Beaumont City Council
January 18, 2022

1. INTRODUCTION
The RCTC Truck Study and Development and Implementation of Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee is intended to verify the anticipated rate of growth in warehousing and logistics-related development in Riverside County, and to quantify the associated level of traffic impacts on the Riverside County highway system as a result of the expected growth in warehousing and logistics activities. In quantifying impacts, the study is also intended to determine the amount that each new warehousing or logistics development should pay in lieu of completing actual freeway improvements to mitigate the cumulative regional traffic impacts specifically associated with truck trips generated by new warehousing and logistics developments. The findings of this study are intended to provide the basis for potentially implementing a program to collect impact fees that will contribute to mitigating the truck traffic impacts associated with new warehousing and logistics developments in Riverside County. Such a program can help to ensure that all new logistics-related development approved in Riverside County will bear a proportional fair share of the cost of building transportation infrastructure to address future transportation needs.

This technical memorandum represents the first in a series of documents that will verify the rate of new warehousing and logistics related developments in Riverside County, the associated truck trip generation rates and cumulative regional traffic impacts, the cost to mitigate these impacts, and the fair share basis for collecting a potential fee. In this document, the existing conditions of the warehousing industry and truck travel patterns in Riverside County were reviewed for five primary activities:

1) Creating an inventory of existing warehouse-related land uses 2) Developing a projection of future warehouse-related land use (2040) 3) Analyzing a range of potential trip generation rates to apply in calculating fees 4) Tabulating existing truck volumes on major roadways
5) Generating information regarding truck origins/destinations

This document also presents the results of existing and future baseline model runs to help quantify existing and future conditions on the Riverside County highway system.

The objective of this technical memorandum is to provide the reader with an understanding of the various warehousing-related trucking activities, the historic trends of these types of activities, and the anticipated future of this industry in Riverside County. With this information as a basis, subsequent study tasks will quantify specific truck-related 272
577
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

infrastructure needs associated with growth in warehousing-related uses, and the potential for an impact fee to address these needs. The inventory and verification of available data sources as presented in this technical memorandum is ultimately intended to demonstrate the adequacy of these data to support the technical evaluation efforts to be undertaken in subsequent tasks. In particular, the review of existing conditions data sources provides the ability to verify the following specific aspects of the data related to the needs of subsequent evaluation tasks:

 The available data provides appropriate levels of disaggregation for warehouse- related land uses to match the level of confidence in trip generation rates and forecasted growth in development
 Trip generation rates are available to be applied for the purpose of identifying the fair share of trips attributable to warehousing and logistics development activities  The data provides the ability to define necessary adjustments in the forecasting model to match measured truck volumes and Origin-Destination (O-D) patterns

It should be noted that the contents of this document are technical and detailed in nature, and are presented with the primary purpose of providing a transparent assessment of available data sources to support the determination of a fee representing the fair share to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of designated new developments. Unlike other types of transportation studies, where the assessment of underlying data sources and determination of assumptions might be conducted at a technical staff level, and only the methodology used and associated findings are presented in the study documentation, impact fee studies necessitate a more transparent approach to considering data sources and determining assumptions. For this reason, this technical memorandum effectively provides an additional level of background information presenting a more detailed consideration of the range of data sources available to support the evaluation to be conducted in subsequent tasks. In short, this technical memorandum is intended to describe what data sources are available and appropriate to support subsequent study tasks, with the specific assumptions and methodology to complete those tasks described in subsequent Technical Memoranda.

273
578
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

2. EXISTING LAND USE INVENTORY
Data from the County Business Patterns1 (CBP), Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and Infogroup provide alternative means to identify land uses related to warehousing. These datasets use different systems to classify industries; the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC). The U.S. Census Bureau uses the NAICS structure. Similarly, SCAG uses the NAICS structure as the basis for developing regional employment forecasts as part of its long range planning responsibilities. While the SIC has generally been replaced by NAICS, several data vendors are still using SIC-based data. The establishment data used for this study was purchased from Infogroup which uses SIC codes.

The NAICS applies a 6-digit hierarchical coding system to classify all economic activity into 20 industry sectors. Five sectors are mainly goods-producing sectors and 15 are entirely services- producing sectors. The SIC system is a 4-digit classification system. As would be expected, the 6-digit NAICS hierarchical structure allows greater coding flexibility than the 4-digit structure of the SIC system.

Each establishment has a primary NAICS/SIC code. This number indicates a company’s primary line of business. What determines a company’s primary SIC code is the code definition that generates the highest revenue for that company at a specific location in the past year.

Warehousing is identified with a specific code in both the NAICS and SIC systems. However, many other classification codes, such as wholesaling and manufacturing, involve significant amount of warehousing activities. Therefore every establishment usually defines their activity with a secondary NAICS/SIC code as well. Infogroup verify the establishments’ primary and secondary codes regularly through their survey. In this study, both the primary and the secondary warehousing uses were investigated to have a complete understanding of warehousing activities in Riverside County.

2.1. COUNTY BUSINESS PATTERNS (CBP)
Table 1 shows selected categories of NAICS, which are identified as primary or secondary warehousing uses. Although CBP data covers all establishments, it is only available at the county level.

1 County Business Patterns is an annual series of reports by the U.S. Census Bureau that provides subnational economic data by industry. This series includes the number of establishments, employment during the week of March 12, first quarter payroll, and annual payroll. 274
579
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

Table 1. Description of Selected NAICS Categories
Industry Code Brief Description
31-33
(Manufacturing)
Establishments engaged in the mechanical, physical, or chemical transformation of materials, substances, or components into new products. Assembling of component parts of manufactured products is considered manufacturing, except in cases where the activity is appropriately classified as Construction. (Example: Food Manufacturing, Textile Product Mills, Apparel Manufacturing, Wood Product Manufacturing, Chemical Manufacturing.) 42 (Wholesale Trade)
Establishments engaged in wholesaling merchandise, generally without transformation, and rendering services incidental to the sale of merchandise. Includes the outputs of agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and certain information industries, such as publishing. (Example:, Furniture and Home Furnishing Merchant Wholesalers, Household Appliances and Electrical and Electronic Goods Merchant Wholesalers.) 48-49
(Transportation &
Warehousing)
Industries providing transportation of passengers and cargo, warehousing and storage for goods, scenic and sightseeing transportation, and support activities related to modes of transportation. Establishments in these industries use transportation equipment or transportation related facilities as a productive asset. Modes of transportation include air, rail, water, road, and pipeline. (Example: Freight Trucking Companies, Warehousing and Storage, Couriers and Delivery Services.)
Source: North American Industry Classification System United States, Executive Office of the President Office of Management And Budget, 2017

There is no readily available information to separate the warehousing activity into establishments primarily registered as manufacturing or wholesale under the CBP database.

Since this data is only available at the county level, it is not possible to make a detailed analysis. The historic comparison at the county level can only provide a high-level insight as a basis for comparison to support verification and validation of other data sources.

Figure 1 through 3 are a series of graphs detailing both the number of establishments and the number of employees for the uses identified in Table 1 in Riverside County between 2005 and 2015 based on CBP data and categorized by NAICS sectors. The number of manufacturing establishments and employees declined in Riverside County during the 2008 to 2012 recession.

Although they have rebounded somewhat, they have not yet returned to their pre-recession levels (see Figure 1). In contrast, Transportation & Warehousing employment rose more than 50% during the 2005 to 2015 period (see Figure 2). Wholesale Trade increased modestly over the same period (see Figure 3).

275
580
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

MANUFACTURING
Figure 1. Manufacturing Establishments and Employment in Riverside County, 2005- 2015

TRANSPORTATION & WAREHOUSING
Figure 2. Transportation & Warehousing Establishments and Employment in Riverside County, 2005-2015

WHOLESALE
Figure 3. Wholesaling Establishments and Employment in Riverside County, 2005-2015

Source: Census County Business Pattern data 2005-2015
276
581
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

As of 2015, the most recent year for which data are available, these three sectors continue to be dominated by small establishments, with at least 85% of establishments in each category having fewer than 20 employees. Countywide, there are only 17 establishments with 500 or more employees (five in manufacturing, eight in transportation and warehousing, and four in wholesale trade), and only five with 1,000 or more employees (one in manufacturing and four in transportation & warehousing).

Table 2: Distribution of Establishments by Industry Category, 2015 Employees Manufacturing Transportation and
warehousing
Wholesale
trade Sum
1 to 4 employees 587 761 983 2,331
5 to 9 employees 265 204 335 804
10 to 19 employees 216 121 258 595
20 to 49 employees 207 78 143 428
50 to 99 employees 109 37 54 200
100 to 249 employees 87 23 20 130
250 to 499 employees 19 15 9 43
500 to 999 employees 4 4 4 12
1,000 employees or 1 4 0 5
All establishments 1495 1247 1806 4,548

Large manufacturing and wholesale establishments have significantly higher warehousing activities than smaller ones. Therefore, it is worthwhile to examine the pattern in growth of large establishments in Riverside County (Figure 4 and Table 3). Although the overall number of establishments with 100 or more employees has decreased since 2008 in the manufacturing and wholesale trade sectors, it has increased in the transportation & warehousing sector.

Additionally, the number of establishments with 1,000 or more employees in the transportation & warehousing sector grew from one to four during this period.

Figure 4 and Table 3 demonstrate a general growth trend in each of these three market sectors following the effects of the Great Recession causing declines, particularly in the manufacturing sector. These data also demonstrate considerable diversity in the size of the businesses within this sector in terms of total employees, with a general trend toward more numerous small businesses compared to large businesses. The general trend for growth in these market sectors that directly and indirectly include warehousing and logistics related activities, as well as the diversity in business sizes, support inclusion of the full range of these activities in each sector be considered to assess the extent of associated transportation impacts and mitigation needs.

277
582
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

Figure 4. Change in number of establishments with 100+ employees in Riverside County, 2008-2015.

Although building area is very desirable for the purpose of this study, Census does not provide any information about the square footage of warehouses or other establishments. Census, and therefore by reference other regional socio-economic forecasts like those developed by SCAG, are based on employees.

278
583
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

Table 3. Growth in Establishments with 50+ Employees, 2008-2015 Manufacturing
Employees 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
100-249 106 80 74 80 82 81 84 87
250-499 24 19 20 17 19 20 21 19
500-999 7 5 2 4 4 4 4 4
1000+ 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Total 139 105 97 102 106 106 110 111
Transportation and warehousing
Employees 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
100-249 25 15 17 20 22 28 25 23
250-499 13 16 11 8 7 8 9 15
500-999 5 2 4 3 5 3 3 4
1000+ 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 4
Total 44 34 33 34 35 41 39 46
Wholesale trade
Employees 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
100-249 29 21 19 20 22 22 23 20
250-499 7 9 9 11 10 12 11 9
500-999 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 4
1000+ 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0
Total 40 34 33 34 35 36 37 33

279
584
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

2.2. INFOGROUP GEOCODED DATABASE (SIC CODE)
Infogroup’s2 database provides information about businesses’ location, size, and industry classification code. Although the data does not provide a complete list of all establishments, it has sufficient quality and coverage that it can be used to gain an extensive understanding of land uses and concentration of activities in various parts of the county.

Commercial establishments are organized by SIC code. In addition, the data is further broken down by number of employees at each establishment. Using this data, it is possible to get an idea of both the scope and scale of various industries in Riverside County. For informational purposes, a short description of each of the SIC categories relevant to this analysis is provided below.

Table 4. Description of Selected SIC Categories
Industry Code Brief Description
20-39
(Manufacturing)
Establishments engaged in the mechanical or chemical transformation of materials or substances into new products. Usually described as plants, factories, or mills and characteristically use power driven machines and materials handling equipment.

Establishments engaged in assembling component parts of manufactured products are also considered manufacturing if the new product is neither a structure nor other fixed improvement. Also included is the blending of materials, such as lubricating oils, plastics resins, or liquors.
42 (Transportation &
Warehousing)
Establishments furnishing local or long-distance trucking or transfer services, or those engaged in the storage of farm products, furniture and other household goods, or commercial goods of any nature. The operation of terminal facilities for handling freight, with or without maintenance facilities, is also included.
50-51
(Wholesale Trade)
Establishments primarily engaged in selling merchandise to retailers; to industrial, commercial, institutional, farm, construction contractors, or professional business users; or to other wholesalers; or acting as agents or brokers in buying merchandise for or selling merchandise to such persons or companies.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Administration

As shown on Figure 5, manufacturing establishments of all sizes (by primary or secondary SIC) are most heavily concentrated in Corona and Riverside along major freeway corridors, although the figure also demonstrates these activities are broadly distributed across the urbanized areas of Riverside County. Other areas with high concentrations include Mira Loma, Murrieta and Temecula. Corona, Riverside and Temecula are the only cities that contain manufacturing establishments with more than 500 employees.

2 Infogroup is a private vendor of data on businesses.
280
585
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

Represented on Figure 6, transportation & warehousing establishments with fewer than 50 employees are dispersed throughout the county, with the highest concentrations of establishments in Riverside, Corona and Temecula. Based on the primary SIC, only one establishment exceeds 50 employees and it is located in Mira Loma. Based on the secondary SIC, seven additional warehouse establishments have more than 50 employees; they are located in Corona, Mira Loma, Palm Desert and Riverside.

A total of 2,237 establishments countywide are characterized in wholesale trade as a primary function (Figure 7). This is several times larger than either manufacturing (567) or warehousing & transportation (483). Wholesale establishments of all sizes are similarly dispersed across the urbanized areas of the county, with some degree of concentration in Corona, Riverside and Temecula. There are six large wholesale establishments classified under primary code 50 and 51, with more than 500 employees in Coachella, Moreno Valley and Temecula. Based on the secondary SIC, there are also large wholesale establishments in Corona and Perris. In addition, there are 10 wholesale establishments with more than 500 employees in Perris.

It should be noted that there is no manufacturing, warehousing & transportation, or wholesale establishments of significance currently identified in the dataset within Blythe or the greater Palo Verde Valley. For this reason, the study effort will primarily focus on development activity in Western Riverside County and the Coachella Valley.

The overall number of establishments in each category is broadly consistent with the CBP numbers for Wholesale Trade, but not for Manufacturing and Transportation & Warehousing, where CBP shows a significantly larger number of establishments countywide. This is to be expected, given that CBP aims to be comprehensive, whereas Infogroup seeks to provide a sample and may take a more conservative approach in defining establishments. The Infogroup data is, however, useful in providing some idea of where establishments are or are not concentrated within the county. For each category, however, Infogroup appears to capture about a third of the establishments identified by CBP. Recognizing the limitations of the respective datasets, each provides useful information to validate and augment data derived from established regional sources, like SCAG, for the purposes of completing this study.

281
586
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Page 11 Figure 5. Distribution of Employment in Riverside County, Manufacturing 282587Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Page 12 Figure 6. Distribution of Employment in Riverside County, Transportation & Warehousing 283588Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Page 13 Figure 7. Distribution of Employment in Riverside County, Wholesale Trade 284589Item 19.

BLANK
285
590
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

2.3. SCAG WAREHOUSE STUDY
SCAG’s Industrial Warehouse Study provides estimates of existing and future warehouse square footage. Unfortunately at the time of preparing this report, this study was not officially released and therefore associated data were not able to be access for this study. The information presented here are based on land use data provided in the SCAG Heavy Duty Truck Model (HDT) developed for the 2016 RTP.

Warehouses are classified as High-Cube and Low-Cube in the SCAG HDT model. The high-cube warehouse is generally defined as a building with over 200,000 square feet of floor area and with a ceiling height of 24 feet or higher. The primary use of high-cube warehouses is storage, consolidation, and distribution of manufactured goods.

A high-cube warehouse is distinguished from a low-cube, or traditional, warehouse by several factors. Most prominent among these is a relative lack of automation in low-cube warehouses, leading to a larger number of human employees. High-cube warehouses, on the other hand, takes advantage of a very high degree of automation.

In addition, the two types are differentiated by economies of scale. Low-cube, traditional warehouses tend to be smaller on a square footage basis, with lower degree of automation, but higher employee per square feet ratio. High-cube warehouses process larger shipments with fewer employees relative to the warehouse’s square footage. This means that, as compared to high-cube warehouses, low-cube warehouses generate fewer truck trips per employee (owing to the relatively larger number of employees proportional to size) but more truck trips per thousand square feet (because of smaller size of warehouse and smaller size of shipments).

By way of example, automation may mean that employees at a high-cube warehouse are able to handle higher shipment volumes than their counterparts at low-cube warehouses. Not only are total shipment volumes likely to be higher, but each individual shipment is likely to be larger. This means that truck trips are divided over a smaller number of employees. A low- cube warehouse will handle, on average, smaller shipments, and need a comparatively larger number of employees to handle them. This means that those truck trips handled at a low-cube warehouse will be spread over a larger number of employees.

Based on information in 2016 SCAG HDT model, Riverside County is home to 76 million square feet of high-cube and low-cube warehouse space, and it is projected to grow through approximately 2030, before leveling off in expectation of market competition from other land uses. It is anticipated that in the long term, the attractiveness of other land uses and a lack of 286
591
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

easily developable land will exert downward pressure on the growth of warehouse square footage and employment in Riverside County. The changes predicted by this forecast are indicated in the figures below. By either measure (number of employment or square footage), the increase in warehouse capacity in Riverside County will be substantial during the 2012 to 2040 period, and constitutes both high-cube and low-cube warehouse growth. It is important to note that the comparison between 2012 and other years is not possible since the definition of “warehouse area” between 2012 baseline scenario and other scenarios are not consistent.

The area shown in 2012 includes total available floor space, while the area shown in 2016 and years after includes only planned occupied floor space. Therefore the comparison analysis are only presented based on 2016 and 2040 scenarios for consistency.

As shown on Figure 8 and Figure 9, although both high-cube and low-cube warehouse capacity are projected to increase substantially between 2016 and 2040, the increase for low- cube warehouse space is from 20,111 KSF to 31,232 KSF during this period (55%). This is significantly greater on a percentage basis (but lower in absolute terms) than the anticipated increase for high-cube warehouses space, from 56,393 KSF to 69,410 KSF (23%). As shown in detail on Table 5, and Table 6, this difference is somewhat less pronounced for employment, with low-cube warehouses increasing from 3,819 to 7,427 employees (94%), but with high-cube warehouses increasing from 3,256 employees to 6,185 by 2040 (90%).

It is important to remember that these forecasts are based on model data that must be considered in the context of modeling limitations. The addition or subtraction of just a few projects, particularly on the scale of high-cube warehouses, has the potential to make real- world conditions significantly different from the model’s prediction. Despite the limitations in the model data, the anticipated growth in both high-cube and low-cube warehousing activity reiterates the appropriateness of considering all warehousing and logistics related uses as part of this study effort to assess the full transportation system impacts of this anticipated growth.

287
592
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

Figure 8. Warehouse Area Trend from 2012-2040 in Riverside County * The area shown in 2012 includes total available floor space. The area shown in 2016 and years after includes planned occupied floor space.

Source: SCAG 2016 RTP

Figure 9. Warehouse Employment Trend from 2012 to 2040 in Riverside County * The area shown in 2012 includes total available floor space. The area shown in 2016 and years after includes planned occupied floor space.

Source: SCAG 2016 RTP

Table 5 and Table 6 show the employment ratio per 1000 square feet of each warehouse category. Based on SCAG information, the employee ratio for low-cube warehouse is at least twice higher than the ratio for high-cube warehouse. The tables also reflect a modest increase 0 20,000,000
40,000,000
60,000,000
80,000,000
100,000,000
120,000,000
2012* 2016 2020 2030 2040Square FeetYear
Low‐Cube
High‐Cube
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
2012* 2016 2020 2030 2040Employees
Year
Low‐Cube
High‐Cube
288
593
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

over time in the ratio of employees per KSF for both high-cube and low-cube warehouses, although it not clear why this ratio is increasing in future year.

Table 5. High-Cube Warehouse Trends in Riverside County, 2012-2040 Year Warehouse Area (square feet) Employment
Employee/KSF
2012* 41,281,541 1,793           0.04
2016 48,837,363 2,810           0.06
2020 56,393,177 3,819           0.07
2030 64,664,947 6,120           0.09
2040 69,410,192 7,427           0.11

Table 6. Low-Cube Warehouse Trends in Riverside County, 2012-2040 Year Warehouse Area (square feet) Employment Employee/KSF 2012* 8,833,418 1,804           0.20
2016 14,472,627 2,533           0.18
2020 20,111,826 3,256           0.16
2030 26,810,782 5,070           0.19
2040 31,231,977 6,185           0.20
* The area shown in 2012 includes total available floor space. The area shown in 2016 and years after includes planned occupied floor space.

Source: SCAG 2016 RTP

Table 7 shows the anticipated growth in high- and low-cube warehouse space in each Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) in Riverside County that has warehouse space. The rightmost column in the chart provides the sum in growth of both high- and low-cube warehouses during the period from 2016 to 2040.

SCAG’s forecast anticipates that warehouse square footage growth will be highly concentrated.

A single TAZ on the outskirts of Moreno Valley accounts for 56.3% of the expected growth between 2016 and 2040, and the 10 TAZs with the highest expected growth (on an absolute basis) will account for 90.3% of the county’s overall warehouse growth in this period. Of the top 10, three are located in Moreno Valley, two are located in Coachella, and one each are located in Corona, Perris, Lake Elsinore, Jurupa Valley, and Hemet. The spatial distribution of this forecast reflects known warehousing and logistics development plans (like the World 289
594
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

Logistics Center in Moreno Valley) along with the influences of declining land availability in the region for warehouse and logistics related uses over time, especially high-cube uses that demand larger sites with transportation system accessibility. This influence of declining land availability is also reflected in the leveling off of the forecast rate of growth described previously, which accounts for the exhaustion of readily available land in later forecast years and the associated economics of locating highest and best value land uses making it less desirable to locate additional warehousing and logistics uses in Riverside County.

Table 7. Amount of Warehouse Space by TAZs in Riverside County (KSF) TAZ_ID
High‐
cube
2016
Low‐
cube
2016
High‐
cube
2020
Low‐
cube
2020
High‐
cube
2030
Low‐
cube
2030
High‐
cube
2040
Low‐
cube
2040
Total
Change
from 2016‐
2040
Percent
change
from
2016 ‐
2040
Percent of
total
growth
countywide
43344 5,417 2,323 10,834 4,646 16,778 7,201 20,136 8,628 21,024 271.63% 56.31% 43336 641 1,497 1,282 2,993 2,421 5,657 3,198 7,461 8,521 398.55% 22.82% 43338 101 231 202 462 297 696 355 822 845 254.52% 2.26% 43148 4,437 410 4,437 614 4,438 892 4,437 1,029 619 12.77% 1.66% 43571 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 382 ‐ 594 ‐ 594 0.00% 1.59%
43130 2,050 465 2,050 465 2,050 545 2,050 988 522 20.80% 1.40% 43364 ‐ 182 ‐ 182 221 232 331 293 442 242.86% 1.18%
43573 ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ 281 ‐ 421 ‐ 421 0.00% 1.13%
43302 655 ‐ 1,072 ‐ 1,072 ‐ 1,072 ‐ 417 63.66% 1.12%
43305 302 ‐ 604 ‐ 604 ‐ 604 ‐ 302 100.00% 0.81%
43264 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 200 ‐ 300 ‐ 300 0.00% 0.80%
43187 ‐ 119 ‐ 239 ‐ 299 ‐ 340 221 185.71% 0.59%
43575 156 37 311 75 311 75 311 75 193 100.00% 0.52%
43260 2,031 820 2,031 1, 2,032 1,002 2,031 1,002 180 6.38% 0.48% 43452 172 ‐ 343 ‐ 344 ‐ 343 ‐ 172 99.42% 0.46%
43345 ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ 109 ‐ 163 163 0.00% 0.44%
43448 ‐ 60 ‐ 119 ‐ 180 ‐ 209 150 248.33% 0.40%
43286 ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ 87 ‐ 149 149 0.00% 0.40%
43332 101 44 202 88 202 88 202 88 145 100.00% 0.39%
43249 3,197 1,716 3,197 1,860 3,198 1,864 3,197 1,860 144 2.93% 0.39% 43395 131 ‐ 262 ‐ 262 ‐ 262 ‐ 131 100.00% 0.35%
43415 2,992 244 2,992 244 2,993 328 2,992 369 124 3.86% 0.33% 43134 474 454 474 509 474 554 474 574 120 12.93% 0.32%
43454 119 ‐ 237 ‐ 237 ‐ 237 ‐ 119 99.16% 0.32%
43168 491 ‐ 491 ‐ 491 77 491 116 116 23.63% 0.31%
290
595
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

TAZ_ID
High‐
cube
2016
Low‐
cube
2016
High‐
cube
2020
Low‐
cube
2020
High‐
cube
2030
Low‐
cube
2030
High‐
cube
2040
Low‐
cube
2040
Total
Change
from 2016‐
2040
Percent
change
from
2016 ‐
2040
Percent of
total
growth
countywide
43409 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 72 ‐ 108 108 0.00% 0.29%
43366 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 59 ‐ 89 89 0.00% 0.24%
43236 ‐ 83 ‐ 165 ‐ 165 ‐ 165 83 98.80% 0.22%
43399 ‐ 81 ‐ 162 ‐ 163 ‐ 162 81 100.00% 0.22%
43265 ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ 53 ‐ 80 80 0.00% 0.21%
43488 ‐ 78 ‐ 155 ‐ 156 ‐ 155 78 98.72% 0.21%
43563 308 162 308 162 308 208 308 232 70 14.89% 0.19%
43246 328 487 328 547 328 548 328 547 61 7.36% 0.16%
43276 ‐ 59 ‐ 117 ‐ 118 ‐ 117 59 98.31% 0.16%
43429 ‐ 57 ‐ 115 ‐ 115 ‐ 115 57 101.75% 0.15%
43162 ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ 33 ‐ 56 56 0.00% 0.15%
43181 821 61 821 61 822 95 821 112 51 5.78% 0.14%
43420 286 48 286 96 286 97 286 96 48 14.37% 0.13%
43261 ‐ 120 ‐ 163 ‐ 163 ‐ 163 43 35.83% 0.12%
43136 289 193 289 233 289 233 289 233 40 8.30% 0.11%
43310 ‐ 40 ‐ 80 ‐ 80 ‐ 80 40 100.00% 0.11%
43125 5,048 692 5,048 727 5,049 729 5,048 727 36 0.61% 0.10% 43474 ‐ 32 ‐ 65 ‐ 65 ‐ 65 32 103.13% 0.09%
43397 ‐ 31 ‐ 62 ‐ 62 ‐ 62 31 100.00% 0.08%
43188 380 145 380 175 380 175 380 175 30 5.71% 0.08%
43214 ‐ 285 ‐ 311 ‐ 312 ‐ 311 27 9.12% 0.07%
TOTAL 30,927 11,256 38,481 15,892 46,750 23,587 51,498 28,016 37,334 88.50% 100.00% Source: SCAG Warehouse Study

291
596
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Page 20 Figure 10. High Cube Warehouse Area in Riverside County in 2016 by SCAG Tier I TAZ 292597Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Page 21 Figure 11. Low Cube Warehouse Area in Riverside County in 2016 by SCAG Tier I TAZ 293598Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Page 22 Figure 12. SCAG Expected High Cube Warehouse Area Growth in Riverside County 2016 to 2040 by SCAG Tier I TAZ 294599Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Page 23 Figure 13. SCAG Expected Low Cube Warehouse Area Growth in Riverside County 2016 to 2040 by SCAG Tier I TAZ 295600Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

3. TRUCK COUNTS
The SCAG RTP 2016 uses a comprehensive truck count database (2012-2013 counts) for HDT model calibration. This information helps to understand the magnitude of trucking activities on various segments of highway. This database has 74 locations on state and interstate facilities in Riverside County, as indicated in the following table. SCAG is currently conducting a project to update this database using 2016 counts. Table 8 summarizes available truck counts on the state highway system in Riverside County. By comparing actual truck counts and GPS sample truck O-D information, it is possible to validate data derived from the SCAG regional model as well as estimate the share of truck traffic on each segment that is generated in Riverside County relative to the through traffic (trips with both origin and destination outside of the county)

Table 8. SCAG 2013 Truck Classification Count Locations within Riverside County Facility TYPE ON STREET CROSS STREET CROSS STREET 2
Interstate I 10 (REDLANDS FWY) EB Main St SH 111
Interstate I 10 (REDLANDS FWY) EB Main St SH 111
Interstate I 10 (REDLANDS FWY) WB Main St SH 111
Interstate I 10 (REDLANDS FWY) WB Main St SH 111
Interstate I 10 EB WEST OF MESA DR
Interstate I 10 EB Dillon Rd Aqueduct Rd
Intchg
Interstate I 10 EB WEST OF MESA DR
Interstate I 10 EB Dillon Rd Aqueduct Rd
Intchg
Interstate I 10 EB (Sonny Bono Memorial Fwy) N Gene Autry Trl Date Palm Dr Interstate I 10 EB (Sonny Bono Memorial Fwy) N Gene Autry Trl Date Palm Dr Interstate I 10 WB WEST OF MESA DR
Interstate I 10 WB Dillon Rd Aqueduct Rd
Intchg
Interstate I 10 WB WEST OF MESA DR
Interstate I 10 WB Dillon Rd Aqueduct Rd
Intchg
Interstate I 10 WB (Sonny Bono Memorial
Fwy) N Gene Autry Trl Date Palm Dr
Interstate I 10 WB (Sonny Bono Memorial
Fwy) N Gene Autry Trl Date Palm Dr
Interstate I 15 (ONTARIO FWY) NB 68th St Detroit St
Interstate I 15 (ONTARIO FWY) NB 68th St Detroit St
Interstate I 15 (ONTARIO FWY) SB 68th St Detroit St
296
601
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

Facility TYPE ON STREET CROSS STREET CROSS STREET 2
Interstate I 15 (ONTARIO FWY) SB 68th St Detroit St
Interstate I 15 (TEMECULA VALLEY FWY) NB Temescal Canyon Rd Lake St Interstate I 15 (TEMECULA VALLEY FWY) NB Baxter Rd Clinton Keith Rd Interstate I 15 (TEMECULA VALLEY FWY) NB Temescal Canyon Rd Lake St Interstate I 15 (TEMECULA VALLEY FWY) NB Baxter Rd Clinton Keith Rd Interstate I 15 (TEMECULA VALLEY FWY) SB Temescal Canyon Rd Lake St Interstate I 15 (TEMECULA VALLEY FWY) SB Baxter Rd Clinton Keith Rd Interstate I 15 (TEMECULA VALLEY FWY) SB Temescal Canyon Rd Lake St Interstate I 15 (TEMECULA VALLEY FWY) SB Baxter Rd Clinton Keith Rd Interstate I 215 (ESCONDIDO FWY) NB W Nuevo Rd North D St Interstate I 215 (ESCONDIDO FWY) NB Keller Rd Clinton Keith Rd Interstate I 215 (ESCONDIDO FWY) NB W Nuevo Rd North D St Interstate I 215 (ESCONDIDO FWY) NB Keller Rd Clinton Keith Rd Interstate I 215 (ESCONDIDO FWY) SB W Nuevo Rd North D St Interstate I 215 (ESCONDIDO FWY) SB Keller Rd Clinton Keith Rd Interstate I 215 (ESCONDIDO FWY) SB W Nuevo Rd North D St Interstate I 215 (ESCONDIDO FWY) SB Keller Rd Clinton Keith Rd Interstate I 215 (RIVERSIDE FWY) NB Center St Columbia Ave Interstate I 215 (RIVERSIDE FWY) NB Center St Columbia Ave Interstate I 215 (RIVERSIDE FWY) SB Center St Columbia Ave Interstate I 215 (RIVERSIDE FWY) SB Center St Columbia Ave State Route-Full Access E PALM CANYON DR N Gene Autry Trl Golf Club Dr State Route-Full Access E PALM CANYON DR N Gene Autry Trl Golf Club Dr State Route-Full Access Grapefruit Blvd Ave 48 Ave 49
State Route-Full Access Grapefruit Blvd At Imperial / Riverside County Line
State Route-Full Access Grapefruit Blvd Ave 48 Ave 49
State Route-Full Access Grapefruit Blvd At Imperial / Riverside County Line
State Route-Full Access PINACATE RD Antelope Rd Palomar Rd State Route-Full Access PINACATE RD Antelope Rd Palomar Rd State Route-Full Access S 71 (CORONA EXPY) NB EUCLID AVE S 91 (RIVERSIDE FWY)
State Route-Full Access S 71 (CORONA EXPY) NB EUCLID AVE S 91 (RIVERSIDE FWY)
State Route-Full Access S 71 (CORONA EXPY) SB EUCLID AVE S 91 (RIVERSIDE FWY)
State Route-Full Access S 71 (CORONA EXPY) SB EUCLID AVE S 91 (RIVERSIDE FWY)
State Route-Full Access S 74 (PINES TO PALMS HIGHWAY) Santa Rosa Rd PALM CANYON DR 297
602
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

Facility TYPE ON STREET CROSS STREET CROSS STREET 2
State Route-Full Access S 74 (PINES TO PALMS HIGHWAY) Santa Rosa Rd PALM CANYON DR State Route-Full Access State Highway 74 / Pines to Palms Hwy South of Portola Ave
State Route-Full Access State Highway 74 / Pines to Palms Hwy South of Portola Ave
State Route-Full Access WINCHESTER RD Thompson Rd Pourroy Rd State Route-Full Access WINCHESTER RD Thompson Rd Pourroy Rd State Route-Full Access WINCHESTER RD Thompson Rd Pourroy Rd State Route-Limited Access S 60 (Moreno Valley Fwy) EB Moreno Beach Dr Redlands Blvd State Route-Limited Access S 60 (Moreno Valley Fwy) EB Moreno Beach Dr Redlands Blvd State Route-Limited Access S 60 (Moreno Valley Fwy) WB Moreno Beach Dr Redlands Blvd State Route-Limited Access S 60 (Moreno Valley Fwy) WB Moreno Beach Dr Redlands Blvd State Route-Limited Access S 60 (POMONA FWY) EB Hall Ave Market St State Route-Limited Access S 60 (POMONA FWY) EB Hall Ave Market St State Route-Limited Access S 60 (POMONA FWY) WB Hall Ave Market St State Route-Limited Access S 60 (POMONA FWY) WB Hall Ave Market St State Route-Limited Access S 91 (Riverside Fwy) EB Chino Valley Fwy (SH 71)
Serfas Club Dr/
Auto Center Dr
State Route-Limited Access S 91 (Riverside Fwy) EB Chino Valley Fwy (SH 71)
Serfas Club Dr/
Auto Center Dr
State Route-Limited Access S 91 (Riverside Fwy) WB Chino Valley Fwy (SH 71)
Serfas Club Dr/
Auto Center Dr
State Route-Limited Access S 91 (Riverside Fwy) WB Chino Valley Fwy (SH 71)
Serfas Club Dr/
Auto Center Dr
State Route-Limited Access State Hwy 86 NB Dillon Rd 50th Ave State Route-Limited Access State Hwy 86 NB Dillon Rd 50th Ave State Route-Limited Access State Hwy 86 SB Dillon Rd 50th Ave State Route-Limited Access State Hwy 86 SB Dillon Rd 50th Ave

Caltrans regularly conducts vehicle classification counts on different segments of the highway network. The 2015 counts are presented in Table 9.

298
603
Item 19.

BLANK
299
604
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Page 27 Table 9. CALTRANS Truck Counts Database ID Route Post mile Leg Description and Approximate Location Vehicle AADT Total Truck AADT Total Truck % Total Vehicle Truck AADT Total by number of Axles % Truck AADT by number of Axles 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 1 10 R58.89 A Dillon Rd. (Coachella) 25,000 8,693 35 1,110 198 94 7,291 12.8 2.3 1.1 83.9 2 10 R105.087 B Jct. Rte. 177 North (Desert Center) 24,600 8,693 35 1,110 198 94 7,291 12.8 2.3 1.1 83.9 3 10 R105.087 A Jct. Rte. 177 North (Desert Center) 23,700 8,721 37 1,128 169 96 7,328 12.9 1.9 1.1 84.0 4 10 R149.15 B Jct. Rte. 78 South (Blythe) 25,300 8,730 35 1,053 177 133 7,367 12.1 2.0 1.5 84.4 5 10 R149.15 A Jct. Rte. 78 South (Blythe) 27,000 8,881 33 1,174 197 108 7,402 13.2 2.2 1.2 83.3 6 15 22.277 B Jct. Rte. 74 (Lake Elsinore) 125,000 9,331 7 4,736 664 307 3,624 50.8 7.1 3.3 38.8 Source: Caltrans 2015 Truck counts.300605Item 19.

BLANK
301
606
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

4. TRUCK O-D AND ROUTING
A sample of mobile device and GPS truck trajectory data for weekdays in September 2016 was purchased from Streetlight® for this study. This data was used to identify truck origin- destination (O-D) patterns between zones in Riverside County, and between Riverside County and other regions, in part to validate similar information derived from the SCAG model. This data is also particularly helpful in identifying the share of through trips (trips with origin and destination outside of Riverside County, but passing through the county).

For the purposes of the O-D analysis, the TAZs in SCAG model were aggregated into 22 zones representing Riverside County and 11 zones representing the SCAG region outside Riverside County. Figure 14 shows the boundaries of these zones.

This Streetlight data is classified by truck weights: heavy-duty trucks and medium-duty trucks.

Heavy-duty trucks are those with minimum gross weight of 26,000 pounds. The medium-duty trucks are those with gross weight between 14,000 and 26,000 pounds.

Table 10 and Table 11 show the O-D distribution for these two truck categories within the SCAG counties. Trips with at least one end external to the region are excluded from these tables. The GPS data was used to create a detailed O-D distribution between the 33 identified zones, which will be used by the team to fine-tune the model forecasts. In this analysis intermediate stops (less than 30 minutes), which are presumably for fuel or food, are eliminated so that long-distance trips are not mistaken for a series of short-distance trips.

These tables show the share of each O-D pair in entire SCAG region. For example,15% of heavy duty truck trips in the SCAG region originate in Riverside County. Additionally, 7.3% of heavy duty truck trips and 10.4% of medium duty truck trips in the SCAG region start and end in Riverside County. This is reasonable because smaller trucks tends to travel shorter distances to perform multiple local deliveries.

302
607
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

Table 10. Heavy-Duty Truck O-D Distribution in SCAG Region

Table 11. Medium-Duty Truck O-D Distribution in SCAG Region

Trips between zones for medium- and heavy-duty trucks are shown on Table 12 and Table 13, respectively. For medium trucks, all 20 of the O-D pairs with the highest number of trips are the same zone (namely, short trips remaining within the same zone). The more frequent trip between two different zones is from Zone 14 to 21 (adjacent zones in the desert), which accounts for 31% of the traffic originating from Zone 14.

The situation is similar for heavy-duty trucks, where the 12 O-D pairs with the highest number of trips are the same zone. The most frequent trip between Zone 1 (northwestern Riverside County) and Zone 30 (southwestern San Bernardino County), accounting for 26% of trips from Zone 1. Beyond this, the most frequent trips are from Zone 17 to Zone 30 and from Zone 19 to Zone 31 (both 25% of trips originating from those respective links).

O                     D Imperial Los Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino Ventura Total Imperial 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%0.1% 0.0% 1%
Los Angeles 0.0% 25.8% 2.0% 2.3%6.0% 0.6% 37%
Orange 0.0% 2.1% 3.0% 0.5%1.1% 0.1% 7%
Riverside 0.1% 2.4% 0.5% 7.3%5.0% 0.1% 15%
San Bernardino 0.1% 6.3% 1.2% 5.1% 25.1% 0.2% 38%
Ventura 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.1%0.2% 1.0% 2%
Total 1% 37% 7% 16%37% 2% 100%
O                    D Imperial Los Angeles Orange Riverside San Bernardino Ventura Total Imperial 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1%
Los Angeles 0.0% 46.1% 2.2% 0.7% 1.6% 0.7% 51%
Orange 0.0% 2.2% 13.0% 0.5% 0.4% 0.0% 16%
Riverside 0.1% 0.7% 0.5% 10.4% 1.6% 0.0% 13%
San Bernardino 0.0% 1.6% 0.4% 1.6% 9.6% 0.0% 13%
Ventura 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 5%
Total 1% 51% 16% 13%13% 5% 100%
303
608
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

The distribution of trips on 29 selected segments of the highway network in Riverside County were also investigated. This analysis used a sample of GPS truck trip trajectories to understand the origin-destination of trips on a given facility. In this analysis, intermediate stops are included and counted as separate trips since these trips will contribute to congestion on local streets.

Table 14 shows the share of truck trips generated in Riverside County compared to the share of truck trips generated in SCAG area from the total truck traffic on each of the links. For heavy-duty trucks, Riverside County generated the most traffic on Links 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and

23. Of these links, three are located on SR-60, two are located on I-215, and one is located on SR-91. Overall, Riverside is a comparatively bigger generator of medium-duty truck trips, although the busiest links are similar: Links 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 24. Of these, three are on I-215, two are on SR-60, and two are on SR-91.

The patterns identified by these data are particularly useful for validating and refining other data sources as the basis for determining the fair share of trips generated by warehousing and logistics uses in Riverside County compared to those trips (or the portion of trips) generated by uses outside of the county.
304
609
Item 19.

BLANK
305
610
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Page 31 Table 12. Distribution of Trips by Zone for Medium-Duty Trucks (% by Destination) DO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 SUM 1 18 2 4 4   1    1      6 3 1 1   3 1  3 2  7 21 11 1  100 2 2 21 5 15  2 4  1 1 1 2      1 5 5   1   2 1  4 8 10 2  100 3 1  51 6 4     1 2      3       1  2 2  8 7 3 1  100 4 2 5 11 36 2 2 3  1 1 3      2 1 2 3      2 1  5 7 5   100 5   15 4 30 2   1 5 11      1       1  2 2  8 5 3   100 6  1 3 7 3 29 6  5 10 4         5    1  2 1  4 7 4 2  100 7  2 2 7  4 34 2 3 3 2 2       1 7    1  1 1  3 9 8 1  100 8 1 4 2 4  2 23 6 8 2 2 6 2      2 5   4   4 2 2 2 7 7   100 9   2 4  2 3  53 6 7 3 1       1         2 4 3   100 10   4 2 5 5 3  9 33 15 1       1 2      1   4 4 3 1  100 11   3 2 5 1   4 7 60                  3 3 2   100 12   1 2   1  3 1 1 45 7        4 2    2 1  1 7 11 1  100 13            3 61        24         1 1 3  100 14           2 6 7 25 2      31 12 1     2 2 3    100 15            3 6  50 10     14 3 1      1 2 2 4  100 16            1 2  9 76     2 2        1  2  100 17 8  13 5 1  1    1      22 1     1 2  3 2 2 6 20 5 1  100 18 10 5 5 11  1 2  1 1 1      3 11 3 2   2 1  2 2  5 14 11 1  100 19 2 6 4 9  1 4  1 2 2       2 13 3 1  2 2  3 2  4 10 19 3  100 20 2 4 4 10 1 5 12  2 3 2 1 1     1 3 17   1 1  2 1  4 8 9 1  100 21            2 25 2 1      60         1 1 2  100 22                     1 92      2      100 23                       50 9 9 5 12 3 6 2    100 24                       5 77 6 3 2  1 1   2 100 25                       9 11 62 1 10 1 2    2 100 26                       8 9 2 51 4 2 7 11 2   100 27                       9 3 7 2 61 8 7 1    100 28                       7 2 3 3 27 47 5 2    100 29   1                    3 1 1 2 5  80 2    100 30 2  2 1             1      3 3 1 8 2 1 5 51 10 3  100 31 1  2 2   1     2       1    1 2  2 1  2 17 53 4  100 32             1           2  1   1 5 4 78  100 33                        7 4        84 100 Values less than 1% are not shown in the table. 306611Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Page 32 Table 13. Distribution of Trips by Zone for Heavy-Duty Trucks (% by Destination) D O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 SUM 1 11     2 3          5 1  1   6 3  7 3 2 4 26 12 5  100 2 7 7 2 2  4 7 1    3 2   1 2 3 3 9 3 1 2 2  3 1  3 8 13 4  100 3 4 1 20 2 2 1     2      3   1   7 2  4 5 2 9 17 7 3  100 4 4 4 6 15  1 1     1     2 1 2 4 1  2 2  4 4 2 6 16 10 5  100 5 12  9  22 1 1    5      6      2 2  2 1 1 5 16 7 4  100 6 8 1    15 6     1 1   1 1 1 1 5 1  2 4  3 3 1 3 15 13 6  100 7 10 2    5 14     2 1   1 4 1 2 5 2  2 3  3 1  2 14 14 6  100 8 5 2  1 1 2 6 5  1  7 5      2 8 4 1 3 4 2 6 6 1 6 8 6 2  100 9 3 1 2   4 4  23 3 3 5 2    2 2 2 3   2 2  2   2 13 13 3  100 10 10 2 1  2 9 5 1 3 13 9 1      1 2 6    1   2  2 9 12 4  100 11 4  3  6 3    3 25 1     4  2 2   1 2  2 1  3 15 12 4  100 12 3           16 8  4 5 1   1 7 2 3 3  4 3 1 3 12 13 4  100 13 2           10 15  6 7    1 10 3 3 3  3 2 1 2 10 12 4  100 14 4           9 7 12       12 19  3  1    7 12 4  100 15 4           6 8  17 17    1 11  2 2  2 2 1 2 9 8 2  100 16 2           5 6  12 29     9 2 2 2  3 2  1 9 7 3  100 17 12 1 1    1          13 2 1 2   4 4  6 3 2 4 25 8 5  100 18 9 2     2          3 7 2 2   7 4  6 3 1 4 16 19 7  100 19 6 2 1   1 1     1     3 2 13 4   3 4  4 2  3 14 25 5 1 100 20 7 3 1 2  4 3    1 1 1    3 1 3 13   3 4  4 3 1 4 17 12 4 2 100 21 3      1     7 11  8 9     15 3 3 4  3 2 1 2 9 10 2  100 22 1           2 4 2       5 69  1     1 3 4 2  100 23 1                      38 8 2 9 11 5 5 10 3 3 1 100 24 1                      11 44 3 7 5 2 3 9 4 3 4 100 25                       17 14 30 3 14 4 3 4 2  6 100 26 3                1      11 6  29 5 3 6 20 5 4  100 27 1                      15 4 2 6 32 12 9 8 2 3  100 28                       8 2  5 14 51 4 7  3  100 29 2  1              1      8 3  6 9 4 45 10 3 3  100 30 5                2      5 4  7 3 3 4 41 11 6  100 31 4           2 1     1 2 1 1  3 3  4 2  3 18 36 10  100 32 1                      3 2  2 2 1 2 9 7 65  100 33                       5 15 3 3 3 1 2 4 2 2 54 100 Values less than 1% are not shown in the table.307612Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

Table 14. Share of Each Region from the Truck Traffic by Link

Riverside SCAG Riverside SCAG
74 1 21% 93% 40% 99%
91 2 26% 94% 37% 98%
71 3 21% 84% 28% 93%
60 4 22% 93% 26% 95%
15 5 18% 90% 25% 92%
215 6 34% 83% 39% 94%
10 7 33% 74% 41% 85%
62 8 28% 93% 42% 98%
1591%1%1%1%
79 10 2% 6% 7% 15%
86 11 27% 80% 32% 85%
111 12 32% 83% 31% 88%
78 13 21% 43% 23% 47%
10 14 0% 0% 0% 0%
95 15 13% 32% 23% 40%
177 16 26% 53% 41% 61%
60 17 55% 78% 61% 88%
60 18 55% 80% 65% 91%
215 19 52% 83% 60% 92%
60 20 45% 93% 52% 96%
91 21 44% 91% 62% 98%
91 22 43% 91% 63% 97%
215 23 48% 73% 66% 86%
215 24 26% 36% 66% 79%
15 25 26% 37% 56% 74%
215 26 18% 26% 55% 61%
10 27 43% 72% 55% 84%
10 28 41% 62% 63% 80%
10 29 32% 41% 33% 39%
Medium‐Duty  TrucksHeavy‐Duty  Trucks
LinkState Route No.
308
613
Item 19.

BLANK
309
614
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Page 34 Figure 14. Zones Used in the O-D Analysis 310615Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Page 35 Figure 15. Selected Links for O-D Analysis 311616Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

5. WAREHOUSE TRIP GENERATION METHODOLOGY
There are many possible approaches to estimate the number and length of trips generated by warehouse-related establishments in a given area. In this section, the most relevant and defensible of the currently available studies and methodologies are summarized. The recommendations follow the inventory of options.

5.1. CITY OF FONTANA TRUCK TRIP GENERATION STUDY
This study was completed in 2003 to evaluate the vehicle trip generation characteristics of several land use categories that typically generate significant volumes of truck traffic in the City of Fontana. This study identifies nine types of truck trip generating land uses, three of which are relevant to this study, namely: light warehouse, heavy warehouse, and industrial park. Below are the definitions for the three most relevant types of land use from the study, based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual:

 Warehouse (ITE code 150) are primarily devoted to the storage materials; they may also include office and maintenance areas.

o Light warehouses are 100,000 square feet gross floor area or less o Heavy warehouses are greater than 100,000 square feet gross floor area.

 Industrial park (ITE code 130) are areas containing a number of industrial or related facilities. They are characterized by a mix of manufacturing, service, and warehouse facilities with a wide variation in the proportion of each type of use. Many industrial parks contained highly diversified facilities, some with a large number of small businesses and others with one or two dominant industries.

Table 15 summarizes trip generation rates presented in the Fontana study for the above uses.

The distribution of truck mix for each warehouse type is also presented. Based on this study, light warehousing generates more truck trips relative to heavy warehousing per employee (for example: 0.327*13%=0.065 >0.309* 13%=0.04 during AM period) however the share of 3+ axles trucks are significantly higher for heavy warehousing

312
617
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

Table 15. Trip Generation Rates by Warehouse Type (Fontana Study) Warehouse
Type Period
Avg. trip
rate per
employee
Avg. trip
per
building
KSF
Employee
per
building
KSF
Truck %
Large Truck Mix %
2 Axles
3 Axles
4+
Axles
Light
Warehouse
Daily 3.713 1.659

0.45 23%*

24.7 20.6 54.6 AM Site 0.327 0.146 20%
PM Site 0.282 0.126 26%
Heavy
Warehouse
Daily 4.657 3.547

0.76 11%

16.95 22.71 60.34 AM Site 0.309 0.235 13%
PM Site 0.417 0.318 10%
Industrial
Park
Daily 2.485 1.236

0.5 26%*

7.9 7.1 85 AM Site 0.265 0.132 20%
PM Site 0.382 0.19 32%
Source: Fontana Truck Trip Generation Study
* Daily truck percentages are derived by averaging the AM and PM peak hour truck percentage.

5.2. HIGH-CUBE WAREHOUSE VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP) engaged ITE to conduct a high-cube warehouse vehicle trip generation analysis. The findings of this report are reflected in the most recent ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition) published in September 2017.

This study defines high-cube warehouse (HCW) as a:

building that typically has at least 200,000 gross square feet of floor area, has a ceiling height of 24 feet or more, and is used primarily for the storage and/or consolidation of manufactured goods (and to a lesser extent, raw materials) prior to their distribution to retail locations or other warehouses. A typical high-cube warehouse has a high level of on- site automation and logistics management. The automation and logistics enable highly- efficient processing of goods through the high-cube warehouse.

For the purpose of the analysis, high-cube warehouses are grouped into five types:

 Transload – usually pallet loads or larger handling products of manufacturers, wholesalers/distributors, or retailers with little or no storage durations  Short-Term Storage – products held on-site for a short time 313
618
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

 Cold Storage – permanent cold storage in at least part of the building  Fulfillment Center – storage and direct distribution of e-commerce product to end users  Parcel Hub – Transload function for a parcel delivery company

This study describes the high-cube warehouse facilities in the context of existing ITE categories: “High-cube warehouses/distribution centers may be located in industrial parks or be free-standing. Intermodal truck terminal (Land Use 030), industrial park (Land Use 130), manufacturing (Land Use 140) and warehousing (Land Use 150) are related uses.” A detailed description and comparison of each of the HCW categories regarding function, layout, building dimension, and level of automation is presented in the original report.

The vehicle trip generation for daily, AM and PM peak period and share of truck trip generation are estimated for the above categories of high-cube warehouse, and these data represent the most comprehensive effort to assess trip generation associated with high-cube warehouse to date thereby providing useful information to help validate other data sources.

However, the study includes the following caveats related to the data and analyses contained within the report:

 Since the sample size for fulfilment center and parcel hub include only one establishment, the study recommends further data collection (a minimum of at least six sites) for these two categories to derive stable trip generation rates.

 The study produce statistically acceptable results based on limited data (nine sites) for cold storage category, which is generally higher than the rates developed previously based on an older data collection effort. The cold storage sites are classified subjectively based on the interpretation of the data submitter. It is recommended to confirm the applicability of the cold storage category based on the proportion of the HCW building space devoted to the cold storage. If some of the facilities are reclassified, the analysis needs to be re-evaluated. Further data collection might be needed, if a total of at least six sites are not identified under this category after reclassification.

 The study combined the transload and short-term storage categories for trip generation analysis. Although these categories are functionally different, their trip generation is not significantly different. Despite having relatively large sample size (95 sites) for this group, the study concluded that there is no meaningful statistic correlation between gross floor area and vehicle trip generation. It is recommended that an evaluation of further potential stratifications of the available data be undertaken and an appropriate set of data be selected for use as interim rates until further study is complete. For example, a set of 15 similar sites can be selected to 314
619
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

evaluate the consistency and correlation between the trip generation and one or more independent variables such as number of employment or floor area.

Recognizing the above-mentioned cautions about the results of this study, the summary of this study is presented in the following tables. Table 16 shows the percentage of trucks from total vehicles by each high-cube warehouse category, and the findings reflect notable differences in the trip generation characteristics between certain use types.

At Short-Term Storage, Transload & Cold Storage facilities, trucks represent approximately 30% of daily vehicle traffic, with disproportionately less of that traffic coming during AM and PM peak hours. At Parcel Hubs, trucks represent almost half of the AM peak traffic, but only approximately 38% over the course of the day and just over 29% during the PM peak hour.

Trucks account for only a small percentage of the total vehicle traffic at Fulfillment Centers.

Table 16 shows the daily weighted truck trip generation rates for each high-cube warehouse category. Per square foot, Parcel Hubs generate the highest number of truck trips, but the highest proportion of truck trips are generated by Cold Storage facilities. This is also the case when only 5+-axle trucks are considered.

Table 16. Trip Generation Rates by Warehouse Type (NAIOP Study) Warehouse
Type Period
Avg trip
rate per
1,000 GSF*
Truck %
Large Truck Mix %
2,3,4,
Axles 5+ Axles
Short-Term
Storage,
Transload
Daily 1.432 32% 48.7 51.3
AM Site 0.082 29% 37.5 62.5
PM Site 0.108 21% 56.5 43.5
Cold Storage
Daily 2.115 40% 10.4 89.6
AM Site 0.103 37% 28.9 71.1
PM Site 0.129 33% 26.2 73.8
Fulfillment
Center
Daily 8.178 9% 66.2 33.8
AM Site 0.841 3% 60.9 39.1
PM Site 1.979 2% 62.9 37.1
Parcel Hub
Daily 10.638 38% 75.5 24.5
AM Site 0.851 50% 90.3 9.7
PM Site 0.803 29% 96.2 3.8
Source: ACQMD, 2016, GSF: Gross Floor Area
315
620
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

5.3. INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS (ITE) TRIP GENERATION MANUAL
The 9th Edition ITE Trip Generation Manual provides trip generation rates for warehousing (150), mini-warehousing (151), high-cube warehousing (152), and wholesale market (860). Each land use code provides one or more methods for estimating the trips generated by a land use.

For example, warehousing (150) provides two options:

1. Employee-based estimation for weekday

2. Area-based estimation for weekday
The results of ITE’s analysis for various uses in Riverside County are presented in Table 17.

The ITE Trip Generation Manual provides the ability to estimate daily, AM peak, M peak, and weekend vehicle trips based on land use types, using independent variables of: floor area, acreage, or number of employees.

10th ITE Trip Generation Manual was released in September 2017. Since the new edition might not be adopted by RCTC yet, the trip generation rates from the 9th Edition is compared with respective rates from the 10th edition.

The information contained in the High-Cube Warehouse Vehicle Trip Generation Analysis and the ITE Trip Generation Manuals will be particularly useful in determining the proportional impact and fair share fee for differing types of high cube warehousing uses not readily distinguishable in the data derived from other aggregated sources, like Census and the SCAG demographic forecasts.
316
621
Item 19.

BLANK
317
622
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Page 41 Table 17. ITE Daily Trip Generation Rates for Industrial Land Use (Site Generators) Code  Land Use Unit Daily Rate  (9th Ed.) AM/PM Peak (9th Ed.) Daily Rate  (10th Ed.) AM/PM Peak (10th Ed.) Truck % (9th Ed.) 110 General Light Industrial Employees 3.02 0.48 / 0.51 3.05 0.67 / 0.68 N/A KSF Gross Floor Area 6.97 1.01 / 1.08 4.96 0.92 / 0.83 120 General Heavy Industrial Employees 0.82 0.40 / 0.40   N/A KSF Gross Floor Area 1.5 PM: 0.68   130 Industrial Park Employees 3.34 0.43 / 0.45 2.91 0.42 / 0.42 13% KSF Gross Floor Area 6.83 0.80 / 0.84 3.37 0.41 / 0.40 140 Manufacturing Employees 2.13 0.39 / 0.40 2.47 0.43 / 0.45 N/A KSF Gross Floor Area 3.82 0.79 / 0.75 3.93 0.81 / 0.79 150 Warehousing Employees 3.89 0.55 / 0.58 5.05 0.68 / 0.68 20% KSF Gross Floor Area 3.56 0.42 / 0.45 1.74 0.22 / 0.24 151 Mini‐Warehouse KSF Gross Floor Area 2.5 0.28 / 0.29 1.51 0.20 / 0.20 2%‐15% KSF Net Rentable Area 1.65 0.18 / 0.22 1.65 0.18 / 0.22 Storage Units 0.25 0.03 / 0.03 0.18* 0.23* / 0.24* Occupied storage units 0.2 0.02 / 0.02 0.19* 0.02* / 0.02* 152** High‐Cube Warehouse KSF Gross Floor Area 1.68 0.14 / 0.16   38% 154 High‐Cube Transload & Short‐Term Storage Warehouse KSF Gross Floor Area ‐ ‐ 1.40 0.12 / 0.16 N/A 155 High‐Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse KSF Gross Floor Area ‐ ‐ 8.18 0.22 / 0.27 N/A 156 High‐Cube Parcel Hub Warehouse KSF Gross Floor Area ‐ ‐ 7.75 0.88 / 0.71 N/A 157 High‐Cube Cold Storage Warehouse KSF Gross Floor Area ‐ ‐ 2.12 N/A N/A Source: ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition * Figures given by 100s of units; divided by 100 for consistency with 9th Edition figures. ** In the 10th Edition, Land Use Code 152 is replaced by Codes 154-157, which provide additional specificity.318623Item 19.

BLANK
319
624
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

5.4. SCAG HEAVY-DUTY TRUCK TRIP GENERATION (2016 RTP)
SCAG’s heavy-duty truck (HDT) model is a sub-model within the SCAG 2016 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) model. The model classifies trucks into three HDT weight classes by gross vehicle weight (GVW): light-heavy (8,500 to 14,000 lbs. GVW); medium-heavy (14,001 to 33,000 lbs. GVW); and heavy-heavy (>33,000 lbs. GVW).

The SCAG 2016 RTP HDT Model applies freight-related socioeconomic data to estimate trip generation using three submodules – external (to the region) trip generation, internal (to the region) trip generation, and special generator trip generation.

 The external trip generation module estimates the internal-external (IE), external- internal (EI), and external-external (EE) truck trip table for all interregional truck trips based on commodity flow patterns that link Southern California with the rest of the country. The EI/IE HDT trips are generated using a combination of commodity flow data at the county level and 2-digit NAICS employment data at a county level. External cordons are used to forecast future year external HDT trips from the base year trip flow matrices. This module uses a TRANSEARCH database obtained from IHS/Global Insight.

These data are provided as annual flows in tons and are converted to daily weekday flow using an annulation factor of 306 (6 days per week for 51 weeks) for all commodities. The flows are converted from tons to trucks using the specified payload factors varying by commodity types. These payload factors were developed using data from the 2002 Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS).

 The internal trip generation module is based on trip rates (number of trips per employee or household) for ten different land use/industry sectors at the trip ends.

These land use/industry sectors are households, agriculture/mining/construction, retail, government, manufacturing, transportation/utility, general warehousing, high cube warehousing, wholesale, and other (service). The socioeconomic data used by the internal HDT model is consistent with those data used by broader regional travel demand model. The trip rates for every land use were updated based on recent data collection efforts – establishment surveys and third-party truck GPS data. Table 15 shows the trip generation rates for truck trips internal to the region. All trip rates are per employee, except for the warehouse category, for which trip rates are presented both per employee and KSF of area

 Special generators include the ports and intermodal facilities. Not only major-purpose trips are included, but also secondary trips like cargo trips from intermediate handling locations to final destinations. Additionally, there are empty movements of trucks 320
625
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

associated with port truck trips, for purposes of truck repositioning. Ports are modeled based on detailed port area zone system and specialized trip generation rates for autos and trucks by type (bobtail, chassis, and containers). Intermodal truck trips are HDT movements generated at the six regional intermodal facilities in the SCAG region.

Table 18. Internal Truck Trip Generation Coefficient for Various Land Use Categories Category Truck Type All Trucks Light HDT  Medium HDT  Heavy HDT Households 0.0147 0.0046 0.0072 0.0265
Agriculture/Mining/Construction 0.0804 0.0778 0.0715 0.2297 Retail 0.0663 0.0662 0.0703 0.2028
Government 0.0296 0.0150 0.0148 0.0594
Manufacturing 0.0613 0.0655 0.0924 0.2192
Transportation/Utility 0.1579 0.1815 0.3199 0.6593
Wholesale 0.0916 0.0968 0.1316 0.32
Other (Service) 0.0095 0.0111 0.0151 0.0357
General Warehouse per Employee  0.1610 0.1850 0.3720 0.718 General Warehouse per KSF of Area  0.2819 0.2434 0.5421 1.0674 High Cube Warehouse per  Employee  0.184 0.211 0.372 0.767 High Cube  Warehouse per KSF of Area  0.0948 0.1272 0.3380 0.56

Based on information in the SCAG HDT model, the ratio of employee per KSF for general warehouse and is presented in Table 19.

Table 19. Employee per KSF Ratio in SCAG HDT model
Employee per KSF Ratio Light HDT
Trip Rate
Medium HDT
Trip Rate
Heavy HDT
Trip Rate
Total
Trucks
General Warehouse  1.75 1.32 1.46 4.52
High Cube Warehouse  1.94 1.66 1.10 4.70

The employee ratio in SCAG model seems very high compared to the ITE rates and the Fontana study. This issue was discussed with the SCAG modeling group who advised to only use the warehouse employee information from SCAG model since the 2016 RTP scenarios are based on employee variable and the warehouse square feet variable was not considered ready for use.

For this reason, where necessary, employee per KSF conversion rates will be derived from the ITE Trip Generation Manual.

321
626
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

5.5. SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES
Various approaches were reviewed in defining: 1) existing warehouse uses, 2) truck trip generation related to warehouse activities and 3) anticipated future warehouse growth in Riverside County. Although the equations used to estimate truck trips may differ significantly, a more important difference is the source of truck trips and the land use category that relates to each model. Unfortunately, these studies did not adopt a common definition of uses and with the rapid growth in automation in modern warehouses, the employee density may be declining while the related trucking activities may increase. However, in the absence of any other available information, the number of employee is still the primary variable to estimate trucking activities related to warehouse uses. For the purpose of this study effort, it is important to maintain the consistency between identified warehouse-related uses, their trip generation, and the future forecast of each use. Figure 16 shows the taxonomy of various uses with major warehouse activities.

Figure 16. Taxonomy of Uses with Major Warehouse Activities The studies that provide methods to estimate trip generation rates for various warehouse activities may aggregate some of these uses due to lack of information. Some methods are more conservative, choosing to include only heavy truck trip generators. Other methods take a more holistic approach, casting a broader net of trip types and weighting them for estimated Warehouse Activities
in Related Uses
Primary
Low-Cube
Light
Warehouse
Heavy
Warehouse
High-Cube
Cold Storage
Transload &
Short-Term
Fulfillment
Center
Parcel Hub
Secondary
Manufacturing
Light Industry
Heavy Industry
Wholesale Industrial Park
322
627
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

volume. No approach is inherently more correct than any other, but one may be more appropriate than others for a given purpose.

A desire for precision would suggest dis-aggregating land use types to the greatest degree possible. For example, distinguishing between high-cube and low-cube. However, this only useful if there is a valid forecast in the growth of these uses at the dis-aggregated level.

Furthermore, in the context of impact fee programs, the concept of “rough proportionality” has been determined to be adequate as the basis for establishing a rational nexus and associated fair share fee. For these reasons, the use of more reliable, aggregated data is considered preferable for this study effort, with cross-reference to supplemental data sources to address specific study needs.

Table 20 is a summary of the trip generation data assessed in this report. These data represent the “universe” for trip generation for the purposes of this study effort, and elaborate the related land uses, available of data and applicability for study use.

Table 20. Summary of Uses Related to Warehouse Activities and Trip Generation Methodologies
Land use Category with Significant
Warehouse Activity
Trip Generation Reference SCAG
Future
Forecast
(2040)
Fontana
Study

SCAG RTP
(2012
Base Year)

SCAQMD ITE
Primary
Warehouse
Activity
High-cube transload /
short-term warehouse

✓ ✓
✓ High-cube fulfillment center ✓ ✓
High-cube cold storage ✓ ✓
High-cube parcel hub ✓ ✓
Light warehouse * ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Heavy warehouse ** ✓ ✓
Secondary
Warehouse
Activity
Industrial park* ✓ ✓
Light industry (manufacturing) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Heavy industry (manufacturing) ✓ Wholesale ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ = available but not suitable for primary study use
✓ = available and suitable for supplemental reference
✓ = available and preferred for primary study use
*: Light warehouse also includes “low-cube” as defined by SCAG but not the Fontana Study **: Heavy warehouse includes “high-cube” as defined by SCAG but not the Fontana Study

323
628
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

Table 21 summarize the trip generation rates presented in this study. It is important to use this table properly and understand the assumptions related to each reference, since there are fundamental differences.

Table 21. Summary Trip Generation Rates Related to Warehouse Activities Land use Category with /
Unit
Trip Generation Reference
Fontana Study SCAG RTP [1] SCAQMD ITE
(10TH ED)
Per
Employee
Per 1,000
GSF
Per
Employee
Per 1000
SF
Per 1,000
GSF [2]
(adjusted)
Per 1,000
GSF
Per 1,000
GSF*
Primary
Warehouse
Activity
High-cube
transload /short-
term warehouse

0.951 0.725 0.767 0.560 0.384

0.454 0.444
High-cube
fulfillment center 0.717 0.717
High-cube cold
storage 0.836 0.75
High-cube parcel
hub 4.007 2.918
Light/General
warehouse 0.732  0.327 0.673 1.065 0.897 ‐ 0.348
Secondary
Warehouse
Activity
Industrial park 1.173 0.583 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.438
Light industry/
manufacturing 1.722 2.513

0.219 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.992
Heavy industry 1.469 2.926 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Wholesale ‐ ‐ 0.32 ‐ ‐ ‐ 0.302
[1] Source: SCAG Internal HDT Truck Model Development Report, 2012 [2] Assuming 2000 square feet per employee in High cube warehouse and 750 square feet per employee in general warehouse

The SCAG HDT model is the only source that provides future forecast for warehousing uses. It provides aggregate level data for high-cube and low-cube warehouse uses, as well as data for secondary manufacturing and wholesale activities, and for consistency, it is the primary recommended data source for this study. Furthermore, the SCAG 2016 RTP model applies trip rates differentiated between general and high-cube warehouse and forecast truck trips from 10 land use types including general and high-cube warehouses. The rates presented in the Fontana study and most recent ITE manual (which incorporates findings from the SCAQMD study) provide supplemental information that can be used to modify the trip rates in the SCAG HDT model to provide further disaggregation of results, as needed.

324
629
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

6. DIAGNOSTIC TESTS OF SCAG MODEL
Best practice for traffic forecasting includes, among other things, checking the traffic model to make sure that it provides reasonable forecasts for the specific area(s) under study. The forecasting model that was selected for this study is the model developed by SCAG for the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)3. This model was selected because it incorporates the current adopted transportation and land use plan (the 2016 RTP/SCS)4 and because it covers a sufficiently large geographic area to capture both ends of truck trips to and from logistics warehouses in Riverside County. The SCAG model was validated on a region-wide basis prior to its use for the RTP/SCS5. The diagnostic checks conducted for the current study pertained to the model’s ability to accurate represent truck trips on freeways in Riverside County.

This first test was to see whether the model replicated the distribution of truck trips based on origin and destinations within the county and in neighboring counties. Utilizing the O-D data described previously, the model results were compared. Table 22 shows that the model replicates the distribution of truck trips derived from the O-D data very closely.

Table 22: Check of County-Level Truck Origin-Destination Distribution

3 SCAG Standard Disclaimer: “The following modeling analysis was performed by WSP based upon modeling information originally developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG is not responsible for how the Model is applied or for any changes to the model scripts, model parameters, or model input data. The resulting modeling data does not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of SCAG. SCAG shall not be held responsible for the modeling results and the content of the documentation.” 4 Note that the current versions of the two other candidate models, namely RivTAM and the CVAG model, are both based on the (now superseded) 2012 RTP/SCS.
5 See: SCAG Regional Travel Demand Model and 2012 Model Validation, SCAG, March 2016 Trip Type O‐D
Survey
2016 SCAG
Model
Internal to Riverside County 47% 46%
One trip‐end in Riverside County 53% 54%
Internal to Riverside County 78% 80%
One trip‐end in Riverside County 22% 20%
Heavy Trucks
Medium Trucks
325
630
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

The next check was to determine how well the model represented traffic flows on Riverside County freeways in the AM and PM peak hours. Figure 17 and Figure 18 compare the model’s 2016 traffic volumes to counts of actual traffic taken from the Caltrans’ Performance Measurement System (PeMS). The figures also show a shaded area that represents the allowable deviation based on Caltrans guidelines6. A model is considered generally valid if 75% of the points fall within the allowable deviation. Based on this criterion, the SCAG model is generally valid for Riverside Counties in both the AM peak period (77% within allowable deviation) and the PM peak hour (81%). The figures also show that the model tends to slightly over-estimate traffic, which is a tendency that can be corrected by factoring down the forecasts during post-processing. However, the results indicate a particularly acute overestimation for the traffic on SR-91. Subsequent investigation has determined anomalies in the PeMS data for these locations causing the appearance in the charts that the model is overestimating when in reality, the results are more likely in the same realm as other sampled locations.

The next check was to see how well the SCAG model forecasts truck traffic on freeways in Riverside County, which is particularly relevant to determining the effectiveness of the model for use in this study effort. This test was performed by dividing the Riverside County freeway network into sections, as illustrated in Figure 19, and comparing the model’s 2016 truck volumes on each section with Caltrans’ truck volume data. Table 23 shows that the model generally does a good job of forecasting truck traffic on the study freeways. The only notable exceptions are for the sections of SR-60/I-215 and SR-91 within the City of Riverside, where the model is over-forecasting truck trips by about a factor of 3. Since the model matches the counts with regards to the percentage of trucks (see the right-most column in Table 23, the over-estimate of trucks in the vicinity of Riverside appears to be mainly due to the general over-estimation of trucks in that area, and is consistent with the over estimation of traffic in this area as described previously and illustrated in Figure 17 and Figure 18.

Correcting the general over-forecast of traffic in the vicinity of the City of Riverside central business district should reduce the tendency to over-forecast trucks on those sections of the freeway system. With resolution of this apparent anomaly in the SCAG model, the overall findings of the diagnostic tests of the SCAG model indicate that, with some minor post- processing, it can provide very reasonable forecasts of traffic, and specifically truck traffic, on freeways in Riverside County, and therefore is suitable for use to support the subsequent study evaluation efforts.

6 Travel Forecasting Guidelines, Caltrans, November 1992 326
631
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

Figure 17: Comparison of Model to Actual Traffic in the AM Peak Hour

Figure 18: Comparison of Model to Actual Traffic in the PM Peak Hour

0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
0 10002000300040005000600070008000900010000110001200013000SCAG Model Volumes PeMS I‐15
SR‐60
I‐215
SR‐91
I‐10
AM Peak Hour
Overestimated
Underestimated
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000SCAG Model VolumesPeMS I‐15
SR‐60
I‐215
SR‐91
I‐10
Overestimated
Underestimated
PM Peak Hour
327
632
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions Page 50 Figure 19: Freeway Sections Used to Check Truck Forecasts Table 23: Comparison of Model’s Truck Volumes to Counts of Actual Truck Traffic TotalVehiclesHeavyTrucksHeavyTrucks %AADT4+ AxleAADTHeavyTruck %Difference Heavy TrucksRatio1&2 I‐15 185,621 9,165 4.9% 151,000 9,082 6.0% 83 1.01‐1.1%3&4 I‐15 139,861 10,033 7.2% 117,000 5,762 4.9% 4,271 1.74 2.2%7&8 I‐15 197,698 9,092 4.6% 190,000 5,857 3.1% 3,235 1.55 1.5%9&10 I‐15 153,487 6,932 4.5% 159,000 6,226 3.9% 706 1.11 0.6%13&14 SR‐60/I‐215 210,042 19,361 9.2% 170,000 5,367 3.2% 13,994 3.61 6.1%15&16 SR 60 66,192 10,448 15.8% 61,000 6,929 11.4% 3,519 1.51 4.4%17&18 I‐215 189,324 7,187 3.8% 153,000 9,747 6.4%‐2,560 0.74‐2.6%19&20 I‐215 121,827 5,590 4.6% 120,000 6,120 5.1%‐530 0.91‐0.5%23&24 SR‐91 276,622 23,815 8.6% 247,000 8,040 3.3% 15,775 2.96 5.4%25&26 SR‐91 191,400 13,614 7.1% 209,000 8,036 3.8% 5,578 1.69 3.3%27&28 I‐10 109,361 9,708 8.9% 93,000 7,821 8.4% 1,887 1.24 0.5%29&30 I‐10 131,961 18,801 14.2% 118,000 16,844 14.3% 1,957 1.12 0.0%31&32 I‐10 96,719 16,418 17.0% 84,000 15,939 19.0% 479 1.03‐2.0%33&34 I‐10 30,654 10,415 34.0% 23,700 7,424 31.3% 2,991 1.40 2.6%ID RouteSCAG 2016 Model Daily Volumes AADT 2015 (Census) CountsDifference in Heavy Truck Percentage328633Item 19.

BLANK
329
634
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

7. DATA ADEQUACY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The objective of this technical memorandum is to present an overview of warehousing and logistics related development activity in Riverside County, and the availability of appropriate data to assess the impact of this development over time. This document is also intended to provide transparency in the study process by presenting background information regarding the range of data sources available to support the evaluation to be conducted in subsequent tasks.

The review of available data has revealed that Riverside County can expect to see continued development of warehousing and logistics uses in the future, and that growth in warehousing and logistics uses, although focused in specific zones, will occur in cities across Western Riverside County and the Coachella Valley, thereby likely generating impacts across the freeway system. Growth is expected to continue for both low-cube and high-cube warehousing and logistics uses supporting consideration of the impacts associated with the full range of associated development as part of this study, although it is anticipated that the rate of this type of development will decline over time as land availability is reduced for these uses.

SCAG demographic forecasts are provided based on number of employees, although impact fees are most readily applied based on total building (or site) area. The SCAG forecasts follow the NAICS structure which includes several categories associated with warehousing and logistics uses. The NAICS breakdown of employment categories utilized by SCAG supports extraction of warehousing and logistics employment from other uses as the basis to estimate growth in warehousing and logistics use over time. And while the SCAG Warehouse Study information that is expected to incorporate information relating to the growth in building area of warehousing is not considered suitable for use at this time, the availability of various employee to building area ratios will support conversion of the SCAG growth forecasts into growth in building area for the purposes of determining a fee. Furthermore, the availability of trip generation rates for a range of differing warehouse and logistics use types (based on employees and building area) will support the ability to determine a fair share fee amount to reflect the differing levels of impact associated with a variety of different types of warehousing and logistics uses.

A comparison of model outputs, O-D study results and actual traffic counts indicates that the SCAG model does a good job of replicating existing truck travel patterns and traffic conditions on the Riverside County freeway system. Furthermore, anomalies in the model results appear to be explicable and able to be resolved with limited post processing of results. This finding 330
635
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions

supports the use of the SCAG model as the primary evaluation tool for study evaluation, with supporting information able to be derived from a variety of other sources for validation and post processing of results to accomplish study needs.

The assessment associated with this study task has determined that a range of adequate, suitable data is available to support the determination of impacts associated with warehousing and logistics uses in Riverside County, and more specifically, the cost associated with mitigating the cumulative regional impacts of new warehousing and logistics development on the freeway system in Riverside County. The specific methodology for applying the various data sources to the study evaluation will be described in subsequent Technical Memoranda. In addition, these subsequent documents will present the study findings and results providing the framework for consideration to establish a regional logistics impact fee program.

331
636
Item 19.

Prepared for :

Prepared by:

In partnership with
Revised: March 2018

RCTC TRUCK STUDY AND

REGIONAL LOGISTICS

MITIGATION FEE
Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1:

Existing and Future Conditions
Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts
ATTACHMENT 3
332
637
Item 19.

BLANK
333
638
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts

i

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

2. Adjusting the SCAG Model ..................................................................................................... 1

3. Forecasting the Growth in Logistics in Riverside County ..................................................... 5

4. Results of New Model Runs ................................................................................................. 10

5. Next Steps ............................................................................................................................. 13

Table of Figures
Exhibit 1: Comparison of Modeled to Actual Truck Percentages on Riverside County Freeways ................................................................................................................. 2 Exhibit 2: Comparison of Modeled to Actual Truck Volumes on Riverside County Freeways .... 3 Exhibit 3: AM and PM Peak Hour Comparison of Traffic Counts and SCAG Model Volumes ... 4 Exhibit 4: AM and PM Peak Hour Comparison of Traffic Counts and SCAG Model Adjusted Volumes .................................................................................................................. 5 Exhibit 5: Steps Used to Forecast Logistics Growth ..................................................................... 6 Exhibit 6: Caltrans Economic Forecast for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties .................. 7 Exhibit 7: Caltrans Economic Forecast Transportation Employment Compared to the SCAG model’s Transportation Employment Data for Riverside ..................................... 8 Exhibit 8: The Proportion of Warehousing to Transportation Employment from the Riverside- San Bernardino-Ontario MSA ................................................................................ 8 Exhibit 9: Extrapolated EDD to 2040 using the 2003 to 2016 trend for warehousing and other transportation employment ................................................................................... 9 Exhibit 10: TAZs with Largest Warehousing/Logistics Growth .................................................. 10 Exhibit 11: Existing Freeway Deficiencies in Western Riverside County .................................... 11 Exhibit 12: Future Freeway Deficiencies in Western Riverside County ...................................... 11 Exhibit 13: New Logistics Trucks on Freeways in Western Riverside County ............................ 12 Exhibit 14: Examples of Attribution of 2040 Traffic Flow to Differing Sources .......................... 14

334
639
Item 19.

BLANK
335
640
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts

1 1. INTRODUCTION
This supplemental technical memorandum documents the modeling steps used to prepare the forecasts of freeway impacts arising from new logistics development in Riverside County, and presents the results of the model runs.

The first section of this supplemental technical memorandum describes how the model was reviewed and calibrated to correct the problems reported in the earlier Technical Memorandum 11. The second section describes the methodology used to forecast the growth in logistics in Riverside County. This is followed by a section describing the results of the model runs used to identify the impacts of truck traffic arising from new logistics warehouses. The final section of this memo discusses next steps in the analysis process.

2. ADJUSTING THE SCAG MODEL
Best industry practice requires that a regional travel demand model be adjusted and re- validated prior to using it for sub-regional studies:
“Agencies that use MPO models for purposes other than regional planning should ensure that the model provides the appropriate scale and sensitivity for applications at a sub‐regional level such as corridor, sub‐area, or local planning studies. Below the regional level, model refinements are likely necessary to ensure the model meets the validation targets established in these guidelines and is appropriately sensitive to smaller scale changes associated with sub‐regional studies.” Source: California Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines, California Transportation Commission, 2010.

Technical Memorandum 1 described a series of diagnostic tests that were performed on the SCAG model to test its validity for use to conduct technical evaluation as part of the RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee. The tests showed that the model represented truck traffic on Riverside County freeways well. For example, Exhibit 1 compares the percentage of trucks in the traffic on various freeways in the model versus the percentage in the Caltrans performance measurement system (PeMS) data, and Exhibit 2 shows a similar comparison for the truck volumes. The exhibits show a close correlation between the model and actual values, and no systemic tendency towards over- or under-estimating the truck percentage.

1 See the discussion of diagnostic tests of the SCAG model in Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions, WSP, October 2017
336
641
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts

2 Exhibit 1: Comparison of Modeled to Actual Truck Percentages on Riverside County Freeways

Data sources: SCAG 2016 RTP Travel Demand Model; Caltrans Freeway Performance Monitoring System (PeMS)

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0%SCAG Model Volumes Traffic Census I‐15
SR 60
I‐215
SR‐91
I‐10
Overestimated
Underestimated
337
642
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts

3 Exhibit 2: Comparison of Modeled to Actual Truck Volumes on Riverside County Freeways Data sources: SCAG 2016 RTP Travel Demand Model; Caltrans Freeway Performance Monitoring System (PeMS)

However, the tests also revealed that there was an issue warranting adjustment. Exhibit 3 shows link flows from a SCAG model run for 2016 compared to PeMS data for the same year.

This data was evaluated two ways, namely:
 The shaded area in Exhibit 3 shows the allowable deviation based on Caltrans guidelines. The allowable deviation reflects the fact that the actual traffic volumes on roads fluctuate from day to day, so the “normal” traffic volume that a model should replicate is a range rather than a fixed value. A model is considered generally valid if 75% of the points fall within the allowable deviation. In this case 77% of the sites are within the allowable range in the AM peak hour and 81% in the PM peak hour, so the model passes this test of validity.
 The second test was to see whether there a general tendency for the model to over- estimate or under-estimate freeway volumes on freeways in Riverside County. The exhibit shows that the model failed this test demonstrating a tendency to over- estimate freeway traffic, as illustrated by the fact the points nearly all fall above the equilibrium line which crosses diagonally through the middle of the exhibits, with an average over-estimation of 26% in the AM peak hour and 20% in the PM peak hour. 338
643
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts

4 Exhibit 3: AM and PM Peak Hour Comparison of Traffic Counts and SCAG Model Volumes Data sources: SCAG 2016 RTP Travel Demand Model; Caltrans Freeway Performance Monitoring System (PeMS)

Both the AM and PM peak hour overestimates can be reduced by factoring down model volumes in a post-model adjustment. Note that only car volumes were factored down, not truck volumes, because Exhibit 2 showed that the truck volumes were not in error.

Exhibit 4 shows the results after applying the factors of 0.74 and 0.80 in the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. The accuracy of the forecasts was much improved by these adjustments, with the R-squared2 value increasing from 0.15 to 0.79 in the AM peak hour and from 0.53 to 0.84 in the PM peak hour. The factoring down of the model forecasts to correct for the overestimation of car volumes by the model is important in the context of the study to ensure both existing and future deficiencies on the freeway network are not being overstated.

2 R-squared is a measure of how well the forecast accounts for variations in the traffic counts. R-squared values can range from 0.00, indicating no relationship between the model values and the counts, to 1.00, indicating that the model accounts fully for variation in the count data set. 0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000SCAG Model Volumes PeMS I‐15
SR‐60
I‐215
SR‐91
I‐10
AM Peak Hour
Overestimated
Underestimated
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000SCAG Model Volumes PeMS I‐15
SR‐60
I‐215
SR‐91
I‐10
PM Peak Hour
Overestimated
Underestimated
339
644
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts

5 Exhibit 4: AM and PM Peak Hour Comparison of Traffic Counts and SCAG Model Adjusted Volumes
Data sources: SCAG 2016 RTP Travel Demand Model (adjusted volumes); Caltrans Freeway Performance Monitoring System (PeMS)

3. FORECASTING THE GROWTH IN LOGISTICS IN RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
The steps used to forecast for the growth in logistics in Riverside County are illustrated in Exhibit 5. The steps in the process are described in the following section. The data sources recommended as the basis to accomplish these steps was previously described in Technical Memorandum 1.

1. The starting point for forecasting logistics growth in Riverside County was the adopted SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS. The SCS included a number of employment categories, of which the most relevant for this study is Transportation and Warehousing (corresponding to NAICS code 48-49). Warehousing employment (NAICS subcategory code 493) is included within this broad category, along with such things as air and rail transportation, trucking, transit, pipeline, and postal service jobs. The SCS data was obtained from SCAG in the form of socio-economic data (SED) inputs for the latest SCAG model (v6.3).

2. The growth in jobs in the Transportation and Warehousing category was derived as the difference in the employment figures for 2016 and 2040.

0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000SCAG Model Volumes PeMS I‐15
SR‐60
I‐215
SR‐91
I‐10
Overestimated
Underestimated
AM Peak Hour Adjusted
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000SCAG Model Volumes PeMS I‐15
SR‐60
I‐215
SR‐91
I‐10
Overestimated
Underestimated
PM Peak Hour Adjusted
340
645
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts

6 Exhibit 5: Steps Used to Forecast Logistics Growth

3. Caltrans’ Transportation Economics Branch provides annual county-level projections of employment by 2-digit NAICS industry categories out to 20503. Their forecast is shown in Exhibit 6. This was compared to the forecast from the adopted SCAG SCS as a reasonableness check. As can be seen in Exhibit 7, the two forecasts are reasonably consistent. The SCS forecast is a little lower in magnitude than the Caltrans’ forecast, making it a more conservative basis for a fee program4.

4. Next, the growth in employment in the warehouse sub-category needed to be separated out from the growth of the broader Transportation and Warehousing category. The best available data for accomplishing this comes from the California Employment Development Department (EDD). EDD collects data on employment by detailed NAICS industries, but only at the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)

3 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/socio_economic.html 4 The Mitigation Fee Act prohibits agencies from over-charging a fee, but not under-charging (in most cases an agency is not required to charge any fee at all). For fee studies it is important not to over-state impacts. This is different from studies done pursuant to CEQA, where it is important not to under-state impacts.

Key
Key Inputs
Output
Reasonableness
Check
#Reference to Description in Text
2016 T&U Employmt1
3 2
Yes
SCAG 2040 SCS
Transportation &
Utilities Employment
EDD Warehouse as
% of Transportation
& Utilities Jobs
Reasonable?
Caltrans Forecast
for Trans & Utilities
Jobs
Growth in
Warehouse Jobs in
Riverside County
Growth in T&U Jobs
in Riverside County
Reasonable?Historic Trends
Yes
SCAG Model % of
Warehouse Growth
by TAZ
Growth in
Warehouse Jobs
in Riverside Co.
by TAZ
4 6
5 Intermediate Step
341
646
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts

7 geography. Moreover, EDD does not include long-term forecasts. Therefore, the EDD historical data for the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA extrapolated into the future based on the continuation of historical trend.

The proportion of Transportation and Warehouse employment that is in the warehousing sub-category was computed (see Exhibit 8) to observe the historical trend.

As seen in Exhibit 8, 2003 marks an inflection point where the rate of growth in warehousing increases relative to the growth of transportation employment as a whole.

Therefore, the post-2003 trend was used to extrapolate from 2016 to 2040 for both for the warehousing sub-category and the rest of Transportation sub-categories.

Exhibit 6: Caltrans Economic Forecast for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties

0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200020022004200620082010201220142016201820202022202420262028203020322034203620382040Transportation  Employment:

Caltrans  Economic  Forecast by  County
Riverside County San Bernardino County
Historical Forecast
342
647
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts

8 Exhibit 7: Caltrans Economic Forecast Transportation Employment Compared to the SCAG model’s Transportation Employment Data for Riverside

Exhibit 8: The Proportion of Warehousing to Transportation Employment from the Riverside- San Bernardino-Ontario MSA

0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Transportation  Employment: Caltrans  Economic
Forecast vs SCAG Model [Riverside County]
SCAG Model  SED Caltrans  Economic  Forecast
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016Percent of Transportation Employment (NAICS 43) in  Warehousing  (NAICS 43‐493)
[Riverside‐San Bernardino‐Ontario MSA]
343
648
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts

9 5. As a reasonableness check, the growth in warehouse jobs and non-warehouse jobs in the Transportation and Warehouse category were compared to historic trends. As can be seen in

6. , the forecasts produced by steps 1 through 4 appear to be reasonable in light of the best available data, and generally reflect a continuation of recent historical trends.

Exhibit 9: Extrapolated EDD to 2040 using the 2003 to 2016 trend for warehousing and other transportation employment

7. Steps 1 through 5 produced a control total for the growth in warehouse jobs in Riverside County, but contain no information about where in the county the jobs would be located. The best available data for the distribution of growth among the traffic analysis zones (TAZs) comes from a study currently underway by SCAG, some products of which are available for modeling purposes5. Exhibit 10 shows the TAZs with the highest warehousing growth in the SCAG model SED. The large majority of growth is associated with the World Logistics Center—this TAZ contains 91% of the growth shown for the county at the time the SED was developed. Another 3% of the projected growth is reflected in a TAZ encompassing the western portion of the March Joint Powers Authority (JPA) March Air Force Base Reuse Plan. Three additional TAZ’s each show 1% of the forecast growth in warehousing, while six additional TAZs each show warehousing growth of less than 1%.

The control total from Step 5 was multiplied by the percentage of growth for each TAZ to produce the forecast of the growth in warehouse employment by TAZ.

5 The on-going SCAG study also produced some forecasts of warehouse jobs by TAZ, but the SCAG team stated that these were very preliminary and recommended that they not be used for the current nexus study. 0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
19901992199419961998200020022004200620082010201220142016201820202022202420262028203020322034203620382040EDD  Warehouse and other Transportation Employment Extrapolated Trends
[Riverside‐San Bernardino‐Ontario MSA]
Warehouse Non‐Warehouse
Historical Forecast
344
649
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts

10 Exhibit 10: TAZs with Largest Warehousing/Logistics Growth

4. RESULTS OF NEW MODEL RUNS
Once the model was prepared as described in the previous sections, new model runs were performed to forecast various traffic performance measures including the volume-to-capacity V/C ratio for each portion of the freeway network in Riverside County. The V/C ratio was computed using the passenger car equivalent (PCE) factors6 embedded in the model. The Riverside County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) sets a target LOS of “E” (V/C ratio no greater than 0.99) for freeways, so any segment with a V/C ratio equal to or greater than 1.00 is considered deficient as defined by the CMP.

Exhibit 11 plots the existing freeway V/C ratios geographically. There are three current deficiencies as illustrated: I-15 in the Jurupa Valley, I-215 between downtown Riverside and Moreno Valley, and SR-91 through Corona. It should be noted that in many cases the extents of congestion drivers experience is exacerbated by queuing from downstream segments where deficiencies are observed (i.e. the bottlenecks identified by the model).

Exhibit 12 illustrates the impact of 2040 travel demands on the existing freeway network with no additional capacity improvements. The deficiencies shown in Exhibit 11 worsen and an additional three deficiencies are identified. Both plots only show Western Riverside County because no deficiencies were observed on freeways elsewhere in Riverside.

6 PCE factors are used to account for the difference in size, speed, and maneuverability between different classes of vehicles, including the effect of slopes on the operating characteristics of trucks. 345
650
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts

11 Exhibit 11: Existing Freeway Deficiencies in Western Riverside County

Exhibit 12: Future Freeway Deficiencies in Western Riverside County

346
651
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts

12 Exhibit 13 shows the relative growth in truck traffic due to new logistics, with the bandwidth being proportional to the increased volume. The largest flows of trucks are forecast to come from truck traffic to and from the proposed World Logistics Center. The largest increases in truck flows would occur on SR-60 and I-215 west of the World Logistics Center. However, truck traffic from new warehouses would contribute to worsening traffic conditions at all of the deficient freeway sections previously identified in Exhibit 11 and Exhibit 12, and as indicated by the black ellipses in Exhibit 13 .

Exhibit 13: New Logistics Trucks on Freeways in Western Riverside County

347
652
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts

13 5. NEXT STEPS
Once the existing and future deficiencies were identified and the truck traffic arising from new logistics warehouses was forecast, the next step in the study process will be to determine how much of each future deficiency can be attributed to new truck trips from warehouses. Exhibit 14 shows that there are three possible situations in terms of the determining the relative share of future forecast traffic growth hat may be attributable to growth in warehousing in Riverside County:
 Some freeway segments have an existing deficiency that will be worsened with the addition of traffic from new growth. SR-91 between Riverside and Corona and SR-60 in western Moreno Valley appear to fall into this category. In these cases, the percent of the deficiency attributable to new growth is the portion of the excess traffic (excess being the traffic above the capacity of the road) that arises from new growth rather from existing traffic.
 The second case occurs when the existing traffic volumes are below the capacity of the freeway, but the addition of traffic from new growth creates a deficiency where none previously existed. I-15 north of Corona and SR-60 in eastern Moreno Valley are two examples of this. In such cases 100% of the deficiency can be attributed to new development.
 In the final situation, freeway volumes are below the capacity of the freeway, even when the traffic from new development is added in. In such cases there is no deficiency. No fee can be collected because no improvement is needed to mitigate the impacts of new growth.

It should be noted that in all three examples, the proportion of traffic impacts associated with new warehousing development in Riverside County (illustrated in orange in the exhibit) is relatively small compared to the traffic impacts associated with all other growth (illustrated in blue in the exhibit). As such, the share of the cost of mitigation attributable to growth in warehousing in Riverside County must be commensurate with the relative share of the impact resulting from these uses. Determination of mitigation needs, costs and the relative share attributable to new warehousing in Riverside County will be the subject of the next technical memorandum.

348
653
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Supplemental Technical Memorandum 1: Model Validation, Calibration and Forecasts

14 Exhibit 14: Examples of Attribution of 2040 Traffic Flow to Differing Sources 349
654
Item 19.

Prepared for :

Prepared by:

In partnership with
Revised: June 2018

RCTC TRUCK STUDY AND

REGIONAL LOGISTICS

MITIGATION FEE
Technical Memorandum:

Task 2 – Funding and Cost Analysis
ATTACHMENT 4
350
655
Item 19.

BLANK
351
656
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

i

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

2. Identifying Capacity Deficiencies............................................................................................ 1

2.1. Adjusting the SCAG Model ............................................................................................. 1

2.1.1. Model Validation ...................................................................................................... 2

2.1.2. Forecasting the Growth in Logistics Employment in Riverside County ................ 6

2.1.3. Model Post Processing .......................................................................................... 10

2.2. Identifying Deficiencies ................................................................................................. 11

3. Attributing Capacity Deficiencies to New Logistics Development ..................................... 14

3.1. Percent Attributable to Future Development ............................................................... 14

3.2. Percent Attributable to New Logistics Development ................................................... 14

3.2.1. Tracking new logistics truck traffic in the SCAG model ....................................... 14

3.2.2. Percent Attributable to New Logistics Development ........................................... 14

3.3. Identifying projects ........................................................................................................ 15

4. Estimating Freeway Project Costs ........................................................................................ 19

4.1. Assessing Project Limits ............................................................................................... 19

4.2. Review of Currently Funded/Programmed Improvements.......................................... 20

4.3. Development of Project Concepts ................................................................................ 22

4.4. Project Cost Estimating ................................................................................................. 22

5. Funding Sources and Funding Gap ..................................................................................... 27

5.1. Riverside County Strategic Assessment ....................................................................... 27

5.2. Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act ............................................................... 30

5.2.1. Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects ........................................... 30

5.2.2. Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment Program ........................................................................................................... 31

5.2.3. Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives Program ........................... 32

5.2.4. FAST Act Funding Implications for RCTC ............................................................. 33

5.3. Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Senate Bill 1) ........................................ 33

5.3.1. Trade Corridor Enhancement Program ................................................................. 33 352
657
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

ii

5.3.2. Solutions for Congested Corridors Program ........................................................ 34

5.3.3. Local Partnership Program .................................................................................... 35

5.3.4. SB1 Funding Implications for RCTC ...................................................................... 35

5.4. Summary of Available Funding from All Sources ........................................................ 36

6. Funding Gap Analysis ........................................................................................................... 40

7. Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 41 Appendix A – Capacity Improvement Concept Plans ................................................................ A-1 Appendix B – Conceptual Project Cost Estimate Tables ........................................................... B-1

353
658
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

iii

List of Figures
Figure 2-1: Comparison of Modeled to Actual Daily Truck Percentages on Riverside County Freeways ................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2-2: Comparison of Modeled to Actual Daily Truck Volumes on Riverside County Freeways ................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2-3: AM and PM Peak Hour Comparison of Traffic Counts and SCAG Model Volumes 4 Figure 2-4: AM and PM Peak Hour Comparison of Traffic Counts and SCAG Model Adjusted Volumes .................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 2-5: Steps Used to Forecast Logistics Growth................................................................... 6 Figure 2-6: Caltrans Economic Forecast for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties ................ 8 Figure 2-7: Caltrans Economic Forecast Transportation Employment Compared to the SCAG model’s Transportation Employment Data for Riverside ..................................... 8 Figure 2-8: The Proportion of Warehousing to Transportation Employment from the Riverside- San Bernardino-Ontario MSA ................................................................................ 9 Figure 2-9: Extrapolated EDD to 2040 Using the 2003 to 2016 Trend for Warehousing and Other Transportation Employment ....................................................................... 9 Figure 2-10: TAZs with Largest Warehousing/Logistics Growth in Riverside County .............. 10 Figure 2-11: Existing Deficiencies in Riverside County during the AM Peak Hour ................... 12 Figure 2-12: Future Deficiencies in Riverside County during the AM Peak Hour ..................... 12 Figure 2-13: Existing Deficiencies in Riverside County during the PM Peak Hour ................... 13 Figure 2-14: Future Deficiencies in Riverside County during the PM Peak Hour ..................... 13 Figure 3-1: New Logistics Trucks in western Riverside County.................................................. 15 Figure 3-2: Components of 2040 Traffic Demand as a Percentage of Capacity ....................... 17 Figure 3-3: Deficient Segment Location Map ............................................................................. 18

354
659
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

iv

List of Tables

Table 3-1: Deficient Segment Locations and Percent Attributable ............................................ 16 Table 4-1: Practical Limits of Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Projects ................... 19 Table 4-2: Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Projects to be Included in the Fee Program ................................................................................................................ 21 Table 4-3: Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Project Conceptual Cost Estimates ...... 26 Table 5-1: Freeway Funding Program, Amount (in millions) and Risk ...................................... 29 Table 5-2: Projected Annual RCTC Funding from FAST (in millions) ........................................ 33 Table 5-3: Projected Annual SB1 Funding for RCTC (in millions) ............................................. 36 Table 5-4: Freeway Project Funding from New Sources 2017-2040 (in millions) ..................... 37 Table 5-5: RCTC Projected Freeway Project Funding 2017-2040 - All Sources (in millions) ..... 37 Table 5-6: Projected RCTC Projected Freeway Project Funds without SB1, 2017-2040 (millions) ............................................................................................................................... 38 Table 5-7: Projected RCTC Funding with and without SB1, 2017-2040 (in millions) ................ 39 355
660
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

1 1. INTRODUCTION
The statutory requirements and legal precedents relating to the imposition of impact fees mandate developing a fully fundable program to ensure that the revenues collected are proportional, adequate and can be spent in a reasonable amount of time to effectively mitigate the resulting impacts. Accomplishing the funding and cost analysis task represents a series of critical steps in the nexus process to identify other available funding sources that will contribute to mitigating the impacts of logistics facilities and other development in the County. This includes quantifying the costs of addressing existing deficiencies in highway infrastructure, the costs to address impacts resulting from other development activities not attributable to the warehousing and logistics sector, and the cost to address the impacts of pass through trips, including goods movement. Additionally, this task will need to establish a program of projects that can be implemented to effectively mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new logistics related developments and to satisfy requirements for timely revenue expenditure.

The various steps of the nexus development process that contribute to accomplishing this task are summarized as follows. This effort starts by using the traffic data outputs of the prior task to identify capacity deficiencies in the highway network, then determining the proportion of those deficiencies that are attributable to new warehousing and logistics related development.

The resultant information can then be cross-referenced with project cost information to determine the overall cost of mitigating freight impacts as the basis for estimating a fee.

2. IDENTIFYING CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES
A primary step in the process of determining the basis for any impact fee program is identifying the extent of the impact that will result from new development activity. For the purposes of this study, the SCAG regional travel demand model was the primary tool used for identifying existing and future capacity deficiencies and determining attribution of deficiencies to new logistics trucking1. A modified SCAG model was run for existing (2016) and future with no improvement (2040) conditions. Model outputs were processed to identify deficiencies and percent attributable to new logistics trucking, as described in the following sections.

2.1. ADJUSTING THE SCAG MODEL
The SCAG Model’s 2016 scenario year network was used for all model runs with the 2016 and 2040 socio-economic data providing the basis for the demand inputs. These model files were from the version of the SCAG model used to develop the 2016 RTP/SCS. In accordance with best industry practice, some adjustments were made to improve the accuracy of the model

1 The following model analysis was performed by WSP based upon modeling information originally developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG is not responsible for how the model is applied or for any changes to the model scripts, model parameters, or model input data. The resulting modelling data does not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of SCAG. SCAG shall not be held responsible for the modeling results and the content of the documentation. 356
661
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

2 with respect to freeways in Riverside County. These adjustments are described in an earlier technical memorandum2.

2.1.1. Model Validation
Best industry practice requires that a regional model be adjusted and re-validated prior to using it for sub-regional studies:
“Agencies that use MPO models for purposes other than regional planning should ensure that the model provides the appropriate scale and sensitivity for applications at a sub‐regional level such as corridor, sub‐area, or local planning studies. Below the regional level, model refinements are likely necessary to ensure the model meets the validation targets established in these guidelines and is appropriately sensitive to smaller scale changes associated with sub‐regional studies.” From 2010 California Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines, California Transportation Commission.

The previous technical memorandum described a series of diagnostic tests that the study team performed on the SCAG model to test its validity for use in a freeway impact fee nexus study.

The tests showed that the model represented truck traffic on Riverside County freeways well.

For example, Figure 2-1 compares the percentage of trucks in the traffic on various freeways in the model versus the percentage in the Caltrans performance measurement system (PeMS) data, and Figure 2-2 shows a similar comparison for truck volumes. There is a close correlation between the model and actual values, and no systemic tendency towards over- or under- estimating the truck percentage.

2 See the discussion of diagnostic tests of the SCAG model in Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Conditions, WSP, July 2017
357
662
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

3 Figure 2-1: Comparison of Modeled to Actual Daily Truck Percentages on Riverside County Freeways

Figure 2-2: Comparison of Modeled to Actual Daily Truck Volumes on Riverside County Freeways

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0%SCAG Model Volumes Traffic Counts I-15
SR 60
I-215
SR-91
I-10
Overestimated
Underestimated
0 5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000SCAG Model Volumes Traffic Counts I-15
SR 60
I-215
SR-91
I-10
Overestimated
Underestimated
358
663
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

4 However, the tests also revealed that there was an issue warranting adjustment. Figure 2-3 shows link flows from a SCAG model run for 2016 compared to PeMS data for the same year.

This data was evaluated two ways, namely:
• The shaded areas in Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3 show the allowable deviation based on Caltrans guidelines. The allowable deviation reflects the fact that the actual traffic volumes on roads fluctuate from day to day, so the “normal” traffic volume that a model should replicate is a range rather than a fixed value. A model is considered generally valid if 75% of the points fall within the allowable deviation. In this case 77% of the sites are within the allowable range in the AM peak hour and 86% in the PM peak hour, so the model passes this test of validity.
• The second test was to see whether there was a general tendency for the model to over- estimate or under-estimate freeway volumes on freeways in Riverside County. Figure 2-3 shows that the model failed this test; over-estimating traffic on Riverside County freeways by an average of 26% in the AM peak hour and 20% in the PM peak hour.

Figure 2-3: AM and PM Peak Hour Comparison of Traffic Counts and SCAG Model Volumes

The model overestimation can be reduced by factoring down model volumes in a post-model adjustment. Only car volumes were factored down, not truck volumes, because truck volumes did not show the same trend (see Figure 2-2).

Figure 2-4 shows the results after applying factors of 0.74 and 0.80 in the AM peak hour and PM peak hour, respectively. After adjustments, the R-squared3 value increased from 0.11 to 0.79 in the AM peak hour and from 0.51 to 0.84 in the PM peak hour.

3 R-squared is a measure of how well the forecast accounts for variations in the traffic counts. R-squared values can range from 0.00, indicating no relationship between the model values and the counts, to 1.00, indicating that the model accounts for all variation in the count data set.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

5 Figure 2-4: AM and PM Peak Hour Comparison of Traffic Counts and SCAG Model Adjusted Volumes

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

6 2.1.2. Forecasting the Growth in Logistics Employment in Riverside County The steps used to forecast for the growth in logistics in Riverside County are outline in Figure 2-5 below.

Figure 2-5: Steps Used to Forecast Logistics Growth
The steps in the process were:
1) The starting point for forecasting logistics growth in Riverside County was the adopted SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS. The SCS socio-economic data (SED) included several employment categories, of which the most relevant for this study is Transportation and Warehousing (corresponding to NAICS code 48-49). Warehousing employment (NAICS subcategory code 493) is included within this category, along with other types of employment such as air and rail transportation, trucking, transit, pipeline, and postal service. The SCS data was obtained from SCAG in the form of SED inputs for the latest SCAG model (v6.3).

Key
Key Inputs
Output
Reasonableness
Check
#Reference to Description in Text
2016 T&U Employmt
1 3
2 Yes
SCAG 2040 SCS
Transportation &
Utilities Employment
EDD Warehouse as
% of Transportation
& Utilities Jobs
Reasonable?
Caltrans Forecast
for Trans & Utilities
Jobs
Growth in
Warehouse Jobs in
Riverside County
Growth in T&U Jobs
in Riverside County
Reasonable?Historic Trends
Yes
SCAG Model % of
Warehouse Growth
by TAZ
Growth in
Warehouse Jobs
in Riverside Co.
by TAZ
4 6
5 Intermediate Step
361
666
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

7 2) The growth in jobs in the Transportation and Warehousing category was derived as the difference in the employment figures for 2016 and 2040. 3) Caltrans’ Transportation Economics Branch provides annual county-level projections of employment by 2-digit NAICS industry categories out to 20504. Their forecast is shown in Figure 2-6. This was compared to the forecast from the adopted SCS as a reasonableness check. As can be seen in Figure 2-7, the two forecasts are reasonably consistent. The SCS forecast is a little lower than the Caltrans’ forecast, representing a more conservative forecast as the basis a fee program5. 4) Next, the growth in employment in the warehouse sub-category needed to be separated out from the growth of the broader Transportation and Warehousing category. The best data available for doing this comes from the California Employment Development Department (EDD). EDD collects data on employment by detailed NAICS industries, but only at the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) geography. Moreover, EDD does not include long-term forecasts. Therefore, the EDD historical data for the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA had to be extrapolated into the future.

First, the proportion of Transportation and Warehouse employment that is in the warehousing sub-category was computed (see Figure 2-8) to observe the historical trend. As seen in Figure 2-8, 2003 marks an inflection point where the rate of growth in warehousing increases relative to the growth of transportation/warehousing employment overall. Therefore, the post-2003 trend was used to extrapolate from 2016 to 2040 for both for the warehousing sub-category and the rest of Transportation sub- categories.
5) As a reasonableness check, the growth in warehouse jobs and non-warehouse jobs in the Transportation and Warehouse category were compared to historic trends. As can be seen in Figure 2-9, the forecasts produced by steps 1 through 4 appear to be reasonable considering the best available data.
6) Steps 1 through 5 produced a control total for the growth in warehouse jobs in Riverside County, but contain no information about where in the county the jobs would be located. Locational data is needed so that the growth will be properly represented in the forecast in terms of where they will affect the freeway system.

The best available data for the distribution of growth among the traffic analysis zones (TAZs) comes from a study currently underway by SCAG, some products of which are available for modeling purposes6. Figure 2-10 shows the TAZs with the highest warehousing growth in the SCAG model SED. The large majority of growth is associated

4 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/eab/socio_economic.html 5 Impact fee programs must demonstrate a rational nexus and rough proportionality between the nature of the development that would be subject to the fee, the magnitude of the impact being created, and the cost to mitigate the specific impact. For fee studies, it is important not to over-estimate impacts or thr required mitigation, which can be different from other types of traffic impact studies done pursuant to CEQA, where it is typically more important not to under-estimate impacts. 6 The on-going SCAG study also produced some forecasts of warehouse jobs by TAZ, but the SCAG team stated that these were very preliminary and recommended that they not be used for the current nexus study. 362
667
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

8 with the World Logistics Center—this TAZ contains 91% of the growth for the county.

After the five TAZ with the largest growth, there are six TAZs each with less than 1% of the warehousing employment in the county.

The control total from Step 5 was multiplied by the percentage of growth for each TAZ to produce the forecast of the growth in warehouse employment by TAZ.

Figure 2-6: Caltrans Economic Forecast for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties

Figure 2-7: Caltrans Economic Forecast Transportation Employment Compared to the SCAG model’s Transportation Employment Data for Riverside
0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200020022004200620082010201220142016201820202022202420262028203020322034203620382040Transportation Employment:

Caltrans Economic Forecast by County
Riverside County San Bernardino County
Historical Forecast
0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Transportation Employment: Caltrans Economic
Forecast vs SCAG Model [Riverside County]
SCAG Model SED Caltrans Economic Forecast
363
668
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

9 Figure 2-8: The Proportion of Warehousing to Transportation Employment from the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA

Figure 2-9: Extrapolated EDD to 2040 Using the 2003 to 2016 Trend for Warehousing and Other Transportation Employment
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016Percent of Transportation Employment (NAICS 43) in Warehousing (NAICS 43-493)
[Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA]
0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
19901992199419961998200020022004200620082010201220142016201820202022202420262028203020322034203620382040EDD Warehouse and other Transportation Employment Extrapolated Trends
[Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA]
Warehouse Non-Warehouse
Historical Forecast
364
669
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

10 Figure 2-10: TAZs with Largest Warehousing/Logistics Growth in Riverside County

2.1.3. Model Post Processing
The model data was post-processed to calculate peak hour volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios and identify deficiencies. Link data was processed for all freeway links in Riverside County. The SCAG model generates link flows for the AM peak (3-hour) and PM (4-hour) peak periods. Peak period flows for non-trucks were converted to hourly flows using conversion factors of 0.35 and 0.28 for AM and PM peak hours, respectively. These factors were taken from San Bernardino County CMP Appendix H – Post Processed Traffic Volume Guidelines and are widely used in model applications in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Trucks were assumed to have a flat demand for each hour within a peak period (i.e. factors of 0.33 and 0.25 for AM and PM). Then, the validation factors discussed in Section 2.1 (0.74 and 0.80 in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively) were applied to non-truck flows.

365
670
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

11 2.2. IDENTIFYING DEFICIENCIES
The V/C ratio was computed for each link in the AM and PM peak hours using the capacities and passenger car equivalent (PCE) factors7 embedded in the SCAG model which account for grade. Per the RCTC Congestion Management Program, the adopted minimum Level of Service (LOS) threshold for freeways in Riverside County is LOS “E” meaning that facilities with a V/C ratio of 1.0 or higher are considered deficient.

Figure 2-11 and Figure 2-13 show the existing V/C ratios for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour, respectively. There are three current deficiencies identified in Riverside County: SR-91 in Corona during the both the AM and PM peak hours, I-15 in the Jurupa Valley during the PM peak hour, and I-215 between Riverside and Moreno Valley during the PM peak hour. These congested sections may result in queuing in upstream sections whose V/C ratios would not in themselves be problematic, so drivers may perceive the problem sections to be longer than shown.

Figure 2-12 and Figure 2-14 shows 2040 traffic demand assigned to the existing network8 with no capacity improvements for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The existing deficiencies would worsen and two additional deficiencies in the AM peak hour and five additional deficiencies in the PM peak hour would be created.

7 PCE factors are used to account for the difference in size, speed, and maneuverability between different classes of vehicles, including the effect of slopes on the operating characteristics of trucks. 8 The SCAG existing model network represents the current state of the transportation system in 2016 and does not reflect those projects completed since 2016. In Riverside County, the SR-91 Express Lanes Extension project that included various freeway improvements along SR-91 from the Orange County line to I-15 was completed after 2016. Projects completed after 2016 (as well as projects currently under construction) get reconciled during subsequent study steps, as described in Chapter 4 of this technical memorandum. 366
671
Item 19.

BLANK
367
672
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

12 Figure 2-11: Existing Deficiencies in Riverside County during the AM Peak Hour

Figure 2-12: Future Deficiencies in Riverside County during the AM Peak Hour 368
673
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

13 Figure 2-13: Existing Deficiencies in Riverside County during the PM Peak Hour

Figure 2-14: Future Deficiencies in Riverside County during the PM Peak Hour 369
674
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

14 3. ATTRIBUTING CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES TO NEW LOGISTICS

DEVELOPMENT

3.1. PERCENT ATTRIBUTABLE TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
The Mitigation Fee Act limits impact fees to new development’s “fair share” of the cost of needed improvements. For that reason, once the existing and future freeway deficiencies were identified, the next step was to determine how much of each future deficiency can be attributed to traffic from future development. There are three possible situations for each freeway link:
• Freeway volumes are below the capacity of the freeway, even when the traffic from new development is added in. In such cases there is no deficiency. No fee can be collected because no improvement is needed.
• Existing traffic volumes are below the capacity of the freeway, but the addition of traffic from new growth creates a deficiency where none previously existed. In such cases 100% of the deficiency can be attributed to new development. • There is an existing deficiency that will worsen with the addition of traffic from new growth. In these cases, the percent of the deficiency attributable to new growth is the portion of the excess traffic (excess being the traffic above the capacity of the road) that arises from new growth rather than from existing traffic.

3.2. PERCENT ATTRIBUTABLE TO NEW LOGISTICS DEVELOPMENT

3.2.1. Tracking new logistics truck traffic in the SCAG model In order compute the percent of each deficiency that is attributable to new logistics development, it was necessary to keep track of trips generated by new logistics uses during the model assignment. The socio-economic data (SED) input files were modified in such a way that only growth in warehousing employment were allocated to traffic analysis zones (TAZ), so all trips to or from these TAZ can be attributed to only new logistics activity. A select-zone query was generated during the assignment step so the new logistics trips were recorded for each link in the model. The SCAG model classifies vehicles by class including trucks, so trucks in the select-zone query represent all the truck traffic attributable to new logistics development.

Figure 3-1 shows the truck traffic due to new logistics, with bandwidth proportional to traffic flow. The largest flows are forecast to come from the proposed World Logistics Center, with the location of the World Logistics Center highlighted for easy reference. The largest increases in truck flows would occur on SR-60 and I-215 west of the World Logistics Center.

3.2.2. Percent Attributable to New Logistics Development First, for each link, the growth in traffic volumes (measured as passenger car equivalents or PCE) from 2016 to 2040 was calculated. Then new logistics truck traffic was taken as a percent of that overall growth. This percent of growth attributable to new logistics trucks was 370
675
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

15 multiplied by the percent of deficiencies attributable to growth to find the percent of each deficiency specifically attributable to new logistics truck traffic. All these steps were done for both AM and PM peak hour traffic, then the peak hour with the higher percent attributable was selected to represent the link.

Figure 3-1: New Logistics Trucks in western Riverside County

3.3. IDENTIFYING PROJECTS
Links with new or increased deficiencies in either peak hour relative to existing conditions were identified as potential locations for improvement projects. Continuous sequences of model links were grouped into locations represented by a critical link for determining percent attributable to new logistics.

Table 3-1 shows the critical V/C ratios, deficiencies, and percent attributable for each project location. Figure 3-2 visually represents the components of traffic (existing, non-logistics growth, and logistics growth) relative to the capacity for each project location. For example, existing demand is less than capacity at project 4, so there is no existing deficiency. Therefore, the deficiency that is expected to appear by 2040 is entirely attributable to new development.

At project 5, the existing demand exceeds capacity, and growth increases the deficiency.

Figure 3-3 shows the project locations on a map.
371
676
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis 16 Table 3-1: Deficient Segment Locations and Percent Attributable 2016 AM V/C2016 PM V/C2040 AM V/C2040 PM V/CAM Peak Hour PM Peak HourAM Peak HourPM Peak HourAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour(F) = Max (E)SR-79 SRancho California Rd4 0.35 0.66 0.52 1.01 No Deficiency 100% 1.2% 0.7% No Deficiency 0.7%0.7%Rancho California RdWinchester Rd4 0.45 0.74 0.60 1.01 No Deficiency 100% 1.4% 0.7% No Deficiency 0.7%0.7%2 I-15 NB Winchester Rd Lane Add south of I-15/I-215 Split 4 0.46 0.79 0.58 1.02 No Deficiency 100% 2.3% 0.9% No Deficiency 0.9%0.9%3 I-15 NB Clinton Keith RdBaxter Rd3 0.52 0.80 0.65 1.03 No Deficiency 100% 1.1% 0.3% No Deficiency 0.3%0.3%4 I-15 NB El Cerrito RdOntario Ave3 0.86 0.90 1.03 0.88 100% No Deficiency 1.1% 100.0% 1.1% No Deficiency 1.1%5 I-15 NB Norco Dr/6th StreetLimonite Ave3 0.82 1.10 0.87 1.14 No Deficiency 29%4.1% 2.5% No Deficiency 0.7%0.7%Cantu Galeano Ranch RdLimonite Ave3 0.77 0.96 0.77 1.02 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 4.3% No Deficiency 4.3%4.3%Limonite AveNorco Dr/6th Street3 0.87 1.01 0.90 1.04 No Deficiency 88%4.7% 5.9% No Deficiency 5.2%5.2%7 I-15 SB El Cerrito RdDos Lagos Dr3 0.65 0.92 0.61 1.03 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 2.2% No Deficiency 2.2%2.2%8 I-15 SB Temescal Canyon RdIndian Truck Trail3 0.61 0.83 0.56 1.01 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 1.4% No Deficiency 1.4%1.4%Rubidoux BlvdMarket St3 0.84 0.95 0.81 1.03 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 30.9% No Deficiency 30.9%30.9%Market StMain St3 0.87 1.00 0.82 1.06 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 39.0% No Deficiency 39.0%39.0%Box Springs RdCentral Ave4 0.94 1.08 1.09 1.07 100%0%14.3% 100.0% 14.3% 0.0%14.3%Watkins DrMartin Luther King Jr 4 0.94 1.05 1.12 1.16 100%66% 24.8% 57.9% 24.8% 38.4%38.4%10c I-215 NB University Ave Off-Ramp Upstream of Univ Ave On-ramp 3 0.90 1.04 0.98 1.04 No Deficiency 13% 26.9% 100.0% No Deficiency 13.3%13.3%11 I-215 NB Center St Off-Ramp Riverside County Line/Iowa Ave 3 0.79 1.00 0.79 1.03 No Deficiency 97% 91.5% 12.2% No Deficiency 11.8%11.8%12 I-215 SB Martin Luther King JrSycamore Canyon Rd 4 0.96 1.13 1.07 1.25 100%50% 57.1% 55.2% 57.1% 27.7%57.1%13 I-215 SB Van Buren BlvdHarley Knox Blvd3 0.67 0.95 0.64 1.06 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 4.4% No Deficiency 4.4%4.4%Riverside County Line Green River Rd Off-Ramp 5 0.89 1.18 0.76 1.23 No Deficiency 23% 100.0% 6.1% No Deficiency 1.4%1.4%Green River Rd Off-RampSR-715 0.79 1.01 0.72 1.02 No Deficiency 69% 100.0% 14.1% No Deficiency 9.8%9.8%SR-71Serfas Club Dr Off-Ramp 4 0.92 1.17 0.85 1.27 No Deficiency 36% 100.0% 4.1% No Deficiency 1.5%1.5%15 SR-91 NB Serfas Club Dr Off-Ramp Grand Blvd Off-Ramp 4 0.85 1.00 0.80 1.03 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 8.9% No Deficiency 8.9%8.9%16 SR-91 NB On-Ramp from SB I-15 On-Ramp from NB I-15 3 0.81 1.03 0.76 1.07 No Deficiency 55% 100.0% 13.6% No Deficiency 7.5%7.5%17 SR-91 NB McKinley St Off-RampPierce St3 0.81 0.98 0.76 1.02 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 10.1% No Deficiency 10.1%10.1%18 SR-91 NB Magnolia AveLa Sierra Ave3 0.76 0.93 0.69 1.00 No Deficiency 100% 100.0% 8.3% No Deficiency 8.3%8.3%Serfas Club Dr Off-RampLane Add at SR-714 0.97 1.08 1.05 1.01 100%0%2.8% 100.0% 2.8% 0.0%2.8%Lane Add at SR-71Riverside County Line 5 0.92 1.00 1.02 0.91 100% No Deficiency 1.8% 100.0% 1.8% No Deficiency 1.8%StartRouteNameDirProject ID(C) = 100%, for (A) 1.0(C) = [(B)-(A)]/[(B)-1], for (A) > 1.0(D)(E) = (C) * (D)(A)(B)Critical SegmentPercent Deficiency Attributable to New Logistics TrucksCritical V/C ratioPercent Deficiency Attributable to New DevelopmentPercent Deficiency Attributable to New Logistics Trucks by Peak HourNew Logistics Trucks as Percent of 2016 to 2040 Growth2016 GP Lanes on Critical SegmentEnd1916149SR-91 SBSR-9110I-15 NBNBSR-60 EBI-15 SBI-215 NB372677Item 19.

BLANK
373
678
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

17 Figure 3-2: Components of 2040 Traffic Demand as a Percentage of Capacity

60%70%80%90%100%110%120%130%
1a
1b
2 3
4 5
6a
6b
7 8
9a
9b
10a
10b
10c
11 12
13 14a
14b
14c
15 16
17 18
19a
19b
Existing Traffic Non-Logistics Growth New Logistics Trucks

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

18 Figure 3-3: Deficient Segment Location Map

375
680
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

19 4. ESTIMATING FREEWAY PROJECT COSTS

4.1. ASSESSING PROJECT LIMITS
Section 2 of this memorandum described how future capacity deficiencies on the freeway network in Riverside County were identified. The findings of this effort were summarized as a list of directional freeway segments where the future demand exceeded capacity and resulted in a bottleneck in the system. Limiting capacity expansion to the specific identified segment would be expected mitigate the bottleneck in that segment, however it is likely that the bottleneck would be moved to the next adjacent segment without alleviating the capacity deficiency. Therefore, the list of deficient segments was reviewed in relation to the traffic data and the physical characteristics of the existing freeway facility to determine the extent of the improvement projects that would be necessary (i.e. to define the practical limits and logical termini for the associated improvement project) to address the actual operational problem, not just the specific upstream bottleneck location.

At each freeway segment identified as having a capacity deficiency, the traffic data was reviewed to determine the location (typically an off-ramp) where the demand along the corridor was reduced enough to no longer exceed the capacity of the freeway mainline. Other considerations were physical characteristics of the freeway that might also contribute to capacity reduction, such as uphill grades where truck lanes would benefit the operation of the freeway, and system interchanges where demand changed substantially and there were opportunities for lane drops at freeway-to-freeway connectors. The practical limits of each of the 19 projects required to mitigate the deficient segments are listed in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1: Practical Limits of Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Projects ID Route
Name Dir Beginning End
1 I-15
NB
SR-79 S Rancho California Rd
Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd
2 Winchester Rd Lane Add south of I-15/I-215 Split
3 Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd
4 El Cerrito Rd Ontario Ave
5 Norco Dr/6th St Limonite Ave
6 SB
Cantu Galeano Ranch Rd Limonite Ave
Limonite Ave Norco Dr/6th
7 Cajalco Rd Indian Truck Trail
8 El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd
9 SR-60 EB Rubidoux Blvd Market St
Market St Main St
10 I-215 NB Box Springs Rd Central Ave/Watkins Dr
376
681
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

20 ID Route
Name Dir Beginning End
Central Ave/Watkins Martin Luther King
10c Martin Luther King Blvd SR-91
11 Center St Off-Ramp Riverside County Line/Iowa
12 SB Martin Luther King Jr Sycamore Canyon Rd
13 Van Buren Blvd Case Rd
14 SR-91
EB
Riverside County Line Green River Rd Off-Ramp
Green River Rd Off-Ramp SR-71
SR-71 Serfas Club Dr Off-Ramp
15 Serfas Club Dr Off-Ramp Grand Blvd Rd Off-Ramp
16 On-Ramp from SB-I-15 On Ramp from NB- I-15
17 McKinley St Off Ramp Pierce St
18 Pierce St Magnolia St
19 WB Serfas Club Dr Off-Ramp Lane Add at SR-71
Lane Add at SR-71 Riverside County Line

The limits of one project, Number 13, were slightly ambiguous based on the review of traffic and physical features, as well in consideration of the proximity of future warehousing and logistics development activity. For these reasons, Project 13 was presented with two options – from Van Buren Boulevard to D Street and from Van Buren Boulevard to Case Road – and cost estimates were prepared for each option so that the Study Advisory Team could assess the value of each option separately and determine which option adequately addressed the capacity constraint. The Study Advisory Team, at the meeting held on February 22, 2018, recommended Option 2 be advanced for the purposes of the study.

4.2. REVIEW OF CURRENTLY FUNDED/PROGRAMMED IMPROVEMENTS Once the practical limits of the improvements were defined, each project was compared to known, funded/programmed projects that were recently completed (and are not included in the SCAG 2016 Model existing network), are currently under construction, or are currently in development and are funded for construction. There are three projects that are within the study area that were identified as meeting these criteria:
• The I-15/French Valley Parkway Interchange Project, Phases 1 and 2 • The I-15 Express Lane Project
• The SR-91 Express Lane Extension Project
The French Valley Parkway Project includes the implementation of the I-15/French Valley Parkway Interchange as well as improvements to the Winchester Road Interchange and a 377
682
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

21 collector-distributor road system along I-15 between Winchester Road and the I-15/I-215 system interchange. This project adds as many as three lanes in each direction north of Winchester Road. Based on the Preferred Alternative Layout Plans included in the IS/EA (January 2010), the FVP Phasing Exhibit (December 2, 2015) and the Ultimate Project Exhibit (July 12, 2017), it was determined that the French Valley Parkway Project successfully eliminates the need to further mitigate deficient segment 2.

The I-15 Express Lane Project will implement one or two tolled managed lanes in each direction northbound and southbound between Cajalco Road and SR-60. This project also adds general purpose lanes and auxiliary lanes at specific locations. Based on a review of the I-15 Express Lane Project Tolling Concept Plans (June 21, 2017), the I-15 Express Lane Project successfully eliminates the need to further mitigate deficient segments 4, 5, and 6.

The SR-91 Express Lane Extension Project extends from west of the Orange County Line to east of I-15 both eastbound and westbound. In addition to the tolled express lanes, additional general purpose lanes were also constructed as part of this project. Based on a field review of the project as it has been constructed, the SR-91 Express Lane Extension Project successfully eliminates the need to further mitigate deficient segments 14, 15, 17, and 19.

Table 4-2 lists the remaining deficient segments and associated mitigation projects that would be included as the basis for the logistics fee program.

Table 4-2: Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Projects to be Included in the Fee Program ID Route
Name Dir Beginning End
1 I-15
NB
SR-79 S Rancho California Rd
Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd
3 Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd
7 SB Cajalco Rd Indian Truck Trail
8 El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd
9 SR-60 EB Rubidoux Blvd Market St
Market St Main St
10 I-215
NB
Box Springs Rd Central Ave/Watkins Dr
Central Ave/Watkins Martin Luther King
10c Martin Luther King Blvd SR-91
11 Center St Off-Ramp Riverside County Line/Iowa
12 SB Martin Luther King Jr Sycamore Canyon Rd
13 Van Buren Blvd Case Rd
16 SR-91 EB On-Ramp from SB-I-15 On Ramp from NB- I-15
18 Pierce St Magnolia St

378
683
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

22 4.3. DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT CONCEPTS
Using scalable, georeferenced aerial photography, project concept plans were developed that show the primary quantifiable cost items for each project, including:
• Right-of-Way Impact
• Retaining Walls
• Freeway Mainline Widening
• Structure Construction
• Ramp Realignment
• Roadway Excavation
• Street Improvements
• Signalization
The concept plans show colored lines and areas that can be measured and used to estimate quantities for the various categories of construction or property acquisition. These project concept drawings were reviewed by the Study Advisory Team to confirm that they reasonably represent the minimum improvements necessary to mitigate the identified deficiency.

The resultant improvement concept plans are included in Appendix A of this technical memorandum.

4.4. PROJECT COST ESTIMATING
For the initial assessment and development of project concept plans, Google Earth was used to determine existing conditions for the corridors. The conditions recorded include number of lanes, width of pavement, HOV lanes, inside (left) shoulder width, outside (right) shoulder width, assumed right-of-way boundary, freeway structures, ramp locations, major drainage facilities, retaining walls, sounds walls, signage, and signals. All widths and lengths provided were obtained by doing desktop research on Google Earth and limited field reviews, and were based on sound engineering judgement.

The unit costs for the various construction components were taken from the Caltrans cost database and other recent project cost estimates for project of similar scale and scope within the Inland Empire. Right-of-way cost per residential unit and per square foot are based on current property valuations in Riverside County.

Roadway Item Costs
- Roadway costs include PCC pavement, tie-back walls, pavement markings and markers and replacement of signs. Unit costs were extrapolated from a similar freeway construction project.
379
684
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

23 - The quantity of each component was then multiplied by the unit cost to produce a cost item for the roadway component.

Drainage Item Costs
- Per our initial assessment, widening affects the existing drainage. Further analysis is needed as impacts to drainage can increase the costs.
- The costs associated with the potential impacts to drainage are 15% of the roadway items cost.

Specialty Item Costs
- Specialty item costs include retaining walls due to proposed widening, removal of existing retaining walls, sounds wall replacement, tie back walls and ramp adjustments. - The quantity of each component was then multiplied by the unit cost to produce a cost item for the specialty item costs.

Minor Items Costs
- Minor items can include anything from ADA items to other minor items that are not considered high costs items. Typical Caltrans value is 5-10%.

Mobilization Costs
- Mobilization includes costs incurred due to mobilization of personnel and equipment as well as pre-construction expenses. Typical value of 10% can be adjusted when actual costs are available.

Roadway Additions
- Roadway addition items can include price index fluctuations, value analysis, maintaining traffic, removal of rock and debris, etc. These supplemental items cover work for items that cannot be quantified as contract bid item. All roadway supplemental items would be within the FHWA approved items list. At this stage it is appropriate to assume there will be supplemental items. Typical Caltrans value is 5- 10%.

Contingency
- Contingency of 25% is within Caltrans recommended values. Pre-PSR 30%, PSR 25%, Draft PR 20%, PR 15%, after PR approval 10% and final PS&E is 5%. Caltrans contingencies allow for unforeseen increases. Due to the level of detail and engineering available, the contingency percentage is appropriate. As more information becomes available, costs would be refined and contingency would be decreased. This is typical per Caltrans.

Support Costs
- Support costs are 35% of the capital outlay costs. Support costs include design costs, construction management, Caltrans reimbursed costs and Metro internal costs. These 380
685
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

24 costs are functional overhead costs not administrative overhead. The support costs can be refined as more information becomes available.

The costs presented are based on a conceptual engineering assessment using Google desktop research. All costs and impacts are based on a visual analysis and it should be noted that no detailed engineering or surveying has been done to verify the assumptions.

The proposed improvement project conceptual cost estimates were compared to the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program, with a focus on identifying arterial-freeway interchange and bridge projects that are also included in TUMF. The TUMF program assesses all development types, including warehouse and logistics uses, impact fees to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on the arterial highway system, including arterial-freeway interchanges and bridges. As such, new warehouse and logistics uses are already contributing toward the cost of these improvement projects to the extent they are included in the TUMF program. Where the conceptual improvement projects were determined to include project elements that were also identified in the TUMF program, the conceptual cost estimate for the project was reduced by an amount equal to the lesser of the estimated conceptual cost of the relevant project element (i.e. the conceptual cost of the arterial interchange and/or bridge improvements) or the maximum eligible amount prescribed in the 2016 TUMF Nexus Study.

This reduction in the conceptual improvement costs as part of this study eliminates overlap with the TUMF program in terms of the cost for implementing arterial interchange and bridge improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed freeway capacity expansion necessary to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development, including warehousing and logistics uses, on the freeway network.

The resultant conceptual project cost estimates are summarized it 381
686
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

25 Table 4-3. A more detailed breakout of the conceptual project cost estimates to mitigate the deficient segments is included in Appendix B of this technical memorandum.

382
687
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

26 Table 4-3: Capacity Deficient Segment Improvement Project Conceptual Cost Estimates ID Route
Name Dir Beginning End Cost Estimate
1 I-15
NB
SR-79 S Rancho California Rd $36,237,000 Rancho California Rd Winchester Rd 3 Clinton Keith Rd Baxter Rd $7,406,000
7 SB Cajalco Rd Indian Truck Trail $37,825,000
8 El Cerrito Rd Cajalco Rd $10,408,000
9 SR-60 EB Rubidoux Blvd Market St $40,234,000 Market St Main St 10 I-215
NB
Box Springs Rd Central Ave/Watkins Dr $26,513,000 Central Ave/Watkins Martin Luther King 10c Martin Luther King Blvd SR-91 $55,081,000
11 Center St Off-Ramp Riverside County Line/Iowa $42,212,000 12 SB Martin Luther King Jr Sycamore Canyon Rd $13,403,000 13 Van Buren Blvd Case Rd $95,365,000
16 SR-91 EB On-Ramp from SB-I-15 On Ramp from NB- I-15 $7,611,000 18 Pierce St Magnolia St $13,040,000
Total Project Cost Estimate $385,335,000

383
688
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

27 5. FUNDING SOURCES AND FUNDING GAP
This section of the memorandum reviews transportation funding projections in existing documents and describes recent or anticipated additional sources that might be available to complete freeway9 capacity expansion projects identified as part of this study. This analysis starts with a recent, comprehensive analysis of potential funding - the Riverside County Strategic Assessment – which is described in the next section. It takes the results of this assessment and uses similar assumptions to add in more recent funding sources, such as those associate with California Senate Bill (SB) 1.

The various funding sources are then assessed for their potential to fulfill identified project needs and costs described in Chapters 2 to 4 of this memorandum. The potential revenues and anticipated needs are then compared to conclude a gap analysis in the following chapter.

5.1. RIVERSIDE COUNTY STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT
In 2015, the RCTC directed its staff to conduct an assessment to assist the Commission in examining the County’s need for transportation investments. The objective was to produce findings and recommendation on actions the Commission could take to proactively prepare for the future. In early 2016, the RCTC approved the Riverside County Strategic Assessment10. It considered demographics, state local, federal transportation policies and revenues and a survey of public and stakeholder perspectives. The assessment includes recommendations regarding future planning, asset maximization, increasing funding and communication.

The Strategic Assessment includes a detailed review of federal, state and local revenues through 2040.11 12 It looked at 37 different funding sources covering all modes and categorized them into three levels (A, B and C), depending on their level of certainty. Category A represents existing revenues that can be reasonably expected to be available in the future, Category B includes existing and programmed revenues that Riverside County might realistically secure on a discretionary or competitive basis and those in Category C are considered strategy revenues. Category C revenues represent the highest risk as they are contingent upon implementation of future legislation or funding mechanisms.

The Strategic Assessment conducted an analysis for the 24-year period from 2016-2039. It assumed that most programs continued with increases at the rate of inflation throughout this period, with noted exceptions13. It found that, of the total $23 billion in projected need, categories A and B left a funding gap of $16 billion. New revenues from Category C were only expected to cover $6 million of the need, leaving a $10 billion gap.

In looking more closely at funding by project type, the Strategic Assessment reviewed the following funding sources for freeways and interchanges:

9 Arterial funding sources are not addressed in this analysis as there are separate fee mechanisms already in place for arterial projects.
10 HDR, January 2016, Riverside County Strategic Assessment: Executive Summary, RCTC. 11 Since the document was prepared in 2015, it did not include several recent funding sources, which are discussed later in this memo.
12 HDR, November 4, 2015, RCTC Strategic Assessment Technical Memorandum: Task 4 Funding Gap Analysis.
13 Ibid. Details of programs and assumptions are contained the tables 8-12 in the appendix to the technical memo.
384
689
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

28 Federal
• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
• Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP)
State
• Regional Improvement Program (RIP)
• Interregional Improvement Program (IIP)
• Mileage Based User-Fees (MBUF)
Local
• Measure A
• SR 91 toll revenues
• I-15 Express Lane toll revenues
• Mid County Parkway (MCP) toll revenues

CMAQ and RSTP funds can go to various modes. The Strategic Assessment assumed that, while historically much of the CMAQ funds have gone to toll lanes, over time transit projects will receive a greater portion of the funding. It assumed that 30% of the CMAQ and 50% of RSTP funds will go to freeway projects in the future.

The Regional Improvement Program (RIP) is the largest funding source over which RCTC has programming authority. The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is developed and approved by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) by April of every even year.

Each county transportation agency in the state is responsible for programming projects on or off the state highway system with Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds, which represent 75% of the total STIP funds available for project programming. Eligible projects include capital improvement projects (e.g. interchange improvements, freeway and arterial widening, commuter rail stations, etc.) and planning and rideshare activities.

The Strategic Assessment includes federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds under arterials rather than freeways, although funds can be devoted to any public road. The HSIP requires a data-driven, performance based approach to improving highway safety. It provides a maximum of $10 million in federal funds on projects that reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries and can be designed and constructed expeditiously.

Another fund that has been used on freeways but was not included in the Strategic Assessment is the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). SHOPP is the State’s “fix-it- first” program that funds the repair and preservation of the State Highway System (SHS), safety improvements, and some highway operational improvements. While the Strategic Assessment did not address preservation and maintenance, the SHOPP is worth noting as it 385
690
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

29 protects the enormous investment that has been made over many decades to create and manage the approximately 50,000 lane-mile SHS. All projects funded by the SHOPP are limited to capital improvements that do not add capacity (no new highway lanes) to the SHS, although auxiliary lanes (including truck climbing lanes) are eligible for SHOPP funding. Revenues for the SHOPP are generated by federal and state gas taxes and are fiscally constrained by the State Transportation Improvement Program Fund Estimate (Fund Estimate) that is produced by Caltrans based on established criteria and adopted by the California Transportation Commission.

According to the Strategic Assessment, the total costs of freeway and interchange projects between 2016 and 2039 were expected to be $8.724 billion and the revenues are $5.326 billion.

So, only 61% of the freeway needs are funded, leaving an unfunded gap of $3.326 billion through 2039. Table 5-1 shows the breakdown of funding by program and risk.

Table 5-1: Freeway Funding Program, Amount (in millions) and Risk Funding Program Category A Category B Category C
Federal
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) $219.7
Regional Surface Transportation Program
(RSTP) $315.2
State
Regional Improvement Program (RIP) $441.9
Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) $58.8
Mileage Based User-Fees (MBUF) $2,233.5
Local
Measure A* $915.7
SR 91 Net Toll Revenues* $618.5
I-15 Express Lane Toll Revenues* $319.7
Mid County Parkway (MCP) toll revenues $153.5
Total (2016-2039) $2,880 $59 $2,387
*Debt service and operations and maintenance costs have been deducted from these amounts.

The Strategic Assessment points out that funds for freeway and interchanges rely most heavily on the highest risk (Category C) funding sources. So, of the funding that was anticipated for 386
691
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

30 freeways and interchanges, fully 67% was from Category C. As shown in Table 5-1, a large portion of the Category C funds are from MBUF and tolled-based financing of the MCP.

The Assessment also noted that Measure A programs are further suballocated to additional geographies and programs. For example, while the majority appears to be allocated to freeways, there are specific suballocations to counties and, within those, to various modal programs. While the majority of the amount apportioned to freeways falls within the western part of the County, some is dedicated to Coachella Valley. We have not completed further disaggregation based on geography for this analysis.

Because the assessment was prepared in 2015 it did not include certain funding sources approved after that. New funding sources and their potential implications are described in the following sections.

5.2. FIXING AMERICA'S SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ACT
On December 4, 2015 President Obama signed Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST) Act14 into law. It was the first law enacted in over ten years that provides long-term funding certainty for surface transportation. The FAST Act allows states and local governments greater confidence in federal funding for transportation projects.

Overall, the FAST Act largely maintains program structures and funding shares between highways and transit. It was viewed as a down-payment for building a 21st century transportation system.

The law also makes changes and reforms to many Federal transportation programs, including streamlining the approval processes for new transportation projects, providing new safety tools, and establishing new programs to advance critical freight projects. The relevant funding programs are described below. The funding implications of all FAST Act funding programs on RCTC are discussed at the end of this section.

5.2.1. Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects The Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects (NSFHP) program15 provides financial assistance—competitive grants, known as INFRA grants, or credit assistance—to nationally and regionally significant freight and highway projects. Funding is $800 million to $1 billion annually over the program life. Both large (over $100 million) and small (more than $5 million) projects are eligible, but 90% of program funds are reserved for large projects.

Projects must support the national program goals to:
• improve the safety, efficiency, and reliability of the movement of freight and people; • generate national or regional economic benefits and an increase in global economic competitiveness of the U.S.;
• reduce highway congestion and bottlenecks;
• improve connectivity between modes of freight transportation;

14 Pub. L. No. 114-94
15 FAST Act § 1105; 23 U.S.C. 117
387
692
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

31 • enhance the resiliency of critical highway infrastructure and help protect the environment;
• improve roadways vital to national energy security; and • address the impact of population growth on the movement of people and freight.

Both highway and freight projects - including rail intermodal projects, grade crossings and rail and port projects – are eligible. Highway projects must be either on the NHS or the National Highway Freight network. Funding for non-highway freight projects is limited to $500 million over the life of the program.

Funding may go to any project phase including planning, construction, and operational improvements. However, the project must have completed preliminary engineering and be reasonably expected to begin construction within 18 months of obligation of funds.

States, MPOs, local governments, public authorities, political subdivision, tribal governments and groups of these entities may apply. The program encourages the use of nontraditional financing, innovative design and construction techniques, innovative technologies, and non- Federal contributions as well as geographic diversity among grant recipients. Non-federal funding commitments, however, must be backed by contingency and have additional stable and dependable sources of funding to construct operate and maintain and operate the project.

Projects must:
• generate national or regional economic, mobility, or safety benefits; • be cost effective;
• contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the national goals

5.2.2. Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment Program
The Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment Program16 makes competitive grants for the development of model deployment sites for large scale installation and operation of advanced transportation technologies that improve safety, efficiency, system performance, and infrastructure return on investment.

Program funding totals $60 million annually. The federal share cannot exceed 50% of the cost of the project.

Eligible projects include deployment of advanced transportation and congestion management technologies, such as:
• advanced traveler information systems;
• advanced transportation management technologies;
• infrastructure maintenance, monitoring, and condition assessment; • advanced public transportation systems;

16 FAST Act § 6004; 23 U.S.C. 503(c)(4)
388
693
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

32 • transportation system performance data collection, analysis, and dissemination systems;
• advanced safety systems, including vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications;
• technologies associated with autonomous vehicles, and other collision avoidance technologies, including systems using cellular technology; • integration of intelligent transportation systems with the Smart Grid and other energy distribution and charging systems;
• electronic pricing and payment systems; or
• advanced mobility and access technologies, such as dynamic ridesharing and information systems to support human services for elderly and disabled individuals.17

5.2.3. Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives Program The Surface Transportation System Funding Alternatives Program18 provides grants to States or groups of States to demonstrate user-based alternative revenue mechanisms that utilize a user fee structure to maintain the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund.

The objectives of the program are:
• to test the design, acceptance, and implementation of two or more future user-based alternative mechanisms;
• to improve the functionality of the user-based alternative revenue mechanisms; • to conduct outreach to increase public awareness regarding the need for alternative funding sources for surface transportation programs and to provide information on possible approaches;
• to provide recommendations regarding adoption and implementation of user-based alternative revenue mechanisms; and
• to minimize the administrative cost of any potential user-based alternative revenue mechanisms.

A total of $20 million is available annually. The Federal share of the cost of an activity carried out under the program may not exceed 50 percent. Geographic diversity will be considered in award of grants.

Program funds will test the design, acceptance, and implementation of a user-based alternative revenue mechanism, consistent with the program’s objectives. Revenue collected through a user-based alternative revenue mechanism established with program funds may not be considered a toll under 23 U.S.C. 301. Because of the program’s limitations and focus on testing, no estimates have been included among the funds available for freeway projects in this analysis.

17 23.U.S.C. 503(c)(4)(E)
18 FAST Act § 6020
389
694
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

33 5.2.4. FAST Act Funding Implications for RCTC
As described in the previous section, the FAST Act provided two new grant programs – NSFHP and the Advanced Technology and Congestion program – that could reasonably be relied upon to provide funding for freeway and interchange projects in Riverside County. As stated previously, this analysis took similar assumptions as the Strategic Assessment. In the Assessment, RCTC assumed that it could win competitive grants commensurate with the proportion its population represents. For federal grants, Riverside County represented .74 percent of the national population19. Table 5-2 shows the new FAST funding amounts by program and risk category that could reasonably be expected to be available to RCTC each year based on this proportion of total program funding:

Table 5-2: Projected Annual RCTC Funding from FAST (in millions) Funding Program Category A Category B Category C
NSFHP (INFRA) $6.66
Advanced Technology
and Congestion
Management
Deployment Program
$.444
Total $7.104

5.3. ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017 (SENATE BILL 1) In 2017 the California legislature passed and the governor signed into law a major transportation funding bill.20 The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (referred to as SB1) provided additional funding to several existing programs, including the STIP, and established several new funding programs that are relevant to this project. The relevant SB1 programs and their implications for RCTC are described below.

5.3.1. Trade Corridor Enhancement Program
The objective of the Trade Corridor Enhancement Program is to fund infrastructure improvements on federally designated Trade Corridors of National and Regional Significance, on the Primary Freight Network, as identified in the California Freight Mobility Plan, and along other corridors that have a high volume of freight movement as determined by the Commission.21 The Trade Corridor Enhancement Program is also intended to support the goals of the National Highway Freight Program, the California Freight Mobility Plan, and the guiding principles in the California Sustainable Freight Action Plan.

19 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/riversidecountycalifornia,US/PST045216

20 http://catc.ca.gov/
21 http://catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1/tcep/

390
695
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

34 The Commission intends to allocate $1.3 Billion, in roughly equal annual installments, in the initial three-year program. Allocations are anticipated to continue after 2020, but the amounts aren’t known. The initial program is funded by three years of Trade Corridor Enhancement Account funding ($794 million), five years of federal National Highway Freight Program funding ($535 million) and a one-time appropriation of $11 million the Budget Act of 2015.

Caltrans is targeted to receive 40% for projects it applies for administers.

Funding is available for projects that significantly contribute to the freight system’s economic activity or vitality; relieve congestion on the freight system; improve the safety, security, or resilience of the freight system; improve or preserve the freight system infrastructure; implement technology or innovation to improve the freight system or reduce or avoid its negative impacts; or reduce or avoid adverse community and/or environmental impacts of the freight system. Qualifying project costs include permits and environmental studies; plans, specifications and estimates; right-of-way; and construction.

The Commission has already identified the following corridors as eligible under this program:

Bay Area, Central Valley, Central Coast, Lost Angeles/Inland Empire and San Diego/Border.

Other regions are eligible to apply if they have a high volume of freight movement and otherwise meet the criteria for funding. The initial target for the Los Angeles/Inland Empire (which includes Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties) is $467 million.

Eligible applicants include local, regional, and public agencies such as cities, counties, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Regional Transportation Planning Agencies, port authorities, public construction authorities, and Caltrans. Project proposals from private entities must be submitted by a public agency.

Projects will first be screened to ensure they: meet the project eligibility requirements and program objectives, are in an adopted RTP that is consistent with regional greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets, demonstrate that negative environmental/community impacts will be mitigated and will stimulate economic activity and jobs. High scoring projects will be evaluated on freight system factors (throughput, velocity and reliability), transportation system factors (safety, congestion reduction, bottleneck relief, multi-modal strategy, interregional benefits, advanced technology) and community impact factors (air quality impact, community impact mitigation, economic/jobs growth).

5.3.2. Solutions for Congested Corridors Program
Solutions for Congested Corridors Program22 (Congested Corridors Program) appropriates two hundred and fifty million dollars ($250,000,000) annually to projects designed to achieve a balanced set of transportation, environmental, and community access improvements within highly congested travel corridors throughout the state. The primary objective of the Congested Corridors Program is to fund projects that make specific improvements and are part of a comprehensive corridor plan designed to reduce congestion in highly traveled corridors by providing more transportation choices while preserving the character of the local community and creating opportunities for neighborhood enhancement projects.

22 http://catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1/sccp/
391
696
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

35 Funds are allocated by the California Transportation Commission (Commission).

Improvements may be on the state highway system, local streets and roads, public transit facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities or required mitigation or restoration or some combination thereof.

A regional transportation planning agency or county transportation commission or authority responsible for preparing a regional transportation improvement plan under Section 14527 of the Government Code or Caltrans may nominate projects for funding.

5.3.3. Local Partnership Program
The Local Partnership Program (LPP) appropriates two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) annually to local or regional transportation agencies that have sought and received voter approval of taxes or that have imposed fees that are dedicated solely for transportation improvements. 23
Funds are allocated by the California Transportation Commission (Commission) - half competitively and the balance by formula. Projects will require at least a one-to-one match of private, local, federal, or state funds except jurisdictions with a voter approved tax or fee which generates less than $100,000 annually need only provide a match equal to 50% of the requested funds.

Eligible projects include: (a) improvements to the state highway system; (b) improvements to transit facilities; (c) acquisition, retrofit, or rehabilitation of rolling stock, buses, or other transit equipment; (d) improvements to the local road system; (e) improvements to bicycle or pedestrian safety or mobility; (f) improvements to mitigate the environmental impact of new transportation infrastructure on a locality’s or region’s air quality or water quality; (g) a separate phase or stage of construction for an eligible project may include mitigation of the project’s environmental impacts; (h) sound walls for certain freeways; (i) road maintenance and rehabilitation; and (j) other transportation improvement projects.

Eligible applicants are the taxing authorities that have sought and received voter approval of taxes, tolls, or fees, or that have imposed fees, including uniform developer fees as defined by subdivision (b) of Section 8879.67 of the Government Code, which are dedicated solely to transportation improvements.

The Commission will give higher priority to projects that (a) are more cost-effective; (b) can commence construction or implementation earlier; (c) can leverage more committed funds per program dollar; (d) can demonstrate quantifiable air quality improvements, including a significant reduction in vehicle-miles traveled; (e) can demonstrate regional and community project support; and (f) within a Metropolitan Planning Organization, projects that further the implementation of the sustainable communities strategy.

5.3.4. SB1 Funding Implications for RCTC
Most of the SB1 funds that could go to freeways and interchanges are via competitive grant programs. In 2016, Riverside County represented about six percent of the population in the

23 http://catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1/lpp/

392
697
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

36 state.24 Assuming, on average, transportation projects are awarded approximately proportionate to county population, Table 5-3 shows the projected annual allocation projects in Riverside County could reasonably be expected to obtain.

Table 5-3: Projected Annual SB1 Funding for RCTC (in millions) Funding Program Category A Category B Category C
LPP (county allocation) $6.786
TCEP $25.997
SCCP $15
LPP (competitive grant) $6.786
$6.786 $47.783

5.4. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE FUNDING FROM ALL SOURCES
To quantify the total funds that might be available to freeway and interchange projects in Riverside County through 2040, sources identified in the Strategic Assessment were combined those from FAST and SB1 programs. Taking the approach used in the Strategic Assessment, unless otherwise specific, program funding levels were assumed to continue at the rate of inflation throughout the study period. Table 5-4 summarizes newly identified funding sources, while Table 5-5 combines new funding sources with those identified previously as part of the Strategic Assessment to establish a total of anticipated freeway project funding through 2040 from all sources by risk category.

24 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/riversidecountycalifornia,US/PST045216

393
698
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

37 Table 5-4: Freeway Project Funding from New Sources 2017-2040 (in millions) Funding Program Category A Category B Category C
Federal
NSFHP (INFRA) $159.8
Advanced Technology and
Congestion Management
Deployment Program
$10.7
State
LPP (County Allocation) $162.9
TCEP $623.9
SCCP $360
LPP (competitive grants) $162.9

Grand Total New Sources $162.9 $1,317.3

Table 5-5: RCTC Projected Freeway Project Funding 2017-2040 - All Sources (in millions) Funding Source Category A Category B Category C
Total Strategic Assessment Sources $2,948.6 $61 $2,465.8 Total New Sources $162.9 $1,317.3
Grand Total Old and New Sources $3111.5 $1,378.3 $2,465.8

As can be seen in Table 5-4 and Table 5-5, the infusion of SB1 funds, which are considered risk category B, creates better balance across the risk categories than that found in the Strategic Assessment, which was heavily reliance on high-risk, category C funds. However, although the SB1 program has been legislated there is also an on-going repeal effort, hence they have been identified as risk category B rather than category A.

A sensitivity analysis was completed to assess the impact of a potential repeal on future transportation funding in the County. Table 5-6 shows the projected funds for freeway and interchange projects from all sources without SB1 funds.

394
699
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

38 Table 5-6: Projected RCTC Projected Freeway Project Funds without SB1, 2017-2040 (millions) Funding Source Category A Category B Category C
Total Strategic
Assessment Sources
$2,948.6 $61 $2,465.8
Total New Sources $162.9 $170.5
Grand Total Old and
New Sources
$3111.5 $231.5 $2,465.8

Table 5-7 shows the total funding that is expected to be available for freeway and related interchange projects in Riverside County over the next 24 years. As can be seen, the total projected funding that might reasonably be expected to be available for freeway and interchange projects in Riverside County through 2040 is expected to be nearly $6 billion, with approximately half of this funding expected to be made available through low risk category A funding sources, even without SB1 funding. This amount substantially exceeds the estimated cost to complete the various mitigation projects previously identified in Chapter 4 and summarized in
395
700
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

39 Table 4-3 of this report making the various improvement projects viable to be completed, even following the adjustment of funds to be generated through a potential logistics fee program to account for the portion of impact attributable to logistics uses.

Table 5-7: Projected RCTC Funding with and without SB1, 2017-2040 (in millions) Scenario Total Funding
With SB1 $6,955.6
Without SB1 $5,808.8

396
701
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

40 6. FUNDING GAP ANALYSIS
As described in Chapters 3, the fair share of costs to mitigate future freeway deficiencies that are attributable to new warehousing and logistics uses varies by segment, but is a relatively small proportion of the total cost to complete the necessary improvements. Furthermore, although the project concepts associated cost estimates have identified a minimum level of improvement necessary to reasonably mitigate the identified impact, it is likely the scale and scope of any proposed improvement project would be greater to account for the accomplishment of other transportation goals and/or freeway operational needs, including rehabilitation and roadway maintenance, resolution of existing needs, or anticipation of addition future demands beyond the horizon year of the fee program. Since the resolution of these items cannot be fairly attributed to the mitigation of new development impacts, it is necessary to ensure that sufficient alternative funding sources are expected to be available to complete the necessary improvements.

The total estimated conceptual cost to complete the reasonable mitigation of deficient segments identified as part of this study is $385,335,000. Although a relatively small proportion of this cost can be attributed to new warehousing and logistics developments, and therefore this fair share of the mitigation cost could be derived from a logistics impact fee, the estimates of alternative funding sources described in Chapter 5 clearly indicate that the remaining costs to complete these improvement projects could reasonably be expected to be obtained from existing and proposed funding sources. Furthermore, the projected availability of future funding for freeway and interchange improvement projects is over ten times the amount of the conceptual cost estimates to mitigate the impacts of new development on the freeway system indicating that sufficient funding might reasonably be expected to account for the expansion of scale and scope of associated freeway projects to address other project needs not directly attributable to the impacts of new development.

397
702
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

41 7. APPENDICES
Appendix A – Capacity Improvement Concept Plans

Appendix B – Conceptual Project Cost Estimate Tables

398
703
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

A-1

APPENDIX A – CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT PLANS
399
704
Item 19.

OVERLAND D RI-15 SBI-15 NBNB OFF RAMPSB ON RAMPNB OFF RAMPNB ON RAMPSB OFF RAMPSB ON RAMPI-15 SBI-15 NBJEFFERSON AVESA N
TIA
G
O
RDI-15 SBI-15 NBHWY 79
OLD TOWN FRONT ST3SEE BELOW

SEE ABOVE

SEE BELOW

SEE ABOVE
42233234SB OFF RAMPNB ON RAMPSB ON RAMPNB OFF RAMP2562RANCHO

CALIFORNIA
S44877701TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>01-MAR-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>01-RCTC_Exh.dgn01-RCTC_Exh.dgn11:45ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION400705Item 19.

33CLINTON KEITH RDI-15 SBI-15 NBI-15 SBI-15 NBBAXT
E

R RDSEE BELOW
SEE ABOVE SB ON RAMPNB OFF RAMPNB ON RAMPSB OFF RAMPSB ON RAMPNB OFF RAMPSB OFF RAMPNB ON RAMP5462703TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>03-RCTC_Exh.dgn03-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:14ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION401706Item 19.

SEE BELOWSEE ABOVE
SEE EXHIBIT 07 2 OF 2 I-15 SBI-15 NBSB OFF RAMPNB OFF RAMPSB ON RAMPNB ON RAMPCAMPBELL RANCH RDDE PALMA RDI-15 SBI-15 NBTRUCK TRAI LI
NDI
AN 1653EXHIBIT 1 OF 30723S78TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>07_1 of 3-RCTC_Exh.dgn07_1 of 3-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:14ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION402707Item 19.

CANYON RDTEMESCAL I-15 SBI-15 NBI-15 SBI-15 NBI-15 SBI-15 NBCANYON RD
TEM ESCAL SB OFF RAMPNB ON RAMPSB ON RAMPNB OFF RAMPKNABE RDTEMESCAL CANYON RD45643334SEE BELOWSEE BELOW

SEE ABOVESEE ABOVE
SEE EXHIBIT 07 3 OF 3
SEE EXHIBIT 07 1 OF 3
EXHIBIT 2 OF 307S22222782TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>07_2 of 3-RCTC_Exh.dgn07_2 of 3-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:14ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION403708Item 19.

DOS LAGOS DR SB I-15NB I-15KNABE RDNB ON RAMPNB OFF RAMPSB ON RAMPSB OFF RAMPSB I-15NB I-15SB OFF RAMPSB ON RAMPN B
O
N
R
A

MPNB OFF RAMPC
AJ
ALC
O
R
D3

SEE BELOW
SEE ABOVE SEE EXHIBIT 07 2 OF 3
5634422EXHIBIT 3 OF 307S8265TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>07_3 of 3-RCTC_Exh.dgn07_3 of 3-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:15ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION404709Item 19.

SB I-15NB I-15SB OFF RAMPSB ON RAMPN
B
O
N
R
A
MPNB OFF RAMPSB I-15NB I-15EL CERRITO RD
C
AJ
ALC
O
R
D
334SEE BELOW

SEE ABOVE
65408SB ON RAMPSB OFF RAMPSS88722TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>08-RCTC_Exh.dgn08-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:15ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION405710Item 19.

SR-60 EBSR-60 WBHALL AVEWALLACE STEB ON RAMP WB OFF RAMP 3424SR-60 EBSR-60 WBMARKET STFAIRGROUNDS STM AIN STORANGE ST OAKLEY AVESTODDARD AVEFAIRM OUNT BLVD

SEE BELOWWB ON RAMP EB OFF RAMPEB ON RAMP WB OFF RAMPEB OFF RAMP WB ON RAMP SEE ABOVE 34SSEB ON RAMP 5785477098TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>09-RCTC_Exh.dgn09-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:15ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION406711Item 19.

CENTRAL
AV
E
WATKINS DRNB I-215SB I-215SYCAMORE CANYON BLVDBO X SPRIN G S RDNB ON RAMPSB OFF RAMPNB I-215SB I-215SYCAMORE CANYON BLVDSYCAMORE CANYON BLVDKIN G BLV
D
MARTIN LUTHER SB ON RAMPNB OFF RAMPSB OFF RAMPNB ON RAMP321S B OF
F
R

AMPNB OFF RAMPSB ON RAMPNB O
N RA
MP

SEE BELOW

SEE ABOVE
S357662357448101TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>10-RCTC_Exh.dgn10-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:15ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION407712Item 19.

NB I-215SB I-215UNI
VE
RSIT

Y AVESB OFF RAMPNB ON RAMPW
LI
ND
E
N ST
IOWA AVESB ON RAMPNB OFF RAMPSR-91NB I-215 TO EB SR-91EB SR-91 TO SB I
-215NB I-215SB I-215CREST DRCANYON 3RD ST
55634424223256SS88477310C11TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>10c-RCTC_Exh.dgn10c-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:15ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION408713Item 19.

CENTER ST
I
OWA AVESB ON RAMPMAIN ST LA CADENA DRHIGHGROVE PLSTEPHENS AVELA CADENA DRSB OFF RAMP31NB OFF RAMP116754562447SB I-215NB I-215TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>11-RCTC_Exh.dgn11-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:15ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION409714Item 19.

NB I
-215SB I-215NB I-215SB I-215KI
N
G
BLVD
M
A
RTI
N LUTH

ER SB ON RAMPNB OFF RAMPSYCAMORE CANYON BLVDWATKINS DRSB ON RAMPNB OFF RAMPSYCAMORE CANYON BLVDBOX SPRINGS RDSB OFF RAMPNB ON RAMPSB OFF RAMPN B
O
N
R
A
MP32232

SEE BELOW

SEE ABOVE
12S827541TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>12-RCTC_Exh.dgn12-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:15ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION410715Item 19.

CASE RDSB OFF RAMPNB ON RAMPNB OFF RAMPSB ON RAMPSB I-215NB I-215SB I-215NB I-215SB I-215NB I-215NB OFF RAMPNB ON RAMPSB ON RAMPSB OFF RAMPREDLANDS AVE SAN JACINTO AVESSEE EXHIBIT 2 OF 4 SEE BELOW

SEE ABOVESEE ABOVE
SEE BELOW658472444333EXHIBIT 1 OF 413.21TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>13_OPT 1(1 OF 4) CASE-RCTC_Exh.dgn13_OPT 1(1 OF 4) CASE-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:15ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION411716Item 19.

D STPERRIS BLVDSB I-215NB I-215NUEVO RDA STSB
I
-215NB
I
-215SB I-215NB I-215SB OFF RAMPNB ON RAMPSB ON RAMPNB OFF RAMPPL A
C
E
N
T
IA
A
V
EI-215 FRONTAGE RDI-215 FRONTAGE RDI-215 FRONTAGE RDSEE EXHIBIT 1 OF 4 SEE BELOWSEE EXHIBIT 3 OF 4

SEE ABOVE SSEE ABOVE
SEE BELOW33 35574444787EXHIBIT 2 OF 413.1TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>13_OPT 1(2 OF 4) CASE-RCTC_Exh.dgn13_OPT 1(2 OF 4) CASE-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:15ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION412717Item 19.

SB I-215NB I-215SB I-215NB I-215RAM ONA EXPY NB OFF RAMPSB OFF RAMPNB ON RAMPSB ON RAMPNEVADA RDNB OFF RAMPSB ON RAMPS66335874SEE BELOW SEE ABOVE SEE EXHIBIT 2 OF 4
SEE EXHIBIT 4 OF 4EXHIBIT 3 OF 413.1TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>13_OPT 1(3 OF 4) CASE-RCTC_Exh.dgn13_OPT 1(3 OF 4) CASE-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:16ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION413718Item 19.

SB I-215NB I-215HARLEY KNOX RD SB OFF RAMPSB I-215NB I-215NB ON RAMPVA N

B
U
R
EN

B
LVDNB OFF RAMPNB ON RAMPSB ON RAMPSB OFF RAMPS6533478SEE BELOW SEE ABOVE SEE EXHIBIT 3 OF 4
EXHIBIT 4 OF 413.2TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>13_OPT 1(4 OF 4) CASE-RCTC_Exh.dgn13_OPT 1(4 OF 4) CASE-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:16ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION414719Item 19.

EB SR-91WB SR-91P
R
OM
ENA
D
E
AV
E
NB I-15SB I-15 SB I-15 ON RAMPNB I-15 ON RAMPEB SR-91WB SR-91EB SR-91 ON RAMP63516TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>22-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>16-RCTC_Exh.dgn16-RCTC_Exh.dgn09:31ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION415720Item 19.

PIERCE STEB OFF RAMPWB ON RAMPWB ON RAMPEB OFF RAMPMAGNOLI A AVE
EB ON RAMPWB SR-91EB SR-91
WB OFF RAMPS663554478518TIME PLOTTED =>DATE PLOTTED =>20-FEB-2018USERNAME =>casasrDGN FILE =>18-RCTC_Exh.dgn18-RCTC_Exh.dgn13:16ROW IMPACTS1234RETAINING WALL0200’400’200’ PROJECT ID STRUCTUREWIDENINGLEGEND:5RAMP REALIGNMENT6ROADWAY EXCAVATION78STREET IMPROVEMENTSSIGNALIZATION416721Item 19.

BLANK
417
722
Item 19.

RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee
Technical Memorandum 2: Funding and Cost Analysis

B-1

APPENDIX B – CONCEPTUAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE TABLES

418
723
Item 19.

ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS
SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $665,000
SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $6,173,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $1,205,850
SECTION 4: Speciallty Items $96,000 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $1,105,000
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $462,243
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $924,485
10% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $462,243
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $4,437,528
40% of Sections 1-10
BRIDGES $20,207,000
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $35,738,348
SUPPORT COSTS $12,508,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $48,246,000
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs
Project #1: I-15 NB, from SR-79 S On-Ramp to Winchester Rd Off-Ramp I. Roadway Items Summary
Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review.

Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. 419
724
Item 19.

Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (NB Off Ramp Rancho California)0.-56020-235 7831.70CY$15.00$117,475.56 Roadway Excavation (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California)0-2020-200 13690.93 CY$15.00$205,363.89 Roadway Excavation (NB On Ramp Rancho California)6550-185 22810.22 CY$15.00$342,153.33Pavment Structural Section Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)14605.0010.00 16227.78 SQYD$36.38$590,366.56 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)14605.0022.00 8330.26CY$72.10$600,611.69 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)14605.0022.00 5823.74 TON$85.00$495,018.22 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)14605.0022.00 10710.33 CY$270.00$2,891,790.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd)1415.008.00 1257.78 SQYD$36.38$45,757.96 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd)1415.0038.00 1394.04CY$72.10$100,510.07 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd)1415.0038.00 974.58TON$85.00$82,839.41 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd)1415.0038.00 1792.33CY$270.00$483,930.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd)800.008.00 711.11 SQYD$36.38$25,870.22 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd)800.0046.00 954.07CY$72.10$68,788.74 Lane plus shoulder at 46' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd)800.0046.00 667.00TON$85.00$56,695.00 Lane plus shoulder at 46' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd)800.0046.00 1226.67CY$270.00$331,200.00 Lane plus shoulder at 46' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia)835.008.00 742.22 SQYD$36.38$27,002.04 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia)835.0036.00 779.33CY$72.10$56,189.93 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia)835.0036.00 544.84TON$85.00$46,311.19 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia)835.0036.00 1002.00CY$270.00$270,540.00 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Speciallty Items Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)8625.001597.41 SQFT$60.00$95,844.44 Retaing wall height 5'Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization4.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00$200,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)14605.0014605.00 LF$0.65$9,493.25 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)29210.0029210.00 LF$2.41$70,396.10 Removal of Existing Striping (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd)4252.004252.00LF$0.65$2,763.80 Thermoplastic Striping (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd)4252.004252.00LF$2.41$10,247.32 Removal of Existing Striping (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd)2027.002027.00LF$0.65$1,317.55 Thermoplastic Striping (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd)2027.002027.00LF$2.41$4,885.07 Removal of Existing Striping (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia)1870.001870.00LF$0.65$1,215.50 Thermoplastic Striping (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia)1870.001870.00LF$2.41$4,506.70 Reconstruct Sign Structure4.00EA$200,000.00$800,000.00Santiago Rd Bridge-Tie-back70.0022.00 1540.00 SQ FT$375.00$577,500.00Rancho Califnoria Rd Bridge Replacement122.00262.00 31964.00 SQ FT$250.00$7,991,000.00Drainge Underpass Widening58.0022.00 1276.00 SQ FT$375.00$478,500.00Overland Rd Bridge Replacement62.00720.00 44640.00 SQ FT$250.00$11,160,000.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavment Structural SectionSpeciallty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$665,000.00$6,173,000.00$96,000.00$1,105,000.00$20,207,000.00$0.00$8,039,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #1: I-15 NB, from SR-79 S On-Ramp to Winchester Rd Off-RampI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way420725Item 19.

ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS
SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $665,000
SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $1,596,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $375,300
SECTION 4: Speciallty Items $16,000 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $225,000
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $143,865
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $287,730
10% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $143,865
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $1,381,104
40% of Sections 1-10
BRIDGES $7,991,000
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $12,824,864
SUPPORT COSTS $4,489,000
SUBTOTAL PROJECT COSTS $17,314,000
Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study $12,009,000.00 Amount to be reduced from Total Project Costs $12,009,000.00 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs
Project #1: I-15 NB at Rancho California Subtotal
I. Roadway Items Summary
Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review.

Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. 421
726
Item 19.

Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (NB Off Ramp Rancho California)0.-56020-235 7831.70CY$15.00$117,475.56 Roadway Excavation (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California)0-2020-200 13690.93 CY$15.00$205,363.89 Roadway Excavation (NB On Ramp Rancho California)6550-185 22810.22 CY$15.00$342,153.33Pavment Structural Section Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd)1415.008.00 1257.78 SQYD$36.38$45,757.96 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd)1415.0038.00 1394.04CY$72.10$100,510.07 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd)1415.0038.00 974.58TON$85.00$82,839.41 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd)1415.0038.00 1792.33CY$270.00$483,930.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd)800.008.00 711.11 SQYD$36.38$25,870.22 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd)800.0046.00 954.07CY$72.10$68,788.74 Lane plus shoulder at 46' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd)800.0046.00 667.00TON$85.00$56,695.00 Lane plus shoulder at 46' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd)800.0046.00 1226.67CY$270.00$331,200.00 Lane plus shoulder at 46' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia)835.008.00 742.22 SQYD$36.38$27,002.04 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia)835.0036.00 779.33CY$72.10$56,189.93 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia)835.0036.00 544.84TON$85.00$46,311.19 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia)835.0036.00 1002.00CY$270.00$270,540.00 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Speciallty Items Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)1400.00259.26 SQFT$60.00$15,555.56 Retaing wall height 5'Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization4.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00$200,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd)4252.004252.00LF$0.65$2,763.80 Thermoplastic Striping (NB Off Ramp Rancho California Rd)4252.004252.00LF$2.41$10,247.32 Removal of Existing Striping (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd)2027.002027.00LF$0.65$1,317.55 Thermoplastic Striping (NB Loop On Ramp Rancho California Rd)2027.002027.00LF$2.41$4,885.07 Removal of Existing Striping (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia)1870.001870.00LF$0.65$1,215.50 Thermoplastic Striping (NB On Ramp Rancho Califnornia)1870.001870.00LF$2.41$4,506.70 Reconstruct Sign Structure$0.00Santiago Rd Bridge-Tie-back$0.00Rancho Califnoria Rd Bridge Replacement122.00262.00 31964.00 SQ FT$250.00$7,991,000.00Drainge Underpass Widening$0.00Overland Rd Bridge Replacement$0.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavment Structural SectionSpeciallty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$665,000.00$1,596,000.00$16,000.00$225,000.00$7,991,000.00$0.00$2,502,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #1: I-15 NB at Rancho California SubtotalI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way422727Item 19.

ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS
SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $2,239,000
SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $2,328,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $809,700
SECTION 4: Specialty Items $35,000 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $796,000
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $310,385
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $620,770
10% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $310,385
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $2,979,696
40% of Sections 1-10
BRIDGES $360,000
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $10,788,936
SUPPORT COSTS $3,776,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $14,565,000
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs
Project #3: I-15 NB, from Clinton Keith Rd. On-ramp to Baxter Rd. Off-Ramp I. Roadway Items Summary
Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review.

Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. 423
728
Item 19.

Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (NB Off Ramp Baxter Rd)1175.000-185 14.00 50359.04 CY$15.00$755,385.56 Roadway Excavation (NB On Ramp Baxter Rd)860.000-200 28.00 98907.41 CY$15.00$1,483,611.11Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)4840.0010.005377.78 SQYD$36.38$195,643.56 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)4840.0022.002760.59CY$72.10$199,038.73 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)4840.0022.001929.95 TON$85.00$164,045.75 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)4840.0022.003549.33CY$270.00$958,320.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp Baxter)1220.008.001084.44 SQYD$36.38$39,452.09 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase(NB Off Ramp Baxter)1220.0024.00759.11CY$72.10$54,731.91 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB Off Ramp Baxter)1220.0024.00530.70TON$85.00$45,109.50 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp Baxter)1220.0024.00976.00CY$270.00$263,520.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp Baxter)1235.008.001097.78 SQYD$36.38$39,937.16 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB On Ramp Baxter)1235.0024.00768.44CY$72.10$55,404.84 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB On Ramp Baxter)1235.0024.00537.23TON$85.00$45,664.13 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp Baxter)1235.0024.00988.00CY$270.00$266,760.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Specialty Items$0.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)1055.00586.11 SQFT$60.00$35,166.67 Retaining wall height 5'Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization7.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00$350,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)4840.004840.00LF$0.65$3,146.00 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)9680.009680.00LF$2.41$23,328.80 Removal of Existing Striping (NB Off Ramp Baxter)1475.001475.00LF$0.65$958.75 Thermoplastic Striping (NB Off Ramp Baxter)1475.001475.00LF$2.41$3,554.75 Removal of Existing Striping (NB On Ramp Baxter)1235.001235.00LF$0.65$802.75 Thermoplastic Striping (NB On Ramp Baxter)1235.001235.00LF$2.41$2,976.35 Reconstruct Sign Structure2.00EA$200,000.00$400,000.00Baxter Rd Bridge-Tie-back60.0016.00960.00 SQFT$375.00$360,000.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$2,239,000.00$2,328,000.00$35,000.00$796,000.00$360,000.00$0.00$5,398,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #3: I-15 NB, from Clinton Keith Rd. On-ramp to Baxter Rd. Off-RampI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way424729Item 19.

ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS
SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $2,239,000
SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $811,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $573,000
SECTION 4: Specialty Items $0 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $770,000
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $219,650
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $439,300
10% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $219,650
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $2,108,640
40% of Sections 1-10
BRIDGES $360,000
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $7,740,240
SUPPORT COSTS $2,709,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $10,449,000
Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study $7,159,000.00
Amount to be reduced from Total Project Costs $7,159,000.00 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs
Project #3: I-15 NB at Baxter Subtotal
I. Roadway Items Summary
Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review.

Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. 425
730
Item 19.

Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (NB Off Ramp Baxter Rd)1175.000-185 14.00 50359.04 CY$15.00$755,385.56 Roadway Excavation (NB On Ramp Baxter Rd)860.000-200 28.00 98907.41 CY$15.00$1,483,611.11Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp Baxter)1220.008.001084.44 SQYD$36.38$39,452.09 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase(NB Off Ramp Baxter)1220.0024.00759.11CY$72.10$54,731.91 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB Off Ramp Baxter)1220.0024.00530.70TON$85.00$45,109.50 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp Baxter)1220.0024.00976.00CY$270.00$263,520.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp Baxter)1235.008.001097.78 SQYD$36.38$39,937.16 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB On Ramp Baxter)1235.0024.00768.44CY$72.10$55,404.84 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB On Ramp Baxter)1235.0024.00537.23TON$85.00$45,664.13 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp Baxter)1235.0024.00988.00CY$270.00$266,760.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Specialty Items$0.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)$0.00 Retaining wall height 5'Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization7.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00$350,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (NB Off Ramp Baxter)1475.001475.00LF$0.65$958.75 Thermoplastic Striping (NB Off Ramp Baxter)1475.001475.00LF$2.41$3,554.75 Removal of Existing Striping (NB On Ramp Baxter)1235.001235.00LF$0.65$802.75 Thermoplastic Striping (NB On Ramp Baxter)1235.001235.00LF$2.41$2,976.35 Reconstruct Sign Structure2.00EA$200,000.00$400,000.00Baxter Rd Bridge-Tie-back60.0016.00960.00 SQFT$375.00$360,000.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$2,239,000.00$811,000.00$0.00$770,000.00$360,000.00$0.00$3,820,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #3: I-15 NB at Baxter SubtotalI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way426731Item 19.

ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS
SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $1,510,000
SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $11,919,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $2,251,950
SECTION 4: Specialty Items $304,000 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $1,280,000
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $863,248
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $1,726,495
10% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $863,248
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $8,287,176
40% of Sections 1-10
BRIDGES $4,310,000
Right of Way Acquisition $375,000
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $33,690,116
SUPPORT COSTS $11,792,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $45,482,000
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs
Project #7, I-15 SB, from Cajalco Rd On-Ramp to Indian Truck Trail On-Ramp I. Roadway Items Summary
Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review.

Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review.

II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
427
732
Item 19.

Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (SB On Ramp Indian Truck Trail)840.00 0-186 0-12 36720.00 CY$15.00$550,800.00 Roadway Excavation (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)1100.0011-167 0-11 36410.00 CY$15.00$546,150.00 Roadway Excavation (West of SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)17350-1620-7 10460.52 CY$15.00$156,907.78 Roadway Excavation (West of SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)640.0036-700-2 2587.11CY$15.00$38,806.67 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)830.0014-102 0-3 5971.00CY$15.00$89,565.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon)860.0012-125 0-2 4170.44CY$15.00$62,556.67 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos)520.000-850-2 1586.07CY$15.00$23,791.11 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos)950.000-900-2 2776.52CY$15.00$41,647.78Pavement Structural Section Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)29203.0010.0032447.78 SQYD$36.38$1,180,450.16 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)29203.0022.0016656.53 CY$72.10$1,200,935.52 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)29203.0022.0011644.70 TON$85.00$989,799.18 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)29203.0022.0021415.53 CY$270.00$5,782,194.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail)215.008.00191.11 SQYD$36.38$6,952.62 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail)215.0026.00144.93CY$72.10$10,449.16 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail)215.0026.00101.32TON$85.00$8,612.09 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail)215.0026.00186.33CY$270.00$50,310.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)1220.008.001084.44 SQYD$36.38$39,452.09 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)1220.0052.001644.74CY$72.10$118,585.81 Lane plus shoulder at 52' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)1220.0052.001149.85 TON$85.00$97,737.25 Lane plus shoulder at 52' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)1220.0052.002114.67CY$270.00$570,960.00 Lane plus shoulder at 52' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)955.008.00848.89 SQYD$36.38$30,882.58 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)955.0036.00891.33CY$72.10$64,265.13 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)955.0036.00623.14TON$85.00$52,966.69 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)955.0036.001146.00CY$270.00$309,420.00 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon)1165.008.001035.56 SQYD$36.38$37,673.51 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon)1165.0034.001026.93CY$72.10$74,041.36 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon)1165.0034.00717.93TON$85.00$61,024.16 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon)1165.0034.001320.33CY$270.00$356,490.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos)740.008.00657.78 SQYD$36.38$23,929.96 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos)740.0038.00729.04CY$72.10$52,563.57 Lane plus shoulder at 38 with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos)740.0038.00509.68TON$85.00$43,322.38 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos)740.0038.00937.33CY$270.00$253,080.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos)1050.008.00933.33 SQYD$36.38$33,954.67 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos)1050.0036.00980.00CY$72.10$70,658.00 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos)1050.0036.00685.13TON$85.00$58,235.63 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos)1050.0036.001260.00CY$270.00$340,200.00 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Specialty Items Remove Retaining Wall1095.001095.00LF$15.00$16,425.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)14010.004792.22 SQFT$60.00$287,533.33 Retaining wall height 5'Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization12.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00$600,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)29203.0029203.00LF$0.65$18,981.95 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)58406.0058406.00LF$2.41$140,758.46 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail)2386.002386.00LF$0.65$1,550.90 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail)2386.002386.00LF$2.41$5,750.26 Removal of Existing Striping (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)3870.003870.00LF$0.65$2,515.50 Thermoplastic Striping (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)3870.003870.00LF$2.41$9,326.70 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)2035.002035.00LF$0.65$1,322.75 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)2035.002035.00LF$2.41$4,904.35 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon)26170.0026170.00LF$0.65$17,010.50 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon)26170.0026170.00LF$2.41$63,069.70 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos)1491.001491.00LF$0.65$969.15 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos)1491.001491.00LF$2.41$3,593.31 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos)3290.003290.00LF$0.65$2,138.50 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos)3290.003290.00LF$2.41$7,928.90 Reconstruct Sign Structure2.00LF$200,000.00$400,000.00Indian Truck Trail Bridge Widening136.0014.001904.00 SQFT$375.00$714,000.00Temescal Canyon OC Widening PM 31.90160.0014.002240.00 SQFT$375.00$840,000.00Mayhew Wash Bridge Widening PM 31.97145.0014.002030.00 SQFT$375.00$761,250.00Temescal Canyon Road UC Widening PM 33.2562.0014.00868.00 SQFT$375.00$325,500.00Brown Canyon Wash Bridge Widening PM 34.7278.0014.001092.00 SQ FT$375.00$409,500.00Dos Lagos Bridge Widening140.0014.001960.00 SQ FT$375.00$735,000.00Bedford Wash Bridge Widening100.0014.001400.00 SQFT$375.00$525,000.00Right of Way Acquisition 150.0050.007500.00 SQFT$50.00$375,000.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$1,510,000.00$11,919,000.00$304,000.00$1,280,000.00$4,310,000.00$375,000.00$15,013,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #7, I-15 SB, from Cajalco Rd On-Ramp to Indian Truck Trail On-RampI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way428733Item 19.

ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS
SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $191,000
SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $987,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $375,150
SECTION 4: Specialty Items $43,000 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $1,280,000
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $143,808
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $287,615
10% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $143,808
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $1,380,552
40% of Sections 1-10
BRIDGES $840,000
Right of Way Acquisition $0
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $5,671,932
SUPPORT COSTS $1,985,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $7,657,000
Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study $17,897,000.00 Amount to be reduced from Total Project Costs $7,657,000.00 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs
Project #7, I-15 SB at Temescal Canyon Subtotal
I. Roadway Items Summary
Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review.

Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. 429
734
Item 19.

Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (SB On Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (West of SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (West of SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)640.00 36-70 0-2 2587.11CY$15.00$38,806.67 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)830.0014-102 0-3 5971.00CY$15.00$89,565.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon)860.0012-125 0-2 4170.44CY$15.00$62,556.67 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos)$0.00Pavement Structural Section Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 52' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 52' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 52' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)955.008.00848.89 SQYD$36.38$30,882.58 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)955.0036.00891.33CY$72.10$64,265.13 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)955.0036.00623.14TON$85.00$52,966.69 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)955.0036.001146.00CY$270.00$309,420.00 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon)1165.008.001035.56 SQYD$36.38$37,673.51 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon)1165.0034.001026.93CY$72.10$74,041.36 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon)1165.0034.00717.93TON$85.00$61,024.16 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon)1165.0034.001320.33CY$270.00$356,490.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38 with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 36' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Specialty Items Remove Retaining Wall$0.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)1300.00722.22 SQFT$60.00$43,333.33 Retaining wall height 5'Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization4.00PER CORNER $50,000.00$200,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB Off Ramp Indian Truck Trail)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)2035.002035.00LF$0.65$1,322.75 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Temescal Canyon)2035.002035.00LF$2.41$4,904.35 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon)26170.0026170.00LF$0.65$17,010.50 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Temescal Canyon)26170.0026170.00LF$2.41$63,069.70 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Dos Lagos)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Dos Lagos)$0.00 Reconstruct Sign Structure$0.00Indian Truck Trail Bridge Widening$0.00Temescal Canyon OC Widening PM 31.90160.0014.002240.00 SQFT$375.00$840,000.00Mayhew Wash Bridge Widening PM 31.97$0.00Temescal Canyon Road UC Widening PM 33.25$0.00Brown Canyon Wash Bridge Widening PM 34.72$0.00Dos Lagos Bridge Widening$0.00Bedford Wash Bridge Widening$0.00Right of Way Acquisition $0.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$191,000.00$987,000.00$43,000.00$286,000.00$840,000.00$0.00$1,507,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #7, I-15 SB at Temescal Canyon SubtotalI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way430735Item 19.

ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS
SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $1,153,000
SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $3,814,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $857,700
SECTION 4: Speciallty Items $288,000 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $463,000
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $328,785
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $657,570
10% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $328,785
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $3,156,336
40% of Sections 1-10
BRIDGES $975,000
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $12,022,176
SUPPORT COSTS $4,208,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $16,230,000
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs
Project #8, I-15 SB, from El Cerrito Rd Off-Ramp to Cajalco Rd Off-Ramp I. Roadway Items Summary
Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review.

Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. 431
736
Item 19.

Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Cajalco)700.000-320 0-12 61799.11 CY$15.00$926,986.67 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Cajalco)1000.000-175 0-5 10822.78 CY$15.00$162,341.67 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp El Cerrito)595.000-780-2 1750.96CY$15.00$26,264.44 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp El Cerrito)780.008-840-2 2461.04CY$15.00$36,915.56Pavment Structural Section Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)6907.0014.0010744.22 SQYD$36.38$390,874.80 Existing shoulders at 14' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)6907.0022.003939.55CY$72.10$284,041.42 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)6907.0022.002754.17 TON$85.00$234,104.13 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)6907.0022.005065.13CY$270.00$1,367,586.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Cajalco)468.0010.00520.00 SQYD$36.38$18,917.60 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Cajalco)468.0024.00291.20CY$72.10$20,995.52 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Cajalco)468.0024.00203.58TON$85.00$17,304.30 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Cajalco)468.0024.00374.40CY$270.00$101,088.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Cajalco)1225.008.001088.89 SQYD$36.38$39,613.78 Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Cajalco)1225.0040.001270.37CY$72.10$91,593.70 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Cajalco)1225.0040.00888.13TON$85.00$75,490.63 Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Cajalco)1225.0040.001633.33CY$270.00$441,000.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp El Cerrito)820.008.00728.89 SQYD$36.38$26,516.98 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp El Cerrito)820.0034.00722.81CY$72.10$52,114.95 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp El Cerrito)820.0034.00505.33TON$85.00$42,952.63 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp El Cerrito)820.0034.00929.33CY$270.00$250,920.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp El Cerrito)1060.0010.001177.78CY$36.38$42,847.56Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp El Cerrito)1060.0024.00659.56TON$72.10$47,553.96Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp El Cerrito)1060.0024.00461.10LF$85.00$39,193.50Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp El Cerrito)1060.0024.00848.00LF$270.00$228,960.00Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Speciallty Items Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)16665.004792.22 SQFT$60.00$287,533.33 Retaing wall height 5'Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization8.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00$400,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)6907.006907.00LF$0.65$4,489.55 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)13814.0013814.00 LF$2.41$33,291.74 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Cajalco)936.00936.00LF$0.65$608.40 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Cajalco)936.00936.00LF$2.41$2,255.76 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Cajalco)3215.003215.00LF$0.65$2,089.75 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Cajalco)3215.003215.00LF$2.41$7,748.15 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp El Cerrito)1440.001440.00LF$0.65$936.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp El Cerrito)1440.001440.00LF$2.41$3,470.40 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp El Cerrito)2640.002640.00LF$0.65$1,716.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp El Cerrito)2640.002640.00LF$2.41$6,362.40 Reconstruct Sign Structure0.00LF$200,000.00$0.00Cajalco Road OC Tie Back40.0016.00640.00 SQFT$375.00$240,000.00El Cerrito UC Widening140.0014.001960.00 SQFT$375.00$735,000.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavment Structural SectionSpeciallty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$1,153,000.00$3,814,000.00$288,000.00$463,000.00$975,000.00$0.00$5,718,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #8, I-15 SB, from El Cerrito Rd Off-Ramp to Cajalco Rd Off-RampI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way432737Item 19.

ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS
SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $1,089,000
SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $806,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $316,200
SECTION 4: Speciallty Items $0 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $213,000
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $121,210
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $242,420
10% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $121,210
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $1,163,616
40% of Sections 1-10
BRIDGES $240,000
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $4,312,656
SUPPORT COSTS $1,509,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $5,822,000
Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study $44,257,000.00 Amount to be reduced from Total Project Costs $5,822,000.00 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs
Project #8, I-15 SB at Cajalco Subtotal
I. Roadway Items Summary
Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review.

Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. 433
738
Item 19.

Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Cajalco)700.000-320 0-12 61799.11 CY$15.00$926,986.67 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Cajalco)1000.000-175 0-5 10822.78 CY$15.00$162,341.67 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp El Cerrito)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp El Cerrito)$0.00Pavment Structural Section Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 14' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Cajalco)468.0010.00520.00 SQYD$36.38$18,917.60 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Cajalco)468.0024.00291.20CY$72.10$20,995.52 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Cajalco)468.0024.00203.58TON$85.00$17,304.30 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Cajalco)468.0024.00374.40CY$270.00$101,088.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Cajalco)1225.008.001088.89 SQYD$36.38$39,613.78 Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Cajalco)1225.0040.001270.37CY$72.10$91,593.70 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Cajalco)1225.0040.00888.13TON$85.00$75,490.63 Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Cajalco)1225.0040.001633.33CY$270.00$441,000.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp El Cerrito)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp El Cerrito)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp El Cerrito)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp El Cerrito)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp El Cerrito)$0.00Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp El Cerrito)$0.00Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp El Cerrito)$0.00Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp El Cerrito)$0.00Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Speciallty Items Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)$0.00 Retaing wall height 5'Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization4.00PER CORNER $50,000.00$200,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Cajalco)936.00936.00LF$0.65$608.40 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Cajalco)936.00936.00LF$2.41$2,255.76 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Cajalco)3215.003215.00LF$0.65$2,089.75 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Cajalco)3215.003215.00LF$2.41$7,748.15 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp El Cerrito)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp El Cerrito)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp El Cerrito)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp El Cerrito)$0.00 Reconstruct Sign Structure0.00LF$200,000.00$0.00Cajalco Road OC Tie Back40.0016.00640.00 SQFT$375.00$240,000.00El Cerrito UC Widening$0.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavment Structural SectionSpeciallty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$1,089,000.00$806,000.00$0.00$213,000.00$240,000.00$0.00$2,108,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #8, I-15 SB at Cajalco SubtotalI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way434739Item 19.

ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS
SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $311,000
SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $4,621,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $935,550
SECTION 4: Speciallty Items $227,000 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $1,078,000
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $358,628
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $717,255
10% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $358,628
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $3,442,824
40% of Sections 1-10
BRIDGES $17,753,000
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $29,802,884
SUPPORT COSTS $10,431,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $40,234,000
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs
Project #9, SR-60 EB, from Rubidoux Blvd. On-Ramp to Main St Off-Ramp I. Roadway Items Summary
Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review.

Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. 435
740
Item 19.

Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (EB on Ramp Market St)955.0017-48 0-10 10247.78 CY$15.00$153,716.67 Roadway Excavation (EB off Ramp Market St)620.007-65 0-15 10493.89 CY$15.00$157,408.33Pavment Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)11025.0010.0012250.00 SQYD$36.38$445,655.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)11025.0022.006288.33CY$72.10$453,388.83 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)11025.0022.004396.22 TON$85.00$373,678.59 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)11025.0022.008085.00CY$270.00$2,182,950.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (EB On Ramp Main St)535.008.00475.56 SQYD$36.38$17,300.71 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (EB On Ramp Main St)535.0032.00443.85CY$72.10$32,001.72 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (EB On Ramp Main St)535.0032.00310.30TON$85.00$26,375.50 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (EB On Ramp Main St)535.0032.00570.67CY$270.00$154,080.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (EB Off Ramp Main St)700.008.00622.22 SQYD$36.38$22,636.44 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (EB Off Ramp Main St)700.0020.00362.96CY$72.10$26,169.63 Lane plus shoulder at 20' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (EB Off Ramp Main St)700.0020.00253.75TON$85.00$21,568.75 Lane plus shoulder at 20' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement t (EB Off Ramp Main St)700.0020.00466.67CY$270.00$126,000.00 Lane plus shoulder at 20' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (EB on Ramp Market St)900.008.00800.00 SQYD$36.38$29,104.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (EB on Ramp Market St)900.0024.00560.00CY$72.10$40,376.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (EB on Ramp Market St)900.0024.00391.50TON$85.00$33,277.50 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (EB on Ramp Market St)900.0024.00720.00CY$270.00$194,400.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (EB off Ramp Market St)1340.008.001191.11 SQYD$36.38$43,332.62 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (EB off Ramp Market St)1340.0024.00833.78CY$72.10$60,115.38 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (EB off Ramp Market St)1340.0024.00582.90TON$85.00$49,546.50 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (EB off Ramp Market St)1340.0024.001072.00CY$270.00$289,440.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Speciallty Items$0.00 Remove Sound Wall1920.001920.00LF$27.00$51,840.00 Sound Wall1920.001920.00 SQFT$23.98$46,041.60 6' High sound wall Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)3885.002158.33 SQFT$60.00$129,500.00 Retaining wall height 5'Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization8.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00$400,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)11025.0011025.00 LF$0.65$7,166.25 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)22050.0022050.00 LF$2.41$53,140.50 Removal of Existing Striping (EB On Ramp Main St)865.00865.00LF$0.65$562.25 Thermoplastic Striping (EB On Ramp Main St)865.00865.00LF$2.41$2,084.65 Removal of Existing Striping (EB Off Ramp Main St)1400.001400.00LF$0.65$910.00 Thermoplastic Striping (EB Off Ramp Main St)1400.001400.00LF$2.41$3,374.00 Removal of Existing Striping (EB on Ramp Market St)1640.001640.00LF$0.65$1,066.00 Thermoplastic Striping (EB on Ramp Market St)1640.001640.00LF$2.41$3,952.40 Removal of Existing Striping (EB off Ramp Market St)1850.001850.00LF$0.65$1,202.50 Thermoplastic Striping (EB off Ramp Market St)1850.001850.00LF$2.41$4,458.50 Reconstruct Sign Structure3.00EA$200,000.00$600,000.00Orange St Bridge Replacement56.00220.0012320.00 SQFT$250.00$3,080,000.00Main St Bridfge Replacement72.00210.0015120.00 SQFT$250.00$3,780,000.00Fairmount Blvd Bridge Widening 115.0014.001610.00 SQFT$375.00$603,750.00Market St Bridge Widening278.0014.003892.00 SQFT$375.00$1,459,500.00Santa Ana River Bridge Widening1120.0014.0015680.00SQ FT$375.00$5,880,000.00Hall Ave Bridge Replacement40.00295.0011800.00 SQ FT$250.00$2,950,000.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavment Structural SectionSpeciallty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$6,237,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #9, SR-60 EB, from Rubidoux Blvd. On-Ramp to Main St Off-RampI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way$311,000.00$4,621,000.00$227,000.00$1,078,000.00$17,753,000.00$0.00436741Item 19.

ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS
SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $1,077,000
SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $4,546,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $1,244,400
SECTION 4: Specialty Items $1,369,000 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $1,304,000
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $477,020
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $954,040
10% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $477,020
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $4,579,392
40% of Sections 1-10
BRIDGES $2,546,000
Right of Way Acquisition $1,065,000
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $19,638,872
SUPPORT COSTS $6,874,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $26,513,000
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs
Project #10, I-215 NB, from Box Springs Rd. On-Ramp to Martin Luther King Jr. On-Ramp I. Roadway Items Summary
Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review.

Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review.

III. RIGHT OF WAY
437
742
Item 19.

Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (New Road)1891.0020.00 0-5 7016.11CY$15.00$105,241.67 Roadway Excavation (NB off Ramp Central )790.000-85 0-19 30291.63 CY$15.00$454,374.44 Roadway Excavation (NB on Ramp Central)6470-100 0-20 34520.00 CY$15.00$517,800.00Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)7570.0010.008411.11 SQYD$36.38$305,996.22 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)7570.0022.004317.70CY$72.10$311,306.44 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)7570.0022.003018.54 TON$85.00$256,575.69 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)7570.0022.005551.33CY$270.00$1,498,860.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp Central)1350.008.001200.00 SQYD$36.38$43,656.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB off Ramp Central)1350.0038.001330.00CY$72.10$95,893.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB off Ramp Central)1350.0038.00929.81TON$85.00$79,034.06 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp Central)1350.0038.001710.00CY$270.00$461,700.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp Central)755.008.00671.11 SQYD$36.38$24,415.02 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB on Ramp Central)755.0030.00587.22CY$72.10$42,338.72 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB on Ramp Central)755.0030.00410.53TON$85.00$34,895.16 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp Central)755.0030.00755.00CY$270.00$203,850.00 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp Martin Luther King)1335.008.001186.67 SQYD$36.38$43,170.93 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB off Ramp Martin Luther King)1335.0038.001315.22CY$72.10$94,827.52 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB off Ramp Martin Luther King)1335.0038.00919.48TON$85.00$78,155.91 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp Martin Luther King)1335.0038.001691.00CY$270.00$456,570.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38''with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp Martin Luther King)930.008.00826.67 SQYD$36.38$30,074.13 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB on Ramp Martin Luther King)930.0042.001012.67CY$72.10$73,013.27 Lane plus shoulder at 42' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB on Ramp Martin Luther King)930.0042.00707.96TON$85.00$60,176.81 Lane plus shoulder at 42' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp Martin Luther King)930.0042.001302.00CY$270.00$351,540.00 Lane plus shoulder at 42' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Specialty Items$0.00 Remove Sound Wall1000.001000.00LF$27.00$27,000.00 Sound Wall1000.001000.00 SQFT$23.98$23,980.00 6' High sound wall Remove Retaining Wall7430.007430.00LF$15.00$111,450.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)410.00501.11 SQFT$80.00$40,088.89 Retaining wall height 11' Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)4100.006833.33 SQFT$90.00$615,000.00 Retaining wall height 15' Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)2920.005515.56 SQFT$100.00$551,555.56 Retaining wall height 17'Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization4.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00$200,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)13560.0013560.00 LF$0.65$8,814.00 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)27120.0027120.00 LF$2.41$65,359.20 Removal of Existing Striping (NB off Ramp Central)2438.002438.00LF$0.65$1,584.70 Thermoplastic Striping (NB off Ramp Central)2438.002438.00LF$2.41$5,875.58 Removal of Existing Striping (NB on Ramp Central)1345.001345.00LF$0.65$874.25 Thermoplastic Striping (NB on Ramp Central)1345.001345.00LF$2.41$3,241.45 Removal of Existing Striping (NB off Ramp Martin Luther King)3425.003425.00LF$0.65$2,226.25 Thermoplastic Striping (NB off Ramp Martin Luther King)3425.003425.00LF$2.41$8,254.25 Removal of Existing Striping (NB on Ramp Martin Luther King)2461.002461.00LF$0.65$1,599.65 Thermoplastic Striping (NB on Ramp Martin Luther King)2461.002461.00LF$2.41$5,931.01 Reconstruct Sign Structure5.00EA$200,000.00 $1,000,000.00Central Bridge Widening150.0014.002100.00 SQFT$375.00$787,500.00Martin Luther King Widening175.0014.002450.00 SQFT$375.00$918,750.00Canyon Crest Widening160.0014.002240.00 SQFT$375.00$840,000.00Right of Way Acquisition #11950.0010.0019500.00 SQFT$50.00$975,000.00Right of Way Acquisition #2360.005.001800.00 SQFT$50.00$90,000.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$1,077,000.00$4,546,000.00$1,369,000.00$1,304,000.00$2,546,000.00$1,065,000.00$8,296,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #10, I-215 NB, from Box Springs Rd. On-Ramp to Martin Luther King Jr. On-Ramp I. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way438743Item 19.

ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS
SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $1,434,000
SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $3,172,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $1,193,850
SECTION 4: Specialty Items $1,888,000 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $1,465,000
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $457,643
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $915,285
10% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $457,643
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $4,393,368
40% of Sections 1-10
BRIDGES $21,655,000
Right of Way Acquisition $3,768,750
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $40,800,538
SUPPORT COSTS $14,280,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $55,081,000
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs
Project #10C, I-215 NB, Martin Luther King Off Ramp to SR-91 I. Roadway Items Summary
Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review.

Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review.

III. RIGHT OF WAY
439
744
Item 19.

Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (NB off Ramp University)276.001680-18 28446.67 CY$15.00$426,700.00 Roadway Excavation (NB on Ramp University)0-4106-170 0-5 4946.67CY$15.00$74,200.00 Roadway Excavation (NB Off Ramp 3rd St)6006-340-6 5928.89CY$15.00$88,933.33 Roadway Excavation (NB On Ramp 3rd St)436.006-38 0-15 4478.89CY$15.00$67,183.33Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)5867.0010.006518.89 SQYD$36.38$237,157.18 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)5867.0022.003346.36CY$72.10$241,272.77 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)5867.0022.002339.47 TON$85.00$198,854.63 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)5867.0022.004302.47CY$270.00$1,161,666.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp University)610.008.00542.22 SQYD$36.38$19,726.04 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB off Ramp University)610.0042.00664.22CY$72.10$47,890.42 Lane plus shoulder at 42' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB off Ramp University)610.0042.00464.36TON$85.00$39,470.81 Lane plus shoulder at 42' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp University)610.0042.00854.00CY$270.00$230,580.00 Lane plus shoulder at 42' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp University)936.008.00832.00 SQYD$36.38$30,268.16 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB on Ramp University)936.0026.00630.93CY$72.10$45,490.29 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB on Ramp University)936.0026.00441.09TON$85.00$37,492.65 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp Central)936.0026.00811.20CY$270.00$219,024.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp 3rd St)850.008.00755.56 SQYD$36.38$27,487.11 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB Off Ramp 3rd St)850.0034.00749.26CY$72.10$54,021.59 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB Off Ramp 3rd St)850.0034.00523.81TON$85.00$44,524.06 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB Off Ramp 3rd St)850.0034.00963.33CY$270.00$260,100.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp 3rd St)610.008.00542.22 SQYD$36.38$19,726.04 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB On Ramp 3rd St)610.0034.00537.70CY$72.10$38,768.44 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB On Ramp 3rd St)610.0034.00375.91TON$85.00$31,952.56 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB On Ramp 3rd St)610.0034.00691.33CY$270.00$186,660.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Specialty Items$0.00 Remove Sound Wall2633.002633.00LF$27.00$71,091.00 Sound Wall2633.002633.00 SQFT$23.98$63,139.34 6' High sound wall Remove Retaining Wall3444.003444.00LF$27.00$92,988.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)34336.0019075.56 SQFT$60.00$1,144,533.33 Retaining wall height 5' Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)3444.005740.00 SQFT$90.00$516,600.00 Retaining wall height 15'Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization8.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00$400,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)11735.0011735.00 LF$0.65$7,627.75 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)11735.0011735.00 LF$2.41$28,281.35 Removal of Existing Striping (NB off Ramp University)2110.002110.00LF$0.65$1,371.50 Thermoplastic Striping (NB off Ramp University)2110.002110.00LF$2.41$5,085.10 Removal of Existing Striping (NB on Ramp University)2810.002810.00LF$0.65$1,826.50 Thermoplastic Striping (NB on Ramp University)2810.002810.00LF$2.41$6,772.10 Removal of Existing Striping (NB Off Ramp 3rd St)2660.002660.00LF$0.65$1,729.00 Thermoplastic Striping (NB Off Ramp 3rd St)2660.002660.00LF$2.41$6,410.60 Removal of Existing Striping (NB On Ramp 3rd St)1830.001830.00LF$0.65$1,189.50 Thermoplastic Striping (NB On Ramp 3rd St)1830.001830.00LF$2.41$4,410.30 Reconstruct Sign Structure5.00EA$200,000.00 $1,000,000.00University Ave Bridge Widening108.0014.001512.00 SQFT$375.00$567,000.00Iowa Ave Bridge Replacement400.00120.0048000.00 SQFT$250.00$12,000,000.003rd St Bridge Replacement256.00142.0036352.00 SQFT$250.00$9,088,000.00Right of Way Acquisition #11075.005.005375.00 SQFT$50.00$268,750.00Right of Way Acquisition #2500.0010.00 PER HOUSE $350,000.00 $3,500,000.00 $350,000 per property I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$1,434,000.00$3,172,000.00$1,888,000.00$1,465,000.00$21,655,000.00$3,768,750.00$7,959,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #10C, I-215 NB, Martin Luther King Off Ramp to SR-91I. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way440745Item 19.

ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS
SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $1,388,000
SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $2,919,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $836,700
SECTION 4: Specialty Items $422,000 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $849,000
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $320,735
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $641,470
10% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $320,735
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $3,079,056
40% of Sections 1-10
BRIDGES $25,566,000
Right of Way Acquisition $400,000
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $36,742,696
SUPPORT COSTS $12,860,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $49,603,000
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs
Project #11, I-215 NB, from Center St. off-Ramp to County Line/Iowa Ave.

I. Roadway Items Summary
Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review.

Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review.

III. RIGHT OF WAY
441
746
Item 19.

Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (NB off Ramp Highgrove)0-2360+560-6 1596.67CY$15.00$23,950.00 Roadway Excavation (NB off Ramp La Cadena)646.000-260 0-12 37572.44 CY$15.00$563,586.67 Roadway Excavation (NB loop off Ramp La Cadena)260285.00 0-18 48333.33 CY$15.00$725,000.00 Roadway Excavation (NB on Ramp La Cadena)0-430'0-240 0-5 5037.41CY$15.00$75,561.11Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)5915.0010.006572.22 SQYD$36.38$239,097.44 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)5915.0022.003373.74CY$72.10$243,246.71 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)5915.0022.002358.61 TON$85.00$200,481.53 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)5915.0022.004337.67CY$270.00$1,171,170.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp Highgrove)477.008.00424.00 SQYD$36.38$15,425.12 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB off Ramp Highgrove)477.0048.00593.60CY$72.10$42,798.56 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB off Ramp Highgrove)477.0048.00414.99TON$85.00$35,274.15 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp Highgrove)477.0048.00763.20CY$270.00$206,064.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp La Cadena)1170.008.001040.00 SQYD$36.38$37,835.20 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB off Ramp La Cadena)1170.0030.00910.00CY$72.10$65,611.00 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB off Ramp La Cadena)1170.0030.00636.19TON$85.00$54,075.94 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp La Cadena)1170.0030.001170.00CY$270.00$315,900.00 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp La Cadena)885.008.00786.67 SQYD$36.38$28,618.93 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB on Ramp La Cadena)885.0024.00550.67CY$72.10$39,703.07 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB on Ramp La Cadena)885.0024.00384.98TON$85.00$32,722.88 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp La Cadena)885.0024.00708.00CY$270.00$191,160.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Specialty Items Remove Retaining Wall1020.001020.00LF$15.00$15,300.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)1020.001133.33 SQFT$80.00$90,666.67 Retaining wall height 10' Concrete Barrier (Type 60)3545.003545.00LF$82.40$292,108.00Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization8.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00$400,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)5915.005915.00LF$0.65$3,844.75 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)11830.0011830.00 LF$2.41$28,510.30 Removal of Existing Striping (NB off Ramp Highgrove)1170.001170.00LF$0.65$760.50 Thermoplastic Striping (NB off Ramp Highgrove)1170.001170.00LF$2.41$2,819.70 Removal of Existing Striping (NB off Ramp La Cadena)2340.002340.00LF$0.65$1,521.00 Thermoplastic Striping (NB off Ramp La Cadena)2340.002340.00LF$2.41$5,639.40 Removal of Existing Striping (NB on Ramp La Cadena)1770.001770.00LF$0.65$1,150.50 Thermoplastic Striping (NB on Ramp La Cadena)1770.001770.00LF$2.41$4,265.70 Reconstruct Sign Structure2.00EA$200,000.00$400,000.00Center St Bridge Replacement303.0048.0014544.00 SQFT$250.00$3,636,000.00Iowa St Bridge Replacement232.0060.0013920.00 SQFT$250.00$3,480,000.00Railroad Bridge Replacement410.00120.0049200.00 SQFT$375.00$18,450,000.00 Steel Truss Bridge- 4 track railroadRight of Way Acquisition #11600.005.008000.00 SQFT$50.00$400,000.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$1,388,000.00$2,919,000.00$422,000.00$849,000.00$25,566,000.00$400,000.00$5,578,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #11, I-215 NB, from Center St. off-Ramp to County Line/Iowa Ave.I. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way442747Item 19.

ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS
SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $24,000
SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $300,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $142,800
SECTION 4: Specialty Items $24,000 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $604,000
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $54,740
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $109,480
10% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $54,740
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $525,504
40% of Sections 1-10
BRIDGES $3,636,000
Right of Way Acquisition $0
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $5,475,264
SUPPORT COSTS $1,916,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $7,391,000
Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study $17,897,000.00 Amount to be reduced from Total Project Costs $7,391,000.00 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
III. RIGHT OF WAY
Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs
Project #11, I-215 NB at Highgrove/Center Subtotal
I. Roadway Items Summary
Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review.

Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. 443
748
Item 19.

Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (NB off Ramp Highgrove)0-2360+560-6 1596.67CY$15.00$23,950.00 Roadway Excavation (NB off Ramp La Cadena)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (NB loop off Ramp La Cadena)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (NB on Ramp La Cadena)$0.00Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp Highgrove)477.008.00424.00 SQYD$36.38$15,425.12 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB off Ramp Highgrove)477.0048.00593.60CY$72.10$42,798.56 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB off Ramp Highgrove)477.0048.00414.99TON$85.00$35,274.15 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp Highgrove)477.0048.00763.20CY$270.00$206,064.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp La Cadena)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB off Ramp La Cadena)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB off Ramp La Cadena)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB off Ramp La Cadena)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp La Cadena)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB on Ramp La Cadena)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB on Ramp La Cadena)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB on Ramp La Cadena)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Specialty Items Remove Retaining Wall$0.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)$0.00 Retaining wall height 10' Concrete Barrier (Type 60)$0.00Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization4.00PER CORNER $50,000.00$200,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (NB off Ramp Highgrove)1170.001170.00LF$0.65$760.50 Thermoplastic Striping (NB off Ramp Highgrove)1170.001170.00LF$2.41$2,819.70 Removal of Existing Striping (NB off Ramp La Cadena)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (NB off Ramp La Cadena)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (NB on Ramp La Cadena)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (NB on Ramp La Cadena)$0.00 Reconstruct Sign Structure2.00EA$200,000.00$400,000.00Center St Bridge Replacement303.0048.0014544.00 SQFT$250.00$3,636,000.00Iowa St Bridge Replacement$0.00Railroad Bridge Replacement$0.00 Steel Truss Bridge- 4 track railroadRight of Way Acquisition #1$0.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$24,000.00$300,000.00$24,000.00$604,000.00$3,636,000.00$0.00$952,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #11, I-215 NB at Highgrove/Center St Subtotal.I. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way444749Item 19.

ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS
SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $119,000
SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $2,740,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $674,400
SECTION 4: Specialty Items $193,000 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $1,444,000
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $258,520
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $517,040
10% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $258,520
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $2,481,792
40% of Sections 1-10
BRIDGES $814,000
Right of Way Acquisition $427,500
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $9,927,772
SUPPORT COSTS $3,475,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $13,403,000
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs
Project #12, I-215 SB, from Martin Luther King Blvd On-Ramp to Sycamore Canyon Rd Off-Ramp I. Roadway Items Summary
Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review.

Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review.

III. RIGHT OF WAY
445
750
Item 19.

Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Watkins)400.0022.00 0-13 3955.85CY$15.00$59,337.78 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Watkins)450.000-32 0-13 3952.96CY$15.00$59,294.44Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)6370.0010.007077.78 SQYD$36.38$257,489.56 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)6370.0022.003633.26CY$72.10$261,957.99 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)6370.0022.002540.04 TON$85.00$215,903.19 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)6370.0022.004671.33CY$270.00$1,261,260.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Watkins)530.008.00471.11 SQYD$36.38$17,139.02 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Watkins)530.0040.00549.63CY$72.10$39,628.30 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Watkins)530.0040.00384.25TON$85.00$32,661.25 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Watkins)530.0040.00706.67CY$270.00$190,800.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Watkins)710.008.00631.11 SQYD$36.38$22,959.82 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Watkins)710.0050.00920.37CY$72.10$66,358.70 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Watkins)710.0050.00643.44TON$85.00$54,692.19 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Watkins)710.0050.001183.33CY$270.00$319,500.00 Lane plus shoulder at 30' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Sec 3. DrainageSpecialty Items$0.00 Remove Retaining Wall2065.002065.00LF$15.00$30,975.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)2065.001835.56 SQFT$75.00$137,666.67 Retaining wall height 8'Sec 5.Environmental Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization4.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00$200,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)6370.006370.00LF$0.65$4,140.50 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)12740.0012740.00 LF$2.41$30,703.40 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Watkins)1319.001319.00LF$0.65$857.35 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Watkins)1319.001319.00LF$2.41$3,178.79 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Watkins)1705.001705.00LF$0.65$1,108.25 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Watkins)1705.001705.00LF$2.41$4,109.05 Reconstruct Sign Structure6.00EA$200,000.00 $1,200,000.00Watkins Dr Bridge Widening155.0014.002170.00 SQFT$375.00$813,750.00Right of Way Acquisition #1570.0015.008550.00 SQFT$50.00$427,500.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$119,000.00$2,740,000.00$193,000.00$1,444,000.00$814,000.00$427,500.00$4,496,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #12, I-215 SB, from Martin Luther King Blvd Jr. On-Ramp to Sycamore Canyon Rd Off-RampI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way446751Item 19.

ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS
SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $2,578,000
SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $20,307,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $4,037,100
SECTION 4: Specialty Items $446,000 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $3,583,000
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $1,547,555
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $3,095,110
10% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $1,547,555
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $14,856,528
40% of Sections 1-10
BRIDGES $42,690,000
Right of Way Acquisition $360,000
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $95,047,848
SUPPORT COSTS $33,267,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $128,315,000
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs
Project #13 I-215 SB, from Van Buren On Ramp to Case Rd Off Ramp I. Roadway Items Summary
Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review.

Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review.

III. RIGHT OF WAY
447
752
Item 19.

Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)845.0026-85 0-15 24160.00 CY$15.00$362,400.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)480.0021-76 0-15 14576.11 CY$15.00$218,641.67 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Ramona)700.0018-100 0-11 14719.22 CY$15.00$220,788.33 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Nuevo)588.0026-95 0-15 16787.22 CY$15.00$251,808.33 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Nuevo)790.0025-102 0-15 32457.22 CY$15.00$486,858.33 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp D st)775.000-210-18 29114.00 CY$15.00$436,710.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Redlands)695.0019-80 0-15 22228.33 CY$15.00$333,425.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Redlands)778.0020-80 0-15 17835.56 CY$15.00$267,533.33Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)52230.0010.0058033.33 SQYD$36.38$2,111,252.67 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)52230.0022.0029790.44 CY$72.10$2,147,891.04 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)52230.0022.0020826.71 TON$85.00$1,770,270.56 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)52230.0022.0038302.00 CY$270.00$10,341,540.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)1450.008.001288.89 SQYD$36.38$46,889.78 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)1450.0034.001278.15CY$72.10$92,154.48 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)1450.0034.00893.56TON$85.00$75,952.81 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)1450.0034.001643.33CY$270.00$443,700.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)860.008.00764.44 SQYD$36.38$27,810.49 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)860.0032.00713.48CY$72.10$51,442.01 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)860.0032.00498.80TON$85.00$42,398.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)860.0032.00917.33CY$270.00$247,680.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona)720.008.00640.00 SQYD$36.38$23,283.20 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Ramona)720.0048.00896.00CY$72.10$64,601.60 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Ramona)720.0048.00626.40TON$85.00$53,244.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona)720.0048.001152.00CY$270.00$311,040.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo)1040.008.00924.44 SQYD$36.38$33,631.29 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Nuevo)1040.0026.00701.04CY$72.10$50,544.77 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Nuevo)1040.0026.00490.10TON$85.00$41,658.50 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo)1040.0026.00901.33CY$270.00$243,360.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo)1420.008.001262.22 SQYD$36.38$45,919.64 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Nuevo)1420.0024.00883.56CY$72.10$63,704.36 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Nuevo)1420.0024.00617.70TON$85.00$52,504.50 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo)1420.0024.001136.00CY$270.00$306,720.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st)1280.008.001137.78 SQYD$36.38$41,392.36 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp D st)1280.0038.001261.04CY$72.10$90,920.77 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp D st)1280.0038.00881.60TON$85.00$74,936.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st)1280.0038.001621.33CY$270.00$437,760.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands)1075.008.00955.56 SQYD$36.38$34,763.11 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Redlands)1075.0034.0034.00CY$72.10$2,451.40 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Redlands)1075.0034.00662.47TON$85.00$56,309.84 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands)1075.0034.001218.33CY$270.00$328,950.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands)1040.008.00924.44 SQYD$36.38$33,631.29 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Redlands)1040.0040.001078.52CY$72.10$77,761.19 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Redlands)1040.0040.00754.00TON$85.00$64,090.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands)1040.0040.001386.67CY$270.00$374,400.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Sec 3. DrainageSpecialty Items$0.00 Remove Sound Wall1020.001020.00LF$27.00$27,540.00 Sound Wall1020.001020.00 SQFT$23.98$24,459.60 Remove Retaining Wall1020.001020.00LF$15.00$15,300.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)1020.001020.00 SQFT$75.00$76,500.00 Retaining wall height 9' Concrete Barrier (Type 60)3665.003665.00LF$82.40$301,996.00Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization16.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00$800,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)60115.0060115.00LF$0.65$39,074.75 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)120230.00120230.00 LF$2.41$289,754.30 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)2900.002900.00LF$0.65$1,885.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)2900.002900.00LF$2.41$6,989.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)1720.001720.00LF$0.65$1,118.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)1720.001720.00LF$2.41$4,145.20 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona)2320.002320.00LF$0.65$1,508.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona)2320.002320.00LF$2.41$5,591.20 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo)2080.002080.00LF$0.65$1,352.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo)2080.002080.00LF$2.41$5,012.80 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo)2840.002840.00LF$0.65$1,846.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo)2840.002840.00LF$2.41$6,844.40 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands)2150.002150.00LF$0.65$1,397.50 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands)2560.002560.00LF$2.41$6,169.60 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands)3380.003380.00LF$0.65$2,197.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands)3380.003380.00LF$2.41$8,145.80 Reconstruct Sign Structure12.00EA$200,000.00 $2,400,000.00Ramona Bridge Replacement220.00125.0027500.00 0.00$250.00$6,875,000.00Harley Knox Bridge Replacement220.0082.0018040.00 SQFT$250.00$4,510,000.00Placentia Bridge Replacement215.0072.0015480.00 SQFT$250.00$3,870,000.00Nuevo Rd Bridge Replacement260.00106.0027560.00 SQFT$250.00$6,890,000.00D St Bridge Tieback260.0016.004160.00 SQFT$250.00$1,040,000.00Perris Blvd Bridge Replacement560.0090.0050400.00SQ FT$250.00$12,600,000.00Redlands Bridge Tieback125.0016.002000.00 SQ FT$250.00$500,000.00Bridge Structure 1490.0014.006860.00 SQFT$375.00$2,572,500.00Bridge Structure 2230.0014.003220.00 SQFT$375.00$1,207,500.00Bridge Structure 3500.0014.007000.00 SQFT$375.00$2,625,000.00Right of Way Acquisition #1480.0015.007200.00 SQFT$50.00$360,000.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$26,914,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #13, I-215 SB, from Van Buren On Ramp to Case Rd Off RampI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way$2,578,000.00$20,307,000.00$446,000.00$3,583,000.00$42,690,000.00$360,000.00448753Item 19.

ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS
SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $0
SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $0
SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $0
SECTION 4: Specialty Items $0 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $0
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $0
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $0
10% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $0
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $0
40% of Sections 1-10
BRIDGES $500,000
Right of Way Acquisition $0
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $500,000
SUPPORT COSTS $175,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $675,000
Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study $1,356,000.00
Amount to be reduced from Total Project Costs $675,000.00 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
III. RIGHT OF WAY
Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs
Project #13 I-215 SB at Perris Overcrossing Subtotal
I. Roadway Items Summary
Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review.

Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. 449
754
Item 19.

Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Sec 3. DrainageSpecialty Items$0.00 Remove Sound Wall$0.00 Sound Wall$0.00 Remove Retaining Wall$0.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)$0.00 Retaining wall height 9' Concrete Barrier (Type 60)$0.00Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization$0.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Reconstruct Sign Structure$0.00Ramona Bridge Replacement$0.00Harley Knox Bridge Replacement$0.00Placentia Bridge Replacement$0.00Nuevo Rd Bridge Replacement$0.00D St Bridge Tieback$0.00Perris Blvd Bridge Replacement$0.00Redlands Bridge Tieback125.0016.002000.00 SQ FT$250.00$500,000.00Bridge Structure 1$0.00Bridge Structure 2$0.00Bridge Structure 3$0.00Right of Way Acquisition #1$0.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$500,000.00$0.00$0.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #13, I-215 SB at Perris Overcrossing SubtotalI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way450755Item 19.

ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS
SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $739,000
SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $838,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $268,800
SECTION 4: Specialty Items $0 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $215,000
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $103,040
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $206,080
10% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $103,040
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $989,184
40% of Sections 1-10
BRIDGES $6,890,000
Right of Way Acquisition $0
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $10,352,144
SUPPORT COSTS $3,623,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $13,975,000
Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study $17,897,000.00 Amount to be reduced from Total Project Costs $13,975,000.00 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
III. RIGHT OF WAY
Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs
Project #13 I-215 SB at Nuevo Subtotal
I. Roadway Items Summary
Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review.

Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. 451
756
Item 19.

Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Nuevo)588.0026-95 0-15 16787.22 CY$15.00$251,808.33 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Nuevo)790.0025-102 0-15 32457.22 CY$15.00$486,858.33 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo)1040.008.00924.44 SQYD$36.38$33,631.29 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Nuevo)1040.0026.00701.04CY$72.10$50,544.77 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Nuevo)1040.0026.00490.10TON$85.00$41,658.50 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo)1040.0026.00901.33CY$270.00$243,360.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo)1420.008.001262.22 SQYD$36.38$45,919.64 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Nuevo)1420.0024.00883.56CY$72.10$63,704.36 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Nuevo)1420.0024.00617.70TON$85.00$52,504.50 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo)1420.0024.001136.00CY$270.00$306,720.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Sec 3. DrainageSpecialty Items$0.00 Remove Sound Wall$0.00 Sound Wall$0.00 Remove Retaining Wall$0.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)$0.00 Retaining wall height 9' Concrete Barrier (Type 60)$0.00Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization4.00PER CORNER $50,000.00$200,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo)2080.002080.00LF$0.65$1,352.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo)2080.002080.00LF$2.41$5,012.80 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo)2840.002840.00LF$0.65$1,846.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo)2840.002840.00LF$2.41$6,844.40 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Reconstruct Sign Structure$0.00Ramona Bridge Replacement$0.00Harley Knox Bridge Replacement$0.00Placentia Bridge Replacement$0.00Nuevo Rd Bridge Replacement260.00106.0027560.00 SQFT$250.00$6,890,000.00D St Bridge Tieback$0.00Perris Blvd Bridge Replacement$0.00Redlands Bridge Tieback$0.00Bridge Structure 1$0.00Bridge Structure 2$0.00Bridge Structure 3$0.00Right of Way Acquisition #1$0.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$739,000.00$838,000.00$0.00$215,000.00$6,890,000.00$0.00$1,792,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #13, I-215 SB at Nuevo SubtotalI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way452757Item 19.

ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS
SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $0
SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $0
SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $0
SECTION 4: Specialty Items $0 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $0
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $0
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $0
10% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $0
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $0
40% of Sections 1-10
BRIDGES $3,870,000
Right of Way Acquisition $0
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $3,870,000
SUPPORT COSTS $1,355,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $5,225,000
Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study $12,354,000.00 as Mid-County Parkway Interchange Amount to be reduced from Total Project Costs $5,225,000.00 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
III. RIGHT OF WAY
Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs
Project #13 I-215 SB at Placentia Overcrossing Subtotal I. Roadway Items Summary
Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review.

Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. 453
758
Item 19.

Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Sec 3. DrainageSpecialty Items$0.00 Remove Sound Wall$0.00 Sound Wall$0.00 Remove Retaining Wall$0.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)$0.00 Retaining wall height 9' Concrete Barrier (Type 60)$0.00Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization$0.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Reconstruct Sign Structure$0.00Ramona Bridge Replacement$0.00Harley Knox Bridge Replacement$0.00Placentia Bridge Replacement215.0072.0015480.00 SQFT$250.00$3,870,000.00Nuevo Rd Bridge Replacement$0.00D St Bridge Tieback$0.00Perris Blvd Bridge Replacement$0.00Redlands Bridge Tieback$0.00Bridge Structure 1$0.00Bridge Structure 2$0.00Bridge Structure 3$0.00Right of Way Acquisition #1$0.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$3,870,000.00$0.00$0.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #13, I-215 SB at Placentia Overcrossing SubtotalI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way454759Item 19.

ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS
SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $221,000
SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $452,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $132,000
SECTION 4: Specialty Items $0 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $207,000
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $50,600
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $101,200
10% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $50,600
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $485,760
40% of Sections 1-10
BRIDGES $6,875,000
Right of Way Acquisition $0
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $8,575,160
SUPPORT COSTS $3,001,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $11,576,000
Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study $5,965,000.00
Amount to be reduced from Total Project Costs $5,965,000.00 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
III. RIGHT OF WAY
Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs
Project #13 I-215 SB at Ramona Subtotal
I. Roadway Items Summary
Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review.

Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. 455
760
Item 19.

Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Ramona)700.0018-100 0-11 14719.22 CY$15.00$220,788.33 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona)720.008.00640.00 SQYD$36.38$23,283.20 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Ramona)720.0048.00896.00CY$72.10$64,601.60 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Ramona)720.0048.00626.40TON$85.00$53,244.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona)720.0048.001152.00CY$270.00$311,040.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Sec 3. DrainageSpecialty Items$0.00 Remove Sound Wall$0.00 Sound Wall$0.00 Remove Retaining Wall$0.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)$0.00 Retaining wall height 9' Concrete Barrier (Type 60)$0.00Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization4.00PER CORNER $50,000.00$200,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona)2320.002320.00LF$0.65$1,508.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona)2320.002320.00LF$2.41$5,591.20 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Reconstruct Sign Structure$0.00Ramona Bridge Replacement220.00125.0027500.00 SQFT$250.00$6,875,000.00Harley Knox Bridge Replacement$0.00Placentia Bridge Replacement$0.00Nuevo Rd Bridge Replacement$0.00D St Bridge Tieback$0.00Perris Blvd Bridge Replacement$0.00Redlands Bridge Tieback$0.00Bridge Structure 1$0.00Bridge Structure 2$0.00Bridge Structure 3$0.00Right of Way Acquisition #1$0.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$221,000.00$452,000.00$0.00$207,000.00$6,875,000.00$0.00$880,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #13, I-215 SB at Ramona SubtotalI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way456761Item 19.

ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS
SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $581,000
SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $1,028,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $273,450
SECTION 4: Specialty Items $0 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $214,000
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $104,823
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $209,645
10% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $104,823
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $1,006,296
40% of Sections 1-10
BRIDGES $4,510,000
Right of Way Acquisition $0
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $8,032,036
SUPPORT COSTS $2,811,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $10,843,000
Amount included in 2016 TUMF Nexus Study $7,110,000.00
Amount to be reduced from Total Project Costs $7,110,000.00 II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
III. RIGHT OF WAY
Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs
Project #13 I-215 SB at Harley Knox Subtotal
I. Roadway Items Summary
Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review.

Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. 457
762
Item 19.

Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)845.0026-85 0-15 24160.00 CY$15.00$362,400.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)480.0021-76 0-15 14576.11 CY$15.00$218,641.67 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Roadway Excavation (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)1450.008.001288.89 SQYD$36.38$46,889.78 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)1450.0034.001278.15CY$72.10$92,154.48 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)1450.0034.00893.56TON$85.00$75,952.81 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)1450.0034.001643.33CY$270.00$443,700.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)860.008.00764.44 SQYD$36.38$27,810.49 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)860.0032.00713.48CY$72.10$51,442.01 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)860.0032.00498.80TON$85.00$42,398.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)860.0032.00917.33CY$270.00$247,680.00 Lane plus shoulder at 32' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 48' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp D st)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 38' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 34' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Lane plus shoulder at 40' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Sec 3. DrainageSpecialty Items$0.00 Remove Sound Wall$0.00 Sound Wall$0.00 Remove Retaining Wall$0.00 Structural Concrete (Retaining Wall)$0.00 Retaining wall height 9' Concrete Barrier (Type 60)$0.00Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization4.00PER CORNER $50,000.00$200,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)2900.002900.00LF$0.65$1,885.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Harley Knox)2900.002900.00LF$2.41$6,989.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)1720.001720.00LF$0.65$1,118.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Harley Knox)1720.001720.00LF$2.41$4,145.20 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Ramona)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Nuevo)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB off Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Thermoplastic Striping (SB on Ramp Redlands)$0.00 Reconstruct Sign Structure$0.00Ramona Bridge Replacement$250.00$0.00Harley Knox Bridge Replacement220.0082.0018040.00 SQFT$250.00$4,510,000.00Placentia Bridge Replacement$0.00Nuevo Rd Bridge Replacement$0.00D St Bridge Tieback$0.00Perris Blvd Bridge Replacement$0.00Redlands Bridge Tieback$0.00Bridge Structure 1$0.00Bridge Structure 2$0.00Bridge Structure 3$0.00Right of Way Acquisition #1$0.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$581,000.00$1,028,000.00$0.00$214,000.00$4,510,000.00$0.00$1,823,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #13, I-215 SB at Harley Knox SubtotalI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way458763Item 19.

ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS
SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $1,454,000
SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $1,439,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $437,700
SECTION 4: Specialty Items $0 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $25,000
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $167,785
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $335,570
10% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $167,785
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $1,610,736
40% of Sections 1-10
BRIDGES $0
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $5,637,576
SUPPORT COSTS $1,973,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $7,611,000
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs
Project #16, EB SR-91, I-15 SB On Ramp to I-15 NB On Ramp I. Roadway Items Summary
Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review.

Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. 459
764
Item 19.

Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (North of 15 ramp to EB 91)1250.000-600-5 12215.36 CY$15.00$183,230.42 Roadway Excavation (South of 15 ramp to EB 91)870.000-105 0-7 31370.93 CY$15.00$470,563.89Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)2366.0010.002628.89 SQYD$36.38$95,638.98 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)2366.0022.001349.50CY$72.10$97,298.68 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)2366.0022.00943.44TON$85.00$80,192.61 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)2366.0022.001735.07CY$270.00$468,468.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (NB 15 ramp to EB 91)1965.008.001746.67 SQYD$36.38$63,543.73 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (NB 15 ramp to EB 91)1965.0026.001324.56CY$72.10$95,500.46 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (NB 15 ramp to EB 91)1965.0026.00926.01TON$85.00$78,710.53 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (NB 15 ramp to EB 91)1965.0026.001703.00CY$270.00$459,810.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)2366.002366.00LF$0.65$1,537.90 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)4732.004732.00LF$2.41$11,404.12 Removal of Existing Striping (NB 15 ramp to EB 91)3930.003930.00LF$0.65$2,554.50 Thermoplastic Striping (NB 15 ramp to EB 91)3930.003930.00LF$2.41$9,471.30 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$2,918,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #16, EB SR-91, I-15 SB On Ramp to I-15 NB On RampI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way$1,454,000.00$1,439,000.00$0.00$25,000.00$0.00$0.00460765Item 19.

ITEMS TOTAL COST ENGINEERING ASSUMPTIONS
SECTION 1: EARTHWORKEARTHWORK COST $939,000
SECTION 2: DRAINAGEPAVEMENT STRUCTRUAL SECTION $2,094,000 SECTION 3: DRAINAGEDRAINAGE $573,000
SECTION 4: Specialty Items $0 Remove Retaining Wall SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS $787,000
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS $219,650
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 9: MOBILIZATION $439,300
10% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 10: ROADWAY ADDITIONS $219,650
5% of Sections 1-6
SECTION 13: CONTINGENCIES $2,108,640
40% of Sections 1-10
BRIDGES $2,279,000
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $9,659,240
SUPPORT COSTS $3,381,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $13,040,000
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Support costs are 35% of capital outlay costs
Project #18, SR-91 EB, Pierce St Off Ramp to Magnolia On Ramp I. Roadway Items Summary
Roadway Cost are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review.

Drainage is taken at 15% of Roadway Items due to the lack of detail at this stage. During this review, we do not show that any pumps will be affected. Further analysis should look at all Retaining walls, sound walls, tie back walls and ramp reconfigurations are based on the widening needed. These are all based on a preliminary Google Earth review. 461
766
Item 19.

Item DescriptionDistance (ft) Width (ft) Depth (ft) Quantity Unit Cost Assumptions Total CostEngineering AssumptionsEarthwork Roadway Excavation (EB Magnolia off Ramp)260.00260.00 0-15 26576.11 CY$15.00$398,641.67 Roadway Excavation (EB Magnolia on Ramp)330.002200-8 13303.70 CY$15.00$199,555.56 Roadway Excavation (EB Pierce off Ramp)71532-78 0-15 22695.00 CY$15.00$340,425.00Pavement Structural Section$0.00 Remove Concrete Pavement (Mainline)4115.0010.004572.22 SQYD$36.38$166,337.44 Existing shoulders at 10' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (Mainline)4115.0022.002347.07CY$72.10$169,224.04 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (Mainline)4115.0022.001640.86 TON$85.00$139,472.78 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Mainline)4115.0022.003017.67CY$270.00$814,770.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (EB Magnolia off Ramp)1345.008.001195.56 SQYD$36.38$43,494.31 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (EB Magnolia off Ramp)1345.0026.00906.63CY$72.10$65,368.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (EB Magnolia off Ramp)1345.0026.00633.83TON$85.00$53,875.66 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (EB Magnolia off Ramp)1345.0026.001165.67CY$270.00$314,730.00 Lane plus shoulder at 26' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (EB Magnolia on Ramp)745.008.00662.22 SQYD$36.38$24,091.64 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (EB Magnolia on Ramp)745.0022.00424.93CY$72.10$30,637.16 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (EB Magnolia on Ramp)745.0022.00297.07TON$85.00$25,250.84 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (EB Magnolia on Ramp)745.0022.00546.33CY$270.00$147,510.00 Lane plus shoulder at 22' with a CRCP depth of 0.90' Remove Concrete Pavement (EB Pierce off Ramp)300.008.00266.67 SQYD$36.38$9,701.33 Existing shoulders at 8' Class 2 Aggregate Subbase (EB Pierce off Ramp)300.0024.00186.67CY$72.10$13,458.67 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with Class 2 Aggregate depth of 0.70' Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) (EB Pierce off Ramp)300.0024.00130.50TON$85.00$11,092.50 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a HMA depth of 0.25' Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (EB Pierce off Ramp)300.0024.00240.00CY$270.00$64,800.00 Lane plus shoulder at 24' with a CRCP depth of 0.90'Traffic Items Traffic Electrical Intersection Signalization3.00 PER CORNER $50,000.00$150,000.00 Traffic Signing and Stripping$0.00 Removal of Existing Striping (Mainline)4112.004112.00LF$0.65$2,672.80 Thermoplastic Striping (Mainline)8224.008224.00LF$2.41$19,819.84 Removal of Existing Striping (EB Magnolia off Ramp)2690.002690.00LF$0.65$1,748.50 Thermoplastic Striping (EB Magnolia off Ramp)2690.002690.00LF$2.41$6,482.90 Removal of Existing Striping (EB Magnolia on Ramp)1490.001490.00LF$0.65$968.50 Thermoplastic Striping (EB Magnolia on Ramp)1490.001490.00LF$2.41$3,590.90 Removal of Existing Striping (EB Pierce off Ramp)600.00600.00LF$0.65$390.00 Thermoplastic Striping (EB Pierce off Ramp)600.00600.00LF$2.41$1,446.00 Reconstruct Sign Structure3.00EA$200,000.00$600,000.00Magnolia Bridge Widening340.0014.004760.00 SQFT$375.00$1,785,000.00Pierce Bridge Widening94.0014.001316.00 SQFT$375.00$493,500.00 I. Roadway Items EarthworkPavement Structural SectionSpecialty ItemsTraffic Items II. Structural Items III. Right of Way$939,000.00$2,094,000.00$0.00$787,000.00$2,279,000.00$0.00$3,820,000.00Summary of QuantitiesProject #18, SR-91 EB, Pierce St Off Ramp to Magnolia On RampI. Roadway Items SummaryII. Structure ItemsIII. Right of Way462767Item 19.

BLANK
768
Item 19.

RCTC TRUCK STUDY AND

REGIONAL LOGISTICS

MITIGATION FEE
Draft Technical Memorandum:

Task 4 – Fee Allocation Structure
and Implementing Mechanisms
Potential Locational Effects of a
Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee
Prepared for:

Prepared by:

In partnership with:

April 23, 2019
ATTACHMENT 5
463
769
Item 19.

BLANK
464
770
Item 19.

Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee Page | i
Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................... 1

2. PROFILE AND OUTLOOK FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT..... 2

2.1. PROFILE OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 2

2.2 PROJECTED INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE SPACE ............................................................................................................. 6

3. POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF A PROPOSED FEE ON LOCATIONAL DECISIONS ................................ 7

3.1. COST OF A PROPOSED FEE COMPARED TO TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS ..................................................... 7

3.2. COMPARATIVE FEES COSTS IN OTHER AREAS OUTSIDE RIVERSIDE COUNTY ................................................ 8

4. COMPARATIVE FEE COSTS ........................................................................................................................... 10

4.1. CURRENT FEE COSTS ............................................................................................................................................................ 10

4.2. FUTURE FEE DEVELOPMENT COSTS ................................................................................................................................ 10

5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................. 11 Exhibits
EXHIBIT 1. PERCENTAGE SHARE OF TOTAL INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE BUILDING AREA IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BY COUNTY IN 2014 ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 EXHIBIT 2. SUBMARKET AREAS IN THE SCAG REGION ..................................................................................................................................... 4 EXHIBIT 3. EXISTING INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS IN THE SCAG REGION (ALL BUILDING SIZES AND ALL SECONDARY TYPES), 2014 .................................................................................................................................................................... 5 EXHIBIT 4. UNCONSTRAINED VERSUS CONSTRAINED REGIONAL-LEVEL TOTAL OCCUPIED WAREHOUSE SPACE FORECASTS BY YEAR IN THE SCAG REGION, 2040 (MILLIONS OF SQUARE FEET)................................................................6 EXHIBIT 5. AVERAGE NEW CONSTRUCTION COST BREAKDOWN FOR A 500,000-SQUARE-FOOT WAREHOUSE ..........................8 EXHIBIT 6. CURRENT AVERAGE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE COSTS PER SQUARE FOOT AND PROPORTIONS IN INLAND EMPIRE JURISDICTIONS .........................................................................................................................9 EXHIBIT 7. JURISDICTIONS INCLUDED IN FEE STUDY........................................................................................................................................ 10

465
771
Item 19.

BLANK
466
772
Item 19.

Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee Page | 1

1. Introduction
A potential logistics mitigation fee of $1.28 per square foot of gross floor area of new warehouse construction in Riverside County would provide funding for highway projects that are needed to mitigate the impacts of increased truck traffic resulting from new development. The RCTC Truck Study and Regional Logistics Mitigation Fee Technical Memorandum: Task 3 – Nexus Study describes the needs for this fee and how the proposed amount of the fee was determined.

The objective of this document is to assess the potential impacts of this fee on warehouse development within Riverside County. Such development affects many other aspects of the county’s economy, including direct employment, induced employment in businesses supporting warehousing, transportation volumes, demand for other county services, and local and state tax revenues. Major factors addressed include the following:
• The market for logistics and warehouse development in Southern California. How likely will the proposed fee affect the pace of development given the overall supply and demand for warehouse space in Southern California?
• The extent to which locational decisions within the Southern California market could be affected by the proposed fee:
– How does the proposed fee compare to total development costs (including land and construction costs)?
– How does the proposed fee compare to similar fees elsewhere in the market? – Will the fee substantially influence developers to locate in areas outside Riverside County? • The possibility that other changes in regional development fees or development costs might affect the potential impacts of the proposed Riverside mitigation fee. Mitigation fees have been applied across multiple building types and for multiple purposes as shown in Appendix 1, and such fees are likely to evolve over time.

The following sections address these questions.
467
773
Item 19.

Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee Page | 2

2. Profile and Outlook for Southern California
Warehouse Development

2.1. PROFILE OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT The Industrial Warehousing in the SCAG Region study (Industrial Warehousing Study) completed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in 2018 details the location of industrial warehouse buildings in Southern California and provides projections of new developments for 43 sub- regions. As shown in Exhibit 1, these buildings are heavily concentrated in Los Angeles and San Bernardino, and to a lesser extent Orange, and Riverside Counties.

Exhibit 1. Percentage Share of Total Industrial Warehouse Building Area in Southern California by County in 2014

Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Industrial Warehousing in the SCAG Region, April 2018 Exhibit 2 shows the 43 sub-regions used in the Industrial Warehousing Study.

Riverside County includes the following submarket areas:
• Riverside (18)
• Corona (25)
• South Riverside (32)
• Coachella Valley (25)
• Riverside Outlying (36)
San Bernardino County includes the following submarket areas:
• West San Bernardino (10)
• Ontario Airport Area (11)
• East San Bernardino (12)
0 10 20 30 40 50
Ventura
Riverside
Orange
San Bernardino
Los Angeles
468
774
Item 19.

Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee Page | 3
• North San Bernardino (19)
• San Bernardino Outlying Areas (35)
Exhibit 3 shows detail for existing warehouse buildings, with inset 2 extending from the East San Bernardino County submarket to areas to the west. This detail shows that industrial warehouse buildings in San Bernardino are concentrated in the southwest part of the county. To the south of inset 1, it can be seen that in Riverside County industrial warehouse buildings are concentrated in the western portion of the county.

469
775
Item 19.

BLANK
470
776
Item 19.

Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee Page | 4
Exhibit 2. Submarket Areas in the SCAG Region

Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Industrial Warehousing in the SCAG Region, April 2018 471
777
Item 19.

Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee Page | 5
Exhibit 3. Existing Industrial Warehouse Buildings in the SCAG Region (All Building Sizes and All Secondary Types), 2014

Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Industrial Warehousing in the SCAG Region, April 2018 Inset 2

1 1
2 472
778
Item 19.

Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee Page | 6

2.2 PROJECTED INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE SPACE
The Industrial Warehousing Study included forecasts of supply and demand for warehousing space in 43 geographical submarket areas of the SCAG region shown in Exhibit 2. The forecast was based on an inventory of warehouse space for 2014 and annual forecasts through 2040 for containerized port-related, border-crossing-related, and domestic cargo markets.1 Each of these cargo sources was further segmented by type of type of warehouse use.

The Industrial Warehousing Study’s baseline scenario used recent forecasts of port- and border-crossing- related cargo and assumed no efficiency gains in cargo storage over time and no replacement of obsolete buildings. It also assumed that the warehouse functional-use mix would not change and that current estimates of existing developable space were available for new facilities. The study developed two demand projections – one that assumed no constraint on total warehouse space and the other that would be constrained by limitations on developable areas.

The two projections are shown in Exhibit 4. As shown, total unconstrained 2040 demand for the Industrial Warehousing Study’s baseline scenario is 1.81 billion square feet—an increase of 59 percent from 1.13 billion square feet in 2014 (a compound annual growth rate of 1.8 percent).

Exhibit 4. Unconstrained versus Constrained Regional-Level Total Occupied Warehouse Space Forecasts by Year in the SCAG Region, 2040 (millions of square feet)

Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Industrial Warehousing in the SCAG Region, April 2018

1 “Port-related,” is containerized cargo handled at San Pedro Bay Ports (i.e., excluding containerized cargo handled at Port Hueneme or Port of San Diego). “Border-crossing related” refers to goods that cross the land ports of entry in Imperial County. “Domestic cargo” is any other type of containerized cargo not classified as “port-related” or “border-crossing-related” cargo. 473
779
Item 19.

Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee Page | 7

3. Potential Effects of a Proposed Fee on
Locational Decisions
The previous section provided baseline projections of industrial warehouse development in Southern California. However, these projections did not account for changes in costs that could affect locational decisions of developers. In theory, higher development costs represented by a proposed mitigation fee could marginally induce developers to choose locations outside of Riverside County (e.g., in Los Angeles or San Bernardino Counties). The principal question concerning these impacts is how much a proposed fee would increase total development costs including land and construction.

The impacts of larger development costs would also, theoretically, be offset by any perceived benefits developers could see from improved highway transportation that would result from the mitigation fee.

This is a smaller point, that is addressed separately, below.

3.1. COST OF A PROPOSED FEE COMPARED TO TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS Exhibit 5 shows that total construction costs for warehouse space in Los Angeles are the highest in the country at nearly $170 per square foot. Costs in the Inland Empire are the second highest in the country at $110 per square foot. The $110-per-square-foot estimate is slightly less than the $121 per square foot cost estimated in the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Comparative Fee Study that includes $75.35 per square foot in total direct and indirect costs plus $45.35 per square foot in land costs (see Appendix A).2 Using the $121 per square foot estimate from the WRCOG study, the proposed fee would represent 1.1 percent of total construction costs.

2 Updated Analysis of Development Impact Fees in Western Riverside County, Western Riverside Council of Governments, March 2019 474
780
Item 19.

Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee Page | 8
Exhibit 5. Average New Construction Cost Breakdown for a 500,000-square-foot Warehouse

The attraction, and scarcity, of space in Los Angeles clearly results in a large cost premium, so it is unlikely that small additional marginal costs in Riverside County would significantly tip the balance of location toward Los Angeles. As shown in Exhibit 5, development costs are about 55 percent higher in Los Angeles County than in the Inland Empire. Therefore, a 1.1 percent fee is insignificant in comparison.

3.2. COMPARATIVE FEES COSTS IN OTHER AREAS OUTSIDE RIVERSIDE COUNTY The question then becomes whether a 1.1 percent increase in development costs would cause developers to locate in other areas outside of Riverside County, especially in San Bernardino County, part of the Inland Empire immediately to the north of Riverside County and where warehouse development has been concentrated as discussed in the previous section.

In addition to representing a small, 1.1 percent share of total development costs, the proposed fee of $1.28 per square foot would also be much smaller than current fees for industrial development in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, about 25 percent of the average level of fees in Riverside County, and about 22 percent of the average level of these fees in San Bernardino (see Exhibit 6).

A possible additional consideration is that a proposed fee would be used to fund improvements to highway transportation in Riverside County. This would, over time, reduce transportation costs for industrial warehouse users, and developers could possibly view this as a benefit. Realistically, however, the mitigation fee will represent a real upfront cost while future transportation costs reductions would likely be heavily discounted and therefore have only minimal impacts on locational decisions. In addition, it is difficult to know how much developers would link any future improvements to the fee.

This is a possible additional consideration and is not addressed further within this analysis. 475
781
Item 19.

Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee Page | 9
Exhibit 6. Current Average Industrial Development Impact Fee Costs Per Square Foot and Proportions in Inland Empire Jurisdictions

Source: Western Riverside Council of Governments, Updated Analysis of Development Impact Fees in Western Riverside County, 2019

476
782
Item 19.

Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee Page | 10

4. Comparative Fee Costs

4.1. CURRENT FEE COSTS
The proposed mitigation fee would increase construction costs for warehouse development in Riverside County by about 1.1 percent and, taken alone, this could make San Bernardino County slightly more attractive to developers. However, higher fees in San Bernardino County could dampen this small effect.

San Bernardino County’s impact fees are higher than those in Riverside County according to the fee comparison study done by the WRCOG. Exhibit 6 shows the jurisdictions that were used to compare fees.

Exhibit 7. Jurisdictions Included in Fee Study

Source Western Riverside Council of Governments, Updated Analysis of Development Impact Fees in Western Riverside County, 2019
Exhibit 6 showed that average industrial development impact fees in WRCOG jurisdictions as well as areas in Coachella Valley are both notably lower than average fees in San Bernardino County. A few WRCOG jurisdictions have relatively high fees. Appendix B includes fee details for individual WRCOG jurisdictions.

4.2. FUTURE FEE DEVELOPMENT COSTS
In addition to current average industrial fees being higher in San Bernardino County than in Riverside County, a factor that could affect warehouse development location decisions is the possibility that fees or other costs could change in San Bernardino County, or other Southern California market areas. The possibility exists, for example, that other counties could implement a fee like the one proposed in Riverside County. While entirely speculative, such a scenario would also be based on needs to fund highway development in San Bernardino County or other regions in Southern California.

477
783
Item 19.

Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee Page | 11

5. Summary of Findings
The Southern California region is a well-established, prime location for industrial warehouse development and will continue to be so. Los Angeles County is especially attractive because of its proximity to ports, large regional markets, and transportation connectivity. Because of these advantages and relatively scarce land availability, that market also has the highest construction costs for warehouse development in the United States.

While significantly less than Los Angeles, the Inland Empire has the second-highest costs for warehouse development in the country.

A proposed mitigation fee in Riverside County is likely to have limited impacts on reducing demand on warehouse development in Riverside County because of the following:
• It will represent a small (1.1 percent) share of total development costs, including land and construction costs.
• Total development costs for Los Angeles County will continue to be much higher than for the Inland Empire.
• Impact fees are generally higher in San Bernardino County compared to those in Riverside County. • Any possible impacts of a proposed fee could be affected by offsetting changes in development costs in San Bernardino County and in other regions in the Southern California market, including increases in mitigation fees.
478
784
Item 19.

Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee Page | 12
Appendix A
Development Prototypes – Total Development Costs

Total development costs per building square foot of $121.10 for industrial buildings include total direct and indirect costs of $75.35 plus the land value of $45.75.

Source: Western Riverside Council of Governments, Updated Analysis of Development Impact Fees in Western Riverside County, 2019

479
785
Item 19.

Potential Locational Effects of a Riverside County Logistics Mitigation Fee Page | 13
Appendix B
Industrial Prototype Development Fees by Jurisdiction (per building sq. ft.)

Source: Western Riverside Council of Governments, Updated Analysis of Development Impact Fees in Western Riverside County, 2019 480
786
Item 19.

Staff Report

TO: City Council
FROM: Todd Parton, City Manager
DATE January 18, 2022
SUBJECT: Review of Local Emergency Declaration Established via the Adoption of City of Beaumont Resolution No. 2020-07 Adopted on March 17, 2020

Background and Analysis:

On March 17, 2020, the City Council passed and approved Resolution No. 2020-07 (“Resolution”) which authorized the City Manager to execute a declaration of the existence of a local emergency in the City of Beaumont. Approval of the Resolution was in response to the declaration by the World Health Organization (WHO) of the COVID – 19 pandemic, Governor Gavin Newsom’s declaration of a state of emergency for all California, and the increase of infections within the City of Beaumont and the immediate area.

The emergency declaration must be reviewed every 60 days in order to determine whether conditions exist for its continuance. This emergency declaration was reviewed by the City Council on November 16, 2021, and was not modified.

The City Council’s adoption of Resolution No. 2020 -07 established the existing emergency declaration and empowered the City Manager to:

1. Make and issue rules and regulations on matters reasonably related to the protection of life and property as affected by such emergency;

2. Obtain vital supplies, equipment and such other properties found lacking and needed for the protection of life and property, and to bind the City for the fair value thereof;

3. Require emergency services of any City officer or employee, and, in the event of the proclamation of a state of emergency in Riverside County, to command the aid of as many citizens of Beaumont as is deemed necessary by the City Manager for the execution of the City Manager’s duties; such persons shall be 787
Item 20.

entitled to all privileges, benefits and immunities as are provided by state law for registered disaster service workers;

4. Requisition necessary personnel or material to any City department or agency; and

5. Execute all ordinary duties and powers of the City Manager as well as special powers conferred by the Beaumont Municipal Code, by resolution or emergency plan adopted by the City Council, and all other powers conferred by the City Council and any other lawful authority.

As of the time that this memorandum was prepared, there had been no significant cessation of the conditions that originally warranted the adoption of Resolution No. 2020-07. The COVID – 19 pandemic originally declared by the WHO was still in place, Governor Newsom’s emergency declaration remained in effect, and new cases of infection were still being diagnosed within Beaumont’s immediate area.

If Beaumont’s emergency declaration remains in effect, it will be brought back to the City Council for consideration no later than March 15, 2022. In the event that the City Council determines that a local emergency declaration is no longer required, an amending resolution will be presented for City Council consideration at the next regular City Council meeting of February 1, 2022, or earlier at a special meeting convened by the City Council for that purpose.

Fiscal Impact:

There are no costs resulting from the continuation of a local state of emergency. City staff estimates that preparation of this report cost to be approximately $75.

Recommended Action:

City staff recommends that there be no change regarding the local emergency declaration. This is due to the fact that there have been no significant changes in the original conditions, a State emergency declaration remains in effect and local emergency declaration helps to ensure that Beaumont remains eligible for federal and state emergency aid.

Attachments:

A. City of Beaumont Resolution No. 2020-07
788
Item 20.

789
Item 20.

790
Item 20.

791
Item 20.

792
Item 20.

793
Item 21.

794
Item 21.

795
Item 21.

796
Item 21.

797
Item 21.

798
Item 21.

799
Item 21.

800
Item 21.

801
Item 21.

802
Item 21.

803
Item 21.

804
Item 21.

805
Item 21.

806
Item 21.