workers not employed in San Bernardino or Riverside counties will face heavy traffic while commuting to job centers outside the Inland Empire, choosing to commute in exchange for less expensive housing. Local development experts suggest that 1.5 to 2 hours is the maximum that commuters will regularly drive each way to get to work. This limits the area in the Inland Empire that can reasonably serve the Orange County job markets to the western portions in the vicinity of Corona, Chino Hills, Ontario, and Riverside, depending on the use of tolled lanes, due to heavy congestion during rush hour. Faced with this tradeoff, many Orange County workers, especially those with higher incomes, will continue to seek housing options in Orange County, despite the higher cost. There is significant near-term residential growth along the I-15 corridor in large master-planned communities such as Ontario Ranch and the Preserve, which are discussed in the Focus Area section below. The number of households within Orange County will grow at a compound annual rate of 0.9% during the Forecast Period. Because of the historic imbalance between residential and non-residential property development in Orange County, home prices have been driven up, as discussed above. This trend, coupled with the shortage of developable land in Orange County, Households 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Los Angeles 3,340 3,524 3,634 3,731 3,831 Orange 1,039 1,112 1,159 1,202 1,246 San Bernardino 641 707 758 807 858 Riverside 743 843 927 1,010 1,096 Study Area 5,764 6,186 6,478 6,751 7,032 Incremental Growth 2015-20 2020-25 2025-30 2030-35 2015-35 Los Angeles 184 109 98 100 491 Orange 73 47 43 44 207 San Bernardino 66 51 49 51 217 Riverside 99 84 83 86 352 Study Area 422 292 273 281 1,268 Average Annual Growth 2015-20 2020-25 2025-30 2030-35 2015-35 Los Angeles 37 22 20 20 25 Orange 15 9 9 9 10 San Bernardino 13 10 10 10 11 Riverside 20 17 17 17 18 Study Area 84 58 55 56 63 CAGR 2015-20 2020-25 2025-30 2030-35 2015-35 Los Angeles 1.08% 0.61% 0.53% 0.53% 0.69% Orange 1.36% 0.84% 0.74% 0.72% 0.91% San Bernardino 1.98% 1.40% 1.26% 1.23% 1.47% Riverside 2.54% 1.92% 1.73% 1.65% 1.96% Study Area 1.42% 0.93% 0.83% 0.82% 1.00% I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.93 will cause developers to continue to build more multifamily structures and smaller detached units in jurisdictions less opposed to density. In south Orange County, which is comprised of more recently developed master-planned communities, covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) mandated by homeowners’ associations (HOAs) will hinder the potential for dense, infill development. Following this continuum, Los Angeles County, the most developed of the four Study Area counties, should see the vast majority of dwelling units forecast to be built there between 2015 and 2035 in high density multifamily structures, generally at infill and redevelopment sites. 4.5.3 Study Area Median Household Income Forecasts For the purposes of this analysis, the median household income forecast reflects SCAG’s forecast data, adjusted by certain factors. Incomes for the Study Area counties were based off of SCAG’s forecast data by TAZ, factoring in 3rd-party estimates for median incomes at the county level, as well as the Consumer Price Index (CPI). SCAG’s income data are expressed in 1999 dollars. As such, WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff inflated these to 2015 dollars using the regional CPI and made additional adjustments factoring in estimates from the Census and other third-party data providers for actual 2015 incomes. These adjustments were then applied to the TAZ-level median household income forecast data from SCAG to arrive at projections for median household income expressed in 2015 dollars over the Forecast Period. Incomes for input into the Stantec model were forecast by TAZ, but a weighted average by county is presented in Table 4-15. Table 4-15: Base Case Median Household Income Forecast (2015 Dollars) The table shows that, with the exception of Orange County, SCAG’s adjusted median household income growth in 2015 dollars is expected to remain relatively flat over the Forecast Period. This is consistent with long-term national trends. The Federal Reserve reports that nationally, the median household income in real dollar terms peaked in 1999 and has gradually declined since that time, to 7% below this peak as of 2014. Although the real median income has been flat in recent years, high-income households have historically experienced stronger growth in real Median Household Income 2015 2025 2035 Los Angeles $59,318 $59,298 $59,312 Orange $78,839 $78,371 $82,332 San Bernardino $54,311 $54,241 $54,138 Riverside $60,266 $60,225 $60,248 CAGR 2015-25 2025-35 2015-2035 Los Angeles 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Orange -0.06% 0.49% 0.22% San Bernardino -0.01% -0.02% -0.02% Riverside -0.01% 0.00% 0.00% I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.94 income. SCAG’s forecast suggests this pattern will continue, with Orange County benefiting from larger concentrations of higher income households. 4.6 KEY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE STUDY AREA A critical element of the WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff forecasting effort is to develop small area forecasts for groups of TAZs containing developments that will most directly impact traffic on the proposed I-15 Express Lanes. This is done by reviewing specific plans and interviewing planning staff and developers of properties to collect the most recent data available on how and when projects will evolve. Guidance from previous land use work performed by WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff was combined with information acquired through current interviews and project plans to adjust TAZ-level job and household counts relative to those programmed in the base data. Jobs and households were adjusted upward or downward in many of the TAZs representing major projects such as the Preserve and Ontario Ranch in San Bernardino County, areas of growth along I-15 to the south in Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, and Temecula, and numerous large-scale developments throughout Orange County. WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff conducted field research in Riverside, San Bernardino, and Orange counties. Using these data, Focus Areas, representing projects, groups of projects or potential redevelopment areas were identified, though the data obtained for each Focus Area varied significantly. In some cases, data were complete and up to date while in other cases data were scarce. To further categorize the review process, the following five examples are offered to characterize the materials that were produced from our field research.  Actual Specific Plans – In some cases actual development plans (quantities and types of development) by project area or TAZ were provided by developers along with expected timing of construction. This was the goal of each interview but few projects had this level of data available.  Partial or Dated Plans – For many of the projects surveyed, especially residential projects that had to some degree been put on hold due to the previous market downturn, current plans were not available. Rather, estimates of build-out and locations were the best data available and some reliance on multiple sources and professional judgment was required.  Professional Judgment – In some cases, no current development plans were available for parcels that, because of their location and eligibility for development, were expected to be developed in the more distant future. In these cases, the MPO forecasts for the underlying TAZs were considered and in some instances modified based on professional judgment alone.  MPO Forecast Adoption – As with most of the TAZs in the Study Area, WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff adopted the development allocations of some Focus Areas. In many cases, I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.95 the development plans matched the data obtained in the field. However, there were instances where projects were planned or proposed but because limited information was available, no confirmation of the MPO’s accuracy could be obtained . If the forecasts for these areas appeared reasonable, they were not adjusted .  Redevelopment Areas – In the long-term, certain areas that currently contain older, lower density industrial or commercial space are expected to be redeveloped as the owners of that land move their remaining operations to lower cost locations. These areas are anticipated to accommodate growth in jobs and households, after the remaining vacant and developable land is absorbed . Development scenarios were calculated for these areas based on professional judgment and allocated in the later years of the forecasts accordingly to help avoid development being allocated where there was clearly no capacity. Assumptions for redevelopment participation, current FAR, future FAR, and development mix were applied to yield a reasonable estimate of additional jobs and households that could develop, and were generally programmed between 2025 and 2035. Considering the levels of development review outlined above, details of certain Focus Areas are presented in the following sections. These project descriptions present the most probable project outcomes given the available data and WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff’s understanding of development economics in the Study Area. While some of the Focus Area projects are ongoing, many were put on hold during the Great Recession and are anticipated to start in the near term (2015-2020). In many cases, overall development quantities have not changed, though the phasing of the projects and specific products built will be dictated by evolving market conditions. Focus Areas discussed in the following sections are divided into three groups: Inland Empire areas north of SR-91, south of SR-91, and major Orange County developments. Although there are numerous development plans located throughout San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, areas within close proximity to I-15 were prioritized and analyzed in greater detail given their increased impact on traffic patterns and demand for the I-15 Express Lanes. 4.6.1 I-15 Corridor – North of SR-91 There are numerous large-scale projects planned, proposed, or under construction in the areas of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties near I-15 north of SR-91 that will have a significant impact on the project. Given the location of the planned I-15 express lanes, projects located in cities such as Chino, Ontario, Fontana, and Rancho Cucamonga were researched further for more detailed information on timing and scale. Much of this area is established and built out, but significantly large development and redevelopment opportunities do still exist . These opportunities are more likely to capture demand in the near term of the forecast period due to their regional orientation, within close proximity to large job concentrations in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Historical patterns suggest many homebuyers with jobs in these counties consider Inland Empire locations due to affordability and as such, those areas offering the shortest commutes to job concentrations in the west have a competitive advantage . Other I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.96 cities researched, including Norco, Jurupa Valley, and Riverside, have development activity and plans that were confirmed to be captured in SCAG’s forecast. Figure 4-10: Map of Focus Areas north of SR-91 1. Arboretum – There are two large, undeveloped areas in Fontana just south of the San Gabriel Mountains with plans that will impact traffic on the I-15 during the Forecast Period. Located adjacent to I-15 in the northwestern boundary of the city, the Arboretum specific plan allows for over 3,500 residential units. The 530-acre area will also include some civic uses, including two schools and numerous park space. The Lewis Group owns this property and also has plans for office and retail nearby. 2. Westgate - Just south of the Arboretum is the Westgate specific plan. This 960-acre defined area is owned by Unitex Management Corporation, which is currently marketing build-to-suit industrial space at the site. The specific plan allows for as many as 5,000 residential units and a mix of commercial uses. There is no current indication of timing on either of these projects although the pending completion of the Duncan Canyon Road / I-15 interchange will improve access to the area and could help accelerate these developments. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.97 3. Empire Lakes Redevelopment – Located on the site of an existing golf course in Rancho Cucamonga near the intersection of I-15 and I-10, preliminary plans call for redevelopment of the site into 2,500 to 4,000 multifamily units. Redevelopment plans are not yet approved although city officials are confident that progress will be made in the near term and recent environmental review documents anticipate construction as soon as 2016 with completion in 2024. Based on interviews and research with knowledgeable stakeholders, WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff’s forecast assumes the majority of 2,500 units will be delivered by 2025. 4. Ontario Airport Area – The area north of the Ontario Airport is slated for heavy development during the Forecast Period. At full buildout, the Ontario Airport Metro Center plans call for approximately 8,900 residential units and 2.7 million square feet of office and retail development in six defined redevelopment areas. This area has exceptional access due to its proximity to the airport and I-10 highway access to Los Angeles and Orange counties. WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff’s forecast assumes full buildout will not take place by the end of the Forecast Period, although the pace of redevelopment may be accelerated if the recent airport transaction results in operational improvements and in enplanement growth. 5. Eastvale Commercial – The City of Eastvale is situated along the border of San Bernardino County and is adjacent to the planned I-15 express lanes. The city’s border extends in a panhandle to the north, bounded by Ontario Ranch to the west and I-15 to the east. In this area, plans for approximately 200 acres of undeveloped land include up to 3.7 million square feet of commercial uses. Plans include a mix of medical uses, hospitality, office, and light industrial space, with the first phase of 2 million square feet of industrial under construction. Although the mix of uses is still being refined, an estimated 4,000 new employees will work in this small area located adjacent to I-15. 6. Ontario Ranch - Located in Ontario along the Riverside County border, Ontario Ranch (formerly known as New Model Colony) is an 8,200-acre area poised for significant residential and commercial development throughout the Forecast Period. As of July 2015, there were nine specific plans approved in the area, totaling 2,900 acres, 10,800 residential units, and 2.2 million square feet of commercial development. One of these specific plans, Edenglen, began delivering homes in 2007 prior to stalling during the Great Recession. The sections of Ontario Ranch with defined plans are oriented towards the eastern side of defined area, closer to the planned express lanes, while the western side remains undefined at this stage. Given Ontario Ranch’s proximity to the proposed improvements, this area is poised to have a dramatic impact on future traffic. Estimates of total future buildout include up to 46,000 total new residential units, of which 24,000 are anticipated to be in place by the end of the Forecast Period (2035). This pace is lower than SCAG’s forecast but is consistent with current development patterns. By 2035, commercial development is estimated to result in approximately 18,000 jobs as well. 7. College Park - College Park is an existing development located centrally in the City of Chino, directly north of the penitentiary. There are currently approximately 1,500 households with 200 units under construction and another 500 planned. Full buildout of the 2,200 total units is expected to take place by 2020. College Park includes a small I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.98 commercial component but is a primarily residentially driven development. College Park and the Preserve have combined to generate the vast majority of residential permitting activity in the city of Chino in recent years. Although not part of the College Park development, the Majestic Chino Gateway is an industrial development located to the southeast within the same TAZ. The project consists of 3.1 million square feet of industrial warehouse space and an additional 40,000 square feet of retail use. The project broke ground in 2014 and Wal-Mart has preleased 1.4 million square feet for an online fulfillment center. 8. The Preserve - The Preserve is a partially developed master-planned community south of the Chino Airport and north of Pine Avenue in the City of Chino. Given its geographic orientation in the southwest corner of the county, this development is in an attractive location relative to Orange County access, though may be too far west to significantly impact the I-15 Express Lanes. The remaining portion of the project includes an additional 9,900 households by 2035 and non-residential space to house a total of 6,200 employees. A significant portion of new units in the near term include Homecoming at the Preserve, an 800-unit luxury apartment community, the first phases of which began lease up in 2014. 4.6.2 I-15 Corridor – South of SR-91 Much of this area along I-15, particularly to the south, is somewhat constrained by mountain ranges and other geographic barriers. However, there is significant development activity in the southern portion of the I-15 corridor, including in Temecula and Lake Elsinore, not entirely captured by SCAG’s baseline forecast. These areas tend to offer new construction housing with more affordable price positioning relative to northern locations. Although they are oriented further to the south and relatively distant from the planned improvements to I-15, the area is rapidly growing and affordability will fuel continued growth that will impact traffic on the planned express lanes from commuters traveling to some of the larger job concentrations in Ontario near the I-10 and through Corona and Riverside along the SR-91. In addition to affordability, cities to the south such as Temecula also benefit from access to the San Diego region. Closer to the planned express lanes, developments in cities such as Corona and unincorporated areas of Riverside County were also included as focus areas and incorporated into the socioeconomic forecast. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.99 Figure 4-11: Map of Focus Areas South of SR-91 9. Arantine Hills - While most of the City of Corona is built to capacity, there are a few parcels along I-15, south of SR-91 that remain for infill development. Many of these sites had been slated for development in the past decade but plans were abandoned at the outset of the Great Recession. Arantine Hills is a 276-acre planned community located adjacent to I-15 at Cajalco Road, the southern terminus of the I-15 Express Lanes project. Previous plans called for 1,600 new residential units and 750,000 square feet of office and retail development. However, recent plan revisions based on public feedback have scaled back the commercial component to a small-scale retail space. 10. Terramor – Terramor is a proposed master-planned community situated on a 900-acre property in an unincorporated area of Riverside County. Located adjacent to I-15 on the east and north of Temescal Canyon Road, Terramor is within close proximity to the proposed I-15 Express Lanes. Plans call for a low-density development, with 1,400 single-family detached residential units and no significant commercial component. The I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.100 specific plan for the project has been approved and plan amendments and tentative tract maps are currently in process. 11. North Lake Elsinore – Further south down I-15, the city of Lake Elsinore has numerous residential developments planned, proposed, and under construction, including 20 specific plans under review. Many of these projects are oriented on the north/northwest side of the city. Based on research of these projects and discussions with the city, WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff consolidated some of these projects into the North Lake Elsinore focus area and have incorporated these plans into the forecast accordingly. It is estimated that approximately 2,000 residential units will be delivered in this area between 2015 and 2025, and an additional 2,500 units built by 2035. 12. East Lake – Also located in the city of Lake Elsinore, the East Lake specific plan encompasses an area immediately adjacent to the lake. The plan calls for over 7,500 new residential units in a variety of formats. Lake Elsinore has been one of the fastest growing cities in California, due in part to successfully positioning the 3,300-acre lake as a hub for extreme sporting activities. However, recent drought issues are jeopardizing the viability of the lake, and the city has had to purchase reclaimed / recycled water from various locations to maintain adequate depths. 13. Murrieta – The City of Murrieta has several specific plans, including two large developments totaling 1,700 units combined. The Vineyards is an area located in the foothills west of I-15 that has the area to accommodate over 1,000 residential units which are expected to be delivered later in the Forecast Period. Murrieta Hills has plans for 750 units although it has been delayed due to archeological issues. There are several other smaller, infill projects located throughout the city as well. The city is also branding itself as a regional healthcare hub, with Loma Linda University adjacent to I-215 and an 800,000 square foot Kaiser Permanente facility planned nearby. 14. Jefferson Redevelopment – The city of Temecula has several developments planned, proposed, and under construction. Two significant projects include the Jefferson Specific Plan and Altair. The Jefferson Specific Plan would be a redevelopment of currently lower density older/established commercial uses situated within close proximity to I-15. The plan calls for rezoning and densification with a significant increase in higher-density residential uses, which will displace some of the older, lower-density commercial land uses. The rezoning allows for 3,700 new residential units at buildout. However, the redevelopment would result in a reduction in commercial space from 3.8 million square feet today down to 1.9 million in the future. 15. Altair – Altair is a specific plan currently under review, which includes 1,500 residential units comprised of a mix of attached and detached product. The 270-acre project is located within close proximity of I-15 near the terminus of SR-79 in the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains. Preliminary plans indicate a small retail component but the project is primarily residentially driven. 4.6.3 Orange County Focus Areas There is significant development activity in Orange County that will impact traffic on the I-15 Express Lanes. Many of these large-scale developments are concentrated in the cities of Irvine I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.101 and Tustin. Although these developments are located slightly further away from the project, I-15 connects to SR 91 which provides access to these areas via SR 241, branching off further to SR 261 and SR 133. These areas represent some of the last large-scale development opportunities in Orange County as well as some of the largest ongoing redevelopments in Southern California . Figure 4-12 highlights the focus areas discussed further in this section. Figure 4-12: Map of Orange County Focus Areas The following key real estate projects are located southeast of the Improvement Project in Orange County: 16. Tustin Legacy – Tustin Legacy, formally Marine Corps Air Station Tustin, is a 1,600-acre planned community located just west of where SR-261 terminates. Since 2006, various phases have been completed including four neighborhoods totaling 2,105 units and The District shopping center. Amalfi Apartments and Anton Legacy Apartments were completed in 2015, adding over 750 more homes. Standard Pacific Homes will finish 375 more units in Greenwood Park by the end of 2017, and two more neighborhoods, including one TOD neighborhood, are planned. Non-residential developments include approximately 1.6 million square feet of office space known as Cornerstone I and Cornerstone II, 305,000 square feet of educational and supporting commercial space in the Advanced Technology & Education Park (ATEP) campus, and 248,000 square feet total of neighborhood commercial and Hoag acute care and skilled nursing facility. Ultimate build-out of the project is estimated at 20+ years and will total over 6,800 residential units with non-residential space housing over 13,000 employees. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2324 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.102 17. Great Park – Great Park, referred to in previous reports as Heritage Fields at El Toro, is the redevelopment of former Marine Corps Air Station El Toro, located near SR 133. Great Park is a 688-acre redevelopment being delivered through a public-private partnership between the City of Irvine and developer FivePoint Communities. Residential sales began in 2013 and approximately 700 homes have been sold . Total buildout of Great Park will include 9,500 total residential units. Commercial development plans include about 4.9 million square feet of retail, office, and R&D space, 2 million of which will be dedicated to 8 buildings for an Avago (previously Broadcom) Campus, the first phase of which is under construction now. In addition to the land controlled by FivePoint Communities, Orange County owns 100 acres of land on the south end of Great Park. The county plans to build 2,000 residential units in 2019, 220,000 square feet of retail and entertainment by 2024, and 1.9 million square feet of office thereafter. The County also owns a parcel of land east of Great Park called Alton West. Plans include 970 units of multifamily housing at an average of 30 units per acre. Implementation of this project may be in phases starting in 2016. 18. Portola Springs – Located immediately adjacent to the Great Park on the northeast, Portola Springs is an ongoing master-planned community developed by the Irvine Company in an area referred to by the City of Irvine as Planning Area 6. As of 2015, there were over 2,200 existing units. Full buildout is anticipated by 2030 and will consist of a total of 5,200 units. The project is almost exclusively residential, with minimal commercial uses planned. At buildout, 40% of the residential units will consist of single-family detached product, with the remainder comprised of a mix of for-sale condominiums and apartments. 19. Orchard Hills – Orchard Hills, referred to as TIC Planning Area 1 in previous reports, land is located in the City of Irvine, east of the intersection of Portola Parkway and SR 261, just north of Portola Springs. It is planned for a total build-out of 4,100 residential units, with the majority of development taking place by 2025. As of the 3rd quarter 2015, 500 units had been built, 650 were under construction, and applications had been submitted by the Irvine Company for an additional 1,000 units . 20. Cypress Village / Stonegate – To the east of where SR 261 and I-5 intersect, a collection of large Irvine Company projects has been under development, including Woodbury, Cypress Village, and Stonegate. Some of these communities are approaching buildout, with Woodbury’s last unit sold in 2014 . It is anticipated that residential development in this area will be primarily built out by 2020, with 2,800 new units delivered between 2015 and 2020. Commercial development is anticipated to house thousands of new employees, although the non-residential portion is expected to be delivered at a slower pace than the residential units, with development continuing through 2035. 21. Quail Hill Commercial – Quail Hill is adjacent to I-405 on the south, bounded by Sand Canyon Avenue to the west and SR 133 to the east. The Irvine Company completed the residential components of this project in 2007, however, planned commercial development will include an additional 1.1 million square feet of commercial space by 2035. Given its adjacency to I-405, it is considered a strong location to attract a large single user / corporate headquarters, although there are no development plans at this time. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Socioeconomic Variables and Land Use 4.103 22. The Irvine Company Spectrum 5 – The Irvine Company has several projects planned for the area southwest of the interchange between I-405 and I-5, collectively known as Spectrum 5. This area, which was mostly vacant or used for agricultural and recreational purposes, has excellent highway exposure and is intended for a mix of higher-density residential and commercial development. The majority of new residential development is planned for rental apartment units. 1,750 apartment units have been completed as part of the first phase of multifamily construction in the area, known as Los Olivos Apartment Village. The second phase will consist of an additional 1,950 apartment units to be completed by 2025. These large-scale residential developments will result in total buildout of approximately 4,500 units by 2025. Non-residential buildout is anticipated for completion by 2030 and is likely to house approximately 3,000 additional employees in the area. 23. The Irvine Company Spectrum 2 and 3 Redevelopment – These areas are located on the south side of the former El Toro Marine Base within close proximity to the I-405 and I-5 interchange. These two areas contain some underutilized industrial land uses and represent longer term candidates for redevelopment / infill development. The area has the potential to house additional non-residential space amounting to approximately 1.6 million square feet by 2035. 24. TIC Irvine Center – The triangular area formed by I-405, SR 133, and I-5 has several sizable vacant parcels that are planned for commercial building by various parties, most notably the Irvine Company. There is currently a regional mall, a collection of office buildings, and a large quantity of rental residential development . An additional 1,350 apartment units are anticipated to be developed by 2020 . In addition to this area, undeveloped areas west of SR 133, between I-5 and I-405 have been planned by the Irvine Company to house over 30,000 new employees by 2035 . Total non-residential build-out is expected to be approximately 9 million square feet of office and light industrial space with some retail space. Over a million square feet is under construction or recently approved. One 20-story office tower is under construction and slated for completion in early 2016 while a second 20-story office building and 205-room hotel were recently approved. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.104 5.0 MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND CALIBRATION The T&R forecasting process relied primarily on the traffic forecasts produced by Stantec’s travel demand model but supported by a market-share model, and VISSIM micro-simulation model. Stantec’s travel demand model starts with the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RivTAM) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) models, and adapts them for use in forecasting I-15 Express Lane Project traffic and revenue. Stantec’s market share model is developed from the revealed preference of existing Orange County SR 91 Express Lanes users. Toll traffic capture rates were developed, correlating with corridor congestion and toll rates. Finally, a micro-simulation model, developed in VISSIM, was used to model the likely operations of the I-15 corridor including the I-15 Express Lanes. The various models were calibrated and validated, and adapted to predict future traffic and revenue. 5.1 TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL The objective of the travel demand modeling task was to develop a combination of forecasting tools to estimate future demand for the I-15 Express Lanes. This approach seeks to utilize existing regional travel demand models and integrate their estimates of future travel demand with a customized toll diversion model that is responsive to the likely range of tolling schemes and policy options. Using any single model platform precludes accurate representation of the route choice behavior of drivers utilizing the north/south alternatives between Riverside/Orange counties and San Diego because trips are already tied to a choice via external stations. To model this important behavior, an integrated model was developed which combines two modeling platforms into a single unified model platform . The modeled region includes the areas covered by the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RivTAM) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) models. The RivTAM model includes the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura. Within Riverside County the model was enhanced to provide for a more detailed zone structure. The routines developed provide a permanent tool that enables the efficient merging of the RivTAM and SANDAG models and forecasting of demand in Southern California. 5.1.1 Model Structure and Development Model development for the I-15 Express Lanes project involved a three-tiered approach. The first tier focused on integrating the networks and trip tables from the two regional planning models . The integrated model contains slightly more than 10,000 Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs). The second tier created subarea networks and trip tables which were extracted from the integrated model. The resulting subarea model is approximately 5,000 TAZs. The third tier model represented the I-15 Express Lanes study corridor. This 1,000 TAZ model is used to estimate demand. Figure 5-1 provides an overview of the integrated model structure. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.105 Figure 5-1: Model Structure with Toll Diversion Assignment Model The modeling process begins with the RivTAM and SANDAG modeling platforms . The two models run in the TransCAD software package and are based on the conventional four-step approach to travel demand forecasting. Socioeconomic data, presented in Chapter 4, are one of the key inputs to the travel demand model. These data are used in the trip generation and trip distribution steps of the four-step model. Trip generation uses variables such as households and employment to estimate the number of daily person trips by purpose expected to be made to and from each TAZ. Trip productions are based on household characteristics stratified by size, age, workers and income. Trip attractions are based on the level of employment in a zone. Employment is stratified by industry and wages. In trip distribution, the model estimates where trips produced in generation will be distributed based on the attractions within a zone (e.g., work, school, shopping, etc.) and the distance to other zones. A zone with a large number of attractions, like a large shopping mall, will receive more trips than one with a strip shopping center. The models then split the trips among available modes of transportation, and finally assign trips to the highway network. The process is then repeated (with each iteration utilizing estimated speeds from the previous iteration) until the difference in speeds between subsequent assignments is negligible. This outcome is generally referred to as a state of network equilibrium . In both the RivTAM and SANDAG models, this “speed feedback loop” is executed five times so that input speeds for trip distribution are in reasonable agreement with the highway speeds output from traffic assignment. Applying the speed feedback loops provides increased Transportation System Highway Network Transit Network Socioeconomic Inputs Population Households Employment Income RIVTAM & SANDAG Models Traffic Demand by Trip Purpose by Vehicle Type by Time of Day Stantec Toll Diversion Model Tolling Assumptions Value of Time Payment Method Share Corridor Constraint Transactions & Revenue Forecast Revenue Assumptions Annualization Ramp-Up Forecast Refinements I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.106 confidence in the resulting distribution of trips at the regional level. These models are used primarily to predict demand on a regional level and are not directly focused on forecasting toll road demand. Trip purpose is important for accurately modeling tolled facilities, as different trip purposes exhibit different values of time and therefore different levels of toll road usage . While each of the two regional models carries trip purpose through the mode choice step, the time-of-day and highway assignment steps do not retain trip purpose stratification. For this reason, person trip tables from the mode choice step of the final speed feedback iteration are intercepted and saved by peak/off-peak, trip purpose, and vehicle type (drive alone, shared ride, truck). 5.1.1.1 Conversion to Cube Voyager The trip tables extracted from the two regional models are converted to the Cube Voyager format to facilitate application of the integrated model process. The person trips by peak/off-peak were converted to vehicle trips by time period. The original time-of-day factors for the RivTAM model were developed based on a household survey completed by the Southern California Association of Government (SCAG) in 2000/2001. Stantec was able to obtain results from SCAG’s more recent 2011 Household Travel Survey and used these data to develop new time-of-day factors by trip purpose. Another change Stantec implemented as part of the integrated model development was the time period definitions. Based on observed data Stantec determined the AM and PM periods were actually longer than assumed in either of the regional models. The AM was expanded to include the 10AM hour and the PM was extended to include the 7PM hour. The midday and night trip tables were adjusted accordingly. At the corridor level Stantec divided the two peak periods into one hour slices in order to more accurately replicate demand. There are four one-hour time periods for the AM and four one-hour time periods for the PM. Highway networks were also converted to CUBE Voyager format. To facilitate joining the networks to form an integrated network, many network attribute definitions, including those for facility type, speed, and volume delay functions had to be mapped to a common definition. Because the RivTAM model provides coverage of the project corridor, Stantec adopted the RivTAM definitions wherever possible. Area type is a key variable in the model process. The SANDAG model does not explicitly define area type. Stantec developed an approach, based on population and employment density, to compute and append area type to the SANDAG networks. This same approach was used to update the area type for the RivTAM networks. In both instances population and employment data were based on updated land use developed for the project. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.107 5.1.1.2 Model Integration The model integration includes joining both the networks and trip tables from the two regional models along their common border to create a single network and set trip tables. This produced a model with slightly more than 10,000 TAZs. The common border of the two models consists of two major north-south freeways, I-5 and I-15, and four arterials, De Luz Road, Sandia Creek Drive, Pala Temecula Road and SR 79. Trips traversing this common border can consider all border locations when making route choice decisions rather than being tied to a specific external station. Joining the trip tables requires a set of control total traffic volumes stratified by direction, time period, trip purpose and vehicle type at each external station along the common border of the two models. To develop these control totals external station volumes from the two models were analyzed along with data from other sources. 5.1.1.3 Sub-Area Model A large portion of each of the models can be removed without impacting travel within and around the study area. To accomplish this, a procedure which cuts the network and trip tables along a predetermined border is applied. The resulting subarea model retained all trips within and crossing this border. The procedure consists of a simplified highway assignment model which tracks all trips crossing the predetermined border and produces networks and trip tables with the same granularity as the full regional models, but containing only the highway network and trips within the subarea. Figure 5-2 depicts the extent of the subarea defined for this project. The area shaded in gray represents the model boundaries. In the RivTAM model, the subarea is bounded by the Pacific Ocean and I-605 to the west, SR 210 to the north, I-215 and areas to the east, and the border with San Diego to the south. In the SANDAG model, the subarea is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west, the Orange and Riverside county borders to the north and I-15 to the east. The southern boundary of the subarea is approximately 5 miles south of SR 78 and includes the cities of Oceanside, Escondido and Carlsbad. Combined, the two subareas encompass approximately 5,000 TAZs and cover a geographical area well beyond the limits of the study area. The major regional roadways contained in the subarea capture the significant movements that are of interest in evaluating the I-15 Express Lanes. In Riverside County travel on I-15, I-215, SR 71, SR 74 and SR 91 is modeled and in San Diego County travel on I-5, I-215 and SR 78 is modeled. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.108 Figure 5-2: Sub-Area Model Boundary 5.1.1.4 Corridor Level Model As previously mentioned, the 1,000 TAZ corridor model was developed as a tool to help forecast demand within the proposed I-15 Express Lanes corridor. In addition to incorporating all the calibration adjustments from the subarea level model, the corridor level model used a routine that automatically scales the capacity based on the mainline and merging/diverging conditions for the I-15 corridor. The area shaded in gray in Figure 5-3 shows the boundaries of the corridor model. The boundaries of corridor level model are solely within the RivTAM model . It parallels SR 57 on the west, I-10 on the north, and intersects SR 60 and I-15 on the east. The southern I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.109 boundary of the corridor model cuts through the Santa Ana Mountains between Riverside and Orange counties. Figure 5-3: Corridor Level Model Boundary 5.1.1.5 Toll Diversion Highway Assignment The toll diversion model requires several key assumptions related to travelers’ preferences regarding toll choice. These assumptions include travelers’ willingness to pay as defined by their value of time, preferences for the method of payment via transponder (FasTrak) or video billing, and the level of toll rates. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.110 The toll diversion model is based on a process utilizing a logit-based route choice model embedded within an equilibrium traffic assignment routine . The process iteratively calculates the percentage of tolled trips for a given origin-destination interchange and can be stratified as necessary. A similar approach has been applied successfully by Stantec on numerous projects in the southern California region. The structure of the toll diversion model is defined as follows: Toll Share = 1 / (1+ eU) Toll Share = Probability of selecting a toll road e = Base of natural logarithm (ln) U = “Utility of Tolled Route” = α * (TimeTR-TimeFR) + β * Cost + CTR + CETC TimeTR = Tolled route travel time (min) TimeFR = Non-tolled route travel time (min) Cost = Toll (dollars) α = Time Coefficient β = Cost Coefficient CTR = Constant for toll road bias CETC = Constant for ETC bias The toll diversion model applies separate values of time for each trip purpose and commercial vehicle type. The model is stratified to accommodate four auto trip purposes: Home-Based Work (HBW), Home-Based Other (HBO), Non Home-Based Work (NHBW) and Non Home-Based Other (NHBO). Light truck trips are included with auto trips. Truck trips are stratified into 2 vehicle types: medium trucks and heavy trucks. As part of multiple studies over the past ten years, Stantec has developed and refined toll diversion coefficients in the southern California region based on regional income data and revealed preference data on the existing toll roads in the Southern California region. For auto trip purposes, the values of time range from $11.44 to $22.68 per hour, with the higher values assigned to work-related trips and the lower values used for non-work trips. The weighted average value of time for all auto trip purposes is $17.09 expressed in 2013 dollar terms. This is approximately 60 percent of the wage rate for median household income. During the model application, the zonal income from the home zone (TAZ) is used to adjust the underlying values of time, as prior studies have shown that the value of time increases as household income increases. To accommodate HOV policies and toll payment types, each of the four auto trip purposes is further stratified into drive alone and shared ride trips, and all trip purposes are stratified by two toll payment methods: electronic toll collection (ETC) and video billing. Stratification by toll payment type is applied during highway assignment and is dynamically altered for each origin-destination pair as the availability of different payment methods is determined. The development of toll rates for the various time periods and horizon years also requires specific processing techniques within the toll diversion model. For each time period and direction of travel, the toll rates for the I-15 express lanes were established via iterative model runs. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.111 5.1.2 Model Calibration A significant component of the model calibration effort is the collection, analysis and summarization of data representing existing conditions. These data are used to compare against assignments from the model. For modeling express lane facilities, the model needs to replicate not only traffic volumes but also the speeds within the corridor and the origin-destination patterns between the entry and exit ramps. This calibration approach is critical as the express lane tolling schemes are a function of the location of and level of congestion in the corridor and the limited number of access points into the express lanes tend to restrict the number of trips that are eligible to use the facility. The calibration process focuses initially on replicating travel speeds along the corridor and then focuses on replicating the assigned volumes and individua l origin-destination patterns. Calibration is performed on the integrated model highway assignment process. The first level of calibration was performed using the 10,000 TAZ integrated model. The objective of this calibration was to reasonably replicate speeds and flows for the region as a whole. The subarea calibration effort included adjusting free flow speeds and capacities and parameters of the volume delay function. To minimize the differences between observed traffic counts at selected locations and the estimated volumes produced by the model, adjustments were made to zone-to-zone trip movements. This differential was aggregated and then applied as an absolute correction factor in each horizon year. In addition, there were adjustments made to the HOV2 and HOV3 shares. These adjustments were based on HOV lane data on various corridors within the region, including SR 91 historical data. In addition to incorporating all the calibration adjustments from the subarea level model, the I-15 corridor level model further sliced the AM Period and PM Period into 4 single AM hours and 4 single PM hours. Adjustments were made in order to match the hourly observed traffic counts within the I-15 corridor. Another primary effort at the corridor level was calibrating a routine that automatically scales the capacity based on the mainline and merging/diverging conditions for I-15 corridor. All these adjustments were applied to each horizon year’s corridor level model. 5.1.2.1 Speed Calibration The initial focus of the calibration effort was to adjust the assignment procedures to ensure that estimated speeds in both the peak and off-peak periods were adequately replicating the observed speed data collected for the project. The assumed free flow speeds were adjusted as necessary to replicate the off-peak speeds which reflect generally uncongested conditions. Peak speeds were adjusted in an iterative process to ensure that estimated congested speeds replicated the observed values and that the overall traffic assigned to the roadways replicated the observed volumes on a daily basis. As the I-15 express lane facility will primarily compete with adjacent general purpose lanes, it is critical to adequately estimate speed within the individual sections of the corridor in order to correctly estimate the potential toll diversion. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.112 Equilibrium assignment relies on a volume-delay function to determine congested speeds based on roadway characteristics and the number of vehicles utilizing a segment. A version of the Akcelik function identical to that used in the RivTAM model was implemented. The volume delay function was further refined during calibration. Table 5-1 shows the comparison of the observed and estimated speeds on I-15 by direction for the AM peak period. The peak directional flow in the AM period is northbound and as shown in the table, there are sections of I-15 that experience more congestion during this period/direction. In contrast, there is little congestion in the southbound direction during the AM peak. Table 5-1: AM Peak Period Calibration Results – Speed (mph) AM Peak Period (6AM - 10AM) Distance (miles) Observed Estimated NB Entrance fr. Weirick Rd to NB Cajalco On 1.1 41 53 NB Cajalco On to NB El Cerrito On 1.0 55 37 NB El Cerrito On to NB Ontario On 1.0 67 43 NB Ontario On to NB Magnolia On 1.6 66 57 NB Magnolia On to NB Exit to SR-91 0.3 61 64 NB Exit to SR-91 to SB SR-91 Overpass 0.8 68 67 SB SR-91 Overpass to NB Entrance fr. SR-91 EB 0.2 71 66 NB Entrance fr. SR-91 EB to NB Hidden Valley On 1.2 67 65 NB Hidden Valley On to NB 2nd Street On 0.8 47 47 NB 2nd Street On to NB 6th Street On 2.0 55 63 NB 6th Street On to NB Limonite On 2.6 48 51 NB Limonite On to NB Cantu-Gallean On 1.5 53 48 NB Cantu-Gallean On to NB Exit to SR-60 0.4 61 67 NB Exit to SR-60 to NB Entrance from SR-60 1.5 42 63 NB Entrance from SR-60 to NB E. Jurupa Exit 0.9 40 55 Distance (miles) Observed Estimated E. Jurupa On Ramp to SR-60 Off Ramp 0.8 51 56 SR-60 Off Ramp to SR-60 On Ramp 1.1 67 67 SR-60 On Ramp to Cantu-Galleano On Ramp 1.3 63 65 Cantu-Galleano On Ramp to Limonite On Ramp 1.8 64 59 Limonite On Ramp to 6th St On Ramp 2.7 64 60 6th St On Ramp to 2nd Street On Ramp 1.9 64 64 2nd Street On Ramp to Hidden Valley Pkwy On Ramp 0.8 70 68 Hidden Valley Pkwy On Ramp to Exit to SR-91 0.7 64 68 Exit to SR-91 to SR-91 Overpass 0.7 67 68 SR-91 Overpass to Entrance from SR-91 EB 0.2 64 67 Entrance from SR-91 EB to Magnolia On Ramp 1.0 64 67 Magnolia On Ramp to Ontario On Ramp 1.6 66 68 Ontario On Ramp to El Cerrito On Ramp 0.8 69 67 El Cerrito On Ramp to Cajalco On Ramp 0.8 68 67 Cajalco On Ramp to Exit to Weirick Rd.0.8 65 67 I-15 NB I-15 SB AM Peak Period (6AM - 10AM) I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.113 The comparison of midday travel speeds is shown in Table 5-2. There are no segments in either direction that experience congestion. The toll diversion model provides estimated speeds that are generally slower than the observed speeds, but overall the model provides a reasonable estimate of free flow speeds that are typical for the midday period. Table 5-2: Midday Period Calibration Results - Speed (mph) Table 5-3 shows the comparison of the observed and estimated speeds on I-15 by direction for the PM peak period. The observed data indicate that peak directional flow in the PM peak is southbound and congested conditions occur at SR 60 in the north and continues to the 6th Street on-ramp. As traffic approaches the interchange with SR 91, congestion occurs and extends to Weirick Road. There is minimal congestion in the northbound direction. Distance (miles) Observed Estimated NB Entrance fr. Weirick Rd to NB Cajalco On 1.1 68 62 NB Cajalco On to NB El Cerrito On 1.0 68 60 NB El Cerrito On to NB Ontario On 1.0 67 64 NB Ontario On to NB Magnolia On 1.6 60 65 NB Magnolia On to NB Exit to SR-91 0.3 58 62 NB Exit to SR-91 to SB SR-91 Overpass 0.8 65 67 SB SR-91 Overpass to NB Entrance fr. SR-91 EB 0.2 73 66 NB Entrance fr. SR-91 EB to NB Hidden Valley On 1.2 71 65 NB Hidden Valley On to NB 2nd Street On 0.8 73 63 NB 2nd Street On to NB 6th Street On 2.0 71 64 NB 6th Street On to NB Limonite On 2.6 68 63 NB Limonite On to NB Cantu-Gallean On 1.5 67 61 NB Cantu-Gallean On to NB Exit to SR-60 0.4 68 67 NB Exit to SR-60 to NB Entrance from SR-60 1.5 64 66 NB Entrance from SR-60 to NB E. Jurupa Exit 0.9 60 59 Distance (miles) Observed Estimated E. Jurupa On Ramp to SR-60 Off Ramp 0.8 56 57 SR-60 Off Ramp to SR-60 On Ramp 1.1 74 67 SR-60 On Ramp to Cantu-Galleano On Ramp 1.3 73 63 Cantu-Galleano On Ramp to Limonite On Ramp 1.8 70 60 Limonite On Ramp to 6th St On Ramp 2.7 69 60 6th St On Ramp to 2nd Street On Ramp 1.9 69 60 2nd Street On Ramp to Hidden Valley Pkwy On Ramp 0.8 73 66 Hidden Valley Pkwy On Ramp to Exit to SR-91 0.7 67 64 Exit to SR-91 to SR-91 Overpass 0.7 67 66 SR-91 Overpass to Entrance from SR-91 EB 0.2 62 61 Entrance from SR-91 EB to Magnolia On Ramp 1.0 67 64 Magnolia On Ramp to Ontario On Ramp 1.6 69 65 Ontario On Ramp to El Cerrito On Ramp 0.8 70 62 El Cerrito On Ramp to Cajalco On Ramp 0.8 72 62 Cajalco On Ramp to Exit to Weirick Rd.0.8 61 62 Midday (10AM - 3PM) Midday (10AM - 3PM) I-15 NB I-15 SB I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.114 Table 5-3: PM Peak Period Calibration Results - Speed (mph) Table 5-4 shows the comparison of the observed and estimated speeds on I-15 by direction for the evening hours into the early morning. As in the midday period there are no segments in either direction that experience congestion. The toll diversion model provides estimated speeds that are very close to the observed speeds. The model provides a reasonable estimate of free flow speeds that are typical for the night period. The overall calibration of travel speeds indicates that the toll diversion model provides a reasonably good replication of observed travel speeds by direction in each time period and is deemed acceptable for the purposes of estimating toll diversion for this project. PM Peak Period (3PM - 7PM) Distance (miles) Observed Estimated NB Entrance fr. Weirick Rd to NB Cajalco On 1.1 64 64 NB Cajalco On to NB El Cerrito On 1.0 62 62 NB El Cerrito On to NB Ontario On 1.0 69 58 NB Ontario On to NB Magnolia On 1.6 62 62 NB Magnolia On to NB Exit to SR-91 0.3 60 62 NB Exit to SR-91 to SB SR-91 Overpass 0.8 70 67 SB SR-91 Overpass to NB Entrance fr. SR-91 EB 0.2 72 66 NB Entrance fr. SR-91 EB to NB Hidden Valley On 1.2 71 66 NB Hidden Valley On to NB 2nd Street On 0.8 59 59 NB 2nd Street On to NB 6th Street On 2.0 52 61 NB 6th Street On to NB Limonite On 2.6 49 61 NB Limonite On to NB Cantu-Gallean On 1.5 66 61 NB Cantu-Gallean On to NB Exit to SR-60 0.4 63 68 NB Exit to SR-60 to NB Entrance from SR-60 1.5 40 67 NB Entrance from SR-60 to NB E. Jurupa Exit 0.9 31 61 PM Peak Period (3PM - 7PM) Distance (miles) Observed Estimated E. Jurupa On Ramp to SR-60 Off Ramp 0.8 43 53 SR-60 Off Ramp to SR-60 On Ramp 1.1 37 66 SR-60 On Ramp to Cantu-Galleano On Ramp 1.3 37 62 Cantu-Galleano On Ramp to Limonite On Ramp 1.8 41 49 Limonite On Ramp to 6th St On Ramp 2.7 51 53 6th St On Ramp to 2nd Street On Ramp 1.9 59 62 2nd Street On Ramp to Hidden Valley Pkwy On Ramp 0.8 69 66 Hidden Valley Pkwy On Ramp to Exit to SR-91 0.7 68 66 Exit to SR-91 to SR-91 Overpass 0.7 67 65 SR-91 Overpass to Entrance from SR-91 EB 0.2 63 55 Entrance from SR-91 EB to Magnolia On Ramp 1.0 34 58 Magnolia On Ramp to Ontario On Ramp 1.6 20 41 Ontario On Ramp to El Cerrito On Ramp 0.8 24 32 El Cerrito On Ramp to Cajalco On Ramp 0.8 42 37 Cajalco On Ramp to Exit to Weirick Rd.0.8 48 31 I-15 NB I-15 SB I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.115 Table 5-4: Night Period Calibration Results – Speed (mph) 5.1.2.2 Screenline Calibration Screenline calibration was performed to ensure that the aggregate demand replicated the observed traffic. As part of this calibration, an in-house routine was applied to minimize variation between estimated and observed demand across each of the screenlines. The adjustment provides a matrix of ‘base year’ trip changes (either increases or reductions) that is then retained for application in each of the horizon years. Since these trips are stored as a matrix, these additional trips are not tied to specific roadways and can be diverted to different routes in exactly the same manner as the trips estimated directly by the model. As a result of the screenline calibration, for origin-destination zonal pairs where trip changes were provided by the adjustment routine, the net change in trips was less than one percent. Note that since the magnitude of the additional trips is held constant for all future years, their contribution to the overall assignment results are further minimized in each successive horizon year as the underlying Distance (miles) Observed Estimated NB Entrance fr. Weirick Rd to NB Cajalco On 1.1 68 66 NB Cajalco On to NB El Cerrito On 1.0 68 66 NB El Cerrito On to NB Ontario On 1.0 67 68 NB Ontario On to NB Magnolia On 1.6 60 68 NB Magnolia On to NB Exit to SR-91 0.3 58 67 NB Exit to SR-91 to SB SR-91 Overpass 0.8 65 69 SB SR-91 Overpass to NB Entrance fr. SR-91 EB 0.2 73 67 NB Entrance fr. SR-91 EB to NB Hidden Valley On 1.2 71 68 NB Hidden Valley On to NB 2nd Street On 0.8 73 68 NB 2nd Street On to NB 6th Street On 2.0 71 68 NB 6th Street On to NB Limonite On 2.6 68 68 NB Limonite On to NB Cantu-Gallean On 1.5 67 68 NB Cantu-Gallean On to NB Exit to SR-60 0.4 68 69 NB Exit to SR-60 to NB Entrance from SR-60 1.5 64 69 NB Entrance from SR-60 to NB E. Jurupa Exit 0.9 60 66 Distance (miles) Observed Estimated E. Jurupa On Ramp to SR-60 Off Ramp 0.8 56 65 SR-60 Off Ramp to SR-60 On Ramp 1.1 74 68 SR-60 On Ramp to Cantu-Galleano On Ramp 1.3 73 68 Cantu-Galleano On Ramp to Limonite On Ramp 1.8 70 68 Limonite On Ramp to 6th St On Ramp 2.7 69 68 6th St On Ramp to 2nd Street On Ramp 1.9 69 68 2nd Street On Ramp to Hidden Valley Pkwy On Ramp 0.8 73 69 Hidden Valley Pkwy On Ramp to Exit to SR-91 0.7 67 69 Exit to SR-91 to SR-91 Overpass 0.7 67 69 SR-91 Overpass to Entrance from SR-91 EB 0.2 62 67 Entrance from SR-91 EB to Magnolia On Ramp 1.0 67 67 Magnolia On Ramp to Ontario On Ramp 1.6 69 67 Ontario On Ramp to El Cerrito On Ramp 0.8 70 66 El Cerrito On Ramp to Cajalco On Ramp 0.8 72 67 Cajalco On Ramp to Exit to Weirick Rd.0.8 61 68 Nighttime (7PM - 6AM) Nighttime (7PM - 6AM) I-15 NB I-15 SB I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.116 model trip tables continue to increase due to growth in the region’s population and employment. Early calibration results revealed the model tended to overestimate the number of trips using HOV lanes. To bring aggregate HOV lane volume/count ratios closer to acceptable levels (+/- 10 percent of counts), a half minute time penalty was applied to represent the additional impedance associated with weaving in and out of the HOV lanes. A series of screenlines were developed that include I-15 and roadways within and around the project corridor. Figure 5-4 shows the locations of the screenlines. The screenline calibration results are shown in Table 5-5. Screenlines 1 through 5 include counts along I-15. The total estimated traffic for each of these screenlines is within reasonable and acceptable tolerance of the total counts. Figure 5-4: Screenline Locations I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.117 Table 5-5: Calibration Results at Screenlines Observed Estimated Obs-Est % Diff Screenline 1 - NORTH OF I-10 Northbound Total 93,035 95,118 2,083 2% Southbound Total 87,415 94,952 7,537 9% Screenline 2 - NORTH OF SR-60 Northbound Total 322,049 321,555 (494) 0% Southbound Total 313,870 308,177 (5,693) -2% Screenline 3 - SOUTH OF SR-60 Northbound Total 162,304 170,597 8,293 5% Southbound Total 162,208 169,061 6,853 4% Screenline 4 - NORTH OF SR-91 Northbound Total 141,650 133,738 (7,912) -6% Southbound Total 129,787 132,452 2,665 2% Screenline 5 - SOUTH-EAST OF SR-91 Northbound/Westbound Total 258,925 266,641 7,715 3% Southbound/Eastbound Total 252,055 261,733 9,678 4% Screenline A - WEST OF I-15 Westbound Total 355,131 361,463 6,333 2% Eastbound Total 359,946 356,765 (3,181) -1% Screenline B - EAST OF I-15 Westbound Total 289,810 318,556 28,746 10% Eastbound Total 302,041 313,211 11,171 4% Screenline C - Through SR-55 and SR-57 Northbound Total 267,310 269,440 2,131 1% Southbound Total 269,031 268,766 (265) 0% Screenline D - Through Santa Ana Mountains Westbound Total 272,900 278,878 5,978 2% Eastbound Total 265,700 275,393 9,693 4% Screenline F - Downtown Corona Westbound Total 165,207 172,245 7,039 4% Eastbound Total 163,917 166,920 3,003 2% Daily VolumeDESCRIPTION I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.118 5.1.2.3 I-15 Corridor Volume Calibration On a daily basis in the northbound direction the model generally overestimates traffic compared to actual volumes. A similar comparison exists in the southbound direction; however, the differences are not as pronounced. The percent root mean square error (%RMSE) statistic is used to measure model validity. On a daily basis in both directions the %RMSE is 3 percent. The replication of traffic within the corridor is excellent. Table 5-6 to Table 5-9 compare the actual volumes and model estimates for each segment within the I-15 corridor. Daily volume comparisons are presented by direction, as well as by time of day. Table 5-6: Calibration Results – Northbound I-15 Daily Corridor Volume Table 5-7: Calibration Results – Southbound I-15 Daily Corridor Volume Segment Observed Estimated Obs-Est % Diff I-15 - SR-60 and E Jurupa St 103,019 96,670 (6,349) -6% I-15 - Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd and SR-60 83,013 83,885 872 1% I-15 - Limonite and Cantu Galleanu Rd 77,792 78,830 1,038 1% I-15 - 6th St and Limonite Ave 75,905 79,221 3,316 4% I-15 - 2nd St and 6th St 76,477 78,266 1,789 2% I-15 - Hidden Valley Pkwy and 2nd St 79,584 80,435 852 1% I-15 - SR-91 and Hidden Valley Pkwy 81,043 79,575 (1,468) -2% I-15 - Magnolia Ave and SR-91 94,618 96,639 2,021 2% I-15 - Ontario Ave and Magnolia Ave 85,358 84,745 (613) -1% I-15 - El Cerrito and Ontario 81,764 82,683 919 1% I-15 - Cajalco and El Cerrito 81,016 81,316 300 0% I-15 - Weirick and Cajalco 72,217 76,945 4,728 7% % Root Mean Square Error (%RMSE)3% Daily Volume Segment Observed Estimated Obs-Est % Diff I-15 - SR-60 and E Jurupa St 97,686 101,751 4,065 4% I-15 - Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd and SR-60 81,297 85,417 4,120 5% I-15 - Limonite and Cantu Galleano Rd 76,706 79,427 2,721 4% I-15 - 6th St and Limonite Ave 76,331 77,710 1,379 2% I-15 - 2nd St and 6th St 76,298 78,606 2,307 3% I-15 - Hidden Valley Pkwy and 2nd St 79,754 80,220 466 1% I-15 - SR-91 and Hidden Valley Pkwy 76,337 76,996 659 1% I-15 - Magnolia Ave and SR-91 93,617 92,570 (1,047) -1% I-15 - Ontario Ave and Magnolia Ave 81,480 83,714 2,234 3% I-15 - El Cerrito and Ontario 80,074 80,226 152 0% I-15 - Cajalco and El Cerrito 81,462 81,677 215 0% I-15 - Weirick and Cajalco 75,436 75,233 (203) 0% % Root Mean Square Error (%RMSE)3% Daily Volume I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.119 The peak direction on I-15 in the morning is northbound. At the southern end of the project corridor the model overestimates traffic by 6 percent . At the northern end the model underestimates traffic by 6 percent . Between these segments the model generally overestimates traffic between 2 and 4 percent. The % RMSE for the AM period is 4 percent, which is an excellent replication of existing traffic. Table 5-8: Calibration Results – Northbound I-15 AM, Midday, PM, and Night Volumes The peak direction on I-15 in the PM is in the southbound direction. Between 6th Street and El Cerrito the model underestimates traffic, however not by a significant amount. The %RMSE for the PM period is 4 percent, which is excellent. The % RMSE for the AM and midday is 5 percent and the night is 4 percent. Segment Observed Estimated Obs-Est % Diff Observed Estimated Obs-Est % Diff I-15 - SR-60 and E Jurupa St 24,701 23,101 (1,601) -6% 27,226 25,920 (1,306) -5% I-15 - Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd and SR-60 21,552 22,010 457 2%21,700 22,398 698 3% I-15 - Limonite and Cantu Galleanu Rd 20,289 20,640 351 2%20,314 21,090 776 4% I-15 - 6th St and Limonite Ave 18,540 19,339 799 4%20,137 21,642 1,505 7% I-15 - 2nd St and 6th St 18,247 18,946 699 4%20,377 20,873 496 2% I-15 - Hidden Valley Pkwy and 2nd St 19,547 19,468 (79) 0%21,756 22,319 563 3% I-15 - SR-91 and Hidden Valley Pkwy 20,422 19,208 (1,214) -6% 21,868 21,673 (194) -1% I-15 - Magnolia Ave and SR-91 22,308 22,214 (94) 0%26,344 26,348 4 0% I-15 - Ontario Ave and Magnolia Ave 21,496 22,233 737 3%23,560 22,147 (1,413) -6% I-15 - El Cerrito and Ontario 21,292 20,935 (357) -2% 22,059 22,354 295 1% I-15 - Cajalco and El Cerrito 20,668 20,382 (286) -1% 21,827 21,695 (133) -1% I-15 - Weirick and Cajalco 17,895 18,995 1,100 6%19,434 20,990 1,556 8% % Root Mean Square Error (%RMSE)4%4% AM Period MD Period Segment Observed Estimated Obs-Est % Diff Observed Estimated Obs-Est % Diff I-15 - SR-60 and E Jurupa St 23,796 21,477 (2,319) -10% 27,295 26,172 (1,124) -4% I-15 - Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd and SR-60 19,457 19,187 (271) -1% 20,303 20,290 (13) 0% I-15 - Limonite and Cantu Galleanu Rd 18,007 18,004 (3)0%19,181 19,095 (86) 0% I-15 - 6th St and Limonite Ave 18,767 19,010 243 1%18,461 19,230 769 4% I-15 - 2nd St and 6th St 18,898 19,267 369 2%18,955 19,179 224 1% I-15 - Hidden Valley Pkwy and 2nd St 19,164 19,007 (157) -1% 19,117 19,642 524 3% I-15 - SR-91 and Hidden Valley Pkwy 18,604 18,485 (119) -1% 20,148 20,208 60 0% I-15 - Magnolia Ave and SR-91 21,698 23,569 1,871 9%24,268 24,509 241 1% I-15 - Ontario Ave and Magnolia Ave 18,277 19,416 1,139 6%22,026 20,949 (1,076) -5% I-15 - El Cerrito and Ontario 17,016 17,878 862 5%21,397 21,516 120 1% I-15 - Cajalco and El Cerrito 17,159 17,927 768 4%21,361 21,312 (49) 0% I-15 - Weirick and Cajalco 15,700 16,849 1,149 7%19,188 20,111 923 5% % Root Mean Square Error (%RMSE)6%3% PM Period NT Period I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.120 Table 5-9: Calibration Results – Southbound I-15 AM, Midday, PM, and Night Volumes 5.1.2.4 Origin-Destination Pattern Calibration The final element of the calibration was replication of the specific origin-destination patterns for vehicles traversing the corridor by direction for each of the peak periods. The origin and destination patterns represent traffic entering and exiting at the ends of the corridor and the individual entry and exit ramps between the general purpose lanes from three different locations. Figure 5-5 presents the calibration results for trips on I-15 south of Cajalco Road. Figure 5-6 represents trips on I-15 to/from SR-91 west. Segment Observed Estimated Obs-Est % Diff Observed Estimated Obs-Est % Diff I-15 - SR-60 and E Jurupa St 20,974 23,066 2,092 10%25,907 26,204 297 1% I-15 - Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd and SR-60 18,333 19,604 1,271 7%21,817 23,538 1,721 8% I-15 - Limonite and Cantu Galleano Rd 17,258 18,292 1,034 6%20,964 22,603 1,638 8% I-15 - 6th St and Limonite Ave 17,722 18,328 606 3%21,032 22,489 1,457 7% I-15 - 2nd St and 6th St 17,824 18,243 419 2%21,215 23,203 1,988 9% I-15 - Hidden Valley Pkwy and 2nd St 17,571 17,910 339 2%22,775 23,577 803 4% I-15 - SR-91 and Hidden Valley Pkwy 15,225 15,595 370 2%22,957 23,162 205 1% I-15 - Magnolia Ave and SR-91 18,638 19,899 1,261 7%26,587 25,959 (629) -2% I-15 - Ontario Ave and Magnolia Ave 15,455 15,602 147 1%23,648 25,049 1,401 6% I-15 - El Cerrito and Ontario 14,021 14,214 193 1%23,301 24,113 812 3% I-15 - Cajalco and El Cerrito 14,181 14,691 509 4%23,547 23,296 (251) -1% I-15 - Weirick and Cajalco 12,802 13,121 319 2%20,927 20,841 (86) 0% % Root Mean Square Error (%RMSE)5%5% AM Period MD Period Segment Observed Estimated Obs-Est % Diff Observed Estimated Obs-Est % Diff I-15 - SR-60 and E Jurupa St 23,616 24,306 689 3%27,188 28,175 987 4% I-15 - Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd and SR-60 20,835 21,315 480 2%20,312 20,959 647 3% I-15 - Limonite and Cantu Galleano Rd 19,869 19,834 (35)0%18,615 18,698 83 0% I-15 - 6th St and Limonite Ave 19,918 19,334 (584) -3% 17,659 17,559 (100) -1% I-15 - 2nd St and 6th St 19,291 18,472 (819) -4% 17,969 18,688 719 4% I-15 - Hidden Valley Pkwy and 2nd St 20,991 20,457 (534) -3% 18,417 18,275 (142) -1% I-15 - SR-91 and Hidden Valley Pkwy 20,277 19,789 (488) -2% 17,877 18,450 572 3% I-15 - Magnolia Ave and SR-91 24,904 22,998 (1,907) -8% 23,487 23,715 227 1% I-15 - Ontario Ave and Magnolia Ave 22,218 21,313 (905) -4% 20,159 21,750 1,591 8% I-15 - El Cerrito and Ontario 22,716 21,081 (1,636) -7% 20,035 20,819 784 4% I-15 - Cajalco and El Cerrito 23,932 23,246 (686) -3% 19,802 20,444 642 3% I-15 - Weirick and Cajalco 23,130 23,060 (71)0%18,577 18,212 (365) -2% % Root Mean Square Error (%RMSE)4%4% PM Period NT Period I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.121 Figure 5-7 shows the results of the patterns on I-15 north of Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road. As a measure of overall correlation, simple R-squared values between the sampled observed and estimated trip movements were generated for each time period and direction. These R-squared values are 0.98, 0.94, 0.98, and 0.97 for AM southbound, AM northbound, PM southbound, and PM northbound traffic, respectively. Since the R-squared values are close to one, there is a significant degree of correlation between the observed and estimated origin-destination patterns. Figure 5-5: I-15 OD Patterns Calibration, Peak Direction, South of Cajalco Road SB PM NB AM I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.122 Figure 5-6: I-15 OD Patterns Calibration, Peak Direction, SR 91 West of I-15 EB PM WB AM I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.123 Figure 5-7: I-15 OD Patterns Calibration, Peak Direction, North of Cantu Galleano SB PM NB AM I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.124 5.1.3 Preparation of Highway Networks Regional networks for both the RivTAM and SANDAG model platforms were developed for 2015, 2025 and 2035. Each set of networks was reviewed for accuracy and proper connectivity. Refinements to the highway networks were the result of discussions with representatives from RCTC, OCTA, and TCA. Projects contained in the adopted 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), produced by the Southern California Association of Governments, formed the basis for many of the updates to the RivTAM roadway networks. Projects contained in the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan, prepared by the San Diego Council of Governments, was the primary source of highway improvements for the SANDAG networks. 5.1.3.1 Base Year Network Changes The base year for model calibration/validation is 2015 . The base year networks pivoted off of existing 2012 roadway networks previously prepared by Stantec as part of their work for the Transportation Corridor Agencies in 2014. Table 5-10 shows the relevant network changes made to the RivTAM base year network. Table 5-10: Key Network Changes (2015) Roadway RTP ID Description and (Year) County I-215 200614 Add 1 HOV lane in each direction from Spruce Street to Orange Show Road. San Bernardino 0121D Widen from 6 to 8 lanes and add auxiliary lanes from SR- 60/SR-91/I-215 junction to SR-60/I-215. Riverside RIV050555 Add HOV direct connectors from I-215/SR-60 to SR-60. Riverside 713 Add 1 mixed flow lane and an HOV lane in each direction from I-10 to SR-210. San Bernardino SR-210 20620 Widen to 6 mixed flow lanes and 2 HOV lanes from Los Angeles County Line to SR-215 and add direct connector between SR-210 and I-215. San Bernardino SR-91 120336 Add an eastbound lane from the SR-91/SR-241 interchange to the SR-91/SR-71 interchange. Orange/Riverside RIV010212 Add 1 HOV lane / dir from Adams St to SR 60/I-215 to Central Ave off. Extend 5th WB lane from SR 60/I-215 to 14th St off. Add auxiliary lanes from Madison St to Central Ave. Riverside ORA030601 Add 1 lane in each direction from SR-91/SR-55 interchange to the SR-91/SR-241 interchange. Orange French Valley Parkway 991202 Construct French Valley Parkway interchange and a 2-lane roadway from I-15 to Jefferson Avenue. Riverside Green River Road RIV011237 Widen Green River Road from SR-91 on/off ramps to Palisades Drive. Riverside 5.1.3.2 Future Year Network Changes (2025/2035) The two forecast years selected for the project are 2025 and 2035 . The I-15 Express Lanes are assumed to be open by 2020. Tolled direct connectors between SR 241 and the express lanes on SR 91 are assumed to be open by 2019. The existing HOV lanes on SR 91 in Riverside County line will be converted to express lanes by 2018 . The extent of this improvement will be from the I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.125 county line to I-15. Table 5-11 presents the significant network improvements expected to occur between 2016 and 2025. Table 5-11: Key Network Changes: 2016-2025 Roadway RTP ID Description County I-15 RIV071267 I-15 Express Lanes from Cajalco Road to SR-60. Add 1 HOV lane in each direction from SR-74 to JCT I-15/I-215. Riverside 30M0701- RIV071250 Construct 1 tolled express lane direct connector from NB I-15 to WB SR-91 and from EB SR-91 to SB I-15. Riverside 4122006 Add 2 tolled express lanes in each direction from SR-60 to SR-210. San Bernardino I-10 4122004 I-10 Express Lanes from San Antonio Avenue to Ford Street. San Bernardino I-215 4M0803 Add 1 lane in each direction from SR-60/SR-91/I-215 junction and Orange Show Road. San Bernardino SR-60 4M07008 Widen auxiliary lanes in each direction from Ramona Avenue interchange to SB I-15 direct connector. Widen SB I-15 to WB SR-60 and EB SR-60 to NB/SB I-15 direct connectors from 1 to 2 lanes. San Bernardino SR-91 RIV010212 Add 1 HOV lane in each direction from Adams Street to SR-60/I- 215. Extend 4th WB lane from SR-60/I-215 to Central Avenue off. Extend 5th WB lane from SR-60/I-215 to 14th Street off. Add auxiliary lanes from Madison Street to Central Avenue. Riverside 30M0701- RIV071250 Convert existing HOV lane in each direction to tolled express lanes. Add 1 tolled express lane in each direction from Orange County Line to I-15. Add one lane in each direction from SR-71 to I-15. Add auxiliary lanes in various locations from SR-241 to Pierce Street. Construct a collector-distributor system from Main Street to I-15. Riverside RIV070308 Reconstruct EB SR-91 to NB SR-71 direct connector and Green River Road EB on ramp. Riverside 2M0736 Add 1 lane in each direction from SR-55 to SR-57. Orange 2M0737 Add 1 WB lane from SR-241 SB off to Gypsum Canyon Road. Orange ORA111207 Construct tolled express lane direct connectors from NB SR-241 to EB SR-91 and from WB SR-91 to SB SR-241 Orange Cajalco Road RIV010208 Widen Cajalco Road from Temescal Canyon Road to Bedford Canyon Road. Riverside Foothill Parkway RIV010209 Construct a 4 lane roadway between Lincoln Avenue and Paseo Grande. Riverside Limonite Avenue RIV011233 Widen Limonite Avenue from Hamner Avenue to Wineville Avenue. Riverside A southern extension of the I-15 Express Lanes, from Cajalco Road to US-74, is expected to open by 2027. Temescal Canyon Road, which runs parallel to the I-15 Express Lanes, will be reconstructed and widened between 2030 and 2035. Table 5-12 presents the significant network improvements expected to occur between 2026 and 2035. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.126 Table 5-12: Key Network Changes: 2026-2035 Roadway RTP ID Description County I-15 RIV071267 I-15 Express Lanes from Cajalco Road to US-74. Riverside SR-71 1M1001 Add 1 HOV lane and 1 mixed flow lane in each direction from Mission Boulevard to Rio Rancho. Los Angeles LA0B951 Add 1 HOV lane and 1 mixed flow lane in each direction from I-10 to SR-60. Los Angeles 3M01MA09 Add 1 lane in each direction from SR-91 to San Bernardino County Line. Riverside SR-91 RIV071250B Add 1 lane in each direction from SR-241 to SR-71 and from I- 15 to Pierce Street. Construct 1 tolled express lane direct connector from EB SR-91 to NB I-15 and from SB I-15 to WB SR- 91. Riverside Archibald Avenue 3A01WT124 Widen from San Bernardino County Line to River Road. Riverside Euclid Avenue 4120106 Widen from Merrill Avenue to Kimball Avenue. Riverside 4A04036 Widen from Pine Avenue to SR-71. Riverside 4A04201 Widen from Riverside Drive to Merrill Avenue. Riverside Schleisman Road RIV050532 Construct new interchange at I-15. Add northbound and southbound auxiliary lanes between Schleisman Road and Limonite Avenue. Riverside Temescal Canyon Road 3M0728 Reconstruct/widen Temescal Canyon interchange at I-15. Riverside 3A04WT197 Widen from El Cerrito Road to Indian Truck Trail. Riverside 3A04WT198 Widen from Indian Truck Trail to over Temescal Wash. Riverside I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.127 5.2 MARKET SHARE MODEL Stantec has adapted its managed lane market share model to separately predict I-15 ELP usage. The adapted market share model was used to provide an alternative view of traffic and revenue and its results were used to post-process some travel demand model results and to develop traffic and revenue annualization factors, ramp-up factors, and to understand the traffic and revenue impacts of dynamic pricing. 5.2.1 Model Structure and Development – Market Share Model 5.2.1.1 Market Share Curves The market share curves are built from a compilation of traffic, speed, and income data collected in 2015. Stantec collected general purpose lane (GP) traffic volume and 91 Express Lane volume by hour (provided by OCTA) in June and September 2015, and SR 91 Express Lanes hourly traffic and toll data obtained from the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). GP lane data were collected in June and September 2015 via Stantec’s data collection program and supplemented with additional data from the PeMS database. These data were used to assess the relationship between corridor demand, congestion, and express lane usage. Capture rates on westbound SR 91 formed the basis for the toll market share curves. Data from SR 91 between Lakeview Avenue and SR 55 were used to derive market share capture rates for full-toll traffic (excluding HOV-3+ free). This location is regularly the most congested section of westbound SR 91 and has the most direct correlation with toll traffic usage. Figure 5-8 shows global, GP, and express traffic by hour in this section and Figure 5-9 shows the tolls charged. The resulting market share curves are shown in Figure 5-10. The curves were derived based on data collected during the count program, as well as additional counts collected from the PeMS database. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.128 Figure 5-8: SR 91 Westbound Global and Express Traffic Figure 5-9: SR 91 Westbound Express Lanes Tolls Charged 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMHourly Traffic Hour Beginning SR 91 GP 91 EL Traffic FT Traffic Global $0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00 $10.00 12:00 AM1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM10:00 AM11:00 AM12:00 PM1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM10:00 PM11:00 PMSR 91 EL Toll Charged Hour Beginning I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.129 Figure 5-10: SR 91 Westbound Express Market Share Curves – Full Toll Traffic 5.2.1.2 Model Implementation The SR 91 market share curves were adapted to reflect the lane configuration of I-15 ELP project. Curves were developed for 3 GP / 2 Express lane, 3 GP / 1 Express Lane, 4 GP / 2 Express Lane, and 4 GP / 1 Express Lane configurations. The market share model was setup to model traffic on typical weekdays and weekends on a segment-by-segment basis by 15-minute period. Inputs used by the model include:  Global traffic forecast by the travel demand model by period  Traffic demand profile (15-minute distribution)  Ratio of Friday, Saturday, and Sunday traffic versus typical weekday traffic.  Length of Express Lane segments  Capacity of the GP Lanes (1850 vphpl and Express Lanes (1900 vphpl) Market share model forecasts were not used directly for the T&R forecast, but were used to benchmark travel demand model outputs and to post process results as needed. Market share model forecasts of Friday and weekend traffic were used to develop weekday traffic and revenue annualization factors, dynamic tolling adjustment factors, and to estimate traffic and revenue ramp-up during the opening years. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90Full Toll Market ShareGlobal V/CIncreasingXL Caputure RateIncreasing Corridor Congestion Low toll High Toll I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.130 5.3 MICRO-SIMULATION MODEL Stantec created a micro-simulation model to assess the future operations for the proposed Riverside County I-15 Express Lanes (I -15 ELP). Micro-simulation is a traffic modeling procedure that produces a highly detailed traffic simulation. Vehicles are individually loaded onto the highway network and their impact on traffic operations are simulated on a second by second basis. This section presents the overall modeling methodology, existing conditions model development and calibration, and development of the future conditions model. PTV’s VISSIM version 7 software was used to model the proposed I -15 ELP. The simulation was built to model the future year 2025 and a worst case 2035 condition excluding arterial improvements and the I-15 North DC’s (2035 projects). An existing conditions model was created and calibrated in an effort to prove the model’s ability to accurately replicate existing conditions traffic during the 3 to 7 PM period. Highway network geometry was obtained from aerial photography available from internet maps and photographs supplied by Google and Microsoft’s Bing.com and survey data. Origin and destination matrices were built from traffic count and OD data collected from the data collection program discussed in the Existing Conditions chapter. The model was calibrated against traffic count and travel time data collected during June 2015. A future conditions model was created by modifying the existing conditions model’s geometry based on information from drawings provided by the Project design team as well as knowledge of projects scheduled in the RTP. Future traffic volumes were developed based on travel demand model forecasts. Operations were evaluated using model predicted spot speeds, travel time, and throughput. 5.3.1 Micro-simulation Model Development and Calibration The purpose of the existing conditions model is to create a model that can be expected to reliably depict future year conditions. This is accomplished by modeling the existing condition as surveyed in June 2015 using traffic count data, a set of origin-destination volumes, network characteristics, and driver behaviors to replicate observed conditions. An AM peak period and a PM peak period model were developed. The AM peak period model simulates traffic between 6 and 10 AM and includes a one-hour seed reflecting 5 to 6 AM used to pre-fill the network with traffic prior to the start of the 6 AM analysis hour. The PM peak period model simulates traffic between 3 and 7 PM and also includes a one-hour seed reflecting 2 to 3 PM. 5.3.1.1 Roadway Network Assumptions The extents of the model include I-15 north of SR 60 and south of Cajalco Road. In addition to the I-15, SR 91 between Tustin Avenue and Pierce Street are also included. While the focus of the simulation effort is I-15, a substantial length of SR 91 is included because it is a major origin and I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.131 destination for I-15 traffic and its future Express Lanes extension would connect directly with I-15. Figure 5-11 highlights the area covered by the micro-simulation. The existing conditions model replicates the I-15 highway network as of June 2015. This includes 3 GP lanes per direction north of 2nd Street, south of El Cerrito Road, and through the SR 91 interchange, and generally 4 lanes per direction between SR 91 and 2nd Street, and between SR 91 and El Cerrito Road. Figure 5-11: Existing Conditions Micro-Simulation Model Extents Source; Bing maps I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.132 Table 5-13: Number of Lanes, Existing Conditions on I-15 Segment SB GP NB GP North of SR 60 4 4 Through SR 60 3 3 SR 60 to Cantu Galleano Ranch Road 4 5 Through Cantu Galleano 3 3 Cantu Galleano Ranch Road to Limonite Avenue 3 3 Through Limonite Avenue 3 3 Limonite Avenue to 6th Street 3 3 Through 6th Street 3 3 6th Street to 2nd Street 3 3 Through 2nd Street 3 3 2nd Street to Hidden Valley Pkwy 4 4 Through Hidden Valley Pkwy 4 4 Hidden Valley Pkwy to SR 91 4 4 Through SR 91 3 3 SR 91 to Magnolia Avenue 5 4 Through Magnolia Avenue 4 3 Magnolia Avenue to Ontario Ave 4 4 Through Ontario Ave 4 3 Ontario Ave to El Cerrito Road 4 3 Through El Cerrito road 3 3 El Cerrito Road to Cajalco Road 3 3 Through Cajalco Road 3 3 South of Cajalco Road 3 3 5.3.1.2 Input Volumes Traffic volumes are input to the micro-simulation model as origin-destination pairs. A matrix of OD pairs were developed by balancing hourly ramp entry and exit demand volumes and mainline demand volumes against OD patterns collected via the OD survey. Input and target volumes may differ from those used for travel demand model calibration because the micro-simulation attempts to replicate traffic operations observed over a span of several days rather than averages for the entire year. The resulting I-15 OD demand volumes for the AM peak period and PM peak period for the I-15 corridor are shown in Table 5-14 through Table 5-17. OD pairs were then expanded to encompass traffic using SR 91 between and including Tustin Avenue and McKinley Street. These expanded OD matrices were used to model the AM and PM peak periods. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.133 Table 5-14: Origin-Destination Matrix, I-15 NB AM Table 5-15: Origin-Destination Matrix, I-15 NB PM Table 5-16: Origin-Destination Matrix, I-15 SB AM DESTINATION ORIGIN North of SR-60 SR-60 WB SR-60 EB Cantu- Galleano Ranch Rd Limonite Ave Sixth St Second St Hidden Valley Pkwy SR-91 WB SR-91 EB Magnolia Ave Ontario Ave El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd Total Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd 1,274 499 150 1,923 Limonite Ave 2,420 941 280 40 3,680 Sixth St 1,357 253 137 77 249 2,072 Second St 677 124 68 38 122 8 1,037 Hidden Valley Pkwy 1,452 268 146 83 255 49 31 2,284 SR-91 EB 1,942 702 901 141 444 424 401 227 5,183 SR-91 WB 470 838 586 107 337 876 833 472 4,520 Magnolia Ave 592 214 76 40 118 58 149 344 903 1,237 3,731 Ontario Ave 494 180 65 33 100 50 127 292 774 1,051 35 3,200 El Cerrito Rd 263 95 35 17 52 25 67 156 387 542 37 19 1,696 Cajalco Rd 518 190 69 35 105 52 133 309 790 1,094 115 79 37 3,526 South of Cajalco Rd 1,651 1,074 542 51 151 237 594 1,358 3,563 1,252 2,730 2,898 1,034 758 17,894 Total 13,109 5,378 3,053 661 1,934 1,780 2,335 3,158 6,418 5,176 2,917 2,996 1,072 758 50,746 DESTINATION ORIGIN North of SR-60 SR-60 WB SR-60 EB Cantu- Galleano Ranch Rd Limonite Ave Sixth St Second St Hidden Valley Pkwy SR-91 WB SR-91 EB Magnolia Ave Ontario Ave El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd Total Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd 1,308 299 268 1,874 Limonite Ave 2,136 488 437 30 3,092 Sixth St 1,403 278 275 56 547 2,559 Second St 1,102 218 216 44 430 21 2,032 Hidden Valley Pkwy 1,657 329 324 66 648 97 50 3,172 SR-91 EB 1,432 404 606 63 623 832 640 451 5,052 SR-91 WB 360 634 289 38 376 1,274 987 691 4,649 Magnolia Ave 1,079 280 310 50 485 55 74 173 1,204 1,909 5,617 Ontario Ave 624 162 179 29 281 32 42 101 697 1,108 50 3,304 El Cerrito Rd 182 48 52 8 83 9 12 30 205 328 30 16 1,004 Cajalco Rd 480 125 138 22 218 25 33 78 539 859 122 85 41 2,767 South of Cajalco Rd 686 493 157 16 160 345 460 1,088 5,091 855 1,994 1,942 1,107 1,308 15,701 Total 12,448 3,757 3,253 424 3,852 2,690 2,298 2,612 7,736 5,058 2,196 2,043 1,148 1,308 50,822 DESTINATION ORIGIN Cantu- Galleano Ranch Rd Limonite Ave Sixth St Second St Hidden Valley Pkwy SR-91 WB SR-91 EB Magnoli a Ave Ontario Ave El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd South of Cajalco Rd Total North of SR 60 393 727 1,377 1,146 1,853 565 313 529 324 81 200 435 7,942 SR-60 EB 268 378 410 330 540 459 572 34 22 5 13 1,026 4,057 SR-60 WB 903 1,250 511 428 689 792 486 123 75 19 46 987 6,309 Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd 4 12 22 91 82 86 42 26 6 16 107 493 Limonite Ave 34 96 536 484 514 245 151 37 96 630 2,823 Sixth St 29 242 375 890 278 168 41 107 318 2,449 Second St 19 316 729 226 139 34 89 254 1,805 Hidden Valley Pkwy 281 665 211 127 30 83 238 1,634 SR-91 EB 1,230 769 189 485 2,701 5,375 SR-91 WB 1,866 1,197 302 735 1,554 5,654 Magnolia Ave 30 54 108 1,403 1,594 Ontario Ave 28 57 1,510 1,595 El Cerrito Rd 18 968 986 Cajalco Rd 673 673 Total 1,564 2,360 2,344 2,050 3,970 3,353 4,254 4,784 3,026 826 2,055 12,804 43,390 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.134 Table 5-17: Origin-Destination Matrix, I-15 SB PM 5.3.1.3 Calibration Procedure and Results The AM and PM period micro-simulation models were calibrated to observed traffic throughput, queues, and speeds. The process involved iteratively assessing and adjusting various model parameters, including lane change distances, headways, desired speed distribution, and lane change aggressiveness. Overall, the micro-simulation model did a good job of replicating existing congestion and capacity. The resulting travel speeds, presented as spot speeds, and comparison of traffic demand, counts, and model volume at two key locations are shown in Table 5-18 through Table 5-25. AM Peak Period Model The model is able to replicate the congestion that occurs on northbound I-15 during the AM peak period, with queues between Limonite Avenue and just past 2nd Street. Actual queues were observed to be slightly longer, extending as far back as Hidden Valley Parkway. Congestion south of Cajalco Road is present in observed data, but the segment is located south of the project. Replicating northbound travel speeds south of Cajalco w as not considered critical for this effort. Traffic volumes were assessed at the segment between Dos Lagos and Cajalco Road and between 6th Street and Limonite Avenue. The model does a generally good job of matching traffic counts. South of Cajalco Road, the model processes all of the traffic counted at this location within a margin of error of no more than 2 percent. Between 6 th Street and Limonite Avenue, the model is within 2 percent of the peak period total. During the 8 to 9 AM hour, however, the model simulates throughput 13 percent greater than counted. During this hour, downstream congestion is clearing, and demand that was unmet in prior hours is being serviced. It is likely that the traffic count at this location and time of day were somewhat affected by congestion and were low. The total demand across the four-hour period is assumed to be higher than the count by approximately 300 vehicles. This 13 percent differential between count and model in the 8 to 9 AM hour is attributable to this 300 vehicle difference. In the southbound direction, the model shows I-15 generally operating at or near free-flow, as observed in existing conditions. DESTINATION ORIGIN Cantu- Galleano Ranch Rd Limonite Ave Sixth St Second St Hidden Valley Pkwy SR-91 WB SR-91 EB Magnoli a Ave Ontario Ave El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd South of Cajalco Rd Total North of SR-60 509 1,057 1,628 646 1,431 1,465 410 953 524 287 521 1,818 11,248 SR-60 EB 757 853 363 144 318 381 375 73 40 22 40 731 4,097 SR-60 WB 972 1,076 822 326 719 717 282 76 42 23 42 394 5,489 Cantu-Galleano Ranch Rd 14 77 65 128 330 236 60 33 18 33 279 1,272 Limonite Ave 95 160 316 836 606 147 81 44 81 682 3,048 Sixth St 64 188 281 565 316 174 95 173 502 2,358 Second St 44 406 813 461 253 139 252 738 3,105 Hidden Valley Pkwy 324 654 364 200 109 199 579 2,430 SR-91 EB 1,019 559 307 555 4,508 6,947 SR-91 WB 1,725 950 519 942 1,465 5,602 Magnolia Ave 22 43 43 2,399 2,506 Ontario Ave 14 58 3,304 3,376 El Cerrito Rd 12 2,824 2,837 Cajalco Rd 2,147 2,147 Total 2,238 2,999 2,985 1,405 3,144 4,740 3,942 5,193 2,878 1,621 2,948 22,371 56,463 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.135 Table 5-18: Micro-Simulation model Northbound AM Spot Speeds Table 5-19: Northbound I-15– Actual vs. Model Volume – AM Peak Period NB, Limonite to 6th St Hour Demand Count Model Difference from Count % Difference from Count 6 to 7 AM 5,158 5,154 4,881 -273 -5% 7 to 8 AM 5,115 4,779 4,597 -182 -4% 8 to 9 AM 4,334 4,506 5,109 603 13% 9 to 10 AM 4,302 4,155 4,410 255 6% Total 18,909 18,594 18,997 403 2% NB, s/o Cajalco Hour Demand Count Model Difference from Count % Difference from Count 6 to 7 AM 5,096 5,096 5,080 -16 0% 7 to 8 AM 4,268 4,268 4,342 74 2% 8 to 9 AM 4,432 4,432 4,459 27 1% 9 to 10 AM 4,441 4,441 4,547 106 2% Total 18,237 18,237 18,428 191 1% From To 600-615a615-630a630-645a645-700a700-715a715-730a730-745a745-800a800-815a815-830a830-845a845-900a900-915a915-930a930-945a945-1000aOn - EB SR-60 Off-Jurupa 55 54 55 55 51 55 56 54 54 58 57 58 55 59 58 60 On - WB SR-60 On - EB SR-60 62 61 62 61 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 63 63 63 Off - WB SR-60 On - WB SR-60 61 60 61 61 60 62 61 61 62 62 62 61 60 63 62 63 Off - EB SR-60 Off - WB SR-60 44 41 35 41 42 33 29 42 46 45 36 29 22 54 45 56 On - Cantu- Galleano Ranch Off - EB SR-60 61 61 61 61 61 62 61 61 62 61 61 61 62 62 62 62 Off - Cantu- Galleano Ranch On - Cantu- Galleano Ranch 59 59 58 60 60 58 59 59 59 60 58 58 59 58 59 61 On - Limonite Off - Cantu- Galleano Ranch 57 56 57 57 58 56 57 56 56 55 57 56 57 61 59 60 Off - Limonite On - Limonite 20 20 21 19 20 18 18 20 22 24 22 22 36 62 60 62 On - Sixth Off - Limonite 60 41 27 26 27 23 20 24 30 33 33 33 55 61 61 62 Off - Sixth On - Sixth 60 59 59 59 30 18 18 19 19 22 37 61 61 62 62 62 On - Second Off - Sixth 59 56 57 58 59 57 34 21 23 26 58 59 60 60 62 61 Off - Second On - Second 56 56 58 57 59 56 57 28 20 31 60 61 61 60 61 61 On - Hidden Valley Off - Second 62 61 61 62 61 61 61 62 51 62 63 63 63 62 63 63 Off - Hidden Valley On - Hidden Valley 63 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 64 63 63 64 63 63 64 63 On - EB SR-91 Off - Hidden Valley 61 61 60 61 61 60 60 60 62 62 62 62 62 62 63 62 On - WB SR-91 On - EB SR-91 60 58 60 61 59 60 61 61 62 62 62 62 62 62 63 62 Off - SR-91 On - WB SR-91 63 61 63 63 62 62 62 62 63 63 63 63 63 63 64 63 On - WB Magnolia Off - SR-91 60 60 59 60 59 57 57 58 59 61 57 57 58 59 57 59 On - EB Magnolia On - WB Magnolia 59 59 58 59 58 57 57 58 60 60 59 58 59 59 59 59 Off - Magnolia On - EB Magnolia 59 60 60 61 59 59 59 60 60 61 60 60 60 60 61 59 On - Ontario Off - Magnolia 58 59 58 59 58 57 58 59 60 60 59 59 60 58 60 59 Off - Ontario On - Ontario 63 62 62 63 62 62 62 62 62 63 62 63 62 62 63 62 On - El Cerrito Off - Ontario 55 54 51 55 45 45 48 47 55 57 53 56 54 57 56 58 Off - El Cerrito On - El Cerrito 57 57 54 58 38 28 46 44 58 58 57 57 56 59 59 59 On - Cajalco Off - El Cerrito 55 56 54 56 55 56 57 57 57 59 55 57 57 59 58 58 Off - Cajalco On - Cajalco 51 58 56 32 47 61 60 59 60 62 61 61 60 61 61 62 On - Dos Lagos Off - Cajalco 59 59 59 58 60 61 60 61 61 60 61 60 59 60 60 60 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.136 Table 5-20: Micro-Simulation model Southbound AM Spot Speeds Table 5-21: Southbound I-15– Actual vs. Model Volume – AM Peak Period SB, Limonite to 6th St Hour Demand Count Model Difference from Count % Difference from Count 6 to 7 AM 4,399 4,253 4,223 -30 -1% 7 to 8 AM 5,446 5,446 5,323 -123 -2% 8 to 9 AM 4,639 4,835 4,760 -75 -2% 9 to 10 AM 3,661 3,549 3,842 293 8% Total 18,145 18,083 18,148 65 0% SB, s/o Cajalco Hour Demand Count Model Difference from Count % Difference from Count 6 to 7 AM 3,067 3,030 2,990 -40 -1% 7 to 8 AM 3,452 3,436 3,385 -51 -1% 8 to 9 AM 3,359 3,393 3,213 -180 -5% 9 to 10 AM 3,225 3,353 3,439 86 3% Total 13,103 13,212 13,027 -185 -1% From To 600-615a615-630a630-645a645-700a700-715a715-730a730-745a745-800a800-815a815-830a830-845a845-900a900-915a915-930a930-945a945-1000aOn-Jurupa Off - SR-60 59 58 57 60 58 59 45 54 59 61 61 59 61 61 61 61 Off - SR-60 On - EB SR-60 65 64 65 64 64 64 64 64 65 64 64 64 64 65 65 65 On - EB SR-60 On - WB SR-60 63 63 63 63 58 56 58 59 62 62 60 61 63 63 63 64 On - WB SR-60 Off - Cantu-Galleano Ranch 64 63 63 63 62 61 62 62 63 63 63 63 63 64 64 64 Off - Cantu-Galleano Ranch On - WB Cantu-Galleano Ranch 62 62 62 62 55 59 58 59 62 61 60 60 62 63 63 63 On - WB Cantu- Galleano Ranch On - EB Cantu-Galleano Ranch 62 63 63 63 58 60 60 61 62 62 61 62 62 64 64 64 On - EB Cantu- Galleano Ranch Off - Limonite 62 61 62 61 57 58 59 58 60 61 60 60 61 63 62 62 Off - Limonite On - Limonite 62 64 63 62 62 61 61 60 61 62 62 62 62 63 63 64 On - Limonite Off - Sixth 62 63 62 62 61 60 60 59 61 61 61 61 62 62 63 63 Off - Sixth On - Sixth 62 63 62 62 62 60 61 60 62 62 63 62 61 62 64 63 On - Sixth Off - Second 60 61 60 59 58 56 56 56 55 59 59 58 59 61 61 61 Off - Second On - Second 62 62 62 62 62 60 60 61 61 62 63 62 62 62 62 63 On - Second Off - Hidden Valley 64 64 63 63 63 62 62 62 63 63 64 63 63 64 64 64 Off - Hidden Valley On - Hidden Valley 64 64 64 64 64 63 63 63 64 64 64 64 64 63 65 64 On - Hidden Valley Off - WB SR-91 64 64 64 63 62 62 60 60 60 63 64 63 63 62 63 63 Off - WB SR-91 Off - EB SR-91 62 62 62 62 60 61 59 61 60 61 63 61 61 63 62 61 Off - EB SR-91 On - EB SR-91 64 64 64 64 64 65 64 64 65 64 65 64 64 64 65 64 On - EB SR-91 On - WB SR-91 63 62 63 63 64 64 64 63 63 63 64 63 63 62 63 63 On - WB SR-91 Off - Magnolia 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 62 62 63 63 62 62 62 62 62 Off - Magnolia On - Magnolia 65 64 64 65 64 64 65 64 65 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 On - Magnolia Off - Ontario 64 64 65 65 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 63 64 64 64 Off - Ontario On - Ontario 65 64 65 65 64 63 65 64 64 65 64 64 64 63 64 64 On - Ontario Off - El Cerrito 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 63 64 63 64 63 62 63 63 Off - El Cerrito On - El Cerrito 64 64 64 64 64 63 64 64 63 64 63 63 62 63 63 63 On - El Cerrito Off - Cajalco 63 63 63 64 63 63 62 62 63 63 62 62 61 62 63 62 Off - Cajalco On - Cajalco 63 64 64 64 63 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 63 64 64 63 On - Cajalco Off - Dos Lagos 63 63 64 64 63 63 63 64 62 64 63 63 63 63 63 62 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.137 PM Peak Period Model The PM model is able to replicate the stop and go conditions observed on southbound I-15 south of SR 91, but predicts operations slightly better than observed in both directions north of SR 91. These improved conditions, however, are consistent with observed lower traffic counts in these sections during the PM peak period. Northbound I-15 during the PM is generally simulated with speeds at or near free flow. This is consistent with observations of I-15 south of SR 91. North of SR 91, observations show some delay between 2nd Street and Limonite Avenue. Speeds were observed to range from 36 to 70 mph, whereas the simulation predicts speeds of 57 to 62 mph, as shown in Table 5-22. Modeled speeds at or near free-flow are consistent with observed demand and traffic counts that are lower than observed during the AM peak period. As shown in Table 5-23, the model is able to match the observed traffic counted within a range of -1 to +7 percent between Limonite and 6th Street. Southbound I-15 during the PM is consistently congested with queues regularly extending between SR 91 and El Cerrito Road. Travel demand is well above capacity. The simulation model is able to replicate the heavy congestion and queuing that exists on southbound I-15 during the PM peak. Modeled speeds, shown in Table 5-24, indicate congestion beginning by 3:15 PM and continuing through the 7 PM hour, consistent with observations. Queues extend to the SR 91 overpass, also consistent with actual conditions. Modeled throughput south of Cajalco Road is within a margin of error of -4 percent to +1 percent of traffic counts. North of SR 91, delays were observed north of Limonite Avenue, but the model operates largely without delay in this area during the PM peak. Input volumes just under 5,100 vehicles to 5,400 vehicles per hour from 3 to 6 PM are slightly lower than levels needed to trigger congestion. Demand and traffic counts are matched within a margin of error of -3 to -1 percent. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.138 Table 5-22: Micro-Simulation model Northbound PM Spot Speeds Table 5-23: Northbound I-15– Actual vs. Model Volume – PM Peak Period NB, Limonite to 6th St Hour Demand Count Model Difference from Count % Difference from Count 3 to 4 PM 4,813 4,585 4,885 300 7% 4 to 5 PM 4,750 4,746 4,828 82 2% 5 to 6 PM 4,918 4,950 4,717 -233 -5% 6 to 7 PM 3,744 3,934 3,903 -31 -1% Total 18,225 18,215 18,333 118 1% NB, s/o Cajalco Hour Demand Count Model Difference from Count % Difference from Count 3 to 4 PM 4,207 4,207 4,370 163 4% 4 to 5 PM 4,001 4,001 4,202 201 5% 5 to 6 PM 3,826 3,826 4,004 178 5% 6 to 7 PM 3,088 3,088 3,242 154 5% Total 15,122 15,122 15,818 696 5% From To 300-315p315-330p330-345p345-400p400-415p415-430p430-445p445-500p500-515p515-530p530-545p545-600p600-615p615-630p630-645p645-700pOn - EB SR-60 Off-Jurupa 59 57 55 56 57 58 59 59 59 58 60 58 59 60 61 61 On - WB SR-60 On - EB SR-60 63 62 63 62 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 64 64 64 Off - WB SR-60 On - WB SR-60 62 61 63 61 62 62 62 62 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 64 Off - EB SR-60 Off - WB SR-60 54 52 53 50 56 52 55 56 57 54 57 56 58 59 55 59 On - Cantu- Galleano Ranch Off - EB SR-60 61 61 62 61 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 63 63 63 Off - Cantu- Galleano Ranch On - Cantu- Galleano Ranch 60 60 59 59 59 59 61 60 59 60 60 60 61 61 62 61 On - Limonite Off - Cantu- Galleano Ranch 60 59 60 57 60 60 60 60 60 59 61 59 61 61 61 62 Off - Limonite On - Limonite 62 62 62 61 61 63 62 61 61 61 62 62 62 62 64 63 On - Sixth Off - Limonite 59 58 58 58 58 59 59 59 59 57 59 58 59 60 61 61 Off - Sixth On - Sixth 62 61 61 60 60 62 61 62 61 62 61 61 61 62 62 63 On - Second Off - Sixth 59 59 59 58 59 59 60 58 58 59 60 59 62 61 61 62 Off - Second On - Second 61 61 60 61 59 61 60 60 58 60 61 61 62 62 61 63 On - Hidden Valley Off - Second 62 63 62 63 62 62 63 63 62 63 63 63 63 64 63 64 Off - Hidden Valley On - Hidden Valley 63 64 63 63 64 64 63 63 63 63 64 63 64 64 64 64 On - EB SR-91 Off - Hidden Valley 62 63 62 62 62 63 63 62 62 63 63 63 63 64 62 63 On - WB SR-91 On - EB SR-91 62 62 62 63 62 63 63 62 62 62 62 63 62 63 63 64 Off - SR-91 On - WB SR-91 63 64 63 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 63 64 63 64 64 64 On - WB Magnolia Off - SR-91 55 55 54 53 55 54 55 57 57 58 58 57 59 61 60 61 On - EB Magnolia On - WB Magnolia 58 56 58 59 58 58 58 59 59 59 59 56 60 62 61 61 Off - Magnolia On - EB Magnolia 60 61 59 62 61 60 61 61 61 61 61 61 62 63 62 62 On - Ontario Off - Magnolia 58 58 60 59 61 60 61 60 60 61 60 61 62 62 62 62 Off - Ontario On - Ontario 62 63 63 63 62 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 On - El Cerrito Off - Ontario 58 59 59 60 58 59 61 60 60 60 60 59 61 61 61 61 Off - El Cerrito On - El Cerrito 59 59 60 60 58 60 60 60 60 61 61 60 61 62 62 61 On - Cajalco Off - El Cerrito 59 60 59 60 58 59 59 60 59 60 61 59 61 62 61 61 Off - Cajalco On - Cajalco 61 62 62 63 61 62 61 62 63 63 62 62 63 63 63 63 On - Dos Lagos Off - Cajalco 60 60 61 62 61 61 60 61 62 61 61 61 63 63 62 62 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Model Development and Calibration 5.139 Table 5-24: Micro-Simulation model Southbound PM Spot Speeds Table 5-25: Southbound I-15– Actual vs. Model Volume – PM Peak Period SB, Limonite to 6th St Hour Demand Count Model Difference from Count % Difference from Count 3 to 4 PM 5,176 5,140 5,079 -61 -1% 4 to 5 PM 5,155 5,212 5,069 -143 -3% 5 to 6 PM 5,355 5,352 5,320 -32 -1% 6 to 7 PM 4,195 4,296 4,185 -111 -3% Total 19,881 20,000 19,653 -347 -2% SB, s/o Cajalco Hour Demand Count Model Difference from Count % Difference from Count 3 to 4 PM 6,130 5,397 5,467 70 1% 4 to 5 PM 6,264 5,503 5,402 -101 -2% 5 to 6 PM 6,340 5,762 5,546 -216 -4% 6 to 7 PM 4,355 5,405 5,209 -196 -4% Total 23,090 22,067 21,624 -443 -2% From To 300-315p315-330p330-345p345-400p400-415p415-430p430-445p445-500p500-515p515-530p530-545p545-600p600-615p615-630p630-645p645-700pOn-Jurupa Off - SR-60 60 60 59 61 58 59 55 58 59 60 60 59 61 61 61 60 Off - SR-60 On - EB SR-60 64 64 64 64 63 64 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 65 64 64 On - EB SR-60 On - WB SR-60 59 57 55 59 56 55 57 56 57 57 53 57 58 59 58 59 On - WB SR-60 Off - Cantu- Galleano Ranch 63 61 62 62 61 62 61 62 62 62 61 61 62 63 63 63 Off - Cantu- Galleano Ranch On - WB Cantu- Galleano Ranch 61 59 60 58 59 59 57 60 58 60 57 58 60 62 62 62 On - WB Cantu- Galleano Ranch On - EB Cantu- Galleano Ranch 61 60 62 61 60 61 60 61 61 61 60 61 61 63 63 63 On - EB Cantu- Galleano Ranch Off - Limonite 59 59 59 59 58 58 58 59 59 58 57 57 60 61 61 62 Off - Limonite On - Limonite 62 61 62 62 62 61 62 61 62 61 61 61 62 63 63 63 On - Limonite Off - Sixth 58 58 57 59 59 58 58 58 59 59 54 57 61 62 62 62 Off - Sixth On - Sixth 61 62 61 62 61 62 61 61 62 60 60 62 61 62 63 63 On - Sixth Off - Second 58 58 57 59 58 58 58 60 57 56 58 57 59 61 61 61 Off - Second On - Second 60 61 60 61 61 61 60 60 60 60 60 59 61 62 62 63 On - Second Off - Hidden Valley 63 62 62 62 62 63 63 62 63 63 63 62 63 64 64 64 Off - Hidden Valley On - Hidden Valley 63 63 62 62 62 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 62 64 64 63 On - Hidden Valley Off - WB SR-91 61 60 58 60 60 61 60 60 60 60 59 60 61 62 63 63 Off - WB SR-91 Off - EB SR-91 61 60 60 61 61 59 62 61 61 62 26 25 56 62 62 62 Off - EB SR-91 On - EB SR-91 63 63 62 63 63 63 63 63 63 56 15 16 36 64 65 65 On - EB SR-91 On - WB SR-91 63 63 62 62 63 62 62 63 63 18 15 15 14 37 64 64 On - WB SR-91 Off - Magnolia 62 62 61 62 62 62 62 61 17 14 14 14 14 16 60 63 Off - Magnolia On - Magnolia 63 63 63 63 64 63 64 41 13 13 13 13 13 15 33 64 On - Magnolia Off - Ontario 62 61 61 62 38 16 15 15 15 14 15 16 14 19 20 24 Off - Ontario On - Ontario 63 63 53 14 14 13 12 12 13 12 13 13 13 15 15 14 On - Ontario Off - El Cerrito 58 36 21 23 21 19 19 19 20 19 19 20 21 24 22 21 Off - El Cerrito On - El Cerrito 56 28 25 28 25 22 22 22 24 22 20 23 25 26 25 24 On - El Cerrito Off - Cajalco 55 53 52 55 54 58 56 54 52 52 55 54 54 52 56 54 Off - Cajalco On - Cajalco 61 60 58 60 61 62 60 61 61 60 61 60 61 61 62 61 On - Cajalco Off - Dos Lagos 58 60 57 58 59 59 58 59 59 59 59 59 59 59 60 61 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.140 6.0 TRAFFIC AND REVENUE FORECAST 6.1 FORECAST METHODOLOGY The I-15 Express Lanes Project (I-15 ELP) annual traffic and revenue was forecast based on the travel demand model’s forecast of weekday traffic, post processed, and then annualized based on factors from Stantec’s market share model. In all cases, “revenue” is defined as gross potential revenue, and does not include any deduction for non-toll payment due to violators. The 2025 and 2035 model years were the principal years modeled. Intermediate scenarios were developed that tested the impact of adding the I-15 South Express Lanes south of Cajalco Road and widening area arterials. These intermediate analyses quantified the impact of these network changes on traffic and revenue in 2027, 2030, and 2035 and to establish underlying growth rates for traffic and revenue between 2025 and 2035. Peak hour traffic conditions were simulated using the micro-simulation model to ensure that the travel demand model forecasts of weekday traffic were operationally feasible. This chapter discusses the principal assumptions underlying the traffic and revenue forecast, presents traffic forecasts at a regional level, and detailed forecasts of I-15 corridor traffic. 6.2 FORECAST ASSUMPTIONS 6.2.1 I-15 Express Lanes Configuration The I-15 ELP was modeled as generally a two-lane per direction limited access facility in the median of the I-15 freeway. The I-15 ELP is approximately 14.3 miles long in the northbound direction and 14.7 miles in the southbound direction. While the I-15 ELP generally has two-lanes per direction, three sections of the I-15 ELP would be one-lane per direction. These single lane sections are located at the southern end of the corridor, the northern end of the corridor, and in the middle in the vicinity of the SR 91/ I-15 interchange between Hidden Valley Parkway and the Magnolia Avenue-Ontario Avenue mixing area. Upon opening, the I-15 ELP would permit access at nine locations: 9) Northern Terminus south of SR 60 – NB egress to GP lanes and SB Ingress from GP Lanes 10) Between Limonite Avenue and 6th Street – Both ingress and egress, to and from Limonite Avenue to the north and 6th Street to the south. 11) Between 6th Street and 2nd Street – Both ingress and egress, to and from 6 th Street to the north and 2nd Street to the south. 12) Between Hidden Valley Parkway and SR 91 – SB egress and NB ingress only, to and from SR 91 and Magnolia Avenue to the south. 13) (by 2035) SR 91 Express Direct Connector to / from I-15 Express Lanes, north of SR 91 – Direct connection from SB I-15 ELP to WB SR 91 EL and from EB SR 91 EL to NB I-15 ELP. This is a future connection assumed to be built in 2035. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.141 14) SR 91 Express Direct Connector to/ from I-15 Express Lanes south of SR 91 – NB Egress and SB Ingress to / from the SR 91 Express Lanes. 15) Between Magnolia Avenue and Ontario Avenue – Both ingress and egress, to and from Magnolia Avenue to the north and Ontario Avenue to the south. 16) Between El Cerrito Road and Cajalco Road – SB egress to Cajalco Road and NB ingress from Cajalco Road. 17) Southern Terminus at Cajalco Road – SB egress to GP lanes south of Cajalco Road and NB ingress from GP lanes south of Cajalco Road. Figure 6-1 illustrates the I-15 ELP access points and number of lanes. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.142 Table 6-1 shows the I-15 ELP’s number of lanes by segment, and the segment length. Figure 6-1: I-15 Express Lanes Access Points and Number of Lanes 2 1 1 Southern Terminus Northern Terminus 2 2 1 2 2 2 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.143 Table 6-1: Number of Lanes and Segment Distance Southbound EL Northbound EL From To # Lanes Miles From To # Lanes Miles Northern Terminus Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd 1 1.0 Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd Northern Terminus 1 0.7 Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd s/o Limonite 2 3.0 s/o Limonite Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd 2 2.5 s/o Limonite s/o 6th St 2 3.0 s/o 6th St s/o Limonite 2 2.7 s/o 6th St Hidden Valley Pkwy 2 2.1 Hidden Valley Pkwy s/o 6th St 2 2.1 Hidden Valley Pkwy s/o Magnolia 1 2.8 s/o Magnolia Hidden Valley Pkwy 1 3.1 s/o Magnolia El Cerrito Rd 2 1.8 El Cerrito Rd s/o Magnolia 2 1.9 El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd 1 1.0 Southern Terminus El Cerrito Rd 1 1.4 SB Total - 14.7 NB Total - 14.3 The I-15 Express Lanes directly connect with the Riverside County SR 91 Express Lanes Extension with the two projects overlapping for a length of approximately 1.25 miles. The I-15 Express Lanes traffic and revenue forecast excludes transactions and revenue for vehicles on the segment starting or ending south of Magnolia Avenue and going to or from the SR 91 Express Lanes to the west. Any revenue generated from that segment of roadway is considered to be attributable to the SR 91 Express Lanes project and not the I-15 Express Lanes. The I-15 Express Lanes do generate revenue from vehicles that travel on the single-lane section between the access point south of Magnolia and the access point at Hidden Valley Parkway. In 2035, a ramp connecting the SR 91 Express Lanes to the west with the I-15 Express Lanes north of SR 91 is expected to be constructed. While the I-15 ELP traffic and revenue forecast does not assume any surcharge from the I-15 North Direct Connector (NDC), the forecast does include revenue from those vehicles staying in the I-15 ELP north of the Hidden Valley Parkway access point. 6.2.2 Regional Network Improvements The I-15 ELP T&R forecast assumes regional roadway improvements detailed in SCAG’s LRTP. These improvements include, but are not limited to, the completion of the SR 91 Express Lanes in Riverside County, express lanes in San Bernardino County, an extension of the I-15 ELP to the south in Riverside County, the widening of various local arterials, a change in regional HOV policy, the addition of the Schleisman Road interchange at I-15, and the addition of the I-15 ELP / SR 91 Express Lanes north direct connector. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.144 SR 91 Express Lanes Extension in Riverside County, Initial and Ultimate Projects The I-15 ELP T&R forecast assumes the completion of the Initial Phase of the RCTC SR 91 Express Lanes by 2017, and the Ultimate CIP by 2035. The Initial Phase is currently under construction and when completed would run along the median of SR 91, extending from the Riverside-Orange County Line to the west and the I-15 interchange to the east. They would directly connect with the I-15 Express Lanes south of SR 91. The RCTC SR 91 EL project would build a single lane section which would extend from the SR 91 / I-15 interchange to the Magnolia-Ontario Avenue mixing area further south. This single lane would be built by the RCTC SR 91 Express Lanes (EL) project. Vehicles that use only the section of the I-15 ELP built by the SR 91 would not generate revenue for the I-15 ELP. For example, if a vehicle enters the northbound I-15 ELP from the Magnolia-Ontario mixing area and exits to the westbound RCTC SR 91 Express Lanes, no revenue would be generated for the I-15 ELP project. By 2035, the SR 91 Express Lanes in Riverside County would be connected with the I-15 ELP north of SR 91 via a tolled direct connector, i.e., the “I -15 North DC”. This connector would allow vehicles traveling to and from the SR 91 Express Lanes to the west to directly connect with the I-15 Express Lanes north of SR 91 and egress at the 2 nd Street-6th Street mixing area. The I-15 ELP would not generate any revenue from the north DC itself, but would include revenue from thos e vehicles using the dual lane section between Hidden Valley Parkway and the 2nd Street-6th Street mixing area. This connector would be constructed as part of the SR 91 Express Lanes “Ultimate CIP”, which would further extend the 91 Express Lanes to the east past I-15 to approximately McKinley Street. Express Lanes in San Bernardino County Express Lanes are assumed open for operation along I-10 and I-15 in San Bernardino County by 2024, four years after the I-15 ELP are open. The I-15 San Bernardino Express Lanes would serve as an extension of the RCTC I-15 ELP. I-10 Express Lanes would span 40 miles and are located approximately 5 miles north of the I-15 ELP northern terminus. I-15 South Express Lanes in Riverside County By 2027, the RCTC is expected to construct 14 miles of additional express lanes along I-15 starting from the I-15 ELP southern terminus, extending to SR 74. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.145 Arterial Widenings in Riverside County Various arterials in Riverside County would be widened by 2025, 2030, and 2035. These widenings would include Temescal Canyon Road, located south of El Cerrito Road, and Archibald Street, Euclid Street, SR 71, and Hamner Avenue north of SR 91. Carpool Policy Change By 2035, the regional carpool policy is assumed to change from allowing carpools with 2 or more occupants to use HOV lanes to requiring 3 or more occupants. This policy would impact all Southern California HOV facilities and would be a regional policy change. The change is in reaction to expectations for continued operations degradation on HOV-2+ carpool lanes in Southern California. Schleisman Road Interchange with I-15 By 2035, a new interchange along I-15 would be constructed at Schleisman Road, which is located between the existing Limonite Avenue and 6th Street interchanges. The interchange would allow access to and from I-15 to the north and south. 6.2.3 Toll Policy and Pricing I-15 Express Lanes Toll Policy The I-15 Express Lanes are modeled assuming tolls are charged all day (24 hours, 7 days a week) via dynamic pricing. The T&R forecast assumes distance- and congestion-based tolling. Longer trips will be charged more than shorter trips and tolls increase and decrease as I-15 Express Lanes demand increases and decreases. Vehicles with three or more occupants are permitted to use the I-15 Express Lanes at a 50 percent discount. While the project would also discount tolls for zero emission vehicles that have a California Clean Pass decal (“white sticker”) and a switchable transponder by 50 percent, these vehicles are assumed to account for a negligible share of potential traffic and therefore are not separately modeled. Express buses, police, and emergency vehicles will be permitted to use the Express Lanes free of charge, but these vehicles are also not separately modeled because they are a minimal share of traffic. The following is a list of tolling assumptions: 1) Tolls are set to maintain free-flow on the express lanes which will exceed the federal minimum of 45 mph. 2) Tolls based on segment with variable pricing based on level of congestion in the corridor, time of the day, and also indexed to inflation. 3) Variable pricing toll policy in accordance with express lane demand ranges presented in Table 6-2. 4) Same toll structure for all vehicles with the exception of HOV-3+ vehicles. 5) Transponder required for all vehicles. License plate based video tolling is not an option. 6) HOV-3+ vehicles with switchable transponders charged 50 percent of the full toll amount. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.146 7) Discount for zero emission vehicles (ZEV) with a switchable transponder and Clean Pass decal (“white sticker”). 8) No toll discount for low emission vehicles (LEV), disabled plates, disabled veteran plates, or motorcycles. 9) Express buses, police, and emergency vehicles use the express lanes for free. For T&R modeling purposes, the I-15 Express Lanes prices are set using a tiered pricing structure tied to demand and distance traveled. As demand rises, tolls also increase. Table 6-2 shows how tolls are assumed to increase as express lane demand increases. Toll to traffic relationships were developed based on observations of Orange County SR 91 Express Lanes traffic and tolls. If express lane demand in a two-lane section is projected to be less than 500 vehicles per hour, tolls would be set at 15 cents per mile. If projected demand rises to between 1500 and 2000 vehicles per hour, tolls would be set at 42.5 cents per mile. In single lane sections, tolls would increase at lower volume thresholds, as shown. To maintain free-flow speeds in the express lanes, tolls are also set such that express traffic does not exceed threshold volumes of 3,200 vehicles per hour in two-lane sections and 1,500 vehicles per hour in single-lane sections. If express traffic demand rises above the threshold volumes, tolls would be increased to levels which push express traffic volume below the threshold levels. The assumed pricing policy evaluates express lane traffic on an hour by hour basis, but in practice, the I-15 ELP will permit tolls to change in smaller time intervals. Table 6-2: I-15 Express Lanes Pricing Policy Express Traffic Demand Range (vph) if Two Express Lanes Express Traffic Demand Range (vph) if One Express Lane Toll Per Mile (2015 $’s) Less than 500 Less than 250 $0.150 500 1000 250 500 $0.225 1000 1500 500 750 $0.325 1500 2000 750 1000 $0.425 2000 2250 1000 1100 $0.500 2250 2500 1100 1175 $0.550 2500 2750 1175 1250 $0.600 2750 3000 1250 1325 $0.675 3000 3200 1325 1500 $0.750 3200 and above 1500 and above Increase tolls until traffic falls below volume threshold The toll rates per mile assumed for the I-15 ELP are comparable to rates charged on the OCTA’s 91 Express Lanes. As shown in Figure 6-2, the lowest toll charged on the existing lanes is $1.50 or 15 cents per mile of travel. During the AM peak period, tolls in the more heavily traveled westbound direction are as high as $5.20, or 52 cents per mile. Tolls are at their highest levels on I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.147 the eastbound 91 Express Lanes during the PM peak period, where they range from $5.05 (50.5 cents per mile) on Monday from 3 to 4 PM to as high as $10.15 ($1.015 cents per mile) on Friday from 3 to 4 PM. Figure 6-2: OCTA SR 91 Express Lanes Toll Schedule – July 1, 2015 (FY 2016) Source: Orange County Transportation Authority, http://91expresslanes.com/schedules.asp Regional Toll Roads The modeled region incorporates numerous toll facilities, including the existing OCTA SR 91 Express Lanes and the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) Toll Roads. Forecasts assume the presence of several new managed lane facilities, including the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) I-10 and I-15 Express Lanes, the Riverside County Transportation Commission’s (RCTC) SR 91 Express Lanes Extension, and the RCTC I -15 South Express Lanes Extension. Future tolls assumed for these facilities were developed from various sources, including traffic and revenue studies completed by Stantec for the OCTA, the TCA, and RCTC, and publicly available T&R studies of the proposed San Bernardino I-10 and I-15 Express Lanes completed for SANBAG by others. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.148 6.3 REGIONAL TRAFFIC FORECASTS I-15 ELP traffic and revenue forecasts are generated based a travel demand model that accounts for regional employment, households, and population, as well as traffic on freeways, arterials, and local roads throughout that region. A critical element of the I-15 ELP forecast is to produce a reasonable forecast of regional traffic growth. Regional traffic, expressed as trips, is forecast to grow by 1.1 percent per year between the existing 2015 condition through 2025 and then slow to 0.8 percent between 2025 and 2035. The sub-region which focuses on the I-15 corridor and immediately adjacent areas would grow at a rate of 1.5 percent per year between 2015 and 2025. The faster rate of growth is reflective of local socioeconomic variables including expectations for more rapid household and population growth, and is also reflective of the expectation for more capacity improvements in the sub-region including the I-15 ELP. Table 6-3 lists all trips and home based work trips for the 2015, 2025, and 2035 model years. Table 6-3: I-15 Corridor Regional and Sub-Region Trip Growth Trip Type 2015 2025 2035 2015-25 2025-35 Regional Trip Growth 24,340,000 27,140,000 29,320,000 1.1% 0.8% Sub-Region Trip Growth 8,210,000 9,540,000 10,290,000 1.5% 0.8% This rate of trip growth is consistent with the regional economic growth forecast shown in Table 6-4. Riverside County households and population are forecast to grow by over 2 percent per year between 2015 and 2025 and by over 1.6 percent per year between 2025 and 2035. The neighboring Orange and San Bernardino County growth rates are slower, as is the entire six county region’s growth (including Los Angeles, Imperial, and Ventura). These slower rates of growth temper the total trip growth, resulting in the trip growth rates shown in Table 6-3. Table 6-4: Regional Economic Growth by County Orange County 2015 2025 2035 2015-25 CAGR% 2025-35 CAGR% Employment 1,550,000 1,740,000 1,890,000 1.2% 0.8% Households 1,040,000 1,160,000 1,250,000 1.1% 0.8% Population 3,200,000 3,570,000 3,760,000 1.1% 0.5% Riverside County 2015 2025 2035 2015-25 CAGR% 2025-35 CAGR% Employment 670,000 780,000 870,000 1.5% 1.1% Households 740,000 930,000 1,100,000 2.3% 1.7% Population 2,340,000 2,840,000 3,320,000 2.0% 1.6% San Bernardino 2015 2025 2035 2015-25 CAGR% 2025-35 CAGR% Employment 680,000 750,000 800,000 1.0% 0.6% Households 640,000 760,000 860,000 1.7% 1.2% Population 2,100,000 2,440,000 2,760,000 1.5% 1.2% Region 2015 2025 2035 2015-25 CAGR% 2025-35 CAGR% Employment 7,620,000 8,490,000 9,130,000 1.1% 0.7% Households 6,080,000 6,830,000 7,410,000 1.2% 0.8% Population 18,690,000 20,720,000 22,360,000 1.0% 0.8% I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.149 6.3.1 Screenline Traffic Growth North-south screenline traffic is expected to grow at reasonable rates between 2015 and 2025 and 2025 to 2035. North-south screenline traffic has the most direct impact on I-15 ELP traffic. Between 2015 and 2025, traffic crossing the four north-south screenlines would grow at a rate ranging from 1.3 percent per year to 2.4 percent per year. The presence of new capacity in the form of express lanes on I-15, both the I-15 ELP project in Riverside County as well as the I-15 Express Lanes in San Bernardino County, support continued traffic growth in this congested corridor. By 2035, growth would be somewhat slower than in the prior 10 years. Growth would range from 0.6 percent per year (south of SR 91) to 1.6 percent per year (north of SR 60). Figure 6-3: Weekday Traffic – North-South Screenlines 6.3.2 I-15 Global Traffic Growth The existing I-15 corridor operates at or above capacity in many sections yet traffic demand is expected to continue growing as households, population, and employment continue growing. Without additional capacity, additional traffic demand would result in continued degrading of traffic conditions. Figure 6-4 and Figure 6-5 demonstrate how existing 2015, forecasted global traffic (total of GP and Express) for 2025, and forecasted global traffic for 2035 compare against current capacity on a daily basis. By 2025, the I-15 ELP corridor’s global demand is expected to grow by over 20,000 vehicles per day per direction south of SR 91; exceeding the level that can be adequately serviced by the existing GP lanes. If traffic continued to grow without new 1.3% 1.6% 2.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.8% 0.6% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 201520252035201520252035201520252035201520252035North of SR 60 South of SR 60 North of SR 91 South of SR 91Weekday Traffic Volume NB & SB Volume CAGR % (2015 to 25, 2025 to 35) I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.150 capacity, the corridor would become increasingly congested with the most intense delays experienced on the I-15 northbound in the morning and southbound in the evening. The addition of Express Lanes in 2020 provides capacity for traffic to continue growing. Global traffic growth on I-15 is expected to be somewhat higher than screenline traffic growth. Global traffic is expected to grow at a rate of 1.5 percent per year to as high as 3.0 percent per year. The addition of new capacity in the form of Express Lanes in the I-15 corridor would divert traffic from local parallel routes and freeways into the corridor. Between 2025 and 2035, traffic growth would slow to a rate of approximately 0.2 percent per year to as high as 1.9 percent per year. The additional capacity created by the construction of the I-15 Express Lanes explains why growth of I-15 traffic is higher than screenline growth between 2015 and 2025 and also explains why growth slows between 2025 and 2035. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.151 Figure 6-4: I-15 Northbound Global Traffic Figure 6-5: I-15 Southbound Global Traffic 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 0 30,000 60,000 90,000 120,000 150,000 Growth Rate (CAGR) Weekday Traffic 2015 Model 2025 Growth 2035 Growth GP Cap 2015-25 Growth (CAGR)2025-35 Growth (CAGR) 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 0 30,000 60,000 90,000 120,000 150,000 Growth Rate (CAGR) Weekday Traffic 2015 Model 2025 Growth 2035 Growth GP Cap 2015-25 Growth (CAGR)2025-35 Growth (CAGR) I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.152 6.4 I-15 EXPRESS LANES FORECAST 6.4.1 Annual Traffic and Revenue Forecast The I-15 ELP is forecast to generate $9.58 million (2015 $’s) during its first 12 months of operations (fiscal year 2021 starting July 1, 2020). The forecast shown in Table 6-5 assumes the facility is ramping up over a two-year period and therefore experiences rapid traffic, toll, and revenue growth. By the third year, ramp-up is expected to be complete and the I-15 ELP would generate $20.45 million (2015 $’s). The underlying rate of toll traffic growth between the opening year and 2035 is 4 percent per year. This toll traffic growth rate is supported by I-15 global traffic growth in the range of 1 to 2 percent per year. For express lanes in general, express lane traffic increases at a rate several times above the growth of global traffic. I-15 ELP traffic growing at approximately 4 percent per year while global traffic grows 1 to 2 percent per year is reasonable and expected. Toll rate growth, which would rise along with increases in toll traffic, would range from 4 to 5 percent per year. Revenue growth between opening year and 2035 would range from 8 to 9 percent per year, respectively. This steady pace of growth is interrupted in years 2027, 2030, and 2035 when various regional roadway improvements are assumed to be completed. Revenue in year 2027 would increase by almost 23 percent to $34.7 million, and by 12 percent in 2028 to $39.0 million largely due to the assumed completion of the I-15 South Express Lanes. The I-15 South Express Lanes are expected to divert more traffic to the I-15 corridor, would improve the operations at the southern terminus near Cajalco Road, and would increase the amount of HOV-3+ vehicles using the I-15 ELP. The combination of these three factors makes the I-15 ELP more attractive and increases the facility’s traffic and revenue potential. By 2030, the widening of the parallel arterial Temescal Canyon Road between El Cerrito Road and Indian Truck Trail alleviates some of the I-15 congestion and results in a 13 percent revenue drop to $36.7 million. Revenue resumes a growth trend of 9 percent per year until 2035, when a series of arterial widenings and an assumed change in regional HOV policy requiring HOV-3+ carpools rather than HOV-2+ induce a 33 percent revenue drop to $35.4 million in 2035. After 2035, the forecasts assume a slower rate of revenue growth of 1.9 percent per year until 2050. The slower rate of revenue growth is due to the assumption of a global traffic growth rate of only 0.5 percent per year between 2035 and 2050. Between 2050 and 2069, the T&R forecast assumes a nominal growth rate of 1 percent per year. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.153 Table 6-5: I-15 ELP Base Case Traffic and Revenue Forecast (2015$’s) * Transactions are defined as volume recorded in each Express Lane segment. Each time a vehicle passes through a segment they are recorded as a transaction. A full-length trip is recorded as 7 transactions. Fiscal Year Calendar Year Starting Full Toll Txns (excl HOV) y/y % Change Toll Txns (incl HOV) y/y % Change HOT Transactions y/y % Change HOV Only y/y % Change % HOV Revenue, 2015$'s y/y % Change Average Toll / Transaction y/y % Change 2021 2020 20,828,000 - 26,432,000 - 26,432,000 - 5,604,000 -21%$9,580,000 -$0.36 - 2022 2021 26,271,000 26%33,344,000 26%33,344,000 26%7,073,000 26% 21%$15,097,000 58%$0.45 25% 2023 2022 32,102,000 22%40,752,000 22%40,752,000 22%8,650,000 22% 21%$20,446,000 35%$0.50 11% 2024 2023 33,344,000 4%42,335,000 4%42,335,000 4%8,991,000 4% 21%$22,152,000 8%$0.52 4% 2025 2024 34,636,000 4%43,981,000 4%43,981,000 4%9,345,000 4% 21%$24,001,000 8%$0.55 4% 2026 2025 35,977,000 4%45,690,000 4%45,690,000 4%9,713,000 4% 21%$26,004,000 8%$0.57 4% 2027 2026 37,369,000 4%47,465,000 4%47,465,000 4%10,096,000 4% 21%$28,175,000 8%$0.59 4% 2028 2027 38,616,000 3%50,711,000 7%50,711,000 7%12,095,000 20% 24%$34,753,000 23%$0.69 15% 2029 2028 40,049,000 4%53,121,000 5%53,121,000 5%13,072,000 8% 25%$39,032,000 12%$0.73 7% 2030 2029 41,600,000 4%55,187,000 4%55,187,000 4%13,587,000 4% 25%$42,290,000 8%$0.77 4% 2031 2030 41,304,000 -1%54,782,000 -1%54,782,000 -1%13,478,000 -1%25%$36,745,000 -13%$0.67 -12% 2032 2031 43,110,000 4%57,186,000 4%57,186,000 4%14,076,000 4% 25%$40,196,000 9%$0.70 5% 2033 2032 44,995,000 4%59,696,000 4%59,696,000 4%14,701,000 4% 25%$43,971,000 9%$0.74 5% 2034 2033 46,961,000 4%62,316,000 4%62,316,000 4%15,355,000 4% 25%$48,100,000 9%$0.77 5% 2035 2034 49,013,000 4%65,050,000 4%65,050,000 4%16,037,000 4% 25%$52,618,000 9%$0.81 5% 2036 2035 45,476,000 -7%55,763,000 -14%55,763,000 -14%10,287,000 -36%18%$35,415,000 -33%$0.64 -21% 2037 2036 45,914,000 1.0% 56,304,000 1.0% 56,304,000 1.0% 10,390,000 1.0%18%$36,074,000 1.9% $0.64 0.9% 2038 2037 46,356,000 1.0% 56,850,000 1.0% 56,850,000 1.0% 10,494,000 1.0%18%$36,745,000 1.9% $0.65 0.9% 2039 2038 46,803,000 1.0% 57,402,000 1.0% 57,402,000 1.0% 10,599,000 1.0%18%$37,429,000 1.9% $0.65 0.9% 2040 2039 47,254,000 1.0% 57,959,000 1.0% 57,959,000 1.0% 10,705,000 1.0%18%$38,125,000 1.9% $0.66 0.9% 2041 2040 47,709,000 1.0% 58,521,000 1.0% 58,521,000 1.0% 10,812,000 1.0%18%$38,835,000 1.9% $0.66 0.9% 2042 2041 48,168,000 1.0% 59,088,000 1.0% 59,088,000 1.0% 10,920,000 1.0%18%$39,558,000 1.9% $0.67 0.9% 2043 2042 48,632,000 1.0% 59,661,000 1.0% 59,661,000 1.0% 11,029,000 1.0%18%$40,294,000 1.9% $0.68 0.9% 2044 2043 49,100,000 1.0% 60,240,000 1.0% 60,240,000 1.0% 11,140,000 1.0%18%$41,044,000 1.9% $0.68 0.9% 2045 2044 49,573,000 1.0% 60,824,000 1.0% 60,824,000 1.0% 11,251,000 1.0%18%$41,808,000 1.9% $0.69 0.9% 2046 2045 50,051,000 1.0% 61,414,000 1.0% 61,414,000 1.0% 11,363,000 1.0%19%$42,586,000 1.9% $0.69 0.9% 2047 2046 50,533,000 1.0% 62,010,000 1.0% 62,010,000 1.0% 11,477,000 1.0%19%$43,378,000 1.9% $0.70 0.9% 2048 2047 51,019,000 1.0% 62,611,000 1.0% 62,611,000 1.0% 11,592,000 1.0%19%$44,186,000 1.9% $0.71 0.9% 2049 2048 51,510,000 1.0% 63,218,000 1.0% 63,218,000 1.0% 11,708,000 1.0%19%$45,008,000 1.9% $0.71 0.9% 2050 2049 52,006,000 1.0% 63,831,000 1.0% 63,831,000 1.0% 11,825,000 1.0%19%$45,846,000 1.9% $0.72 0.9% 2051 2050 52,507,000 1.0% 64,450,000 1.0% 64,450,000 1.0% 11,943,000 1.0%19%$46,699,000 1.9% $0.72 0.9% 2052 2051 52,770,000 0.5% 64,773,000 0.5% 64,773,000 0.5% 12,003,000 0.5%19%$47,167,000 1.0% $0.73 0.5% 2053 2052 53,034,000 0.5% 65,097,000 0.5% 65,097,000 0.5% 12,063,000 0.5%19%$47,640,000 1.0% $0.73 0.5% 2054 2053 53,299,000 0.5% 65,422,000 0.5% 65,422,000 0.5% 12,123,000 0.5%19%$48,117,000 1.0% $0.74 0.5% 2055 2054 53,565,000 0.5% 65,749,000 0.5% 65,749,000 0.5% 12,184,000 0.5%19%$48,600,000 1.0% $0.74 0.5% 2056 2055 53,833,000 0.5% 66,078,000 0.5% 66,078,000 0.5% 12,245,000 0.5%19%$49,087,000 1.0% $0.74 0.5% 2057 2056 54,102,000 0.5% 66,409,000 0.5% 66,409,000 0.5% 12,307,000 0.5%19%$49,579,000 1.0% $0.75 0.5% 2058 2057 54,373,000 0.5% 66,741,000 0.5% 66,741,000 0.5% 12,368,000 0.5%19%$50,076,000 1.0% $0.75 0.5% 2059 2058 54,644,000 0.5% 67,074,000 0.5% 67,074,000 0.5% 12,430,000 0.5%19%$50,578,000 1.0% $0.75 0.5% 2060 2059 54,918,000 0.5% 67,410,000 0.5% 67,410,000 0.5% 12,492,000 0.5%19%$51,085,000 1.0% $0.76 0.5% 2061 2060 55,192,000 0.5% 67,746,000 0.5% 67,746,000 0.5% 12,554,000 0.5%19%$51,597,000 1.0% $0.76 0.5% 2062 2061 55,468,000 0.5% 68,085,000 0.5% 68,085,000 0.5% 12,617,000 0.5%19%$52,114,000 1.0% $0.77 0.5% 2063 2062 55,745,000 0.5% 68,425,000 0.5% 68,425,000 0.5% 12,680,000 0.5%19%$52,637,000 1.0% $0.77 0.5% 2064 2063 56,025,000 0.5% 68,768,000 0.5% 68,768,000 0.5% 12,743,000 0.5%19%$53,165,000 1.0% $0.77 0.5% 2065 2064 56,305,000 0.5% 69,112,000 0.5% 69,112,000 0.5% 12,807,000 0.5%19%$53,698,000 1.0% $0.78 0.5% 2066 2065 56,586,000 0.5% 69,457,000 0.5% 69,457,000 0.5% 12,871,000 0.5%19%$54,236,000 1.0% $0.78 0.5% 2067 2066 56,869,000 0.5% 69,805,000 0.5% 69,805,000 0.5% 12,936,000 0.5%19%$54,780,000 1.0% $0.78 0.5% 2068 2067 57,154,000 0.5% 70,154,000 0.5% 70,154,000 0.5% 13,000,000 0.5%19%$55,329,000 1.0% $0.79 0.5% 2069 2068 57,439,000 0.5% 70,505,000 0.5% 70,505,000 0.5% 13,066,000 0.5%19%$55,884,000 1.0% $0.79 0.5% 2070 2069 57,726,000 0.5% 70,857,000 0.5% 70,857,000 0.5% 13,131,000 0.5%19%$56,444,000 1.0% $0.80 0.5% I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.154 6.4.1.1 Annualization of Traffic and Revenue and Ramp-Up Annualization Factors Weekday traffic and revenue forecasts were annualized to reflect a full year, including travel on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays by multiplying toll traffic by 310 and toll revenue by 292. Express traffic annualization greater than the revenue annualization indicates that Fridays and weekends are on average tolled at lower levels than weekday traffic. The travel demand model is calibrated for a typical weekday, representing the conditions on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. Conditions on a Friday are somewhat different, due to many workers having a different schedule compared to the other days of the week, and travelers going on weekend trips. Observed data show traffic on Fridays to be approximately 4 percent higher than on Monday-Thursday with the biggest growth coming during the midday and overnight hours. Saturdays had approximately 2 percent fewer vehicles compared to a typical weekday and Sundays had approximately 18 percent fewer vehicles. Using Stantec’s market share model, which predicts managed lane usage based on the observed usage on the 91 Express Lanes in Orange County, California, traffic and revenue estimates were constructed for these non-typical days. Fridays are expected to have slightly more toll transactions. Because much of the traffic differential is during off peak hours when congestion is lighter, Friday revenues were generally lower than typical weekday levels. Observed data on Saturdays and Sundays on SR 91 shows a smaller proportion of corridor drivers use the managed lane compared to similar congestion conditions on a weekday. Additionally, weekend traffic does not have an intense morning peak when high usage and revenues can occur. Therefore, Saturdays and Sundays are predicted to have much fewer toll transactions and substantially less revenue than a typical weekday. The expected Friday, Saturday and Sunday toll transactions and resulting revenues are shown for the 2025 model year in Figure 1 below. This process of estimating non-typical days (weekends and Fridays) effectively yields traffic and revenue annualization factors. The resulting annualization factors of 310 for toll traffic and 292 for toll revenue are shown in Table 6-7. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.155 Table 6-6: Typical Weekday, Friday, and Weekend T&R Comparison Table 6-7: Express Lane Traffic and Revenue Annualization Factors Forecast Year Express Traffic Annualization Revenue Annualization 2025 (Market share model) 310 293 2035 (Market share Model) 311 290 T&R Forecast Factors (all years) 310 292 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Mon-Thurs Friday Saturday SundayTraffic and Revenue Compared to Typical Monday-ThursdayToll Transactions Revenue I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.156 Ramp Up Traffic and revenue in the first two years of operations are assumed to experience ramp-up. Toll traffic ramp-up is assumed to be 70 percent of full traffic levels in year 1, 85 percent in year 2, and fully ramped up in year 3. Revenue is assumed to be 55 percent of full revenue levels in year 1, 80 percent in year 2, and fully ramped up by year 3. The model used to forecast future trips and assign them to specific routes assumes that the impact of the project will happen instantaneously. Travelers are assumed to immediately learn about the new lanes, shift trips from other routes into the corridor, and decide to use the tolled lanes in the corridor. Since in reality these events occur over time, a factor is applied to reduce traffic in the first few years of operation. These factors allow for a period while new maps are published showing the road, travelers purchase a transponder, signage is installed in the area directing drivers to the road, and travelers become familiar using express lanes, among other factors. Stantec considered the experience on previous express lane projects to estimate a reduction in express lane traffic of 30 percent in the opening year and 15 percent in the following year. Due to reduced traffic in the express lanes, tolls are expected to be lower. In 2020, when express lane traffic is reduced by 30 percent, peak period toll rates drop by about 25 to 30 percent as high tolls are much less necessary to keep the express lane free flowing. Off peak tolls drop slightly. In the second year of operation, with about 15 percent less traffic in the express lanes, peak hour tolls are projected to be lower by about 15 to 20 percent. The resulting ramp up factors for traffic and revenue are shown in Table 6-8 below. Table 6-8: Ramp-Up of Traffic and Revenue Year Ramp-Up Factor Toll Transactions Revenue 2020 70% 55% 2021 85% 80% 2022 100% 100% I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.157 6.4.2 Weekday Traffic and Revenue Forecasts Weekday traffic and revenue were the focus of the T&R forecasts as they account for approximately 85 percent of annual traffic and revenue. The following section presents detailed weekday traffic and revenue results for the I-15 ELP in years 2025 and 2035. 6.4.2.1 2025 Model Year In 2025, the I-15 ELP would generate $26 million (2015 $’s) during the year and average $89,000 per weekday. Approximately 80 percent of the I-15 Express Lanes weekday revenue is generated during the 6 to 10 AM and 3 to 7 PM peak travel periods. These periods experience the greatest amount of congestion in the free general purposes lanes and therefore see the greatest amount of demand for the express lanes, leading to high toll rates. Table 6-9 displays revenue, transactions, and tolls by direction and time of day. During the 2025 year, average weekday tolls during the AM and PM peak period are approximately twice as high as average midday (10 AM to 3 PM) levels (78 cents per transaction during the AM, 70 cents during the PM, and 37 cents during the midday), and are more than three times as high as the average overnight period (7 PM to 6 AM) toll levels (21 cents during the night period). AM and PM peak period transactions (for purposes of the T&R defined as vehicle passes through a segment – a full length trip records 7 toll transactions) account for 68 percent of a typical day’s transactions. Midday transactions account for approximately 24 percent of daily transactions, while the overnight period accounts for 8 percent of transactions. HOV Share of Express Traffic, 2025 HOV-3+ vehicles receive a 50 percent discount on the full toll rate and represent approximately 21 percent of daily express transactions in 2025. As shown in Figure 6-6, the share is lowest during the more heavily traveled AM and PM peak periods and highest during the midday (10 AM to 3 PM) and the night (7 PM to 6 AM). I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.158 Table 6-9: Weekday Revenue, Transactions, and Average Toll - 2025 * Transactions are defined as toll gantry readings. Each time a vehicle passes through a gantry they are recorded as a transaction. A full-length trip is recorded as 7 transactions. Revenue Direction 6-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM 3-7 PM 7 PM-6 AM Total Northbound $25,500 $6,500 $12,800 $1,200 $46,000 Southbound $10,800 $6,800 $24,100 $1,300 $43,000 Total $36,300 $13,300 $36,900 $2,500 $89,000 % of Day Dist 6-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM 3-7 PM 7 PM-6 AM Total Northbound 55%14%28%3%100% Southbound 25%16%56%3%100% Total 41%15%41%3%100% Express Transactions (Full Toll and HOV) Direction 6-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM 3-7 PM 7 PM-6 AM Total Northbound 29,600 18,300 23,200 5,400 76,500 Southbound 17,100 17,800 29,800 6,400 71,100 Total 46,700 36,100 53,000 11,800 147,600 % of Day Dist 6-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM 3-7 PM 7 PM-6 AM Total Northbound 39%24%30%7%100% Southbound 24%25%42%9%100% Total 32%24%36%8%100% HOV Transactions Direction 6-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM 3-7 PM 7 PM-6 AM Total Northbound 3,600 6,300 4,500 2,400 16,800 Southbound 2,300 5,900 3,300 3,000 14,500 Total 5,900 12,200 7,800 5,400 31,300 % of all EL Traffic 6-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM 3-7 PM 7 PM-6 AM Total Northbound 12%34%19%44%22% Southbound 13%33%11%47%20% Total 13%34%15%46%21% Average Toll per Transaction Direction 6-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM 3-7 PM 7 PM-6 AM Total Northbound $0.86 $0.36 $0.55 $0.22 $0.60 Southbound $0.63 $0.38 $0.81 $0.20 $0.60 Total $0.78 $0.37 $0.70 $0.21 $0.60 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.159 Figure 6-6: HOV-3+ Share of All Express Traffic - 2025 The two southernmost I-15 ELP sections account for 2.7 miles of the total 14.5 miles (19 percent) while accounting for 42 percent of project toll revenue. The combined segments between the access point south of Magnolia Avenue and the southern terminus account for 33 percent of southbound revenue and 50 percent of northbound revenue. These two sections see the greatest corridor congestion, and therefore the greatest express lane demand and highest tolls. 13% 33% 11% 47% 20% 12% 34% 19% 44% 22% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 6-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM 3-7 PM 7 PM-6 AM Total Southbound Northbound I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.160 Table 6-10 shows that on a typical weekday, over 13,000 vehicles would use the southbound express lanes between the Magnolia-Ontario access point and El Cerrito Road. These vehicles would pay, on average, a toll of 60 cents, or 33 cents per mile traveled. Just over 11,000 vehicles would continue south into the single-lane section between El Cerrito Road and the southern terminus at Cajalco Road. These vehicles would pay an average rate of 77 cents, or 66 cents per mile for the additional segment. Users in this southernmost single lane section cannot exit before traveling in the section immediately to the north, and therefore would pay a total toll of $1.37, or 50 cents per mile. The El Cerrito to Cajalco Road segment’s higher toll rate on a per mile basis is indicative of high demand, but also limited express lane capacity – only a single express lane is available in the section between El Cerrito Road and Cajalco Road versus a dual lane section immediately to the north. The I-15 ELP northbound lanes between Cajalco Road and the Magnolia-Ontario access point would see greater revenue, demand, and tolls than predicted on the southbound facility. Over 12,700 vehicles per day would use the southernmost segment of the northbound I- 15 ELP. These vehicles would use both the single lane and dual lane section immediately to the north. The full toll for these two segments would average $1.70, or 62 cents per mile. The dual lane section between El Cerrito Road and the Magnolia-Ontario access point is expected to have typical weekday usage of almost 18,000 vehicles per day, which represents an additional 5,000 vehicles entering the I-15 ELP northbound lanes at the El Cerrito Road access point. The full toll for this segment alone would average 78 cents, or 44 cents per mile. The section of the I-15 ELP between Hidden Valley Parkway and the Magnolia-Ontario access point generates the least amount of revenue, accounting for fewer than 5 percent of the total project revenue. This single lane section sees less travel demand than the other sections, getting just over 3,000 vehicles per day southbound and about 4,000 vehicles per day northbound. This behavior is indicative of corridor trip patterns. Most trips do not travel end to end in the I-15 ELP corridor, but instead the SR 91 and SR 60 are both major sources and sinks of traffic. North of SR 91, revenue in the 3 dual lane sections between Cantu Galleano Ranch Road and the Hidden Valley Parkway access point ranges from 11 to 23 percent of project revenues. Average weekday traffic ranges from over 10,000 vehicles per day to over 12,000 vehicles per day. Average daily per mile tolls (full toll) are between 21 cents per mile (NB between Cantu Galleano and the Limonite-6th Street access) and 32 cents per mile (SB, also between Cantu Galleano Ranch Road and the Limonite-6th Street access point). I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.161 Table 6-10: Weekday Revenue, Express Traffic, and Full Tolls by Segment – 2025 Weekday Revenue, 2025 Weekday Express Traffic, 2025 Average Weekday Tolls*, 2025 *Full Toll Revenue divided by Full Toll Traffic. Toll statistics above exclude HOV-3+ traffic and revenue. Northern Limit Southern Limit SB Length NB Length SB NB Total Length SB % NB % SR 60 Cantu Galleano 1.01 0.66 $2,217 $1,787 $4,003 6% 5% 4% Cantu Galleano s/o Limonite Access 3.02 2.50 $9,735 $5,970 $15,705 19% 23% 13% s/o Limonite Access s/o 6th Street Access 2.97 2.73 $9,970 $8,318 $18,288 20% 23% 18% s/o 6th Street Access Hidden Valley Parkway Access 2.11 2.08 $5,773 $5,226 $10,999 14% 13% 11% Hidden Valley Parkway Access s/o Magnolia Access 2.83 3.08 $1,749 $2,798 $4,547 20% 4% 6% s/o Magnolia Access El Cerrito Road 1.77 1.86 $6,766 $12,224 $18,989 13% 16% 27% El Cerrito Road Cajalco Road 0.96 1.39 $6,823 $9,701 $16,524 8% 16% 21% Total 14.7 14.3 $43,032 $46,024 $89,056 100% 100% 100% Northern Limit Southern Limit SB Length NB Length SB Volume NB Volume Total Length SB % NB % SR 60 Cantu Galleano 1.01 0.66 7,763 8,806 16,569 6% 11% 12% Cantu Galleano s/o Limonite Access 3.02 2.50 12,133 10,545 22,678 19% 17% 14% s/o Limonite Access s/o 6th Street Access 2.97 2.73 12,505 11,499 24,004 20% 18% 15% s/o 6th Street Access Hidden Valley Parkway Access 2.11 2.08 11,159 10,680 21,839 14% 16% 14% Hidden Valley Parkway Access s/o Magnolia Access 2.83 3.08 3,030 4,146 7,176 20% 4% 5% s/o Magnolia Access El Cerrito Road 1.77 1.86 13,382 17,949 31,331 13% 19% 24% El Cerrito Road Cajalco Road 0.96 1.39 11,070 12,719 23,789 8% 16% 17% Total 14.7 14.3 71,042 76,344 147,386 100% 100% 100% Average Full Toll Average Full Toll per Mile SB NB Total SB NB Total SR 60 Cantu Galleano 0.84 1.01 $0.33 $0.23 $0.28 $0.39 $0.23 $0.31 Cantu Galleano s/o Limonite Access 2.76 3.02 $0.88 $0.64 $0.77 $0.32 $0.21 $0.27 s/o Limonite Access s/o 6th Street Access 2.85 2.97 $0.87 $0.82 $0.85 $0.31 $0.27 $0.29 s/o 6th Street Access Hidden Valley Parkway Access 2.10 2.11 $0.56 $0.55 $0.56 $0.27 $0.26 $0.27 Hidden Valley Parkway Access s/o Magnolia Access 2.95 2.83 $0.71 $0.83 $0.78 $0.24 $0.30 $0.27 s/o Magnolia Access El Cerrito Road 1.81 1.77 $0.60 $0.78 $0.71 $0.33 $0.44 $0.39 El Cerrito Road Cajalco Road 1.17 0.96 $0.77 $0.92 $0.85 $0.66 $0.96 $0.81 Total 14.5 14.7 $4.73 $4.78 $4.80 $0.33 $0.33 $0.33 NB LengthSB LengthSouthern LimitNorthern Limit I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.162 6.4.2.2 Period by Period Results for 2025 AM Peak Hour Results During the 7 to 8 AM peak hour in 2025, I-15 ELP corridor global travel demand, congestion, and express lane demand is greatest in the northbound direction between Cajalco Road and SR 91. As shown in Table 6-11, express lane traffic reaches a high of nearly 2,900 vehicles per hour between El Cerrito Road and the Magnolia-Ontario mixing area. Travel speeds in this two-mile section slow to 24 mph in the GP lanes while the Express Lanes operate at or near free-flow speeds. Approximately half of the express traffic in this dual lane section originated from the single lane section between Cajalco Road and El Cerrito Road to the south, where the GP lanes are also expected to be congested. The toll for the just over 3-mile trip between the southern terminus at Cajalco Road to the Magnolia-Ontario mixing area would be about $3.30. North of SR 91, GP lane speeds are improved, ranging from 34 to 59 mph, comparable to existing levels. Express traffic ranges from a low of just over 750 vehicles per hour through the SR 91 interchange to a high of nearly 1,700 vehicles between the 6th-2nd Street mixing area and the Limonite Ave-6th Street mixing area. These volumes north of SR 91 translate to a capture rate ranging from 14 percent to 27 percent of northbound global traffic. The cost to travel the northbound express lanes north of SR 91 would average just over $4.00, resulting in a total end to end toll of nearly $7.50 for the 14-mile trip. The southbound I-15 ELP corridor has less global demand, GP congestion, and express lane demand than the northbound direction during the morning. The southbound I-15 ELP has the greatest demand north of SR 91, ranging from just over 900 vehicles between SR 60 and Cantu Galleano Ranch Road to a high of just over 1,400 vehicles per hour between the Limonite Ave- 6th Street mixing area and the 6th Street-2nd Street mixing area. Table 6-11 displays AM peak hour traffic, speeds, and tolls in the I-15 ELP corridor. Traffic drops off sharply south of SR 91, which indicates that southbound I-15 traffic north of SR 91 is largely exiting at SR 91 and that there is little GP lane congestion south of SR 91. The express lane capture rate north of SR 91 ranges from 13 to 22 percent. The average toll for the nearly 15-mile full length I-15 SB EL trip is expected to average just over $4.00. The toll for travel on the northern section between SR 60 and Hidden Valley Parkway would be $3.15, accounting for about 75 percent of the cost, while the lightly traveled section south of SR 91 would cost under $1.00. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.163 Table 6-11: I-15 Global & Express Traffic, GP Speed, & Tolls Charged – 2025, 7 to 8 AM SOUTHBOUND, 7-8 AM NORTHBOUND, 7-8 AM SB Segment # Lns (EL) Dist (mi) Global Traffic EL Traffic % Capture GP Speed Toll Charge NB Segment # Lns (EL) Dist (mi) Global Traffic EL Traffic % Capture GP Speed Toll Charge SR 60 to Cantu Galleano 1 1.01 6,932 920 13% 62 $0.47 Cantu Galleano to SR 60 1 0.66 7,278 1,009 14% 58 $0.31 Cantu Galleano to Limonite-6th St mixing area 2 3.02 6,421 1,407 22% 56 $1.00 Limonite-6th St mixing area to Cantu Galleano 2 2.50 6,617 1,448 22% 46 $0.84 Limonite-6th St mixing area to 6th-2nd St mixing area 2 2.97 6,421 1,412 22% 54 $0.98 6th-2nd St mixing area to Limonite- 6th St mixing area 2 2.73 6,239 1,682 27% 34 $1.18 6th-2nd St mixing area to Hidden Valley Pkwy 2 2.11 6,278 1,078 17% 60 $0.70 Hidden Valley Parkway to 6th- 2nd St mixing area 2 2.08 5,994 1,008 17% 59 $0.67 Hidden Valley Pkwy to Magnolia- Ontario mixing area 1 2.83 5,285 169 3% 66 $0.45 Magnolia-Ontario mixing area to Hidden Valley Pkwy 1 3.08 4,604 757 16% 41 $1.13 Magnolia- Ontario mixing area to El Cerrito Rd 2 1.77 4,469 359 8% 67 $0.27 El Cerrito Rd to Magnolia-Ontario Mixing Area 2 1.86 8,263 2,878 35% 24 $1.28 El Cerrito Rd to Cajalco Rd 1 0.96 4,256 317 7% 67 $0.22 Cajalco Rd to El Cerrito Rd 1 1.39 8,510 1,399 16% 21 $2.03 Southbound Avg / Total 14.7 5,723 809 14% 61 $4.09 Northbound Avg / Total 14.3 6,786 1,454 21% 35 $7.45 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.164 PM Peak Hour Results During the 2025 5 to 6 PM peak hour, I-15 ELP traffic and tolls are highest in the southbound direction with the greatest usage south of SR 91. As shown in Table 6-12, the express lanes offer the greatest travel time advantage south of SR 91 where the GP lanes operate at less than 20 mph between the Magnolia-Ontario mixing area and Cajalco Road. Express lane traffic in the dual lane section between Magnolia Avenue and El Cerrito Road is nearly 2,000 vehicles per hour with over 1,300 vehicles continuing into the single lane section between El Cerrito Road and the southern terminus at Cajalco Road. The toll to use the nearly 3 miles of express lanes south of Magnolia Avenue would be approximately $3.25. To the north, the GP lanes operate between 25 and 53 mph and express lane traffic ranges from a low of over 550 vehicles per hour through SR 91 to a high of just under 1,450 vehicles between the Limonite Ave-6th St mixing area and the 6th Street-2nd Street mixing area. The toll for the full length trip from SR 60 to Cajalco Road is expected to average about $7.30 during the 5 to 6 PM hour. Usage of the northbound express lanes during the PM peak hour is less than usage on the southbound lanes. Northbound express traffic ranges from just over 360 vehicles per hour to over 1,430 vehicles per hour north of SR 91. The northbound GP lanes operate at higher speeds than in the southbound direction, with speeds ranging from 32 to 64 mph. The full length toll is just over $4.00, consistent with expectations for modest GP lane congestion and express lane usage. Table 6-12: I-15 Global and Express Traffic, GP Speed, and Tolls Charge – 2025, 5 to 6 PM SOUTHBOUND, 5-6 PM NORTHBOUND, 5-6 PM SB Segment # Lns (EL) Dist (mi) Global Traffic EL Traffic % Capture GP Speed Toll Charge NB Segment # Lns (EL) Dist (mi) Global Traffic EL Traffic % Capture GP Speed Toll Charge SR 60 to Cantu Galleano 1 1.01 6,932 821 12% 25 $0.44 Cantu Galleano to SR 60 1 0.66 6,278 853 14% 64 $0.30 Cantu Galleano to Limonite-6th St mixing area 2 3.02 6,556 1,406 21% 45 $1.00 Limonite-6th St mixing area to Cantu Galleano 2 2.50 5,602 964 17% 59 $0.59 Limonite-6th St mixing area to 6th-2nd St mixing area 2 2.97 6,555 1,439 22% 53 $0.98 6th-2nd St mixing area to Limonite- 6th St mixing area 2 2.73 5,771 1,146 20% 63 $0.91 6th-2nd St mixing area to Hidden Valley Pkwy 2 2.11 6,263 1,249 20% 60 $0.70 Hidden Valley Parkway to 6th- 2nd St mixing area 2 2.08 5,796 1,434 25% 32 $0.70 Hidden Valley Pkwy to Magnolia- Ontario mixing area 1 2.83 5,999 566 9% 34 $0.94 Magnolia-Ontario mixing area to Hidden Valley Pkwy 1 3.08 3,935 361 9% 55 $0.72 Magnolia- Ontario mixing area to El Cerrito Rd 2 1.77 7,650 1,990 26% 15 $0.95 El Cerrito Rd to Magnolia-Ontario Mixing Area 2 1.86 5,467 882 16% 64 $0.46 El Cerrito Rd to Cajalco Rd 1 0.96 7,698 1,339 17% 19 $2.29 Cajalco Rd to El Cerrito Rd 1 1.39 5,527 661 12% 63 $0.47 Southbound Avg / Total 14.7 6,808 1,259 18% 31 $7.29 Northbound Avg / Total 14.3 5,482 900 16% 55 $4.14 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.165 North of SR 91, northbound I-15 ELP usage in 2025 is concentrated in two hours of the AM peak period, between 6 and 8 AM, and three hours of the PM peak period, between 3 and 6 PM. Figure 6-7 illustrates that during these 5 hours of the day, express traffic ranges from 1,100 to 1,700 vehicles per hour across two lanes. During other times of the day, including 2 hours during the AM peak period and 1 hour of the PM peak period, usage is well under 1,000 vehicles per hour. The full toll for travel in this 3-mile segment range from $0.42 during the night period to $1.18 during the 7 to 8 AM hour. Figure 6-7: I-15 ELP Northbound, between Limonite Avenue and 6th Street - 2025 - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 6-7 AM 7-8 AM 8-9 AM 9-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM avg 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM 7 PM-6 AM averageHourly Traffic Time of Day 6-7 AM 7-8 AM 8-9 AM 9-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM avg 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM 7 PM-6 AM average s/o 6th St to s/o Limonite (3 miles) HOT Traffic 1,298 1,682 773 513 488 1,275 1,176 1,146 426 70 Full Toll $0.91 $1.18 $0.66 $0.57 $0.56 $0.92 $0.92 $0.91 $0.43 $0.42 GP Speed 44 34 59 61 62 61 63 63 65 67 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.166 South of SR 91, northbound I-15 ELP traffic in 2025 is concentrated during the morning hours and declines throughout the rest of the day. Figure 6-8 shows that I-15 ELP traffic volumes in the dual lane segment between El Cerrito Road and the Ontario-Magnolia Avenue mixing area are at or above 1,500 vehicles per hour during all four hours of the AM peak period. PM peak period volumes do not exceed 1,000 vehicles per hour across the 4-hour peak. From 6 to 8 AM, approximately half of the dual lane segment’s traffic also used the single lane segment between Cajalco Road and El Cerrito Road. During the remainder of the AM peak period, midday, PM, and night periods well over half of vehicles in the dual lane segment between El Cerrito Road and the Ontario-Magnolia Avenue mixing area also traveled in the upstream single lane segment. The full toll (no discount) for travel in the dual lane segment ranges from $0.28 to $1.28 during the 7 to 8 AM peak hour for the 1.9-mile trip. Vehicles using both the single and dual lane segments between Cajalco Road and the Ontario-Magnolia mixing area pay a toll ranging from $0.50 to $3.32 from 7 to 8 AM for the 3.3-mile trip. Figure 6-8: I-15 ELP Northbound, south of Magnolia Avenue - 2025 - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 6-7 AM 7-8 AM 8-9 AM 9-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM avg 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM 7 PM-6 AM averageHourly Traffic Time of Day s/o Magnolia-El Cerrito El Cerrito-Cajalco 6-7 AM 7-8 AM 8-9 AM 9-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM avg 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM 7 PM-6 AM average El Cerrito to Ontario-Magnolia mixing area (1.9 miles) HOT Traffic 2,399 2,878 1,851 1,478 868 1,220 1,184 882 584 103 Full Toll $1.06 $1.28 $0.85 $0.75 $0.44 $0.61 $0.61 $0.46 $0.43 $0.28 GP Speed 24 24 35 34 63 53 55 64 66 67 Cajalco to Magnolia-Ontario mixing area (3.3 miles) HOT Traffic 1,320 1,399 1,317 1,185 732 793 809 661 502 98 Full Toll 2.60$ $3.32 $1.84 $1.62 $0.91 $1.21 $1.22 $0.93 $0.89 $0.50 GP Speed 24 22 31 29 60 55 54 63 66 66 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.167 North of SR 91, southbound I-15 ELP usage in 2025 peaks during both the AM and PM peak periods. Figure 6-9 illustrates that between 6 and 9 AM, I-15 ELP traffic is near or above 1,000 vehicles per hour and from 3 to 6 PM, traffic is nearly 1,500 vehicles per hour. During other times of day, including the 9 to 10 AM hour and the 6 to 7 PM hour, usage is well under 1,000 vehicles per hour. Full toll for travel in this 3-mile segment range from $0.46 during the night period to $0.98 during the 7 to 8 AM hour. Figure 6-9: I-15 ELP Southbound, between Limonite Avenue and 6th Street - 2025 - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 6-7 AM 7-8 AM 8-9 AM 9-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM avg 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM 7 PM-6 AM averageHourly Traffic Time of Day 6-7 AM 7-8 AM 8-9 AM 9-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM avg 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM 7 PM-6 AM average s/o Limonite to s/o 6th St (3 miles) HOT Traffic 1,050 1,412 975 763 568 1,340 1,427 1,439 680 185 Full Toll $0.98 $0.98 $0.98 $0.68 $0.68 $0.98 $0.98 $0.98 $0.68 $0.46 GP Speed 61 54 60 64 58 57 57 53 64 68 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.168 South of SR 91, southbound I-15 ELP traffic in 2025 peaks from 3 to 7 PM but experiences minimal usage during the rest of the day. Figure 6-10 shows that I-15 ELP traffic volumes in the dual lane segment between the Magnolia-Ontario Avenue mixing area are between 1,500 and 2,000 vehicles per hour from 3 to 6 PM and nearly 1,000 vehicles from 6 to 7 PM. Most of the vehicles using the dual lane segment continue through the single lane segment between El Cerrito Road and Cajalco Road. During the rest of the day, usage of these two segments of the I-15 ELP is significantly lower than PM peak period usage. During the AM peak period and night period, traffic is less than 500 vehicles per hour, while usage during the midday averages less than 750 vehicles per hour. The full toll (no discount) for travel in the dual lane segment ranges from $0.27 to $0.95 during the 5 to 6 PM peak hour for the 1.9-mile trip. Vehicles using both the single and dual lane segments between Cajalco Road and the Ontario-Magnolia mixing area pay a toll ranging from $0.42 to $3.24 from 5 to 6 PM for the 2.7-mile trip. Figure 6-10: I-15 ELP Southbound, south of Magnolia Avenue - 2025 - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 6-7 AM 7-8 AM 8-9 AM 9-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM avg 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM 7 PM-6 AM averageHourly Traffic Time of Day s/o Magnolia-El Cerrito El Cerrito-Cajalco 6-7 AM 7-8 AM 8-9 AM 9-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM avg 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM 7 PM-6 AM average Magnolia-Ontario mixing area to El Cerrito (1.8 miles) HOT Traffic 234 359 278 216 708 1,737 2,065 1,990 928 185 Full Toll $0.27 $0.27 $0.27 $0.27 $0.41 $0.76 $0.77 $0.95 $0.41 $0.27 GP Speed 68 67 67 67 63 52 64 15 65 64 Magnolia-Ontario Mixing Area to Cajalco (2.7 miles) HOT Traffic 212 317 254 198 641 1,356 1,420 1,339 825 177 Full Toll $0.46 $0.50 $0.46 $0.43 $0.73 $1.45 $1.90 $3.24 $0.82 $0.42 GP Speed 67 67 67 67 62 49 58 17 63 64 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.169 6.4.2.3 Post Processing of Hourly Model Results - 2025 Raw model results were post processed to account for expectations of higher congestion levels in some sections of the I-15 SB ELP than were predicted by the travel demand model and expectations for the positive impact of dynamic pricing on project revenue. Full toll traffic for I-15 SB ELP sections between Cantu Galleano Ranch Road and Hidden Valley Parkway were post processed upward in the 2025 model year by 450 vehicles per hour for all hours of the AM and PM peak periods. Stantec’s market share model analysis revealed that the travel demand model expects less congestion in these sections in the 2025 year than are expected by Stantec’s market share model. A comparison of travel demand model forecasts against market share model forecasts, shown in Figure 6-11, shows that the travel demand model’s market share was approximately 5 percent lower than expected by Stantec’s market share model. The principal source of the deviation is travel demand model’s expectation for lower congestion levels, while the market share model is believed to more accurately depict congestion in those three segments and times of day. The upward adjustment was approximated as 450 vehicles per hour for each hour of the AM and PM peak periods. Midday and night period volumes were not post processed upward because the raw travel demand model results were deemed to be reasonable, albeit conservative. All results presented herein are post-processed. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.170 Figure 6-11: Travel Demand Model vs. Market Share Model Capture Rate, 2025 SB I-15 ELP, Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd to Hidden Valley Parkway The I-15 ELP would be operated as a dynamically priced facility and as a result would warrant an increase to revenue relative to a static variable priced facility. Market share model analysis of dynamic pricing reveals that revenue would be higher by approximately 2 percent while toll traffic would be higher by approximately 0.25 percent and tolls would be higher by 1.75 percent. Travel demand model results assume a static variable priced facility, so the traffic, toll, and revenue forecasts were post processed upward to reflect the assumption for dynamic pricing. 6.4.2.4 2035 Model Year The AM and PM peak periods continue to account for the vast majority of revenue in 2035. Table 6-13 shows that the AM peak period (6 to 10 AM) would account for 42 percent of weekday revenue, the PM peak period (3 to 7 PM) would account for 37 percent, the midday period (10 AM to 3 PM) would account for 17 percent, and the night period (7 PM to 6 AM) would account for 4 percent. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00Express Lane Market share (Full Toll and HOV Traffic) Global v/c Initial EL Market Share MSM EL Market Share Lower price Higher Price Curve I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.171 Northbound I-15 ELP revenue is highest during the AM peak period, which accounts for 59 percent of the total day’s revenue on the northbound lanes, while the PM peak period accounts for 20 percent. The NB I-15 ELP generates a large share of its weekday revenue during the AM peak period because of expectations for continued high corridor travel demand and delay in the GP lanes. The existing I-15 northbound corridor is the most congested during the morning peak period, experiencing total travel times of 21 minutes for a 12 minute free-flow trip (Cajalco Road to SR 60). Similar conditions are expected in 2035. NB AM express traffic would represent 38 percent of weekday totals, while NB AM tolls would be approximately 2.5 times midday levels and over 4.5 times night levels. Southbound I-15 ELP revenue is highest during the PM peak period, which accounts for 55 percent of the total day’s revenue, while the AM peak period accounts for 23 percent. The SB I-15 ELP generates a large share of its weekday revenue during the PM peak period because the southbound I-15 is expected to be heavily congested during the PM peak period, similar to today. The existing I-15 southbound corridor is the most congested during the evening peak period, seeing total travel times of 27 minutes for a trip that would take only 12 minutes if there were no delays (SR 60 to Cajalco Road ), and similar conditions are expected for the 2035 year. SB PM express traffic would represent 38 percent of weekday totals, while SB PM tolls would be approximately 2.25 times midday levels, and about 4.5 times night levels. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.172 Table 6-13: Weekday Revenue, Transactions, and Average Toll - 2035 * Transactions are defined as toll gantry readings. Each time a vehicle passes through a gantry they are recorded as a transaction. A full-length trip is recorded as 7 transactions. HOV Share of Express Traffic, 2035 HOV-3+ vehicles receive a 50 percent discount on the full toll rate and represent approximately 18 percent of daily express transactions in 2035. As shown in Figure 6-12, HOV-3+ share is lowest during the more heavily traveled AM and PM peak periods, ranging from 7 to 15 percent, and highest during the midday (10 AM to 3 PM) and the night (7 PM to 6 AM). The higher HOV shares correspond to periods when corridor congestion is low and the express lanes do not offer as Revenue Direction AM MD PM NT Total Northbound $36,800 $10,400 $12,700 $2,200 $62,100 Southbound $13,800 $10,200 $32,500 $2,700 $59,200 Total $50,600 $20,600 $45,200 $4,900 $121,300 % of Day Dist AM MD PM NT Total Northbound 59%17%20%4%100% Southbound 23%17%55%5%100% Total 42%17%37%4%100% Express Transactions (Full Toll and HOV) Direction AM MD PM NT Total Northbound 34,600 24,400 22,600 9,600 91,200 Southbound 19,600 23,600 33,400 12,100 88,700 Total 54,200 48,000 56,000 21,700 179,900 % of Day Dist AM MD PM NT Total Northbound 38%27%25%11%100% Southbound 22%27%38%14%100% Total 30%27%31%12%100% HOV Transactions Direction AM MD PM NT Total Northbound 3,400 6,400 3,400 4,200 17,400 Southbound 1,400 5,200 3,500 5,600 15,700 Total 4,800 11,600 6,900 9,800 33,100 % of all EL Traffic 6-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM 3-7 PM 7 PM-6 AM Total Northbound 10%26%15%44%19% Southbound 7%22%10%46%18% Total 9%24%12%45%18% Average Toll per Transaction Direction AM MD PM NT Total Northbound $1.06 $0.43 $0.56 $0.23 $0.68 Southbound $0.70 $0.43 $0.97 $0.22 $0.67 Total $0.93 $0.43 $0.81 $0.23 $0.67 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.173 great a time advantage over the general purpose lanes. The higher HOV share is supported b y the lower toll rates offered to HOV-3+ vehicles. Figure 6-12: HOV-3+ Share of All Express Traffic - 2035 Traffic and Revenue by Segment - 2035 The two southernmost sections, between the Magnolia-Ontario access point and Cajalco Road account for 33 percent of southbound revenue and 52 percent of northbound revenue, which is comparable to 2025 levels. Over 15,500 vehicles per day would use the southbound dual lane section between the Magnolia-Ontario access point and El Cerrito Road. The full toll for this section would be $0.64, or 36 cents per mile. Over 13,000 vehicles, or almost 85 percent, would continue through to the southern terminus and would require an additional toll of $1.18, or $1.24 per mile to travel that section. The combined full toll for the trip between the Magnolia-Ontario access point and Cajalco Road would be $1.82, or 67 cents per mile. Table 6-14 shows year 2035 weekday revenue, traffic, and tolls by direction. Northbound, over 14,000 vehicles per day would originate from the southern terminus at Cajalco Road and continue through to the Magnolia-Ontario access point. The average weekday toll for these vehicles would be $2.21, or 68 cents per mile. At the El Cerrito Road access point (ingress only), approximately 6,500 vehicles per day would enter the I-15 ELP northbound lanes, resulting in a total daily traffic level of over 20,700 vehicles. Much of this traffic exit the Express Lanes and are destined for points along SR 91 east or west of I-15, resulting in a decline in traffic in the single lane section between the Magnolia-Ontario access point and Hidden Valley Parkway to just 7% 22% 10% 46% 18% 10% 26% 15% 44% 19% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 6-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM 3-7 PM 7 PM-6 AM Total Southbound Northbound I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.174 under 5,000 vehicles per day. I-15 ELP traffic increases at the Hidden Valley Parkway access point (ingress only) to nearly 15,000 vehicles per day and gradually declines to over 12,500 vehicles per day north of Limonite Avenue. Eighty percent of the express lane vehicles traveling between Limonite Avenue and Cantu Galleano Ranch Road would continue through to the northern terminus and rejoin the I-15 general purpose lanes north of SR 60. Table 6-14: Weekday Revenue, Traffic, and Full Tolls by Segment – 2035 Weekday Revenue, 2035 Weekday Express Traffic, 2035 Average Weekday Tolls*, 2035 *Full Toll Revenue divided by Full Toll Traffic. Toll statistics above exclude HOV-3+ traffic and revenue. Northern Limit Southern Limit SB Length NB Length SB NB Total Length SB % NB % SR 60 Cantu Galleano 1.01 0.66 $4,249 $2,008 $6,256 6% 7% 3% Cantu Galleano s/o Limonite Access 3.02 2.50 $12,037 $7,339 $19,377 19% 20% 12% s/o Limonite Access s/o 6th Street Access 2.97 2.73 $12,166 $8,729 $20,895 20% 21% 14% s/o 6th Street Access Hidden Valley Parkway Access 2.11 2.08 $7,630 $7,974 $15,604 14% 13% 13% Hidden Valley Parkway Access s/o Magnolia Access 2.83 3.08 $3,569 $3,665 $7,234 20% 6% 6% s/o Magnolia Access El Cerrito Road 1.77 1.86 $8,033 $20,714 $28,747 13% 14% 33% El Cerrito Road Cajalco Road 0.96 1.39 $11,483 $11,687 $23,170 8% 19% 19% Total 14.7 14.3 $59,167 $62,116 $121,283 100% 100% 100% Northern Limit Southern Limit SB Length NB Length SB Volume NB Volume Total Length SB % NB % SR 60 Cantu Galleano 1.01 0.66 11,053 9,932 20,985 6% 12% 11% Cantu Galleano s/o Limonite Access 3.02 2.50 14,562 12,629 27,191 19% 16% 14% s/o Limonite Access s/o 6th Street Access 2.97 2.73 15,223 13,654 28,877 20% 17% 15% s/o 6th Street Access Hidden Valley Parkway Access 2.11 2.08 14,554 14,952 29,506 14% 16% 16% Hidden Valley Parkway Access s/o Magnolia Access 2.83 3.08 4,793 4,940 9,733 20% 5% 5% s/o Magnolia Access El Cerrito Road 1.77 1.86 15,598 20,720 36,318 13% 18% 23% El Cerrito Road Cajalco Road 0.96 1.39 13,051 14,221 27,272 8% 15% 16% Total 14.7 14.3 88,834 91,048 179,882 100% 100% 100% Average Full Toll Average Full Toll per Mile SB NB Total SB NB Total SR 60 Cantu Galleano 1.01 0.66 $0.41 $0.22 $0.32 $0.40 $0.33 $0.36 Cantu Galleano s/o Limonite Access 3.02 2.50 $0.88 $0.64 $0.77 $0.29 $0.26 $0.27 s/o Limonite Access s/o 6th Street Access 2.97 2.73 $0.85 $0.70 $0.78 $0.29 $0.26 $0.27 s/o 6th Street Access Hidden Valley Parkway Access 2.11 2.08 $0.56 $0.58 $0.57 $0.27 $0.28 $0.27 Hidden Valley Parkway Access s/o Magnolia Access 2.83 3.08 $0.90 $0.95 $0.92 $0.32 $0.31 $0.31 s/o Magnolia Access El Cerrito Road 1.77 1.86 $0.64 $1.18 $0.96 $0.36 $0.64 $0.50 El Cerrito Road Cajalco Road 0.96 1.39 $1.18 $1.03 $1.10 $1.24 $0.74 $0.99 Total 14.7 14.3 $5.42 $5.29 $5.42 $0.37 $0.37 $0.37 Northern Limit Southern Limit SB Length NB Length I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.175 6.4.2.5 Period by Period Results for 2035 AM Peak Hour Results During the 7 to 8 AM peak hour in 2035, I-15 ELP corridor global travel demand, congestion, and express lane demand is greatest in the northbound direction between Cajalco Road and SR 91. As shown in Table 6-15, I-15 ELP northbound traffic reaches a high of over 3,000 vehicles per hour between El Cerrito Road and the Magnolia-Ontario mixing area. Travel speeds in this two-mile section slow to 14 mph in the GP lanes, while the Express Lanes operate at or near free-flow speeds. Approximately half of the express traffic in this dual lane section originates from the single lane section between Cajalco Road and El Cerrito Road to the south, where the GP lanes are also expected to be congested, running at 23 mph. The toll for the just over 3-mile trip between the southern terminus at Cajalco Road to the Magnolia-Ontario mixing area would be about $4.60. North of SR 91, GP lane speeds are improved, ranging from 30 to 54 mph, somewhat lower than 2025 levels. I-15 ELP usage north of SR 91 ranges from just over 800 vehicles per hour through the SR 91 interchange to over 1,400 vehicles between the 6 th-2nd Street mixing area and the Limonite Ave-6th Street mixing area. These volumes north of SR 91 translate to a capture rate ranging from 11 to 21 percent of northbound global traffic. The cost to travel the northbound express lanes north of SR 91 would average just under $4.00, resulting in a total end to end toll of nearly $8.50 for the 14-mile trip. The southbound I-15 ELP corridor operates with traffic levels comparable to those expected in the northbound direction. During the morning, the southbound I-15 ELP has the greatest demand north of SR 91, ranging from just over 1,000 vehicles between 6th Street and Hidden Valley Parkway to just over 1,500 vehicles per hour between the Limonite Ave-6th Street mixing area and the 6th Street-2nd Street mixing area. Very little express traffic is expected on the southbound I-15 ELP single lane section passing through the SR 91 interchange. The low volume in this single lane section is indicative of the expectation that a large share of traffic north of SR 91 would be destined for or coming from SR 91 rather than I-15 south of SR 91. Table 6-15 displays AM peak hour traffic, speeds, and tolls in the I-15 ELP corridor. Traffic drops off sharply south of SR 91, which indicates that southbound I-15 traffic north of SR 91 is largely exiting at SR 91, and that there is little GP lane congestion south of SR 91. The express lane capture rate north of SR 91 ranges from 16 to 25 percent of southbound global traffic. The average toll for the nearly 15-mile full length I-15 SB EL trip is expected to average just over $4.50. The toll for travel on the northern section between SR 60 and Hidden Valley Parkway would be about $3.65, accounting for about 80 percent of the full length cost, while the lightly traveled section south of SR 91 would cost less than $1.00. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.176 Table 6-15: I-15 Global & Express Traffic, GP Speed, and Tolls Charged – 2035, 7 to 8 AM SOUTHBOUND, 7-8 AM NORTHBOUND, 7-8 AM SB Segment # Lns (EL) Dist (mi) Global Traffic EL Traffic % Capture GP Speed Toll Charge NB Segment # Lns (EL) Dist (mi) Global Traffic EL Traffic % Capture GP Speed Toll Charge SR 60 to Cantu Galleano 1 1.01 6,570 1,275 19% 49 $0.69 Cantu Galleano to SR 60 1 0.66 7,226 791 11% 52 $0.27 Cantu Galleano to Limonite-6th St mixing area 2 3.02 6,940 1,531 22% 62 $1.31 Limonite-6th St mixing area to Cantu Galleano 2 2.50 7,100 1,249 18% 49 $0.78 Limonite-6th St mixing area to 6th- 2nd St mixing area 2 2.97 6,940 1,377 20% 55 $0.98 6th-2nd St mixing area to Limonite- 6th St mixing area 2 2.73 7,426 1,268 17% 54 $0.91 6th-2nd St mixing area to Hidden Valley Pkwy 2 2.11 6,719 1,083 16% 60 $0.66 Hidden Valley Parkway to 6th- 2nd St mixing area 2 2.08 6,638 1,412 21% 40 $0.74 Hidden Valley Pkwy to Magnolia- Ontario mixing area 1 2.83 4,874 129 3% 67 $0.43 Magnolia-Ontario mixing area to Hidden Valley Pkwy 1 3.08 5,327 818 15% 30 $1.19 Magnolia-Ontario mixing area to El Cerrito Rd 2 1.77 4,627 321 7% 66 $0.27 El Cerrito Rd to Magnolia-Ontario Mixing Area 2 1.86 8,313 3,012 36% 14 $2.54 El Cerrito Rd to Cajalco Rd 1 0.96 4,712 321 7% 65 $0.20 Cajalco Rd to El Cerrito Rd 1 1.39 8,350 1,519 18% 23 $2.03 Southbound Avg / Total 14.7 5,912 862 15% 60 $4.55 Northbound Avg / Total 14.3 7,197 1,438 20% 31 $8.48 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.177 PM Peak Hour Results During the 2035 5 to 6 PM peak hour, I-15 ELP traffic and tolls are highest in the southbound direction with peak usage south of SR 91. As shown in Table 6-16, the express lanes offer the greatest travel time advantage south of SR 91 where the GP lane speeds would be between 19 and 28 mph. Express lane traffic in the dual lane section between Magnolia Avenue and El Cerrito Road would be nearly 2,300 vehicles per hour with over 1,400 vehicles continuing into the single lane section between El Cerrito Road and the southern terminus at Cajalco Road. The toll to use the nearly 3 miles of express lanes south of Magnolia Avenue would be approximately $3.75. To the north, the GP lanes operate between 28 and 61 mph and express lane traffic ranges from over 900 vehicles per hour between SR 60 and Cantu Galleano Ranch Road to just under 1,450 vehicles between the Limonite Ave-6th St mixing area and the 6th Street-2nd Street mixing area. The toll for the full length trip from SR 60 to Cajalco Road is expected to average about $8.50 during the 5 to 6 PM hour. Usage of the northbound express lanes during the PM peak hour is less than usage on the southbound lanes. Northbound express traffic ranges from just under 250 vehicles per hour to over 1,500 vehicles per hour north of SR 91. The northbound GP lanes operate at higher speeds than in the southbound direction with speeds ranging from 33 to 65 mph. The full length toll is just over $4.00, consistent with expectations for modest GP lane congestion and express lane usage. Table 6-16: I-15 Global & Express Traffic, GP Speed, and Tolls Charged – 2035, 5 to 6 PM North of SR 91, northbound I-15 ELP usage is concentrated in three hours of the 2035 AM peak period, between 6 and 9 AM, and three hours of the PM peak period, between 3 and 6 PM. SOUTHBOUND, 5-6 PM NORTHBOUND, 5-6 PM SB Segment # Lns (EL) Dist (mi) Global Traffic EL Traffic % Capture GP Speed Toll Charge NB Segment # Lns (EL) Dist (mi) Global Traffic EL Traffic % Capture GP Speed Toll Charge SR 60 to Cantu Galleano 1 1.01 6,676 926 14% 28 $0.46 Cantu Galleano to SR 60 1 0.66 6,504 863 13% 65 $0.30 Cantu Galleano to Limonite-6th St mixing area 2 3.02 6,999 1,420 20% 49 $1.00 Limonite-6th St mixing area to Cantu Galleano 2 2.50 5,945 1,040 17% 57 $0.78 Limonite-6th St mixing area to 6th- 2nd St mixing area 2 2.97 6,999 1,457 21% 50 $1.28 6th-2nd St mixing area to Limonite- 6th St mixing area 2 2.73 6,676 1,234 18% 61 $0.85 6th-2nd St mixing area to Hidden Valley Pkwy 2 2.11 6,645 1,368 21% 61 $0.73 Hidden Valley Parkway to 6th- 2nd St mixing area 2 2.08 5,921 1,513 26% 33 $0.79 Hidden Valley Pkwy to Magnolia- Ontario mixing area 1 2.83 5,837 819 14% 19 $1.24 Magnolia-Ontario mixing area to Hidden Valley Pkwy 1 3.08 4,024 246 6% 62 $0.56 Magnolia-Ontario mixing area to El Cerrito Rd 2 1.77 8,245 2,277 28% 28 $0.95 El Cerrito Rd to Magnolia-Ontario Mixing Area 2 1.86 5,861 731 12% 63 $0.41 El Cerrito Rd to Cajalco Rd 1 0.96 7,744 1,423 18% 23 $2.80 Cajalco Rd to El Cerrito Rd 1 1.39 5,746 564 10% 61 $0.43 Southbound Avg / Total 14.7 7,021 1,384 20% 32 $8.46 Northbound Avg / Total 14.3 5,811 884 15% 55 $4.12 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.178 Figure 6-13 illustrates that during these 5 hours of the day, express traffic ranges from nearly 1,000 vehicles per hour to 1,300 vehicles per hour across two lanes. During other times of the day, including 1 hour of the AM peak period and 1 hour of the PM peak period, usage is well under 1,000 vehicles per hour. The full tolls for travel in this 3-mile segment range from $0.42 during the night period to $0.91 during the 7 to 8 AM hour. Figure 6-13: I-15 ELP Northbound, between Limonite Avenue and 6th Street – 2035 Northbound I-15 ELP traffic between Cajalco Road and the Ontario-Magnolia Avenue mixing area is projected to be at their operational maximum volume levels during the 2035 AM peak period in response to expectations for heavy congestion on the adjacent GP lanes and would require toll increases to maintain free-flow. As shown in Figure 6-14, between 6 and 8 AM, express traffic in both the dual lane section between El Cerrito Road and the Ontario-Magnolia mixing area and the single lane section between Cajalco Road and El Cerrito Road would be at their operational maximum volumes of 3,200 vehicles per hour and 1,500 vehicles per hour, respectively. From 8 to 10 AM, express lane usage in the dual section remains elevated at over 2,000 vehicles per hour and near the operational threshold of 1,500 vehicles per hour in the single lane section. During the remainder of the day, traffic is at or below 1,000 vehicles per hour. Full tolls for travel in the 1.9-mile section between El Cerrito Road and the Ontario-Magnolia mixing area ranges from $0.28 to $2.54 during the 7 to 8 AM hour. Tolls for the 3.3-mile trip - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 6-7 AM 7-8 AM 8-9 AM 9-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM avg 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM 7 PM-6 AM averageHourly Traffic Time of Day 6-7 AM 7-8 AM 8-9 AM 9-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM avg 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM 7 PM-6 AM average s/o 6th St to s/o Limonite (3 miles) HOT Traffic 1,126 1,268 953 721 746 1,186 1,170 1,234 726 140 Full Toll $0.85 $0.91 $0.63 $0.57 $0.57 $0.85 $0.85 $0.85 $0.57 $0.42 GP Speed 55 54 59 60 59 61 61 61 63 66 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.179 between Cajalco Road and the Ontario-Magnolia mixing area would range from $0.50 to $4.58 from 7 to 8 AM. Figure 6-14: I-15 ELP Northbound, south of Magnolia Avenue - 2035 North of SR 91, southbound I-15 ELP usage peaks during both the AM and PM peak periods. Figure 6-15 illustrates that between 6 and 10 AM, I-15 ELP traffic is near or above 1,000 vehicles per hour and from 3 to 6 PM, traffic is nearly 1,500 vehicles per hour. During other times of day, including the 6 to 7 PM hour, usage is well under 1,000 vehicles per hour. Full toll for travel in this 3-mile segment range from $0.46 during the night period to $1.28 during the 5 to 6 PM hour. - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 6-7 AM 7-8 AM 8-9 AM 9-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM avg 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM 7 PM-6 AM averageHourly Traffic Time of Day s/o Magnolia-El Cerrito El Cerrito-Cajalco 6-7 AM 7-8 AM 8-9 AM 9-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM avg 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM 7 PM-6 AM average El Cerrito to Ontario-Magnolia mixing area (1.9 miles) HOT Traffic 3,053 3,012 2,661 2,242 999 903 870 731 523 157 Full Toll $1.66 $2.54 $1.10 $0.91 $0.53 $0.43 $0.45 $0.41 $0.39 $0.28 GP Speed 35 14 14 14 58 62 61 63 65 62 Cajalco to Ontario-Magnolia mixing area (3.3 miles) HOT Traffic 1,461 1,519 1,304 1,450 883 689 719 564 450 150 Full Toll $3.69 $4.58 $2.27 $1.72 $1.11 $0.92 $0.98 $0.83 $0.74 $0.50 GP Speed 37 17 19 20 57 61 59 62 64 57 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.180 Figure 6-15: I-15 ELP Southbound, between Limonite Avenue and 6th Street - 2035 South of SR 91, southbound I-15 ELP traffic in 2035 peaks from 3 to 7 PM but experiences minimal usage during the rest of the day. Figure 6-16 shows that I-15 ELP traffic volumes in the dual lane segment between the Magnolia-Ontario Avenue mixing area exceed 2,000 vehicles per hour from 3 to 6 PM and over 1,100 vehicles from 6 to 7 PM. Most of the vehicles using the dual lane segment continue through the single lane segment between El Cerrito Road and Cajalco Road. Traffic in the single lane section between El Cerrito Road and Cajalco Road would be at or above the maximum operational volume of 1,500 vehicles per hour from 3 to 6 PM if tolls were not increased to the levels presented in Figure 6-16. During the rest of the day, usage of these two segments of the I-15 ELP is significantly lower than PM peak period usage. During the AM peak period and night period, traffic is less than 500 vehicles per hour, while usage during the midday averages less than 700 vehicles per hour. The full toll (no discount) for travel in the dual lane segment ranges from $0.27 to $0.95 during the 5 to 6 PM peak hour for the 1.9-mile trip. Vehicles using both the single and dual lane segments between Cajalco Road and the Ontario- Magnolia mixing area pay a toll ranging from $0.44 to $3.74 from 5 to 6 PM for the 2.7-mile trip. - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 6-7 AM 7-8 AM 8-9 AM 9-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM avg 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM 7 PM-6 AM averageHourly Traffic Time of Day 6-7 AM 7-8 AM 8-9 AM 9-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM avg 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM 7 PM-6 AM average s/o Limonite to s/o 6th St (3 miles) HOT Traffic 1,110 1,377 1,111 951 855 1,407 1,441 1,457 813 316 Full Toll $0.98 $0.98 $0.98 $0.68 $0.65 $0.98 $0.98 $1.28 $0.68 $0.46 GP Speed 59 55 59 63 58 52 51 50 61 67 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.181 Figure 6-16: I-15 ELP Southbound, south of Magnolia Avenue - 2035 6.4.2.6 Post Processing of Hourly Model Results - 2035 Travel demand model forecasts of express lane traffic were post processed based on market share model analysis of I-15 traffic. Express traffic on the southbound I-15 ELP for the two dual lane segments between Cantu Galleano Ranch Road and the 6th Street-2nd Street mixing area in the 2035 model year was post processed upward by 200 vehicles per hour for all four AM and PM peak period hours based on market share model analysis. This adjustment is smaller than the adjustment made for the 2025 model year and for one fewer segment (does not adjust Hidden Valley Parkway to the 6th Street-2nd Street mixing area). A comparison of travel demand model forecasts against market share model forecasts shown in Figure 6-17 shows that the travel demand model’s market share was one to four percent lower than expected by Stantec’s market share model. The principal source of the deviation is travel demand model’s expectation for lower congestion levels while the market share model is believed to more accurately depict congestion in those three segments and times of day. The upward adjustment was - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 6-7 AM 7-8 AM 8-9 AM 9-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM avg 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM 7 PM-6 AM averageHourly Traffic Time of Day s/o Magnolia-El Cerrito El Cerrito-Cajalco 6-7 AM 7-8 AM 8-9 AM 9-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM avg 3-4 PM 4-5 PM 5-6 PM 6-7 PM 7 PM-6 AM average Magnolia-Ontario mixing area to El Cerrito (1.8 miles) HOT Traffic 234 321 277 197 683 2,039 2,189 2,277 1,174 316 Full Toll $0.27 $0.27 $0.27 $0.27 $0.37 $0.80 $0.89 $0.95 $0.55 $0.27 GP Speed 67 66 66 67 61 38 34 28 60 35 Magnolia-Ontario mixing area to Cajalco (2.7 miles) HOT Traffic 234 321 277 197 677 1,356 1,261 1,423 1,121 316 Full Toll $0.45 $0.48 $0.48 $0.44 $0.72 $2.84 $3.33 $3.74 $1.09 $0.44 GP Speed 67 66 66 66 59 35 29 26 59 28 I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.182 approximated as 200 vehicles per hour for each hour of the AM and PM peak periods. Midday and night period volumes were not post processed upward because the raw travel demand model results were deemed to be reasonable, albeit conservative. All results presented herein are post-processed. Figure 6-17: Travel Demand Model vs. Market Share Model Capture Rate, 2035 SB I-15 ELP, Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd to Hidden Valley Parkway 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00Express Lane Market share (Full Toll and HOV Traffic) Global v/c Initial EL Market Share MSM EL Market Share Lower price Higher Price Curve I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.183 6.4.3 Impact of Network Improvements in 2027, 2030, and 2035 Various roadway improvements that would impact the I-15 ELP traffic and revenue are anticipated to be completed in 2027, 2030, and 2035. The I-15 South Express Lanes scheduled for 2027 are expected to increase travel demand and revenue for the I-15 ELP, while the widening of Temescal Canyon Road in 2030 and the various improvements scheduled for 2035 are expected to decrease I-15 ELP demand and revenue. The traffic and revenue impact of these projects was assessed by developing three intermediate model scenarios: 1) 2025 socioeconomics assuming the 2025 network plus I-15 South EL’s. The network condition can be viewed as approximating a 2027 network. 2) 2035 socioeconomics assuming the 2025 network plus I-15 South EL’s. The network condition can be viewed as approximating a 2027 network. Both 2025 and 2035 socioeconomics were run under a 2027 network to control for the impacts of economic growth only, rather than network changes. 3) 2035 socioeconomics assuming the 2025 network, I-15 South EL’s, and the Temescal Canyon Road widening. The network condition can be viewed as approximately a 2030 network. 6.4.3.1 Impact of Network Improvements in 2027 The addition of Express Lanes on I-15 south of the current I-15 ELP project in 2027 is expected to increase traffic demand for the I-15 ELP corridor and increase I-15 ELP traffic and revenue. In 2027, the RCTC is expected to build approximately 15 miles of express lanes on I-15 between Cajalco Road and SR 74 (referred to as the I-15 South EL), effectively extending the I-15 ELP south. The greatest impact is expected between Dos Lagos Road and Cajalco Road, which is the northernmost segment of the I-15 South Express Lanes extension, and is immediately south of the I-15 ELP. Figure 6-18 and Figure 6-19 show northbound and southbound global traffic on I-15 in the 2025 forecast year along with the percentage change in traffic if the I-15 South EL’s are included. Compared to traffic forecasts assuming 2025 land use but without the I-15 South EL’s, traffic between Dos Lagos and Cajalco Road would increase by over 3.2 percent northbound and by 1.4 percent southbound. A smaller but positive impact is expected between Cajalco Road and El Cerrito Road (+0.9 percent northbound, +1.1 percent southbound) and somewhat less even further north between El Cerrito Road and SR 60 (generally +0.5 percent northbound, +0.3 percent southbound). The increase in global traffic is expected to result in greater I-15 ELP usage. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.184 Figure 6-18: I-15 Northbound Global Traffic, Impact of I-15 South Express Lanes Figure 6-19: I-15 Southbound Global Traffic, Impact of I-15 South Express Lanes Analysis of the I-15 South EL improvement indicates that weekday express traffic would increase by 3.7 percent while weekday revenue would increase by 18 percent versus a condition where 0.3% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.6% 0.1% 0.5% 0.4% 0.9% 3.2% 0.0%0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%2.5%3.0%3.5%4.0%4.5%5.0%5.5%6.0%6.5%7.0%7.5% 010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,00090,000100,000110,000120,000130,000140,000150,000 Weekday Traffic 2025 % Impact 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.8% 0.6% 1.1% 1.4% 0.0%0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%2.5%3.0%3.5%4.0%4.5%5.0%5.5%6.0%6.5%7.0%7.5% 010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,00090,000100,000110,000120,000130,000140,000150,000 Weekday Traffic 2025 % Impact I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.185 the I-15 South EL’s are not built. Weekday express transactions and revenue with and without the I-15 South EL’s are shown in Table 6-17. Table 6-17: Average Weekday Transactions and Revenue, Impact of 2027 Project Socioeconomics Network Average Weekday EL Transactions Average Weekday Revenue (2015 $'s) 2025 2025 147,400 $89,100 2025 2025 with I-15 South EL's 152,800 $105,100 % Difference vs. 2025 3.7% 18.0% The vast majority of the revenue increase is reflected in the southern two sections between Magnolia Avenue and El Cerrito Road. As shown in Figure 6-20, of the total 18 percent revenue increase, 85 percent of the revenue increase is concentrated in the single lane section between El Cerrito Road and Cajalco Road and 13 percent of the increase is in the adjacent dual lane section between the Magnolia-Ontario Avenue mixing area and El Cerrito Road. The revenue gains can be attributed to higher express lane demand, a 20 percent increase in HOV-3+ traffic, and resulting higher tolls charged in the single lane section. Usage of the single lane section between El Cerrito Road and Cajalco Road in 2025 exceeds 1,300 vehicles per hour in three of four AM peak period hours and three of four PM peak period hours. By increasing demand slightly, express lane demand in the single lane sections increases above threshold levels of 1,500 vehicles per hour and requires toll increases to keep Express Lane speeds above near or at free- flow levels. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.186 Figure 6-20: Impact of I-15 South EL on I-15 ELP Revenue 6.4.3.2 The impact of Widening Temescal Canyon Road, 2030 Project In 2030, global traffic on I-15 is expected to drop in response to the planned widening of Temescal Canyon Road between El Cerrito Road and Indian Truck Trail from two to four lanes. The widening would span approximately 8 miles and double the arterial’s capacity. Temescal Canyon Road is parallel to I-15 and its improvement is expected to divert traffic away from the I-15 GP and Express Lanes. The change is most noticeable between Ontario Avenue and Dos Lagos Road, which would see a traffic decline of approximately 3 percent. Figure 6-21 and Figure 6-22 show northbound and southbound global traffic and the percentage impact when Temescal Canyon Road is widened. On an absolute volume basis, the northbound I-15 between Dos Lagos Road and El Cerrito Road would lose approximately 4,000 vehicles per day while the southbound I-15 would lose about 3,500 vehicles per day. Given these sections of I-15 directly parallel Temescal Canyon Road, the amount of traffic that is expected to be lost to Temescal Canyon Road is reasonable. North of Ontario Avenue, the impact on global traffic is less prominent. Northbound, traffic north of Ontario Avenue is lower by approximately 0.5 percent. Southbound, traffic to the north oscillates between slightly lower (-0.2 percent south of SR 60) to $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 2025 2025 w/ I-15 South EL Scenario SR 60-Cantu Galleano Cantu Galleano- s/o Limonite s/o Limonite- s/o 6th St s/o 6th St- Hidden Valley Hidden Valley-s/o Magnolia s/o Magnolia-El Cerrito El Cerrito- Cajalco Total 2025 $4,003 $15,705 $18,288 $10,999 $4,547 $18,989 $16,524 $89,056 2025 w/ I-15 South EL $4,072 $15,544 $18,044 $11,318 $4,899 $21,043 $30,176 $105,095 Change $69 -$161 -$244 $319 $351 $2,053 $13,652 $16,039 % of Change 0%-1%-2%2%2%13% 85% 100% I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.187 slightly higher (+0.1 percent in the vicinity of 6th Street). Traffic increases to the north are small, and can be interpreted as in the range of model noise. Figure 6-21: Northbound Global Traffic, Impact of Widening Temescal Canyon Road Figure 6-22: Southbound Global Traffic, Impact of Widening Temescal Canyon Road -0.5% -0.4% -0.6% -0.6% -0.5% -0.3% -0.4% 0.0% -0.4% -1.1% -3.5% -3.0% -4.0%-3.5%-3.0%-2.5%-2.0%-1.5%-1.0%-0.5%0.0%0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%2.5%3.0%3.5%4.0%4.5% 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000 Weekday Traffic 2035X27net 50pct_I4 % Impact of 2030 Improvements -0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% -0.5% 0.1% -0.2% -1.0% -3.4% -2.5% -4.0% -3.5% -3.0% -2.5% -2.0% -1.5% -1.0% -0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5% 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000 Weekday Traffic 2035X27net 50pct_I4 % Impact of 2030 Improvements I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.188 The widening of Temescal Canyon Road, expected in 2030, is expected to reduce weekday express traffic by 2 percent and reduce weekday revenue by 16 percent. Table 6-18 shows how the improvements expected in year 2030 are expected to impact the I-15 ELP traffic and revenue. The 16 percent decline is almost entirely attributable to traffic and revenue declines in the two southerly express lane segments. As shown in Figure 6-23, two-thirds of the revenue decline is seen in the single lane section between El Cerrito Road and Cajalco Road. The Temescal Canyon Road widening’s northern limit is at El Cerrito Road, so it would be reasonable to expect the largest demand reduction in this section. Express traffic in the single lane section is at or above threshold levels during all four AM peak period and all four PM peak period hours without the Temescal Canyon Road widening. If Temescal Canyon Road were widened, the reduction in I-15 global traffic results in lower Express Lane demand and a substantial reduction in tolls. Table 6-18: Average Weekday Transactions and Revenue, Impact of 2030 Project Socioeconomics Network Average Weekday EL Transactions Average Weekday Revenue (2015 $'s) 2035 2027: 2025 with I-15 South EL's 223,800 $234,300 2035 2030: 2025 w/ I-15 South EL's and Widened Temescal Canyon Rd 219,000 $197,100 % Change, Widen Temescal Canyon Road -2% -16% I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.189 Figure 6-23 Impact of Temescal Canyon Road on I-15 ELP Revenue 6.4.3.3 Impact of Network Improvements in 2035 By 2035 I-15 ELP corridor traffic would decline by 5 to 10 percent because of a variety of improvements including parallel arterial widenings, an expected change in HOV policy, and the addition of a direct connector ramp between the I-15 ELP north of SR 91 and the SR 91 Express Lanes (“I-15 North DC”). The improvements are listed below and illustrated in Figure 6-24. o The widening of Archibald Avenue, between Limonite Avenue and 2nd Street o The widening of Temescal Canyon Road south of Indian Truck Trail o The widening of SR 71 and upgrading to an expressway south of SR 60 o The widening of Van Buren Blvd south of SR 91 o The addition of the Schleisman Road / I-15 interchange $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 2035x27 2035x30 Scenario SR 60-Cantu Galleano Cantu Galleano- s/o Limonite s/o Limonite- s/o 6th St s/o 6th St- Hidden Valley Hidden Valley-s/o Magnolia s/o Magnolia-El Cerrito El Cerrito- Cajalco Total 2035 w/ 2025 Net & I-15 South EL $9,467 $26,715 $35,694 $17,177 $11,161 $67,980 $66,106 $234,301 Add Temescal Canyon Rd $9,338 $26,623 $35,257 $16,610 $10,756 $57,312 $41,224 $197,120 Change -$129 -$93 -$438 -$567 -$405 -$10,668 -$24,882 -$37,181 % of Change 0%0%1%2%1%29% 67% 100% I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.190 o A change in HOV lane policy requiring 3 passengers per vehicle rather than 2 passengers. o Opening of the SR 91 West-I-15 North express lanes direct connector (“North DC”). o Opening of Mid-County Parkway in Perris These capacity improvements generally divert traffic away from the I-15 ELP corridor and would reduce GP lane congestion and I-15 ELP usage. Figure 6-25 and Figure 6-26 demonstrate how northbound and southbound global traffic would change when the improvements scheduled for 2035 are constructed. Northbound traffic would decline by about 7 percent south of SR 91, or minus approximately 9,000 vehicles per day, and decline by about 5 percent north of SR 91, or minus approximately 5,000 vehicles per day. Unlike most I-15 ELP sections, traffic on the I-15 between Limonite Avenue and Schleisman Road would increase by 4.7 percent in the northbound direction and decrease by 2.2 percent in the southbound direction. The differential behavior is caused by the opening of the Schleisman Road interchange with I-15 in 2035, which would draw more traffic to I-15. The regional shift in HOV policy causes a diversion of HOV-3+ traffic away from the I-15 ELP corridor to other freeway corridors, including the I-215. Vehicles shift to these other facilities in response to improved travel conditions on regional carpool lanes. With a HOV-2+ carpool policy, usage of carpool lanes is high and results in areas of congestion. By requiring a HOV-3+ carpool policy, however, the carpool lanes become less utilized, less congested, and more attractive to HOV-3+ vehicles previously using the I-15 ELP corridor. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.191 Figure 6-24: 2026 to 2035 Improvements I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.192 Figure 6-25: Northbound Global Traffic, Impact of 2035 Improvements -4.7% -4.8% 4.7% -3.6% -4.1% -4.9% -10.4% -7.1% -8.4% -6.1% -6.3% -7.7% -12.0% -10.0% -8.0% -6.0% -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000 Weekday Traffic 2035X30net 50pct_FINAL % Impact of 2035 Improvements Northbound I-15 Cantu-SR 60 Limonite- Cantu Schliesman- Limonite 6th St- Schliesman 2nd St - 6th St Hidden Valley-2nd St 91-Hidden Valley Ontario-91 Ontario- Magnolia El Cerrito- Ontario Cajalco-El Cerrito Dos Lagos- Cajalco 2035 w/o Improvements 117,116 107,686 107,360 107,358 105,814 108,572 105,183 134,899 126,277 125,784 124,792 117,685 Traffic Change w/ Improvements (5,475) (5,160)5,015 (3,883) (4,336) (5,305) (10,925) (9,512) (10,615) (7,668) (7,851) (9,005) I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.193 Figure 6-26: Southbound Global Traffic, Impact of 2035 Improvements -10.9% -9.1% -2.2% -7.8% -7.3% -8.1% -14.7% -8.1% -5.4% -5.8% -5.1% -4.3% -16.0% -14.0% -12.0% -10.0% -8.0% -6.0% -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000 120,000 130,000 140,000 150,000 Weekday Traffic 2035X30net 50pct_FINAL % Impact of 2035 Improvements Southbound I-15 Cantu-SR 60 Limonite- Cantu Schliesman- Limonite 6th St- Schliesman 2nd St - 6th St Hidden Valley-2nd St 91-Hidden Valley Ontario-91 Ontario- Magnolia El Cerrito- Ontario Cajalco-El Cerrito Dos Lagos- Cajalco 2035 w/o Improvements 117,531 108,557 110,639 110,640 109,102 108,280 100,168 130,191 121,794 117,487 114,332 102,866 Traffic Change w/ Improvements (12,822) (9,901) (2,447) (8,612) (7,917) (8,737) (14,768) (10,564) (6,608) (6,841) (5,849) (4,434) I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.194 Roadway improvements expected to be completed by 2035 are expected to reduce I-15 ELP transactions by 18 percent and reduce revenue by 38 percent, as shown in Table 6-19. Revenue drops in I-15 ELP sections both north and south of SR 91, as shown in Figure 6-27. Approximately 60 percent of the revenue loss is attributable to declines in the two segments between the Magnolia-Ontario mixing area and the southern terminus at Cajalco Road, while another 29 percent of the revenue decline is attributable to the two dual lane sections between Cantu Galleano Ranch Road and the 6th Street-2nd Street mixing area. Unlike the addition of the I-15 South EL’s and widening of Temescal Canyon Road, I -15 ELP sections north of SR 91 see revenue loss because arterials north of SR 91 would see capacity improvements. Table 6-19: Average Weekday Transactions and Revenue, Impact of 2035 Projects Socioeconomics Network Average Weekday EL Transactions Average Weekday Revenue (2015 $'s) 2035 2030: (2025 w/ I-15 South EL's and Widened Temescal Canyon Rd) 219,000 $197,100 2035 2035 (widen various arterials, Schleisman interchange, North Connector, Mid County Parkway) 179,900 $121,300 % Change, Various Roadway Improvements -18% -38% I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.195 Figure 6-27 Impact of 2035 Improvements on I-15 ELP Revenue In 2035, HOV-3+ as a share of I-15 ELP traffic is expected to decline from 25 to 18 percent, partly due to an assumed regional HOV policy change from HOV-2+ carpool lanes to HOV-3+ carpool lanes. Table 6-20 shows how HOV share on the I-15 ELP’s changes with the addition of roadway improvements. In 2025, 21 percent of I-15 ELP traffic would be HOV-3+ and this would increase to 25 percent when the I-15 South EL’s (assumed as a HOV-3+ free facility) would be constructed. By 2035, the share would drop to 18 percent of all express traffic. Currently, Southern California HOV facilities, illustrated in Figure 6-28, generally have a HOV-2+ requirement. Usage in many facilities is high because of the relative ease of forming HOV-2+ carpools as opposed to HOV-3+. The result of this policy has been heavy utilization and oftentimes results in HOV lanes that operate with delays rather than free-flow. This regional change to HOV-3+ is expected by 2035 $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 2035x30 2035 Scenario SR 60-Cantu Galleano Cantu Galleano- s/o Limonite s/o Limonite- s/o 6th St s/o 6th St- Hidden Valley Hidden Valley-s/o Magnolia s/o Magnolia-El Cerrito El Cerrito- Cajalco Total 2035 w/ 2035 Network w/ Temescal Widening Only $9,338 $26,623 $35,257 $16,610 $10,756 $57,312 $41,224 $197,120 Add 2035 Network Improvemen ts $6,256 $19,377 $20,895 $15,604 $7,234 $28,747 $23,170 $121,283 Change -$3,082 -$7,246 -$14,362 -$1,006 -$3,522 -$28,565 -$18,055 -$75,838 % of Change 4%10% 19%1%5%38% 24% 100% I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.196 and would be a mechanism to address the region’s carpool lane congestion. The change would draw HOV-3+ carpools away from I-15 to other freeways including SR 60 and I-215. HOV- 3+ vehicles would shift away from the I-15 corridor rather than to it because other carpool lanes are expected to change from heavily traveled and congested HOV-2+ carpool lanes to a more lightly traveled HOV-3+ condition. Table 6-20: HOV Share Change Socioeconomics Network Average Weekday EL Transactions Average Weekday HOV Transactions HOV Share 2025 2025 147,400 31,300 21% 2025 2027: 2025 with I-15 South EL's 152,800 37,600 25% 2035 2027: 2025 with I-15 South EL's 223,800 55,300 25% 2035 2030: 2025 w/ I-15 South EL's and Widened Temescal Canyon Rd 219,000 54,000 25% 2035 2035: Widen Arterials 179,900 33,200 18% I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.197 Figure 6-28: Existing Carpool Lanes in Southern California I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.198 6.4.4 I-15 Express Lanes Operations Stantec developed a micro-simulation model of the future worst case condition to test I-15 Express Lanes operations. The model simulated traffic on I-15 between SR 60 and south of Dos Lagos, but also simulated SR 91 between SR 55 and Pierce Street assuming 2035 trips and a 2027 network. Results show that the express lanes operate at or above 50 miles per hour, although there are pockets of delay caused by high GP lane congestion. On average travel speeds do not degrade below 50 mph with express lane demands of 2,800 vehicles per hour between the Magnolia-Ontario Avenue mixing area and El Cerrito Road, and can operate with volumes as high as 1,650 vehicles per hour between El Cerrito Road and Cajalco Road. While the model shows the Express Lanes functioning without significant queuing, mixing areas where the Express lanes merge into heavily congested GP lanes, such as the El Cerrito Road southbound ELP lane drop need to be monitored, and tolls adjusted to maintain operations. Similarly, operations at the southbound I-15 ELP southern terminus at Cajalco Road can be impacted by GP lane congestion. By constructing the I-15 South EL in 2027, the potential for GP lane congestion at the southern terminus to cause queuing in the SB ELP is reduced . In this scenario where the I-15 South EL’s are built, it is assumed that the single EL can continue through unimpeded by GP traffic. Express traffic would continue into a dedicated lane which leads into the I-15 South EL’s. Figure 6-29 displays a view of the SR 91/ I-15 interchange looking northeast as simulated in the micro-simulation model. The model shows that the I-15 SB general purpose lanes as well as the SR 91 EB to southbound direct connector ramp is heavily congested, while the SR 91 EB to I-15 SB ELP direct connector ramp and the I-15 SB ELP mainline are operating at or near free-flow speeds. The express lanes mainline south of the SR 91 interchange at or above 60 mph. Figure 6-30 shows that the I-15 GP lanes further south at the Magnolia Avenue overpass continue to be heavily congested while the Express Lanes continue to operate at or near free-flow speeds. Figure 6-31 shows that the I-15 GP lanes at the Ontario Avenue overpass (segment between the Magnolia-Ontario mixing area and El Cerrito Road) continue to be heavily congested while the express lanes continue to operate at or near free-flow speeds. In this section and time of day, the simulation model is running with volumes of approximately 2,600 vehicles per hour while the express lanes average running at 51 mph. Within the hour, the express lanes achieve flow rates of nearly 3,200 vehicles per hour. Speeds are somewhat slower in this section due to downstream congestion caused by the Express Lanes merging back into GP lane congestion at El Cerrito Road, shown in Figure 6-32. While some delay is present for the full segment, it is important to note that most of the delay is experienced by vehicles exiting into the GP lanes. Vehicles continuing through on the southbound I-15 ELP to the southern terminus at Cajalco Road continue past El Cerrito Road without delay. The southernmost single lane section of the southbound I-15 ELP operates with volumes over 1,550 vehicles per hour between 5 and 6 PM and speeds average 52 miles per hour. Vehicles merging back into the congested GP lanes would experience some delay, but travel without delay for most of the section between El Cerrito Road and Cajalco Road. Figure 6-33 illustrates conditions at the Cajalco Road overpass. I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.199 Figure 6-29: Simulation Model of SR 91/ I-15 Interchange – PM Peak Hour I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.200 Figure 6-30: Simulation Model of I-15 at the Magnolia Ave Interchange – PM Peak Hour I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.201 Figure 6-31: Simulation Model of I-15 at the Ontario Ave Interchange – PM Peak Hour I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.202 Figure 6-32: Simulation Model of I-15 at the El Cerrito Rd Interchange – PM Peak Hour I-15 EXPRESS LANES INVESTMENT GRADE TRAFFIC AND REVENUE STUDY Traffic and Revenue Forecast 6.203 Figure 6-33: Simulation Model of I-15 at the Cajalco Rd Interchange – PM Peak Hour 1 May 23, 2016 Traffic and Revenue Study Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Why is this important? Why now? 2 Toll policy includes establishing toll rates: Basis for traffic and revenue (T&R) study Toll revenue projection: Key ingredient of the Commission’s financial plan Financially feasible project: Successful TIFIA application and bond sales Traffic & Revenue Study 3 April 2015- January 2016 •Contract award •Data collection & analysis •Modeling •Microsimulation January 2016 •Base case T&R forecast •Draft T&R Report February- March 2016 •Sensitivity analysis •Risk analysis April 2016 •Final T&R Study Report May -June 2016 •RCTC Board approvals Projecting Traffic and Toll Revenues 4 •Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study Stantec Presentation The Project 5 •Almost 15 miles •Generally 2 lanes per direction •Southern Terminus at Cajalco Road •Northern Terminus at SR-60 •Direct Access to SR-91 to/ from the South •By 2035, SR-91 access to / from the North 2 1 1 Southern Terminus Northern Terminus 2 2 1 2 2 2 Toll Policy 6 •All electronic, dynamically tolled •Priced based on demand •HOV -3+Trips are discounted by 50 percent •Electric vehicles (ZEV’s) discounted by 50 percent •Transponder required,no video option Travel Conditions 7 I-15 SB at Limonite Avenue, PM Rush Hour I-15 SB approaching Ontario Ave, PM Rush Hour I-15 NB approaching 6th St, AM Rush Hour I-15 NB, Cajalco On Ramp, AM Rush Hour Travel Speeds -AM 8 Heavy Demand Cajalco Rd to SR 60 19 minutes SR 60 to Cajalco Rd 16 minutes Travel Speeds -PM 9 Lane Drop Cajalco Rd to SR 60 15 minutes SR 60 to Cajalco Rd 25 minutes Travel Speed Profile 10 I-15 NB AM MD PM Location 6:00 AM6:15 AM6:30 AM6:45 AM7:00 AM7:15 AM7:30 AM7:45 AM8:00 AM8:15 AM8:30 AM8:45 AM9:00 AM9:15 AM9:30 AM9:45 AM10:00 AM10:15 AM10:30 AM10:45 AM11:00 AM11:15 AM11:30 AM11:45 AM12:00 PM12:15 PM12:30 PM12:45 PM1:00 PM1:15 PM1:30 PM1:45 PM2:00 PM2:15 PM2:30 PM2:45 PM3:00 PM3:15 PM3:30 PM3:45 PM4:00 PM4:15 PM4:30 PM4:45 PM5:00 PM5:15 PM5:30 PM5:45 PM6:00 PM6:15 PM6:30 PM6:45 PM60 Connector (1.1 miles before)70 70 70 70 70 33 33 33 37 30 33 41 33 33 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 44 41 70 70 49 44 70 70 49 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 Limonite Ave (1.1 miles past)70 70 70 70 70 33 33 33 37 30 33 41 33 33 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 44 41 70 70 49 44 70 70 49 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 Limonite Ave 70 65 64 60 62 49 30 29 36 56 43 62 61 62 62 64 65 64 62 59 59 62 60 63 62 58 60 62 61 59 62 60 60 59 60 62 62 62 62 62 61 62 60 60 63 63 62 62 65 67 66 68 Limonite Ave (1.3 miles before)70 70 70 70 43 42 36 37 32 43 33 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 44 47 49 44 40 46 49 70 70 70 70 6th St 67 64 63 53 43 45 48 36 31 35 54 62 63 63 62 63 65 63 63 61 61 63 63 61 63 58 60 62 62 60 63 61 61 61 60 62 62 62 60 61 64 64 54 59 50 45 54 45 64 69 68 68 6th St (1 mile before)70 69 68 66 40 36 41 30 30 44 40 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 67 68 68 68 67 68 68 67 68 68 68 68 68 67 68 68 68 68 68 66 47 43 66 68 70 69 70 2nd St 68 61 60 56 38 30 33 19 23 40 53 59 60 60 59 58 61 59 60 59 57 60 59 59 60 56 59 60 59 57 60 59 60 60 60 60 59 61 57 55 60 62 59 57 60 49 31 54 65 66 65 64 Hidden Valley Pkwy 71 71 71 71 56 46 46 46 45 47 46 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 55 71 71 71 71 71 91 East 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 Magnolia Ave 66 65 65 67 66 65 67 65 65 61 62 62 59 62 61 59 60 63 61 57 57 62 55 56 58 58 51 57 52 56 56 51 51 57 61 61 59 63 57 61 57 64 63 65 65 65 65 67 67 67 67 67 Magnolia Ave (0.8 miles before)70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 69 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 69 69 70 70 70 70 69 69 69 70 70 70 70 70 69 69 70 70 70 70 70 70 Ontario Ave 66 65 66 68 68 67 68 66 67 64 64 66 62 61 63 61 62 64 64 63 64 64 64 64 65 62 64 64 64 63 61 58 60 59 62 63 61 62 63 61 67 66 67 65 67 66 69 68 69 70 66 67 El Cerrito Rd 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 61 57 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 Cajalco Rd 68 68 56 52 49 39 41 33 30 41 39 45 53 50 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 I-15 SB 60 Connector (1 mile past)71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 47 39 34 34 27 35 27 30 27 31 29 34 36 35 Limonite Ave (1.1 miles before)71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 47 39 34 34 27 35 27 30 27 31 29 34 36 35 Limonite Ave 69 68 68 67 66 65 65 64 63 56 48 60 63 63 63 65 64 65 66 66 66 66 66 65 65 65 65 66 65 66 65 66 65 64 64 62 62 55 43 39 38 37 37 37 36 38 49 52 52 53 53 54 6th St (1.3 miles before)70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 39 40 43 45 42 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 6th St 71 68 66 61 61 62 60 63 45 39 48 60 62 62 63 63 62 62 62 62 64 60 61 63 64 62 64 65 62 64 62 64 63 63 63 58 49 44 36 29 37 30 37 51 58 59 60 60 62 64 61 63 2nd St (1 mile before)68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 47 44 47 49 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 2nd St 65 63 62 61 61 61 60 60 60 59 58 60 60 60 59 60 57 58 58 60 60 60 60 59 61 59 61 62 61 63 60 62 62 63 61 60 60 59 59 58 56 59 59 59 61 60 61 63 64 65 62 62 Hidden Valley Pkwy 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 61 69 69 55 52 54 57 91 West 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 52 46 44 42 31 37 43 19 14 19 21 Magnolia Ave 66 58 57 57 57 58 56 59 59 57 56 58 57 57 57 58 57 56 58 59 58 57 59 57 60 60 59 59 60 60 63 61 61 62 62 62 62 62 63 64 52 35 29 25 24 26 25 23 21 19 22 22 Ontario Ave (0.8 miles before)67 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 67 66 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 38 27 25 28 18 17 21 8 13 10 12 13 17 Ontario Ave 66 65 63 64 63 65 64 64 64 63 63 64 64 64 64 64 65 64 64 65 64 64 65 64 64 65 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 63 63 64 55 54 44 41 41 37 37 40 31 28 26 28 29 38 El Cerrito Rd 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 43 49 47 47 49 34 47 50 8 16 14 17 19 47 Cajalco Rd 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 60 70 70 70 70 58 70 70 32 48 48 49 50 70 Weirick Rd 69 70 69 68 69 68 68 67 67 66 67 66 67 67 68 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 68 68 67 66 67 67 67 67 66 68 72 67 66 66 64 64 63 63 62 61 59 59 59 56 61 67 67 66 63 63 Source: Sigalert.com 7 –930 AM 3:30 –7:00 PM Travel Patterns 11 OD Survey •Bluetooth OD Sensors •SR-60 west of I-15 •SR-60 east of I-15 •I-15 between SR-60 and Cantu Galleano Ranch Rd •I-15 between Limonite Avenue and 6th Street •I-15 between Hidden Valley Parkway and SR-91 •SR-91 west of I-15 •SR-91 east of I-15 •I-15 between SR-91 and Magnolia Avenue •I-15 between Dos Lagos Drive and Cajalco Road Travel Patterns 12 NB AM SB PM •18 percent of NB AM trips are full length •13 percent of SB PM trips are full length •Large share of trips destined for or coming from SR-91 Historical and Forecast Employment 13 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 9709809902000201020202030Employment (000s)Los Angeles County 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 9709809902000201020202030Employment (000s)San Bernardino County 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 9709809902000201020202030Employment (000s)Orange County 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 9709809902000201020202030Employment (000s)Riverside County +0.8% /year +1% /year +1.3% /year +0.8% /year Historical and Forecast Households 14 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 9709809902000201020202030000s of HouseholdsLos Angeles County 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 9709809902000201020202030000s of HouseholdsSan Bernardino County 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 9709809902000201020202030000s of HouseholdsOrange County 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 9709809902000201020202030000s of HouseholdsRiverside County +0.7% /year +0.9% /year +2.0% /year +1.5% /year Development 15 Ontario RanchCollege Park Ontario Ranch •“New Model Colony” •8,200 acres, residential and commercial •24,000 residential units by 2035 •18,000 jobs by 2035 College Park •Existing development w/ 1,500 households •2,200 residential units by 2020 Development 16 East Lake Terramor •900 acres, residential and commercial •1,100 residential units by 2025 •1,400 residential units by 2035 East Lake •Lake Elsinore •1,700 residential units by 2025 •7,500 units by 2035 Terramor Traffic Modeling Travel Demand Model Microsimulation Marketshare Model Travel Demand Model Micro- simulation Marketshare Spreadsheet Model Traffic and Revenue Forecast 17 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 0 30,000 60,000 90,000 120,000 150,000 Growth Rate (CAGR)Weekday Traffic2015 Model 2025 Growth 2035 Growth GP Cap 2015-25 Growth (CAGR)2025-35 Growth (CAGR) Growth Forecast (SB) 18 •Existing GP Capacity cannot accommodate projected travel demand •Express Lanes allow growth to continue SB Network Improvements 19 •I-15 South Express Lanes •San Bernardino Express Lanes: •I-10 Express •I-15 Express •SR-91 CIP –GP and Express Lanes •Schleisman Rd Interchange Network Improvements 20 •Temescal Canyon Road •Van Buren Boulevard •Archibald Avenue •Euclid Avenue •Main Street/Hamner Avenue •SR-71 widening –91 to Euclid Avenue Microsimulation 2034 PM Traffic I-15/SR-91 •Simulation demonstrates heavy SB congestion during PM Peak Projecting Traffic and Toll Revenues 22 Fiscal Year Traffic (M)Revenue ($M, 2015$) 2021 26.4 $9.6 2026 45.7 $26.0 2031 54.8 $36.7 2036 55.8 $35.4 2041 58.5 $38.8 2046 61.4 $42.6 2051 64.5 $46.7 2056 66.1 $49.1 2066 69.5 $54.2 $0 $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 $60,000,000 0 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000 60,000,000 70,000,000 80,000,000 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 Annual Toll Revenue (2015$'s)Annual Toll TransactionsRCTC I-15 Express Lanes T&R Forecast Revenue, 2015$'s Toll Txns (incl HOV) Revenue By Time of Day 23 41% 15% 41% 3% revenue by period-2025 Weekday 6-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM 3-7 PM 7 PM-6 AM 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 6-10 AM 10 AM-3 PM 3-7 PM 7 PM-6 AM weekday toll transactions Northbound Southbound •AM and PM peak periods account for over 80% of 2025 revenue Time Savings and Tolls –2025 AM 24 Heavy Demand 2025 AM Peak Hour Full Length Trip: $7.45 Time Savings: 12 minutes GP Speed: 35 mph Avg. Trip Length: 6 miles 2025 AM Peak Hour Full Length Trip: $4.09 Time Savings: 3 minutes GP Speed: 61 mph Avg Trip Length: 6.6 miles Time Savings and Tolls –2025 PM 25 Lane Drop 2025 PM Peak Hour Full Length Trip: $4.14 Time Savings:4 minutes GP Speed: 55 mph Avg Trip Length: 6.5 miles 2025 PM Peak Hour Full Length Trip: $7.29 Time Savings: 11 minutes GP Speed: 31 mph Avg Trip Length: 5.8 miles Financing Schedule 26 Summer 2015 •Develop Financial Model Fall 2015 •Start federal TIFIA loan process (submit Letter of Interest) Winter /Spring 2016 •Complete T&R study •Obtain TIFIA loan preliminary rating assessment Summer 2016 •Submit TIFIA loan application Winter/Spring 2017 •Rating agency meetings Summer 2017 •FINANCIAL CLOSE! Questions? 27 AGENDA ITEM 13 BLANK RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 23, 2016 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager THROUGH: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: Proposed Metrolink Budget for Fiscal Year 2016/17 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Adopt the Fiscal Year 2016/17 Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) operating and capital budget, which results in a total operating and capital subsidy of $19,233,000 from the Commission; 2) Support an amendment to the FY 2016/17 SCRRA operating and capital budget in an amount not to exceed $6 million for the expansion of the Riverside Downtown Layover Facility and additional track improvements on the corridor; 3) Receive and file a report on the Commission’s portion of the FY 2016/17 SCRRA operating and capital budget; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Metrolink is the brand name for the services operated by SCRRA. By virtue of the SCRRA Joint Powers Agreement (JPA), the five member agencies that comprise Metrolink must formally commit to fund their proportionate shares of commuter rail operating and capital costs. Each member agency must approve the budget before adoption of a final budget by the SCRRA Board, no later than June 30, 2016. Service and funding levels are limited by the policy and budget constraints of the member agencies and are negotiated each year. All of the financial information in this staff report is incorporated into the Commission’s overall budget; however, in order to comply with the provisions of the JPA, a separate Commission action to adopt the budget is required. The overall amount the Commission will provide to SCRRA is a combination of an operating subsidy of $17,305,000 and a capital expenditure subsidy of $1,928,000, for a total subsidy of $19,233,000. The remainder of this staff report will provide the details that comprise the budget. FY 2015/16 Metrolink Review The following is a review of Metrolink’s FY 2015/16 activities: Agenda Item 13 93 • Testing and initiating revenue service on the 91/Perris Valley Line (91/PVL) extension of the 91 Line that connects the Perris valley area and Riverside, extending the Metrolink route by 24 miles; • Additional significant changes in leadership with hiring of a new Deputy Chief Executive Officer, a Chief Financial Officer, and four new Deputy Chief Operating Officers; • Completed the Strategic Plan and Transit Asset Management Plan; • Further developed the positive train control (PTC) program with Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) approved revenue service demonstrations on all of the SCRRA- owned tracks including the Perris Valley Subdivision; • Initiated mobile ticketing with smartphones; • Continued development of the new Tier 4 locomotives program with initial units to be delivered starting in 2016; and • Continued successful Friday night Angel Game and weekend trains. FY 2016/17 Looking Forward Looking ahead to FY 2016/17, Metrolink intends to: • Continue to prioritize safety; • Actively pursue ways to generate ridership on all routes including the 91/PVL; • Replace ticket vending machines; • Continue to improve reliability, on-time performance, and the customer experience by enhancing the rehabilitation program to reduce major failures by retrofitting cars and replacing aging locomotives; • Continue implementing the PTC program systemwide and get final FRA approvals and certifications. Riverside County Service Impact Proposed for FY 2016/17 Three Metrolink commuter rail lines traverse Riverside County – the Riverside Line, the IEOC Line, and the 91/PVL Line. While the predecessor 91 Line has been in service for many years, the expanded 91/PVL Line starts operations in June 2016, and will provide greater accessibility to train services for many Riverside County residents who now have train stations closer to where they live. However, going forward this additional service will be a significant financial commitment for the Commission. The new service provides passengers three weekday round trips from South Perris to Union Station in downtown Los Angeles. The two reverse peak trains between Los Angeles and the Riverside Downtown Station will remain. This new service greatly improves service for all Riverside residents and compliments the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project. The service also introduced the first intra county commuter train service by providing six bounce back trains between the South Perris station and the Riverside Downtown station. Efforts to capitalize on this new market include a promotional $10 round trip fare for travel anywhere within Riverside County and free bus connections. The four new stations serving PVL are Agenda Item 13 94 owned and operated by the Commission. The operating and maintenance costs for the nine Commission-owned commuter rail stations, while not included in the SCRRA budget, are included in the Commission’s overall budget under the Rail Department and are funded with 2009 Measure A Western Riverside County rail funds beginning in FY 2016/17. Commission’s FY 2016/17 Operating Subsidy Obligation Metrolink’s overall proposed budget information for the entire system assumes no fare increases and potentially a slight fare reduction with added expenses being passed on directly to the member agencies in the form of higher subsidies. SCRRA is in the process of an agency funding formula analysis that may result in a decrease/increase in the Commission’s annual subsidies. The FY 2016/17 SCRRA operating budget is $243,815,000, which is attached. The five county transportation commissions that comprise Metrolink will see their member subsidies increased by a total amount of $15,182,000. All the member agencies have expressed concern about the increases and are struggling to find the necessary funding. The Commission will have the responsibility of providing $17,305,000 for operations and maintenance of way, which represents a $2,750,000 increase or 19 percent over the FY 2015/16 SCRRA budget. This amount includes the full year implementation of the 91/PVL Line extension service, which is approximately $6,185,673 or 35 percent of the Commission’s share. Traditionally, the Metrolink subsidy as well as the operations and maintenance costs for the initial five Commission-owned commuter rail stations were entirely funded with state Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenues allocated for rail operations. However, the FY 2016/17 LTF revenue for rail is projected at $12,465,979, so the difference of $4,839,021 for the Metrolink subsidy will need to come from LTF rail fund reserves. With the anticipated rate of spending, the rail LTF reserves that have been building for many years are estimated to be exhausted within the next four years. As noted previously, commuter rail station operations and maintenance costs will be funded with 2009 Measure A funds due to lack of LTF funds. Commission’s FY 2016/17 Capital Contribution In prior years, staff executed multiple grants for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307, 5309, and 5337 funds that provide ongoing funding for SCRRA capital programs over several years. These FTA grant funds will pass through the Commission as the direct recipient and SCRRA as the subrecipient. These funds will be used for various projects including rehabilitation and renovation of rolling stock and track projects, ticket vending machine upgrades, maintenance of way technology, and layover facility improvements. Per SCRRA’s annual budget request, the Commission’s capital rehabilitation and renovation obligation for FY 2016/17 is $1,784,000, which includes $500,000 for the repayment of Rotem rail cars. In addition, there is a request for $144,000 in new capital projects to complete project Agenda Item 13 95 studies. The Commission’s total rehabilitation and new capital subsidy of $1,928,000 uses a portion of the FTA Section 5309 and 5337 grant funds. In addition to the specific SCRRA budget request of $1,928,000, the Commission is pursuing a couple of multi-year capital projects utilizing the FTA Section 5307, 5309, and 5337 grant funds already allocated. These include expansion of the Riverside Layover Facility and additional track improvements on the corridor. It is estimated that these projects will cost $8 million over the next several years and will directly improve rail service within Riverside County. Staff is working with SCRRA to include $6 million of the total cost for these two projects in a future amendment to the FY 2016/17 SCRRA budget. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Commission support an amendment to the FY 2016/17 SCRRA budget in an amount not to exceed $6 million for the expansion of the Riverside Layover Facility and additional track improvements on the corridor. Summary Financial Subsidy Impact to Commission The SCRRA-proposed Commission operating subsidy of $17,305,000, which represents only 7.1 percent of the $243,815,000 SCRRA operating budget, will be funded with LTF funds. The total new capital and rehabilitation project subsidy of $1,928,000 will be funded with FTA grant funds that will pass through the Commission. The Commission’s total subsidy of $19,233,000 related to the FY 2016/17 SCRRA budget is significant and reflects a steady increase on a year-to-year basis. Future rail expansion projects in Riverside County will likely require similar funding increases, and SCRRA will continue to face obligations to upgrade its equipment to meet new emissions reduction requirements and safety needs. The Commission’s FY 2016/17 budget includes the $19,233,000 SCRRA subsidy as well as the anticipated SCRRA budget amendment of $6 million. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Yes Yes Year: FY 2016/17 Amount: $17,305,000 (Operations) $1,928,000 (Capital) $6,000,000 (Capital, as amendment to SCRRA budget) Source of Funds: Local Transportation Western County rail funds (Operations); FTA Section 5307, 5309 and 5337 Grants (Capital) Budget Adjustment: No No No GL/Project Accounting No.: 254199 86101 103 25 86101 $ 17,305,000 004017 86102 265 33 86102 $ 8,928,000 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 05/16/2016 Attachment: SCRRA Preliminary FY 2016/17 Budget Agenda Item 13 96 April 29, 2016 TO: Darrell Johnson, Chief Executive Officer, OCTA Darren Kettle, Executive Director, VCTC Anne Mayer, Executive Director, RCTC Phil Washington, Chief Executive Officer, Metro Dr. Raymond Wolfe, Executive Director, SANBAG FROM: Elissa K. Konove, Deputy Chief Executive Officer for Arthur T. Leahy, Chief Executive Officer, SCRRA SUBJECT: SCRRA Preliminary FY2017 Budget The SCRRA Board of Directors acted on April 22, 2016, to authorize the transmittal to our Member Agencies the Preliminary FY 2016-17 (FY17) SCRRA Budget. After Member Agency Boards have acted on the Preliminary Budget, staff will return to the SCRRA Board in June for adoption of the final FY17 Budget. The Preliminary FY17 Budget was presented at a Board budget workshop on February 26, 2016. Following the workshop, meetings were held with individual Member Agencies in March and April. Member Agencies indicated funding constraints for Operating and Capital Rehabilitation expenses. As a result, the Preliminary FY17 Budget amounts for Operating and Capital Rehabilitation have been reduced from the amounts initially presented on February 26. The revised Preliminary FY17 Budget was presented to the Board on April 22, 2016. Budget Priorities for FY17 The Preliminary FY17 Budget reflects priorities consistent with the “back to basics” approach outlined in the Strategic Plan, adopted in March 2016. The budget provides funding in alignment with the Authority’s strategic goals and includes the following priorities for the upcoming fiscal year:  Continued emphasis on safe operations, with the full implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC) as the centerpiece of our efforts.  Improved reliability and on-time performance, by putting Tier 4 locomotives into service and providing funding necessary for required equipment maintenance, consistent with the Fleet Management Plan. 97 SCRRA Preliminary FY2016-17 Budget Page 2  Enhanced customer experience, by implementing upgrades to the mobile ticketing application and a modernized ticket vending system.  Increased ridership and regional mobility, with expanded service from Riverside to Perris Valley.  Investment in existing assets to maintain a state of good repair, by funding critical rehabilitation projects and improving processes to accelerate project delivery.  Ongoing workforce development, by training and engaging employees. Overall Summary The Preliminary FY17 Budget includes new budgetary authority of $274.9 million. The proposed budget consists of Operating Budget authority of $243.8 million, an increase of 1.4% over the FY16 Budget. Capital Program authority totals $31.1 million, $29.8 million for Rehabilitation Projects and $1.3 million for New Capital Projects. Carryover of New Capital Projects approved in prior years is $255.1 million, and carryover of Rehabilitation Projects approved in prior years is $37.9 million. Operating Budget Budget Assumptions For the Preliminary FY17 Budget, the assumptions included no increase of current service ridership-based fare revenues and no fare increase. The only changes to Revenue were an additional 4½ months of the Perris Valley Line, and a slight decrease for Station to Station discounts. The “Big Five” major vendors (for train operations, track maintenance, signal maintenance, equipment maintenance, and security), which represent approximately 39% of the operating expense budget, were limited to the contracted escalators for current service. Diesel fuel is approximately 10% of the operating budget. The budget reflects an anticipated average price per gallon of $2.75, with a 5% contingency to allow for any unexpected cost increase. The budget for parts for the repair of the aging fleet is $14.0 million, which is consistent with actual costs in prior years. The budget includes a net reduction of two positions. Budgeted increases include a 1.5% Cost of Living Increase, and a Merit Pool equal to 0.5% of Payroll. The Preliminary FY17 Budget includes the three leased locomotives for PTC testing. The portion of the deductible for the 2015 Oxnard incident to be recognized this year is lower by $1.0M to $2.0M. BNSF Locomotives and related expenses are included through October 2016. Operating Revenues Operating revenues include farebox, dispatching, maintenance-of-way revenues, interest, other minor miscellaneous revenues, and are currently estimated to equal $102.2 million, an increase of $0.8 million, or 0.8% compared to the FY16 budget. Fare Revenues, the largest operating revenue of the budget, have increased $0.6 million or 0.7% compared to the FY16 budget to a total of $85.0 million. The FY17 budget reflects no fare increase. This increase is consistent with the current forecast for FY16 actual expense. 98 SCRRA Preliminary FY2016-17 Budget Page 3 Maintenance-of-way revenues from the freight railroads and Amtrak are estimated from existing agreements based on projections of current usage. The Preliminary FY17 Budget estimates an increase of 2.0% from the FY16 budget to a total of $14.6 million. Dispatching Revenues were only minimally different from FY16. Train Operations, Maintenance-of-Way (MOW), Administration, and Insurance The Train Operations component of the budget consists of those costs necessary to provide Metrolink commuter rail services across the six-county service area, including the direct costs of railroad operations, equipment maintenance, required support costs, and other administrative and operating costs. Ordinary MOW expenditures are those costs necessary to perform the inspections and repairs needed to assure the reliable, safe operation of trains and safety of the public. The FY17 budgeted amount for Train Operations is $144.6 million, MOW is $39.6 million, Administration & Services is $36.7 million, Insurance/Claims $16.8 million, and BNSF Lease expenses $6.1 million. Attachment B provides the detail of the Operating Budget components compared to prior years. Attachment C shows the detail of the allocation of the Operating Budget components among the five Member Agencies. The Preliminary FY17 Budget assumes the operation of a total of 2.8 million revenue service miles through the operation of 172 weekday trains and 90 weekend trains. No incremental services were requested for FY17. Overall, the total budgeted expenses have increased by 1.4%. This change is the result of: a) an increase of $9.0M in total Train Operations and Services, driven primarily by increases in parts purchased for rolling stock ($4.3M), an additional 4½ months of Perris Valley Service ($1.6M), and increases to Bombardier ($1.1M), and Other mechanical ($1.8M). b) a decrease in Maintenance of Way of $2.8 million. MOW amounts are limited to estimated prior year expenditures, with an increase of $1.1 million primarily due by contract escalations for Veolia and MASS Electric staff additions. c) an increase in Administration and Services ($3.9M), driven by an increase in the Operations and Admin Salaries and Wages caused by the removal of the vacancy factor included in last year’s budget ($0.9M) in combination with a lower percent charge of salaries to projects charged to Capital Projects ($1.2M), FY16 hiring over the mid-point budgeted for salaries and increases ($0.9M), an increase in fringe benefits ($0.5M), a COLA of 1.5% and merit pool of 0.5% for FY17 ($0.4M), increased operational PTC charges no longer covered by Grants ($1.0M) and a reduction of professional service expense (-$1.0M). d) total insurance expense lower by $1.3M, as a result of the $3.0M budgeted to cover Oxnard related costs in FY16 reduced to $2.0M for FY17 (-$1.0M), and an insurance premium reduction (-$0.3M). In total, the FY17 budget increase is $3.3M, or 1.4%, over the FY16 budget. Attachment D presents the elements driving the increases in FY17. 99 SCRRA Preliminary FY2016-17 Budget Page 4 Member Agency Subsidy Member Agency subsidies are required to fund the difference between the total costs of operations and all available revenues. The Preliminary FY17 Budget estimates total Member Agency contributions to equal $141.6 million, an increase of $2.5 million or 1.8% over the FY16 budget. The subsidy increase is the net result of slightly increased farebox revenue, higher routine operating expenses as a result of a full year of the Perris Valley Line, the Shortway and Redlands route additions, lower insurance cost, and the expiration of the BNSF Lease. Attachment E reflects subsidies FY14-FY16 and provides a specific analysis of the FY16 vs. FY17 change in the Member Agency subsidy. Capital Budget Capital Projects are frequently multi-year endeavors. The project balances are referred to as “Carryovers” because their uncompleted balance moves to the following year. Projects authorized in prior years but “carried over” total $37.9 million for Rehabilitation and $255.1 million for New Capital. They are shown in detail on Attachments J and N respectively. The Capital Rehabilitation authorization request for FY17 was identified as necessary for safe and efficient rail operations. These projects total $29.8 million and are represented in summary in Attachment H, and in detail in Attachment I. The information presented in detail at the Board Workshop to Member Agencies included a total Rehabilitation request of $101.1 million. Due to Member Agency funding constraints, this amount was reduced to $29.8 million. Those projects removed from the budget request are displayed on Attachment H-1 by project type as ‘lined out’, on Attachment H-2 by project type as removed, and on Attachment H-3 by subdivision. The total Rehabilitation Program includes:  Track and Structures upgrades totaling $18.9 million:  Locomotive and Rolling Stock upgrades of $1.0 million;  Signal system improvements of $2.8 million;  Fleet and Facility projects of $3.6 million;  Communications and Signage improvements of $3.5 million. As the Rehabilitation Program needs identified exceed the amount of funding currently included in the Preliminary FY17 Budget, SCRRA may return to the Member Agencies and the Board during FY17 to request additional Rehabilitiation funding. SCRRA will continue to work with the Member Agencies to track the status of Rehabilitation projects and any potential request for additional funding will be coordinated with the Member Agencies. Capital Rehabilitation projects shown for FY18 and FY19 cover many other projects critical to the safe operation of the railroad. Over a number of years, a significant backlog of deferred 100 SCRRA Preliminary FY2016-17 Budget Page 5 maintenance has accrued, creating the large numbers shown in the FY18 and FY19 listings. The needed projects are shown on Attachments K through L. The New Capital authorization request for FY17 was identified as necessary for safe and efficient rail operations. The only new project proposed for FY17 totals $1.3 million and is an amount to be used for project study reports and preliminary design on high priority projects. The project is shown on Attachment M. This information was also presented to the TAC members, and at the Board Workshop. New Capital projects that have been identified as candidates for consideration in future years are listed in their totality on Attachment O. A description of possible funding which may apply to these projects is included. Cash flow projections for FY17, FY18, and FY19 are presented in Attachment P. Operating and Capital Budget Projections for FY18 and FY19 Upon approval by the Board, the FY17 Budget will be transmitted to Member Agencies for consideration. FY18 and FY19 projected budgets are included in this report for informational purposes only. Operating Budget projections are outlined in Attachments F and G, and Capital Budget Projections are shown in Attachments L through O. FY18 and FY19 Projected Operating Budgets are based upon possible requested new services in combination with an inflation factor (3%) applied to all other costs. Next Steps May – June: Member Agencies Consider and Approve FY17 Budget June 7 Required Public Posting of FY17 Budget June 24 Request Board Approval of FY17 Budget Thank you for your ongoing support and active participation in the development of the Preliminary FY17 Budget. As in the past, our respective staffs will continue to work together throughout the adoption process to ensure all concerns you may have are addressed in anticipation of adoption of the budget by the SCRRA Board of Directors in June 2016. My staff and I will also be available at your request to attend or present at your Board Meetings considering the budget adoption. If you have any questions, comments or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (213) 452-0269, or have any member of your staff contact Christine Wilson, Manager, Budget and Financial Analysis at (213) 452-0297. cc: Member Agency CFOs Member Agency TAC Members 101 BLANK SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY ATTACHMENT A FISCAL YEAR 2017 PROPOSED BUDGET (In 000's) TOTAL FY16- 17 Metro Share OCTA Share RCTC Share SANBAG Share VCTC Share Revenues Gross Farebox $85,002 $41,559 $22,031 $7,789 $11,074 2,549 Dispatching 2,590 1,315 887 6 69 313 Other Operating 12 6 3 1 2 - Maintenance-of-Way 14,642 9,147 2,716 677 1,575 527 Total Revenues FY17 Budget $102,246 $52,027 $25,637 $8,473 $12,720 $3,389 Expenses Train Operations & Services $144,655 $73,087 $33,889 $15,778 $15,723 6,178 Maintenance-of-Way 39,592 20,864 8,125 2,887 5,438 2,278 Administration & Services 36,726 17,592 6,480 5,309 3,710 3,635 Insurance 16,787 8,990 4,062 1,227 1,954 554 BNSF 6,055 3,288 1,266 577 680 244 Total Expense FY17 Budget $243,815 $123,821 $53,822 $25,778 $27,505 $12,889 Total FY17 Subsidy by Member $141,569 $71,794 $28,185 $17,305 $14,785 $9,500 FY 2015-16 Budget $139,055 $71,796 $28,526 $15,015 $14,154 9,564 2,514 (2)(341)2,290 631 (64) Percent of Change 1.8%( 0.0%)( 1.2%)13.2%4.3%( 0.7%) OPERATING FUNDING ALLOCATION BY MEMBER AGENCY Over/(Under) Last Year Budget 102 BLANK SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY Attachment B FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 PROPOSED BUDGET FY 14-15 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 ($000s)Actual Budget Budget Change % Operating Revenue Farebox Revenue 83,134 84,446 83,972 (474) -0.6% Metro Fare Reduction Subsidy - - 1,030 1,030 n/a Subtotal-Pro Forma FareBox 83,134 84,446 85,002 556 0.7% Dispatching 2,493 2,663 2,590 (73) (2.8%) Other Revenues 372 - 12 12 100.0% MOW Revenues 13,207 14,348 14,642 294 2.0% Subtotal Operating Revenue 99,206 101,457 102,246 789 0.8% Operating Expenses Operations & Services Train Operations 40,569 43,979 43,942 (37) (0.1%) Equipment Maintenance 32,649 29,352 37,582 8,230 28.0% Fuel 24,454 22,952 22,772 (180) (0.8%) Non-Scheduled Rolling Stock Repairs 1 232 100 (132) (56.9%) Operating Facilities Maintenance 1,120 1,182 1,418 236 20.0% Other Operating Train Services 293 567 496 (71) (12.5%) Rolling Stock Lease 104 640 370 (270) (42.2%) Security - Sheriff 5,136 5,482 5,511 29 0.5% Security - Guards 1,591 2,010 2,001 (9) (0.4%) Supplemental Additional Security 81 690 690 - 0.0% Public Safety Program 177 260 320 60 23.1% Passenger Relations 1,639 1,885 2,069 184 9.8% TVM Maintenance/Revenue Collection 5,984 6,703 7,495 792 11.8% Marketing 949 1,020 1,220 200 19.6% Media & External Communications 234 426 395 (31) (7.3%) Utilities/Leases 2,622 2,677 2,777 100 3.7% Transfers to Other Operators 7,081 7,411 6,577 (834) (11.3%) Amtrak Transfers 800 1,400 1,400 - 0.0% Station Maintenance 1,121 1,464 1,641 177 12.1% Rail Agreements 4,997 4,831 5,377 546 11.3% Subtotal Operations & Services 131,602 135,163 144,153 8,990 6.7% Maintenance-of-Way - MoW - Line Segments 33,043 41,160 38,102 (3,058) (7.4%) MoW - Extraordinary Maintenance 1,235 1,228 1,490 262 21.3% Subtotal Maintenance-of-Way 34,278 42,388 39,592 (2,796) -6.6% Administration & Services - Ops Salaries & Fringe Benefits 11,535 11,586 14,019 2,433 21.0% Ops Non-Labor Expenses 3,651 4,760 5,384 624 13.1% Indirect Administrative Expenses 11,791 13,621 15,507 1,886 13.8% Ops Professional Services 969 2,870 1,816 (1,054) (36.7%) Subtotal Admin & Services 27,946 32,837 36,726 3,889 11.8% Contingency (Non-Train Ops)14 501 502 1 0.2% Total Operating Expenses 193,840 210,889 220,973 10,084 4.8% Insurance Expense/(Revenue)- Liability/Property/Auto 12,597 12,880 12,588 (292) -2.3% Claims / SI 1,884 4,000 3,000 (1,000) (25.0%) Claims Administration 1,145 1,199 1,199 - 0.0% PLPD Revenue (1) - - - n/a Net Insurance Expense 15,625 18,079 16,787 (1,292) -7.1% Total Expense Before BNSF 209,465 228,968 237,760 8,792 3.8% Loss Before BNSF (110,259) (127,511) (135,514) (8,003) -6.3% Member Subsidies - Operations 92,252 109,432 118,727 9,295 8.5% Insurance 17,678 18,079 16,787 (1,292) -7.1% Member Subsidies - Normal Ops 109,930 127,511 135,514 8,003 6.3% Surplus / (Deficit) Before BNSF (329) - - - Comparitive Annual Operating Budget Distribution by Cost Component by Year FY15-16 Budget vs FY16-17 Budget 103 BNSF LEASED LOCOMOTIVE COSTS - Lease cost Inc. ship - 4,275 2,526 (1,749) -40.9% Major Component Parts - 800 - (800) (100.0%) Labor for Maintenance - 2,500 900 (1,600) (64.0%) Additional Fuel - 5,003 1,230 (3,773) (75.4%) Diesel Fuel Offset (7,010) - 7,010 (100.0%) Wheel truing, Software Mods, Brakes - 960 - (960) (100.0%) Temp Facility Mods - 450 - (450) (100.0%) PTC Costs - 4,010 1,399 (2,611) (65.1%) Contingency - 557 - (557) -100.0% Total BNSF Lease Loco Expenses - 11,545 6,055 (5,490) (47.6%) Member Subsidies - BNSF Lease - 11,545 6,055 (5,490) (47.6%) Surplus / (Deficit) - BNSF Lease - - - - Total Expenses 209,465 240,513 243,815 3,302 1.4% - Net Loss (110,259) (139,055) (141,569) (2,514) (1.8%) All Member Subsidies 109,930 139,055 141,569 2,514 1.8% Surplus / (Deficit)(329) - - - 104 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY ATTACHMENT C ($000s) Total FY16- 17 Metro OCTA RCTC SANBAG VCTC Operating Revenue Farebox Revenue 83,972 40,529 22,031 7,789 11,074 2,549 Metro Fare Reduction Subsidy 1,030 1,030 - - - - Subtotal-Pro Forma FareBox 85,002 41,559 22,031 7,789 11,074 2,549 Dispatching 2,590 1,315 887 6 69 313 Other Revenues 12 6 3 1 2 - MOW Revenues 14,642 9,147 2,716 677 1,575 527 Subtotal Operating Revenue 102,246 52,027 25,637 8,473 12,720 3,389 Operating Expenses Operations & Services Train Operations 43,942 23,408 9,813 4,471 4,635 1,615 Equipment Maintenance 37,582 18,968 8,802 3,830 4,319 1,663 Fuel 22,772 11,719 5,681 2,271 2,362 739 Non-Scheduled Rolling Stock Repairs 100 54 24 7 12 3 Operating Facilities Maintenance 1,418 759 343 104 165 47 Other Operating Train Services 496 234 86 74 50 52 Rolling Stock Lease 370 176 73 41 53 27 Security - Sheriff 5,511 2,940 1,138 730 581 122 Security - Guards 2,001 945 345 300 200 211 Supplemental Additional Security 690 337 179 63 90 21 Public Safety Program 320 151 55 48 32 34 Passenger Relations 2,069 1,040 524 169 266 70 TVM Maintenance/Revenue Collection 7,495 3,031 1,708 1,213 1,102 441 Marketing 1,220 633 295 93 160 39 Media & External Communications 395 187 68 59 39 42 Utilities/Leases 2,777 1,312 480 416 277 292 Transfers to Other Operators 6,577 3,620 1,526 459 753 219 Amtrak Transfers 1,400 446 885 - - 69 Station Maintenance 1,641 1,009 235 106 215 76 Rail Agreements 5,377 1,881 1,542 1,249 362 343 Subtotal Operations & Services 144,153 72,850 33,802 15,703 15,673 6,125 Maintenance-of-Way MoW - Line Segments 38,102 20,007 7,763 2,871 5,279 2,182 MoW - Extraordinary Maintenance 1,490 857 362 16 159 96 Subtotal Maintenance-of-Way 39,592 20,864 8,125 2,887 5,438 2,278 Administration & Services Ops Salaries & Fringe Benefits 14,019 6,621 2,431 2,096 1,400 1,471 Ops Non-Labor Expenses 5,384 2,789 1,057 617 581 340 Indirect Administrative Expenses 15,507 7,324 2,678 2,324 1,548 1,633 Ops Professional Services 1,816 858 314 272 181 191 Subtotal Admin & Services 36,726 17,592 6,480 5,309 3,710 3,635 Contingency (Non-Train Ops)502 237 87 75 50 53 Total Operating Expenses 220,973 111,543 48,494 23,974 24,871 12,091 Insurance Expense/(Revenue) Liability/Property/Auto 12,588 6,741 3,046 920 1,466 415 Claims / SI 3,000 1,607 726 219 349 99 Claims Administration 1,199 642 290 88 139 40 PLPD Revenue - - - - - - Net Insurance Expense 16,787 8,990 4,062 1,227 1,954 554 Total Expense Before BNSF 237,760 120,533 52,556 25,201 26,825 12,645 Loss Before BNSF (135,514) (68,506) (26,919) (16,728) (14,105) (9,256) Member Subsidies Operations 118,727 59,516 22,857 15,501 12,151 8,702 Insurance 16,787 8,990 4,062 1,227 1,954 554 Member Subsidies - Normal Ops 135,514 68,506 26,919 16,728 14,105 9,256 Surplus / (Deficit) Before BNSF - - - - - - FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 PROPOSED BUDGET FY17 Annual Operating Budget Distribution by Cost Component By Member Agency 105 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY ATTACHMENT C ($000s) Total FY16- 17 Metro OCTA RCTC SANBAG VCTC FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 PROPOSED BUDGET FY17 Annual Operating Budget Distribution by Cost Component By Member Agency BNSF LEASED LOCOMOTIVE COSTS Lease cost Inc. ship 2,526 1,371 528 241 284 102 Major Component Parts - - - - - - Labor for Maintenance 900 489 188 86 101 36 Additional Fuel 1,230 668 257 117 138 50 Wheel truing, Software Mods, Brakes - - - - - - Temp Facility Mods - - - - - - PTC Costs 1,399 760 293 133 157 56 Contingency - - - - - - Total BNSF Lease Loco Expenses 6,055 3,288 1,266 577 680 244 Member Subsidies - BNSF Lease 6,055 3,288 1,266 577 680 244 Surplus / (Deficit) - BNSF Lease - - - - - - TOTAL EXPENSE 243,815 123,821 53,822 25,778 27,505 12,889 Net Loss (141,569) (71,794) (28,185) (17,305) (14,785) (9,500) Total Member Subsidies 141,569 71,794 28,185 17,305 14,785 9,500 Surplus / (Deficit)- - - - - - 106 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR 2017 PROPOSED BUDGET Attachment D (in 000's) FY 2016 Amended Adopted Budget 240,513$ FY 2017 Preliminary Budget 243,815 Total Operational Expense Budget Increase 3,302$ 1.4% INCREASE DRIVERS: New Initiatives: (5,490) (lower than FY16) 2,568 598 Mobile Ticketing 672 Big Five Train Operations 1,262 MOW (including 5 new MASS Positions 1,140 MOW cut (3,870) Other Material Issues 4,337 Effect of Payroll Vacancy Factor used in FY16 1,430 Variance in Pay mid-pt vs hire 1,207 Change in Salaries charged to Capital Projects 1,294 Reduction in Consultants (1,086) Reduction in Insurance/Claims (Oxnard)(1,292) FY 2017 COLA (1.5%) & Merit Pool (0.5%)532 Total Operational Expense Budget Increase 3,302$ 1.4% Operational Expense Budget Remove Effect of BNSF reduction Without Change to BNSF, increase = $12,661,721 (this is amount analyzed below) Perris Valley- increase to full year Redlands-1st - 4 mo, Redlands & Shortway full year 107 BLANK SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR 2017 PROPOSED BUDGET Attachment E (In 000's) Total Net Local Subsidy Metro Share OCTA share RCTC Share SANBAG Share VCTC Share FY14 ACTUAL*$100,003 $54,741 $18,522 $7,685 $11,654 $7,401 FY 15 ACTUAL $110,257 $59,030 $22,251 $9,388 $11,605 $7,983 FY16 BUDGET $139,055 $71,796 $28,526 $15,015 $14,154 $9,564 FY17 BUDGET $141,569 $71,794 $28,185 $17,305 $14,785 $9,500 *Excludes inventory write up YEAR OVER YEAR CHANGE Total Net Local Subsidy Metro Share OCTA share RCTC Share SANBAG Share VCTC Share FY14 vs FY15 $ Increase $10,254 $4,289 $3,729 $1,703 ($49)$582 % Increase 10.3%7.8%20.1%22.2%-0.4%7.9% FY15 vs FY16 $ Increase $28,798 $12,766 $6,275 $5,627 $2,549 $1,581 % Increase 26.1%21.6%28.2%59.9%22.0%19.8% FY16 vs FY17 $ Increase $2,514 ($2)($341)$2,290 $631 ($64) % Increase 1.8%0.0%-1.2%15.3%4.5%-0.7% Analysis of 16 vs 17 variance: Of the 1.8%Of the $2,514 -0.6%Increase in Revenue (Primarily PVL)(788)$ =-31.3%of the variance 3.1%Material Issues 4,337 =172.5%of the variance 1.8%Perris Valley increase to full year 2,568 =102.1%of the variance 0.9%Big Five Train Operations 1,262 =50.2%of the variance 0.8%Big Five MOW 1,140 45.3%of the variance -2.8%MOW Cut (3,870) =-153.9%of the variance 1.0%Payroll Vacancy Factor used in FY16 1,430 =56.9%of the variance 0.9%Change in Salaries to Capital Projects 1,294 =51.5%of the variance 0.9%Payroll Variation Hire to Mid point 1,207 =48.0%of the variance 0.5%Mobile ticketing 672 =26.7%of the variance 0.4%Redlands(both) & Shortway 598 =23.8%of the variance -0.8%Ops Prof Services Reduced (1,085) =-43.2%of the variance -0.9%Reduce insurance (Oxnard incident)(1,292) =-51.4%of the variance -3.9%BNSF decrease to partial year (5,490) =-218.4%of the variance 0.4%FY17 COLA (1.5%) & Merit Pool (0.5%)531 =21.1%of the variance 1.8%2,514$ 100.0% Net Local Subsidy by Member Agency 108 BLANK Attachment F ($000s) Total FY17- 18 Metro OCTA RCTC SANBAG VCTC Operating Revenue Farebox Revenue 86,805 41,203 22,955 8,482 11,602 2,563 Metro Fare Reduction Subsidy - - - - - - Subtotal-Pro Forma FareBox 86,805 41,203 22,955 8,482 11,602 2,563 Dispatching 2,667 1,355 913 6 71 322 Other Revenues 12 6 3 1 2 - MOW Revenues 15,080 9,421 2,798 697 1,622 542 Subtotal Operating Revenue 104,564 51,985 26,669 9,186 13,297 3,427 Operating Expenses Operations & Services Train Operations 46,189 24,101 10,472 4,788 5,173 1,655 Equipment Maintenance 39,724 19,558 9,639 4,276 4,516 1,735 Fuel 24,298 12,076 6,135 2,633 2,693 761 Non-Scheduled Rolling Stock Repairs 103 54 25 9 12 3 Operating Facilities Maintenance 1,460 768 351 127 166 48 Other Operating Train Services 512 241 88 76 53 54 Rolling Stock Lease 380 181 75 42 55 27 Security - Sheriff 5,677 3,220 1,269 412 637 139 Security - Guards 2,060 969 355 308 212 216 Supplemental Additional Security 710 337 188 69 95 21 Public Safety Program 330 155 57 49 34 35 Passenger Relations 2,131 1,063 527 186 280 75 TVM Maintenance/Revenue Collection 7,720 3,122 1,759 1,249 1,136 454 Marketing 1,257 647 296 104 168 42 Media & External Communications 408 192 70 61 42 43 Utilities/Leases 2,860 1,346 492 427 295 300 Transfers to Other Operators 6,775 3,662 1,553 540 796 224 Amtrak Transfers 1,442 459 911 - - 72 Station Maintenance 1,690 1,028 250 109 225 78 Rail Agreements 6,029 1,913 1,789 1,527 450 350 Subtotal Operations & Services 151,755 75,092 36,301 16,992 17,038 6,332 Maintenance-of-Way MoW - Line Segments 39,335 20,584 7,798 3,058 5,648 2,247 MoW - Extraordinary Maintenance 1,533 883 372 16 164 98 Subtotal Maintenance-of-Way 40,868 21,467 8,170 3,074 5,812 2,345 Administration & Services Ops Salaries & Fringe Benefits 14,439 6,795 2,495 2,151 1,490 1,508 Ops Non-Labor Expenses 5,545 2,822 1,070 682 625 346 Indirect Administrative Expenses 15,972 7,516 2,749 2,386 1,647 1,674 Ops Professional Services 1,870 880 322 279 193 196 Subtotal Admin & Services 37,826 18,013 6,636 5,498 3,955 3,724 Contingency (Non-Train Ops)516 243 89 77 53 54 Total Operating Expenses 230,965 114,815 51,196 25,641 26,858 12,455 Insurance Expense/(Revenue) Liability/Property/Auto 12,966 6,821 3,115 1,131 1,473 426 Claims / SI 3,090 1,626 742 270 351 101 Claims Administration 1,235 649 297 108 140 41 PLPD Revenue - - - - - - Net Insurance Expense 17,291 9,096 4,154 1,509 1,964 568 Total Expenses 248,256 123,911 55,350 27,150 28,822 13,023 Total Loss (143,692) (71,926) (28,681) (17,964) (15,525) (9,596) Member Subsidies Operations 126,401 62,830 24,527 16,455 13,561 9,028 Insurance 17,291 9,096 4,154 1,509 1,964 568 Member Subsidies 143,692 71,926 28,681 17,964 15,525 9,596 Surplus / (Deficit)- - - - - - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR 2017-18 PROPOSED BUDGET by Cost Component By Member Agency FY18 Forecasted Operating Budget 109 BLANK Attachment G ($000s) Total FY18- 19 Metro OCTA RCTC SANBAG VCTC Operating Revenue Farebox Revenue 89,540 42,570 24,024 8,743 11,817 2,386 Metro Fare Reduction Subsidy - - - - - - Subtotal-Pro Forma FareBox 89,540 42,570 24,024 8,743 11,817 2,386 Dispatching 2,747 1,395 941 6 73 332 Other Revenues 13 7 3 1 2 - MOW Revenues 15,533 9,704 2,881 718 1,671 559 Subtotal Operating Revenue 107,833 53,676 27,849 9,468 13,563 3,277 Operating Expenses Operations & Services Train Operations 49,364 25,882 11,423 4,990 5,370 1,699 Equipment Maintenance 42,325 20,824 10,291 4,775 4,657 1,778 Fuel 26,223 13,018 6,847 2,761 2,812 785 Non-Scheduled Rolling Stock Repairs 105 55 25 10 12 3 Operating Facilities Maintenance 1,504 782 357 147 169 49 Other Operating Train Services 527 248 91 79 54 55 Rolling Stock Lease 393 186 78 44 57 28 Security - Sheriff 5,847 3,289 1,295 471 650 142 Security - Guards 2,122 999 365 317 219 222 Supplemental Additional Security 732 348 196 71 97 20 Public Safety Program 339 159 58 51 35 36 Passenger Relations 2,195 1,091 556 202 270 76 TVM Maintenance/Revenue Collection 7,951 3,215 1,812 1,286 1,170 468 Marketing 1,294 664 314 115 159 42 Media & External Communications 420 198 72 63 43 44 Utilities/Leases 2,947 1,387 507 440 304 309 Transfers to Other Operators 6,978 3,754 1,620 560 811 233 Amtrak Transfers 1,485 467 945 - - 73 Station Maintenance 1,739 1,064 264 109 224 78 Rail Agreements 6,633 2,187 1,926 1,647 516 357 Subtotal Operations & Services 161,123 79,817 39,042 18,138 17,629 6,497 Maintenance-of-Way MoW - Line Segments 40,516 21,180 8,085 3,125 5,811 2,315 MoW - Extraordinary Maintenance 1,580 909 384 17 169 101 Subtotal Maintenance-of-Way 42,096 22,089 8,469 3,142 5,980 2,416 Administration & Services Ops Salaries & Fringe Benefits 14,873 6,999 2,570 2,216 1,535 1,553 Ops Non-Labor Expenses 5,712 2,901 1,110 702 643 356 Indirect Administrative Expenses 16,451 7,742 2,831 2,458 1,696 1,724 Ops Professional Services 1,926 906 331 288 199 202 Subtotal Admin & Services 38,962 18,548 6,842 5,664 4,073 3,835 Contingency (Non-Train Ops)533 252 92 80 53 56 Total Operating Expenses 242,714 120,706 54,445 27,024 27,735 12,804 Insurance Expense/(Revenue) Liability/Property/Auto 13,355 6,942 3,170 1,309 1,500 434 Claims / SI 3,182 1,654 756 312 357 103 Claims Administration 1,272 661 302 125 143 41 PLPD Revenue - - - - - - Net Insurance Expense 17,809 9,257 4,228 1,746 2,000 578 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR 2017-18 PROPOSED BUDGET FY19 Forecasted Operating Budget by Cost Component By Member Agency 110 Total Expenses 260,523 129,963 58,673 28,770 29,735 13,382 Total Loss 152,690 76,287 30,824 19,302 16,172 10,105 Member Subsidies Operations 134,881 67,030 26,596 17,556 14,172 9,527 Insurance 17,809 9,257 4,228 1,746 2,000 578 Member Subsidies 152,690 76,287 30,824 19,302 16,172 10,105 Surplus / (Deficit)- - - - - - 111 DRAFT FY 2017 REDUCED REHABILITATION PROJECT PROPOSALS AS PRESENTED AT THE BOARD WORKSHOP 4/28/16 - WITH CHANGES MARKED Metrolink Attachement H-1 "before" with markup Line Asset Type Subdiv Project Type TOTAL LACMTA OCTA RCTC SANBAG VCTC Other 1 Structures Valley Bridge rehab 35.75, and design 10 bridges $4,020,800 $4,020,800 2 Structures Valley Culvert rehab (design for rplce up to 21 culverts)$867,860 $867,860 3 Structures Valley ROW Grading $100,000 $100,000 4 Structures Ventura-VC Bridge rehab 438.89, design 434.12 & 436.96 $2,049,600 $909,600 $1,140,000 5 Structures Ventura-VC Culvert rehab MP 436.56 $490,000 $490,000 6 Structures Ventura-LA Bridge design 2 bridges 458.71 & 452.1 $616,000 $616,000 7 Structures Ventura-LA ROW Grading $100,000 $100,000 8 Structures Orange Bridge rehab $0 $0 9 Structures Orange Culvert rehab MP 201.4 $385,000 $385,000 10 Structures Orange ROW Grading $100,000 $100,000 11 Structures San Gabriel Culvert rehab (Re-entered in Line 74)$0 $0 $0 12 Structures San Gabriel ROW Grading $100,000 $60,000 $40,000 13 Structures River ROW Grading $50,000 $23,750 $9,900 $5,550 $7,200 $3,600 14 Structures Montalvo-W Culvert rehab MP 404.65 $210,000 $210,000 15 Sub-Total Structures $9,089,259 $5,788,410 $494,900 $5,550 $47,200 $1,613,200 $1,140,000 16 Track Ventura-VC Replace rail curve 437.76 (1636') plus 500' tangent $333,217 $333,217 17 Track Ventura-LA Transpose Curve 442.58 (1520'), Curve 442.96 (1368'), Replace head-free rail MT 2 (Tangent - Both Rails) MP 456.1 to MP 456.25 (1509')$684,372 $684,372 18 Track Ventura-LA Replace Ties rated 3 (Poor Cond) and 4 (Failed)$1,007,500 $1,007,500 19 Track Valley Replace rail M1 - 4.62 (1026'), S - 16.85 (263'), 61.20 $1,817,400 $1,817,400 20 Track Valley Replace Ties rated 3 (Poor Cond) and 4 (Failed)$3,120,000 $3,120,000 REVISE TO $1,400,000 $1,400,000 21 Track River*WB MT4 Transpose Curve 143.03 (2021'), Lead 3 MP 0.085 - 0.2 Replace HF rail (607' each), Lead 4 Transpose and Replace South Rail for Curves 0.47-L4 (663') and 0.68-L4 (1128'), EB MT2 MP482.2 - MP485.2 (Year 2)$5,507,256 $1,071,864 $446,798 $250,478 $324,944 $162,472 $3,250,701 22 Track River*Replace 5,000 Ties for River EB, 3600 Spread across rest of Subdivision, Replace Ties Rated 3 (Poor Cond) and 4 (Failed)$3,899,216 $943,442 $393,266 $220,468 $286,012 $143,006 $1,913,022 23 Track San Gabriel Upgrade aged worn 115/119 lb rail to 136 lb rail MP 4.63-5.12 (both sides), MP 11.26-11.75 (both sides)$1,500,000 $900,000 $600,000 24 Track San Gabriel Upgrade aged and worn 119 lb rail to 136 lb rail MP 39.15-39.62 (both sides), MP 44.61-45.64 (both sides)$2,250,000 $1,350,000 $900,000 25 Track Orange Upgrade worn 115 lb rail with 136 lb rail from MP $6,912,120 $6,912,120 26 Sub-Total Rail & Ties $27,031,081 $10,894,578 $7,752,184 $470,945 $2,110,956 $638,695 $5,163,723 * Reference Engr dept estimates for UPRR share. 27 Track Ventura-LA Turnouts & special trackwork $900,000 $900,000 28 Track Valley Turnouts & special trackwork $400,000 $400,000 29 Track San Gabriel Turnouts & special trackwork $1,000,000 $600,000 $400,000 30 Track River Turnouts & special trackwork $1,000,000 $475,000 $198,000 $111,000 $144,000 $72,000 31 Sub-Total Turnouts & Trackwork $3,300,000 $2,375,000 $198,000 $111,000 $544,000 $72,000 $0 32 Signals Olive Train control & grade xing signal rehab $450,000 $450,000 33 Signals Orange Train control & grade xing signal rehab $450,000 $450,000 34 Signals Ventura-VC Train control rehab $200,000 $200,000 35 Signals Ventura-LA Train control rehab $200,000 $200,000 36 Signals Valley Train control & grade xing signal rehab $700,000 $700,000 REVISE TO $350,000 $350,000 1 of 26 Attachements H thru O for Prelim Transmission Memo-REVISED 4-13-16 H-1 THRU H-3112 DRAFT FY 2017 REDUCED REHABILITATION PROJECT PROPOSALS AS PRESENTED AT THE BOARD WORKSHOP 4/28/16 - WITH CHANGES MARKED Metrolink Attachement H-1 "before" with markup Line Asset Type Subdiv Project Type TOTAL LACMTA OCTA RCTC SANBAG VCTC Other 37 Signals Pasadena Train control rehab $200,000 $200,000 38 Signals San Gabriel Train control rehab $400,000 $240,000 $160,000 39 Signals PVL Grade xing signal rehab $250,000 $250,000 40 Signals East Bank Train control rehab $500,000 $74,100 $30,888 $17,316 $22,464 $11,232 $344,000 41 Signals River Grade xing signal rehab $250,000 $118,750 $49,500 $27,750 $36,000 $18,000 42 Signals Systemwide Train control rehab $75,000 $35,625 $14,850 $8,325 $10,800 $5,400 43 Sub-Total Signals $3,675,000 $1,568,475 $995,238 $303,391 $229,264 $234,632 $344,000 44 Comm & PTC Olive Wayside comm & CIS rehab $150,000 $150,000 45 Comm & PTC Orange Wayside comm & CIS rehab $150,000 $150,000 46 Comm & PTC Ventura-VC Wayside comm & CIS rehab $237,500 $237,500 47 Comm & PTC Ventura-LA Wayside comm & CIS rehab $87,500 $87,500 48 Comm & PTC Valley Wayside comm & CIS rehab $325,000 $325,000 49 Comm & PTC San Gabriel Wayside comm & CIS rehab $175,000 $105,000 $70,000 50 Comm & PTC PVL Wayside comm & CIS rehab $125,000 $125,000 51 Comm & PTC East Bank Wayside comm & CIS rehab $123,130 $18,248 $7,606 $4,264 $5,532 $2,766 $84,713 52 Comm & PTC Systemwide On-Board PTC systems $1,100,000 $522,500 $217,800 $122,100 $158,400 $79,200 53 Comm & PTC Systemwide Back office PTC systems $2,598,000 $1,234,050 $514,404 $288,378 $374,112 $187,056 54 Sub-Total Comm & PTC $5,071,130 $2,292,298 $1,039,810 $539,742 $608,044 $506,522 $84,713 55 TOTAL Infrastructure $48,166,470 $22,918,760 $10,480,133 $1,430,628 $3,539,464 $3,065,049 $6,732,436 56 Rolling Stock Systemwide Sentinel Rail Car Comprehensive Overhaul $40,500,000 $7,371,525 $3,072,762 $1,722,609 $2,234,736 $1,117,368 $24,981,000 57 Rolling Stock Systemwide Sentinel HVAC Overhaul $975,000 $463,125 $193,050 $108,225 $140,400 $70,200 58 Rolling Stock Systemwide Sentinel LED Lighting Replacement $1,170,000 $555,750 $231,660 $129,870 $168,480 $84,240 59 Rolling Stock Systemwide Rotem Coupler Overhaul (44 cars)$3,500,000 $1,662,500 $693,000 $388,500 $504,000 $252,000 60 Sub-Total Rolling Stock $46,145,000 $10,052,900 $4,190,472 $2,349,204 $3,047,616 $1,523,808 $24,981,000 61 Facilities Systemwide Material Handling Equipment $405,038 $192,393 $80,197 $44,959 $58,325 $29,163 62 Facilities Systemwide CMF Elevator Modernization $140,185 $66,588 $27,757 $15,561 $20,187 $10,093 63 Facilities Systemwide CMF Drainage Re-direction $1,593,900 $757,103 $315,592 $176,923 $229,522 $114,761 64 Facilities Systemwide EMF Parking & Track Lighting $586,600 $300,253 $125,158 $70,164 $91,024 $0 65 Vehicles Systemwide 3 Hy-Rails, 2 MOW, 1 gang truck $670,475 $318,476 $132,754 $74,423 $96,548 $48,274 66 Sub-Total Facilities & Vehicles $3,396,198 $1,634,812 $681,458 $382,030 $495,606 $202,291 $0 67 IT Systemwide Replace switch equipment $249,700 $118,608 $49,441 $27,717 $35,957 $17,978 68 IT Systemwide Enhance VM Infrastructure $539,000 $256,025 $106,722 $59,829 $77,616 $38,808 69 IT Systemwide Desktop management systems $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 70 Sub-Total IT $788,700 $374,633 $156,163 $87,546 $113,573 $56,786 $0 70.5 Facilties Systemwide LAUPT Platform & Canopy Upgrades $2,700,000 $987,525 $411,642 $230,769 $299,376 $149,688 $621,000 2 of 26 Attachements H thru O for Prelim Transmission Memo-REVISED 4-13-16 H-1 THRU H-3113 DRAFT FY 2017 REDUCED REHABILITATION PROJECT PROPOSALS AS PRESENTED AT THE BOARD WORKSHOP 4/28/16 - WITH CHANGES MARKED Metrolink Attachement H-1 "before" with markup Line Asset Type Subdiv Project Type TOTAL LACMTA OCTA RCTC SANBAG VCTC Other REVISE TO ONLY 2 PLATFORMS (2 & 3)$1,266,000 $475,000 $198,000 $111,000 $144,000 $72,000 $266,000 71 TOTAL Other Assets $53,029,898 $13,049,870 $5,439,735 $3,049,548 $3,956,171 $1,932,573 $25,602,000 LA County Portion of FY 2016 San Gabriel Sub projects (Required to match SANBAG funding already allocated in FY 2016):LA County Portion of FY 2016 San Gabriel Sub projects (Required to match SANBAG funding already approved in FY 2016): 72 Comm San Gabriel Comm system rehab $105,000 $105,000 $0 73 Signal San Gabriel Signal system rehab $594,000 $594,000 $0 74 Structures San Gabriel Rehab culvert 28.23 $120,000 $120,000 $0 75 Structures San Gabriel ROW grading/ditching $48,000 $48,000 $0 76 Track San Gabriel Rail grinding $119,700 $119,700 $0 77 Track San Gabriel Tie rehab, turnout replace, track panels @ Grand, ped xing panel replace.$1,185,600 $1,185,600 $0 78 Sub-Total LA Portion of FY 2016 $2,172,300 $2,172,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 79 REHAB PROJECT PROPOSALS GRAND TOTAL $103,368,668 $38,140,930 $15,919,868 $4,480,177 $7,495,635 $4,997,622 $32,334,436 New Totals $29,779,628 $9,991,444 $10,215,192 $1,284,374 $1,664,052 $2,876,831 $3,747,735 FUNDING: Notes: 1) "Other" funds in FY 2017 are anticipated from CalTrans UPRR, and Amtrak 2) $43,268 of projected UPRR budget was removed from FY 2016 3) Platform Repair not in original presentation are included here. 3 of 26 Attachements H thru O for Prelim Transmission Memo-REVISED 4-13-16 H-1 THRU H-3114 BLANK DRAFT FY 2017 REDUCED REHABILITATION PROJECT PROPOSALS AS PRESENTED AT THE BOARD WORKSHOP 4/28/16 - WITH CHANGES Metrolink Attachment H-2 After reductions Line Asset Type Subdiv Project Type TOTAL LACMTA OCTA RCTC SANBAG VCTC Other 2 Structures Valley Culvert rehab (design to replce up to 21 culverts)$867,860 $867,860 4 Structures Ventura-VC Bridge rehab 438.89, design 434.12 & 436.96 $2,049,600 $909,600 $1,140,000 5 Structures Ventura-VC Culvert rehab MP 436.56 $490,000 $490,000 9 Structures Orange Culvert rehab MP 201.4 $385,000 $385,000 10 Structures Orange ROW Grading $100,000 $100,000 15 Sub-Total Structures $3,892,460 $867,860 $485,000 $0 $0 $1,399,600 $1,140,000 16 Track Ventura-VC Replace rail curve 437.76 (1636') plus 500' tangent $333,217 $333,217 20 Track Valley Replace Ties rated 3 (Poor Cond) and 4 (Failed) REVISE TO $1,400,000 $1,400,000 22 Track River*Replace 5,000 Ties for River EB, 3600 Spread across rest of Subdivision, Replace Ties Rated 3 (Poor Cond) and 4 (Failed)$3,899,216 $943,442 $393,266 $220,468 $286,012 $143,006 $1,913,022 25 Track Orange Upgrade worn 115 lb rail with 136 lb rail from MP 201.1- $6,912,120 $6,912,120 26 Sub-Total Rail & Ties $12,544,553 $2,343,442 $7,305,386 $220,468 $286,012 $476,223 $1,913,022 * Reference Engr dept estimates for UPRR share. 30 Track River Turnouts & special trackwork $1,000,000 $475,000 $198,000 $111,000 $144,000 $72,000 31 Sub-Total Turnouts & Trackwork $1,000,000 $475,000 $198,000 $111,000 $144,000 $72,000 $0 32 Signals Olive Train control & grade xing signal rehab $450,000 $450,000 34 Signals Ventura-VC Train control rehab $200,000 $200,000 36 Signals Valley Train control & grade xing signal rehab REVISE TO $350,000 $350,000 38 Signals San Gabriel Train control rehab $400,000 $240,000 $160,000 40 Signals East Bank Train control rehab $500,000 $74,100 $30,888 $17,316 $22,464 $11,232 $344,000 41 Signals River Grade xing signal rehab $250,000 $118,750 $49,500 $27,750 $36,000 $18,000 42 Signals Systemwide Train control rehab $75,000 $35,625 $14,850 $8,325 $10,800 $5,400 43 Sub-Total Signals $2,225,000 $818,475 $545,238 $53,391 $229,264 $234,632 $344,000 44 Comm & PTC Olive Wayside comm & CIS rehab $150,000 $150,000 45 Comm & PTC Orange Wayside comm & CIS rehab $150,000 $150,000 46 Comm & PTC Ventura-VC Wayside comm & CIS rehab $237,500 $237,500 50 Comm & PTC PVL Wayside comm & CIS rehab $125,000 $125,000 51 Comm & PTC East Bank Wayside comm & CIS rehab $123,130 $18,248 $7,606 $4,264 $5,532 $2,766 $84,713 53 Comm & PTC Systemwide Back office PTC systems $2,598,000 $1,234,050 $514,404 $288,378 $374,112 $187,056 54 Sub-Total Comm & PTC $3,383,630 $1,252,298 $822,010 $417,642 $379,644 $427,322 $84,713 55 TOTAL Infrastructure $23,045,643 $5,757,075 $9,355,635 $802,501 $1,038,920 $2,609,777 $3,481,735 57 Rolling Stock Systemwide Sentinel HVAC Overhaul $975,000 $463,125 $193,050 $108,225 $140,400 $70,200 60 Sub-Total Rolling Stock $975,000 $463,125 $193,050 $108,225 $140,400 $70,200 $0 62 Facilities Systemwide CMF Elevator Modernization $140,185 $66,588 $27,757 $15,561 $20,187 $10,093 63 Facilities Systemwide CMF Drainage Re-direction $1,593,900 $757,103 $315,592 $176,923 $229,522 $114,761 4 of 26 Attachements H thru O for Prelim Transmission Memo-REVISED 4-13-16 H-1 THRU H-3115 DRAFT FY 2017 REDUCED REHABILITATION PROJECT PROPOSALS AS PRESENTED AT THE BOARD WORKSHOP 4/28/16 - WITH CHANGES Metrolink Attachment H-2 After reductions Line Asset Type Subdiv Project Type TOTAL LACMTA OCTA RCTC SANBAG VCTC Other 64 Facilities Systemwide EMF Parking & Track Lighting $586,600 $300,253 $125,158 $70,164 $91,024 $0 66 Sub-Total Facilities & Vehicles $2,320,685 $1,123,944 $468,507 $262,648 $340,732 $124,854 $0 70.5 Facilties Systemwide LAUPT Platform & Canopy Upgrades REVISE TO ONLY 2 PLATFORMS (2 & 3)$1,266,000 $475,000 $198,000 $111,000 $144,000 $72,000 $266,000 71 TOTAL Other Assets $4,561,685 $2,062,069 $859,557 $481,873 $625,132 $267,054 $266,000 LA County Portion of FY 2016 San Gabriel Sub projects (Required to match SANBAG funding already allocated in FY 2016):LA County Portion of FY 2016 San Gabriel Sub projects (Required to match SANBAG funding already approved in FY 2016): 72 Comm San Gabriel Comm system rehab $105,000 $105,000 $0 73 Signal San Gabriel Signal system rehab $594,000 $594,000 $0 74 Structures San Gabriel Rehab culvert 28.23 $120,000 $120,000 $0 75 Structures San Gabriel ROW grading/ditching $48,000 $48,000 $0 76 Track San Gabriel Rail grinding $119,700 $119,700 $0 77 Track San Gabriel Tie rehab, turnout replace, track panels @ Grand, ped xing panel replace.$1,185,600 $1,185,600 $0 78 Sub-Total LA Portion of FY 2016 $2,172,300 $2,172,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 79 REHAB PROJECT PROPOSALS GRAND TOTAL $29,779,628 $9,991,444 $10,215,192 $1,284,374 $1,664,052 $2,876,831 $3,747,735 FUNDING: Notes: 1) "Other" funds in FY 2017 are anticipated from CalTrans UPRR, and Amtrak 5 of 26 Attachements H thru O for Prelim Transmission Memo-REVISED 4-13-16 H-1 THRU H-3116 ATTACHMENT "H-3" FY2016-17 Rehabilitation New Authority Projects - Summary - by Subdivision ($ Thousands) Subdivision Project Type TOTAL LACMTA OCTA RCTC SANBAG VCTC Other Olive Communication & PTC 150 - 150 - - - - Olive Signals 450 - 450 - - - - Orange Communication & PTC 150 - 150 - - - - Orange Structures 485 - 485 - - - - Orange Track 6,912 - 6,912 - - - - Perris Valley Communication & PTC 125 - - 125 - - - San Gabriel Communication & PTC 105 105 - - - - - San Gabriel Signals 994 834 - - 160 - - San Gabriel Structures 168 168 - - - - - San Gabriel Track 1,306 1,306 - - - - - Valley Signals 350 350 - - - - - Valley Structures 868 868 - - - - - Valley Track 1,400 1,400 - - - - - Ventura-VC Communication & PTC 238 - - - - 238 - Ventura-VC Signals 200 - - - - 200 - Ventura-VC Structures 2,540 - - - - 1,400 1,140 Ventura-VC Track 333 - - - - 333 - East Bank Communication & PTC 123 18 8 4 5 3 85 East Bank Signals 500 74 31 17 22 11 344 River Signals 250 119 50 28 36 18 - River Track 4,899 1,418 591 332 430 215 1,913 Systemwide Communication & PTC 2,598 1,234 515 288 374 187 - Systemwide Facilities 3,586 1,599 666 373 485 197 266 Systemwide Rolling Stock 975 463 193 108 141 70 - Systemwide Signals 75 36 15 8 11 5 - 29,779 9,991 10,215 1,284 1,664 2,877 3,748 - 1,936 (3,773) 500 1,000 337 - 29,779 11,927 6,442 1,784 2,664 3,214 3,748 37,863 8,148 16,199 2,070 5,069 3,550 2,827 67,643 20,075 22,641 3,854 7,733 6,764 6,575 CURRENT PROPOSED FY2016-17 REHAB BUDGET ROTEM SETTLEMENT AMOUNTS (YEAR 5) TOTAL PROPOSED FY 2016-17 REHAB BUDGET PRIOR YEAR CARRYOVERS TOTAL FY 16-17 AUTHORITY INCLUDING CARRYOVERS 117 ATTACHMENT "I" FY2016-17 Rehabilitation New Authority Projects - Detail ($ Thousands) Project Title Subdivision Project Type TOTAL LACMTA OCTA RCTC SANBAG VCTC Other Wayside comm & CIS rehab Olive Communication & PTC 150 - 150 - - - - Train control & grade xing signal rehab Olive Signals 450 - 450 - - - - Wayside comm & CIS rehab Orange Communication & PTC 150 - 150 - - - - Culvert rehab MP 201.4 Orange Structures 385 - 385 - - - - ROW Grading Orange Structures 100 - 100 - - - - Orange Subdivision Rail Rehab Program Orange Track 6,912 - 6,912 - - - - Wayside comm & CIS rehab PVL Communication & PTC 125 - - 125 - - - Comm system rehab San Gabriel Communication 105 105 - - - - - Signal system rehab San Gabriel Signal 594 594 - - - - - Train control rehab San Gabriel Signals 400 240 - - 160 - - Rehab culvert 28.23 San Gabriel Structures 120 120 - - - - - ROW grading/ditching San Gabriel Structures 48 48 - - - - - Rail grinding San Gabriel Track 120 120 - - - - - Tie rehab, turnout replace, track panels @ Grand, ped xing panel replace.San Gabriel Track 1,186 1,186 - - - - - Train control & grade xing signal rehab Valley Signals 350 350 - - - - - Culvert rehab (up to 21 pipe culverts)Valley Structures 868 868 - - - - - Replace Ties rated 3 (Poor Cond) and 4 (Failed)Valley Track 1,400 1,400 - - - - - Wayside comm & CIS rehab Ventura-VC Communication & PTC 238 - - - - 238 - Train control rehab Ventura-VC Signals 200 - - - - 200 - Bridge rehab 438.89, design 434.12 & 436.96 Ventura-VC Structures 2,050 - - - - 910 1,140 Culvert rehab MP 436.56 Ventura-VC Structures 490 - - - - 490 - Replace rail curve 437.76 (1636') plus 500' tangent Ventura-VC Track 333 - - - - 333 - Wayside comm & CIS rehab East Bank Communication & PTC 123 18 8 4 5 3 85 Train control rehab East Bank Signals 500 74 31 17 22 11 344 Grade xing signal rehab River Signals 250 119 50 28 36 18 - River Tie Rehabilitation River Track 3,899 943 393 220 286 143 1,913 Turnouts & special trackwork River Track 1,000 475 198 111 144 72 - Back office PTC systems Systemwide Communication & PTC 2,598 1,234 514 288 374 187 - CMF Drainage Re-direction Systemwide Facilities 1,594 757 315 177 230 115 - CMF Elevator Modernization Systemwide Facilities 140 67 28 16 20 10 - EMF Parking & Track Lighting Systemwide Facilities 587 300 125 70 91 - - Stabilizing Canopies and Platforms at LAUS Systemwide Facilities 1,266 475 198 111 144 72 266 Sentinel HVAC Overhaul Systemwide Rolling Stock 975 463 193 108 140 70 - Train control rehab Systemwide Signals 75 36 15 8 11 5 - $29,779 $9,991 $10,215 $1,284 $1,664 $2,877 $3,748 - $1,936 -$3,773 $500 $1,000 $337 $0 29,779 11,927 6,442 1,784 2,664 3,214 3,748 37,863 8,148 16,199 2,070 5,069 3,550 2,827 67,643 20,075 22,641 3,854 7,733 6,764 6,575 CURRENT PROPOSED FY2016-17 REHAB BUDGET (INCLUDING AMOUNTS UNALLOCATED IN FY2016) ROTEM SETTLEMENT AMOUNTS (YEAR 5) TOTAL PROPOSED FY 2016-17 REHAB BUDGET PRIOR YEAR CARRYOVERS TOTAL FY 16-17 AUTHORITY INCLUDING CARRYOVERS 118 ATTACHMENT "J" FY2016-17 Rehabilitation Carryover Projects By subdivision and by category ($ Thousands) Subdivision Category Carryover June-16 - End Metro OCTA RCTC SANBAG UPRR\PTMISEA VCTC Communication 75 - 75 - - - - Signal 175 - 175 - - - - Track 322 - 322 - - - - Olive Total 572 - 572 - - - - Communication 225 - 225 - - - - Signal 1,710 - 1,710 - - - - Signal & Communication 38 - 38 - - - - Structures 7,328 - 7,328 - - - - Track 3,967 - 3,967 - - - - Orange Total 13,268 - 13,268 - - - - Signal & Communication 117 - 117 - - - - Structures 490 - 490 - - - - Orange & Olive Total 607 - 607 - - - - Signal & Communication 62 62 - - - - - Track 1 1 - - - - - Pasadena Total 63 63 - - - - - Communication 125 - - 125 - - - Signal 790 - - 790 - - - PVL 915 - - 915 - - - Track 300 - - - 300 - - Redlands Total 300 - - - 300 - - Facilities 172 - - 172 - - - Riverside Total 172 - - 172 - - - Communication 70 - - - 70 - - Signal 396 - - - 396 - - Signal & Communication 2,344 1,406 - - 938 - - Structures 112 - - - 112 - - Track 2,226 351 - - 1,874 - - San Gabriel Total 5,148 1,758 - - 3,390 - - Signal & Communication 538 538 - - - - - Structures 109 109 - - - - - Track 317 317 - - - - - Valley Total 964 964 - - - - - Signal & Communication 892 892 - - - - - Structures 83 83 - - - - - Track 17 17 - - - - - Ventura (LA Co) Total 991 991 - - - - - Signal 245 - - - - - 245 Signal & Communication 469 - - - - - 469 Structures 1,681 - - - - - 1,681 Track 523 - - - - - 523 Ventura (Ven Co) Total 2,918 - - - - - 2,918 Signal & Communication 756 359 150 84 109 - 54 Structures 125 59 25 14 18 - 9 Track 1,928 285 119 67 87 1,327 43 River Total 2,809 704 293 165 213 1,327 107 Equipment 351 173 67 38 49 - 24 119 Facilities 1,484 707 295 165 214 - 102 IT 1,369 650 271 152 197 - 99 Mechanical 2,338 1,111 463 260 337 - 168 Other 5 4 1 0 0 - 0 Rolling Stock 1,500 - - - - 1,500 - Security 500 238 99 56 72 - 36 Signal & Communication 1,354 676 216 121 262 - 79 Track 236 112 47 26 34 - 17 Systemwide Total 9,137 3,670 1,459 818 1,166 1,500 525 Grand Total 37,863 8,148 16,199 2,070 5,069 2,827 3,550 120 ATTACHMENT "K" FY 2017-18 NEW AUTHORITY REHABILITATION PROJECTS PROJECTS BY SUBDIVISION ($Thousands) Subdivision Project Type Proposed Rehabilitation Projects All Facilities Station Signage Rehab All Facilities Customer Information System Replacement at Stations All Communication & PTC SCRRA Positive Train Control Lab Systems Support and Testing All Communication & PTC Backoffice Hardware & Software Replacement (DOC & MOC) All Communication & PTC SCRRA Production Backoffice Systems Upgrades and Testing Support All Signals Rehab AC Units All Signals Rehab Signal Maint Vehicles All Business Systems Vehicle Track Interaction All Track San Gabriel Grade Cross Rehab All Business Systems Systemwide All Communication & PTC PTC Update & Repairs All Business Systems Systemwide Rail Grinding All Vehicles MOW VEHICLE REPLACEMENT PVL Signals Grade Crossing Rehab Olive Signals Rehab Worn or Defective Cables Olive Signals Grade Crossing Rehab Olive Track Olive Sub Cross Rehab Olive Business Systems Wayside Comm Replace Olive Olive Track OLIVE CROSSTIE REHAB Orange Signals C&S Corrosion Mitigation Orange Signals Rehab Worn or Defective Cables Orange Signals Grade Crossing Rehab Orange Track Orange Sub Turnout Replace Orange Track Orange Sub Crossing Replacement Orange Structures Orange Sub Culvert Replace Orange Structures Orange Sub ROW Maint Orange Business Systems Wayside Comm Replace Orange Orange Business Systems Wayside Comm Mitigation Orange Orange Business Systems Wysde Com Replace OrangeOlive Orange Track Orange Track Rehab Pasadena Signals Grade Crossing Rehab Pasadena Signals Pole Line Rehab Pasadena Signals Grade Crossing Rehab River Signals Grade Crossing Rehab River Signals Signal System Rehab River Signals Signal System Rehab River Signals CP Dayton Signal Sys Rehab River Signals Rehab Worn or Defective Cables River Business Systems Wayside Comm Replace River River Business Systems Wayside Comm Mitigation River River Track RIVER TRACK REHAB River Track RIVER CROSSTIE REHAB River Sub - East Bank Track River East Turnout Replacement River Sub - East Bank Facilities REPLACE PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM 121 Subdivision Project Type Proposed Rehabilitation Projects San Gabriel - LA County Signals Grade Crossing Rehab San Gabriel - LA County Signals Rehab Worn or Defective Cables San Gabriel - LA County Signals Rehab Worn or Defective Cables San Gabriel - LA County Structures San Gabriel LA Sub ROW Maint San Gabriel - LA County Track San Gab Track Rehab LA San Gabriel - LA County Track SAN GAB CROSSTIE REHAB San Gabriel - SB County Signals Rehab Worn or Defective Cables San Gabriel - SB County Signals Grade Crossing Rehab San Gabriel - SB County Structures San Gabriel Bridge Replace San Gabriel - SB County Structures San Gabriel SB Sub ROW Maint San Gabriel - SB County Business Systems Wayside Comm Replace San Gab San Gabriel - SB County Track San Gab Track Rehab SB San Jacinto (PVL)Business Systems Wayside Comm Replace PVL San Jacinto (PVL)Business Systems Wayside Comm Mitigation PVL San Jacinto (PVL)Track PERRIS VALLEY TRACK REHAB Valley Track Valley Tie Rehabilitation Valley Signals Grade Crossing Rehab Valley Signals Signal System Rehab Valley Signals Rehab Worn or Defective Cables Valley Track Valley Sub Turnout Replacement Valley Track Valley Sub Cross Replacement Valley Structures Valley Brdge Desgn Constrct Valley Structures Valley Culvert Replace/Abandon Valley Structures Valley Sub Culvert Replace Valley Structures Valley Sub Row Maint Valley Business Systems Wayside Comm Replace Valley Valley Business Systems Wayside Comm Mitigation Valley Valley Business Systems Rehab Update CIS Valley Valley Track Valley Track Rehab Valley Track VALLEY CROSSTIE REHAB Valley Track TUNNEL REHAB Ventura - LA County Signals Grade Crossing Rehab Ventura - LA County Signals Signal System Rehab Ventura - LA County Track Ventura Sub Grade Cross Rehab Ventura - LA County Structures Ventura (LA) Sub ROW Maint Ventura - LA County Business Systems Wayside Comm Replace Ventura - LA Ventura - LA County Business Systems Wayside Mtigation Ventura LA Ventura - LA County Track VENTURA TRACK REHAB LA Ventura - LA County Track VENTURA CROSSTIE REHAB LA Ventura - VC County Signals Grade Crossing Rehab Ventura - VC County Signals Signal System Rehab 122 Subdivision Project Type Proposed Rehabilitation Projects Ventura - VC County Structures Ventura Sub Bridge Replace Ventura - VC County Business Systems Rehab CIS Ventura Ventura - VC County Business Systems Wayside Comm Replace Ventura Ventura - VC County Business Systems Wayside Mtgation Ventura Ven Ventura - VC County Track VENTURA TRACK REHAB VC PROPOSED FY 2017-18 REHAB BUDGET Deferred Rehab from FY17 TOTAL PROPOSED FY 2017-18 REHAB BUDGET 123 BLANK TOTAL COST LACMTA OCTA RCTC SANBAG VCTC OTHER $242 $115 $48 $27 $35 $17 $ $1,276 $606 $253 $142 $184 $92 $ $948 $450 $188 $105 $136 $68 $ $1,130 $537 $224 $125 $163 $81 $ $598 $284 $118 $66 $86 $43 $ $237 $113 $47 $26 $34 $17 $ $198 $94 $39 $22 $28 $14 $ $68 $32 $13 $7 $10 $5 $ $1,852 $880 $367 $206 $267 $133 $ $449 $213 $89 $50 $65 $32 $ $1,100 $522 $218 $122 $158 $79 $ $1,091 $518 $216 $121 $157 $79 $ $1,013 $481 $201 $112 $146 $73 $ $250 $$$250 $$$ $237 $$237 $$$$ $500 $$500 $$$$ $4,275 $$4,275 $$$$ $75 $$75 $$$$ $475 $$475 $$$$ $162 $$162 $$$$ $237 $$237 $$$$ $1,030 $$1,030 $$$$ $1,852 $$1,852 $$$$ $1,781 $$1,781 $$$$ $1,715 $$1,715 $$$$ $210 $$210 $$$$ $75 $$75 $$$$ $125 $$125 $$$$ $75 $$75 $$$$ $1,624 $$1,624 $$$$ $1,028 $1,028 $$$$$ $504 $504 $$$$$ $1,028 $1,028 $$$$$ $248 $118 $49 $28 $36 $18 $ $1,006 $478 $199 $112 $145 $72 $ $500 $238 $99 $56 $72 $36 $ $1,498 $712 $297 $166 $216 $108 $ $237 $113 $47 $26 $34 $17 $ $100 $48 $20 $11 $14 $7 $ $75 $36 $15 $8 $11 $5 $ $1,160 $551 $230 $129 $167 $84 $ $998 $474 $198 $111 $144 $72 $ $4,703 $2,234 $931 $522 $677 $339 $ $120 $57 $24 $13 $17 $9 $ 124 TOTAL COST LACMTA OCTA RCTC SANBAG VCTC OTHER $1,006 $604 $$$403 $$ $237 $142 $$$95 $$ $237 $142 $$$95 $$ $67 $40 $$$27 $$ $3,050 $1,830 $$$1,220 $$ $1,747 $1,048 $$$699 $$ $237 $142 $$$95 $$ $1,036 $622 $$$415 $$ $1,400 $840 $$$560 $$ $44 $27 $$$18 $$ $100 $60 $$$40 $$ $4,880 $2,928 $$$1,952 $$ $50 $$$50 $$$ $75 $$$75 $$$ $4,400 $$$4,400 $$$ $7,458 $7,458 $$$$$ $1,028 $1,028 $$$$$ $1,000 $1,000 $$$$$ $237 $237 $$$$$ $1,589 $1,589 $$$$$ $2,223 $2,223 $$$$$ $6,370 $6,370 $$$$$ $420 $420 $$$$$ $1,820 $1,820 $$$$$ $224 $224 $$$$$ $100 $100 $$$$$ $75 $75 $$$$$ $150 $150 $$$$$ $1,855 $1,855 $$$$$ $3,320 $3,320 $$$$$ $10,000 $10,000 $$$$$ $998 $998 $$$$$ $1,006 $1,006 $$$$$ $855 $855 $$$$$ $224 $224 $$$$$ $50 $50 $$$$$ $38 $38 $$$$$ $750 $750 $$$$$ $1,603 $1,603 $$$$$ $1,018 $$$$$1,018 $ $1,006 $$$$$1,006 $ 125 TOTAL COST LACMTA OCTA RCTC SANBAG VCTC OTHER $3,850 $$$$$3,850 $ $150 $$$$$150 $ $50 $$$$$50 $ $38 $$$$$38 $ $500 $$$$$500 $ $106,672 $64,276 $18,576 $7,089 $8,618 $8,112 $ $231,838 $77,784 $79,517 $9,999 $12,955 $22,408 $29,175 $338,509 $142,060 $98,092 $17,088 $21,573 $30,521 $29,175 126 BLANK ATTACHMENT "L" FY 2018-19 NEW AUTHORITY REHABILITATION PROJECTS PROJECTS BY SUBDIVISION ($Thousands) Subdivision Project Type Proposed Rehabilitation Projects TOTAL COST LACMTA OCTA RCTC SANBAG VCTC OTHER All Stations Station Signage Rehab $242 $115 $48 $27 $35 $17 $ All Stations Customer Information System Replacement at Stations $1,276 $606 $253 $142 $184 $92 $ All Backoffice Backoffice Hardware & Software Replacement (DOC & MOC)$1,020 $485 $202 $113 $147 $73 $ All Backoffice SCRRA Production Backoffice Systems Upgrades and Testing Support $547 $260 $108 $61 $79 $39 $ All Labratory Testing SCRRA Positive Train Control Lab Systems Support and Testing $848 $403 $168 $94 $122 $61 $ All Signals Rehab AC Units $237 $113 $47 $26 $34 $17 $ All Signals Rehab Signal Maint Vehicles $198 $94 $39 $22 $28 $14 $ All Track Vehicle Track Interaction $68 $32 $13 $7 $10 $5 $ All Business Systems Systemwide $470 $223 $93 $52 $68 $34 $ All Business Systems Wayside Com Mitigation Valley $75 $36 $15 $8 $11 $5 $ All Business Systems PTC UPDATE & REPAIRS $1,100 $522 $218 $122 $158 $79 $ Olive Signals Rehab Worn or Defective Cables $237 $$237 $$$$ Olive Grade Crossing Grade Crossing Rehab $500 $$500 $$$$ Olive Business Systems Wayside Comm Replace Olive $75 $$75 $$$$ Orange Signals C&S Corrosion Mitigation $162 $$162 $$$$ Orange Signals Rehab Worn or Defective Cables $237 $$237 $$$$ Orange Grade Crossing Grade Crossing Rehab $1,030 $$1,030 $$$$ Orange Business Systems Orange Sub Bridge Replace $9,800 $$9,800 $$$$ Orange Business Systems Wayside Comm Replace Orange $75 $$75 $$$$ Orange Business Systems Wayside Comm Mitigation Orange $125 $$125 $$$$ Orange and Olive Business Systems Wayside Replace OrangeOlive $75 $$75 $$$$ Pasadena Signals Pole Line Rehab $504 $504 $$$$$ Pasadena Grade Crossing Grade Crossing Rehab $1,028 $1,028 $$$$$ Pasadena Business Systems Pasadena Sub Bridge Replace $1,120 $1,120 $$$$$ Redlands Business Systems Redlands Sub Bridge Replace $1,750 $$$$1,750 $$ River Signals Rehab Worn or Defective Cables $237 $113 $47 $26 $34 $17 $ River Signals Signal System Rehab $1,006 $478 $199 $112 $145 $72 $ River Signals Signal System Rehab $500 $238 $99 $56 $72 $36 $ River Signals CP Dayton Signal Sys Rehab $1,498 $712 $297 $166 $216 $108 $ River Business Systems River Sub Bridge Replace $28,000 $13,300 $5,544 $3,108 $4,032 $2,016 $ River Business Systems Wayside Comm Replace River $100 $48 $20 $11 $14 $7 $ River Business Systems Wayside Comm Mitigation River $75 $36 $15 $8 $11 $5 $ River Sub - East Bank Business Systems River East Turnout Replacement $2,137 $1,015 $423 $237 $308 $154 $ San Gabriel - LA County Signals Rehab Worn or Defective Cables $237 $142 $$$95 $$ San Gabriel - LA County Grade Crossing Grade Crossing Rehab $1,006 $604 $$$403 $$ San Gabriel - LA County Business Systems San Gabriel Grade Cross Reha $2,993 $1,796 $$$1,197 $$ San Gabriel - LA County Business Systems San Gabriel LA Bridge Replace $770 $462 $$$308 $$ San Gabriel - SB County Signals Rehab Worn or Defective Cables $237 $142 $$$95 $$ San Gabriel - SB County Grade Crossing Grade Crossing Rehab $1,036 $622 $$$415 $$ San Gabriel - SB County Business Systems San Gabriel Turnout Replace $2,422 $1,453 $$$969 $$ San Gabriel - SB County Business Systems Wayside Com Mitigation San Gab $75 $45 $$$30 $$ San Jacinto (PVL)Business Systems Wayside Comm Replace PVL $50 $$$50 $$$ San Jacinto (PVL)Business Systems Wayside Comm Mitigation PVL $75 $$$75 $$$ SB Shortway Business Systems Wayside Comm Replace San Gab $100 $$$$100 $$ 127 Valley Ties Valley Tie Rehabilitation $7,458 $7,458 $$$$$ Valley Signals Rehab Worn or Defective Cables $237 $237 $$$$$ Valley Grade Crossing Grade Crossing Rehab $1,028 $1,028 $$$$$ Valley Signals Signal System Rehab $1,000 $1,000 $$$$$ Valley Business Systems Valley Sub Turnout Replacement $4,909 $4,909 $$$$$ Valley Business Systems Valley Sub Crossing Rehab $4,447 $4,447 $$$$$ Valley Business Systems Valley Sub Bridge Replace $15,260 $15,260 $$$$$ Valley Business Systems Wayside Comm Replace Valley $100 $100 $$$$$ Valley Business Systems Rehab CIS Valley $150 $150 $$$$$ Ventura - LA County Grade Crossing Grade Crossing Rehab $998 $998 $$$$$ Ventura - LA County Signals Signal System Rehab $1,006 $1,006 $$$$$ Ventura - LA County Business Systems Ventura Sub Grade Cross Rehab $2,850 $2,850 $$$$$ Ventura - LA County Business Systems Ventura LA Sub Bridge Replace $16,520 $16,520 $$$$$ Ventura - LA County Business Systems WAYSIDE COM REPLACE VENTURA $50 $50 $$$$$ Ventura - LA County Business Systems WAYSIDE COM MITIGATION VENTURA $38 $38 $$$$$ Ventura - VC County Grade Crossing Grade Crossing Rehab $1,018 $$$$$1,018 $ Ventura - VC County Signals Signal System Rehab $1,006 $$$$$1,006 $ Ventura - VC County Business Systems Ventura Sub Turnout Replace $4,909 $$$$$4,909 $ Ventura - VC County Business Systems Rehab CIS Ventura Ven $150 $$$$$150 $ Ventura - VC County Business Systems WAYSIDE COM REPLACE VENTURA $50 $$$$$50 $ Ventura - VC County Business Systems WAYSIDE COM MITIGATION VENTURA $38 $$$$$38 $ PROPOSED FY 2018-19 REHAB BUDGET $128,574 $82,794 $20,164 $4,524 $11,068 $10,024 $ DEFERRED REHAB FROM FY17 $231,838 $77,784 $79,517 $9,999 $12,955 $22,408 $29,175 $360,412 $160,578 $99,681 $14,523 $24,022 $32,433 $29,175TOTAL PROPOSED FY 2018-19 REHAB BUDGET 128 ATTACHMENT "M" FY2016-17 New Capital New Authority Projects ($ Thousands) Project Description TOTAL BUDGET LACMTA OCTA RCTC SANBAG VCTC OTHER Project Studies 1,300$ 618$ 257$ 144$ 187$ 94$ -$ TOTAL FY 2016-17 AUTHORITY FOR NEW FUNDING 1,300$ 618$ 257$ 144$ 187$ 94$ -$ PRIOR YEAR CARRYOVERS 255,128$ 33,784$ 8,389$ 5,940$ 6,574$ 3,500$ 196,943$ TOTAL FY 2016-17 AUTHORITY INCLUDING CARRYOVERS 256,428$ 34,402$ 8,646$ 6,084$ 6,761$ 3,593$ 196,943$ 129 BLANK ATTACHMENT "N" FY2016-17 New Capital Carryover Projects ($Thousands) Subdivision Category Project Total Carryover LACMTA OCTA RCTC SANBAG VCTC Lease\Other State San Gabriel & Valley Track 860892 15,708 7,000 - - - - - 8,708 San Gabriel Track 860885 345 - - - 245 - 100 - San Gabriel Track 860893 275 275 - - - - - - Valley Structures 414002 9,330 4,656 - - - - - 4,674 Valley Track and Structure 409006 5,009 - - - - - - 5,009 Systemwide IT TBD 30,488 12,985 6,857 4,822 4,024 1,800 - - Systemwide Rolling Stock Various 7,208 4,096 - - 785 - - 2,326 Systemwide Rolling Stock 613001 4,785 - - - - - - 4,785 Systemwide Rolling Stock 613003 10,050 - - - - - - 10,050 Systemwide Rolling Stock 613005 76,956 3,047 812 826 1,140 1,438 244 69,450 Systemwide Rolling Stock 613006 267 - - - - - - 267 Systemwide Rolling Stock 616001 88,162 1,250 521 292 379 190 - 85,530 Systemwide Other TBD 745 475 198 - - 72 - - Systemwide Security TBD 5,800 - - - - - - 5,800 TOTAL 255,128 33,784 8,389 5,940 6,574 3,500 344 196,599 130 BLANK ATTACHMENT "O" New Capital Projects Proposed for Future Consideration Project Type Subdivision Project Name Total Estimated Cost Candidate Funding Sources - see key below Communications All On-board Wireless Communications Network Phase I $10,164 4 Track Valley Palmdale Passing Siding $11,580 1,2,3,4 Stations Ventura - LA County Chatsworth Station Pedestrian Grade Separation $10,950 4,10, 5 Business Systems All Central Maintenance Facility West Entrance $11,699 1,2,4 Track Valley Second Main Track Between CP Humphreys and CP Lang $17,400 1,2,3,4 Structures Ventura - VC County Arroyo Simi 1st Crossing Scour Protection with Concrete Pile Collar and Debris Removal $1,120 4,7,8 Facilities SB Shortway Eastern Area Maintenance Facility Locomotive and Car Shop, Wheel TruerMachine, storage and S&I Tracks $60,181 1,2,4 Track Valley Brighton Siding Replacement $9,488 1,2,3,4 Structures Valley Verdugo Wash (8.12) Bridge Deck Replacement $1,485 4,7,8 Business Systems All Arroyo Seco (480.82) Bridge Replacement $10,462 4,7,8 PTC Systems All Interoperable Positive Train Control Rung II Non- Vital to Vital System Upgrade $10,500 4,9 Structures Valley CP Canyon Safe Access $215 4,7,8 Facilities All Purchase Hy-Rail Bucket Truck $198 4 Track San Gabriel - LA County CP Barranca to Lone Hill-Second Main Track- PSR and Environmental Clearance $1,101 1,2,4 Track San Gabriel - SB County CP Rochester to CP Nolan-Second Main Track- PSR and Environmental Clearance $1,101 1,2,4 Track San Gabriel - LA County CP Beech to CP Locust-Second Main Track-PSR and Environmental Clearance $1,690 1,2,4 Track San Gabriel - LA County CP Amar to CP Irvin-Second Main Track-PSR and Environmental Clearance $1,690 1,2,4 Facilities Orange Irvine Maintenance Facility Phase I $50,100 1,2,3,4 Business Systems All Automated Wheel and Brake Inspection $3,082 4 Business Systems All Automatic Passenger Counters $5,000 4,5,10 Communications All On-board Wireless Communications Network Phase II $9,144 Facilities SB Shortway EMF ADDITIONAL UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANKS $2,627 Rolling Stock All Refurbish 9 passenger cars for expanded service** $6,075 Communications All On-board Wireless Communications Network Phase III $9,144 Rolling Stock All Refurbish 10 passenger cars for expanded service**$6,750 $252,944 Notes: Funding Keys: 1 Federal Core Capacity 2 State Cap and Trade Transit & Intercity Rail Program 3 High Speed Rail Funding 4 Member Agency 5 State Interregional Rail Transportation Program For Future Consideration - Not Seeking Approval in the FY17 Budget - Funding Not Yet Identified ** Total cost to refurbish a passenger car is $1.35M/unit; the amount shown is 50% of the total cost as TIRCP grant is anticipated to cover the other 50%. Final allocation formula TBD Total 131 7 Federal FASTLANE 8 State Bonds 9 Federal PTC Commuter Rail 10 State Active Transportation Program 132 Exhibit 6.7 CAPITAL SUMMARY AND CASH FLOW CAPITAL BUDGET SUMMARY ALL AGENCIES ($ Thousands) FISCAL YEAR REHABILITATION PROJECTS NEW CAPITAL PROJECTS TOTAL 2016/171 $29,780 $1,300 $31,080 2017/18 $338,509 $$338,509 2018/19 $360,412 $$360,412 TOTALS $728,701 $1,300 $730,001 1. Excludes prior year budget carryover amounts 2. Assumption for budget will be that the remainder of FY17 originally submitted rehab amount will be divided equally between FY18 and FY19. ($ Thousands) BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 TOTAL 2016/2017 REHABILITATION $9,968 $18,010 $1,786 $16 $$$29,780 NEW CAPITAL $324 $649 $327 $1,300 SUBTOTAL $10,292 $18,659 $2,113 $16 $$$31,080 2017/2018 REHABILITATION $125,720 $198,763 $13,903 $123 $$338,509 NEW CAPITAL $$$ SUBTOTAL $125,720 $198,763 $13,903 $123 $$338,509 2018/2019 REHABILITATION $120,169 $193,278 $46,843 $123 $360,412 NEW CAPITAL $$ SUBTOTAL $120,169 $193,278 $46,843 $123 $360,412 TOTALS REHABILITATION $9,968 $143,731 $320,718 $207,196 $46,965 $123 $728,701 NEW CAPITAL $324 $649 $327 $$$$1,300 TOTAL PROJECTED CASH FLOW BY FISCAL YEAR $10,292 $144,380 $321,045 $207,196 $46,965 $123 $730,001 PROJECT BUDGETS BY FISCAL YEAR $31,080 $338,509 $360,412 N/A N/A N/A N/A CAPITAL BUDGET SUMMARY CONSOLIDATED CASH FLOW BY FISCAL YEAR Attachment P 133 Exhibit 6.7 LACMTA- CAPITAL SUMMARY AND CASH FLOW CAPITAL BUDGET SUMMARY LACMTA ($ Thousands) FISCAL YEAR REHABILITATION PROJECTS NEW CAPITAL PROJECTS TOTAL 2016/17 $9,991 $618 ROTEM SETTLEMENT $1,936 TOTAL 2016/17 $11,927 $618 $12,545 2017/18 $142,060 $$142,060 2018/19 $160,578 $$160,578 TOTALS $314,566 $618 $315,183 1. 17/18 AND 18/19 REHAB BUDGETS EXCLUDE ROTEM SETTLEMENT ($ Thousands) BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 TOTAL 2016/2017 REHABILITATION $2,704 $6,691 $581 $16 $9,991 ROTEM SETTLEMENT $648 $1,171 $116 $1 $1,936 NEW CAPITAL $154 $308 $155 $$618 SUBTOTAL $3,506 $8,170 $852 $17 $12,545 2017/2018 REHABILITATION $56,260 $81,095 $4,665 $41 $142,060 NEW CAPITAL $$$$$ SUBTOTAL $56,260 $81,095 $4,665 $41 $142,060 2018/2019 REHABILITATION $55,130 $79,658 $25,748 $41 $160,578 NEW CAPITAL $$$$$ SUBTOTAL $55,130 $79,658 $25,748 $41 $160,578 TOTALS REHABILITATION AND ROTEM $3,352 $64,121 $136,922 $84,340 $25,790 $41 $314,566 NEW CAPITAL $154 $308 $155 $$$$618 TOTAL PROJECTED CASH FLOW BY $3,506 $64,430 $137,077 $84,340 $25,790 $41 $315,183 PROJECT BUDGETS BY FISCAL YEAR $12,545 $142,060 $160,578 N/A N/A N/A N/A Note: EXCLUDES ROTEM SETTLEMENT AMOUNTS FOR FY 17/18 AND 18/19 CAPITAL BUDGET SUMMARY LACMTA CASH FLOW BY FISCAL YEAR Attachment P 134 Exhibit 6.7 OCTA- CAPITAL SUMMARY AND CASH FLOW CAPITAL BUDGET SUMMARY OCTA ($ Thousands) FISCAL YEAR REHABILITATION PROJECTS NEW CAPITAL PROJECTS TOTAL 2016/17 $10,214 $257 ROTEM SETTLEMENT LACMTA -$1,936 ROTEM SETTLEMENT RCTC -$500 ROTEM SETTLEMENT SANBAG -$1,000 ROTEM SETTLEMENT VCTC -$337 TOTAL 16/17 $6,441 $257 $6,698 2017/18 $98,092 $$98,092 2018/19 $99,681 $$99,681 TOTALS $204,214 $257 $204,471 1. EXCLUDES ROTEM SETTLEMENT FOR FY 17/18 AND 18/19 ($ Thousands) BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 TOTAL 2016/17 REHABILITATION $4,161 $5,806 $247 $$$10,214 ROTEM SETTLEMENT LACMTA -$648 -$1,171 -$116 -$1 $-$1,936 ROTEM SETTLEMENT RCTC -$167 -$302 -$30 $$-$500 ROTEM SETTLEMENT SANBAG -$335 -$605 -$60 -$1 $-$1,000 ROTEM SETTLEMENT VCTC -$113 -$204 -$20 $$-$337 NEW CAPITAL $64 $129 $65 $$$257 SUBTOTAL $2,962 $3,653 $85 -$2 $$6,698 2017/2018 REHABILITATION $34,547 $58,734 $4,769 $42 $98,092 NEW CAPITAL $$$$$ SUBTOTAL $34,547 $58,734 $4,769 $42 $98,092 2018/2019 REHABILITATION $32,729 $56,745 $10,164 $42 $99,681 NEW CAPITAL $$$$$ SUBTOTAL $32,729 $56,745 $10,164 $42 $99,681 TOTALS REHABILITATION NET OF ROTEM $2,898 $38,072 $91,484 $61,512 $10,206 $42 $204,214 NEW CAPITAL $64 $129 $65 $$$$257 TOTAL PROJECTED CASH FLOW BY $2,962 $38,200 $91,549 $61,512 $10,206 $42 $204,471 PROJECT BUDGETS BY FISCAL YEAR $6,698 $98,092 $99,681 N/A N/A N/A N/A Note: EXCLUDES ROTEM SETTLEMENT FOR FY 17/18 AND 18/19 CAPITAL BUDGET SUMMARY OCTA CASH FLOW BY FISCAL YEAR Attachment P 135 Exhibit 6.7 RCTC- CAPITAL SUMMARY AND CASH FLOW CAPITAL BUDGET SUMMARY RCTC ($ Thousands) FISCAL YEAR REHABILITATION PROJECTS NEW CAPITAL PROJECTS TOTAL 2016/17 $1,284 $144 ROTEM SETTLEMENT $500 TOTAL 16/17 $1,784 $144 $1,929 2017/18 $17,088 $$17,088 2018/19 $14,523 $$14,523 TOTALS $33,395 $144 $33,540 1. EXCLUDES ROTEM SETTLEMENT FOR FY 17/18 AND 18/19 ($ Thousands) BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 TOTAL 2016/2017 REHABILITATION $468 $767 $49 $1,284 ROTEM SETTLEMENT $167 $302 $30 $$500 NEW CAPITAL $36 $72 $36 $144 SUBTOTAL $672 $1,141 $115 $1,929 2017/2018 REHABILITATION $6,542 $9,941 $600 $5 $17,088 NEW CAPITAL SUBTOTAL $6,542 $9,941 $600 $5 $17,088 2018/2019 REHABILITATION $4,782 $7,960 $1,776 $5 $14,523 NEW CAPITAL SUBTOTAL $4,782 $7,960 $1,776 $5 $14,523 TOTALS REHABILITATION AND ROTEM $636 $7,611 $14,802 $8,559 $1,781 $5 $33,395 NEW CAPITAL $36 $72 $36 $$$$144 TOTAL PROJECTED CASH FLOW BY $672 $7,683 $14,839 $8,559 $1,781 $5 $33,540 PROJECT BUDGETS BY FISCAL $1,929 $17,088 $14,523 N/A N/A N/A N/A Note: EXCLUDES ROTEM SETTLEMENT FOR FY 17/18 AND 18/19 CAPITAL BUDGET SUMMARY RCTC CASH FLOW BY FISCAL YEAR Attachment P 136 Exhibit 6.7 SANBAG- CAPITAL SUMMARY AND CASH FLOW CAPITAL BUDGET SUMMARY SANBAG ($ Thousands) FISCAL YEAR REHABILITATION PROJECTS NEW CAPITAL PROJECTS TOTAL 2016/17 $1,664 $187 ROTEM SETTLEMENT $1,000 TOTAL 16/17 $2,664 $187 $2,851 2017/18 $21,573 $$21,573 2018/19 $24,022 $$24,022 TOTALS $48,260 $187 $48,447 1. EXCLUDES ROTEM SETTLEMENT FOR FY 17/18 AND 18/19 ($ Thousands) BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 TOTAL 2016/2017 REHABILITATION $526 $1,074 $63 $1,664 ROTEM SETTLEMENT $335 $605 $60 $1 $1,000 NEW CAPITAL $47 $93 $47 $187 SUBTOTAL $908 $1,772 $171 $1 $2,851 2017/2018 REHABILITATION $7,922 $12,867 $777 $7 $21,573 NEW CAPITAL $ SUBTOTAL $7,922 $12,867 $777 $7 $21,573 2018/2019 REHABILITATION $7,598 $12,722 $3,695 $7 $24,022 NEW CAPITAL $ SUBTOTAL $7,598 $12,722 $3,695 $7 $24,022 TOTALS REHABILITATION NET OF ROTEM $861 $9,601 $20,589 $13,499 $3,702 $7 $48,260 NEW CAPITAL $47 $93 $47 $$$$187 TOTAL PROJECTED CASH FLOW BY $908 $9,695 $20,636 $13,499 $3,702 $7 $48,447 PROJECT BUDGETS BY FISCAL YEAR $2,851 $21,573 $24,022 N/A N/A N/A N/A Note: EXCLUDES ROTEM SETTLEMENT FOR FY 17/18 AND 18/19 CAPITAL BUDGET SUMMARY SANBAG CASH FLOW BY FISCAL YEAR Attachment P 137 Exhibit 6.7 VCTC- CAPITAL SUMMARY AND CASH FLOW CAPITAL BUDGET SUMMARY VCTC SUMMARY ($ Thousands) FISCAL YEAR REHABILITATION PROJECTS NEW CAPITAL PROJECTS TOTAL 2016/17 $2,878 $94 ROTEM SETTLEMENT $337 TOTAL 16/17 $3,216 $94 $3,309 2017/18 $30,521 $$30,521 2018/19 $32,433 $$32,433 TOTALS $66,169 $94 $66,263 1. 17/18 AND 18/19 REHAB BUDGETS EXCLUDE ROTEM SETTLEMENT ($ Thousands) BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 TOTAL 2016/2017 REHABILITATION $864 $1,537 $478 $2,878 ROTEM SETTLEMENT $113 $204 $20 $$337 NEW CAPITAL $23 $47 $24 $94 SUBTOTAL $1,000 $1,788 $522 $3,309 2017/2018 REHABILITATION $10,683 $18,482 $1,344 $12 $30,521 NEW CAPITAL $ SUBTOTAL $10,683 $18,482 $1,344 $12 $30,521 2018/2019 REHABILITATION $10,162 $18,549 $3,710 $12 $32,433 NEW CAPITAL $ SUBTOTAL $10,162 $18,549 $3,710 $12 $32,433 TOTALS REHABILITATION AND ROTEM $976 $12,424 $29,142 $19,892 $3,722 $12 $66,170 NEW CAPITAL $23 $47 $24 $$$$94 TOTAL PROJECTED CASH FLOW BY $1,000 $12,471 $29,166 $19,892 $3,722 $12 $66,263 PROJECT BUDGETS BY FISCAL YEAR $3,309 $30,521 $32,433 N/A N/A N/A N/A Note: EXCLUDES ROTEM SETTLEMENT FOR FY 17/18 AND 18/19 CAPITAL BUDGET SUMMARY VCTC CASH FLOW BY FISCAL YEAR Attachment P 138 Exhibit 6.7 OTHER- CAPITAL SUMMARY AND CASH FLOW CAPITAL BUDGET SUMMARY OTHER SUMMARY ($ Thousands) FISCAL YEAR REHABILITATION NEW CAPITAL TOTAL 2016/17 $3,748 $$3,748 2017/18 $29,175 $$29,175 2018/19 $29,175 $$29,175 TOTALS $62,097 $$62,097 ($ Thousands) BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 TOTAL 2016/2017 REHABILITATION $1,244 $2,135 $368 $3,748 NEW CAPITAL $ SUBTOTAL $1,244 $2,135 $368 $3,748 2017/2018 REHABILITATION $9,766 $17,644 $1,750 $15 $29,175 NEW CAPITAL $ SUBTOTAL $9,766 $17,644 $1,750 $15 $29,175 2018/2019 REHABILITATION $9,766 $17,644 $1,750 $15 $61,132 NEW CAPITAL $ SUBTOTAL $9,766 $17,644 $1,750 $15 $61,132 TOTALS REHABILITATION $1,244 $11,900 $27,778 $19,394 $1,765 $15 $62,097 NEW CAPITAL $$$$$$$ TOTAL PROJECTED CASH FLOW BY FISCAL YEAR $1,244 $11,900 $27,778 $19,394 $1,765 $15 $62,097 PROJECT BUDGETS BY FISCAL YEAR $3,748 $29,175 $29,175 N/A N/A N/A N/A CAPITAL BUDGET SUMMARY OTHER CASH FLOW BY FISCAL YEAR Attachment P 139 OF 1 i I Riverside County Transportation Commission 2015/16 Operating Budget 2016/17 Operating Budget •Operating budget $243 million •Average daily ridership 42,000 (no change) •Revenue projections flat to FY16 actuals •No fare increase (Decrease on short distance) •Full Year of 91/Perris Valley Line (PVL)Costs = $6.1 million •RCTC Subsidy $17.3 million,up $2.75 million or 19 percent (Annual LTF Funding $12.4 million –Using Reserves) 2016/17 Service Plan •First Full Year 91/Perris Valley Line –Extension of six existing 91 Line trains to Perris South –Addition of six new bounce back trains Perris to Riverside to make 12 trips for that section. –Promotional Fares $10 Round Trip/10 percent Discount –Adds four new stations •Riverside Hunter Park/UCR •Moreno Valley/March Field •Perris -Downtown •Perris –South –Perris South Layover Facility Metrolink Update •Continuing Agency Reorganization –New Deputy CEO, CFO, 4 Deputy COO’s •Positive Train Control 91/PVL Line •Financial Concerns: Invoicing/Audits •20 New Locomotives Scheduled 2016-17 •Mobile Ticketing Launched •New TVMs 2017 •Friday night IEOC Angels Trains RCTC Impact •Budget proposes $17.3 million to SCRRA for operations including PVL •Unique to Riverside,RCTC subsidizes the nine Riverside County Stations at approximately $6 million a year •Continue Capital Investment $7.9 million in the network •Operating Funding is limited -utilizing reserves r ai •i ime #f11l1I:i�■ iiii�ai ^ a'i�1r11�1 1 7re iMfanessimi •ego wain Iasi knurl I - @Emma I unismilli nil ■aiiai�tr .�.���..rbs__ ___ `0 O J U i a" i k AGENDA ITEM 14 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 23, 2016 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Jillian Guizado, Management Analyst Brian Cunanan, Commuter and Motorist Assistance Manager THROUGH: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: Funding Agreement with the California Highway Patrol for Freeway Service Patrol Supervision STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 16-45-094-00 with the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to provide supervision and operation of the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program in Riverside County in an amount not to exceed $793,181; 2) Authorize the Chair, or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County FSP program is operated as a joint venture between the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), CHP, and the Commission in its capacity as the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE). The Riverside County SAFE is responsible for administering the program, and the CHP provides daily field supervision to ensure service performance. The CHP has supplemental agreements with various SAFEs statewide for overtime and/or additional personnel. Since 2001, the Commission has executed agreements with CHP due to the limited personnel and nature of the FSP program. In addition to field supervision during FSP operating hours (5:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. [12:30 p.m. on Fridays] to 6:30 p.m.), there are services performed between operating hours that support the program, therefore requiring CHP officers to work overtime. Below is a sample of the services performed by FSP CHP officers: In-field Supervisory Services Provided During FSP Operating Hours (not exhaustive): • Provide in-field, on scene, program supervision; • Provide on-the-spot decisions regarding incidents occurring in the field; • Enforce program rules and guidelines through in-field supervision; • Conduct all investigations with regard to equipment, personnel, damage, and complaints; Agenda Item 14 140 • Inspect tow trucks for regulatory compliance; • Serve as a FSP liaison between agencies, such as with other CHP personnel, Caltrans, cities, counties, etc.; and • Be available to the public for FSP concerns, questions, comments, complaints. Administrative Supervisory Services Provided During Non-FSP Hours (not exhaustive): • Initiate background checks and conduct testing, fingerprinting, and certifications for new FSP drivers; • Prepare training class materials (binders and maps); • Conduct training classes; • Track extra truck time, fines, penalties, and certificates (driver license, DL64, medical cards, and motor carrier permits); • Prepare monthly billing; • Maintain the standard operating procedures manual; • Maintain drop point maps to include changing local regulations; • Monitor the automatic vehicle locator system, tablets, radios, and other electronic FSP equipment; • Maintain required field-ready equipment such as backup tablets, radios, safety vests, and magnetic signs; • Participate in the RFP process for new contractors; • Maintain driver files and records for all FSP drivers; • Track FSP drivers’ tenure and performance with regard to driver recognition and awards; and • Attend and occasionally host various FSP-related required meetings and trainings (Technical Advisory Committee and quarterly drivers’ meetings). DISCUSSION: At its February 2013 meeting, the Commission approved an agreement with the CHP for overtime supervision and operation of the FSP program in an amount not to exceed $522,515 over a three-year term. At its November 2013 meeting, the Commission approved an amendment to the agreement for an additional amount of $1,107,203, and a total amount not to exceed $1,629,718 in anticipation of the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (91 Project) commencing in 2014 and requiring construction FSP services. The current agreement expires on June 30, 2016, and staff is seeking approval for a new agreement with CHP for another three-year term. This agreement will initially consist of the following elements: 91 Project construction FSP officer overtime hours, 91 Project construction FSP dispatch overtime hours, general officer overtime hours, and funding for one-half of a full-time equivalent CHP officer position. SANBAG’s current agreement with CHP, which includes funding for the other half of a full-time equivalent, has another two fiscal years remaining before it expires. Staff coordinated with the CHP to develop an estimate for the incremental CHP time and corresponding costs needed to support general overtime and overtime needed to support construction projects. The agreement provides for a maximum of 5,519 overtime hours for Agenda Item 14 141 Fiscal Year 2016/17, 1,352 overtime hours for FY 2017/18, and 1,023 overtime hours for FY 2018/19 at a statewide rate determined each fiscal year by CHP headquarters. The current rates are $76.76 per hour for officers and $39.71 per hour for dispatchers. The total amount of the agreement for both regular FSP overtime and construction FSP overtime shall not exceed $793,181. In the event CHP headquarters grants a rate increase, the Commission is required to reimburse the CHP at the new hourly rate, but in no event shall the total amount exceed the maximum contract amount. Below is a breakdown of the estimated hours and costs by fiscal year: FY 2016/17 = $420,544 One half of a full-time officer position ($94,644) 983 hours officer overtime for the regular FSP program ($75,455) 1,898 hours officer overtime for SR-91 CIP construction FSP ($145,690) 2,638 hours dispatch overtime for SR-91 CIP construction FSP ($104,755) FY 2017/18 = $193,704 One half of a full-time officer position ($97,483) 1,003 hours officer overtime for the regular FSP program ($76,990) 145 hours officer overtime for SR-91 CIP construction FSP ($11,130) 204 hours dispatch overtime for SR-91 CIP construction FSP ($8,101) FY 2018/19 = $178,933 One half of a full-time officer position ($100,408) 1,023 hours Officer Overtime for the regular FSP program ($78,525) The funding agreement provides for the reimbursement from the Commission to the CHP of those reasonable overtime expenses necessary to support the FSP program and FSP service supporting the 91 Project. An Inland CHP Lieutenant Commander provides direct supervision of the dedicated FSP officers and reviews and approves their reimbursed overtime expenses. Auditing of these reimbursable expenses is performed both at the local CHP division level and at the state level by the FSP liaison contracts unit. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18+ Amount: $420,544 $372,637 Source of Funds: SAFE Budget Adjustment: No N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 201 45 81016 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 05/12/2016 Attachment: Agreement No. 16-45-094-00 Agenda Item 14 142 STATE OF CALIFORNIA STANDARD AGREEMENT STD 213 (Rev 06/03) AGREEMENT NUMBER CHP# 16R061001 RCTC # 16-45-094-00 REGISTRATION NUMBER 1. This Agreement is entered into between the State Agency and the Contractor named below: Department of California Highway Patrol Riverside County Transportation Commission 2. The term of this 07/01/2016 through 06/30/2019 Agreement is: 3. The maximum amount $793,181.00. of this Agreement is: (Seven Hundred Ninety-Three Thousand One Hundred Eighty-One Dollars and Zero Cents) 4. The parties agree to comply with the terms and conditions of the following exhibits which are by this reference made a part of the Agreement. Exhibit A – Agreement Between State of California and Riverside County Transportation 9 pages Exhibit C* – General Terms and Conditions (with exclusion of item #4 “Audit”, #5, “Indemnification”, #6 “Disputes”, #7 “Termination for Cause”, #9 “Recycling”, #11 “Certification clauses”, #13 “Compensation”, #15 “Antitrust Claims”, #16 “Child Support Compliance”, #18 “Priority Hiring Considerations”, and #19 “Small Business Participation and DVBE Participation Reporting Requirements.”) GTC 610 6/9/10 Signatures appear on page 9 of Exhibit A. Items shown with an Asterisk (*), are hereby incorporated by reference and made part of this agreement as if attached hereto. These documents can be viewed at www.dgs.ca.gov/ols/Resources/StandardContractLanguage.aspx IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties hereto. CONTRACTOR California Department of General Services Use Only CONTRACTOR’S NAME (if other than an individual, state whether a corporation, partnership, etc.) Riverside County Transportation Commission BY (Authorized Signature) See page 9 for signatures DATE SIGNED(Do not type) PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING See page 9 ADDRESS P.O. Box 1208, Riverside, CA 92502-2208 STATE OF CALIFORNIA AGENCY NAME Department of California Highway Patrol BY (Authorized Signature) See page 9 for signatures DATE SIGNED(Do not type) PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING : P. SLINEY, Assistant Chief, Administrative Services Division ADDRESS P.O. Box 942898, Sacramento, CA 94298-0001 143 RCTC Agreement # 16-45-094-00 CHP#16R061001 Exhibit A, Page 1 of 9 AGREEMENT BETWEEN STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL THIS AGREEMENT is between the State of California acting by and through Department of California Highway Patrol (hereinafter referred to as CHP) P.O. Box 942898, Sacramento, California 94298-001 and Riverside County Transportation Commission, acting in its capacity as the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (hereinafter referred to as RCTC) P.O. Box 12008, Riverside, CA 92502-2208. Collectively, CHP and RCTC may be referred to as the “Parties.” ARTICLE 1. GENERAL INFORMATION A. This Agreement provides for CHP dispatch services and overtime supervisory assistance in connection with the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program in Riverside County. Streets and Highways Code Section 2561, subdivision (c) defines “freeway service patrol” as a “program managed by the Department of the California Highway Patrol, the [California Department of Transportation] and a regional or local entity which provides emergency roadside assistance on a freeway in an urban area.” B. Section 2401 of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) states that the Commissioner of CHP shall make adequate provisions for patrol of the highways at all times of the day and night. C. RCTC has the ability to provide local matching funds as required by the State Budget Change Proposal (BCP) for FSPs on freeways within Riverside County, which has qualified the county to participate in the State FSP program. Riverside County FSP 144 RCTC Agreement # 16-45-094-00 CHP#16R061001 Exhibit A, Page 2 of 9 will assist in transportation system management efforts, provide traffic congestions relief, and expedite the removal of freeway impediments, all of which will have the added benefit of improving air quality. ARTICLE 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. Riverside County’s FSP program is intended to be funded with revenues derived from Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) and State Budget Change Proposal funds, known as BCP for the day-to-day contractor operation. RCTC is currently only provided 1.5 officers to provide oversight for the program in accordance with funding available for the statewide FSP program. With ongoing additions and turnover of FSP program drivers, the provision of additional driver training and required certification classes by CHP are a necessity in order for RCTC’s tow contractors to maintain their contractual obligation of having only certified FSP drivers perform FSP services. With only 1.5 officers, it is difficult to provide classes as well as all other duties the officers are responsible for within regular duty hours. Therefore, it is necessary to fund a half-time officer position and CHP overtime for FSP program oversight assistance, incident investigations, administrative duties, and other field duties as required to maintain operational safety and code compliance. B. Should this Agreement be terminated under paragraph D, RCTC agrees to provide funding to reimburse CHP for those reasonable and allowable costs incurred and associated with the program overtime and administrative duties as defined in this Agreement up to the point of termination. C. The term of this Agreement shall be effective July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2019. D. The CHP and RCTC mutually agree that either party may terminate this Agreement upon sixty (60) days prior written notice to the other party. E. The CHP and RCTC agree that this Agreement may be amended by mutual written consent of both parties hereto. 145 RCTC Agreement # 16-45-094-00 CHP#16R061001 Exhibit A, Page 3 of 9 F. RCTC agrees to reimburse CHP for actual costs incurred for FSP related duties performed by CHP officers (“Officers”), in accordance with the following schedule: i. For Regular FSP Program: 1) Approximately 983 hours of available Officer overtime during fiscal year 2016/2017, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $76.76 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $75,455.00 for FY 2016/2017. 2) Approximately 1,003 hours of available Officer overtime during fiscal year 2017/2018, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $76.76 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $76,990.00 for FY 2017/2018. 3) Approximately 1,023 hours of available Officer overtime during fiscal year 2018/2019, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $76.76 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $78,525.00 for FY 2018/2019. ii. For RC SAFE/ 91 CIP Construction FSP: (1) Approximately 1,898 hours of available Officer overtime during fiscal year 2016/2017, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $76.76 per hours for an annual estimated amount of $145,690.00 for FY 2016/2017. (2) Approximately 2,638 hours of available Dispatcher overtime during fiscal year 2016/2017, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $39.71 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $104,755.00 for FY 2016/2017. (3) Approximately 145 hours of available Officer overtime during fiscal year 2017/2018, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $76.76 per hours for an annual estimated amount of $11130.00 for FY 2017/2018. (4) Approximately 204 hours of available Dispatcher overtime during fiscal year 2017/2018, reimbursed at an estimated rate of $39.71 per hour for an annual estimated amount of $8,101.00 for FY 2017/2018. 146 RCTC Agreement # 16-45-094-00 CHP#16R061001 Exhibit A, Page 4 of 9 iii. RCTC Funding of ½ CHP Officer: (1) RCTC agrees to reimburse CHP for one-half of a full time Officer position for the remainder of the Agreement term at estimated annual amounts of $94,644.00 for fiscal year 2016/2017, $97,483.00 for fiscal Year 2017/2018 and $100,408.00 for fiscal year 2018/2019. iv. Use of Funds; Total Not to Exceed Contract Value. Amounts Payable to the CHP by RCTC for costs incurred pursuant to this Agreement may be utilized over several fiscal years, and need not be utilized in a single fiscal year by the CHP, so long as the total amount payable under this Agreement is not exceeded. It is understood by both parties that rate increases in salary and benefits are governed by collective bargaining agreements and/or statute and that no advance written notification is necessary prior to implementing the increased rates. In the event CHP is granted a rate increase, RCTC agrees to reimburse CHP at the new hourly rate, but in no event shall the total amount to be reimbursed by RCTC under this Agreement, for any of the services described herein, exceed the maximum contract amount of $793,181.00. Fiscal Year begins July 1 and ends on June 30. G. The CHP shall invoice monthly. RCTC agrees to pay CHP within thirty (30) days after the invoice is received. The CHP and RCTC agree that any notice required under this Agreement shall be delivered or mailed to the persons designated below: To CHP: To COMMISSION: California Highway Patrol Riverside County Transportation Commission Research and Planning Section P.O. Box 12008 P.O. Box 942898 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Sacramento, CA 94298-0001 ATTENTION: Lori Gong ATTENTION: Brian Cunanan Statewide FSP Manager Program Manager (916) 843-3353 (951) 787-7141 147 RCTC Agreement # 16-45-094-00 CHP#16R061001 Exhibit A, Page 5 of 9 ARTICLE 3. COMMISSION RESPONSIBILITIES A. RCTC shall reimburse CHP for those reasonable overtime expenses necessary to support the Riverside County FSP operations as outlined under Article 2, Terms and Conditions, Paragraph F. B. It is agreed that in the event State FSP funds do not become available to RCTC for this Agreement, RCTC may immediately terminate this Agreement with written notice, but shall pay the CHP from other sources any amounts required to cover CHP’s cost to the date of Agreement termination. ARTICLE 4. CHP RESPONSIBILITIES A. The CHP has already assigned and staffed, for the dedicated purpose of operating the Riverside County FSP, one and one half (1.5) full-time officers for the dedicated purpose of assisting with Riverside County FSP operations. If the CHP cannot provide the Agreement’s specified staffing level, CHP agrees to notify RCTC within thirty (30) days. B. All personnel providing services shall be State employees under the sole discretion, supervision, and regulation of CHP. Said personnel shall work out of the appropriate CHP facilities as designated by CHP. At no time shall any State employee assigned to the Riverside County FSP program be considered employees, agents, officials, or volunteers of RCTC. ARTICLE 5. CHP OVERTIME CHP overtime duties may include, but not be limited to: A. Investigating complaints from the public regarding a Riverside County FSP contractor or driver. 148 RCTC Agreement # 16-45-094-00 CHP#16R061001 Exhibit A, Page 6 of 9 B. Performing all necessary driver license and background checks on all Riverside County FSP operators. C. Inspecting all Riverside County FSP contractor tow trucks on a periodic basis. D. Performing necessary daily FSP oversight and program management, and providing oversight of the contractors’ compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements. E. Providing training to all Riverside County FSP contractors and operators. F. Assisting RCTC with verifying contractor billing. G. Provide representation for Riverside County FSP Technical Committee. ARTICLE 6. INDEMNIFICATION A. To the extent permitted by law, RCTC shall defend, indemnify, and save harmless CHP and all of CHP’s appointees, officers, and employees from and against any and all claims, suits, or actions for “injury” (as defined by Government Code section 810.8) caused by the negligent or intentional acts or omissions of RCTC, or RCTC’s officers, directors, and employees, arising out of the performance of this Agreement. B. To the extent permitted by law, CHP shall defend, indemnify, and save harmless RCTC and all of RCTC’s officers, directors, and employees from and against any and all claims, suits, or actions for “injury” (as defined by Government Code section 810.8) caused by the negligent or intentional acts or omissions of CHP, or CHP’s appointees, officers, or employees, arising out of the performance of this Agreement. C. Neither termination of this Agreement nor completion of the acts to be performed under this Agreement shall release any party from its obligation to indemnify as to any claims or cause of action asserted so long as the event(s) upon which such claim or cause of action is predicated shall have occurred subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement and prior to the effective date of Termination or completion. 149 RCTC Agreement # 16-45-094-00 CHP#16R061001 Exhibit A, Page 7 of 9 ARTICLE 7. AUDITS The contracting parties hereto shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State for a period of three (3) years after final payment under the contract. In addition, RCTC and CHP may be subject to the examination and audit by representatives of either party. The examination and audit shall be confined to those matters connected with the performance of the contract including, but not limited to the costs of administering the contract. RCTC and CHP agree to allow the auditor(s) access to such records during normal business hours and to allow interviews of any employees who might reasonably have information related to such records (Gov. Code Sect. 8546.7, Pub. Contract Code Sect. 10115 et seq., CCR Title 2, Section 1896). RCTC and CHP agree to maintain such records for possible audit for a minimum of three (3) years after final payment. ARTICLE 8. DISPUTES Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under this Agreement which is not disposed of by mutual agreement of the parties may be submitted to an independent arbitrator mutually agreed upon by the CHP and RCTC. The arbitrator’s decisions shall be non-binding and advisory only, and nothing herein shall preclude either party, at any time, from pursuing any other legally available course of action, including the filing of a lawsuit. Pending a final decision of a dispute hereunder, both parties shall proceed diligently with the performance of their duties under this Agreement, and such continued performance of their duties under this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any rights, legal or equitable, of either party relating to the dispute. ARTICLE 9. RESOLUTION RCTC agrees to provide CHP with a resolution, motion, order or ordinance of the governing body, approving execution of agreements with CHP, and identifying the individual who is authorized to sign the Agreement on behalf of RCTC. 150 RCTC Agreement # 16-45-094-00 CHP#16R061001 Exhibit A, Page 8 of 9 ARTICLE 10. OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. By and in consideration of the covenants and conditions contained herein, CHP and RCTC do hereby agree as follows: i. This Agreement, and any attachments or documents incorporated herein by inclusion or reference, constitutes the complete and entire Agreement between CHP and RCTC and supersedes any prior representations, understandings, communications, commitments, Agreements or proposals, oral or written. ii. This Agreement shall not become effective until: 1) Duly signed by both parties and approved by the Department of General Services Office of Legal Services, if applicable. 2) RCTC has submitted to CHP a copy of the resolution, policy, order, motion, or ordinance from RCTC approving execution of the Agreement and identifying the individual authorized to sign on behalf of RCTC. This space is intentionally left blank. 151 RCTC Agreement # 16-45-094-00 CHP#16R061001 Exhibit A, Page 9 of 9 This Agreement is entered into by the parties listed below and shall be effective upon approval by the Department of General Services Office of Legal Services, if applicable. By executing this Agreement, the representatives of CHP and RCTC warrant that they have viewed and fully understand all provisions of this Agreement, and are authorized to bind their respective agencies to all terms of the Agreement’s provisions. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of California Highway Patrol RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION P. SLINEY, Assistant Chief Administrative Services Division Scott Matas Chair Date Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: Best, Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel Date 152 BLANK AGENDA ITEM 15 BLANK RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 23, 2016 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Jillian Guizado, Management Analyst Brian Cunanan, Commuter and Motorist Assistance Manager THROUGH: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: Amendment to Freeway Service Patrol Agreement STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 11-45-053-05, Amendment No. 4 to Agreement No. 11-45-053-00, with Tri-City Towing, Inc. (Tri-City) to provide Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) services on Beat No. 7 for an additional amount of $60,000, and a total amount not to exceed $1,110,000; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its May 2011 meeting, the Commission awarded Agreement No. 11-45-053-00 to Tri-City for operation of two primary tow trucks on Beat No. 2 of the Commission’s Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program in an amount not to exceed $950,000. The agreement awarded was for a three- year term and two one-year options. In addition to exercising the option years, the agreement was also amended in August 2011, to add additional FSP service, on a temporary basis, for Beat No. 8 in the amount of $100,000 and, in August 2015, to change the beat specifications from Beat No. 2 to Beat No. 7. DISCUSSION: The existing agreement with Tri-City for FSP services on Beat No. 7 expires on July 31, 2016. Another existing FSP agreement on a parallel service area, Beat No. 4, is set to expire five months later on January 2, 2017. It is in the Commission’s best interest to procure service on multiple FSP beats at one time in order to maximize staff time and outreach to prospective bidders. For those reasons, in recent years staff has worked toward grouping FSP procurements whenever possible. Therefore, in order to release one request for proposals for FSP services on both Beat Nos. 4 and 7, staff recommends amending Agreement No. 11-45-053-00 with Tri City to extend the term of the agreement through January 2, 2017, and to Agenda Item 15 153 add additional compensation in the amount of $60,000, for a total amount not to exceed $1,110,000. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2016/17 Amount: $60,000 Source of Funds: State of California, SAFE DMV Fees Budget Adjustment: No GL/Project Accounting No.: 002173 81014 00000 0000 201 45 81014 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 05/12/2016 Attachment: Tri-City Agreement No. 11-45-053-05 (Draft) Agenda Item 15 154 Agreement No. 11-45-053-05 AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO AGREEMENT FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL SERVICES FOR BEAT NO. 7 WITH TRI-CITY TOWING, INC. 1. PARTIES AND DATE This Amendment No. 4 is made and entered into as of this ______ day of ___________, 2016, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (“Commission”) acting in its capacity as the RIVERSIDE SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES (“SAFE’), a public entity, and TRI-CITY TOWING, INC., a California corporation ("Contractor"). 2. RECITALS 2.1 SAFE and the Contractor have entered into an agreement dated June 16, 2011 for the provision of freeway service patrol services for Beat No. 2 within Riverside County on behalf of SAFE (the "Master Agreement"). 2.2 SAFE and the Contractor entered into an Amendment No. 1 to the Master Agreement, dated August 1, 2011, to provide additional freeway service patrol services, on a temporary basis, for Beat No. 8 and provide additional compensation for the added services. 2.3 SAFE and the Contractor entered into an Amendment No. 2 to the Master Agreement, dated May 20, 2014, to extend the term of the Master Agreement. 2.4 SAFE and the Contractor entered into an Amendment No. 3 to the Master Agreement, dated July 6, 2015, to extend the term of the Master Agreement. 2.5 SAFE has issued Contract Change Order No. 1, effective as of August 1, 2015, to change the beat specifications from Beat No. 2 to Beat No. 7(“CCO 1). 2.6 SAFE and the Contractor now desire to amend the Master Agreement in order to extend the term of the Master Agreement and provide additional compensation for the continued provision of freeway service patrol services. 3. TERMS 155 2 3.1 The term of the Master Agreement shall be extended for an additional term of five (5) months ending on January 2, 2017, unless earlier terminated as provided in the Master Agreement. 3.2 The maximum compensation for Services performed pursuant to this Amendment shall be Sixty Thousand ($60,000). Work shall be performed at the rates set forth in the Master Agreement. 3.3 The total not-to-exceed amount of the Master Agreement, as amended by this Amendment No. 4, shall be increased from One Million Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,050,000) to One Million One Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($1,110,000). 3.4 Freeway service patrol services shall be performed and provided pursuant to the Master Agreement, as previously amended. 3.5 Except as amended by this Amendment, all provisions of the Master Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 1, 2 and 3, including without limitation the indemnity and insurance provisions, shall remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties under this Amendment. [Signatures on following page] 156 3 SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT NO. 11-45-053-05 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the date first herein above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRI-CITY TOWING, INC., a TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION California corporation ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES By: _____________________________ By: _________________________ Scott Matas, Chair Signature __________________________ Name __________________________ Title APPROVED AS TO FORM: Attest: By: _____________________________ By: ________________________ Best Best & Krieger LLP Its: Secretary Counsel to the Riverside County Transportation Commission * A corporation requires the signatures of two corporate officers. One signature shall be that of the chairman of board, the president or any vice president and the second signature (on the attest line) shall be that of the secretary, any assistant secretary, the chief financial officer or any assistant treasurer of such corporation. If the above persons are not the intended signators, evidence of signature authority shall be provided to the Commission. 157 BLANK AGENDA ITEM 16 BLANK RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 23, 2016 TO: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee FROM: Jillian Guizado, Management Analyst Brian Cunanan, Commuter and Motorist Assistance Manager THROUGH: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2016/17 Measure A Commuter Assistance Buspool Subsidy Funding Continuation Requests STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Authorize payment of $1,645/month maximum subsidy per buspool for the period July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017, to the existing Riverside, Riverside II, and Mira Loma buspools; 2) Require subsidy recipients to meet monthly buspool reporting requirements as supporting documentation to receive payments; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As part of the Measure A Commuter Assistance Program, the Commission provides funding support to buspools used by Riverside County residents for their commutes along the State Route 91 corridor. The Commission adopted the Measure A buspool subsidy in October 1990 and established a monthly subsidy rate of $1,175 or $25/seat/month in support of commuter buspool operations. In July 2004, the Commission set the subsidy rate at $35/seat/month ($1,645/month) to help offset increases to operational costs during the previous 14 years. To provide additional guidance, the Commission also established a minimum buspool ridership policy in June 1995. The policy requires staff to report to the Commission when a buspool’s ridership falls to 25 or below and to seek direction regarding the continuation of the buspool’s subsidy. DISCUSSION: Like all commuter assistance incentives provided by the Commission to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation, the $35/seat/month subsidy is administered as a user end subsidy. The Commission’s subsidy is an important factor that makes buspools an attractive alternative for these commuters with roundtrip commutes in excess of 100 miles. Also, the Commission’s subsidy remains cost-effective compared to the typical public transit subsidy rate Agenda Item 16 158 of 80 percent. While the monthly cost of each buspool varies according to the number of route miles and the resulting negotiated service price, the Commission’s monthly subsidy reflects a subsidy rate of 11 percent. Average Monthly Buspool Fare Per Rider RCTC Subsidy Per Seat Subsidy Rate $307 $35 11% Unlike some of the other Commission-approved ridesharing incentives that have a limited term, the buspool subsidy is ongoing. To renew its annual subsidy, an existing buspool is required to: • Request in writing, continuation of funding from the Commission for the new fiscal year; • Consistently meet minimum ridership requirements; and • Submit monthly ridership reports throughout the year. The three existing buspools have completed all the requirements for funding as set forth by the Commission, including the submittal of monthly ridership reports and annual funding continuation requests. They have consistently met the minimum ridership level of 25 riders per month and have collectively averaged 27 riders/month/buspool. The traffic and environmental benefits realized in Fiscal Year 2015/16 by offering this subsidy are illustrated below: Buspools Average Riders/Month Roundtrip Distance Annual Miles Saved Annual One-Way Trips Reduced Mira Loma 29 ~120 mi 873,840 14,564 Riverside 27 ~144 mi 1,004,256 13,948 Riverside II 25 ~200 mi 1,284,800 12,848 Estimated Pounds of Emissions Reduced 29,768 Miles Saved 3,162,896 Trips Reduced 41,360 In reducing the number of vehicles on SR-91 during peak periods, the buspool program saved more than 3.1 million miles and 29,768 pounds of vehicle emissions in FY 2015/16. The buspool subsidy is funded by Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds and a budget of $80,000 is proposed for FY 2016/17. Based on the established monthly $1,645/month per buspool subsidy policy, the funds will support the continuation of the three existing buspools through FY 2016/17. It should be noted that in the interest of exploring Commuter Assistance Program cost efficiencies, staff has started to explore the potential to transition this program into a vanpool incentive. Staff will continue to review this and will report back to the Commission at a later date as more information becomes available. Agenda Item 16 159 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2016/17 Amount: $80,000 Source of Funds: CMAQ Budget Adjustment: No GL/Project Accounting No.: 002109 81030 263 41 81002 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 05/12/2016 Attachments: 1) Riverside Renewal Request 2) Riverside II Renewal Request 3) Mira Loma Renewal Request Agenda Item 16 160 BLANK ATTACHMENT 1161 BLANK ATTACHMENT 2162 BLANK ATTACHMENT 3 163