Agenda packet — Beaumont City Council, December 17, 2024 (part 3 of 10)

Section 11. Judicial Review.

In accordance with State law, any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul this Ordinance shall be commenced within ninety (90) days of the date of adoption of this Ordinance
Section 12. Ordinance No.

This Ordinance supersedes the provisions of Ordinance No. 1091, provided this Ordinance is not declared invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction. If, for whatever reason, this Ordinance is declared invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, Ordinance No. 1091, all other related ordinances and policies shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 13. Effective Date.

This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.

MOVED AND PASSED upon this 21st day of January 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Mayo
ATTEST:
y
City Clerk

Page 324 of 1277 ends

EXHIBIT "A"

MAP OF REGIONAL SYSTEM
EXHIBIT "A"

Page 325 of 1277 ends

EXHIBIT "B"

NEXUS STUDY

Page 326 of 1277 ends

Figure ES.3 - Regional System of
Highways and Arterials - TUMF
Network Improvements
Hills
Tustin
c
Irvine
Orang
Schleisman
Ironwood
p,ilroad
Legend
Ultimate Lanes
• 2
N,4
� 6
1%.,/8
ant=GIIh.
,'nch
NORCO
hidden
Valley
C-0.8 NA
Rancho Santa
Margarita
Harley Knox
• Interchange
O Bridge
O Railroad Crossing
TUMF Zone
Cities
County Boundaries
1 IURUPA VALLEY
alley
Central
Arlington

RIVERSIDE
Santa
Margarita
Grand Terrace
Center
[Main}. �pti;
— 9r�
a
a
Unyr.

Alessandro
LAKE

ELSINORE,
Iwo Nip
•
*• ■
Lakeland Villa
L
a - ■
Buren
Eucalyptus

MORENO VALLEY
Ramona
• Mid -County
t. (Placentia)
rrs.
■
PERRI_S

WILDOMAR
South
San Mateo
•
Canyon
Nuevo

MENIFEE
Holland
Esri, NA
L

Page 327 of 1277 ends

Keller

MURRIETA
Yucaipa
County
Line

CALIMLSA
5,r5
The
Badlands
1-241
i
.4
Mid -County (Ramona) 1e
Cherry
Valley,
7�r0ak
Valley(t.)

PANNING
S Gorg❑
Wilsons
Ramswi

BEAUMONT
Newport
Benton
ID -
a SAN

JACI NTO
Esplanade
SR -74/5R-79
(Florida)
Stetson
HEMET
reek
•
hr. --9,
1 1
5obaba
Reservation
Hemet/San
Jacinto
.5. Census, County of Riverside, California 5ta
-hanga
rvati on
cal
•
•
•
Morongo
Reservation
Rouse
Ridge
ass
-_Y--- -
-
• oziy,
1 r
}
f3.

Yf
L—h4ouot San
{ JaCintli State
■
Western Riverside
Council of Governments
Thoma
Mounta
arks, Esri, omTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, FAO, METI/NASA,
USG5, reau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USFW5
An,
Moun

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT AMENDING THE

APPLICABLE TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) APPLICABLE TO

ALL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY OF BEAUMONT
WHEREAS, the City of Beaumont ("City") is a member agency of the Western Riverside Council of Governments ("WRCOG"), a joint powers agency comprised of the County of Riverside and seventeen cities located in Western Riverside County; and WHEREAS, the member agencies of WRCOG recognized that there was insufficient funding to address the impacts of new development on the regional system of highways and arterials in Western Riverside County (the "Regional System"); and WHEREAS, in order to address this shortfall, the member agencies formulated a plan whereby a transportation mitigation fee would be assessed on new development and would be used to fund the necessary improvements for the Regional System; and WHEREAS, in furtherance of this plan, the WRCOG Executive Committee adopted the "Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Fee Nexus Study", dated October 18, 2002 (the "2002 Nexus Study"); and
WHEREAS, based on the 2002 Nexus Study, the City adopted Ordinance 839 on March 18, 2003 (the "TUMF Ordinance") pursuant to California Government Code sections 66000 et seq. authorizing the City to impose the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee ("TUMF") upon new development; and
WHEREAS, in 2016, the TUMF Nexus Study ("2016 Nexus Study") was updated for the purpose of updating the fees. On July 10, 2017, the WRCOG Executive Committee reviewed the 2016 Nexus Study and TUMF Program and recommended TUMF Participating Jurisdictions amend their applicable TUMF ordinances to reflect changes in the TUMF network and the cost of construction in order to update the TUMF Program; and WHEREAS, on September 5, 2017, the City adopted Ordinance No. 1091 which adopted the 2016 Nexus Study and updated the TUMF; and
WHEREAS, in 2018, the TUMF Program was altered to adopt a process in which WRCOG calculates and collects TUMF on behalf of member agencies under the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program Ordinance of 2018; and WHEREAS, the City amended Ordinance No. 1091 on August 15, 2023 allowing WRCOG to calculate and collect TUMF on behalf of the City; and WHEREAS, WRCOG, with the assistance of TUMF Participating Jurisdictions, has prepared an updated nexus study entitled "Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study:
2024 Update" ("2024 Nexus Study") pursuant to California Government Code sections 66000 et seq. (the Mitigation Fee Act), for the purpose of updating the fees. On September 9, 2024, the WRCOG Executive Committee reviewed the 2024 Nexus Study and TUMF Program and recommended TUMF Participating Jurisdictions amend their applicable TUMF ordinances to reflect changes in the TUMF network and the cost of construction in order to update the TUMF Program.

Page 328 of 1277 ends

WHEREAS, consistent with its previous findings made in the adoption of Ordinance No. 1091, the City Council has been informed and advised, and hereby finds, that if the capacity of the Regional System is not enlarged and unless development contributes to the cost of improving the Regional System, the result will be substantial traffic congestion in all parts of Western Riverside County, with unacceptable Levels of Service. Furthermore, the failure to mitigate growing traffic impacts on the Regional System will substantially impair the ability of public safety services (police and fire) to respond and, thus, adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare. Therefore, continuation of a TUMF Program is essential.

WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship between the use of the TUMF and the type of development projects on which the fees are imposed because the fees will be used to construct the transportation improvements that are necessary for the safety, health and welfare of the residential and non-residential users of the development in which the TUMF will be levied.

WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship between the need for the improvements to the Regional System and the type of development projects on which the TUMF is imposed because it will be necessary for the residential and non-residential users of such projects to have access to the Regional system.

Such development will benefit from the Regional System improvements and the burden of such developments will be mitigated in part by payment of the TUMF.

WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the cost estimates set forth in the new 2024 Nexus Study are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Regional System improvements and the facilities that compromise the Regional System, and that the amount of the TUMF expected to be generated by new development will not exceed the total fair share cost to such development.

WHEREAS, the fees collected pursuant to TUMF Ordinance shall be used to help pay for the design, planning, construction of and real acquisition for the Regional System improvements and its facilities as identified in the 2024 Nexus Study. The need for the improvements and facilities is related to new development because such development results in additional traffic and creates the demand for the improvements.

WHEREAS, by notice duly given and published, the City Council set the time and place for a public hearing on the 2024 Nexus Study and the fees proposed thereunder and at least ten (10) days prior to this hearing, the City Council made the 2024 Nexus Study available to the public.

WHEREAS, at the time and place set for the hearing, the City Council duly considered data and information provided by the public relative to the cost of the improvements and facilities for which the fees are proposed and all other comments, whether written or oral, submitted prior to the conclusion of the hearing.

WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the 2024 Nexus Study proposes a fair and equitable method for distributing a portion of the unfunded costs of improvements and facilities to the Regional system.

WHEREAS, section 4.0 of Ordinance of the TUMF Ordinance authorizes periodic review and adjustment to the applicable TUMF in accordance with any adjustments made by the WRCOG Executive Committee; and

Page 329 of 1277 ends

WHEREAS, the fees collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be used to finance the public facilities described or identified in the Nexus Study; and WHEREAS, the levying of TUMF has been reviewed by the City Council and staff in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines and it has been determined that the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Beaumont does resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Findings. The recitals set forth above are hereby adopted as findings in support of this Resolution. In addition, the City Council re -adopts the findings contained in Section 2 of Ordinance in support of the adjusted TUMF contained herein.

SECTION 2. TUMF Schedule. In accordance with Section 4.C. of the TUMF Ordinance, there is hereby adopted the following fee schedule for the TUMF which replaces the fee schedule set forth in Sections 2 and 3 of Resolution No. 2021-55 in its entirety as of the Effective Date set forth in Section 5, provided that the fee for retail commercial projects shall go into effect upon the Effective Date set forth in Section 5, below:

A. There is hereby adopted the following TUMF schedule:
(1) $12,380 per single family residential unit 1,800 square feet or less (2) $13,927 per single family residential unit between 1,801 and 2,300 square feet
(3) $15,476 per single family residential unit between 2,301 and 2,700 square feet
(4) $19,344 per single family residential unit greater than 2,700 square feet (2) $7,816 per multi -family residential unit
(3) $2.33 per square foot of an industrial project
(4) $7.72 per square foot of a retail commercial project (5) $4.89 per square foot of a service commercial project (6) $2.45 per square foot of a service Class A and B Office SECTION 3. Adoption of 2024 Nexus Study. The City Council hereby adopts the 2024 Nexus Study and its findings. The 2024 Nexus Study is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B."
SECTION 4. CEQA Findings. The City Council hereby finds that in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines the adoption of this Resolution is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3).

SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Resolution take effect sixty (60) days after its adoption.

MOVED, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of December, 2024.

AYES:

NOES:

Page 330 of 1277 ends

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

By:

Mike Lara, Mayor, City of Beaumont
ATTEST:

Nicole Wheelwright

DEPUTY CITY CLERK
By:

Page 331 of 1277 ends

WRCOG ,

TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE

NEXUS STUDY
2024 UPDATE

FINAL REPORT
Prepared for the Western Riverside Council of Governments In Cooperation with
The City of Banning
The City of Beaumont
The City of Calimesa
The City of Canyon Lake
The City of Corona
The City of Eastvale
The City of Hemet
The City of Jurupa Valley
The City of Lake Elsinore
The City of Menifee
The City of Moreno Valley
The City of Murrieta
The City of Norco
The City of Perris
The City of Riverside
The City of San Jacinto
The City of Temecula
The City of Wildomar
The County of Riverside
Eastern Municipal Water District
March Joint Powers Authority
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
Riverside Transit Agency
Western Water
Prepared by GHD
As adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee, September 9, 2024 Western Riverside
Council of Governments

Page 332 of 1277 ends

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .i
LIST OF TABLES ... ii
ES.0 Executive Summary ..iii
ES.1 Introduction and Purpose of the Nexus Study iii
ES.2 Future Growth .. vi
ES.3 Need for the TUMF vi
ES.4 The TUMF Network viii
ES.5 TUMF Nexus Analysis .x
ES.6 Fair -Share Fee Calculation x
ES.7 Conclusions .. xi

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE NEXUS STUDY 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 TUMF Nexus Study History 3

1.3 TUMF Nexus Study Process 5

2.3.1. Establish the TUMF Network Project List 7

2.3.2. Determine the TUMF Network Project Costs 8

2.3.3. Determine the TUMF Transit Component 9

2.3.4. Computing the Fee for Residential Developments 10

2.3.5. Computing the Fee for Non -Residential Developments 10

2.0 FUTURE GROWTH 13

2.1 Recent Historical Trend 13

2.2 Available Demographic Data 13

2.3 Demographic Assumptions Used for the Nexus Study Analysis 14

3.0 NEED FOR THE TUMF 21

3.1 Future Highway Congestion Levels 21

3.2 Future Transit Utilization Levels 24

3.3 The TUMF Concept 25

4.0 THE TUMF NETWORK 27

4.1 Identification of the TUMF Roadway Network 27

4.2 Backbone Network and Secondary Network 30

4.3 Future Roadway Transportation Needs 33

4.4 Public Transportation Component of the TUMF System 37

4.5 Existing Obligated Funding 40

4.6 Unfunded Existing Improvement Needs 40

4.7 Maximum TUMF Eligible Cost 42

4.8 TUMF Network Evaluation 53

5.0 TUMF NEXUS ANALYSIS 55

5.1 Future Development and the Need for Improvements 55

5.2 Application of Fee to System Components 56

5.3 Application of Fee to Residential and Non -Residential Developments 59

6.0 FAIR -SHARE FEE CALCULATION 60

6.1 Residential Fees 60

6.2 Non -Residential Fees 62

7.0 CONCLUSIONS 64

8.0 APPENDICES 65
WRCOG 1 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 333 of 1277 ends

LIST OF TABLES
Table ES.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County xii Table 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County 14 Table 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2018 to 2045) 17
Table 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison) 19
Table 3.1 - Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2018 Existing to 2045 No -Build) 22
Table 4.1 - Unit Costs for Arterial Highway and Street Construction 35 Table 4.2 - Forecasted Daily Traffic in Western Riverside County 36 Table 4.3 - Unit Costs for Transit Capital Expenditures 39 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates 45
Table 4.5 - TUMF Transit Cost Estimates 53
Table 4.6 - Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2018 Existing and 2045 No -Build Scenarios to 2045 TUMF Build Scenario) 54
Table 5.1 - 2045 No -Build Peak Period Vehicle Trips by WRCOG Zone 57 Table 5.2 - 2045 No -Build Percent Peak Period Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone 57 Table 5.3 - Backbone -Secondary Network Share Calculation 58 Table 5.4 - Daily VMT Growth by Trip Purpose for Western Riverside County (2018 - 2045) 59 Table 6.1 - Fee Calculation for Residential Share 61 Table 6.2 - Single -Family Residential Fee Adjustments by Unit Size 62 Table 6.3 - Fee Calculation for Non -Residential Share 63 Table 7.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County 64

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure ES.1 - Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process v Figure ES.2 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2018 to 2045) vii
Figure ES.3 - Regional System of Highways and Arterials-TUMF Network Improvements ix Figure 1 .1 - Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process 6 Figure 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County 15 Table 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County 16 Figure 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County 16 Figure 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2018 to 2045) 18
Figure 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison) 20
Figure 4.1 - Regional System of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside County 29 Figure 4.2 - The Backbone Network of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside County 31
Figure 4.3 - Western Riverside County Area Planning Districts (TUMF Zones) 32 Figure 4.4 - Regional System of Highways and Arterials-TUMF Network Improvements 44 WRCOG 11 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 334 of 1277 ends

ES.O EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 Introduction and Purpose of the Nexus Study
Western Riverside County includes 18 incorporated cities and the unincorporated county covering an area of approximately 2,100 square miles. Through the mid 2000's, this portion of Riverside County was growing at a pace exceeding the capacity of existing financial resources to meet increasing demand for transportation infrastructure.

Although the economic recession of the late 2000's, and the associated crises in the mortgage and housing industries, slowed this rate of growth, the regional economy has recovered and the projected rate of development in Western Riverside County remains high. Similarly, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on travel demand in the region has also passed, with travel demands, especially for the highway network, surpassing pre -pandemic levels. Continued high growth in households and jobs in Western Riverside County could significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not made in transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial roadways of regional significance, since traditional sources of transportation funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund the needed improvements.

In February 1999, the cities of Temecula, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the Building Industry Association (BIA) met to discuss the concept of a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) for southwest Riverside County. In August 2000, the concept was expanded to include the entire WRCOG sub- region.

Continued high growth in households and jobs in Western Riverside County could significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not made in transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial roadways of regional significance, since traditional sources of transportation funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund the needed improvements. While the TUMF cannot fund all necessary transportation system improvements, it is intended to address a current transportation funding shortfall by establishing a new revenue source that ensures future new development will contribute toward addressing its indirect cumulative traffic impacts on regional transportation infrastructure. Funding accumulated through the TUMF Program will be used to construct transportation improvements such as new arterial highway lanes, reconfigured freeway interchanges, railroad grade separations and new regional express bus services that will be needed to accommodate future travel demand in Western Riverside County. By levying a fee on new developments in the region, local agencies will be establishing a mechanism by which developers and in turn new county residents and employees will effectively contribute their "fair share" toward sustaining the regional transportation system.

WRCOG iii Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 335 of 1277 ends

This TUMF Draft Nexus Study is intended to satisfy the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 5 Section 66000-66008 Fees for Development Projects (also known as California Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) or the Mitigation Fee Act) which governs imposing development impact fees in California. The initial WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study was completed in October 2002 and adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee in November 2002. The results of the first review of the Program were documented in the TUMF Nexus Study 2005 Update adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on February 6, 2006. A second comprehensive review of the TUMF Program was adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on October 5, 2009. A third comprehensive review of the TUMF Program was conducted following the adoption of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) on April 7, 2016.

The WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update Report was adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on July 10, 2017.

On September 3, 2020, SCAG adopted Connect SoCal; The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments (2020 RTP/SCS). The adoption of the 2020 RTP/SCS confirmed new growth forecasts for the region that provide a foundational element for updating the TUMF program and the associated nexus determination prompting WRCOG to initiate the current program update. These forecasts are also integrated into the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RivCoM) used to forecast the cumulative regional traffic impacts of new development on the arterial highway network in Western Riverside County.

The overall process for establishing the TUMF nexus is illustrated in Figure ES.1. Each technical step is denoted with a number on the flow chart with the numbers correlating to the detailed description of each step provided in Section 1.3 of the Nexus Study Report. The flow chart also incorporates color coding of the steps to indicate those steps that involved the application of RivCoM, steps that utilized other input data, steps that are computations of various inputs, and steps that required specific actions of the various WRCOG committees to confirm major variables. Where appropriate, the flow chart also includes specific cross references to the sections or tables included in the Nexus Study document that correlate to the particular step.

This version of the WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study Report documents the results of the fourth comprehensive review of the TUMF Program. This version of the document also incorporates revisions in response to comments received during the formal review of the earlier Draft TUMF Nexus Study 2024 Update. The findings of this report were ultimately adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on September 9, 2024.

WRCOG iv Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 336 of 1277 ends

Figure ES.1 - Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process TUMF Road Project List
SCAG Data on
2018 Housing &
Employment
RivCoM 2018
Baseline Model
Run JOY
4 Existing Capacity
Deficiencies
RivCoM 2021
Existing Road
Network
SCAG Forecast
for 2045 Housing
& Employment
RivCoM 2045
No -Build
Model Run
TUMF LOS 4,
Target
Future Capacity
Deficiencies
f Capacity Deficiencies Attributable
to New Development
4i1) Estimated Costs
of TUMF Projects
TUMF Road]
List J
TUMF Road Project Cost Estimates
TUMF Design
Standards by
Facility Type
Updated TUMF
Unit Costs for ROW
& Construction
r Cost per Mile by
TUMF Project Type
(Table 4.1)
Residential Fee Calculation
(Table 6.1 & Appendix K)
SCAG Forecast
Growth in SFD, MFD
(Table 2.3)
Funds Available
from Other (non
TUMF) Sources
ITE
Trip -Gen Rates
(11th Edition)
0 Growth in 1
Trips
for SFD & MFD
Road Project
Costs Attributable to
New Development
Project Costs to
be Covered by
New Development
RivCoM
5 Trip
Purposes
RTA Transit Ridership
2023 Actual Average
Weekday Daily Ridership
TUMF Transit Component
SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Model
2045 Forecast Average
Weekday Daily Ridership
% Attributed
to New
Development
Transit Costs
Attributable to
New Development
HB(% HBS,of
HBO
(°% of VMT
Growth)
CW(% of OBO
(% of VMT
Growth)
Share of Project
Costs Attributable
to SFD & MFD
7 Share of Pro ect
Costs Attributable
to Retail Service,
Industrial, &
Public Sectors
TUMF Nexus Study and
Schedule of Fees
Y
Adjustments per
Fee Calculation Handbook
(Applicable to some project types)
Adjusted Fee
per Unit
ITE Trip -Gen Rates by
Individual Land Use Code
(11th edition)
4 Average Trip -Gen
Rates by Sector
(Table L 4)
7Adjusted Average
Trip -Gen Rates by
Sector (Table L-3)
RTA Transit Project List
T14 —lad
Project List
•
1 Updated Transit
Unit Cost
(Table 4.3)
Cost Estimate for
Transit Improvements
Non -Residential Fee Calculation
(Table 6.2 &Appendix L)
ITE Percent
Pass -By Trips
(Table L-4)
4 1
tr SCAG Forecast
Growth in Employees
by Sector
(Tables 2.3 & L-2)
Riverside & SB (1990)
SCAG Study (2001)
OCTAStudy (2001)
Riverside County
General Plan (2015)
4 Assumed Ratio of
Employees/TSF
(Table L-1)
G owth in TSF for
Retail Service, Industrial,
& Public Sectors
Growth in Trips for
Retail, Service, Industrial,
& Public Sectors
KEY
i® Reference to Description in Text
Other Inputs
RivCoM
1 Computations
Items for
Adoption
WRCOG
v Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 337 of 1277 ends

ES.2 Future Growth
In preparation for the 2020 RTP/SCS, SCAG undertook robust stakeholder engagement, including participation by WRCOG, Riverside County and the various cities in Western Riverside County, to develop regional demographic forecasts. Using input from regional stakeholders regarding anticipated patterns and rates of development, SCAG compiled and disseminated the forecasts that were ultimately adopted in 2020. The SCAG forecasts adopted for the 2020 RTP/SCS were subsequently used as the basis for RivCoM and are used as the basis for this TUMF Nexus Study Update.

A major distinction between data used for the TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update and the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS data used for this 2024 Update is the change in the base year from 2012 to 2018, as well as the change in the horizon year from 2040 to 2045. This shift in the base year and horizon year demographic assumptions of the program carries through all aspects of the nexus analysis, including the travel demand forecasting, network review and fee calculation.

The population of Western Riverside County is projected to increase by 33% in the period between 2018 and 2045. During the same period, employment in Western Riverside County is anticipated to grow by 48%. Figure ES.2 illustrates the forecast growth in population, household and employment for Western Riverside County.

ES.3 Need for the TUMF
The WRCOG TUMF study area was extracted from the greater RivCoM model network for the purpose of calculating measures for Western Riverside County only. Peak period performance measures for the TUMF study area included total vehicle miles of travel (VMT), total vehicle hours of travel (VHT), total combined vehicle hours of delay (VHD), and total VMT experiencing unacceptable level of service (LOS E).

As a result of the new development and associated growth in population and employment in Western Riverside County, additional pressure will be placed on the transportation infrastructure, particularly the arterial roadways, with the peak period VMT on the TUMF Network estimated to increase by 38% between 2018 and 2045. By 2045, 37% of the total VMT on the TUMF Network is forecast to be traveling on facilities experiencing peak period LOS E or worse. Without improvements to the arterial highway system, the total vehicle hours of delay (VHD) experienced by area motorists on the TUMF Network will increase over 5.0% per year. The need to improve these roadways and relieve future congestion is therefore directly linked to the future development which generates the travel demand.

WRCOG vi Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 338 of 1277 ends

Figure ES.2 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2018 to 2045)
Household Type
Single -Family
■ Multi -Family
Employment Sectors
❑ Industrial
❑ Service
❑ Retail
❑ Government/Public Sector
As population and employment in Western Riverside County grows because of new development, demand for regional transit services in the region is also expected to grow. Weekday system ridership for RTA bus transit services is approximately 16,575 riders per day in Western Riverside County in 2023. By 2045, bus transit services are forecast to serve approximately 57,282 riders per weekday. This represents an average increase of 1,850 weekday riders each year. Based on this rate of ridership growth, weekday ridership is estimated to increase by 40,707 riders per weekday between 2018 and 2045.

The idea behind a uniform mitigation fee is to have new development throughout the region contribute equally to paying the cost of improving the transportation facilities that serve these longer -distance trips between communities. Thus, the fee should be used to improve transportation facilities that serve trips between communities within the region (primarily arterial roadways) as well as the infrastructure for public transportation.

The fee should be assessed proportionately on new residential and non-residential development based on the relative impact of each use on the transportation system.

WRCOG vii Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 339 of 1277 ends

ES.4 The TUMF Network
The Regional System of Highways and Arterials (also referred to as the TUMF Network) is the system of roadways that serve inter -community trips within Western Riverside County and therefore are eligible for improvement funding with TUMF funds. Transportation facilities in Western Riverside County that generally satisfied these guidelines were initially identified, and a skeletal regional transportation framework evolved from facilities where several guidelines were observed. Representatives of all WRCOG constituent jurisdictions reviewed this framework in the context of current local transportation plans to define the TUMF Network, which was subsequently endorsed by the WRCOG Public Works Committee, WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee, TUMF Policy Committee and the WRCOG Executive Committee.

The TUMF Network was reviewed as part of the 2024 Nexus Update to ensure facilities generally still met the previously described performance guidelines, and/or that the scope and magnitude of specific improvements to the TUMF Network were roughly proportional to the impacts needing to be mitigated. This review process resulted in the removal of various facilities from the TUMF Network, as well as various changes in the scope and magnitude of specific improvements to the TUMF Network.

Figure ES.3 illustrates the TUMF improvements to the Regional System of Highways and Arterials.

The total cost of improving the TUMF system is $5.28 billion. Accounting for obligated funds and unfunded existing needs, the estimated maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program is $4.24 billion. The maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program includes approximately $3.87 billion in eligible arterial highway and street related improvements and $154.8 million in eligible transit related improvements. An additional $53.9 million is also eligible as part of the TUMF Program to mitigate the impact of eligible TUMF related arterial highway and street projects on critical native species and wildlife habitat, while $161.2 million is provided to cover the costs incurred by WRCOG to administer the TUMF Program.

WRCOG viii Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 340 of 1277 ends

RIVERSIDE
Santa
Margarita
Grand Terrace
Center
[Main}. �pti;
— 9r�
a
a
Unyr.

Alessandro
LAKE

ELSINORE,
Iwo Nip
•
*• ■
Lakeland Villa
L
a - ■
Buren
Eucalyptus

MORENO VALLEY
Ramona
• Mid -County
t. (Placentia)
rrs.
■
PERRI_S

WILDOMAR
South
San Mateo
•
Canyon
Nuevo

MENIFEE
Holland
Esri, NA
L

Page 341 of 1277 ends

Keller

MURRIETA
Yucaipa
County
Line
C:ALJMLSA
5,r5
The
Badlands
1-241
i
.4
Mid -County (Ramona) 1e
Cherry
Valley,
7�r0ak
Valley(t.)

PANNING
S Gorg❑
Wilsons
Ramswi

BEAUMONT
Newport
Benton
ID -
a SAN

JACI NTO
Esplanade
SR -74/5R-79
(Florida)
Stetson
HEMET
reek
•
hr. --9,
1 1
5obaba
Reservation
Hemet/San
Jacinto
.5. Census, County of Riverside, California 5ta
-hanga
rvati on
cal
•

14. •
• 1f'
Morongo
Reservation
Rouse
Ridge
ass
f3.

ES.5 TUMF Nexus Analysis
There is a reasonable relationship between the future growth and the need for improvements to the TUMF system. These factors include:
➢ Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing as a result of future new development.
➢ Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways. ➢ The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County. ➢ Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development.
➢ Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program.
➢ Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit -dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automobile travel.

The split of fee revenues between the backbone and secondary highway networks is related to the proportion of highway vehicle travel that is relatively local (between adjacent communities) and longer distance (between more distant communities but still within Western Riverside County). To estimate a rational fee split between the respective networks, the future travel forecast estimates were aggregated to a matrix of peak period trips between zones. The overall result is that 51.1% of the regional travel is attributable to the backbone network and 48.9% is assigned to the secondary network.

In order to establish the approximate proportionality of the future traffic impacts associated with new residential development and new non-residential development, peak period growth in VMT between 2018 and 2045 was derived from RivCoM and aggregated by trip purpose. It was concluded that home -based person trips represent

77.7% of the total future person trips, and the non -home -based person trips represent

22.3% of the total future person trips.

ES.6 Fair -Share Fee Calculation
The balance of the unfunded TUMF system improvement needs is $4.24 billion which is the maximum value attributable to the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development in the WRCOG region and will be captured through the TUMF Program. By levying the uniform fee directly on future new developments (and indirectly on new residents and new employees to Western Riverside County), these transportation system users are assigned their "fair share" of the WRCOG x Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 342 of 1277 ends

costs to address the cumulative impacts of additional traffic they will generate on the regional transportation system.

Of the $4.24 billion in unfunded future improvement needs, 77.7% ($3.30 billion) will be assigned to future new residential development and 22.3% ($946.5 million) will be assigned to future new non-residential development.

ES.7 Conclusions
Based on the results of the Nexus Study evaluation, it can be demonstrated that there is reasonable relationship between the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new land development projects in Western Riverside County and the need to mitigate these transportation impacts using funds levied through the proposed TUMF Program.

Factors that reflect this reasonable relationship include:
➢ Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing as a result of future new development.
➢ Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways; ➢ The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County; ➢ Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the cumulative impacts of new development;
➢ Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program;
➢ Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit -dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automotive travel.

The Nexus Study evaluation has established a proportional "fair share" of the improvement cost attributable to new development based on the impacts of existing development and the availability of obligated funding through traditional sources. The fair share fee allocable to future new residential and non-residential development in Western Riverside County is summarized for differing use types in Table ES.1.

WRCOG xi Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 343 of 1277 ends

Table ES.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County Land Use Type
Units
Development
Change
Fee Per Unit
Total Revenue
($ million)
Single -Family Residential
DU
167,491
$15,476
$2,592.0
Multi -Family Residential
DU
90,335
$7,816
$706.1
Industrial
SF GFA
61,489,565
$2.33
$143.1
Retail
SF GFA
6,557,500
$11.21
$73.5
Service
SF GFA
66,735,957
$9.76
$651.1
Government/Public
SF GFA
3,420,665
$23.07
$78.9

MAXIMUM TUMF VALUE
$2,961.0
WRCOG xii Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 344 of 1277 ends

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE NEXUS STUDY

1.1 Background
Western Riverside County includes 18 incorporated cities and the unincorporated county covering an area of approximately 2,100 square miles. Through the mid 2000's, this portion of Riverside County was growing at a pace exceeding the capacity of existing financial resources to meet increasing demand for transportation infrastructure.

In anticipation of the continued future growth projected in Riverside County, several county -wide planning processes were initiated in 1999. These planning processes include the Riverside County General Plan Update, the Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) and the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Related to these planning processes is the need to fund the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development.

Regional arterial highways in Western Riverside County are forecast to carry significant traffic volumes by 2045. While some localized fee programs exist to mitigate the local impacts of new development on the transportation system in specific areas, and while these programs are effective locally, they are insufficient in their ability to meet the regional demand for transportation infrastructure. Former Riverside County Supervisor Buster recognized the need to establish a comprehensive funding source to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on regional arterial highways. The need to establish a comprehensive funding source for arterial highway improvements has evolved into the development of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) for Western Riverside County.

In February 1999, the cities of Temecula, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the Building Industry Association (BIA) met to discuss the WRCOG 1 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 345 of 1277 ends

concept of a TUMF. The intent of this effort was to have the southwest area of Western Riverside County act as a demonstration for the development of policies and a process for a regional TUMF Program before applying the concept countywide. From February 1999 to September 2000, the Southwest Area Transportation Infrastructure System Funding Year 2020 (SATISFY 2020) Program progressed with policy development, the identification of transportation improvements, traffic modeling, cost estimates, fee scenarios and a draft Implementation Agreement.

In May 2000, Riverside County Supervisor Tavaglione initiated discussions in the northwest area of Western Riverside County to determine the level of interest in developing a TUMF for that area of the county. Interest in the development of a northwest area fee program was high. In August 2000, the WRCOG Executive Committee took action to build upon the work completed in the southwest area for the SATISFY 2020 program and to develop a single consolidated mitigation fee program for all of Western Riverside County. This action was predicated on the desire to establish a single uniform mitigation fee program to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the regional arterial highway system, rather than multiple discrete and disparate fee programs with varying policies, fees and improvement projects. A TUMF Policy Committee comprising regional elected officials was formed to recommend and set policies for staff to develop the TUMF Program and provide overall guidance to all other staff committees.

While the TUMF cannot fund all necessary transportation system improvements, it is intended to address a current transportation funding shortfall by establishing a new revenue source that ensures future new development will contribute toward addressing its indirect cumulative traffic impacts on regional transportation infrastructure. Funding accumulated through the TUMF Program will be used to construct transportation improvements such as new arterial highway lanes, reconfigured freeway interchanges, railroad grade separations and new regional express bus services that will be needed to accommodate future travel demand in Western Riverside County. By levying a fee on new developments in the region, local agencies will be establishing a mechanism by which developers and in turn new county residents and employees will effectively contribute their "fair share" toward sustaining the regional transportation system.

This TUMF Nexus Study is intended to satisfy the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 5 Section 66000-66008 Fees for Development Projects (also known as California Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) or the Mitigation Fee Act), which governs imposing development impact fees in California. The Mitigation Fee Act requires that all local agencies in California, including cities, counties, and special districts follow two basic rules when instituting impact fees. These rules are as follows:
1) Establish a nexus or reasonable relationship between the development impact fee's use and the type of project for which the fee is required. 2) The fee must not exceed the project's proportional "fair share" of the proposed improvement and cannot be used to correct current problems or to make improvements for existing development.

WRCOG 2 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 346 of 1277 ends

1.2 TUMF Nexus Study History
The TUMF Program is implemented through the auspices of WRCOG. As the council of governments for Western Riverside County, WRCOG provides a forum for representatives from 18 cities, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, the Eastern Municipal Water District, Western Water, the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, the March Joint Powers Authority and the Riverside Transit Agency to collaborate on issues that affect the entire subregion, such as air quality, solid waste, transportation and the environment. WRCOG strives to "respect local control, provide regional perspective, and make a difference" to elevate the quality of life throughout the subregion. A current list of the standing WRCOG committees and committee membership that oversee the TUMF program is included in Appendix A.

The initial WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study was completed in October 2002 and adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee in November 2002. Its purpose was to establish the nexus or reasonable relationship between new land development projects in Western Riverside County and the proposed development impact fee that would be used to improve regional transportation facilities. It also identified the proportional "fair share" of the improvement cost attributable to new development.

Consistent with the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act, the WRCOG Executive Committee has established that the TUMF Nexus Study will be subject of a comprehensive review of the underlying program assumptions at least every five years to confirm the Nexus. Acknowledging the unprecedented and unique nature of the TUMF Program, the Executive Committee determined that the first comprehensive review of the Program should be initiated within two years of initial adoption of the Program primarily to validate the findings and recommendations of the study and to correct any program oversights. The results of the first review of the Program were documented in the TUMF Nexus Study 2005 Update adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on February 6, 2006. A second comprehensive review of the TUMF Program was conducted in 2008 and 2009 in part to address the impacts of the economic recession on the rate of development within the region and on transportation project costs. The findings of the 2009 review of the program were adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on October 5, 2009.

A third comprehensive review of the TUMF Program was conducted in 2014 and 2015 leading to a Draft Nexus Study document being distributed for review in August 2015.

The WRCOG Executive Committee subsequently considered comments related to the Draft Nexus Study 2015 Update at the meeting held on September 14, 2015, where it was resolved to "delay finalizing the Nexus Study for the TUMF Program Update until the 2016 Southern California Association of Governments' 2016 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy growth forecast is available for inclusion in the Nexus Study". The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) on April 7, 2016, enabling WRCOG staff to proceed with finalizing the update of the TUMF Nexus Study. The WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update Report was ultimately adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on July 10, 2017.

WRCOG 3 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 347 of 1277 ends

On September 3, 2020, SCAG adopted Connect SoCal; The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments (2020 RTP/SCS). As stated in the plan document "Connect SoCal embodies a collective vision for the region's future, through the horizon year of 2045. It is developed with input from a wide range of constituents and stakeholders within the Counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura, including public agencies, community organizations, elected officials, tribal governments, the business community and the public. Connect SoCal is an important planning document for the region, allowing public agencies who implement transportation projects to do so in a coordinated manner, while qualifying for federal and state funding."
The adoption of the 2020 RTP/SCS confirmed new growth forecasts for the region that were used as the basis to develop the Connect SoCal plan. These forecasts also provide a foundational element for updating the TUMF program and the associated nexus determination prompting WRCOG to initiate the current program update. The 2020 RTP/SCS growth forecasts are used directly in the fee calculation as the basis for determining the anticipated growth in households and employment in the region through the program horizon year of 2045. These forecasts are also integrated into the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RivCoM) used to forecast the cumulative regional traffic impacts of new development on the arterial highway network in Western Riverside County.

Completed in 2021 to succeed the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RIVTAM), RivCoM provides a valuable tool for supporting a variety of transportation planning activities in Riverside County, including the update of the TUMF Nexus Study. RivCoM was developed under the leadership of WRCOG in conjunction with regional partners with the intent to provide jurisdictions in Riverside County with a traffic forecasting tool that, while consistent with the SCAG regional travel demand model, provides a more appropriate level of detail to support transportation planning at the County or City level.

RivCoM is a critical tool for quantifying the cumulative regional traffic impacts of new development as part of the TUMF Nexus Study Update. Utilizing the 2020 RTP/SCS growth forecasts, RivCoM is used to quantify changes in travel demand and traffic conditions on the regional highway network, with a specific focus on the TUMF Network.

RivCoM outputs are used to analyze project eligibility and quantify the fair share of traffic growth that is attributable to new development as inputs to determining the fee.

The adoption of the Connect SoCal plan and the availability of RivCoM to serve as a critical tool for quantifying network impacts for the TUMF Nexus Study Update were key factors driving the schedule for this update of the fee.

To ensure new development continues to contribute a fair share of the cost to mitigate its cumulative regional transportation impacts in the period between the comprehensive review of program assumptions completed at least every five years, the WRCOG Executive Committee has also established that the TUMF Schedule of Fees will be reviewed annually, and adjusted, as needed, on July 15' to reflect current costs. The revised schedule of fees will typically be recalculated in February of each year based WRCOG 4 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 348 of 1277 ends

on the percentage increase or decrease in the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the twelve (12) month period from January of the prior year to January of the current year, and the percentage increase or decrease in the National Association of Realtors (NAR) Median Sales Price of Existing Single Family Homes in the Riverside/San Bernardino Metropolitan Statistical Area for the twelve (12) month period from the 3rd Quarter of the second year prior to the 3rd Quarter of the prior year (to coincide with the publication of the most recently updated index). If approved by the Executive Committee, the resultant percentage change for each of the indices will be applied to the unit cost assumptions for roadway and bus transit costs, and land acquisition costs, respectively, to reflect the combined effects of changes in eligible project costs on the resultant per unit fee for each defined land use category. The most recent annual cost adjustment to the TUMF Schedule of Fees was adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on July 12, 2021.

1.3 TUMF Nexus Study Process
In coordination with WRCOG, city and county representatives and other interested parties have reviewed the underlying assumptions of the Nexus Study as part of this comprehensive program review. In particular, the most recent socioeconomic forecasts developed by SCAG as the basis for the 2020 RTP/SCS were incorporated. This use of the most recent SCAG forecasts resulted in a shift of the program base year from 2012 to 2018, as well as a shift in the program horizon year from 2040 to 2045.

Furthermore, the TUMF Network was re-examined in detail based on travel demand forecasts derived from the most recent version of the Riverside County Model (RivCoM) to more accurately reflect future project needs to address the cumulative regional impacts of new development in Western Riverside County as well as eliminating those projects having been completed prior to the commencement of the Nexus review in 2021.

The subsequent chapters of this Nexus Study document describe the various assumptions, data inputs and analysis leading to the determination of each major variable in the TUMF calculation, and ultimately leading to the determination of the TUMF Schedule of Fees that indicates the maximum "fair share" fee for each of the various use types defined in the TUMF program. The overall process for establishing the TUMF nexus is summarized in this section, including the flow chart in Figure 1.1 that illustrates the various technical steps in this fee calculation process. Each technical step that was followed to determine the TUMF Schedule of Fees and establish the program nexus is summarized below, with the numbers denoted on the flow chart correlating to the steps described. The flow chart also incorporates color coding of the steps to indicate those steps that involved the application of RivCoM, steps that utilized other input data, steps that are computations of various inputs, and steps that required specific actions of the various WRCOG committees to confirm major variables. Where appropriate, the flow chart also includes specific cross references to the sections or tables included in this Nexus Study document that correlate to the particular step.

WRCOG 5 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 349 of 1277 ends

Figure 1.1 - Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process TUMF Road Project List
SCAG Data on
2018 Housing &
Employment
RivCoM 2018
Baseline Model
Run JOY
4 Existing Capacity
Deficiencies
RivCoM 2021
Existing Road
Network
SCAG Forecast
for 2045 Housing
& Employment
RivCoM 2045
No -Build
Model Run
TUMF LOS 4,
Target
Future Capacity
Deficiencies
f Capacity Deficiencies Attributable
to New Development
4i1) Estimated Costs
of TUMF Projects
TUMF Road]
List J
TUMF Road Project Cost Estimates
TUMF Design
Standards by
Facility Type
Updated TUMF
Unit Costs for ROW
& Construction
r Cost per Mile by
TUMF Project Type
(Table 4.1)
Residential Fee Calculation
(Table 6.1 & Appendix K)
SCAG Forecast
Growth in SFD, MFD
(Table 2.3)
Funds Available
from Other (non
TUMF) Sources
ITE
Trip -Gen Rates
(11th Edition)
0 Growth in 1
Trips
for SFD & MFD
Road Project
Costs Attributable to
New Development
Project Costs to
be Covered by
New Development
RivCoM
5 Trip
Purposes
RTA Transit Ridership
2023 Actual Average
Weekday Daily Ridership
TUMF Transit Component
SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Model
2045 Forecast Average
Weekday Daily Ridership
% Attributed
to New
Development
Transit Costs
Attributable to
New Development
HB(% HBS,of
HBO
(°% of VMT
Growth)
CW(% of OBO
(% of VMT
Growth)
Share of Project
Costs Attributable
to SFD & MFD
7 Share of Pro ect
Costs Attributable
to Retail Service,
Industrial, &
Public Sectors
TUMF Nexus Study and
Schedule of Fees
Y
Adjustments per
Fee Calculation Handbook
(Applicable to some project types)
Adjusted Fee
per Unit
ITE Trip -Gen Rates by
Individual Land Use Code
(11th edition)
4 Average Trip -Gen
Rates by Sector
(Table L 4)
7Adjusted Average
Trip -Gen Rates by
Sector (Table L-3)
RTA Transit Project List
T14 —lad
Project List
•
1 Updated Transit
Unit Cost
(Table 4.3)
Cost Estimate for
Transit Improvements
Non -Residential Fee Calculation
(Table 6.2 &Appendix L)
ITE Percent
Pass -By Trips
(Table L-4)
4 1
tr SCAG Forecast
Growth in Employees
by Sector
(Tables 2.3 & L-2)
Riverside & SB (1990)
SCAG Study (2001)
OCTAStudy (2001)
Riverside County
General Plan (2015)
4 Assumed Ratio of
Employees/TSF
(Table L-1)
G owth in TSF for
Retail Service, Industrial,
& Public Sectors
Growth in Trips for
Retail, Service, Industrial,
& Public Sectors
KEY
i® Reference to Description in Text
Other Inputs
RivCoM
1 Computations
Items for
Adoption
WRCOG
6 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 350 of 1277 ends

2.3.1. Establish the TUMF Network Project List
The roadway network in Western Riverside County must be evaluated to determine how new development activity will impact the performance of the network, and how the resultant traffic impacts can be mitigated by completing various roadway improvements. The following steps integrate the latest SCAG socio-economic forecasts into RivCoM as the basis for determining future roadway deficiencies and identifying the list of eligible improvements to address these future deficiencies. The rational and methodology for accomplishing these steps is further explained in Chapters 2 and 3 of this report, with the resultant TUMF Network described in Chapter 4. 1) The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS was developed using housing and employment data for 2018 as its base year. This adopted dataset was integrated into RivCoM providing a critical analytic tool to support the Nexus Study Update. 2) The RivCoM model' has datasets available that represent the capacity of the different facilities in the road network for several different study years. For this nexus update, the RivCoM 2018 base network that was developed following the adoption of the SCAG 2020 RTP was selected as the one most closely resembling current conditions. This network was subsequently reviewed and updated, including a detailed review by WRCOG staff and participating jurisdictions, to identify projects that were completed on the arterial network in the period between 2016 and December 2021. The arterial network was then recoded to reflect the changes to the TUMF Network to create a 2021 Existing Network as the base network for analysis. A second version of the base network was also developed adding only those facilities that had been identified on the 2016 TUMF network that did not currently exist and therefore were not represented by a link(s) in RivCoM. The Supplemental 2021 Existing Network was utilized as the basis for assessing only those projects that did not currently exist on the TUMF Network.
3) RivCoM was run using the 2018 socio-economic data (SED) and the 2021 Existing Networks to produce the baseline volumes on the roads in the TUMF Network. 4) The baseline volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio was then determined. The target LOS for TUMF facilities is "D", meaning that facilities with LOS "E" or "F", i.e. those with a V/C ratio of 0.9 or higher, are deemed to have inadequate capacity. The result of this step is a list of roads that have existing capacity deficiencies. 1 The macro -level traffic forecasting was conducted using the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RivCoM).

RivCoM is consistent of SCAG's six -county model with additional detail (traffic analysis zones and local roads) added within Riverside County. It was developed for use in traffic studies in Riverside County as a replacement for the Riverside County Transportation and Analysis Model (RivTAM) integrating an updated modeling platform to improve run time and reliability, as well as a more focused model area, more detailed network and zone structure, and prost processors to satisfy more recent legislative requirements. RivCoM has both the geographic scope needed to analyze all TUMF facilities and conformity with regional planning assumptions. There is a memorandum of understanding among the jurisdictions of Riverside County that encourages the use of the RivCoM model for use in regional traffic studies.

WRCOG 7 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 351 of 1277 ends

5) The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS was developed using housing and employment data for 2045 as its forecast horizon year. This adopted dataset was also used as the future base year for the TUMF update calculation.
6) RivCoM was run using the 2021 Existing Networks with the land use assumptions for 2045. These "Future No -Build" scenarios was used to determine where deficiencies would occur in the roadway system if development occurred as expected but no roadway improvements were implemented.
7) Comparing the existing capacity deficiencies with the future deficiencies showed where new deficiencies would occur that are entirely attributable to growth in households and employment. Comparing the existing and future traffic volume to capacity ratio on the roads that are currently deficient shows the portion of the future deficiency that is attributable to growth. 8) It is generally acknowledged that the TUMF program cannot and should not attempt to fund every roadway improvement needed in Western Riverside County. WRCOG has adopted a set of selection criteria that was used to choose which roadway improvements would be eligible for TUMF funding. 9) The selection criteria were applied to the forecast deficiencies to identify projects for the TUMF Project List. The project list was subsequently reviewed to confirm the eligibility of proposed projects, including projects previously included in the TUMF program, as well as additional projects requested for inclusion as part of the current update. The project list was then subsequently updated to reflect those projects considered eligible for TUMF funding as part of the 2024 Nexus Study Update.

2.3.2. Determine the TUMF Network Project Costs
The estimated costs of proposed improvements on the TUMF Network are calculated based on the prices of construction materials, labor and land values for the various eligible project types included as part of the TUMF program. The approach and outcomes of the following steps is described in Chapter 4 of this report. 10) The TUMF program has design standards covering the road project components that are eligible for TUMF funding. This ensures that projects in jurisdictions with different design standards are treated equally2.
1 1 ) Current cost values for labor and materials such as cement, asphalt, reinforcing steel, etc., as derived from Caltrans cost database, RCTC and other sources, were tabulated and updated to December 2023. Additionally, the ROW cost components per square foot for various land use types were also updated based on current property valuations in Riverside County as researched by Overland, Pacific and Cutler.
2 A jurisdiction may choose to design to a higher standard, but if it does so, TUMF will only fund up to the equivalent of what costs would have been had the TUMF design standards been followed.

WRCOG 8 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 352 of 1277 ends

12) The cost values for the contributing labor, materials and land components were applied to estimated quantities of these components for the various roadway project types that are eligible under TUMF to generate aggregate unit cost values for each project type (road costs per lane -mile, typical costs per arterial - freeway interchange, bridge costs per linear foot, etc.). 13) The unit costs from the previous step were then applied to the project list to estimate the costs of the improvements on the TUMF project list. 14) The percentage of each project that was attributable to new development was then applied to the costs of TUMF road projects to find the total road project cost that is attributable to new development.

2.3.3. Determine the TUMF Transit Component
A portion of the TUMF funding is made available for transit services that provide an alternative to car travel for medium -to -long distance intra-regional trips. The eligible transit projects and their associated costs are determined using the following steps, with additional explanation provided in Chapter 4 of this report. 15) Actual average weekday daily ridership for Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) transit bus services was tabulated for 2023.
16) Forecast average weekday daily ridership for RTA bus transit services was retrieved from the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Model for horizon year 2045. 17) The growth in ridership between 2023 and 2045 was compared to determine the portion of 2045 average weekday daily ridership that is attributable to existing passengers and the portion attributable to new growth.
18) A proposed transit project list was provided by RTA staff and was reviewed to confirm the validity of the project list to establish a final recommended transit project list to be included as part of the program. The result was the TUMF Transit Project List.
19) RTA provided information on current costs for the listed transit infrastructure. 20) The cost information was then used to determine the cost of the items on the TUMF Transit Project List.
21) The percent attribution from Step 17 was applied to the project cost estimates from the previous step to determine the cost of transit improvements that are attributable to new development.
22) The costs for road and transit projects that are attributable to new development are then combined along with information on other (non-TUMF) funds to determine the total cost for TUMF projects that is to be cover by new development through the imposition of the fees. The available alternate funding sources were reviewed as part of the Nexus update, specifically including the completion of a detailed review of available federal, state and local funding sources administered by RCTC.

WRCOG 9 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 353 of 1277 ends

2.3.4. Computing the Fee for Residential Developments
Having determined the total project costs to be covered by new development under the TUMF program, it is necessary to divide these costs among different types of developments roughly in proportion to their expected traffic impacts. The following steps describes the process for determining the proportion attributable to new residential development. The approach for accomplishing these steps along with the findings of this analysis are described in detail in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 of this report. 23) California legislation encourages the use of vehicle miles of travel (VMT) as the primary indicator of traffic impacts because it combines the number of vehicle trips and the average length of those trips to reflect the proportional impact to the roadway network. As a result, the methodology for determining the relative distribution of traffic impacts between residential and non-residential uses for the purposes of TUMF utilizes a VMT based approach. The RivCoM 2021 Existing Network and 2045 No -Build model runs were examined to determine the VMT of various trip types that would take place in Western Riverside County (excluding through trips). The results were compared to determine the growth in VMT for each trip type. Per WRCOG policy (based on National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) recommended practice) trips originating in or destined for a home are attributed to residential development while trips where neither the origin nor the destination are a home are attributed to non-residential development.
24) The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS socio-economic forecasts were used to estimate the number of single-family and multi -family dwelling units that will be developed during the 2018 to 2045 period.
25) The Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE's) trip generation rates, which come from surveys of existing sites for various development types, were then used to estimate the daily number of trips that will be generated by future single- and multi -family developments that will occur in the region from 2018 to 2045. 26) The cost to be covered by residential development was divided into the portion attributable to new single-family dwellings and portion attributable to new multi- family development to calculate the cost share for each use. 27) The cost share for single-family dwellings and multi -family dwellings was divided by the number of dwellings of each type to determine the fee level required from each new dwelling unit to cover their fair share of the cost to mitigate the impacts of new developments.

2.3.5. Computing the Fee for Non -Residential Developments A process similar to that used for residential units was used to determine the fee level for non-residential development. However, the determination of fees for non-residential development involves additional steps due to the additional complexity of accounting for a greater variety of development types within each use category. Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 of this report provide additional explanation regarding the methodology for accomplishing these steps along with the results of this analysis.

WRCOG 10 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 354 of 1277 ends

28) Like many impact fee programs, TUMF groups similar development projects together into general use categories to simplify the administration of the program. TUMF groups the various land use categories found in ITE's Trip Generation Manual into four non-residential categories (industrial, retail, service, and government/public sector) based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which is also used by the U.S. Census Bureau and SCAG for demographic classifications and is the basis for such classifications in the SCAG Regional Travel Demand Model as well as and the RivCoM model. The ITE trip generation rates for all uses were reviewed for accuracy updated to reflect the most current ITE published rates. The median value for the trip - generation rates for all uses within each category was used in the nexus study to represent the trip -generation characteristics for the category. 29) The trip -generation rates of retail and service uses were adjusted to take into account the share of pass -by trips these uses generate. Pass by trip rates for various retail and service uses were derived from the ITE Trip Generation Manual to determine the median value of all uses as the basis for the adjustment. The ITE pass by trip rates for all uses were reviewed for accuracy and updated to reflect the most current ITE published rates.
30) The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS socio economic forecasts included non-residential employment for 2018 and 2045. These forecasts were used to estimate the growth in employment in each of the four non-residential uses. 31) The SCAG employment forecasts are denominated in jobs while development applications are typically denominated in square feet of floorspace. The ratio of floorspace per employee was determined as a median value derived from four studies, including a comprehensive study San Bernardino and Riverside Counties conducted in 1990, an OCTA study conducted in 2001, a SCAG study (including a specific focus on Riverside County) conducted in 2001, and the Riverside County General Plan adopted in 2015.
32) The forecast growth in employees was multiplied by the floorspace per employee to produce a forecast of the floorspace that will be developed for each of the four non-residential use types.
33) The trip -generation rate for each of the four uses was multiplied by the forecast of new floorspace to estimate the number of trips generated by each use. 34) The amount of project costs to be covered by non-residential development was split between the four non-residential uses to determine the TUMF cost share for each.
35) The TUMF cost share for each of the four non-residential uses was divided by the forecast growth in floorspace to determine the fee level required from each new square foot of non-residential development to cover their fair share of the cost to mitigate the impacts of new developments.
36) WRCOG has adopted a TUMF Fee Calculation Handbook that allows for fee adjustments to be made to account for unusual circumstances for certain types of residential and non-residential development (fuel filling stations, golf courses, high -cube warehouses, wineries, electric charging stations, etc.) These WRCOG 11 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 355 of 1277 ends

adjustments are intended to calculate a fairer proportional fee based on the unique trip generation characteristics of these development types.

The outcome of this process is a schedule of fees for the various use categories identified as part of the TUMF program. The study conclusions including the Schedule of Fees is presented in Chapter 7 of this report. The schedule of fees represents the maximum fee permissible under California law for the purposes of the TUMF program.

The WRCOG Executive Committee has the option to adopt lower fees, however, in doing so each use category subject to a lower fee would not be contributing a fair share of the cost of their impacts. This would in turn create a funding gap for the program that would necessitate identifying additional project funding from some other source to ensure the cumulative regional impacts of new development are being mitigated fully in accordance with the program.

WRCOG 12 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 356 of 1277 ends

2.0 FUTURE GROWTH

2.1 Recent Historical Trend
Western Riverside County experienced robust growth in the period from the late 1990's to the mid 2000's. The results of Census 2000 indicate that in the year 2000, Western Riverside County had a population of 1.187 million representing a 30% increase (or 2.7% average annual increase) from the 1990 population of 912,000. Total employment in Western Riverside County in 2000 was estimated by the SCAG to be 381,000 representing a 46% increase (or 3.9% average annual increase) over the 1990 employment of 261,000.

Despite the impacts of the Great Recession and the associated residential mortgage and foreclosure crisis, and more recently with the shifting of population during and following the COVID-19 pandemic, Western Riverside County has continued to grow due to the availability of relatively affordable residential and commercial property, and a generally well-educated workforce. By 2010, the population of the region had grown to 1.742 million, a further 47% growth in population from 2000. Similarly, total employment in the region had also grown from 2000 to 2010 with 434,000 employees estimated to be working in Western Riverside County. This represents a 12% increase from the 381,000 employees working in the region in 2000.

2.2 Available Demographic Data
A variety of alternate demographic information that quantifies future population, household and employment growth is available for Western Riverside County. For earlier versions of the TUMF Nexus Study, the primary available source of consolidated demographic information for Western Riverside County was provided by SCAG. SCAG is the largest of nearly 700 Councils of Government (COG) in the United States and functions as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for six counties in Southern California including Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and Imperial. SCAG is mandated by the federal government to research and plan for issues of regional significance including transportation and growth management. As part of these responsibilities, SCAG maintains a comprehensive database of regional socioeconomic data and develops demographic projections and travel demand forecasts for Southern California.

In preparation for the 2020 RTP/SCS, SCAG undertook robust stakeholder engagement, including participation by WRCOG, Riverside County and the various cities in Western Riverside County, to develop regional demographic forecasts. Using input from regional stakeholders regarding anticipated patterns and rates of development, SCAG compiled and disseminated the forecasts that were ultimately adopted in 2020, including those specific to Western Riverside County. The SCAG forecasts adopted for the 2020 RTP/SCS were subsequently used as the basis for RivCoM and are used as the basis for this TUMF Nexus Study Update.

WRCOG 13 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 357 of 1277 ends

2.3 Demographic Assumptions Used for the Nexus Study Analysis A major distinction between data used for the TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update and the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS data used for this 2024 Update is the change in the base year from 2012 to 2018, as well as the change in the horizon year from 2040 to 2045. This shift in the base year and horizon year demographic assumptions of the program carries through all aspects of the nexus analysis, including the travel demand forecasting, network review and fee calculation.

The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS data were compared to the 2016 RTP/SCS data used in the TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update. As can be seen in Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1, the 2018 data reflects an increase in population and single-family households, and a very slight decline in multi -family households. Employment grew substantially overall, with significant growth in industrial employment, largely attributable to the rapid expansion of warehousing and logistics facilities in Western Riverside County. In contrast, there was a notable decline in government and public sector employment in the region from 2012 to 2018
Table 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside Count SED Type
2016 Update
(2012)
2024 Update
(2018)
Change
Percent
Total Population
1,773,935
1,905,440
131,505
7%
Total Households
525,149
554,573
29,424
6%
Single -Family
366,588
397,407
30,819
8%
Multi -Family
158,561
157,166
-1,395
-1%
Total Employment
460,787
570,420
109,633
24%
Industrial
120,736
169,334
48,598
40%
Retail
65,888
73,814
7,926
12%
Service
253,372
308,703
55,331
22%
Government/Public Sector
20,791
18,569
-2,222
-1 1%
Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS; SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
WRCOG 14 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 358 of 1277 ends

Figure 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County Household Type
❑ Single -Family
■ Multi -Family
Employment Sectors
❑ Industrial
Q Service
❑ Retail
j In Government/Public Sector
Table 2.2 and Figure 2.2 compare the socioeconomic forecasts for the program horizon year of 2045 used in the TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update and 2045 for this study. The most recent forecasts reflect an increase in the horizon year population and households, and a decrease in overall employment in Western Riverside County. The change in employment was not, however, consistent across sectors. The retail employment forecast has decreased approximately 15% from 2040 to 2045, while the industrial employment forecast has increased over 20%. This shift is consistent with the emergence of e -commerce as an alternative to traditional "brick and mortar" retail.

WRCOG 15 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 359 of 1277 ends

Table 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County SED Type
2016 Update
(2040)
2024 Update
(2045)
Change
Percent
Total Population
2,429,633
2,533,876
104,243
4%
Total Households
775,231
812,399
37,168
5%
Single -Family
539,631
564,898
25,267
5%
Multi -Family
235,600
247,501
11,901
5%
Total Employment
861,455
846,442
-15,013
-2%
TUMF Industrial
201,328
245,915
44,587
22%
TUMF Retail
101,729
86,929
-14,800
-15%
TUMF Service
528,092
482,958
-45,134
-9%
TUMF Government/Public Sector
30,306
30,640
334
1%
Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS; SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
Figure 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County 2,000,000
1,800,000
1,600.000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
1,773,935
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
Household Type
▪ Single -Family
■ Multi -Family
Employment Sectors
▪ Industrial
O Service
❑ Retail
Government/Public Sector
WRCOG 16 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 360 of 1277 ends

Table 2.3 and Figure 2.3 summarize the socioeconomic data obtained from SCAG and used as the basis for completing this Nexus Study analysis. The SCAG employment data for 2018 and 2045 was provided for thirteen employment sectors consistent with the California Employment Development Department (EDD) Major Groups including:

Farming, Natural Resources and Mining; Construction; Manufacturing; Wholesale Trade; Retail Trade; Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities; Information; Financial Activities; Professional and Business Service; Education and Health Service; Leisure and Hospitality; Other Service; and Government. For the purposes of the Nexus Study, the EDD Major Groups were aggregated to Industrial (Farming, Natural Resources and Mining; Construction; Manufacturing; Wholesale Trade; Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities), Retail (Retail Trade), Service (Information; Financial Activities; Professional and Business Service; Education and Health Service; Leisure and Hospitality; Other Service) and Government/Public Sector (Government). These four aggregated sector types were used as the basis for calculating the fee as described in Section 6.2. Appendix B provides a table detailing the EDD Major Groups and corresponding North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Categories that are included in each non- residential sector type.

Table 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2018 to 2045)
SED Type
2018
2045
Change
Percent
Total Population
1,905,440
2,533,876
628,436
33%
Total Households
554,573
812,399
257,826
46%
Single -Family
397,407
564,898
167,491
42%
Multi -Family
157,166
247,501
90,335
57%
Total Employment
570,420
846,442
276,022
48%
TUMF Industrial
169,334
245,915
76,581
45%
TUMF Retail
73,814
86,929
13,115
18%
TUMF Service
308,703
482,958
174,255
56%
TUMF Government/Public Sector
18,569
30,640
12,071
65%
Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
WRCOG 17 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 361 of 1277 ends

Figure 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2018 to 2045)
Household Type
❑ Single -Family
n Multi -Family
Employment Sectors
Industrial
❑ Service
LI Retail
❑ Government/Public Sector
The combined effects of the changes in the base year and horizon year socioeconomic data are modest reductions in the total growth in population and single-family households, but a notable increase in multi -family households. The change in total employment is reduced by 31%, with the most significant reduction in employment growth in the retail sector (-63%), while the industrial sector saw only a slight reduction in total employment growth compared to the 2016 Nexus Update (5%).

The Government/public sector employment growth has increased by 27% from the 2016 Nexus Study to the 2024 Nexus Study, although the total number of jobs increased is relatively small as a share of the total employment. Table 2.4 and Figure 2.4 provide a comparison of the changes in population, households and employment between the 2016 Nexus Update and the 2024 Nexus Update. The table and figure clearly illustrate the reduction in the rate of growth in Western Riverside County largely attributable to the effects of the economic recession. This reduced rate of growth in the region will serve as the basis for reevaluating the level of impact of new development on the transportation system in the next section, as well as providing the basis for the determination of the fair share fee for each land use type.

WRCOG 18 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 362 of 1277 ends

Table 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison)
SED Type
2016 Update
(2012-2040)
2024 Update
(2018-2045)
Difference
Percent
Total Population
655,698
628,436
-27,262
-4%
Total Households
250,082
257,826
7,744
3%
Single -Family
173,043
167,491
-5,552
-3%
Multi -Family
77,039
90,335
13,296
17%
Total Employment
400,668
276,022
-124,646
-31%
TUMF Industrial
80,592
76,581
-4,01 1
-5%
TUMF Retail
35,841
13,115
-22,726
-63%
TUMF Service
274,720
174,255
-100,465
-37%
TUMF Government/Public Sector
9,515
12,071
2,556
27%
Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS; SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
WRCOG 19 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 363 of 1277 ends

Figure 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison)
700,000
fP e rya?� a5
6&‘'
s rE bye+ e+�
Oro o�as ryo� �ba
J �r 0
.rte ��s, \,P'P' 0P'Sry
CS ,9
Household Type
❑ Single -Family
Multi -Family
Employment Sectors
Industrial
❑ Service
❑ Retail
n Government/Public Sector
WRCOG 20 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 364 of 1277 ends

3.0 NEED FOR THE TUMF
All new developments have some effect on the transportation infrastructure in a community, city or county due to an increase in travel demand. Increasing usage of the transportation facilities leads to more traffic, progressively increasing VMT, traffic congestion and decreasing the level of service (LOS)3. To meet the increased travel demand and keep traffic flowing, improvements to transportation facilities become necessary to sustain pre -development traffic conditions.

The projected growth in Western Riverside County (33% growth in population and 48% growth in employment in 27 years) and the related growth in VMT can be expected to increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not made in the transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial highways and roadways that carry a significant number of the trips between cities, since traditional sources of transportation improvement funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund the improvements needed to serve new development. Development exactions generally provide only a fraction of the improvements with those being confined to the area immediately adjacent to the respective development, and the broad -based county -level funding sources (i.e., Riverside County's half -cent sales tax known as Measure A) designate only a small portion of their revenues for arterial roadway improvements.

This section documents the existing and future congestion levels that demonstrate the need for future improvements to the transportation system to specifically mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development. It then describes the TUMF concept that has been developed to fund future new developments' fair share of needed improvements.

The forecast of future congestion levels is derived from Year 2045 No -Build travel demand forecasts for Western Riverside County developed using RivCoM. The Year 2045 No -Build scenario evaluates the effects of 2045 population, employment and resultant traffic generation on the 2021 existing arterial highway network.

3.1 Future Highway Congestion Levels
To support the evaluation of the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the existing arterial highway system in Western Riverside County, existing (2018) and future (2045) SED were modeled on the existing (2021) arterial highway network using RivCoM. To quantify traffic growth impacts, various traffic measures of effectiveness were calculated for the AM and PM peak periods for each of the two scenarios. The 3 The Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition - A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 2016, Volume 1 - Concepts, pp 5-3) describes LOS as a "quantitative stratification of performance measure or measures representing quality of service....HCM defines six levels of service, ranging from A to F, for each service measure or combination of measures. LOS A represents the best operating conditions from the traveler's perspective and LOS F the worst." WRCOG 21 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 365 of 1277 ends

WRCOG TUMF study area was extracted from the greater regional model network for the purpose of calculating measures for Western Riverside County only. Peak period performance measures for the Western Riverside County TUMF study area included total VMT, total vehicle hours of travel (VHT), total combined vehicle hours of delay (VHD), and total VMT experiencing unacceptable level of service (LOS E). These results were tabulated in Table 3.1. Plots of the Network Extents are attached in Appendix C.

Total Arterial VMT, VHT, VHD and LOS E Threshold VMT were calculated to include all principal arterials, minor arterials and major connectors, respectively. Regional values for each threshold were calculated for a total of all facilities including arterials, freeways, freeway ramps and High -Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes.

Table 3.1 - Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2018 Existing to 2045 No -Build)
Measure of Performance*
Peak Periods (Total)
2018 Existing
2045 No -Build
% Change
% Annual
VMT - Total ALL FACILITIES
23,284,724
29,897,254
28%

0.9%

VMT - FREEWAYS
13,514,522
15,490,284
15%

0.5%

VMT - ALL ARTERIALS
9,770,202
14,406,970
47%

1.4%

TOTAL - TUMF ARTERIAL VMT
6,216,985
8,597,200
38%

1.2%

VHT - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES
541,350
915,439
69%

2.0%

VHT - FREEWAYS
263,792
399,128
51%

1.5%

VHT - ALL ARTERIALS
277,558
516,311
86%

2.3%

TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHT
174,455
320,869
84%

2.3%

VHD - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES
108,900
338,056
210%

4.3%

VHD - FREEWAYS
66,156
170,649
158%

3.6%

VHD - ALL ARTERIALS
42,745
167,407
292%

5.2%

TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHD
33,249
124,863
276%

5.0%

VMT LOS E - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES
5,605,070
13,369,483
139%

3.3%

VMT LOS E - FREEWAYS
4,725,471
9,316,891
97%

2.5%

VMT LOS E & F - ALL ARTERIALS
879,599
4,052,592
361%

5.8%
TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse
765,782
3,184,133
316%

5.4%
% of TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse
12%
37%
* Based on RivCoM 2018 base network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2021 arterial network as existing in December 2021
NOTES:

Volume is adjusted by PCE factor
VMT = vehicle miles of travel (the total combined distance that all vehicles travel on the system) VHT = vehicle hours of travel (the total combined time that all vehicles are traveling on the system) VHD = vehicle hours of delay (the total combined time that all vehicles have been delayed on the system based on the difference between forecast travel time and free -flow (ideal) travel time) LOS = level of service (based on forecast volume to capacity ratios).

LOS E or Worse was determined by V/C ratio that exceeds 0.9 thresholds as indicated in the Riverside County General Plan.

WRCOG 22 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 366 of 1277 ends

The following formulas were used to calculate the respective values:

VMT = Link Distance * Total Daily Volume
VHT = Average Loaded (Congested) Link Travel Time * Total Daily Volume VHD = VHT - (Free -flow (Uncongested) Link Travel Time * Total Daily Volume) VMT LOS E or F = VMT (on links where Daily V/C exceeded 0.90) Note: Volume to capacity (v/c) ratio thresholds for LOS E are based on the Transportation Research Board 2010 Edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010) LOS Maximum V/C Criteria for Multilane Highways with 45 mph Free Flow Speed (Exhibit 14-5, Chapter 14, Page 14-5).

The calculated values were compared to assess the total change between 2018 Existing and 2045 No -Build scenarios, and the average annual change between 2018 Existing and 2044 No -Build. As can be seen from the RivCoM outputs summarized in Table 3.1, the additional traffic generated by new development will cause peak period VMT on the arterial highway network to increase by approximately 47% by the year 2045 (approximately 1.4% per year). In the absence of additional improvements to the transportation network in Western Riverside County, the growth in VMT will cause congestion on the highway system to increase almost exponentially, with the most significant increase in congestion observed on the arterial highway system that includes the TUMF Network. Many facilities will experience a significant increase in vehicle delay and deterioration in LOS to unacceptable levels because of new development and the associated growth in traffic. According to the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition - A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 2016), "LOS E describes operation at or near capacity. Operations...at this level are highly volatile because there are virtually no usable gaps within the traffic stream, leaving little room to maneuver within the traffic stream. Any disruption to the traffic stream, such as vehicles entering...or a vehicle changing lanes, can establish a disruption wave that propagates throughout the upstream traffic stream....the physical and psychological comfort afforded drivers is poor."
The Congestion Management Program for Riverside County (CMP) published by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) in 2011 designates LOS E as the "traffic standards must be set no lower than LOS E for any segment or intersection along the CMP System of Highways and Roadways" in Riverside County. "The intent of the CMP is to more directly link land use, transportation, and air quality, thereby prompting reasonable growth management programs that will effectively utilize new transportation funds, alleviate traffic congestion and related impacts, and improve air quality." 4 The CMP provides a mechanism for monitoring congestion on the highway system and, where congestion is observed, establishes procedures for developing a deficiency plan to address improvement needs. The reactive nature of the CMP to identify and remediate existing congestion differs from the proactive nature of the TUMF program to anticipate and provide for future traffic needs. For this reason, the TUMF 4 Congestion Management Program for Riverside County - Executive Summary (Riverside County Transportation Commission, 201 1) Page ES -3, ES -1
WRCOG 23 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 367 of 1277 ends

program follows the guidance of the Highway Capacity Manual in establishing LOS E as the threshold for unacceptable level of service, and subsequently as the basis for measuring system performance and accounting for existing needs. This approach ensures a more conservative accounting of existing system needs as part of the determination of the "fair share" of mitigating the cumulative regional impacts of future new development on the transportation system.

The continuing need for a mitigation fee on new development is shown by the adverse impact that new development will have on Western Riverside County's transportation infrastructure, and particularly the arterial highway network. As a result of the new development and associated growth in population and employment in Western Riverside County, additional pressure will be placed on the transportation infrastructure with the total peak period VMT on the Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials (RSHA; also referred to as the TUMF Network) estimated to increase by approximately 38% or 1.2% compounded annually.

As shown in Table 3.1, the peak period VMT on arterial facilities within the TUMF Network experiencing LOS E or worse will increase by approximately 316% or 5.4% compounded annually in Western Riverside County in the period between 2018 and 2045. By 2045, 37% of the total VMT on the TUMF arterial highway system is forecast to be traveling on facilities experiencing daily LOS E or worse. Without improvements to the TUMF arterial highway system, the total vehicle hours of delay (VHD) experienced by area motorists on TUMF arterial highways during the peak periods will increase by approximately 5.0% per year. The combined influences of increased travel demand and worsened LOS that manifest themselves in severe congestion and delay highlighting the continuing need to complete substantial capacity expansion on the TUMF arterial highway system to mitigate the cumulative regional impact of increased travel demand resulting from new development.

The RivCoM outputs summarized in Table 3.1 clearly demonstrate that the travel demands generated by future new development in the region will lead to increasing levels of traffic congestion, especially on the arterial roadways. The need to improve these roadways to accommodate the anticipated growth in VMT and relieve future congestion is therefore directly linked to the future development which generates the additional travel demand.

3.2 Future Transit Utilization Levels
In addition to the roadway network, public transportation will play a role in serving future travel demand in the region. Transit represents a critical component of the transportation system by providing an alternative mode choice for those not wanting to use an automobile, and particularly for those who do not readily have access to an automobile. As population and employment in Western Riverside County grows because of new development, demand for regional transit services in the region is also expected to grow.

WRCOG 24 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 368 of 1277 ends

While some future transit trips will be accommodated by inter -regional transit services such as Metrolink, a substantial number of the trips within Western Riverside County will be served by bus transit services and for this reason the provision of regional bus transit service is considered integral to addressing the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new developments. Regional bus transit services within Western Riverside County are primarily provided by RTA.

In 2023, RTA reported average weekday daily ridership of 16,575 on their network of buses5. The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS forecasts for RTA average weekday daily ridership in 2045 is 57,282. These values were used to represent the existing and future transit trips consistent with the analysis of highway trips described in Section 3.1. The existing and future transit ridership were compared to assess the impact of new development on transit demand. Average weekday daily ridership would be expected to grow by 40,707 between 2023 and 2045, or an average increase of 1,850 weekday daily riders each year. Average weekday daily system ridership is summarized in Appendix D.

The future growth in demand for public transit services is reflective of the cumulative regional impacts of new development, and the associated increase in demand for all types of transportation infrastructure and services to accommodate this growth.

Furthermore, bus transit ridership is expected to grow as the improved services being planned and implemented by RTA attract new riders and encourages existing riders to use transit more often as an alternative to driving. Attracting additional riders to bus transit services contributes to the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development by reducing the number of trips that need to be served on the highway system. The need to provide additional bus transit services within Western Riverside County to satisfy this future demand is therefore directly linked to the future development that generates the demand.

3.3 The TUMF Concept
A sizable percentage of trip -making for any given local community extends beyond the bounds of the individual community as residents pursue employment, education, shopping and entertainment opportunities elsewhere. As new development occurs within a particular local community, this dispersal of trips of all purposes by new residents and the new business that serve them generates additional travel demand and contributes to the need for transportation improvements within their community and in the other communities of Western Riverside County. The idea behind a uniform mitigation fee is to have new development throughout the region contribute uniformly to paying the fair share cost of improving the transportation facilities that serve these trips between communities. Thus, the fee is intended to be used primarily to improve S RTA, like most public transportation agencies, have seen significant short-term declines in transit ridership resulting from changes in travel demands, mode choice and trip distribution following the COVID-19 pandemic. RTA's 2016 actual average weekday daily ridership was 30,700. Post COVID-19, the RTA actual average weekday daily ridership in 2023 was 16,575, a decline of almost 50% of pre -pandemic ridership levels. These levels would be expected to continue to recover toward pre -pandemic levels as potential riders resume more regular work schedules, and apprehension toward the use of transit services for public health reasons wane.

WRCOG 25 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 369 of 1277 ends

transportation facilities that serve trips between communities within the region (in particular, arterial roadways and regional bus transit services).

Some roadways serve trips between adjacent communities, while some also serve trips between more distant communities within the region. The differing roadway functions led to the concept of using a portion of the fee revenues for a backbone system of arterial roadways that serve the longer -distance trips (i.e. using TUMF revenues from the entire region), while using a second portion of the fee revenues for a secondary system of arterials that serve inter -community trips within a specific subregion or zone (i.e. using TUMF revenues from the communities most directly served by these roads - to some extent, a return -to -source of that portion of the funds). Reflecting the importance of public transit to provide an alternative to highway travel as part of a balanced regional transportation strategy, a third portion of fee revenues was reserved for improvements to regional bus transit services (i.e. using TUMF revenues from the entire region).

Much, but not all, of the new trip -making in each area is generated by residential development (i.e. when people move into new homes, they create new trips on the transportation system as they travel to work, school, shopping or entertainment). Some of the new trips are generated simply by activities associated with new businesses (i.e. new businesses will create new trips through the delivery of goods and services, etc.).

Apart from commute trips by residents coming to and from work, and the trips of residents coming to and from new businesses to get goods and services, the travel demands of new businesses are not considered to be directly attributable to residential development. The consideration of different sources of new travel demand is therefore reflected in the concept of assessing both residential and non-residential development for their related transportation impacts.

In summary, the TUMF concept includes the following:
➢ A uniform fee that is levied on new development throughout Western Riverside County.
➢ The fee is assessed roughly proportionately on new residential and non-residential development based on the relative impact of each new use on the transportation system.
➢ A portion of the fee is used to fund capacity improvements on a backbone system of arterial roadways that serve longer -distance trips within the region; a portion of the fee is returned to the subregion or zone in which it was generated to fund capacity improvements on a secondary system of arterial roadways that link the communities in that area; and a portion of the fee is used to fund improvements to regional bus transit services that serve trips between the communities within the region.

WRCOG 26 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 370 of 1277 ends

4.0 THE TUMF NETWORK

4.1 Identification of the TUMF Roadway Network
An integral element of the initial Nexus Study was the designation of the Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials. This network of regionally significant highways represents those arterial and collector highway and roadway facilities that primarily support inter -community trips in Western Riverside County and supplement the regional freeway system. As a result, this system also represents the extents of the network of highways and roadways that would be eligible for TUMF funded improvements. The TUMF Network does not include the freeways of Western Riverside County as these facilities primarily serve longer distance inter -regional trips and a significant number of pass -through trips that have no origin or destination in Western Riverside County6.

The TUMF Network is the system of roadways that serve inter -community trips within Western Riverside County and therefore are eligible for improvement funding with TUMF funds. The RSHA for Western Riverside County was identified based on several transportation network and performance guidelines as follows:

1. Arterial highway facilities proposed to have a minimum of four lanes at ultimate build -out (not including freeways).

2. Facilities that serve multiple jurisdictions and/or provide connectivity between communities both within and adjoining Western Riverside County.

3. Facilities with forecast traffic volumes exceeding 20,000 vehicles per day in the future horizon year.

4. Facilities with forecast volume to capacity ratio of 0.90 (LOS E) or greater in the future horizon year.

5. Facilities that accommodate regional fixed route transit services.

6. Facilities that provide direct access to major commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational or tourist activity centers, and multi -modal transportation facilities (such as airports, railway terminals and transit centers).

Appendix E includes exhibits illustrating the various performance measures assessed during the definition of the RSHA.

Transportation facilities in Western Riverside County that generally satisfied these guidelines were initially identified, and a skeletal regional transportation framework evolved from facilities where several guidelines were observed. Representatives of all WRCOG constituent jurisdictions reviewed this framework in the context of current local transportation plans to define the TUMF Network, which was subsequently endorsed by 6 Since pass -through trips have no origin or destination in Western Riverside County, new development within Western Riverside County cannot be considered responsible for mitigating the impacts of pass -through trips. The impact of pass - through trips and the associated cost to mitigate the impact of pass -through trips (and other inter -regional freeway trips) is addressed in the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Western Riverside County Freeway Strategic Plan, Phase II - Detailed Evaluation and Impact Fee Nexus Determination, Final Report dated May 31, 2008.

WRCOG 27 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 371 of 1277 ends

the WRCOG Public Works Committee, WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee, TUMF Policy Committee and the WRCOG Executive Committee.

The RSHA is illustrated in Figure 4.1. As stated previously, the RSHA represents those regional significant highway facilities that primarily serve inter -community trips in Western Riverside County and therefore also represents the extents of the network of highways and roadways that would be eligible for TUMF funded improvements.

WRCOG 28 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 372 of 1277 ends

Figure 4.1 - Regional System of
Highways and Arterials for Western
Riverside County
Tustin
Irvine
Orang
Sa
Joaquin
Hills
o Hills
•t
♦♦
Grn'
•
aguna Beach
TUMF Road
Network
r = TUMF Zone
Lake , est
Schism.
,allroad
Mission Vie
Legend
ys
Rancho Santa
Margarita
Cities
r _ County Boundaries

JURUPA VALLEY
Arlington

RIVERSIDE
Santa
Margarita
Grand Terrace
Alessandro

WILDOMAR
Ironwood
Van Buren
LNeOak(
Pc, \ Canyon
Eucalyptus

MORENO VALLEY
co
m
Ramona
Mid -County 1_'tJ
G°
(Placentia)
'err/s
Nuevo
Ethanac
Holland
Clinton Keith
Esri. NA

Page 373 of 1277 ends

Keller

IVIURRIETA
0Yucaipa
County
Line
4v1,1`
, Cherry Valley
,)_,''Ok e�'m
_► (14th) 2�d $ r (�7rnn i.

BANNING
w o montWilson'a»
r� o �h 1st Lncln. Ramseyinlzp8�'ypass Pass
South

BEAUMONT
i cc I
SAN

JACINTO
Lake v fl e w HEMET Esplanade
Mo4J ains
$ a
• ^ m
ti
SR -F.74
Murrit. Hot
Springs
SR-74/SR-79
(Florida)
Stetsn.

Hemet/San
Jacinto
Morongo
Reservation
Rouse
Ridge
L Mvust San
Jacinth State
Western Riverside
Council of Governments
Thoma
Mounta
U.S. Census, County of Riverside, California State.Parks, Esri, �omTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, FAO, METI/NASA, ,o.hanga USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USFWS rvation
co
An.

Moun

4.2 Backbone Network and Secondary Network
As indicated previously, the TUMF roadway network was refined to distinguish between facilities of "Regional Significance" and facilities of "Zonal Significance." Facilities of Regional Significance were identified as those that typically are proposed to have a minimum of six lanes at general plan build-out7, extend across and/or between multiple Area Planning Districts8, and are forecast to carry at least 25,000 vehicles per day in 2045. The Facilities of Regional Significance have been identified as the "backbone" highway network for Western Riverside County. A portion of the TUMF fee is specifically designated for improvement projects on the backbone system. The backbone network is illustrated in Figure 4.2.

Facilities of Zonal Significance (the "secondary" network) represent the balance of the RSHA for Western Riverside County. These facilities are typically within one zone and carry comparatively lesser traffic volumes than the backbone highway network, although they are considered significant for circulation within the respective zone. A portion of the TUMF is specifically designated for improvement projects on the secondary network within the zone in which it is collected. The WRCOG APD or zones are illustrated in Figure 4.3.
7 Although facilities were identified based on the minimum number of lanes anticipated at general plan buildout, in some cases it was determined that there was not sufficient demand for all additional lanes on some facilities until beyond the current timeframe of the TUMF Program (2045). As a result, only a portion of the additional lanes on these facilities have currently been identified for funding with TUMF revenues, reflecting the cumulative impact of new development through the current duration of the TUMF Program.
8 Area Planning Districts (APD) are the five aggregations of communities used for regional planning functions within the WRCOG area. Area Planning Districts are interchangeably referred to as TUMF Zones.

WRCOG 30 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 374 of 1277 ends

1 JURUPA VALLEY
Grand Terrace
Yucaipa
Figure 4.2 - Backbone Network of
Highways and Arterials for Western
Riverside County
Tustin
G
Irvine
Orang
S
Joaquin
Hills
guna Beach
E
�
a)
E
V Schleisman
Rvr
• it een �droad
0Lake , est
czntu-Galin
Ranch
~. Northwest
a Mission Vie
0 S
1 B6
)
ray=
l;tia6jt
4620 ft'
•.+
ri
Rancho Santa
Margarita
Legend
TUMF Network
i Backbone
1 Secondary
- -.r-a aa_��saaA
TUMF Zone
Cities
r _-_1` County Boundaries
♦
•
•
Santa Ana , �''
Mountains '
Santa
Margarita
3 Center
OR rND
e
rinivrstc +
Ironwood
.0
rn
n
N
•
-6 Eucalyptus
N
or o
Canyon
�� .. .•=1=•-
County
Line

C -A LIMESA
de
The
Badlands
0 r.r •
-
Cherry Valley
Mid -County (Ramona) I,0ci
MidFCaunty �unW r
ce (Pla ntia} tArd" I 0
1 sR 74
othh)
PERRIS
Ethanac
r "
e;

CANYON LAKE
`Q''' LAKE ELSINORE
i l
• A '
R
Si
ail
Lakeland Villa
no'
G°
erris
s1lo)
erris

WILDOMAR
ar
I.
0 4�
Southwest
of
San Mateo
Canyon
Nuevo
ray
11 MEI1FEE
tport
Holland
Lakev ew
MoAi'h ins
SF -74
1 J

MURRIETA
eta
SAN

JAC INTO
HEMET
4 Oak
Vlly.{1.)
C
N
u
0a
01 a
au6th°

BANNING
San Gorgonio
W Isari
sun
��rLnd. Ramsey
Lakec

BEAUMONT
Esplanade
C
0 •".
r4 -
Soboba
Reservation
G' d
5R -74/5R -79.1r:: ro
(F� l rida} F' can I Tit 5R-74
(Florida)
Stetson
HEMET
a)
N
luruit
Benton
Murrit. Hot
Springs

TEMECULA
• .o
u
rTk
Hemet/San
Jacinto
•
t
•
(
Pass
▪ ••••• �+ -Park
- —�sirf�- �� •
:•.1
More ngo
Reservation
B. r. n
I southBass 9 Pass
4r•7
. ..a
•
•
L l'OoLirrir
Rouse
Ridge
i
_I Cinl;
‚It'
1 fdyIlwiI i• .
' r •
r .

IA'e stern Ri ye n ide
Council of Governments
Thoma
Mounta
Esri, NASA, NGA, US A■urc= ensus, County of Riverside, California State Par' , arL TomTo , Garmin, SefeGraph, FAO, METI/NASA, U5G5, •� echanga• Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USFWS
+ a• rvation -�
----- • —�
An,
Moun

Page 375 of 1277 ends

38 Figure 4.3 - Western Riverside County Area Planning Districts (TUMF Zones) rma Linda
42 Chino
0 Chino Hills
0 Chino Hills State
Park
241
— — —
I
60 Eclypt.
1 �C
1 G°
Gr. <o Rao
)
0 Norco
C'
Lake Forest
0 Mission Viejo
0 Legend
Zone
Central
Hemet/San Jacinto
Northwest
E_; Pass
Southwest
Foothill
North
Hidden
Valley
�a°r
\h/
Arlington
Northwest
Rancho Santa
Margarita
74 San Clemente
0 L
e —
/
J
/Central
♦
•
/
CI
Lrariu en ace
Center
9eo
3t „, Corr AI-
J v�
L. 0.1
(k-
•
Ironwod.

Ellis
C
Railroad
Canyon
�% o eta\
\•C` A
Clinton
Redlands
— —Uwe
Canyon
Alessandro
Ethanac
Keith
A��o
dr
Central
Nuevo
Newport
Holland
Keller
Southwest
1 o•�
�a/,�05 l Murrit. Hot
O(SV alley
o
Yucaipa
0 Cnt.

Lin. m
"77 ti
Singke
...., Cherry Valley
vac 0
Oak a
Vally.(14t.) Pass
1-E
6th
I —
I
Wilson
j 1st 1n`�c
Co
Ramsy, .T -j ass
r-�soufJ
ck
V)
I
r —I
I
SRr74
wi
N
Benton
Mdn
County of Ri
A
A6:2
♦ Beauty Beauty
-o • — Mountain Mountain
side, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGr.NhAFA iMIE.hlMASA,M+ ,rlau;re ue ftlY.and Management, EPA, NPS, USFWS J Study Area Mountain
Wilderness
Esplanade
'PP
rj °�/7
SR-74/SR-79 t ^ SR=74
j(Florida)J (Florida),
Stetson
meni �
4,, Hemet/San
Jacinto
1 ♦
/
—
I —J
I —I
r
—1
243
371
1741
San Gorgonio
Wilderness
Palm
0 Mount San
Jacinto State
Park
Idyllwild
0 Cahuilla
Reservation
62 Agua Caliente
Santa Ros
Reservatio
Cc

Page 376 of 1277 ends

4.3 Future Roadway Transportation Needs
To calculate a "fair share" fee for new development, it is necessary to estimate the cost of improvements on the TUMF system that will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of future transportation demands created by new development.

Estimates of the cost to improve the network to mitigate the cumulative impacts of new development were originally developed based on unit costs prepared for the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE)9, and the WRCOG Southwest District SATISFY 2020 Summary of Cost Estimates10 (TKC/WRCOG 2000). The RACE cost estimates were developed based on a summary of actual construction costs for projects constructed in Riverside County in 1998.

The initial unit cost estimates for the TUMF (based on inflated RACE cost estimates) were reviewed in the context of the SATISFY 2020 Draft Cost Estimates and were consolidated to provide typical improvement costs for each eligible improvement type. The refinement of unit costs was completed to simplify the process of estimating the cost to improve the entire TUMF network. Based on RACE and SATISFY 2020, consolidated cost estimates included typical per mile or lump sum costs for each of the improvement types eligible under the TUMF Program. The resultant revised unit cost estimates were used as the basis for estimating the cost to complete the necessary improvements to the TUMF network to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development.

Variations in the consolidated cost estimates for specific improvement types were provided to reflect differences in topography and land use across the region. Unit costs for roadway construction were originally varied to account for variations in construction cost (in particular, roadway excavation and embankment cost) associated with construction on level (code 1) rolling (code 2) and mountainous (code 3) terrain, respectively. Right-of-way acquisition costs which originally included consideration for land acquisition, documentation and legal fees, relocation and demolition costs, condemnation compensation requirements, utility relocation, and environmental mitigation costs were also varied to account for variations in right-of-way costs associated with urban (developed commercial/residential mixed uses - code 1), suburban (developed residential uses - code 2) and rural (undeveloped uses - code 3) land uses, respectively. Lump sum costs for interchange improvements were originally varied to account for variations in cost associated with new complex, new standard (or fully reconstructed), or major (or partially reconstructed) or minor (individual ramp improvements) interchange improvements.

As part of the 2024 TUMF Nexus Update, the original unit cost categories were revised to generate entirely new unit cost values based on the most recent available construction cost, labor cost and land acquisition cost values for comparable projects within Riverside County. The recalculation of the TUMF unit cost components was completed 9 Parsons Brinckerhoff/Coachella Valley Association of Governments, 1999, Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE)
10 TKC/Western Riverside Council of Governments, 2000, SATISFY 2020 Summary of Cost Estimates WRCOG 33 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 377 of 1277 ends

as part of the 2024 Nexus Update to reflect the effects of significant changes in materials, labor and land acquisition costs including the influences of supply chain disruptions during and following the COVID-19 pandemic, and the elevated rates of inflation prevailing in the past few years. Appendix F provides a detailed outline of the assumptions and methodology leading to the revised TUMF unit cost assumptions developed as part of the 2024 Nexus Update. A new category was also added to the cost assumptions to facilitate the use of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) to enhance traffic flows in arterial corridors that require mitigation but cannot accommodate construction of addition lane capacity.

Section 8.5.1 of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on June 17, 2003, states that "each new transportation project will contribute to Plan implementation. Historically, these projects have budgeted 3% - 5% of their construction costs to mitigate environmental impacts." This expectation is reiterated in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update (Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., October 2020) Section 6 which indicates that "about 44% of the revenue for the program" is expected to be derived from non -fee sources, including " the Measure A sales tax which is authorized through 2039 and other transportation funding sources such as the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF)." Consistent with the MSHCP Nexus Report, an amount equal to 5% of the construction cost for new TUMF network lanes, bridges and railroad grade separations will be specifically included as part of TUMF Program with revenues to be provided to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) for the acquisition of land identified in the MSHCP. The relevant sections of the MSHCP document and the most recent MSHCP Nexus Report are included in Appendix F.

Table 4.1 summarizes the unit cost estimate assumptions used to develop the TUMF network cost estimate as part of the current Nexus Update. Table 4.1 also includes a comparison of the original TUMF unit cost assumptions and the 2016 Nexus Study unit cost assumptions that demonstrates the significant increases in unit costs observed during recent years. In most cases the unit cost assumptions have more than doubled from those used for the 2016 Nexus Study. Cost estimates are provided in current year values as indicated.

To estimate the cost of improving the regional network to provide for traffic growth from new development, the network characteristics and performance guidelines (outlined in Section 4.1) were initially used as a basis for determining the needed improvements.

The initial list of improvements was then compared with local General Plan Circulation Elements to ensure that the TUMF network included planned arterial roadways of regional significance. A consolidated list of proposed improvements and the unit cost assumptions were then used to establish an initial estimate of the cost to improve the network to mitigate for future traffic growth associated with new development. This initial list of proposed improvements has since been revised and updated as part of each subsequent Nexus Update to reflect the completion of projects, changing levels of development and associated changes in travel demand and transportation system impacts to be mitigated as part of the TUMF program.

WRCOG 34 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 378 of 1277 ends

Table 4.1 - Unit Costs for Arterial Highway and Street Construction Component
Type
Original Cost
Assumptions as
published
October 18, 2002
Cost Assumptions
per 2016 Nexus
Study
July 10, 2017
Cost Assumptions
per 2024 Nexus
Update
Description
Terrain 1
$550,000
$692,000
$1,132,000
Construction cost per lane mile-
level terrain
Terrain 2
$850,000
$878,000
$1,740,000
Construction cost per lane mile-
rolling terrain
Terrain 3
$1,150,000
$1,064,000
$2,350,000
Construction cost per lane mile -
mountainous terrain
Landuse 1
$900,000
$2,509,000
$7,830,000
ROW cost factor per lane mile -
urban areas
Landuse 2
$420,000
$2,263,000
$5,440,000
ROW cost factor per lane mile -
suburban areas
Landuse 3
$240,000
$287,000
$490,000
ROW cost factor per lane mile rural
areas
Interchange 1
n/a
$50,032,000
$84,190,000
Complex new
interchange/interchange
modification cost
Interchange 2
$20,000,000
$25,558,000
$43,490,000
New interchange/interchange
modification total cost
3 $10,000,000
$12,343,000
$22,550,000
total Interchange improvement
MInterchange
total cost
Bridge 1
$2,000
$3,180
$4,800
Bridge total cost per lane per linear
foot
RRXing 1
$4,500,000
$6,376,000
$18,200,000
New Rail Grade Crossing per lane
RRXing 2
$2,250,000
$2,733,000
$6,900,000
Existing Rail Grade Crossing per lane
ITS 1
$686,400
Infrastructure for ITS of roadway
segments per route mile
Planning
10%
10%
10%
Planning, preliminary engineering
and environmental assessment costs
based on construction cost only
Engineering
25%
25%
25%
Project study report, design,
permitting and construction
oversight costs based on
construction cost only
Contingency
10%
1 0%
10%
Contingency costs based on total
segment cost
Administration
4%
4%
TUMF program administration based
on total TUMF eligible network cost
MSHCP
5%
5%
TUMF component of MSHCP based
on total TUMF eligible construction
cost
As indicated in Table 2.4 and Figure 2.4, the anticipated rate of forecasted growth in Western Riverside County has been reduced by 4% for population, 3% for single-family residential and 31% for employment. This reduced rate of forecasted socioeconomic growth has a commensurate impact on the forecasted daily traffic in the region as demonstrated by the 2016 Nexus Study VMT compared to the 2024 Nexus Update VMT in Table 4.2. As shown in the table, the forecast peak period VMT on the TUMF arterial network in the year 2045 as the basis for the 2024 Nexus Update is more than 5% less than the comparable peak period VMT for 2040 used for the 2016 Nexus Study.

WRCOG 35 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 379 of 1277 ends

Table 4.2 - Forecasted Daily Traffic in Western Riverside County Measure of Performance
2024 Nexus Update
2016 Nexus Study
Peak Period
Peak Period
2018 Existing
2045 No -Build
2012 Existing
2040 No -Build
VMT - Total ALL FACILITIES
23,284,724
29,897,254
19,532,437
29,277,587

VMT - FREEWAYS
13,514,522
15,490,284
11,019,155
14,487,570

VMT - ALL ARTERIALS
9,770,202
14,406,970
8,513,282
14,790,016

TOTAL - TUMF ARTERIAL VMT
6,216,985
8,597,200
5,585,202
9,089,495
Source: RivCoM 2018 base network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2021 arterial network as existing in December 2021; RivTAM 2012 network and SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2015 arterial network completed by WSP, September 2016
As a result of the reduced forecast traffic growth in the region, it is anticipated that the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the arterial highway and transit systems in the region is also reduced necessitating a reduction in the projects identified on the TUMF Network to mitigate the impacts of new development. As part of the 2024 Nexus Update, the list of proposed improvements included in the initial Nexus Study and validated during the subsequent Nexus updates was reviewed for accuracy and, where necessary, amended to remove or modify projects that have changed in need to mitigate impacts based on changes in the patterns of growth and travel demand within the region. Projects completed since the adoption of the 2016 Nexus Update were also removed from the network to reflect the fact that mitigation at these locations is no longer required. The specific network changes were screened by the WRCOG Public Works Committee for consistency with TUMF network guidelines including travel demand and traffic performance.

Based on the findings of the network screening, elements of specific projects were revised to reflect necessary network corrections and modifications to project assumptions. A matrix summarizing the disposition of the requests received as part of the 2024 TUMF Nexus Update was developed and is included in Appendix G.

Eligible arterial highway and street improvement types to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on Network facilities include:

1. Construction of additional Network roadway lanes

2. Construction of new Network roadway segments

3. Expansion of existing Network bridge structures

4. Construction of new Network bridge structures

5. Expansion of existing Network interchanges with freeways

6. Construction of new Network interchanges with freeways

7. Grade separation of existing Network at -grade railroad crossings

8. Installation of ITS along Network roadway segments
All eligible improvement types, except for ITS, provide additional capacity to Network facilities to accommodate future traffic growth generated by new development in Western Riverside County. ITS provides the ability to improve traffic flows along corridors WRCOG 36 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 380 of 1277 ends

where capacity expansion is not possible. Following the comprehensive update of the TUMF Program, the estimated total cost to improve the RSHA for Western Riverside County is $4.84 billion with this cost including all arterial highway and street planning, engineering, design, right-of-way acquisition and capital construction costs, but not including transit, MSHCP or program administration costs that will be subsequently described. It should be noted that the full cost to improve the TUMF Network cannot be entirely attributed to new development and must be adjusted to account for the previous obligation of other funds to complete necessary improvements and unfunded existing needs. Sections 4.5 and 4.6 describe the adjustments to the total TUMF Network improvement need to account for existing needs and obligated funds.

In addition to the arterial highway and street improvement costs indicated above, the TUMF Nexus Update included specific consideration for the TUMF Program obligation to the MSHCP program to mitigate the impact of TUMF network improvements on species and habitat within Western Riverside County. The TUMF obligation to MSHCP was calculated at a rate of 5% of the total construction (capital) cost of new lane segments, bridges and railroad grade separations on the TUMF Network. The total obligation to the MSHCP as indicated in the TUMF Network cost fee table is approximately $64.6 million, although the total obligation specific to the TUMF program is reduced to account for MSHCP obligations associated with improvements addressing existing needs and therefore excluded from TUMF.

The TUMF 2024 Nexus Update similarly includes specific consideration of the costs associated with WRCOG administration of the TUMF Program. The average cost for WRCOG to administer the TUMF Program was calculated at a rate of 4% of the total eligible cost of new lane segments (including interchanges, bridges and railroad grade separations) on the TUMF Network and new transit services. Administration costs incurred by WRCOG include direct salary, fringe benefit and overhead costs for WRCOG staff assigned to administer the program and support participating jurisdictions, and costs for consultant, legal and auditing services to support the implementation of the TUMF program. The total cost for WRCOG administration of the TUMF Program as indicated in the TUMF Network cost fee table is approximately $161.2 million.

The detailed TUMF network cost calculations are provided in Section 4.7, including each of the individual segments and cost components considered as part of the TUMF Program, and the maximum eligible TUMF share for each segment following adjustments for obligated funding and unfunded existing needs as described in subsequent sections.

4.4 Public Transportation Component of the TUMF System
In addition to the roadway network, public transportation plays a key role in serving future travel demand in the region. Public transportation serving inter -community trips is generally provided in the form of public bus transit services and in particular express bus or other high frequency services between strategically located community transit centers. In Western Riverside County, these bus transit services are typically provided by WRCOG 37 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 381 of 1277 ends

RTA. Transit needs to serve future regional travel in Western Riverside County via bus transit include vehicle acquisitions, transit centers, express bus stop upgrades, maintenance facilities and other associated capital improvements to develop express bus or other high frequency inter -community transit bus services within the region.

Metrolink commuter rail service improvements were not included in the TUMF Program as they typically serve longer inter -regional commute trips equivalent to freeway trips on the inter -regional highway system.

The network of regionally significant bus transit services represents those express bus and other high frequency transit bus services that primarily support inter -community trips in Western Riverside County and supplement the regional highway system and inter- regional commuter rail services. As a result, this portion of the bus transit system also represents the extents of the network of bus services that would be eligible for TUMF funded improvements.

The TUMF Bus Transit Network is the system of bus services that serve inter -community trips within Western Riverside County and therefore are eligible for improvement funding with TUMF funds. The Bus Transit Network for Western Riverside County was identified based on several transit network and performance guidelines as follows:

1. Bus transit routes (or corridors comprised of multiple overlapping routes) proposed to have a frequency of greater than three buses per direction during peak hours at ultimate build out.

2. Routes or corridors that serve multiple jurisdictions and/or provide connectivity between communities, both within and adjoining western Riverside County.

3. Routes or corridors with forecast weekday bus ridership in excess of 1,000 person trips per day by 2040.

4. Routes or corridors that are proposed to provide timed interconnections with at least four other routes or corridors at ultimate build out.

5. Routes or corridors that utilize the majority of travel along the TUMF RSHA.

6. Routes or corridors that provide direct access to areas of forecast population and employment growth, major commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational or tourist activity centers, and multi -modal transportation facilities (such as airports, railway terminals and transit centers).

Express bus routes and other high -frequency bus transit routes and corridors in Western Riverside County that generally satisfied the respective guidelines were identified by RTA. Updated cost estimates for improving the infrastructure serving public transportation, including construction of transit centers and transfer facilities, express bus stop upgrades, and capital improvements needed to develop express bus and other high frequency bus transit service within the region were also provided by RTA.

The updated transit unit cost data provided by RTA are shown in Table 4.3.

WRCOG 38 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 382 of 1277 ends

Table 4.3 - Unit Costs for Transit Capital Expenditures Component Type*
Original Cost
Assumptions as
published
October 18, 2002
Cost Assumptions
per 2016 Nexus
Study
July 10, 2017
Cost
Assumptions per
2024 Nexus
Update
Description
Transit Center 1
$6,000,000
$7,465,000
Relocation/expansion of
existing Regional Transit
Center with up to 14 bus
bays and park and ride
Transit Center 2
$6,000,000
$9,000,000
$11,195,000
New Regional Transit Center
with up to 14 bus bays and
park and ride
Transfer Facility
$1,000,000
$1,245,000
Multiple route transfer hub
O & M Facility
$50,000,000
$62,186,000
Regional Operations and
Maintenance Facility
Green Technology
$100,000
ZEB technology
enhancements
Bus Stop
$10,000
$40,000
$50,000
Bus Stop Amenities Upgrade
on TUMF Network
BRT Service Capital
$540,000
$60,000
$75,000
BRT/Limited Stop Service
Capital (per stop**)
Vehicle Fleet l'"
$160,000
Small Sized Bus/Van
Contract Operated
Vehicle Fleet 2
$155,000
$300,000
Medium Sized Bus Contract
Operated
Vehicle Fleet 3
$325,125
$585,000
$1,271,000
Large Sized Bus Directly
Operated
COA Study
$950,000
$1,150,000
Comprehensive
Operational Analysis Study
component of Nexus Study
Update
* Transit Cost Component Types were restructured as part of the 2016 Nexus Update in accordance with the RTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis (January 2015) ** BRT Service Capital Cost Assumption was based on a per mile unit prior to the 2016 Nexus Update. 2016 Nexus Update uses a per stop unit cost for BRT Service Capital *** Vehicle Fleet component was restructured as part of the 2024 Nexus Update with the inclusion of Small Sized Bus/Van Contract Operated as Vehicle Fleet 1 and subsequent renumbering of Vehicle Fleet 2 and 3, respectively The estimated total cost for future RTA bus transit services to accommodate forecast transit demand is approximately $217.9 million with this cost including all planning, engineering, design and capital improvement costs. Detailed transit component cost estimates are included in Section 4.7. The full cost to improve RTA bus transit services cannot be entirely attributed to new development and must be adjusted to account for existing needs. Section 4.6 describes the adjustments to the total transit cost to account for existing needs.

WRCOG 39 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 383 of 1277 ends

4.5 Existing Obligated Funding
For some of the facilities identified in the TUMF network, existing obligated funding has previously been secured through traditional funding sources to complete necessary improvements. Since funding has been obligated to provide for the completion of needed improvements to the TUMF system, the funded cost of these improvements will not be recaptured from future developments through the TUMF Program. As a result, the TUMF network cost was adjusted accordingly to reflect the availability of obligated funds.

To determine the availability of obligated funds, WRCOG staff, in conjunction with RCTC staff, completed a review of the current Federal Transportation improvement Program (FTIP) to identify TUMF eligible projects that were also programmed to receive funding from alternate sources. A table summarizing the obligated funds for segments of the TUMF network is included in Appendix H. A total of $382.9 million in obligated funding was identified for improvements to the TUMF system. The estimated total TUMF network project cost was subsequently reduced by this amount.

4.6 Unfunded Existing Improvement Needs
A review of the existing traffic conditions on the TUMF network (as presented in Table

3.1) indicates that some segments of the roadways on the TUMF system currently experience congestion and operate at unacceptable levels of service. In addition, demand for inter -community transit service already exists and future utilization of proposed inter -community transit services will partially satisfy this existing demand. The need to improve these portions of the system is generated, at least in part, by existing demand, rather than solely the cumulative regional impacts of future new development, so future new development cannot be assessed for the equivalent cost share of improvements providing for this existing need.

To account for existing need in the TUMF Network, the cost for facilities identified as currently experiencing LOS E or F was adjusted. This was done by identifying the portion of any segment of the TUMF Network with a volume to capacity (v/c) ratio of greater than 0.9 (the threshold for LOS E) in the RivCoM 2018 Existing scenario and extracting the share of the overall facility cost to improve that portion. This cost adjustment provides for the mitigation of incremental traffic growth on those TUMF segments with an existing high level of congestion. The following approach was applied to account for incremental traffic growth associated with new development as part of the existing need methodology:

1. Facilities with an existing need were identified by reviewing the RivCoM 2018 Existing scenario assigned traffic on the 2021 existing network and delineating WRCOG 40 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 384 of 1277 ends

those facilities included on the TUMF Cost Fee Summary Table that have an average directional v/c exceeding 0.90".
a. Weighted directional v/c values were used to determine existing need for network segments, which was calculated by:
i. Determining the length for the portion of each segment (model link), and calculating the ratio of link length to the overall segment length
ii. Generating the average directional v/c for each link, for both directions in AM and PM periods, and multiplying by link/segment length ratio
iii. Determining the maximum peak -period peak -direction v/c for each link, representing the highest directional v/c in either AM or PM
iv. Calculating weighted average v/c for each TUMF segment, based on the sum of all weighted max v/c values of each link within a segment
b. A similar method was used to determine existing need for spot improvements including interchanges, railroad crossings and bridges.

However, no weighting was used in the calculation of existing need for spot improvements. For these facilities, the peak -period peak -direction v/c values (highest directional v/c in either AM or PM) were utilized in the existing need calculation. This was based on the individual link within a network segment where a bridge or railroad crossing is located, or on - and off -ramps in the case of interchanges.

2. Initial costs of addressing the existing need were calculated by estimating the share of a particular roadway segments "new lane" cost, or individual spot improvement cost (including all associated ROW and soft costs).

3. Incremental growth in v/c was determined by comparing the average directional exisitng year v/c for the TUMF facilities (delineated under step one) with the horizon year v/c for the corresponding segments and spot improvements calculated based on the RivCoM 2045 No -Build scenario assigned traffic on the 2021 existing network using the same methodology as the existing year v/c.
11 The RivCoM 2021 Existing Network used for the TUMF Nexus Study analyses reflects the RivCoM 2018 base year network augmented to include highways facilities on the TUMF Network as they existed in December 2021. A second version of the base network was also developed adding only those facilities that had been identified on the 2016 TUMF Nexus study 2040 Build scenario that did not currently exist in December 2021 and therefore were not represented by a link(s) in the RivCoM base network. The Supplemental 2021 Existing Network was utilized as the basis for determining existing and future v/c for only those projects that did not currently exist on the 2021 TUMF Network.

WRCOG 41 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 385 of 1277 ends

4. The proportion of the incremental growth attributable to new development was determined by dividing the result of step three with the total 2045 No -Build scenario v/c exceeding LOS E.

5. For those segments experiencing a net increase in v/c over the base year, TUMF will 'discount' the cost of existing need improvements by the proportion of the incremental v/c growth through 2045 No -Build compared to the 2018 Baseline v/c (up to a maximum of 100%).

The unfunded cost of existing highway improvement needs (including the related MSHCP obligation) totals $582.6 million. Appendix H includes a detailed breakdown of the existing highway improvement needs on the TUMF network, including the associated unfunded improvement cost estimate for each segment and spot improvement experiencing unacceptable LOS.

For transit service improvements, the cost to provide for existing demand was determined by multiplying the total transit component cost by the share of future transit trips representing existing demand. The cost of existing transit service improvement needs is $63.0 million representing 28.9% of the TUMF transit component. Appendix H includes tables reflecting the calculation of the existing transit need share and the existing transit need cost.

4.7 Maximum TUMF Eligible Cost
A total of $382.9 million in obligated funding was identified for improvements to the TUMF system. Since these improvements are already funded with other available revenue sources, the funded portion of these projects cannot also be funded with TUMF revenues. Furthermore, the total cost of the unfunded existing improvement need is $646.9 million. These improvements are needed to mitigate existing transportation deficiencies and therefore their costs cannot be assigned to new development through TUMF.

Based on the estimated costs described in Sections 4.3 and 4.4, the total value to complete the identified TUMF network and transit improvements, and administer the program is $5.28 billion. Having accounted for obligated funds and unfunded existing needs as described in Sections 4.5 and 4.6, respectively, the estimated maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program is $4.24 billion. The maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program includes approximately $3.87 billion in eligible arterial highway and street related improvements and $154.8 million in eligible transit related improvements. An additional $53.9 million is eligible as part of the TUMF Program to mitigate the impact of eligible TUMF related arterial highway and street projects on critical native species and wildlife habitat, while $161.2 million is provided to cover the costs incurred by WRCOG to administer the TUMF Program.

Figure 4.4 illustrates the various improvements to the RSHA included as part of the TUMF network cost calculation. Table 4.4 summarizes the TUMF network cost calculations for each of the individual segments. This table also identifies the maximum eligible TUMF share for each segment having accounted for obligated funding and unfunded WRCOG 42 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 386 of 1277 ends

existing need. A detailed breakdown of the individual cost components and values for the various TUMF Network segments is included in Appendix H. Table 4.5 outlines the detailed transit component cost estimates. It should be noted that the detailed cost tables (and fee levels) are subject to regular review and updating by WRCOG and therefore WRCOG should be contacted directly to obtain the most recently adopted version of these tables (and to confirm the corresponding fee level).

WRCOG 43 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 387 of 1277 ends

Figure 4.4 - Regional System of
Highways and Arterials - TUMF
Network Improvements
Hills
nTustin
Irvine
Orang
Grn�
•
•
Lake , est
Schleisman
,ailroad
Legend
Ultimate Lanes
2 '4
/\,e 6
V8
ySs
Valley
Rancho Santa
Margarita
• Interchange
O Bridge
O Railroad Crossing
::: TUMF Zone
Cities
r = J- County Boundaries

JURUPA VALLEY
Arlington

RIVERSIDE
Unvr.
rand Terrace
Center
(Main)....x,,,....... --.,
9eO.2p __ Live Oakes
Corrador, 0'P`°� yon
'1 cm N �►
Ironwood
Alessandro
LAKE

ELSINORE,
Van Buren
m
0 c
a)
0 Eucalyptus
Ramona
0 • Mid -County 1_t�'
I • (Placentia)
erri
I Nuevo
PERRIS
Ethanac

WILDOMAR
ar
Gc A,
~y
` Santa =
•. Margarita _ —
Holland
Keller
Clinton Keith
T. v,
\` dr MURRIETA
qy
c, ,c,
a��2ta\c. Murrit. Hot •
oc' Jo. , Springs ao
PS -- ci
TEMECULA ii
cl-
gy des° Marga DJ
°a to
sa,
g 1' Tcam.(Temecula
Yucaipa
County
Line
CAL/MESA o
S, O Cherry
pd < ei,� Valley BANNING
,f�d// 1h L- Oak • rmho,
ey (Ste) Valley(1.) o
= S. n Gorgo '.
6teumo t Wilsons IB
r ` 1st S`L�ks En Rarnsyanrl1p s.
m South
The
Badlands
Newport
Benton
Esri, NA SA% A, USG

Page 388 of 1277 ends

An
Moun

BEAUMONT
Esplanade
SR-74/SR-79 N;E
(Florida) - -'1sittSR-74
Stetson
HEMET
(i) (Florida)
Rouse
Ridge
Hemet/San
Jacinto

—
.T- — - ---
Morongo
Reservation
L Iv4oust San
Jacinth State
—Pllrk
4 Idyl Iwi I1
Western Riverside
Council of Governments
Thoma
Mounta
nsus, County of Riverside, California State Park Esri, TomTo, Garmin, SafeGraph, FAO, METI/NASA, USGS, ,o.hanga B reau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USFWS
rvation

Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates

AREA PLAN DIST CITY
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest

STREETNAME
Ethanac
Ethanac
Ethanac
Ethanac
Ethanac
Menifee
Menifee
Menifee
Menifee
Menifee
Menifee
Menifee
Menifee/Whitewood
Newport
Newport
Newport
Newport
Newport
Scott
Scott
Scott
Scott
SR -74
Alessandro
Alessandro
Alessandro
Alessandro
Gilman Springs
Gilman Springs
Penis
Penis
Penis
Penis
Penis
Reche Vista
llfh/Case
Case
Case
Ethanac
Ethanac
Ethanac
Goetz
Goetz
Mid -County (Placentia)
Mid -County (Placentia)
Mid -County (Placentia)
Mid -County (Placentia)
Penis
Penis
Penis
Penis
Penis
Ramona
Ramona
Ramona
Ramona
SR -74 (4th)

SEGMENTFROM

SEGMENTTO
Murrieta
1-215
interchange
Matthews
railroad crossing
Simpson
bridge
Aldergate
Newport
Holland
Garbani
Scott
Murrieta City Limit
Murrieta
1-215
Menifee
Lindenberger
SR -79 (Winchester)
Briggs
interchange
Murrieta
1-215
Briggs
Penis
Nason
Moreno Beach
Gilman Springs
Alessandro
interchange
Ironwood
Sunnymead
interchange
Cactus
Harley Knox
Heacock
Goetz
1-215
bridge
Goetz
bridge
Sherman
Ethanac
bridge
Penis
interchange
Evans
bridge
Ramona
Citrus
Nuevo
11th
bridge
Penis
interchange
Evans
Mid -County (2,800 ft E of Rider)
1-215
Keystone
Bridge Road
SR -74 (Pinacate)
Ramona (2,800 ft E of Rider)
Pico Avenue
Bridge Road
bridge
Reche Vista
Country
SR -79 (Winchester)
Ellis
Temescal Canyon
interchange
Lincoln
bridge
California
1-15
Dominguez Ranch
Palisades
Paseo Grande
600' e/o Cucamonga Creek
bridge
Harrison
Sumner
Scholar
A Street
Hamner

TOTAL COST

MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE
Menifee
Menifee
Menifee
Menifee
Menifee
Menifee
Menifee
Menifee
Menifee
Menifee
Menifee
Menifee
Menifee
Menifee
Menifee
Menifee
Menifee
Menifee
Menifee
Menifee
Menifee
Menifee
Menifee
Moreno Valley
Moreno Valley
Moreno Valley
Moreno Valley
Moreno Valley
Moreno Valley
Moreno Valley
Moreno Valley
Moreno Valley
Moreno Valley
Moreno Valley
Moreno Valley
Perris
Perris
Perris
Perris
Perris
Perris
Perris
Perris
Perris
Perris
Perris
Perris
Perris
Perris
Perris
Perris
Perris
Perris
Perris
Perris
Perris
Perris
Unincorporated Ethanac
Unincorporated Gilman Springs
Unincorporated Menifee
Unincorporated Mid -County
Unincorporated Mid -County (Ramona)
Unincorporated Mid -County (Ramona)
Unincorporated Mid -County (Ramona)
Unincorporated Reche Canyon
Unincorporated Reche Vista
Unincorporated Scott
Unincorporated SR -74
Corona Cajalco
Corona Cajalco
Corona Foothill
Corona Foothill
Corona Foothill
Corona Foothill
Corona Green River
Corona Green River
Corona Green River
Eastvale Schleisman
Eastvale Schleisman
Eastvale Schleisman
Eastvale Schleisman
Eastvale Schleisman
Eastvale Schleisman
Eastvale Schleisman
Goetz
Murrieta
1-215
Sherman
BNSF San Jacinto Branch
SR -74 (Pinacate)
Salt Creek
Simpson
Aldergafe
Newport
Holland
Garbani
Scott
Goetz
Murrieta
1-215
Menifee
Lindenberger
1-215
1-215
Sunset
Murrieta
Matthews
1-215
Penis
Nason
Moreno Beach
SR -60
SR -60
Reche Vista
Ironwood
SR -60
Sunnymead
Cactus
Country
Penis
Goetz
San Jacinto River
Keystone
San Jacinto River
1-215
Case
San Jacinto River
1-215
1-215
Penis
Penis Valley Storm Channel
Harley Knox
Ramona
Citrus
Nuevo
1-215 overcrossing
1-215
1-215
Penis
Evans
Ellis
SR -74
Alessandro
Nuevo
Evans
Ramona (2,800 ft E of Rider)
Pico Avenue
San Jacinto River
San Bernardino County
Reche Canyon
Briggs
Ethanac
1-15
1-15
Paseo Grande
Wardlow Wash
Lincoln
California
SR -91
Dominguez Ranch
Palisades
San Bernardino County
Cucamonga Creek
600' e/o Cucamonga Creek
Harrison
Sumner
Scholar
A Street
$0 $0
$0 $0
$32,698,000 $32,698,000
$2,674,000 $2,674,000
$105,560,000 $105,560,000
$1,307,000 $1,307,000
$4,384,000 $4,384,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$4,353,000 $4,353,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$1,130,000 $1,130,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$8,635,000 $8,635,000
$0 $0
$4,388,000 $4,388,000
$16,949,000 $12,949,000
$8,254,000 $8,254,000
$13,420,000 $13,420,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$18,019,000 $18,019,000
$7,291,000 $7,291,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$32,698,000 $11,192,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$7,486,000 $3,799,000
$4,582,000 $4,582,000
$20,876,000 $20,876,000
$1,740,000 $1,235,000
$6,056,000 $6,056,000
$5,568,000 $5,568,000
$5,316,000 $5,316,000
$1,507,000 $999,000
$5,568,000 $3,398,000
$15,655,000 $15,655,000
$0 $0
$22,985,000 $22,985,000
$8,352,000 $8,352,000
$0 $0
$7,063,000 $7,063,000
$0 $0
$6,927,000 $6,927,000
$0 $0
$5,039,000 $5,039,000
$32,698,000 $7,725,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$4,666,000 $4,666,000
$30,601,000 $30,601,000
$16,684,000 $16,684,000
$12,156,000 $12,156,000
$0 $0
$47,769,000 $47,769,000
$36,192,000 $36,192,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$648,000 $648,000
$0 $0
$866,000 $866,000
$488,000 $488,000
$7,625,000 $7,625,000
$119,000 $119,000
$209,000 $209,000
WRCOG 45 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 389 of 1277 ends

Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued)

AREA PLAN DIST CITY
Northwest Jurupa Valley Van Buren
Northwest Jurupa Valley Van Buren
Northwest Riverside Alessandro
Northwest Riverside Arlington
Northwest Riverside Arlington
Northwest Riverside Van Buren
Northwest Riverside Van Buren
Northwest Riverside Van Buren
Northwest Riverside Van Buren
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass Banning
Pass Banning
Pass Banning
Pass Banning
Pass Beaumont
Pass Beaumont
Pass Beaumont
Pass Beaumont
Pass Beaumont
Pass Beaumont
Pass Beaumont
Pass Beaumont
Pass Calimesa
Pass Calimesa
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto

STREETNAME

SEGMENTFROM
SR -60
Bellegrave
Arlington
La Sierra
Magnolia
Santa Ana River
SR -91
Wood
Trautwein
Trautwein
Vista Grande
El Sobrante
Harley John
Harvil
Temescal Canyon
Temescal Wash
La Sierra
Mockingbird Canyon
Orange Terrace
Wilson (8th)
1-10
Oak Valley (14th)
Cherry Valley
1-10
1-10
San Gorgonio
UP/Hargrave
Oak Valley (14th)
Oak Valley (San Timoteo Canyon)
SR -60
UP
Noble Creek
SR -60
I-10
1-10
I-10
Roberts St
Bellflower
Highland Springs
Noble
San Timoteo Wash
California
Warren
Sanderson
Winchester
Warren
Sanderson/SR-79 (Hemet Bypass)
Sanderson
State
Main
Cedar
SR -79 (Winchester)
San Diego Aqueduct
Bridge
Bridge
Briggs
SR -74 (Florida)
San Diego Aqueduct
Domenigoni
Mid -County (Ramona)
Gilman Springs
San Jacinto River
Domenigoni

SEGMENTTO
Bellegrave
Santa Ana River
Trautwein
Magnolia
Alessandro
SR -91
Mockingbird Canyon
Trautwein
Orange Terrace
Vista Grande
1-215
Harley John
Harvil
1-215
La Sierra
bridge
El Sobrante
Wood
1-215
Sun Lakes
interchange
Wilson (8th)
Oak Valley (14th)
Morongo Trail (Apache Trail)
interchange
bridge
railroad crossing
1-10
SR -60
interchange
railroad crossing
bridge
4th
California
interchange
interchange
Roberts Rd
Noble
Bellflower
Roberts St
bridge
Gilman Springs
Sanderson
State
Warren
Sanderson
interchange
State
Main
Cedar
SR -74
Warren
bridge
Sanderson
Warren
SR -79 (Winchester)
Domenigoni
bridge
Winchester
SR -74 (Florida)
Ramona
bridge
Keller

TOTAL COST

MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE
Unincorporated Alessandro
Unincorporated Alessandro
Unincorporated Cajalco
Unincorporated Cajalco
Unincorporated Cajalco
Unincorporated Cajalco
Unincorporated Cajalco
Unincorporated Cajalco
Unincorporated Van Buren
Unincorporated Van Buren
Banning Highland Springs
Banning Highland Springs
Banning Highland Springs
Banning Highland Springs
1-10 Bypass South
I-10 Bypass South
1-10 Bypass South
I-10 Bypass South
Beaumont
Potrero
Potrero
Potrero
Potrero
Potrero
SR -79 (Beaumont)
SR -79 (Beaumont)
Cherry Valley
Cherry Valley
Unincorporated Cherry Valley
Unincorporated Cherry Valley
Unincorporated Cherry Valley
Unincorporated Cherry Valley
Unincorporated SR -79 (Lamb Canyon)
Hemet Domenigoni
Hemet Domenigoni
Hemet SR -74
San Jacinto Mid -County (Ramona)
San Jacinto Mid -County (Ramona)
San Jacinto Ramona
San Jacinto Ramona
San Jacinto Ramona
San Jacinto Ramona
Unincorporated Domenigoni
Unincorporated Domenigoni
Unincorporated Gilman Springs
Unincorporated Mid -County (Ramona)
Unincorporated SR -74
Unincorporated SR -79 (Hemet Bypass)
Unincorporated SR -79 (Hemet Bypass)
Unincorporated SR -79 (Hemet Bypass)
Unincorporated SR -79 (San Jacinto Bypass)
Unincorporated SR -79 (Sanderson)
Unincorporated SR -79 (Sanderson)
Unincorporated SR -79 (Winchester)
$23,928,000 $10,461,000
$60,900,000 $0
$2,410,000 $2410,000
$0 $0
$46,465,000 $46,465,000
$5,230,000 $4,392000
$39,493,000 $21,292,000
$0 $0
$7,574,000 $7,574,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$10,580,000 $9,817,000
$166,492000 $166,492,000
$1,238,000 $1,238,000
$49,596,000 $35,953,000
$4,872,000 $1,907,000
$96,453,000 $96,453,000
$67,429,000 $67,429,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$63,061,000 $32,516,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$50,110,000 $50,110,000
$63,061,000 $63,061,000
$4,176,000 $4,176,000
$52,780,000 $52,780,000
$0 $0
$1,100,000 $1,100,000
$63,061,000 $29,561,000
$40,020,000 $40,020,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$63,061,000 $7,408,000
$63,061,000 $59,773,000
$3,053,000 $3,053,000
$6,411,000 $6,411,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$7,726,000 $7,726,000
$0 $0
$35,208,000 $35,208,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$31,518,000 $26,928,000
$0 $0
$13,508,000 $13,508,000
$4,176,000 $4,176,000
$0 $0
$9,221,000 $9,221,000
$15,417,000 $15,417,000
$13,901,000 $13,901,000
$4,176,000 $4,176,000
$6,542,000 $6,542,000
$56,690,000 $56,690,000
$6,899,000 $2,555,000
$19,488,000 $7,651,000
$65,022,000 $65,022,000
WRCOG 46 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 390 of 1277 ends

Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued)

AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Southwest Canyon Lake Goetz Railroad Canyon Newport $0 $0 Southwest Canyon Lake Railroad Canyon Canyon Hills Goetz $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Railroad Canyon 1-15 Canyon Hills $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore Railroad Canyon 1-15 interchange $0 $0 Southwest Lake Elsinore SR -74 1-15 interchange $63,061,000 $24,162,000 Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith Copper Craft Toulon $0 $0 Southwest Munieta Clinton Keith Toulon 1-215 $2,076,000 $2,076,000 Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith 1-215 Whitewood $0 $0
Southwest Mureta French Valley (Date) Mureta Hot Springs Winchester Creek $7,321,000 $7,321,000 Southwest Murrieta French Valley (Date) Winchester Creek Margarita $0 $0 Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Menifee City Limit Keller $0 $0 Southwest Mureta Whitewood Keller Clinton Keith $0 $0
Southwest Temecula French Valley (Cherry) Jefferson Diaz $3,929,000 $3,929,000 Southwest Temecula French Valley (Cherry) Mumeta Creek bridge $5,846,000 $5,846,000 Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date) Margarita Ynez $0 $0 Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date) Ynez Jefferson $5,010,000 $5,010,000 Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date( 1-15 interchange $122,076,000 $122076,000 Southwest Temecula SR -79 (Winchester) Murrieta Hot Springs Jefferson $2,697,000 $2,697,000 Southwest Temecula SR -79 (Winchester) 1-15 interchange $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Diaz( Cherry Rancho California $2,285,000 $2,285,000 Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent Moroga( Rancho California SR -79 (Front) $23,629,000 $23,629,000 Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent Moroga( 1-15 interchange $0 $0 Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent Moroga( Murrieta Creek bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000 Southwest Unincorporated Benton SR -79 Eastem Bypass $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated Clinton Keith Whitewood SR -79 $5,539,000 $5,539,000 Southwest Unincorporated Clinton Keith Warm Springs Creek bridge $0 $0 Southwest Unincorporated SR -74 1-15 Ethanac $27,699,000 $26,347,000 Southwest Unincorporated SR -79 (Winchester) Keller Thompson $34,213,000 $34,213,000 Southwest Unincorporated SR -79 (Winchester) Thompson La Alba $27,699,000 $27,699,000 Southwest Unincorporated SR -79 (Winchester) La Alba Hunter $7,854,000 $3,042,000 Southwest Unincorporated SR -79 (Winchester) Hunter Murrieta Hot Springs $595,000 $442,000 Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon 1-15 Monte Vista $1,362,000 $1,362,000 Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon Monte Vista Sunset $24,818,000 $24,818,000 Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon 1-15 interchange $32,698,000 $24,613,000 Southwest Wildomar Clinton Keith Palomar 1-15 $0 $0
Southwest Wildomar Clinton Keith 1-15 Copper Craft $5,030,000 $0 Subtotal
$2,331,921,000 $1,961,707,000
WRCOG 47 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 391 of 1277 ends

Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued)

AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE Central Menifee Briggs Newport Scott $0 $0
Central Menifee Briggs SR -74 (Pinacate) Simpson $2991,000 $2,991,000 Central Menifee Briggs Simpson Old Newport $5,430,000 $5,430,000 Central Menifee Briggs Salt Creek bridge $8,352,000 $8,352,000 Central Menifee Garbani 1-215 interchange $63,061,000 $42483,000 Central Menifee Goetz Juanita Lesser Lane $11,378,000 $11,378,000 Central Menifee Goetz Newport Juanita $0 $0
Central Menifee Holland Murrieta Bradley $15,708,000 $15,708,000 Central Menifee Holland Bradley Haun $11,439,000 $11,439,000 Central Menifee Holland Haun Antelope $9,456,000 $9,456,000 Central Menifee Holland 1-215 overcrossing bridge $9,744,000 $9,744,000 Central Menifee Holland Antelope Menifee $3,844,000 $3,844,000 Central Menifee McCall 1-215 Aspel $5,354,000 $5,354,000 Central Menifee McCall 1-215 interchange $0 $0
Central Menifee McCall Aspel Menifee $2,288,000 $2,288,000 Central Menifee Murrieta Ethanac McCall $0 $0
Central Menifee Murrieta McCall Newport $7,967,000 $7,967,000 Central Menifee Murrieta Newport Bundy Canyon $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Cactus 1-215 Heacock $5,617,000 $5,617,000 Central Moreno Valley Cactus 1-215 interchange $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Day Ironwood SR -60 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Day SR -60 interchange $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Day SR -60 Eucalyptus $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus 1-215 Towngate $8,843,000 $8,843,000 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Towngate Frederick $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Frederick Heacock $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Heacock Kitching $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Kitching Moreno Beach $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Moreno Beach Theodore $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Frederick SR -60 Alessandro $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Heacock Cactus San Michele $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Heacock Reche Vista Cactus $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Heacock San Michele Harley Knox $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Ironwood SR -60 Day $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Ironwood Day Heacock $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Lasselle Alessandro John F Kennedy $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Lasselle John F Kennedy Oleander $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Moreno Beach Reche Canyon SR -60 $18,797,000 $18,797,000 Central Moreno Valley Moreno Beach SR -60 overcrossing bridge $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Nason SR -60 Alessandro $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Pigeon Pass Ironwood SR -60 $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Pigeon Pass/CETAP Corridor Hidden Springs Ironwood $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Reche Canyon Moreno Valley City Limit Locust $0 $0 Central Moreno Valley Redlands Locust Alessandro $39,789,000 $39,789,000 Central Moreno Valley Redlands SR -60 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000 Central Moreno Valley Theodore SR -60 Eucalyptus $3,966,000 $3,966,000 Central Moreno Valley Theodore SR -60 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000 Central Perris Ellis Goetz Evans $9,526,000 $9,526,000
Central Perris Evans Oleander Ramona $0 $0
Central Perris Evans Ramona Morgan $0 $0
Central Perris Evans Morgan Rider $0 $0
Central Perris Evans Rider Placentia $0 $0
Central Perris Evans Placentia Nuevo $6,492,000 $6,492,000 Central Perris Evans Nuevo Ellis $17,705,000 $17,705,000 Central Perris Evans San Jacinto River bridge $11,136,000 $11,136,000 Central Perris Evans 1-215 bridge $8,352,000 $8,352,000 Central Perris Goetz Lesser Ethanac $7,845,000 $7,845,000 Central Perris Harley Knox 1-215 Indian $0 $0
Central Perris Harley Knox 1-215 interchange $0 $0
Central Perris Harley Knox Indian Penis $0 $0
Central Perris Harley Knox Penis Redlands $0 $0
Central Perris Nuevo 1-215 Murrieta $16,971,000 $16,971,000 Central Perris Nuevo 1-215 interchange $32,698,000 $19,736,000 Central Perris Nuevo Murrieta Dunlap $4,367,000 $4,367,000 Central Perris Nuevo Penis Valley Storm Channel bridge $0 $0 Central Perris SR -74 (Matthews) 1-215 Ethanac $0 $0
Central Perris SR -74 (Matthews) 1-215 interchange $32,698,000 $21,835,000 Central Unincorporated Center (Main) 1-215 Mt Vernon $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Center (Main) 1-215 interchange $32,698,000 $11,912,000 Central Unincorporated Center (Main) BNSF railroad crossing $20,010,000 $20,010,000 Central Unincorporated Ellis Post SR -74 $11,550,000 $11,550,000 Central Unincorporated Mount Vernon/CETAP Corridor Center Pigeon Pass $2,582,000 $2,582,000 Central Unincorporated Nuevo Dunlap Menifee $8,737,000 $2,505,000 Central Unincorporated Nuevo San Jacinto River bridge $5,568,000 $5,568,000 Central Unincorporated Pigeon Pass/CETAP Corridor Hidden Springs Mount Vernon $8,106,000 $8,106,000 Central Unincorporated Post Santa Rosa Mine Ellis $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Reche Canyon Reche Vista Moreno Valley City Limit $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Redlands San Timoteo Canyon Locust $0 $0 WRCOG 48 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 392 of 1277 ends

Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued)

AREA PLAN DIST CITY
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Corona
Northwest Eastvale
Northwest Eastvale
Northwest Eastvale
Northwest Eastvale
Northwest Eastvale
Northwest Eastvale
Northwest Eastvale
Northwest Eastvale
Northwest Eastvale
Northwest Eastvale
Northwest Eastvale
Northwest Eastvale
Northwest Eastvale
Northwest Eastvale
Northwest Eastvale
Northwest Eastvale
Northwest Eastvale
Northwest Eastvale
Northwest Jurupa Valley
Northwest Jurupa Valley
Northwest Jurupa Valley
Northwest Jurupa Valley
Northwest Jurupa Valley
Northwest Jurupa Valley
Northwest Jurupa Valley
Northwest Jurupa Valley
Northwest Jurupa Valley
Northwest Jurupa Valley
Northwest Jurupa Valley
Northwest Jurupa Valley
Northwest Jurupa Valley
Northwest Jurupa Valley
Northwest Jurupa Valley
Northwest Jurupa Valley
Northwest Jurupa Valley
Northwest Jurupa Valley
Northwest Norco
Northwest Norco
Northwest Norco
Northwest Norco
Northwest Norco
Northwest Norco
Northwest Norco
Northwest Norco
Northwest Norco
Northwest Norco
Northwest Norco
Northwest Norco
Northwest Norco
Northwest Norco
Northwest Norco

STREETNAME
6th
Auto Center
Cajalco
Hidden Valley
Lincoln
Magnolia
Magnolia
Magnolia
Magnolia
Main
Main
Main
Main
Main
McKinley
McKinley
McKinley
McKinley
McKinley
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
Railroad
Railroad
Railroad
River
Serfas Club
Archibald
Hamner
Hamner
Hamner
Hamner
Hamner
Hellman
Hellman
Hellman
Limonite
Limonite
Limonite
Limonite
Limonite
Limonite
Limonite
Limonite
River
Armstrong
Bellegrave
Cantu-Galleano Ranch
Etiwanda
Etiwanda
Limonite
Limonite
Limonite
Limonite
Limonite
Market
Market
Mission
Mission
Riverview
Rubidoux
Rubidoux
Valley
1st
1st
2nd
6th
6th
Arlington
California
Corydon
Hamner
Hamner
Hidden Valley
Hidden Valley
Norco
North
River

SEGMENTFROM

SEGMENTTO
Magnolia
SR -91
1-15
McKinley
Ontario
Sherbom
bridge
Rimpau
Ontario
Ontario
Foothill
Parkridge
SR -91
S. Grand
Promenade
SR -91
Magnolia
bridge
railroad crossing
El Cerrito
Buena Vista
Main
Kellogg
Fullerton
Rimpau
1-15
Buena Vista
railroad crossing
Main (at Grand)
Main
Green River
River
Bellegrave
Amberhill
Limonite
Schleisman
Santa Ana River
Walters
River
bridge
Eastvale Gateway
interchange
Hamner
Sumner
Harrison
Archibald
Hellman (Keller SBD Co.)
bridge
Archibald
Valley
Van Buren
Bellegrave
SR -60
Limonite
Wineville
Etiwanda
Van Buren
Clay
Riverview
Santa Ana River
bridge
SR -60
Santa Ana River
Mission
Mission
interchange
Mission
Mountain
Hamner
1-15
California
interchange
Fairhaven
6th
5th
bridge
Hidden Valley
Norco Hills
1-15
Hamner
Crestview
Corydon

TOTAL COST

MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE
SR -91
Railroad
Bedford Canyon
Norco Hills
Parkridge
6th
Temescal Creek
Sherbom
Rimpau
Grand
Ontario
Hidden Valley
Parkridge
SR -91
Hidden Valley
Promenade
SR -91
Arlington Channel
BNSF
1-15
Lincoln
Buena Vista
Main
Kellogg
Fullerton
Rimpau
Auto Club
BNSF
Buena Vista
Corydon
SR -91
Remington
Mission
Bellegrave
Amberhill
Limonite
Schleisman
Schleisman
Walters
Cucamonga Creek
I-15
I-15
Eastvale Gateway
Hamner
Sumner
Harrison
Archibald
Cucamonga Creek
Hellman
San Bernardino County
Cantu-Galleano Ranch
Wineville
Philadelphia
SR -60
1-15
Wineville
Etiwanda
Van Buren
Clay
Rubidoux
Santa Ana River
Milliken
SR -60
Limonite
Pine
SR -60
Armstrong
Parkridge
Mountain
River
Hamner
1-15
Crestview
Arlington
River
Santa Ana River
Santa Ana River
1-15
Hamner
Corydon
California
Archibald
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$7,054,000 $6,419,000
$4,176,000 $3,580,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$5,314,000 $4,389,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$105,560,000 $0
$13,451,000 $13,451,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$40,020,000 $40,020,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$3,382000 $3,382000
$0 $0
$199,000 $199,000
$2,787,000 $2,787,000
$991,000 $991,000
$5,533,000 $3,675,000
$419,000 $419,000
$21,503,000 $21,503,000
$3,828,000 $3,828,000
$289000 $289000
$0 $0
$255000 $255,000
$1,094,000 $1,094,000
$497,000 $497,000
$0 $0
$2,208,000 $2,208,000
$13,920,000 $0
$5,948,000 $5,948,000
$6,192,000 $6,192,000
$464,000 $464,000
$793,000 $793,000
$1,515,000 $989000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$2,981,000 $2,981,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$5,181,000 $0
$13,920,000 $6,204,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$32,698,000 $9,051,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$32,698,000 $3,489,000
$4,342,000 $4,342,000
$15,237,000 $12,525,000
$0 $0
$33,408,000 $11,455,000
$49,591,000 $49,591,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$1,743,000 $1,109,000
WRCOG 49 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 393 of 1277 ends

Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued)

AREA PLAN DIST CITY
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest

STREETNAME

SEGMENTFROM
Market
Market
SR -91
BNSF
Arlington
SR -91
SR -91
Fairhaven
Santa Ana River
Martin Luther King
Central
Country Club
Via Vista
Chicago
SR -91
Alessandro
Van Buren
Alessandro
Spruce
Main
1-215
Center
3rd
University
Trautwein
Arlington
SR -91
Indiana
Mission Inn
Van Buren
Jefferson
Washington
SR -91
BNSF
BNSF Railroad
BNSF
Tyler
Harrison
1st
14th
14th
Redwood
Mission Inn
Alessandro
SR -91
SR -91
Magnolia
Hole
Wells
Redwood
SR -91
Lincoln
Madison
Victoria
JFK
Van Buren
Bergamont
Hamner
Temescal Canyon
1-15
Mockingbird Canyon
Washington
Scottsdale
Victoria
El Sobrante
Van Buren
El Cerrito
Tuscany
Dos Lagos
Leroy
Dawson Canyon
1-15
1-15
Park Canyon
Hermosa
Krameria

SEGMENTTO
Martin Luther King $0 $0
Main $0 $0
1-215 $1,941,000 $1,941,000
railroad crossing $105,560,000 $30,560,000
SR -91 $0 $0
Lincoln $0 $0
interchange $32,698,000 $3,262,000
La Sierra $0 $0
Redwood $0 $0
Central $0 $0
Country Club $0 $0
Via Vista $4,996,000 $1,593,000
Alessandro $0 $0
I-215/SR-60 $0 $0
Magnolia $0 $0
SR -91 $0 $0
Magnolia $0 $0
Spruce $0 $0
Columbia $0 $0
Iowa $0 $0
interchange $32,698,000 $9,050,000
3rd $30,272,000 $30,272000
University $0 $0
Martin Luther King $0 $0
Wood $1,880,000 $1,880,000
SR -91 $0 $0
Indiana $192,000 $192,000
Victoria $778,000 $778,000
University $0 $0
Jefferson $0 $0
Washington $0 $0
Victoria $0 $0
Victoria $853,000 $853,000
railroad crossing $20,010,000 $20,010,000
Tyler $0 $0
railroad crossing $0 $0
Harrison $0 $0
14th $0 $0
San Bernardino County $0 $0
Santa Ana River $9,491,000 $9,491,000
1-215/SR-60 $24,031,000 $24,031,000
Lemon $0 $0
University $0 $0
Van Buren $0 $0
Magnolia $0 $0
interchange $63,061,000 $21,814,000
Hole $0 $0
Wells $0 $0
Arlington $0 $0
SR -91 $859,000 $859,000
I-215/SR-60 $2,067,000 $2,067,000
Arlington $0 $0
Washington $0 $0
Hermosa $27,018,000 $27,018,000
Van Buren $3,053,000 $3,053,000
Bergamont $0 $0
Krameria $0 $0
Wineville $0 $0
1-15 $0 $0
Ontario $0 $0
Cajalco $0 $0
Scottsdale $0 $0
Cajalco $0 $0
El Sobrante $0 $0
Cajalco $0 $0
El Sobrante $20,871,000 $20,871,000
Tuscany $3,168,000 $0
Dos Lagos $0 $0
Leroy $0 $0
Dawson Canyon $0 $0
1-15 $0 $0
interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000
Park Canyon $14,329,000 $14,329,000
Indian Truck Trail $0 $0
Harley John $12,787,000 $12,787,000
Cajalco $12,537,000 $12,537,000

TOTAL COST

MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE
Riverside 14th
Riverside 1st
Riverside 3rd
Riverside 3rd
Riverside Adams
Riverside Adams
Riverside Adams
Riverside Arlington
Riverside Buena Vista
Riverside Canyon Crest
Riverside Canyon Crest
Riverside Canyon Crest
Riverside Canyon Crest
Riverside Central
Riverside Central
Riverside Central
Riverside Central
Riverside Chicago
Riverside Chicago
Riverside Columbia
Riverside Columbia
Riverside Iowa
Riverside Iowa
Riverside Iowa
Riverside JFK
Riverside La Sierra
Riverside La Sierra
Riverside La Sierra
Riverside Lemon (NB One way)
Riverside Lincoln
Riverside Lincoln
Riverside Lincoln
Riverside Madison
Riverside Madison
Riverside Magnolia
Riverside Magnolia
Riverside Magnolia
Riverside Magnolia
Riverside Main
Riverside Market
Riverside Martin Luther King
Riverside Mission Inn
Riverside Redwood (SE One way)
Riverside Trautwein
Riverside Tyler
Riverside Tyler
Riverside Tyler
Riverside Tyler
Riverside Tyler
Riverside University
Riverside University
Riverside Victoria
Riverside Victoria
Riverside Washington
Riverside Wood
Riverside Wood
Riverside Wood
Unincorporated Cantu-Galleano Ranch
Unincorporated Dos Lagos (Weirick)
Unincorporated El Cerrito
Unincorporated El Sobrante
Unincorporated Harley John
Unincorporated Harley John
Unincorporated La Sierra
Unincorporated La Sierra
Unincorporated Mockingbird Canyon
Unincorporated Temescal Canyon
Unincorporated Temescal Canyon
Unincorporated Temescal Canyon
Unincorporated Temescal Canyon
Unincorporated Temescal Canyon
Unincorporated Temescal Canyon
Unincorporated Temescal Canyon
Unincorporated Temescal Canyon
Unincorporated Washington
Unincorporated Wood
WRCOG 50 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 394 of 1277 ends

Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued)

AREA PLAN DIST CITY
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto

STREETNAME
8th
Lincoln
Ramsey
Ramsey
SR -243
Sun Lakes
Sun Lakes
Sun Lakes
Sun Lakes
Sunset
Sunset
Wilson
Wilson
1st
1st
6th
Desert Lawn
Oak Valley (14th)
Oak Valley (14th)
Oak Valley (14th)
Oak Valley (14th)
Oak Valley (SIC)
Oak Valley (SIC)
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Bryant
Calimesa
Calimesa
County Line
County Line
Desert Lawn

SEGMENTFROM

SEGMENTTO
I-10
SR -243
8th
Highland Springs
Wesley
Sunset
bridge
bridge
Highland Home
Lincoln
interchange
8th
Highland Home
Pennsylvania
Highland Springs
Highland Springs
Oak Valley (STC)
Pennsylvania
Oak View
I-10
interchange
Tukwet Canyon
I-10
1st
interchange
Avenue L
I-10
interchange
Bryant
interchange
Champions
Condit
Roberts
interchange
Palmer
San Bernardino County
UP Railroad
railroad crossing
Menlo
Stetson
Acacia
RR Crossing
Esplanade
Cawston
Ramona
Columbia
Chambers
Stetson
Esplanade
Florida
State
Cawston
Domenigoni
bridge
State
Warren
Esplanade
San Jacinto
7th
SR -74
Esplanade
Quandt Ranch
bridge
Ramona
Esplanade
State
bridge
Domenigoni

TOTAL COST

MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE
Banning
Banning
Banning
Banning
Banning
Banning
Banning
Banning
Banning
Banning
Banning
Banning
Banning
Beaumont
Beaumont
Beaumont
Beaumont
Beaumont
Beaumont
Beaumont
Beaumont
Beaumont
Beaumont
Beaumont
Beaumont
Calimesa
Calimesa
Calimesa
Calimesa
Calimesa
Calimesa
Calimesa Singleton
Calimesa Singleton
Calimesa Singleton
Calimesa Tukwet Canyon
Unincorporated Live Oak Canyon
Unincorporated San Timoteo Canyon
Unincorporated San Timoteo Canyon
Hemet Sanderson
Hemet Sanderson
Hemet Sanderson
Hemet Sanderson
Hemet
Hemet
Hemet
Hemet
Hemet
Hemet
Hemet
Hemet
Hemet
Hemet
Hemet
Hemet
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto
San Jacinto State
San Jacinto State
San Jacinto State
San Jacinto Warren
Unincorporated Gilman Springs
Unincorporated Gilman Springs
Unincorporated SR -79 (Winchester)
Sanderson
SR -74 (Florida)
SR -74 (Florida)
SR-74/SR-79 (Florida)
State
State
State
State
Stetson
Stetson
Warren
Warren
Esplanade
Esplanade
Sanderson
SR -79 (North Ramona)
SR -79 (San Jacinto)
SR -79 (San Jacinto)
State
Wilson
Sunset
I-10
8th
I-10
Highland Home
Smith Creek
Montgomery Creek
Highland Springs
Ramsey
I-10
Highland Home
Highland Springs
Viele
Pennsylvania
I-10
Champions
Highland Springs
Pennsylvania
Oak View
I-10
UP Railroad
Tukwet Canyon
6th
I-10
County Line
County Line
I-10
7th
I-10
Palmer
Avenue L
Condit
I-10
Roberts Rd
Oak Valley (SIC)
San Bernardino County
UP Railroad
Acacia
Domenigoni
RR Crossing
Stetson
Menlo
Warren
Columbia
Cawston
Domenigoni
Chambers
Florida
Stetson
Cawston
Warren
Esplanade
Salt Creek
Mountain
State
Ramona
State
North Ramona Blvd
7th
Ramona
Gilman Springs
San Jacinto River
Quandt Ranch
Ramona
Sanderson
Massacre Canyon Wash
SR -74 (Florida)
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$30,502,000 $30,502,000
$8,352,000 $8,352,000
$5,568,000 $5,568,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$32,698,000 $32,698,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$63,061,000 $62,401,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$6,588,000 $6,588,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$63,061,000 $63,061,000
$0 $0
$32,698,000 $32,698,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$12,972,000 $12,972,000
$63,061,000 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$52,780,000 $52,780,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$4,357,000 $4,357,000
$19,926,000 $19,926,000
$4,176,000 $4,176,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$0 $0
$3,317,000 $3,317,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$13,469,000 $13,469,000
$11,097,000 $11,097,000
$1,392,000 $1,392,000
$0 $0
WRCOG 51 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 395 of 1277 ends

Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued)

AREA PLAN DIST CITY
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Subtotal

STREETNAME
Corydon
Diamond
Franklin (integral to Railroad
Canyon Interchange)
Grand
Grand
Lake
Lake
Lake
Mission
Nichols
Nichols
Nichols
SR -74 (Collier/Riverside)
SR -74 (Grand)
SR -74 (Riverside)
Temescal Canyon
Temescal Canyon
California Oaks
California Oaks
California Oaks
Jackson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Keller
Keller
Los Alamos
Murrieta Hot Springs
Murrieta Hot Springs
Munieta Hot Springs
Nutmeg
Whitewood
Whitewood
Whitewood
Ynez
Butterfield Stage
Butterfield Stage
Butterfield Stage
Butterfield Stage
Butterfield Stage
Jefferson
Margarita
Old Town Front
Pechanga Pkwy
Pechanga Pkwy
Rancho California
Rancho California
Rancho California
SR -79 (Temecula Pkwy)
SR -79 (Temecula Pkwy(
Briggs
Butterfield Stage
Butterfield Stage (Pourroy)
Grand
Horsethief Canyon
Indian Truck Trail
Munieta Hot Springs
Pala
Pourroy
Rancho California
Temescal Canyon
Temescal Canyon
Temescal Canyon
Bundy Canyon
Grand
Mission
Palomar
Palomar
Wildomar Trail
Wildomar Trail
Wildomar Trail
Wildomar Trail

SEGMENTFROM

SEGMENTTO
Grand
1-15
interchange

TOTAL COST

MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE
Lake Elsinore
Lake Elsinore
Lake Elsinore
Lake Elsinore
Lake Elsinore
Lake Elsinore
Lake Elsinore
Lake Elsinore
Lake Elsinore
Lake Elsinore
Lake Elsinore
Lake Elsinore
Lake Elsinore
Lake Elsinore
Lake Elsinore
Lake Elsinore
Lake Elsinore
Mueteta
Mueteta
Murrieta
Mueteta
Munieta
Munieta
Munieta
Munieta
Munieta
Mueteta
Munieta
Munieta
Mueteta
Munieta
Mueteta
Munieta
Mueteta
Munieta
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
Temecula
Unincorporated
Unincorporated
Unincorporated
Unincorporated
Unincorporated
Unincorporated
Unincorporated
Unincorporated
Unincorporated
Unincorporated
Unincorporated
Unincorporated
Unincorporated
Wildomar
Wildomar
Wildomar
Wildomar
Wildomar
Wildomar
Wildomar
Wildomar
Wildomar
Mission
Mission
I-15
Lincoln
Toff
1-15
1-15
Temescal Wash
Railroad Canyon
I-15
Temescal Wash
1-15
I-15
Riverside
Lakeshore
1-15
Temescal Wash
Jefferson
1-15
Jackson
Whitewood
Palomar
Nutmeg
Munieta Hot Springs
1-215
1-215
Jefferson
Jefferson
1-215
Margarita
Jefferson
Clinton Keith
Los Alamos
Munieta Hot Springs
Jackson
Munieta Hot Springs
Calle Chapos
La Serena
Rancho California
Pauba
Cherry
Munieta Hot Springs
Rancho California
SR -79 (Temecula Pkwy(
Via Gilberto
Jefferson
1-15
Margarita
1-15
Pechanga Pkwy
Scott
Tucalota Creek
Auld
Ortega
Temescal Canyon
Temescal Canyon
SR -79 (Winchester)
Pechanga
SR -79 (Winchester)
Butterfield Stage
Horsethief Canyon Wash
Indian Truck Trail
Indian Wash
Mission
Corydon
Bundy Canyon
Clinton Keith
Mission
I-15
1-15
Baxter
Palomar
Toft
SR -74 (Riverside)
Lincoln
interchange
bridge
Bundy Canyon
Lake
bridge
interchange
Lakeshore
SR -74 (Ortega)
Grand
Lake
bridge
1-15
Jackson
Clinton Keith
Ynez
Nutmeg
Munieta Hot Springs
Cherry
Whitewood
interchange
1-215
1-215
Margarita
SR -79 (Winchester)
Clinton Keith
Los Alamos
Murrieta Hot Springs
Jackson
SR -79 (Winchester)
Calle Chapos
La Serena
Rancho California
Pauba
SR -79 (Temecula Pkwy)
Rancho California
SR -79 (Temecula Pkwy)
1-15/SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy)
Via Gilberto
Pechanga Pkwy
Margarita
interchange
Butterfield Stage
Pechanga Pkwy
Butterfield Stage
SR -79 (Winchester)
bridge
Murrieta Hot Springs
Corydon
1-15
I-15
Pourroy
San Diego County
Auld
Glen Oaks
bridge
I-15
bridge
I-15
Wildomar Trail
Palomar
Washington
Clinton Keith
Baxter
interchange
Palomar
Grand
$3,336,000
$0
$32,698,000
$0
$3,512,000
$39,817,000
$32,698,000
$2,506,000
$0
$7,850,000
$4,176,000
$63,061,000
$24,303,000
$9,733,000
$20,175,000
$7,411,000
$3,480,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,562,000
$0
$30,634,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,057,000
$0
$2,708,000
$0
$4,629,000
$0
$816,000
$696,000
$904,000
$846,000
$725,000
$2,285,000
$7,644,000
$0
$0
$0
$18,254,000
$32,698,000
$0
$0
$3,065,000
$6,509,000
$0
$23,076,000
$68,025,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,236,000
$87,369,000
$3,340,000
$15,739,000
$1,462,000
$9,704,000
$0
$0
$3,227,000
$13,493,000
$1,281,000
$32,698,000
$11,316,000
$0
$3,336,000
$0
$32,698,000
$0
$3,512,000
$32,726,000
$15,771,000
$1,150,000
$0
$7,850,000
$4,176,000
$63,061,000
$24,303,000
$3,691,000
$20,175,000
$7,411,000
$3,480,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,562,000
$0
$30,634,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,899,000
$0
$2,708,000
$0
$4,629,000
$0
$816,000
$696,000
$904,000
$846,000
$725,000
$2,285,000
$7,644,000
$0
$0
$0
$18,181,000
$0
$0
$0
$3,065,000
$6,509,000
$0
$23,076,000
$68,025,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,236,000
$87,369,000
$3,340,000
$15,739,000
$1,462,000
$9,704,000
$0
$0
$3,227,000
$13,493,000
$1,281,000
$27,858,000
$11,316,000
$0
$2,508,329,000 $1,913,028,000
Totals
Network
Transit
Administration
MSHCP
TOTAL
$4,840,250,000
$217,870,000
$161,183,000
$64,606,000
$5,283,909,000
$3,874,735,000
$154,831,000
$161,183,000
$53,859,000
$4,244,608,000
WRCOG 52 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 396 of 1277 ends

Table 4.5 - TUMF Transit Cost Estimates

AREA PLAN
DIST
LEAD
AGENCY

PROJECT NAME

LOCATION
UNITS )number/
length in miles)

UNIT COST
TOTAL

MAXIMUM

TUMF SHARE
Central
RTA
Menifee Mobility Hub
Menifee
1 $7,465,000
$7,465.000
$5,305,000
Northwest
RTA
Riverside Mobility Hub at Vine Street
Riverside
1 $11,195,000
$11,195,000
$7,956,000
Central
RTA
Moreno Valley Mobility Hub(s)
Moreno Valley
1 $11,195,000
$11,195,000
$7,956,000
Northwest
RTA
Jurupa Valley Mobility Hub(s)
Jurupa Valley
1 $11,195,000
$11,195.000
$7,956,000
Pass
RTA
Pass Area Mobility Hub(s)
Banning
1 $11,195,000
$11,195,000
$7,956,000
Southwest
RTA
Lake Elsinore / Canyon Lake Mobility
Hub(s)
Lake Elsinore
1 $11,195,000
$11,195,000
$7,956,000
San Jacinto
RTA
Hemet Mobility Hub
Hemet
1 $11,195,000
$11,195,000
$7,956,000
San Jacinto
RTA
San Jacinto Mobility Hub
San Jacinto
1 $11,195,000
$11,195,000
$7,956,000
San Jacinto
RTA
MSJC Mobility Hub
San Jacinto
1 $1,245,000
$1,245,000
$885,000
Regional
RTA
ZEB Technology Enhancements
Various locations region wide
10 $100.000
$1,000,000
$711,000
Northwest
RTA
Regional Operations and Maintenance
Facility
Riverside
I
$62,186,000
$62,186,000
$44.192,000
Regional
RTA
Annual Transit Enhancements Program
Various locations region wide
290
$50,000
$14,500,000
$10,304,000
Northwest
RTA
HQTC Improvements
UCR, Riverside to Perris
42 $75,000
$3,150,000
$2,239,000
Regional
RTA
Vehicle Fleet Small Buses/Vans
Various locations region wide
30 $160,000
$4,800,000
$3,411,000
Regional
RTA
Vehicle Fleet Medium Buses
Various locations region wide
20 $300,000
$6,000,000
$4,264,000
Regional
RTA
Vehicle Fleet Large Buses
Various locations region wide
29 $1,271,000
$36,859,000
$26,194,000
Regional
RTA
COA Study
Various locations region wide
2 $1,150,000
$2,300,000
$217,870,000
$1,634,000
$154,831,000
TOTAL

4.8 TUMF Network Evaluation
To assess the effectiveness of the proposed TUMF Network improvements to mitigate the cumulative regional impact of new development in Western Riverside County, the proposed network improvements were added to the 2021 existing network in RivCoM and the model was run with 2045 socioeconomic data to determine the relative impacts on horizon year traffic conditions. To quantify the impacts of the TUMF Network improvements, the various traffic measures of effectiveness described in Section 3.1 for the 2018 Existing and 2045 No -Build scenarios were again calculated for the 2045 TUMF Build scenario. The results for VMT, VHT, VHD, and total VMT experiencing unacceptable level of service (LOS E) were then compared to the results presented in Table 3.1 for the no -build conditions. The 2045 TUMF Build comparison results are provided in Table 4.6. Plots of the Network Extents are attached in Appendix H.

As shown in Table 4.6, the 2045 peak period VMT on all arterial facilities experiencing LOS of E or worse will decrease with the addition of the TUMF Network improvements while the share of VMT on the TUMF arterial network experiencing LOS E or worse during the peak periods will be reduced to 32% (which is still above the level experienced in 2018). It should be noted that the total VMT on the arterial system increases because of freeway trips being diverted to the arterial system to benefit from the proposed TUMF improvements.

Despite a greater share of the total peak period VMT in 2045, the arterial system can more efficiently accommodate the increased demand with the proposed TUMF improvements. Although peak period VMT on the TUMF improved arterial system increases by approximately 6% in 2045 compared to the No Build condition, VHT on the arterial system remains almost constant. Additionally, a benefit is observed on the WRCOG 53 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 397 of 1277 ends

freeway system with VMT and VHT being reduced following TUMF Network improvements. By completing TUMF improvements, the total VHD experienced by all area motorists would be reduced during the peak period by over 7% from the levels that would be experienced under the 2045 No -Build scenario. These results highlight the effectiveness of the TUMF Program to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development commensurate with the level of impact being created.

Table 4.6 - Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2018 Existing and 2045 No -Build Scenarios to 2045 TUMF Build Scenario) Measure of Performance*
Peak Periods (Total)
2045 Build
2018 Existing
2045 No -Build
VMT - Total ALL FACILITIES
23,284,724
29,897,254
30,160,328

VMT - FREEWAYS
13,514,522
15,490,284
15,418,548

VMT - ALL ARTERIALS
9,770,202
14,406,970
14,741,781

TOTAL - TUMF ARTERIAL VMT
6,216,985
8,597,200
9,096,417

VHT - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES
541,350
915,439
895,725

VHT - FREEWAYS
263,792
399,128
388,847

VHT - ALL ARTERIALS
277,558
516,311
506,878

TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHT
174,455
320,869
321,062

VHD - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES
108,900
338,056
313,288

VHD - FREEWAYS
66,156
170,649
161,528

VHD - ALL ARTERIALS
42,745
167,407
151,760

TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHD
33,249
124,863
114,451

VMT LOS E - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES
5,605,070
13,369,483
12,788,016

VMT LOS E - FREEWAYS
4,725,471
9,316,891
9,1 15,937

VMT LOS E & F - ALL ARTERIALS
879,599
4,052,592
3,672,079
TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse
765,782
3,184,133
2,929,288
% of TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse
12%
37%
32%
* Source: RivCoM 2018 base network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2021 arterial network as existing in December 2021 and RivCoM 2018 base network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2021 arterial network plus future TUMF network projects.

NOTES:

LOS E or Worse was determined by V/C ratio that exceeds 0.9 thresholds as indicated in the Riverside County General Plan.

WRCOG 54 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 398 of 1277 ends

5.0 TUMF NEXUS ANALYSIS
The objective of this section is to evaluate and document the rational nexus (or reasonable relationship) between the proposed fee and the transportation system improvements it will be used to help fund. The analysis starts by documenting the correlation between future development and the need for transportation system improvements on the TUMF network to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of this new development, followed by analysis of the nexus evaluation of the key components of the TUMF concept.

5.1 Future Development and the Need for Improvements
Previous sections of this report documented the projected population, household and employment growth in Western Riverside County, the expected increases in traffic congestion and travel delay, and the identification of the transportation system improvements that will serve these future inter -community travel demands. The following points coalesce this information in a synopsis of how the future growth relates to the need for improvements to the TUMF system.
➢ Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing.

Development in Western Riverside County is expected to continue at a robust rate of growth into the foreseeable future. Current projections estimate the population is projected to grow from a level of approximately 1.91 million in 2018 to a future level of about 2.53 million in 2045, while employment is projected to grow from a level of about 570,000 in 2018 to approximately 846,000 in 2045 (as shown in Table 2.3). ➢ Continuing growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways.

Traffic congestion and delay on arterial roadways are projected to increase dramatically in the future (as shown in Table 3.1). Without improvements to the transportation system, congestion levels will grow rapidly and travelers will experience unacceptable travel conditions with slow travel speeds and lengthy delays.
➢ The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to future development in Western Riverside County.

Traffic using arterial roadways within Western Riverside County is virtually all generated within or attracted to Western Riverside County, since longer -distance trips passing through the region typically use the freeway system, not arterial roadways. Therefore, the future recurring congestion problems on these roadways will be attributable to new trips that originate in, terminate in, or travel within Western Riverside County.
➢ Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to alleviate the future congestion caused by new development.

To maintain transportation service closer to current levels of efficiency, capacity enhancements will need to be made to the arterial roadway system. These enhancements could include new or realigned roads, additional lanes on existing WRCOG 55 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 399 of 1277 ends

roads, new or expanded bridges, new or upgraded freeway interchanges, grade separation of at -grade rail crossings, or the installation of new ITS to improve traffic flows. The completion of improvements to the arterial roadway system would enhance regional mobility and reduce the total peak period vehicles hours of travel (VHT) by over 2%, reduce peak period vehicle hours of delay (VHD) by over 7%, and reduce the share of traffic experiencing congestion in the peak periods by over 4% (as shown in Table 4.6). The specific needs and timing of implementation will depend on the location and rate of future development, so the specific improvements to be funded by the TUMF and their priority of implementation will be determined during future project programming activities as improvement needs unfold and as TUMF funds become available.
➢ Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program.

The criteria used to identify roads for the TUMF network (future number of lanes, future traffic volume, future congestion level, and roadway function linking communities and activity centers and serving public transportation) were selected to ensure that these are the roadways that will serve inter -community travel and will require future improvement to alleviate congestion.
➢ Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit -dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automobile travel.

Since a portion of the population does not own an automobile and depends on public transportation for mobility, public transportation infrastructure and service will need to be enhanced and expanded to ensure continued mobility for this segment of the population. In addition, improvements to the public transportation system will be required to ensure that transit service can function as a viable option for future new Western Riverside County residents and employees who choose to avoid congestion by using public transportation.

For the reasons cited above, it can be readily concluded that there is a rational nexus between the future need for transportation improvements on the TUMF system and the future development upon which the proposed TUMF would be levied. The following sections evaluate the rational nexus in relation to the system components and the types of uses upon which the fee is assessed.

5.2 Application of Fee to System Components
As noted in Section 3.2, the TUMF concept includes splitting the fee revenues between the backbone system of arterials, the secondary system of arterials, and the public transportation system. This section evaluates the travel demands to determine the rational nexus between the future travel demands and the use of the fee to fund improvements to the future system components.

The split of fee revenues between the backbone and secondary highway networks is related to the proportion of highway vehicle trips that are relatively local (between WRCOG 56 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 400 of 1277 ends

adjacent communities) and longer distance (between more distant communities but still within Western Riverside County). To estimate a rational fee split between the respective networks, the future combined AM and PM peak period travel forecast estimates were aggregated to a matrix of trips between zones to show the percentage of trips that remain within each zone in relation to the volume that travels to the other zones. This analysis was completed using the Year 2045 No -Build scenario trip tables from RivCoM.

The first step in the analysis was to create a correspondence table between the TAZs in the model and the five WRCOG TUMF zones (i.e. Northwest, Southwest, Central, Hemet/San Jacinto and Pass). The TAZs were then compressed into six districts (the five WRCOG zones and one for the rest of the SCAG region).

Table 5.1 shows the estimated peak period vehicle trips within and between each of the zones. Table 5.2 shows the percentage of peak period vehicle trips within and between the respective zones. Appendix I includes the detailed RivCoM outputs used to develop the regional trip distribution profile shown in Table 5.1 and 5.2.

Table 5.1 - 2045 No -Build Peak Period Vehicle Trips by WRCOG Zone TO
From
Central
Hemet/San
Jacinto
Northwest
Pass
Southwest
Outside
WRCOG
TOTAL
Central
417,608
23,474
89,780
6,301
55,101
57,558
649,822
Hemet/San Jacinto
29,401
209,005
8,647
8,432
16,081
18,078
289,645
Northwest
58,578
2,684
743,234
2,687
11,032
196,041
1,014,257
Pass
8,068
7,585
6,114
110,385
908
32,334
165,395
Southwest
55,812
16,232
32,852
1,976
667,255
62,713
836,839
Outside WRCOG
33,907
7,574
192,712
24,490
33,867
292,550
TOTAL
603,375
266,554
1,073,340
154,271
784,244
366,724
3,248,507
Based on RivCoM Year 2045 No -Build scenario
Table 5.2 - 2045 No -Build Percent Peak Period Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone To
From

Central
Hemet/San
Jacinto
Northwest
Pass
Southwest
Outside
WRCOG
TOTAL
Central

64.3%

3.6%

13.8%

1.0%

8.5%

8.9%
100%
Hemet/San Jacinto

10.2%

72.2%

3.0%

2.9%

5.6%

6.2%
100%
Northwest

5.8%

0.3%

73.3%

0.3%

1.1%

19.3%
100%
Pass

4.9%

4.6%

3.7%

66.7%

0.5%

19.5%
100%
Southwest

6.7%

1.9%

3.9%

0.2%

79.7%

7.5%
100%
Based on RivCoM Year 2045 No -Build scenario
WRCOG 57 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update

Page 401 of 1277 ends

September 9, 2024

Table 5.3 summarizes the calculation of the split between the backbone and secondary highway networks as derived from the peak period trip values provided in Table 5.1. Peak period vehicle trips to and from areas outside Western Riverside County were subtracted from the calculation, on the presumption that most of their inter- regional travel would occur on the freeway system. Peak period trips between zones (regional) were assigned to the backbone network, since these trips are primarily served by the arterial roadways that provide connections between the zones. Peak period trips within zones (local) were split between the backbone network and the secondary network in proportion to their lane -miles, since roadways on both networks serve intra-zonal trips. The backbone network includes approximately 41.1% of the lane -miles on the future TUMF system, and the secondary network includes approximately 58.9% of the lane -miles.

The backbone network is therefore assigned all the inter -zonal peak period trips plus

41.1% of the intra-zonal peak period trips. The secondary network is assigned 58.9% of the intra-zonal peak period trips and none of the inter -zonal peak period trips. The overall result is that 51.1% of the regional travel is assigned to the backbone network and 48.9% is assigned to the secondary network.

Table 5.3 - Backbone -Secondary Network Share Calculation Calculation Value Description
Input Values
3,248,507
-659,273
2,589,234
441,747
2,147,487
Backbone
Value
1,243.9
Backbone
Share
Secondary
Value
Secondary
Share
Total Western Riverside County
Peak Period Vehicle Trips
Less Internal/External Peak Period
Vehicle Trips

41.1%
1,786.0
Total Peak Period Vehicle Trips
Internal to Western Riverside
County

58.9%
Peak Period Vehicle Trips Between
TUMF Zones
Peak Period Vehicle Trips Within
TUMF Zones
TUMF Future Network Lane -Miles
3,029.9
441,747
2,147,487
2,589,234
Peak Period Vehicle Trips Between
Zones
441,747
100.0%

41.1%
0 0.0%TUMF

58.9%
Peak Period Vehicle Trips Within
TUMF Zones (as share of intra-
zonal trips)
882,332
1,265,155
Total Peak Period Vehicle Trips
Assigned
1,324,079

51.1%
1,265,155

48.9%
Based on RivCoM Year 2045 No -Build scenario; TUMF Nexus Study Exhibit H-1 WRCOG 58 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 402 of 1277 ends

5.3 Application of Fee to Residential and Non -Residential Developments In order to establish the approximate proportionality of the future traffic impacts associated with new residential development and new non-residential development, the growth in daily VMT between the 2018 Existing and 2045 No -Build Scenarios from RivCoM were aggregated by trip purpose. RivCoM produces person trips (irrespective of mode choice) on the basis of five trip purposes: home -based -work (HBW), home - based -other (HBO), home -based -school (HBS), non -home -based (NHB), and home - based -university (HBU).

NCHRP Report #187 Quick Response Urban Travel Estimation Techniques and Transferable Parameters User's Guide (Transportation Research Board, 1978) details operational travel estimation techniques that are universally used for the travel demand modeling. Chapter 2 of this report, which details trip generation estimation, states that "HBW (Home Based Work) and HBNW (Home Based Non -Work) trips are generated at the households, whereas the NHB (Non -Home Based) trips are generated elsewhere." In accordance with NCHRP Report #187, growth in daily VMT was aggregated into home - based growth in daily VMT (combining the four home -based purposes: HBW, HBO, HBSC and HBU) and non -home -based growth in daily VMT. The home -based growth in daily VMT represents 77.7% of the total future growth in daily VMT and the non -home -based growth in daily VMT represent 22.3% of the total future growth in daily VMT, as shown in Table 5.4. Appendix J includes the RivCoM outputs used to develop the trip purpose summary in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4 - Daily VMT Growth by Trip Purpose for Western Riverside County (2018 - 2045)

VEHICLE TRIP PURPOSE
2018 EXISTING

DAILY VMT
2045 NO -BUILD

DAILY VMT

DAILY VMT
GROWTH

DAILY VMT
GROWTH
SHARE
Home -Based -Work
81,121,525
98,818,811
17,697,286

31.8%
Home -Based -Other
114,840,696
138,710,519
23,869,822

42.9%
Home -Based -School (K-12)
8,592,941
9,230,272
637,331

1.1%
Non -Home -Based
61,534,566
73,907,099
12,372,533

22.3%
Home -Based -University
5,377,197
6,400,662
1,023,465

1.8%
TOTAL
271,466,925
327,067,363
55,600,437
100.00%
Home -Based Trips
(Residential Uses)
43,227,904

77.7%
Non -Home -Based Trips
Non -Residential Uses
12,372,533

22.3%
Based on RivCoM Year 2018 Existing Scenario, November 2023 and RivCoM Year 2045 No Build Scenario, November 2023
WRCOG 59 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 403 of 1277 ends

6.0 FAIR -SHARE FEE CALCULATION
The fee amounts, by type of development, that are justified to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development on transportation facilities in Western Riverside County are quantified in this section. The total cost of improving the TUMF system is $5.28 billion. Existing funding obligated for improvements to the TUMF system totals $382.9 million while unfunded improvement needs generated by existing development represent $646.9 million of the total cost. The balance of the unfunded TUMF system improvement needs is $4.24 billion which is the maximum value attributable to the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development in the WRCOG region and will be captured through the TUMF Program.

By levying the uniform fee directly on future new developments (and indirectly on new residents and new employees to Western Riverside County), these transportation system users are assigned their "fair share" of the costs to address the cumulative impacts of additional traffic they will generate on the regional transportation system.

6.1 Residential Fees
The portion of the unfunded future improvement cost allocable to new residential development through the TUMF is $3.30 billion. Since this future transportation system improvement need is generated by new residential development anticipated through the Year 2045, the fee will be spread between the residential developments projected to be constructed between 2018 and 2045. The projected residential growth from year 2018 to 2045 is 257,826 households (or dwelling units) as is indicated in Table 2.3.

Different household types generate different numbers of trips. To reflect the difference in trip generation between lower density "single-family" dwelling units and higher density "multi -family" dwelling units, the TUMF was weighted based on the respective trip generation rates of these different dwelling unit types. For the purposes of the TUMF Program, single family dwelling units are those housing units with a density of less than 8 units per acre while multi -family units are those with a density of 8 or more units per acre. According to the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS forecasts included in Table 2.3 and Appendix B, single family dwelling units (including mobile homes) are forecast to constitute 65.0% of the growth in residential dwelling units in the region between 2018 and 2045.

Data provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021) show that, on average, single-family dwelling units generate 0.99 vehicle trips per dwelling unit per hour in the PM peak hour, whereas apartments, condominiums and townhouses (considered to be representative of higher density multi -family dwelling units) generate a median of 0.50 vehicle trips per unit per hour in the PM peak hour. The growth in dwelling units for single-family and multi -family, respectively, were multiplied by the corresponding trip generation rates to determine WRCOG 60 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 404 of 1277 ends

the weighted proportion of the change in trips attributable to each use type as the basis for determining the per unit fee required to levy the necessary $3.20 billion to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new residential development. Table 6.1 summarizes the calculation of the fee for single-family and multi -family dwelling units. Appendix K includes worksheets detailing the calculation of the residential (and non-residential) TUMF for Western Riverside County.

Table 6.1 - Fee Calculation for Residential Share
Residential Sector
2018
Dwelling
Units
2045
Dwelling
Units
Dwelling
Unit
Change
Trip
Generation
Rate
Trip Change
Percentage
of Trip
Change
Fee/DU
$15,476
$7,816
Single -Family
397,407
564,898
167,491

0.99 165,816

78.6%
Multi -Family
157,166
247,501
90,335

0.50 45,168

21.4%
Total
554,573
812,399
257,826
210,984
100.0%
Household data based on SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS;
Trip Generation based on ITE Trip Generation (2021).

Consistent with the socio-economic forecasts developed by SCAG and the trip generation basis to assess the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development, the residential fee calculation for TUMF reflects a uniform fee per dwelling unit for two categories as described previously: single-family residential and multi -family residential. On September 28, 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsome signed Assembly Bill 602 (AB 602) approving several changes to the Mitigation Fee Act, including the additional of §66016.5 to the California Government Code (CGC). CGC §66016.5(a) (5) (A) states "A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development...." unless certain findings are made. These findings include:
"(i) An explanation as to why square footage is not appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on housing development project.
(ii) An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.
(iii) That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees."
To address these provisions of AB 602, WRCOG analyzed the trip generation characteristics of single-family and multi -family residential dwelling units of various sizes to determine whether the TUMF should be imposed based on the square footage of the respective housing type. The findings of the analyses for single-family and multi -family, respectively, were summarized in technical memoranda that are included in Appendix K. Based on the findings of the analyses, WRCOG has determined that the fee for single-family residential units should be adjusted in four tiers to correlate to the trip generation characteristics associated with various ranges of single-family housing sizes to demonstrate compliance with AB 602. The tiers reflecting the adjustments to the WRCOG 61 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 405 of 1277 ends

standard single-family residential fee per dwelling unit (as calculated in Table 6.1) for differing ranges of single-family dwelling unit sizes are summarized in Table 6.2.

Adjustments to the standard uniform fair -share single-family residential fee to account for variations in trip generation rates based on the size of the units will be made at the time of determining the fee obligation consistent with the process outlined further in the WRCOG TUMF Fee Calculation Handbook.

Table 6.2 - Single -Family Residential Fee Adjustments by Unit Size Adjustment Tier
Housing Unit Size Range (in square feet)
Base Fee Adjustment
Tier 1
Less than or equal to 1,800
80%
Tier 2
1,801 to 2,300
90%
Tier 3
2,301 to 2,700
100%
Tier 4
More than 2,700
125%
For multi -family residential units, WRCOG determined that the fee can be imposed on all multi -family units uniformly consistent with the conclusions of the analysis of multi- family trip generation rates by unit size, which demonstrated little variation in trip generation rates across the range of multi -family residential unit sizes. Therefore, the multi -family residential fee, as calculated in Table 6.2, can be applied uniformly to all multi -family residential units under the TUMF program.

6.2 Non -Residential Fees
The portion of the unfunded future improvement cost allocable to new non-residential development through the TUMF is $946.5 million. Estimates of employment by sector were obtained from the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS socioeconomic data included in Table 2.3 and Appendix B. From the 2045 employment forecast, the amount of employee growth in each sector was calculated. The employment figures were then translated into square footage of new development using typical ratios of square feet per employee derived from four sources including: Cordoba Corporation/Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas (PBQD), Land Use Density Conversion Factors For Long Range Corridor Study San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, August 20, 1990; Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Orange County Subarea Model Guidelines Manual, June 2001; SCAG, Employment Density Study, October 31, 2001; and the County of Riverside, General Plan, as amended December 15, 2015. Worksheets showing the development of the TUMF employee conversion factors and the application of the conversion factors to calculate the square footage of future new non-residential development in Western Riverside County are included in Appendix L.

To account for the differences in trip generation between various types of non- residential uses, the new non-residential development was weighted by trip generation rate for each sector. Typical trip generation rates per employee were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation - 1 1 th Edition (2021), and were weighted based on a calculated value of trips per employee as derived from the WRCOG 62 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 406 of 1277 ends

employee conversion factors and ITE typical trip generation rates per square foot of development, before being assigned to the non-residential categories as follows:

Industrial - 0.6 PM peak hour trips per employee, Retail - 1.8 PM peak hour trips per employee, Service - 1.2 PM peak hour trips per employee, and Government/Public -

2.1 PM peak hour trips per employee12. These rates were applied to the employment growth in each sector to determine the relative contribution of each sector to new trip - making, and the $946.5 million was then allocated among the non-residential categories based on the percentage of new trips added. This proportionate non- residential fee share by sector was then divided by the estimated square footage of future new development to obtain the rate per square foot for each type of use. The calculation of the non-residential fee by sector is shown in Table 6.3.

Table 6.3 - Fee Calculation for Non -Residential Share
Non -Residential Sector
Employment
Change
Trip
Generation
Rate per
Employee
Trip Change
Percentage
of Trip
Change
Change in
Square Feet of
Gross Floor
Area
Fee/SF
$2.33
$11.21
$9.76
$23.07
Industrial
76,581

0.6 45,949

15.1%
61,489,565
Retail
13,115

1.8 23,607

7.8%
6,557,500
Service
174,255

1.2 209,106

68.8%
66,735,957
Government/Public
12,071

2.1 25,349

8.3%
3,420,665
Total
276,022
304,011
100.0%
138,203,688
Employment Change data based on SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS; Trip Generation based on ITE (2021); Change in Square Feet conversion factor based on Cordoba (1990), OCTA (2001), SCAG (2001) and County of Riverside (2015). 12 The median trip generation rate for 'Retail' and 'Service' was reduced to reflect the influence of pass -by trips using the weekday PM peak median pass -by trip rate for select uses as derived from the ITE Trip Generation Manual (1 1th Edition) (September 2021).

WRCOG 63 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 407 of 1277 ends

7.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of the Nexus Study evaluation, there is reasonable relationship between the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new land development projects in Western Riverside County and the need to mitigate these transportation impacts using funds levied through the ongoing TUMF Program. Factors that reflect this reasonable relationship include:
➢ Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing because of future new development.
➢ Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways. ➢ The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County. ➢ Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development.
➢ Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program.
➢ Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit -dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automobile travel.

Furthermore, the Nexus Study evaluation has divided the fair share of the cost to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of future new development in Western Riverside County in rough proportionality to the cumulative impacts of future residential and non-residential development in the region. The respective fee allocable to future new residential and non-residential development in Western Riverside County is summarized for differing use types in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County Land Use Type
Units
Development
Change
Fee Per Unit Total
$15,476
Revenue
($ million)
Single Family Residential
DU
167,491
$2,592.0
Multi Family Residential
DU
90,335
$7,816
$706.1
Industrial
SF GFA
61,489,565
$2.33
$143.1
Retail
SF GFA
6,557,500
$11.21
$73.5
Service
SF GFA
66,735,957
$9.76
$651.1
Government/Public
SF GFA
3,420,665
$23.07
$78.9
MAXIMUM TUMF VALUE $4,244.6
WRCOG
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update

Page 408 of 1277 ends

64 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
September 9, 2024

8.0 APPENDICES
The following Appendices incorporate the extent of materials used to support the development of the WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study and, where appropriate, specifically the 2024 Update. The respective Appendices also incorporate an explanation of the methodology and assumptions used to develop the various elements of the Nexus Study.

These Appendices represent a compilation of materials derived from a variety of technical resources. Each of the following Appendices relate to the development of a specific element of the Nexus Study. These Appendices are as follows:

Appendix A - List of WRCOG Committees
Appendix B - Western Riverside County Population and Employment Growth 2018 - 2045
Appendix C - Western Riverside County Traffic Growth 2018 - 2045 Appendix D - Western Riverside County Transit System Ridership 2018 - 2045 Appendix E - Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials Performance Measures
Appendix F - TUMF Network Cost Assumptions
Appendix G - TUMF 2024 Program Update Disposition of Network Change Requests Appendix H - TUMF Network Cost Estimate and Evaluation
Appendix I - Western Riverside County Regional Trip Distribution Appendix J - Western Riverside County Regional Trip Purpose Appendix K - Residential Fee Calculation
Appendix L - Non -Residential Fee Calculation
WRCOG 65 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 409 of 1277 ends

Appendix A - List of WRCOG Committees
WRCOG Executive Committee
Sheri Flynn
City of Banning
Mike Lora
City of Beaumont
Wendy Hewitt
City of Calimesa
Mark Terry
City of Canyon Lake
Jacque Casillas (2nd Vice -Chair)
City of Corona
Christian Dinco
City of Eastvale
Jackie Peterson
City of Hemet
Chris Barajas (Past Chair)
City of Jurupa Valley
Brian Tisdale
City of Lake Elsinore
Bob Karwin
City of Menifee
Elena Baca -Santa Cruz
City of Moreno Valley
Lisa DeForest
City of Murrieta
Kevin Bash
City of Norco
Rita Rogers (Chair)
City of Perris
Chuck Conder
City of Riverside
Crystal Ruiz
City of San Jacinto
James Stewart
City of Temecula
Joseph Morabito
City of Wildomar
Kevin Jeffries
County of Riverside Dist. 1
Karen Spiegel
County of Riverside Dist. 2
Chuck Washington
County of Riverside Dist. 3
Yxstian Gutierrez
County of Riverside Dist. 5
Phil Paule
Eastern Municipal Water District
Dr. Edwin Gomez
Riverside County Superintendent of
Schools (ex -officio)
Brenda Dennstedt (Vice -Chair)
Western Water
WRCOG A-1 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 410 of 1277 ends

WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee
Doug Schulze
City of Banning
Elizabeth Gibbs
City of Beaumont
Will Kolbow
City of Calimesa
Aaron Brown
City of Canyon Lake
Brett Channing
City of Corona
Mark Orme
City of Eastvale
Mark Prestwich
City of Hemet
Rod Butler (Past Chair)
City of Jurupa Valley
Jason Simpson
City of Lake Elsinore
Armando Villa
City of Menifee
Mike Lee
City of Moreno Valley
Kim Summers
City of Murrieta
Lori Sassoon
City of Norco
Clara Miramontes (Chair)
City of Perris
Mike Futrell
City of Riverside
Rob Johnson
City of San Jacinto
Aaron Adams
City of Temecula
Dan York
City of Wildomar
Jeff Van Wagenen
County of Riverside
Joe Mouawad
Eastern Municipal Water District
Grace Martin
March Joint Power Authority
Matt Snellings
Riverside County Office of Education
Craig Miller
Western Water
WRCOG A-2 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 411 of 1277 ends

WRCOG Planning Directors' Committee
no new appointment made (as of 07/24/24)
City of Banning
Carole Kendrick
City of Beaumont
Kelly Lucia
City of Calimesa
Jim Morrisey
City of Canyon Lake
Joanne Coletta
City of Corona
David Murray
City of Eastvale
Monique Alaniz-Flejter
City of Hemet
Joe Perez (Chair)
City of Jurupa Valley
Damaris Abraham
City of Lake Elsinore
Cheryl Kitzerow
City of Menifee
Sean Kelleher (2nd Vice -Chair)
City of Moreno Valley
David Chantarangsu
City of Murrieta
Alma Robles
City of Norco
Kenneth Phung (Vice -Chair)
City of Perris
Judy Eguez
City of Riverside
Travis Randel
City of San Jacinto
Matt Peters
City of Temecula
Matthew Bassi
City of Wildomar
John Hildebrand
County of Riverside
Jeffrey Smith
March Joint Powers Authority
Jennifer Nguyen
Riverside Transit Agency
Ryan Shaw
Western Water
WRCOG A-3 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 412 of 1277 ends

WRCOG Public Works Committee
Art Vela
City of Banning
Robert Vestal
City of Beaumont
Michael Thornton
City of Calimesa
Stuart McKibben
City of Canyon Lake
Savat Khamphou (Vice -Chair)
City of Corona
Jimmy Chung
City of Eastvale
Noah Rau
City of Hemet
Paul Toor (Chair)
City of Jurupa Valley
Remon Habib
City of Lake Elsinore
Nick Fidler
City of Menifee
Melissa Walker
City of Moreno Valley
Bob Moehling
City of Murrieta
Sam Nelson
City of Norco
John Pourkazemi
City of Perris
Gil Hernandez
City of Riverside
Stuart McKibbin (Vice -Chair)
City of San Jacinto
Patrick Thomas
City of Temecula
Jason Farag
City of Wildomar
Patricia Romo
County of Riverside
Lauren Sotelo
March Joint Powers Authority
Jillian Guizado
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Mauricio Alvarez
Riverside Transit Agency
WRCOG A-4 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 413 of 1277 ends

WRCOG Finance Directors' Committee
Lincoln Bogard
City of Banning
Jennifer Ustation
City of Beaumont
Celeste Reid
City of Calimesa
Terry Shea
City of Canyon Lake
Kim Sitton
City of Corona
Amanda Wells
City of Eastvale
vacant
City of Hemet
June Overholt
City of Jurupa Valley
Shannon Buckley
City of Lake Elsinore
Travis Hickey
City of Menifee
Launa Jimenez
City of Moreno Valley
Javier Carcamo (Past Chair)
City of Murrieta
Lisette Free
City of Norco
Ernie Reyna (Chair)
City of Perris
Kristie Thomas
City of Riverside
Erika Gomez (2nd Vice -Chair)
City of San Jacinto
Jennifer Hennessy
City of Temecula
Adam Jantz
City of Wildomar
Vacant
County of Riverside
John Adams
Eastern Municipal Water District
Grace Martin
March Joint Power Authority
Dr. Ruth Perez
Riverside County Office of Education
Kevin Mascaro
Western Water
WRCOG A-5 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 414 of 1277 ends

Appendix B - Western Riverside County Population and Employment Growth 2008 - 2035 Although a variety of alternate demographic information is available for the purpose of quantifying population and household growth in Western Riverside County, it was determined that the data developed by SCAG to support the 2020 RTP/SCS represented the most comprehensive source of socioeconomic data (SED) for the six - county SCAG region that includes Riverside County. The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED information is disaggregated to the level of traffic analysis zones (TAZ) that comprise inputs to RivCoM. These SED data by TAZ were extracted from RivCoM (specifically the TAZ_Data.CSV file located in the PopSyn output folder) and aggregated to correspond with the TUMF zones to support this update of the TUMF Nexus. The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED data retrieved from RivCoM and used as the basis for the Nexus Update is summarized in this Appendix.

The SCAG employment data for 2018 and 2045 was provided for thirteen employment sectors consistent with the California Employment Development Department (EDD) Major Groups including: Farming, Natural Resources and Mining; Construction; Manufacturing; Wholesale Trade; Retail Trade; Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities; Information; Financial Activities; Professional and Business Service; Education and Health Service; Leisure and Hospitality; Other Service; and Government. For the purposes of the Nexus Study, the SCAG Employment Categories were aggregated to Industrial (Farming, Natural Resources and Mining; Construction; Manufacturing; Wholesale Trade; Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities), Retail (Retail Trade), Service (Information; Financial Activities; Professional and Business Service; Education and Health Service; Leisure and Hospitality; Other Service) and Government/Public Sector (Government). These four aggregated sector types were used as the basis for calculating the fee as described in Section 6.2. This Appendix includes tables detailing the SCAG RTP/SCS SED Employment Categories and corresponding North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Categories that are included in each non- residential sector type.

WRCOG B-1 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9. 2024

Page 415 of 1277 ends

EXHIBIT B-1
Western Riverside County Population, Households and Employment (2018) - SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Base Year SED Type/Zone 1
Central
Northwest
Pass
San Jacinto
Southwest
Total
Population
Total Population 1
408,260
777,900
98,688
187,677
432,9151 1,905,440
Households
Single -Family
83,142
152,897
24,937
38,888
97,543
397,407
Multi -Family
26,889
63,591
8,661
26,055
31,970
157,166
Total Households
110,031
216,488
33,598
64,943
129,513
554,573
Employment
Farming, Natural Resources and Mining
799
3,431
559
1,625
2,080
8,494
Construction
6,245
31,914
1,807
2,067
13,290
55,323
Manufacturing
4,172
25,866
1,101
925
8,902
40,966
Wholesale Trade
8,428
9,269
268
546
6,490
25,001
Retail Trade
13,346
32,061
5,472
4,564
18,371
73,814
Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities
7,349
22,686
1,132
2,132
6,251
39,550
Information
425
2,073
496
177
863
4,034
Financial Activities
1,887
8,632
586
1,003
5,414
17,522
Professional and Business Service
7,834
32,973
3,434
1,630
13,532
59,403
Education and Health Service
20,423
76,884
6,092
13,659
29,192
146,250
Leisure and Hospitality
8,391
21,990
7,207
3,726
18,270
59,584
Other Service
2,834
10,603
1,244
1,891
5,338
21,910
Government
2,579
11,727
871
761
2,631
18,569
TUMF Industrial
26,993
93,166
4,867
7,295
37,013
169,334
TUMF Retail
13,346
32,061
5,472
4,564
18,371
73,814
TUMF Service
41,794
153,155
19,059
22,086
72,609
308,703
TUMF Government/Public Sector
2,579
11,727
871
761
2,631
18,569
Total Employment
84,712
290,109
30,269
34,706
130,624
570,420
Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS

Page 416 of 1277 ends

EXHIBIT B-2
Western Riverside County Population, Households & Employment (2045) - SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Horizon Year SED Type/Zone 1 Central
Northwest
Pass
San Jacinto
Southwest
Total
Population
Total Population 1
594,678
925,228
158,040
289,439
566,4911 2,533,876
Households
Single -Family
133,507
181,827
43,988
70,713
134,863
564,898
Multi -Family
53,555
79,359
14,362
43,654
56,571
247,501
Total Households
187,062
261,186
58,350
114,367
191,434
812,399
Employment
Farming, Natural Resources and Mining
712
2,212
527
1,218
2,001
6,670
Construction
18,304
48,533
3,186
5,861
20,236
96,120
Manufacturing
6,836
24,624
1,393
1,149
10,335
44,337
Wholesale Trade
6,150
9,048
324
559
6,529
22,610
Retail Trade
16,310
33,656
7,136
6,338
23,489
86,929
Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities
18,227
38,043
2,705
4,771
12,432
76,178
Information
642
2,166
476
191
1,116
4,591
Financial Activities
2,906
9,889
1,229
1,536
6,665
22,225
Professional and Business Service
14,214
41,712
6,016
4,518
21,058
87,518
Education and Health Service
52,764
111,454
13,803
25,739
51,118
254,878
Leisure and Hospitality
13,197
27,739
10,540
8,424
24,641
84,541
Other Service
5,148
13,062
1,532
2,838
6,625
29,205
Government
6,229
18,222
1,176
1,471
3,542
30,640
TUMF Industrial
50,229
122,460
8,135
13,558
51,533
245,915
TUMF Retail
16,310
33,656
7,136
6,338
23,489
86,929
TUMF Service
88,871
206,022
33,596
43,246
111,223
482,958
TUMF Government/Public Sector
6,229
18,222
1,176
1,471
3,542
30,640
Total Employment
161,639
380,360
50,043
64,613
189,787
846,442
Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS

Page 417 of 1277 ends

EXHIBIT B-3
Western Riverside Count
Po • ulation, Households and Em
lo
ment
2018 to 2045 Chan
e - SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
SED Type/Zone
I Central
Northwest
Pass
San Jacinto
Southwest
Total
Population
Total Population
1 186,418
147,328
59,352
101,762
133,5761
628,436
Households
Single -Family
50,365
28,930
19,051
31,825
37,320
167,491
Multi -Family
26,666
15,768
5,701
17,599
24,601
90,335
Total Households
77,031
44,698
24,752
49,424
61,921
257,826
Employment
Farmin , Natural Resources and Minin
-87
-1,219
-32
-407
-79
-1,824
Construction
12,059
16,619
1,379
3,794
6,946
40,797
Manufacturin
2,664
-1,242
292
224
1,433
3,371
Wholesale Trade
-2,278
-221
56 13
39 -2,391
Retail Trade
2,964
1,595
1,664
1,774
5,118
13,115
Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities
10,878
15,357
1,573
2,639
6,181
36,628
Information
217
93 -20
14 253
557
Financial Activities
1,019
1,257
643
533
1,251
4,703
Professional and Business Service
6,380
8,739
2,582
2,888
7,526
28,115
Education and Health Service
32,341
34,570
7,711
12,080
21,926
108,628
Leisure and Hos italic
4,806
5,749
3,333
4,698
6,371
24,957
Other Service
2,314
2,459
288
947
1,287
7,295
Government
3,650
6,495
305
710
911
12,071
TUMF Industrial
23,236
29,294
3,268
6,263
14,520
76,581
TUMF Retail
2,964
1,595
1,664
1,774
5,118
13,115
TUMF Service
47,077
52,867
14,537
21,160
38,614
174,255
TUMF Government/Public Sector
3,650
6,495
305
710
911
12,071
Total Employment
76,927
90,251
19,774
29,907
59,163
276,022
Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS

Page 418 of 1277 ends

Exhibit B -4a - TUMF 2024 Nexus Update
Western Riverside County Population, Households and Employment (2018-2045 SED Type/Zone
2018
2045
Change
Percent
Total Population
1,905,440
2,533,876
628,436
33%
Total Households
554,573
812,399
257,826
46%
Single -Family
397,407
564,898
167,491
42%
Multi -Family
157,166
570,420_
247,501
846,442
90,335
276,022_
57%
48%
Total Employment
TUMF Industrial
169,334
245,915
76,581
45%
TUMF Retail
73,814
86,929
13,115
18%
TUMF Service
308,703
482,958
174,255
56%
TUMF Government/Public Sector
18,569
30,640
12,071
65%
Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
Exhibit B -4b - TUMF 2016 Nexus Update
Western Riverside County Population, Households and Employment (2012-2040) SED Type/Zone
2012
2040
Change
Percent
Total Population
_
1,773,935_
525,149_
366,588
2,429,633
775,231
539,631
655,698_
250,082_
173,043
37%
48%
47%
Total Households
Single -Family
Multi -Family
158,561
235,600
77,039
49%
Total Employment
460,787
861,455
400,668
87%
TUMF Industrial
120,736
201,328
80,592
67%
TUMF Retail
65,888
101,729
35,841
54%
TUMF Service
253,372
528,092
274,720
108%
TUMF Government/Public Sector
20,791
30,306
9,515
46%
Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS

Page 419 of 1277 ends

Exhibit B -4c - TUMF 2016 Nexus Update to 2024 Nexus Update Comparison Western Riverside County Population, Households and Employment (Existing to Future Change) SED Type/Zone
2016 Update
(2012-2040)
2024 Update
(2018-2045)
Difference
Percent
Total Population
655,698
628,436
-27,262
-4%
Total Households
250,082
257,826
7,744
3%
Single -Family
173,043
167,491
-5,552
-3%
Multi -Family
77,039
90,335
13,296
170
Total Employment
400,668
276,022
-124,646
-31%
TUMF Industrial
80,592
76,581
-4,011
-5%
TUMF Retail
35,841
13,115
-22,726
-63%
TUMF Service
274,720
174,255
-100,465
-37%
TUMF Government/Public Sector
9,515
12,071
2,556
27%
Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS; SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS

Page 420 of 1277 ends

EXHIBIT B -4d
Western Riverside County Population, Households and Employment Change (2012 to 2040 and 2018 to 2045) TUMF 2016 Nexus Update Comparison to TUMF 2024 Nexus Update a6'
e+
Y��b ry,iL
Sources:

Year 2012 to Year 2040 Growth (2016 Nexus Update): SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS; WSP, April 2016 Year 2018 to Year 2045 Growth (2024 Nexus Update): SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Household Type
Single -Family
Multi -Family
Employment Sectors
❑ Industrial
❑ Service
Retail
❑ Government/Public Sector
WRCOG
B-7
Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 421 of 1277 ends

EXHIBIT B -4e
Difference in Population, Households and Employment Growth in Western Riverside County TUMF 2016 Nexus Update Comparison to TUMF 2024 Nexus Update Population
Households
Employees
Source:

Year 2012 to Year 2040 Growth (2016 Nexus Update): SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS; WSP, April 2016 Year 2018 to Year 2045 Growth (2024 Nexus Update): SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Household Type
Single -Family
■ Multi -Family
Employment Sectors
Industrial
Service
Retail
Government/Public Sector
WRCOG
B-8
Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Page 422 of 1277 ends

EXHIBIT B -5a
TUMF Non -Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence Summary TUMF Category

SCAG RTP/SCS
NAICS Two Digit Code
NAICS Three Digit Code
Employment Categories
NAICS Code I NAICS Title
NAICS Code I NAICS Title
Industrial
Farming, Natural Resources and Mining
11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
11 1 Crop Production
112 Animal Production and Aquaculture
113 Forestry and Logging
114 Fishing, Hunting and Trapping
115 Support Activities for Agriculture and Forestry
21 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction
211 Oil and Gas Extraction
212 Mining (except Oil and Gas)
213 Support Activities for Mining
Construction
23 Construction
236 Construction of Buildings
237 Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
238 Specialty Trade Contractors
Manufacturing
31-33 Manufacturing
311 Food Manufacturing
312 Beverage and Tobacco Product Manufacturing
313 Textile Mills
314 Textile Product Mills
315 Apparel Manufacturing
316 Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing
321 Wood Product Manufacturing
322 Paper Manufacturing
323 Printing and Related Support Activities
324 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
325 Chemical Manufacturing
326 Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing
327 Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing
331 Primary Metal Manufacturing
332 Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
333 Machinery Manufacturing
334 Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing
335 Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing 337 Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing
339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
42 Wholesale Trade
423 Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods
424 Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods
425 Wholesale Trade Agents and Brokers
Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities
22 Utilities
I 221 Utilities
48-49 Transportation and Warehousing
481 Air Transportation
482 Rail Transportation
483 Water Transportation
484 Truck Transportation
485 Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation
486 Pipeline Transportation
487 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation
488 Support Activities for Transportation
491 Postal Service
492 Couriers and Messengers
493 Warehousin. and Stora.e
Retail
Retail Trade
44-45 Retail Trade
441 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
444 Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealers 445 Food and Beverage Retailers
449 Furniture, Home Furnishings, Electronics, and Appliance Retailers 455 General Merchandise Retailers
456 Health and Personal Care Retailers
457 Gasoline Stations and Fuel Dealers
458 Clothing, Clothing Accessories, Shoe, and Jewelry Retailers 459 Sporting Goods, Hobby, Musical Instrument, Book, and Miscellaneous Retailers

Page 423 of 1277 ends

TUMF Non -Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence Summary TUMF Category

SCAG RTP/SCS
NAICS Two Digit Code
NAICS Three Digit Code
Employment Categories
NAICS Code
NAICS Title
NAICS Code
NAICS Title
Service
Information
51 Information
512
Motion Picture and Sound Recording Industries
513
Publishing Industries
516
Broadcasting and Content Providers
517
Telecommunications
518
Computing Infrastructure Providers, Data Processing, Web Hosting, and Related Services 519
Web Search Portals, Libraries, Archives, and Other Information Services Financial Activities
52 Finance and Insurance
521
Monetary Authorities -Central Bank
522
Credit Intermediation and Related Activities
523
Securities, Commodity Contracts, and Other Financial Investments and Related Activities 524
Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
525
Funds, Trusts, and Other Financial Vehicles
53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
531
Real Estate
532
Rental and Leasing Services
533
Lessors of Nonfinancial Intangible Assets (except Copyrighted Works) Professional and Business Services
54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
I 541
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
55 Management of Companies and Enterprises
I 551
Management of Companies and Enterprises
56 Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services 561
Administrative and Support Services
562
Waste Management and Remediation Services
Education and Health Services
61 Educational Services
I 611
Educational Services
62 Health Care and Social Assistance
621
Ambulatory Health Care Services
622
Hospitals
623
Nursing and Residential Care Facilities
624
Social Assistance
Leisure and Hospitality
71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
711
Performing Arts, Spectator Sports, and Related Industries 712
Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
713
Amusement, Gambling, and Recreation Industries
72 Accommodation and Food Services
721
Accommodation
722
Food Services and Drinking Places
Other Service
81 Other Services (except Public Administration)
811
Repair and Maintenance
812
Personal and Laundry Services
813
Religious, Grantmakinq, Civic, Professional, and Similar Organizations 814
Private Households
Government/Public
Sector
MIL
Government
92 Public Administration
921
Executive, Legislative, and Other General Government Support 922
Justice, Public Order, and Safety Activities
923
Administration of Human Resource Programs
924
Administration of Environmental Quality Programs
925
Administration of Housing Programs, Urban Planning, and Community Development 926
Administration of Economic Programs
927
Space Research and Technology
928
National Security and International Affairs
Source:

SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
California Employment Development Department (EDD)
US Census Bureau, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), 2022

Page 424 of 1277 ends

EXHIBIT B-Sb
TUMF Non -Residential Cate ry Detailed NAICS Correseondenee TUMF Category

SCAG RTP/SCS
NAICS Two Din Code NAICS Three Dldt Code NAICS Slx DIaB Code Employment Categories
NAICS Code I NAICS Tole NAICS Code INAICS Tole NAICS Code I NAICS Tole Industrial
Forming, Natural Resources
and Mining
11 AarlcuBure. Forestry. Fishing and Hunting
111 Crop Production
111110
Soybean Farming
111120
Oilseed (except Soybean) Farming
111130
Dry Pea and Bean Fannin
111140
Wheat Fanning
111150
Com Farming
111160
Rice Fanning
111191
Oilseed and Groin Combination For ino
111199
All Other Grain Fannno
111211
Potato Farmina
111219
Other Vegetable (except Potat0l and Melon Forming
111310
Orange Groves
111320
Citrus )except Orenge1 Groves
111331
Apple Orchards
111332
Grape Vineyards
111333
Strawberry Farnino
111334
Berry (except Slrawbeny) Fannna
111335
Tree Nut Farmino
111336
Fruit and Tree Nut Combination Fanning
111339
Other Noncitrus Fruit Faanina
111411
Mushroom Production
111419
Other Food Crops Grown Under Cover
111421
Nursery and Tree PrOduCROn
111422
Floriculture Production
111910
Tobacco Fuming
111920
Cotton Farming
111930
Sugarcane Fanning
111940
Hay Farmino
111991
Sugar Beet Fanning
111992
Peanut Farmno
111998
All Other Miscellaneous Crop Farntind
112 Animal Production and AauacuHore
112111
Beef Cottle Ranching and Farn ing
112112
Cattle Feedlots
112120
Dairy Collie and Milk Production
112130
Dual -Purpose Cattle Ranching and Forming
112210
Hog and Pig Fanning
112310
Chicken Ego Production
112320
Broilers and Other Meat Type Chicken Production
112330
Turkey Production
112340
Poultry Hatcheries
112390
Other Poultry Production
112410
Sheep Fanning
112420
Goat Farming
112511
Finfi5h Farming and Ash Hatcheries
112512
Shellfish Fannin
112519
Other Ag06C00ure
112910
Apiculture
112920
Horses and Other Equine Production
112930
Fur -Bearing Animal and Rabbit Production
112990
All Other Animal Production
113 Forestry and Loaalna
113110
Timber Tract Operations
113210
Forest Nurseries and Gathenna of Forest Products
113310
Logging
114 FNhlna. Hunllna and Trappina
114111
Finfi5h Fishing
114112
Shellfish Fishing
114119
Other Marine Eshina
114210
Hunting and Trapping
115 Support AOBvtiies for AmieuBure and
Fareshy
115111
Cotton Ginnina
115112
Soil Prepamlon, Planing, and Cultivating
115113
Crop Harvesting, Primarily by Machine
115114
POStharoest Crop ACBviaeS (except Cotton Ginning)
115115
Farm Labor Contractors and Crew Leaders
115116
Pane Manaaerrant Services
115210
Support Activities for Animal Production
115310
Support Activities for Forests
21 Minina. Quarrvina, and Oil and Gas
Eolnacllon
211 Oil and Gas Ddraclion
211120 Crude Petroleum Extrac0on
211130 Nalorol Gas Extraction
212 Albino (except Mend Gas)
212114
Surface Cool Mining
212115
Underground Coal Minina
212210
Iron Om Mining
212220
Gold Ore and Silver Ore Minina
212230
Copper, Nickel, Lead, and Zinc Mining
212290
Other Metal Ore Minina
212311
Dimension Stone Mining and Quarrying
212312
Crushed and Broken Limestone Mining and Quarrying
212313
Crushed and Broken Granite Mining and Quanoing
212319
Other Crushed and Broken Stone Mining and Quarrying
212321
Construction Sand and Gravel Mining
212322
Industrial Sand Minina
212323
Kaolin, Clay, and Ceramic and Refractory Minerals Mining 212390
Other Nonmetallic Mineral Minina and Quonning
213 Support AcUvBks for Mining
213111
Drilling Oil and Gas Wells
213112
Support Activifie5 for Oil and Gas Operations
213113
Support Activities for Coal Mining
213114
Support Activifie5 for Metal Mining
213115
Support Activities for Nonmetallic Minerals (except Fuels) Mining

Page 425 of 1277 ends

TUMF Non -Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence it
ode
TUMF Category1SCAGTSCS 1NAICS Two DIM Code 1NAICS Twee Dian Code 1NAICS Six Employment Cate arias NAICS Code I MAILS Tole NAICS Code I ACS 181e NAICS CodeaI NAC ICS rdO Construction
Manufacturing
23 Construction
236 Construction of Build's=
237 Heavy and CM
236115
236116
236117
236118
236210
236220
New Single -Family Housing Construction )except For -Sole Builders) New Mul0farly Housina Construction )except For -Sale Builders) New Housing For -Sale Builders
Residential Remodelers
Industrial Building Construction
Commercial and Institutional Buildina Construction
Engineedng COndraa000
238 Specialty Trade Contracto
237110
237120
237130
237210
237310
237990
Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures Conshccfion Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction Land Subdivision
Highway, Sheet, and Bridae Construction
Other HOOVY and Civil Engineering Construction
238110
238120
238130
238140
238150
238160
238170
238190
238210
238220
238290
238310
238320
238330
238340
238350
238390
238910
238990
Poured Concrete Foundation and Structure Contractors
Structural Steel and Precast Concrete Contractors
Framing Contractors
Masonry Contractors
Gloss and Glazing Contractors
Roofina Contractors
Siding Contractors
Other Foundation, Structure, and Building Exterior Contractors Electrical Contractors and Other Wiring Installation Contactors Plumbing, Heatina, and Air-Conditionina Contractors
Other Building Equipment COnhactors
Drywall and Insulation Contractors
Pointing and Wall Covering COnhoctca
Flooring Contractors
file and Terrazzo Contractors
Finish Carpentry Contractors
Other Building Finishing Contractors
Site Preparation Contractors
All Other Specialty Trade Contractors
31-33 Manufacturing
311 Food Manufacturing
312
311111
311119
311211
311212
311213
311221
311224
311225
311230
311313
311314
311340
311351
311352
311411
311412
311421
311422
311423
311511
311512
311513
311514
311520
311611
311612
311613
311615
311710
311811
311812
311813
311821
311824
311830
311911
311919
311920
311930
311941
311942
311991
311999
Don and Cat Food Manufactudng
Other Animal Food Manufacturina
Flour Milling
Rice Millina
Molt Maect=ctudng
Wet Com Millina and Starch Manufacturina
Soybean and Other Oilseed Processing
Fats and Oik Reinina and Blendina
Breakfast Cereal Manufacturing
Beet Suaar Manufacturing
Cone Sugar Manufacturing
Nonchocdafe Confectionery Manufacturing
Chocolate and Coet000Onery Manufacturing from Cacao Beans Confectionery Manufacturing from Purchased Chocolate
Frozen Fruit, Juice, and Vegetable Manufacturing
Frozen Specialty Food Manufacturina
Emit and Vegetable Conning
Specialty Canning
Dried and Dehydrated Food Manufacturing
Fluid Milk Manufacturina
Creamery Butler Manufacturing
Cheese Manufacturing
Dry, Condensed, and Evaporated Dairy Product Manufacturing Ice Cream and Frozen Dessert Manufacturina
Animal )except Poclhol Slaughtering
Meat Processed from Carcasses
Rendering and Meat Byproduct Processing
Poultry Processina
Seafood Product Preparation and Packaging
Retail Bakeries
Commercial Bakeries
Frozen Cakes, Pies, and Other Pastries Manufacturina
Cookie and Crocker Manufacturing
Dry Pasta, Dough, and Flour Mixes Manufacturina from Purchased Flour Tortilla Maectactudng
Roasted Nuts and Peanut Butter Manufacturina
Other Snack Food Manufacturing
Coffee and Tea Manufacturing
Flavoring Syrup and Concentrate Manufacturing
Mayonnaise, Dressina, and Other Prepared Sauce Manufacturing Spice and Extract Manufacturing
Perishable Prepared Food Manufacturing
All Other Miscellaneous Food Manufacturing
Beverage and Tobacco Product Manufacturing
313 Textile Mill
314 Textile Product Min
315 Apparel Manufacturina
312111
312112
312113
312120
312130
312140
312230
Soft Drink Manufacturing
BOMed Water Manufacturing
Ice Manufacturing
Breweries
Wineries
Distilleries
Tobacco Manufacturing
313110
313210
313220
313230
313240
313310
313320
Fiber, Yam, and Thread Mills
Broadwoven Fabric Mills
NOROw Fabric Milk and Schiff' Machine Embroidery
Nonwoven Fabric Mills
Knit Fabric Milk
Textile and Fabric Fnishina Mills
Fabric Coaling Mills
314110
314120
314910
314994
314999
Carpet and Run Mills
Curtain and Linen Mills
Textile Bag and Canvas Mills
Rope, Cordage, Twine, Tire Cord, and lire Fabric Mills
All Other Miscellaneous Textile Product Mills
315120
315210
315250
315990
Apparel Knitfing Mills
Cut and Sew Apparel Contractors
Cut and Sew Apparel Manufacturing (except Contractors)
Apparel Accessories and Other Apparel Manufacturing
316 Leather and Ailed Product Manufacturing
316110
316210
316990
Leather and Hide Tanning and Fnishina
Footwear Manufacturing
Other Leather and Allied Product Manufacturina

Page 426 of 1277 ends

TUMF Non -Residential Cate ry Detailed NAILS Cortes0ondenee TUMF Category

SCAG RTP/SCS
NAICS Two DIAL Code
NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code
Employment Categories
NAICS Code I NAICS Title
NAICS Code INAICS UM NAILS Code I NAILS Title
321
Wood Product Manufacturing
321113
Sawmills
321114
Wood Preservation
321211
Hardwood Veneer and Plywood ManvfaCtorinp
321212
Softwood Veneer and Plywood Manufacturing
321215
Engineered Wood Member Manufacturing
321219
Reconstituted Wood Product Manufacturing
321911
Wood Window and Door Manofaclorinp
321912
Cut Stock, Resawina Lumber, and Planing
321918
Other Millwork lincludina FIOOrinal
321920
Wood Container and Pallet Manufacturing
321991
Manufactured Home (Mobile Home) Manvfactudnts
321992
Prefabricated Wood Building Manufacturing
321999
All Other Miscellaneous Wood Product Manofa<orina
322
Pacer Manufacturing
322110
Pulp Mills
322120
Paper Mills
322130
Paperboard Mills
322211
Corrugated and Solid Pber Box Manufacturing
322212
Folding Paperboard Box Manufacturing
322219
Other Paperboard Container Manufacturing
322220
Paper Bag and Coated and Treated Paper Manufa<lorina
322230
Stafionery Product Manufacturing
322291
Sanitary Paper Product Manufacturing
322299
All Other Converted Paper Product Manufacturing
323
Priding and Related 5000Ort Activities
323111
Commercial Printing (except Screen and Books'
323113
Commercial Screen Prinfin0
323117
Books Printing
323120
Support A<fivifieS for Printng
324
Petroleum and Cod Products Manufacturing
324110
Petroleum Refineries
324121
Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing
324122
Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Manufacturing
324191
Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing
324199
All Other Peholeum and Coal Products Manufacturing
325
Chemical Manulacturina
325110
Pehochemical Manufaclorna
325120
Industrial Gas Manufacturing
325130
Svnihefic Dye and Cement M0nufa0lorina
325180
Other Basic Inoraanic Chemical Manufacturing
325193
Ethyl Alcohol Manufaclorna
325194
Cyclic Crude, Intemrediate, and Gum and Wood Chemical Manufacturing 325199
All Other Ba9C Organi< Chemical Manufacturing
325211
Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
325212
Svnihefic Rubber Manuia<turina
325220
Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Elarnents Manufacturing 325311
Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufaclortna
325312
Phosphatic Fertilizer Manufacturing
325314
Fertilizer (Mixing Ont,l Manofaclorina
325315
Compost Manufacturing
325320
Pesficide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturne
325411
Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing
325412
Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
325413
In -Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manvfacturina
325414
Biological Product (except Di0000s i<) Manvfa<lodnti
325510
Paint and Coating Manufacturing
325520
Adhesive Manufacicrina
325611
Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
325612
Polish and Other Sanifafion Good Manvfaclorina
325613
Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
325620
Toilet Prepamfion ManofaCorina
325910
Printing Ink Manufacturing
325920
Explosives Manofacturina
325991
Custom Compounding of Purchased Resins
325992
Photcamphic Film, Paper, Plate, Chemical, and Copy Toner ManofOclodna 325998
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing 326
Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing
326111
Plastics Bag and Pouch Manufacturing
326112
Plastics Packaging Elm and Sheet lincludina Laminated) Manufacturing 326113
Unlaminated Plastics Elm and Sheet (except Packaoinol Manufacturing 326121
Unlominoted Plasfi<s Profile Shape Manufaclorina
326122
Plastics Pipe and Pipe Fitena Manufacturing
326130
Laminated Plastics Plate, Sheet (except Packaaing), and Shape Manufo<lorine 326140
Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing
326150
Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing 326160
Plastics Bottle Manufacturing
326191
Plastics Plumbing Adore Manufaolorina
326199
All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing
326211
lie Manufacturing (except Reheadingl
326212
Tire Retreading
326220
Rubber and Plastics Hoses and Belting Manufacturing
326291
Rubber Product Manufacturing for Mechanical Use
326299
All Other Rubber Product Manufacurina
327
Nonmetdlc Millard Product Manufacturnra
327110
Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
327120
Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing
327211
Flat Glass Manolacturina
327212
Other Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware Manufacturing 327213
Glass Container Manufa<lorina
327215
Glass Product Manufacturing Made of Purchased Glass
327310
Cement Manuf°chidn0
327320
Ready -Mix Concrete Manufacturing
327331
Concrete Block and Brick Manufaclorina
327332
Concrete Pipe Manufacturing
327390
Other Concrete Product Manufacturing
327410
Lime Manufacturing
327420
Gypsum Product Manufaclorn0
327910
Abrasive Product Manufacturing
327991
Cut Stone and Stone Product Manufaclorn0
327992
Ground or Treated Mineral and Earth Manufacturing
327993
Mineral Wool Manufaclorn0
327999
All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing

Page 427 of 1277 ends

TUMF Non -Residential Category Detailed NAILS Correspondence SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Mg Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code TUMF Category Emabymont Cotegeries NAICS Code I NAICS role NAICS Code INAICS rdle NAILS Code I NAILS role 331 Primary Metal Manutactudna
331110
331210
331221
331222
331313
331314
331315
331318
331410
331420
331491
331492
331511
331512
331513
331523
331524
331529
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing
Iron and Steel Pipe and Tube Manufactudna from Purchased Steel Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturing
Steel Wire Drawing
Alumina Refining and Primary Aluminum Production
Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum
Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil Manufacturing
Other Aluminum RolJna, Dmwina, and Extrudina
Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Smelting and Refining Copper Rolling, Drawing, Extruding, and Alloying
Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) Rolling, Drawing, and Exhudina Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying of Nonferrous Metal {except Copper and Aluminum) Iron Foundries
Steel Investment Foundries
Steel Foundries (except Investment)
Nonferrous Metal Die-Casfina Foundries
Aluminum Foundries (except Die-CasSngl
Other Nonferrous Metal Foundries (except Die -Casting)
Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
393 Machinery Manufacturing
332111
332112
332114
332117
332119
332215
332216
332311
332312
332313
332321
332322
332323
332410
332420
332431
332439
332510
332613
332618
332710
332721
332722
332811
332812
332813
332911
332912
332913
332919
332991
332992
332993
332994
332996
332999
Iron and Steel Foraing
Nonferrous Forging
Custom Roll Formina
Powder Metallurgy Pad Manufactudna
Metal Crown, Closure, and Other Metal Stamping {except Aufomotvel Metal Kitchen Cookware, Utensil, Culled, and Flatware (except Precious) Manufacturing Saw Blade and Handtool Manufacturing
Prefabricated Metal Bvildina and Component Manufacturing Fabicated Structural Metal Manviactvena
Plate Work Manufacturing
Metal Window and Door Manufacturina
Sheet Metal Work Manufacturing
Omamental and Architectural Metal Work Manufacturing
Power Boiler and Heat Exchanger Manufacturing
Metal Tank (Heavy Gauge) Manufactvrina
Metal Can Manufactudna
Other Metal Container Manufactvnna
Hardware Manufactudna
Sprina Manufactudna
Other Fabricated Wire Product Manufactudna
Machine Shops
Precision Tamed Product Manufactudna
Bolt, Nut, Screw, Rivet, and Washer Manufacturing
Metal Heat Treating
Metal Coatina, Engraving (except Jewelry and Silvenvarel, and Allied Services to Manufacturers EIechuplofina, Plofina, Polishing, Anodizing, and COlodno Industrial Valve Manufacturing
Fluid Power Valve and Hose Fitting Manufactudna
Plumbing Fixture Fitting and Trim Manufacturing
Other Metal Valve and Pipe Hfiino Manvfacturing
Ball and Roller Beadna Manufacturing
Smolt Amu Ammunition Manufacturing
Ammunition (except Small Annsl Manufacturing
Small Amu, Ordnance, and Ordnance Accessories Manufactudna Fabricated Pipe and Pipe Riling Manufacturing
All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing 333111
333112
333120
333131
333132
333241
333242
333243
333248
333310
333413
333414
333415
333511
333514
333515
333517
333519
333611
333612
333613
333618
333912
333914
333921
333922
333923
333924
333991
333992
333993
333994
333995
333996
333998
Farm Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
Lawn and Garden Tractor and Home Lawn and Garden Equipment Manufacturing COnshucfion Machinery Manufactudna
Mining Machinery and Equipment Manufactudna
Oil and Gas Feld Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
Food Product Machinery Manufacturing
Semiconductor Machinery Manufactudna
Sawmill, Woodworking, and Paper Machinery Manufactudna
All Other Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing Industrial and Commercial Fan and Blower and Air Purification Equipment Manufacturing Heating Equipment (except Warm Air Fumacesl Manufacturing Air -Conditioning and Worm Air Heofina Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Rehigerofion Equipment Monufacturi Industrial Mold Manufactudna
Special Die and Tad, Die Set, Jig, and Hxture Manufacturing Cutting Tool and Machine Tool Accessory Manufactvrina
Machine Tool Manufacturing
Rollin Mill and Other Metalworkina Machinery Manufacturing Turbine and Turbine Generator Set Units Manufactudna
Speed Changer, Industrial High -Speed Drive, and Gear Manufactudna Mechanical Power Transmission Equipment Manufacturing
Other Engine Equipment Manufactudna
Air and Gas Compressor Manufacturing
Measuring, Dispensing, and Other Pumping Equipment Manufactudna Elevator and Moving Stairway Manufacturing
Conveyor and Conveying Equipment Manufactudna
Overhead Traveling Crone, Hoist, and Monorail System Manufacturing Industrial Truck, Tractor, Trailer, and Stacker Machinery Manufacturing Power -Driven Hondtool Manufacturing
Welding and Soldering Equipment Manufacturing
Packoaing Machinery Manufactudna
Industrial Process Fumace and Oven Manufactudna
Fluid Power Cylinder and Actuator Manufactudna
Fluid Power Pump and Motor Manufactudna
All Other Miscellaneous General Purp05e Machinery Manufacturing 394 Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing
334111
334112
334118
334210
334220
334290
334310
334412
334413
334416
334417
334418
334419
334510
334511
334512
334513
334514
334515
334516
334517
334519
334610
Electronic Computer Manufacturing
Computer Storage Device Manufactudna
Computer Terminal and Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufactudna Telephone Apparatus Manufacturin
Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Camrunicaacnl Equipment Manufacturing Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing
Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing
Bare Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing
Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing
Capacitor, Resistor, Coil, Transformer, and Other Inductor Manufacturing Electronic Connector Manufacturing
Printed Circuit Assembly Electronic Assembly) Manufactudna Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
Electromedical and Elecfrothempeutic Apparatus Manufactudna Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufactudna Automatic Environmental Control Manufactudna for Residential, Commercial, and Appliance Use Instruments and Related Products Manufactudna for Measudno, Displaying, and Controlling Industial Process Variables Totalizing Fluid Meter and Counting Device Manufactudna Instrument Manufactudna for Mealudna and Telling Electricity and Electrical Signals Analytical Labaratary Instrument Manufactudna
Ioadiafion Apparatus Manufacturing
Other Measuring and Conhollina Device Manufactudna
Manufacturing and Reproducing Magnetic and Optical Media

Page 428 of 1277 ends

TUMF Non -Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence TUMF Category

SCAG RTP/SCS
Empbyment Categories
NAICS Two Dian Code
NAICS Code I NAICS Tole
NAICS Three Dian Code
NAICS Code I NAICS Tole
NAICS Six Mail Code
NAICS Code I NAICS Tine
Wholesale Trade
5 Electrical EaulpmeM, Appliance, and Component Manufactudn 335131
335132
335139
335210
335220
335311
335312
335313
335314
335910
335921
335929
335931
335932
335991
335999
Tr0ndppdplion Equipment Manufacturing
336110
336120
336211
336212
336213
336214
336310
336320
336330
336340
336350
336360
336370
336390
336411
336412
336413
336414
336415
336419
336510
336611
336612
336991
336992
336999
] Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing
337110
337121
337122
337126
33]12]
337211
337212
337214
337215
337910
337920
Residential Electric Lighfng Hxiure Manufacturing
Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Electric Lighting Fixture Manufacturing Electric Lamp Bulb and Other lighting Equipment Manufacturing Small Electrical Appliance Manufacturing
Maior Household Appliance Manufacturing
Power, Distribution, and Specially Transformer Manufacturing Motor and Generator Manufacturing
Switchgear and Switchboard Apparatus Manufacturing
Relay and Industrial Control Manufacturing
Battery Manufacturing
Fiber Optic Cable Manufacturing
Other Communication and Energy Wire Manufacturing
Current -Carrying Wiring Device Manufacturing
Noncurrent-Carvina Wiring Device Manufacturing
Carbon and Graphite Product Manufacturing
All Other Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and Component Manufacturing Automobile and Light Duty Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
H¢Ovy Duty Truck Manufacturing
Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing
Truck Trailer Manufacturing
Motor Home Manufacturing
Travel Trailer and Camper Manufacturing
Motor Vehicle Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing Motor Vehicle Electrical and Electronic Equipment Manufacturing Motor Vehicle Steering and Suspension Components (except Spring) Manufacturing Motor Vehicle Brake System Manufacturing
Motor Vehicle Transmission and Power Train Parts Manufacturing Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturing
Motor Vehicle Metal Stamping
Other Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing
Aircraft Manufacturing
Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing
Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Propulsion Unit and Propulsion Unit Parts Manufacturing Other Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing
Ship Building and Repairing
Boat Building
Motorcycle, Bicycle, and Parts Manufacturing
Military Armored Vehicle, Tank, and Tank Component Manufacturing All Other Transportation Equipment Manufacturing
Wood Kitchen Cabinet and Countertop Manufacturing
Upholstered Household Furniture Manufacturing
NOnupholsiered Wood Household Fumilore Manufacturing
Household FumiNre (except Wood and Upholstered) Manufacurng Institutional Fumilore Manufacturing
Wood Office Furniture Manufacturing
Custom Architectural Woodwork and Millwork Manufacturing Office Furniture (except Woodl Manufacturing
Showcase, Partition, Shelving, and Locker Manufacturing Mattress Manufacturing
Blind and Shade Manufacturing
339112
339113
339114
339115
339116
339910
339920
339930
339940
339950
339991
339992
339993
339994
339995
339999
Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing
Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing
Dental Laboratories
Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing
Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing
Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing
Office Supplies (except Paper( Manufacturing
Sign Manufacturing
Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device Manufacturing
Musical Instrument Manufacturing
Fastener, Button, Needle, and Pin Manufacturing
Broom, Brush, and Mop Manufacturing
Burial Casket Manufacturing
All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing
42 Wholesale Trade
423 Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods
423110
423120
423130
423140
423210
423220
423310
423320
423330
423390
423410
423420
423430
423440
423450
423460
423490
423510
423520
423610
423620
423690
423710
423720
423730
423740
423810
423820
423830
423840
423850
423860
423910
423920
423930
423940
423990
Automobile and Other Motor Vehicle Merchant Wholesalers Motor Vehicle Supplies and New Parts Merchant Wholesalers Tire and Tube Merchant Wholesalers
Motor Vehicle Parts (Used) Merchant Wholesalers
Furniture Merchant Wholesalers
Home Fumishing Merchant Wholesalers
Lumber, Ptvwood, Millwork, and Wood Panel Merchant Wholesalers Brick, Stone, and Related Conshccaon Material Merchant Wholesalers Roofing, Siding, and Insulation Material Merchant Wholesalers Other Conshucton Material Merchant Wholesalers
Photoaraphic Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers Office Equipment Merchant Wholesalers
Computer and Computer Peripheral Equipment and Software Merchant Wholesalers Other Commercial Equipment Merchant Wholesalers
Medical. Dental, and Hospital Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers Ophthalmic Goods Merchant Wholesalers
Other Professional Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers Metal Service Centers and Other Metal Merchant Wholesalers Coal and Other Mineral and Ore Merchant Wholesalers
Electrical Apparatus and Equipment, Wiring Supplies, and Related Equipment Merchant Wholesalers Household Appliances, Electric Housewares, and Consumer Electronics Merchant Wholesalers Other Electronic Parts and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers Hardware Merchant Wholesalers
Plumbing and Healing Equipment and Supplies (Hydrant.) Merchant Wholesalers Warm Air Heating and Air -Conditioning Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers Refdgemacn Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
Construction and Mining (except Oil Well) Machinery and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers Form and Garden Machinery and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers Industrial Machinery and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers Industrial Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
Service Establishment Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers Transportation Equipment and Supplies (except Motor Vehicle) Merchant Wholesalers Sporting and Recreational Goods and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers Toy and Hobby Goods and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
Recyclable Material Merchant Wholesalers
Jewelry, Watch, Preci0us Stone, and Precious Metal Merchant Wholesalers Other Miscellaneous Durable Goods Merchant Wholesalers

Page 429 of 1277 ends

TUMF Non -Residential Cate rn Detailed NAILS Corteseondenee TUMF Category

SCAG RTP/SCS
NAICS Two Dint Code
NAICS Three Glatt Code NAICS Six Plait Code
Empbyment Categories
NAICS Code I rinses Title
NAICS Code INAICS idle NAILS Code I NAILS Title
424 Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods
424110
Printing and Writing Paper Merchant Wholesalers
424120
Stationery and Office Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
424130
Industrial and Personal Service Paper Merchant Wholesalers 424210
Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers
424310
Piece Goods, Notions, and Other Dry Goods Merchant Wholesalers 424340
Footwear Merchant Wholesalers
424350
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Merchant Wholesalers
424410
General Line Grocery Merchant Wholesalers
424420
Packoaed Frozen Food Merchant Wholesalers
424430
Dairy Product (except Dried or Canoed) Merchant Wholesalers 424440
Poultry and Poultry Product Merchant Wholesalers
424450
Confectionery Merchant Wholesalers
424460
Fish and Seafood Merchant Whdesalers
424470
Meat and Meat Product Merchant Wholesalers
424480
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Merchant Wholesalers
424490
Other Grocery and Related Products Merchant Wholesalers 424510
Groin and Feld Bean Merchant Wholesalers
424520
Livestock Merchant Wholesalers
424590
Other Farm Product Raw Material Merchant Wholesalers
424610
Plastics Materials and Basic Fortes and Shapes Merchant Wholesalers 424690
Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers 424710
Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals
424720
Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers (except Bulk Stations and Teminakl 424810
Beer and Ale Merchant Wholesalers
424820
Wine and Distilled Alcoholic Beverage Merchant Wholesalers 424910
Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
424920
Book, Periodical, and Newspaper Merchant Wholesalers
424930
Flower, Nursery Stock, and Florists' Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 424940
Tobacco Product and Electronic Cigarette Merchant Wholesalers 424950
Paint, Varnish, and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
424990
Other Miscellaneous Nondurable Goods Merchant Wholesalers 425 Wholesde Trade Aaents and Brokers
425120 Wholesale Trade Agents and Brokers
Transportation, Warehousna
and Utilities
22 Unties
221 UN81es
221111
Hvdroelechic Power Generation
221112
Fossil Fuel Eleatic Power Generation
221113
Nuclear Electric Power Generation
221114
Solar Electric Power Generation
221115
Wind Electric Power Generation
221116
Geothermal Electric Power Generation
221117
Biomass Electric Power Generation
221118
Other Eleatic Power Generation
221121
Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control
221122
Electric Power Distribution
221210
Natural Gas Distribution
221310
Water Supply and Irrigation Systems
221320
Sewoae Treatment Facilities
221330
Steam and Air -Conditioning Supply
48-49 Transpodation and Warehousing
481 AR Transportation
481111
Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation
481112
Scheduled Freiaht Air Transportation
481211
Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transportation
481212
Nonscheduled Chartered Freiaht Air Transportation
481219
Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation
482 Rds Transportation
482111 Ane-ead Rairoads
482112 Short Line Railroads
483 Water TronspadoIon
483111
Deep Sea Freiaht Transportation
483112
Deep Sea Possenaer Transportation
483113
Coastal and Great Lakes Freight Transportation
483114
Coastal and Great Lakes Passenger Transportation
483211
Inland Water Freight Transportation
483212
Inland Water Passenger Transportation
480 Truck Transportation
484110
General Freight Trucking, Local
484121
General Freight Trucking, Lona-Distance, Tlckload
484122
General Freight Trucking, Lona-Distance, Less Than Truckload 484210
Used Household and Office Goods Movina
484220
Specialized Freight (except Used Goods) Tmckina, Local
484230
Specialized Freiaht (except Used Goods) Trucking, Lona-Distance 485 Tronsa antl Ground Passenger Transportation
485111
Mixed Mode Transit Systems
485112
Commuter Rail Systems
485113
Bus and Other Motor Vehicle Transit Systems
485119
Other Urban Transit Scutea6
485210
Interurban and Rural Bus Transportation
485310
Taxi and Ridesharina Services
485320
Limousine Service
485410
School and Employee Bus Transportation
485510
Charter Bus lndusiry
485991
Special Needs Transportation
485999
All Other Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation
486 Pipeline Tronsporblion
486110
Pipeline Transportation of Crude Oil
486210
Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas
486910
Pipeline Transportation of Refined Petroleum Protlucis
486990
All Other Pipeline Transportation
487 Scenic and StaMseelna Transportation
487110
Scenic and Siahheeina Transportation, Land
487210
Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Water
487990
Scenic and Siahheeina Transportation, Other
488 Support Actviles tar Transportation
488111
Air Traffic Control
488119
Other Airport Operations
488190
Other Support Activities for Air Transportation
488210
Support Activities for Rail Transportation
488310
Pod and Harbor Operations
488320
Maine Carao Handlina
488330
Navigational Services to Shipping
488390
Other Support Activities for Water Transportation
488410
Motor Vehicle Towing
488490
Other Support Activities for Road Transportation
488510
Freight Transportation Arrangement
488991
Packing and Crating
488999
All Other Support Activities for Transportation
491 Postal Service
491110 Postal Service
492 Couriers and Messenaers
492110 Couriers and Expess Delivery Services
492210 Local Messengers and Local Delivery
493 W5ehousing and Storage
493110
General Warehousing and Storage
493120
Refrigerated Warehousing and Storage
493130
Farm Product Warehousing and Storage
493190
Other Warehousing and Storage

Page 430 of 1277 ends

Beaumont City CouncilDecember 17, 2024

Beaumont City Council
December 17, 2024