Beaumont City Council
January 21, 2025

Figure ES.2 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2018 to 2045)
Household Type
Single -Family
■ Multi -Family
Employment Sectors
❑ I ndustrial
❑ 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

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

IURUPA VALLEY
Grand Terrace
Yucaipa
Figure ES.3 - Regional System of
Highways and Arterials - TUMF
Network Improvements
•
Hills
cTustin
Irvine
Orang
gym•
�N.• Rvr
•
aLake • est
River
•
69 ant=Glib.
w
L
p,ilroad
North
bth
Hidden
Valley
C-RZNA
No•
•
•
f
•
•
literft
Rancho Santa
Margarita
e
9 � �6
CP q;•y l�n
antra/
�•—_ 452ofr
k`.
•3
alley
Ironwood
r
•
Santa Ana *�''
Mountains
Legend
Ultimate Lanes
• 2
"N.r4
� 6
1"•,/8
• Interchange
O Bridge
• Railroad Crossing
r : ; TUMF Zone
Cities
County Boundaries
riPl,Ar,*a
f
•
MM.

Santa
Margarita
Center
(Main)_ �pti;
� 9
JFK
o
0 0
Ccts.
r
'
---
Live Oak
` yon14
Eucalyptus
ore
m
County
Line

MORENO VALLEY
Ramona
• Mid -County
(Placentia)
1 Prrf.
•••I
2 Ellis
1•
Ethanac
PERRI.S

CANYON LAKE
LAKE
ELSIN0RE-,
•
•
Lakeland Villa
L
▪ -•
■
rrf s

NILDOMAR
ar
Clinton
South
San Mateo
Canyon
L.

Holland
Keller
Keith

MURRIETA
C:ALJMLSA
Odd
Cherry
Valley,
(s -C)
The
Badlands
s�
Mid -County (Ramona) 19
r
Scott
Benton
°eta 1. Murrit. Hot
Springs
6y,
N
Esri, NAB GA, US
Valley(f .)
w
.plcde u.9
1st

PANNING
S Gorg❑
Wilsons
Ramswi
SiTri eks
F3EAUM0NT
SAN
JACf NTO
Esplanade
SR -74/5R-79
(Florida)
Stetson
t.. -...• \ r.r ••`'
reek
•Sr -
3a
N ASR -74
(Florida)
Lncl
Pa
•
1*,..
ern
N.�
Sobaba
Reservation
41,11$
��.------Y-------
Morongo
Reservation
Bypss
'(211m
Hemet/San
Jacinto
.S. Census, County of Riverside, California Sta
-bongo
rvation
sza
pass
I -241
Rouse
Ridge
•
•
•
•
1 I
•
fivi
Yf
L—h4ouot San
{ JaCintIP State
—+ -Park
Zi=v v� •
•
•
Wester Riverside
Council of Governments

1. Thoma
Mounta
arks, Esri, omTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, FAO, METI/NASA,
USGS, reau of Land Management, EPA, NRS, USFW5
An,
Moun

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

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

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

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.

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. Development exactions only provide improvements near the development site, 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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 A
Existing Capacity
Deficiencies
f4 _
RivCoM 2021 likt,
Existing Road
Network
SCAG Forecast
for 2045 Housing
& Employment
RivCoM 2045
No -Build
Model Run

TUMF LOS
Target
Future Capacity
Deficiencies
Capacity Deficiencies Attributable
to New Development
4ilip _ 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)
® Growth in 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
!_HBW, HBS,of
HBO
(% (% of VMT
Growth)
Share of Project
Costs Attributable
to SFD & MFD
Fee per DU
CW(% of OBO
(% of VMT
Growth)
7 Share of Pro ect
Costs Attributable
to Retail Service,
Industrial, &
Public Sectors
Y
Fee per SF
TUMF Nexus Study and
Schedule of Fees
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)
°AveragTrip-Gen
Rates by Sector
(Table L 4)
7Adjusted Average
Trip -Gen Rates by
Sector (Table L-3)
4 _
RTA Transit Project List
r TUMF Transit
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 4
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)
7,,
Assumed Ratio of
Employees/TSF
(Table L-1)
Growth 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
Computations
Items for
Adoption
WRCOG
6 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 County 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

Figure 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County Household Type
❑ Single -Family
■ Multi -Family
Employment Sectors
❑ Industrial
Q Service
❑ Retail
Q 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

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
1,003,000
1,773,935
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
Household Type
▪ Single -Family
■ Multi -Family
Employment Sectors
❑ Industrial
▪ Service
❑ Retail
Government/Public Sector
WRCOG 16 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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

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

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
-4,011
-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
WRCOG 19 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Figure 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison)
700,000
eQ'
�+J +Js
fP rya?� a5
6&‘'
Oro o�as rya 99'
J r 5
.rte
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

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

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

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 Hichway 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

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.O%o 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

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

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

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 Stratecic 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

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.

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. The resulting TUMF Network used as the basis for this Nexus Update is discussed in Section 4.3 of this report.

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

Figure 4.1 - Regional System of
Highways and Arterials for Western
Riverside County
0Tustin
Sa
Joaquin
Hills
aguna Beach
TUMF Road
Network
r = TUMF Zone
Schism.
,allroad
Lake , est
0Mission Vie
Legend
Al„
Rancho Santa
Margarita
Cities
r _ .1 County Boundaries

JURUPA VALLEY
Arlington

RIVERSIDE
Santa Ana 0
Mountains
P
Santa
Margarita
Center
Grand Terrace
C0.:dSs
'aor-UTA
Alessandro
Lakeland Villa
Grd
Ironwood
Buren
LNeOak
Pc, \ Canyon
a _
Euca yptus
r MORENO VALLEY
(Placentia)L
'erns
PERRIS
Ethanac
Holland
Esri, NA

Keller

NIURRIETA
0Yucaipa
County
Line
Cherry Valley
')—"1-0WValley m
(14th) 01 n
BANNING o y tWilson'a»
6th MO

BEAUMONT
L �`
♦` SAN
t JACI NTO
Lakev/ew HEMET Esplanade
Mo.ufl ains m
•f ^ m SR-74/SR-79
SRF,74 �� dL� (Florida) =
Stetsn.
oG>-
trili
U1 co iQ0'\
Benton
Murrit. Hot
Springs
Lncln
a
{PALM
Ramseyinn
Soboba
Reservation
(Florida)
Hemet/San
Jacinto
Morongo
Reservation
Rouse
Ridge
q
•7

4. SPRINGS
L IV4oust San
Jacinth State
—P.Ark
•
1 4
IdylIwii
Western Riverside
Council of Governments
•
•
Thoma
Mounta
U.S. Census, County of Riverside, California S ate.Parks, Esri, (T mTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, FAO, METI/NASA, ,o.hanga USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USFWS t rvation
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

1 JURUPA VALLEY
- —rrarromr .-Se;
Grand Terrace
Yucaipa
Figure 4.2 - Backbone Network of
Highways and Arterials for Western
Riverside County
Tustin
G
Irvine
Orang
S
Joaquin
Hills
Hills
guna Beach
E
E
r=
V 5chleisman
Rvr
• een �droad
•
•
•
74 0Lake , est
�Aq
four -Galin
Ranh
•• Northwest
a Mission Vie
O
S
1 -rr
i
B6
t •L,��•
1 I
fi6r76 ft
C--- r'
��-�Yrzafr<•
ri
Rancho Santa''
Margarita
S
S
}
Santa Ana , �''
Mountains
/frr Ti
Legend
TUMF Network
i Backbone
1 Secondary
TUMF Zone
Cities
r _-_1` County Boundaries
3 Center
(Main)-- 4.. r.
q
S 'OR r
Univrsty
coo LAKE ELSINORE
i(
g
ly 4,'
— - -a aa_a- -ter_A
R
■ ■
Santa
Margarita
•
Ironwood
.P
rn
-r..6
•
N
-6 Eucalyptus
N
■ ./"

CANYON LAKE
Si' n 11og°
Lakeland Villa
G°
or o
__ - — r.

County
Line

C -A LIMESA
de
The
Badlands
O
Cherry Valley
•
Mid -County (Ramona) L pci
MidFCaunty �unW r
ce l (Pla ntia) " I 0
1 erris
71lo)
erris

WILDOMAR
ar
Southwest
San Mateo
■.canyon
Nuevo
ray
1l
d
CO

MURRIETA
raa
Lakev ew
MoAi'h ins
SR 74
1 r
•
4 -
Benton
Murrit. Hot
Springs

TEMECULA
vLeco
me Va
F-79(Temec''
pkw.)
Oak
VIly.(l.)
C
SAN N�

JAC INTO
HEMET Esplanade
rti W SR-74/SR-79_ I car r N.
ro
r (Florida) �A 5R-74
(Florida)
r.. _.r_ r l — —
sun

BANNING
Lod. Ramsey
Lakec

BEAUMONT
•"•
r
More ngo
Reservation • •1
San Gorgonio
frShyanssg Pass
Pass
Stetson
HEMET
voeoe
� f fw .wA r•"r•r l�.
1 1
Li
red'
I••• -+•[kirk
•
Soboba
Reservation
Hemet/San
Jacinto
.•
t
•
(
Rouse
Ridge
4r•7
▪ ••a
✓
•
L—h4or•x
r .

Western Riverside
Council of Governments
JaCinr�
Thoma
Mounta
Esri, NASA, NGA, US urc= ensus, County of Riverside, California State Par , sri, TomTo6 , Garmin, SafeGraph, FAO, METI/NASA, USGS, echanga Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USFWS
rvation
An,
Moun

38 Figure 4.3 - Western Riverside County Area Planning Districts (TUMF Zones) 4A
e
Chino
0 Chino Hills
0 Chino Hills State
Park
241
91 —Gr.

R.
♦
Lake Forest
0 60
CI nt Glln� \ ,e\\eg�e
Ram h ra
,
Limonite _
Ry,
Coo Rai/r,
Mission Viejo
0 Legend
Zone
Central
Hemet/San Jacinto
Northwest
E_; Pass
Southwest
Foothill
Arlington
Hidden
Valley
"\\3 �a°r
\h/
Northwest
Rancho Santa
Margarita
San Clemente
0 74
L
♦
•
/
CI
Crams err ace
Center
goon
0 Corr , ors/CTA
rma Linda
L. J 0
1 (k -S
•
♦ Ironwod.
ccts.
�a o
Ramona
Mid -County
(Placentia)
c.. -74
8IJ Qath)
Ellis
Ethanac
C
Railroad
Canyon
ov% •ta\
\•c` A Clinton
Southwest
1 Redlands
— —Uwe
Canyon
Central
Nuevo
w
Holland
Keller
o
,,6/C'05 l Murrit. Hot
C(SV alley
C�
SRr74
Benton
Mdn
A
•
County of Ri
0Yucaipa
Cnt.

Lin. m
' Oc
ti
SOcke' Cherry Valley
I —
I
�� �� 1, oak a
Vally.(14t.) �I Pass
= Wilson
cn
ck
6th
1st
°,/7
Esplanade _
SR-74/SR-79
(Florida)) _
Stetson
meni
°° g°°/s �, Hemet/San
Co
SR=74
(Florida),
Ramsy, .T-j oliPass
1 r��soufJ
Jacinto
1 ♦
I
r
I
de
I
r —I
oail. .1.
./
Palm
0 243
371
1741
San Gorgonio
Wilderness
Mount San
Jacinto State
Park
Idyllwild
a
Cahuilla
Reservation
♦ Beauty Beauty
o — Mountain Mountain
side, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGrhrkhAFAtVME.TliKASA,tIW + rlau;re ue ftlyand Management, EPA, NPS, USFWS J Study Area Mountain
Wilderness
62 Agua Caliente
Santa Ros
Reservatio
Cc

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

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

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 Zane
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�/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

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

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

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

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 Dark 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 1***
$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

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

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

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

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

Figure 4.4 - Regional System of
Highways and Arterials - TUMF
Network Improvements
Hills
nTustin
Irvine
Orang
Schleisman
,ailroad
Lake , est
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
Santa Ana 0
Mountains
Santa
Margarita
Unvr.
rand Terrace
Center
(Main)..../O1,-....... --,
9eO,.2p __ Live Oakes
Corrador, O'P`°� yon
'1 N �
m ►
Ironwood
m
Eucalyptus
Alessandro
LAKE

ELSINORE,
Van Buren
I Ramona
O
• Mid -County 1_t�'
I • (Placentia)
erri
I Nuevo
O
c
a)
PERRIS
Ethanac
s3,.Nru,

WILDOMAR
ar
Gc A,
Holland
Keller
Clinton Keith
T. (n
\` dr MURRIETA
c, ,c,
a��2ta Murrit. Hot •
oyP°.%��, Springs oo
PS -- a)
TEMECULA ii
gy des° Marga sv
°a a.
sa,
g 1' Tcam.(Temecula
Yucaipa
County
Line
CAL/MESA o
S, O Cherry
pd < e�,� Valley BANNING
,f�d// 11'')L''r-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

BEAUMONT
Esplanade
SR-74/SR-79 N;E
(Florida) - -'1 JSR-74
Stetson
HEMET
Soboba
Reservation
(Florida)
Rouse
Ridge
Hemet/San
Jacinto
Morongo
Reservation
L Mvust 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
An.

Moun

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
$32,698,000
$2,674,000
$105,560,000
$1,307,000
$4,384,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,353,000
$0
$0
$1,130,000
$0
$0
$0
$8,635,000
$0
$4,388,000
$16,949,000
$8,254,000
$13,420,000
$0
$0
$18,019,000
$7,291,000
$0
$0
$0
$32,698,000
$0
$0
$7,486,000
$4,582,000
$20,876,000
$1,740,000
$6,056,000
$5,568,000
$5,316,000
$1,507,000
$5,568,000
$15,655,000
$0
$22,985,000
$8,352,000
$0
$7,063,000
$0
$6,927,000
$0
$5,039,000
$32,698,000
$0
$0
$0
$4,666,000
$30,601,000
$16,684,000
$12,156,000
$0
$47,769,000
$36,192,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$648,000
$0
$866,000
$488,000
$7,625,000
$119,000
$209,000
$0
$0
$32,698,000
$2,674,000
$105,560,000
$1,307,000
$4,384,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,353,000
$0
$0
$1,130,000
$0
$0
$0
$8,635,000
$0
$4,388,000
$12,949,000
$8,254,000
$13,420,000
$0
$0
$18,019,000
$7,291,000
$0
$0
$0
$11,192,000
$0
$0
$3,799,000
$4,582,000
$20,876,000
$1,235,000
$6,056,000
$5,568,000
$5,316,000
$999,000
$3,398,000
$15,655,000
$0
$22,985,000
$8,352,000
$0
$7,063,000
$0
$6,927,000
$0
$5,039,000
$7,725,000
$0
$0
$0
$4,666,000
$30,601,000
$16,684,000
$12,156,000
$0
$47,769,000
$36,192,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$648,000
$0
$866,000
$488,000
$7,625,000
$119,000
$209,000
WRCOG
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update

45 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
September 9, 2024

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
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

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)
I-10
Oak Valley (14th)
Cherry Valley
I-10
I-10
San Gorgonio
UP/Hargrave
Oak Valley (14th)
Oak Valley (San Timoteo Canyon)
SR -60
UP
Noble Creek
SR -60
I-10
I-10
I-10
Roberts St
Bellflower
Highland Springs
Noble
San Tmoteo 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
I-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
Jurupa Valley Van Buren
Jurupa Valley Van Buren
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside
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
Banning
Banning
Banning
Banning
Beaumont
Beaumont
Beaumont
Beaumont
Beaumont
Beaumont
Beaumont
Beaumont
Calimesa
Calimesa
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)
Alessandro
Arlington
Arlington
Van Buren
Van Buren
Van Buren
Van Buren
I-10 Bypass South
I-10 Bypass South
I-10 Bypass South
I-10 Bypass South
Beaumont
Potrero
Potrero
Potrero
Potrero
Potrero
SR -79 (Beaumont)
SR -79 (Beaumont)
Cherry Valley
Cherry Valley
$23,928,000 $10,461,000
$60,900,000 $0
$2,410,000 $2,410,000
$0 $0
$46,465,000 $46,465,000
$5,230,000 $4,392,000
$39,493,000 $21,292,000
$0 $0
$7,574,000 $7,574,000
$0 $0
$0 $0
$10,580,000 $9,817,000
$166,492,000 $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
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update

46 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
September 9, 2024

Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued)

AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME
Southwest Canyon Lake Goetz Railroad Canyon Newport
Southwest Canyon Lake Railroad Canyon Canyon Hills Goetz Southwest Lake Elsinore Railroad Canyon 1-15 Canyon Hills Southwest Lake Elsinore Railroad Canyon 1-15 interchange Southwest Lake Elsinore SR -74 1-15 interchange
Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith Copper Craft Toulon
Southwest Munieta Clinton Keith Toulon 1-215
Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith 1-215 Whitewood
Southwest Munieta French Valley (Date) Munieta Hot Springs Winchester Creek Southwest Murrieta French Valley (Date) Winchester Creek Margarita Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Menifee City Limit Keller
Southwest Munieta Whitewood Keller Clinton Keith
Southwest Temecula French Valley (Cherry) Jefferson Diaz Southwest Temecula French Valley (Cherry) Munieta Creek bridge Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date) Margarita Ynez
Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date) Ynez Jefferson
Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date( 1-15 interchange Southwest Temecula SR -79 (Winchester) Murrieta Hot Springs Jefferson Southwest Temecula SR -79 (Winchester) 1-15 interchange Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Diaz( Cherry Rancho California Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent Moroga( Rancho California SR -79 (Front) Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent Moroga( 1-15 interchange Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent Moroga( Murrieta Creek bridge Southwest Unincorporated Benton SR -79 Eastem Bypass
Southwest Unincorporated Clinton Keith Whitewood SR -79 Southwest Unincorporated Clinton Keith Warm Springs Creek bridge Southwest Unincorporated SR -74 1-15 Ethanac
Southwest Unincorporated SR -79 (Winchester) Keller Thompson Southwest Unincorporated SR -79 (Winchester) Thompson La Alba Southwest Unincorporated SR -79 (Winchester) La Alba Hunter Southwest Unincorporated SR -79 (Winchester) Hunter Murrieta Hot Springs Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon 1-15 Monte Vista
Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon Monte Vista Sunset
Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon 1-15 interchange
Southwest Wildomar Clinton Keith Palomar 1-15
Southwest Wildomar Clinton Keith 1-15 Copper Craft
Subtotal

SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO

TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE
$0
$0
$0
$0
$63,061,000
$0
$2,076,000
$0
$7,321,000
$0
$0
$0
$3,929,000
$5,846,000
$0
$5,010,000
$122,076,000
$2,697,000
$0
$2,285,000
$23,629,000
$0
$4,176,000
$0
$5,539,000
$0
$27,699,000
$34,213,000
$27,699,000
$7,854,000
$595,000
$1,362,000
$24,818,000
$32,698,000
$0
$5,030,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$24,162,000
$0
$2,076,000
$0
$7,321,000
$0
$0
$0
$3,929,000
$5,846,000
$0
$5,010,000
$122,076,000
$2,697,000
$0
$2,285,000
$23,629,000
$0
$4,176,000
$0
$5,539,000
$0
$26,347,000
$34,213,000
$27,699,000
$3,042,000
$442,000
$1,362,000
$24,818,000
$24,613,000
$0
$0
$2,331,921,000 $1,961,707,000
WRCOG 47 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued)

AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME
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 I-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 I-215 overcrossing bridge $9,744,000 $9,744,000 Central Menifee Holland Antelope Menifee $3,844,000 $3,844,000 Central Menifee McCall I-215 Aspel $5,354,000 $5,354,000 Central Menifee McCall I-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 I-215 Heacock $5,617,000 $5,617,000 Central Moreno Valley Cactus I-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 I-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 I-215 bridge $8,352,000 $8,352,000 Central Perris Goetz Lesser Ethanac $7,845,000 $7,845,000 Central Perris Harley Knox I-215 Indian $0 $0
Central Perris Harley Knox I-215 interchange $0 $0
Central Perris Harley Knox Indian Penis $0 $0
Central Perris Harley Knox Penis Redlands $0 $0
Central Perris Nuevo I-215 Murrieta $16,971,000 $16,971,000 Central Perris Nuevo I-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) I-215 Ethanac $0 $0
Central Perris SR -74 (Matthews) I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $21,835,000 Central Unincorporated Center (Main) I-215 Mt Vernon $0 $0 Central Unincorporated Center (Main) I-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

SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO

TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE
WRCOG 48 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024

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
I-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
I-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
I-15
California
interchange
Fairhaven
6th
5th
bridge
Hidden Valley
Norco Hills
I-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
I-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
I-15
Wineville
Etiwanda
Van Buren
Clay
Rubidoux
Santa Ana River
Milliken
SR -60
Limonite
Pine
SR -60
Armstrong
Parkridge
Mountain
River
Hamner
I-15
Crestview
Arlington
River
Santa Ana River
Santa Ana River
I-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
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update

49 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
September 9, 2024

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
I-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
I-15
Mockingbird Canyon
Washington
Scottsdale
Victoria
El Sobrante
Van Buren
El Cerrito
Tuscany
Dos Lagos
Leroy
Dawson Canyon
I-15
I-15
Park Canyon
Hermosa
Krameria

SEGMENTTO
Martin Luther King $0 $0
Main $0 $0
I-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
I-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
I-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
I-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
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update

50 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
September 9, 2024

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
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update

51 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
September 9, 2024

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
Horsefhief 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
TUMF Nexus Study - 2024 Program Update

52 Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
September 9, 2024

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
I
$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 Hubs)
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

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:

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

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

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

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

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
Backbone
Value
Backbone
Share
Secondary
Value
Secondary
Share
Total Western Riverside County
Peak Period Vehicle Trips
3,248,507
Less Internal/External Peak Period
Vehicle Trips
-659,273
2,589,234
Total Peak Period Vehicle Trips
Internal to Western Riverside
County
Peak Period Vehicle Trips Between
TUMF Zones
441,747
Peak Period Vehicle Trips Within
TUMF Zones
2,147,487
TUMF Future Network Lane -Miles
3,029.9
441,747
2,147,487
2,589,234
1,243.9

41.1%
1,786.0

58.9%
Peak Period Vehicle Trips Between
Zones
441,747
100.0%
0 1,265,155

0.0%TUMF
Peak Period Vehicle Trips Within
TUMF Zones (as share of intra-
zonal trips)
882,332

41.1%

58.9%
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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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
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
$9.76
Government/Public
12,071

2.1 25,349

8.3%
3,420,665
$23.07
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 Trio Generation Manual (1 1th Edition) (September 2021).

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

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.

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.

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

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

Appendix A - List of WRCOG Committees
WRCOG Executive Committee
Sheri Flynn
City of Banning
Mike Lara
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 Bara'as (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

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

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

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

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

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

EXHIBIT B-1
Western Riverside County Population, Households and Employment (2018) - SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Base Year SED Type/Zone
Central
Northwest
Pass
San Jacinto
Southwest
Total
Population
Total Population
408,260
777,900
98,688
187,677
432,915
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

EXHIBIT B-2
Western Riverside County Population, Households & Employment (2045) - SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Horizon Year SED Type/Zone
Central
Northwest
Pass
San Jacinto
Southwest
Total
Population
Total Population
594,678
925,228
158,040
289,439
566,491
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

EXHIBIT B-3
Western Riverside Count
Po • ulation, Households and Em
to
ment
2018 to 2045 Chan
e - SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
SED Type/Zone
Central
Northwest
Pass
San Jacinto
Southwest
Total
Population
Total Population
186,418
147,328
59,352
101,762
133,576
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
Manufacturing
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
91 1
12,071
Total Employment
76,927
90,251
19,774
29,907
59,163
276,022
Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS

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
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
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_
2,429,633
775,231
655,698_
250,082_
37%
48%
Total Households
Single -Family
366,588
539,631
173,043
47%
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

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

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 e±
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

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

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
NAICS Title
NAICS Code
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
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

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
541
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
55 Management of Companies and Enterprises
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
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

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

SCAG RTP/SCS
NAICS Two Don Code NAICS Three Dldt Code NAICS Slx Malt Code Employment Categories
NAICS Code I NAICS Title NAICS Code INAICS idle NAICS Code I NAICS Title Industrial
Farming, Natural Resources
and Mining
11 Agriculture. 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 Fannin
111219
Other Vegetable (except Potat0l and Melon Forming
111310
Orange Groves
111320
Citrus (except Oronge) Groves
111331
Apple Orchards
111332
Grape Vineyards
111333
Strawberry Famino
111334
Berry (except Slrawberty) Fannna
111335
Tree Nut Farmino
111336
Fruit and Tree Nut Combination Fanning
111339
Other Noncitrus Fruit Farrmina
111411
Mushroom Production
111419
Other Food Crops Grown Under Cover
111421
Nursery and Tree PrOduCROn
111422
Floriculture Production
111910
Tobacco Fartrino
111920
Cotton Far mina
111930
Sugarcane Fanning
111940
Hay Farmino
111991
Sugar Beet Fanning
111992
Peanut Farrtino
111998
All Other Miscellaneous Crop Farntind
112 Animal Production and Aauacutiure
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 Gathering of Forest Products
113310
Logging
114 FNhlna. Huntina and Trappina
114111
Finfi5h Fishing
114112
Shellfish Fishing
114119
Other Marine Eshina
114210
Hunting and Trapping
115 Support AOBol ies for AmieuBore and
Forestry
115111
Cotton Ginnina
115112
Soil Preporofion, Planting, and Cultivating
115113
Crop Harvesting, Primarily by Machine
115114
POSth011/00 Crop ACBviaeS (except Cotton Ginning)
115115
Farm Labor Contractors and Crew Leaders
115116
Fans ManaaementSeroice5
115210
Support Activities for Animal Production
115310
Support Activities for ForeSM
21 Minina. Quarryina, and Oil and Gas
Eolnacllon
211 Oil and Gas Ddraclon
211120 Crude Petroleum Extraction
211130 Nalorol Gas Extraction
212 Albino (except OB and Gas)
212114
Surface Cool Mining
212115
Underground Coal Minina
212210
Iron Om Mining
212220
Gold Ore and Silver Ore Mining
212230
Copper, Nickel, Lead, and Zinc Mining
212290
Other Metal Ore Mining
212311
Dimension Stone Mining and Quarrying
212312
Crushed and Broken Limestone Mining and Quarrying
212313
Crushed and Broken Granite Mining and Quarrying
212319
Other Crushed and Broken Stone Mining and Quarrying
212321
Construction Sand and Gravel Mining
212322
Industrial Sand Mining
212323
Kaolin, Clay, and Ceramic and Refractory Minerals Mining 212390
Other Nonmetallic Mineral Minina and Quarrying
213 Support AOBoBies 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

TUMF Non -Residential Category Detailed NAICS Cortespondenee TUMF Category
SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Molt Code NAICS Six Digit Code Employment Categories NAICS Code MAILS Title NAICS Cade (NAICS Ise NAICS Code (NAICS Me Construction
23 Conshoclion
236 Construction of Buildings
236115
New Single -Family Housing Construction (except For -Sole Builders) 236116
New Multifamily Housing Construction (except For -Sale Builders) 236117
New Housing For -Sale Builders
236118
Residential Remodelers
236210
Industrial Building Construction
236220
Commercial and Institutional Buildina Construction
237 Heavy and CM Engineering Construction
237110
Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction 237120
Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures Construction 237130
Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction 237210
Land Subdivision
237310
Hiahwav, Sheet, and Bridae Construction
237990
Other HOOV0 and Civil Engineering Construction
238 Specially Trade Contractors
238110
Poured Concrete Foundation and Structure Contractors
238120
Structural Steel and Precast Concrete Contractors
238130
Framing Contractors
238140
Masonry Contractors
238150
Gloss and Glazing Contractors
238160
Roofina Contractors
236170
Siding Contractors
238190
Other Foundation, Structure, and Buildina Exterior Contractors 236210
Electrical Contractors and Other Wiring Installation Contractors 238220
Plumbing, Heatina, and Air-Conditionina Contractors
238290
Other Building Equipment Contractors
238310
Drywall and Insulation Contractors
238320
Pointing and Wall Covering Conhactors
238330
Flooring Contractors
238340
file and Terrazzo Conhactors
238350
Finish Carpentry Contractors
238390
Other Building Finishing Contractors
238910
Site Preparation Contractors
238990
All Other Specialty Trade Contractors
Manufacturing
31-33 Manofochrdag
311 Food Manufacturing
311111
Dog and Cat Food Manufacturing
311119
Other Animal Food Manufacturina
311211
Flour Milling
311212
Rice Millina
311213
Molt Manufacturing
311221
Wet Corn Millina and Starch Manufacturina
311224
Soybean and Other Oilseed Processing
311225
Fats and Oik Reinina and Blendina
311230
Breakfast Cereal Manufacturing
311313
Beet Sugar Manufacturing
311314
Cone Sugar Manufacturing
311340
Nonchocdate Confectionery Monufactudna
311351
Chocolate and COntecfionery Manufacturing from Cacao Beans 311352
Confectionery Manufacturing from Purchased Chocolate
311411
Frozen Fruit, Juice, and Vegetable Manufacturing
311412
Frozen Specially Food Manufacturina
311421
Fruit and Vegetable Canning
311422
Specialty Canning
311423
Dried and Dehydrated Food Manufacturing
311511
Fluid Milk Manufacturina
311512
Creamery Butler Manufacturing
311513
Cheese Manufacturing
311514
Dry, Condensed, and Evaporated Dairy Product Manufacturing 311520
Ice Cream and Frozen Dessert Manufacturing
311611
Animal 'except Poulhvl Slaughtering
311612
Meat Processed from Carcasses
311613
Rendering and Meat Byproduct Processing
311615
Poultry Processina
311710
Seafood Product Preparation and Packaging
311811
Retail Bakeries
311812
Commercial Bakeries
311813
Frozen Cakes, Pies, and Other Pastries Manufacturina
311821
Cookie and Cracker Manufacturing
311824
Dry Pasta, Dough, and Flour Mixes Manufacturina from Purchased Flour 311830
Tortilla Manufacturing
311911
Roasted Nuts and Peanut Butter Manufacturina
311919
Other Snack Food Manufacturing
311920
Coffee and Tea Manufacturing
311930
Flavoring Syrup and Concentrate Manufacturing
311941
Mayonnaise, Dressina, and Other Prepared Sauce Manufacturina 311942
Spice and Extract Manufacturing
311991
Perishable Prepared Food Manufacturing
311999
All Other Miscellaneous Food Manufacturing
312 Beverage and Tobacco Product Manufacturing
312111
SOH Drink Manufacturing
312112
Bottled Water Manufacturing
312113
Ice Manufacturing
312120
Breweries
312130
Wineries
312140
Distilleries
312230
Tobacco Manufacturing
313 Textile Mills
313110
Fiber, Yam, and Thread Mills
313210
Broadwoven Fabric Mills
313220
NOnow Fabric Milk and Schiffli Machine Embroidery
313230
Nonwoven Fabric Mills
313240
Knit Fabric Milk
313310
Textile and Fabric Fnishina Mills
313320
Fabric Loafing Mills
314 Textile Product Mils
314110
Comet and Rug Mills
314120
Curtain and Linen Mills
314910
Textile Boa and Canvas Mills
314994
Rope, Carriage, Twine, Tire Card, and ire Fabric Mills
314999
All Other Miscellaneous Textile Product Mills
315 Apparel Manufaclorina
315120
Apparel Knitting Mills
315210
Cut and Sew Apparel Contractors
315250
Cut and Sew Apparel Manufacturing (except Contractors)
315990
Apparel Accessories and Other Apparel Manufacturina
316 Leather and Ailed Product Manufacturing
316110
Leather and Hide Tannins and Fnishina
316210
Footwear Manufacturing
316990
Other Leather and Allied Product Manufacturina

TUMF Non -Residential Cate ry Detailed NAICS Cortes0ondenee TUMF Category

SCAG RTP/SCS
NAICS Two DIAL Code
NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Mail Code
Employment Categories
NAICS Code I NAICS Title
NAICS Code INAICS idle NAILS Code I NAILS Title
321
Wood Product Manufacturing
321113
Sawmills
321114
Wood Preservation
321211
Hardwood Veneer and Plywood ManufaClorina
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, Resawing Lumber, and Planing
321918
Other Millwork lincludina FIOOrinal
321920
Wood Container and Pallet Manufacturing
321991
Manufactured Home 'Mobile Hamel Manvfactudnts
321992
Prefabricated Wood Building Manufacturing
321999
All Other Miscellaneous Wood Product Manofaclorina
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 50000rt Activities
323111
Commercial Printing (except Screen and Booksl
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 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
325
Chemical Manulachdna
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 Manufacturna
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
Biol00i<al Product 'except Diagnostic) Manvfa<lodnti
325510
Paint and Coating Manufacturing
325520
Adhesive Manufacicrina
325611
Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
325612
Polish and Other Sanifafion Good Manvfacloring
325613
Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
325620
Toilet Prep0mfion ManofaClorina
325910
Printing Ink Manufacturing
325920
Explosives Manufacturing
325991
Custom Compounding of Purchased Resins
325992
Photcamphic Film, Paper, Plate, Chemical, and Copy Toner Manofa<lodna 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 Manufacurng
326122
Plastics Pipe and Pipe Fitena Manufacturing
326130
Laminated Plastics Plate, Sheet lexcept Paokaaingl, and Shape M000tocloring 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 lexcept Reheadinal
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 Manufacturtna
327110
Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
327120
Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing
327211
Flat Glass Manufacturing
327212
Other Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware Manufacturing 327213
Glass Container Manufa<lorina
327215
Glass Product Manufacturing Made of Purchased Glass
327310
Cement Manufacurng
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 Manufacurng
327910
Abrasive Product Manufacturing
327991
Cut Stone and Stone Product Manufacurng
327992
Ground or Treated Mineral and Earth Manufacturing
327993
Mineral Wool Manufaclorng
327999
All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing

TUMF Non -Residential Cate ry Detailed NAILS Cortespondenee TUMF Category

SCAG RTP/SCS
NAICS Two DWI Code
NAICS Three Dian Code NAILS Six Dian Code
Empbyment Categories
NAICS Code I Males Tole
NAICS Code INAICS Me NAICS Code I MAILS Tole
331
Primary Metal Manutactudno
331110
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy MOnufacurina
331210
Iron and Steel Pipe and Tube Manufacturing from Purchased Steel 331221
Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturing
331222
Steel Wire Drawing
331313
Alumina Refining and Primary Aluminum Production
331314
Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum
331315
Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil Manufacturing
331318
Other Aluminum Rolling, Drawing, and Exinidina
331410
Nonferrous Metal 'except Aluminum) Smelting and Refining 331420
Copper Rollina, Drawina, Exfrudina, and Alloying
331491
Nonferrous Metal 'except Copper and Aluminum) Rolling. 010wing, and Extruding 331492
Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying of Nonferrous Metal {except Copper and Aluminum) 331511
Iron Foundries
331512
Steel Investment Foundries
331513
Steel Foundries 'except lnvestmentl
331523
Nonferrous Metal Die -Casting Foundries
331524
Aluminum Foundries lexcept Die-COstingl
331529
Other Nonferrous Metal Foundries (except Die -Casting)
332
Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
332111
Iron and Steel Forging
332112
Nonferrous Forging
332114
Custom Roll Forming
332117
Powder Metallurgy Part Manufacturing
332119
Metal Crown. Closure, and Other Metal Stamping {except Automotvel 332215
Metal Kitchen Cookware, Utensil, Culled, and Flatware 'except Precious) Manufacturing 332216
Saw Blade and Handtool Manufacturing
332311
Prefabricated Metal Building and Component Manufacturing 332312
Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing
332313
Plate Work Manufacturing
332321
Metal Window and Door Manufacturing
332322
Sheet Metal Work Manufacturing
332323
Omamental and Architectural Metal Work Manufacturing
332410
Power Boiler and Heat Exchanger Manufacturing
332420
Metal Tank 'Heavy Gauge) Manufacturing
332431
Metal Can Manufacturing
332439
Other Metal Container Manufacturing
332510
Hardware Manufactoring
332613
Sprina Manufacturing
332618
Other Fabricated Wire Product Manufactoring
332710
Machine Shops
332721
Precision Tamed Product Manufoctoring
332722
Bolt, Nut, Screw, Rivet, and Washer Manufacturina
332811
Metal Heat Treating
332812
Metal Coatina, Engraving (except Jewelry and Silverwarel, and Allied Services to Manufacturers 332813
EIechOplofina, Plafind, Polishing, Anodinna, and Coloring 332911
Industrial Valve Manufacturing
332912
Fluid Power Valve and Hose Fitting Manufacturing
332913
Plumbing Fixture Fitting and Trim Manufacturing
332919
Other Metal Valve and Pipe Hfiing Manufacturing
332991
Ball and Roller Bearing Manufacturing
332992
Small Arms Ammunition Manufactoring
332993
Ammunition 'except Small Amisl Manufacturina
332994
Small Arms, Ordnance, and Ordnance Accessories Manufacturing 332996
Fabricated Pipe and Pipe Fnng Manufacturing
332999
All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing 393
Machinery Manufacturing
333111
Farm Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
333112
Lawn and Garden Tractor and Home Lawn and Garden Equipment Manufacturing 333120
Conshucfion Machinery Manufacturing
333131
Mining Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
333132
Oil and Gas Feld Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
333241
Food Product Machinery Manufacturing
333242
Semiconductor Machinery Manufacturing
333243
Sawmill, Woodworking. and Paper Machinery Manufacturing 333248
All Other Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
333310
Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing 333413
Industrial and Commercial Fan and Blower and Air Pudficafion Equipment Manufacturing 333414
Heating Equipment 'except Warm Air Fumaces) Manufacturing 333415
Air-COnditlynina and Worm Air HOOfin0 Equipment and Commercial and Industrial RehigermSon Equipment Monufacivri 333511
Industrial Mold Manufacturing
333514
Special Die and Tad, Die Set, lin, and Hxture Manufacturing 333515
Cutting Tool and Machine Tool Accessory Manufacturing
333517
Machine Tool Manufacturing
333519
Rollin Mill and Other Metalworkina Machine,' Manufacturina 333611
Turbine and Turbine Generator Set Units Manufactoring
333612
Speed Changer, Industrial High -Speed Drive, and Gear Manufacturing 333613
Mechanical Power Transmission Equipment Manufacturing
333618
Other Engine Equipment Manufacturing
333912
Air and Gas Compressor Manufacturing
333914
Measuring, Dispensing, and Other Pumping Equipment Manufacturing 333921
Elevator and Moving Stairway Manufacturing
333922
Conveyor and Conveying Equipment Manufacturing
333923
Overhead Traveling Crane, Hoist, and Monorail System Manufacturing 333924
Industrial Truck, Tractor, Trailer, and Stacker Machine,' Manufacturina 333991
Power -Driven Handtool Manufacturina
333992
Welding and Soldering Equipment Manufacturing
333993
Packaging Machinery Manufacturing
333994
Industrial Process Fumace and Oven Manufacturing
333995
Fluid Power Cylinder and Actuator Manufacturing
333996
Fluid Power Pump and Motor Manufacturing
333998
All Other Miscellaneous General Purpose Machinery Manufacturing 394
Computer and Elechonk Product
Manufacturing
334111
Electronic Computer MOnutaclvrina
334112
Computer Storage Device Manufacturing
334118
Computer Terminal and Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing 334210
Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing
334220
Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Comrunicafions Equipment Manufacturing 334290
Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing
334310
Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing
334412
Bare Panted Circuit Board Manufacturing
334413
Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing
334416
Capacitor, Resistor, Coil, Transformer, and Other Inductor Manufacturing 334417
Electronic Connector Manufacturing
334418
Printed Circuit Assembly IElecimnic Assembly) Manufacturing 334419
Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
334510
Elechomedical and Elecfrotherapeuhc Apparatus Manufacturing 334511
Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing 334512
Automatic Environmental Control Manufacturing for Residential, Commercial, and Appliance Use 334513
Instruments and Related Products Manufacturing for Moasudng, Displaying, and Controlling Indashbl ',,C°. Variables 334514
Totalizing Fluid Meter and Counting Device Manufacturing 334515
Instrument Manufacturing for Measuring and Testing Electricity and Electrical Signals 334516
Analytical Laboratory Instrument Manufacturing
334517
Inodi00on Apparatus Manufacturing
334519
Other Measuring and Controlling Device Manufacturing
334610
Manufacturing and Reproducing Magnetic and Optical Media

TUMF Non -Residential Cate ry Detailed NAICS Corteseondenee 'FUME Category

SCAG ETP/SCS
NAICS Two Digit Code
NAICS Three Mae Code
NAICS Six Dion Code
Empbyment Categories
NAICS Code I NAICS Title
NAICS Code I NAICS idle
NAICS Code I NAICS Title
335 Electrical Equipment Appliance, and
Component
Manufacturing
335131
Residential Electric Liahlna Fixture Manufacturing
335132
Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Electric Lighting Fixture Manufacturing 335139
Electric Lamp Bulb and Other Lighting Equipment Manufacturing 335210
Small Electrical Appliance Manufacturing
335220
Maim Household Appliance Manufacturing
335311
Power, Distribution, and Specially Transformer Manufacturing 335312
Motor and Generator Manufacturing
335313
Switchoear and Switchboard Apparatus Manufacturing
335314
Relay and Industrial Control Manufacturing
335910
Battery Manufacturina
335921
Fiber Optic Cable Manufacturing
335929
Other Communication and Enerav Wire Manufacturing
335931
Current -Caning Wiring Device Manufacturing
335932
Noncurrent-Carvina Wirina Device Manufacturing
335991
Carbon and Graphite Product Manufacturing
335999
All Other Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and Component Manufacturina 336 Tr0ndporlolon Equipment Manutaatudng
336110
Automobile and Light Data Motor Vehicle Manufacturina
336120
Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing
336211
Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturina
336212
Truck Trailer Manufacturing
336213
Motor Home Manufacturina
336214
Travel Trailer and Camper Manufacturing
336310
Motor Vehicle Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturina 336320
Motor Vehicle Electrical and Electronic Equipment Manufacturing 336330
Motor Vehicle Steering and Suspension Components )except Spring) Manufacturing 336340
Motor Vehicle Brake System Manufacturing
336350
Motor Vehicle Transmission and Power Train Parts Manufacturing 336360
Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturing
336370
Motor Vehicle Metal Stampina
336390
Other Motor Vehicle Parts Manafacturing
336411
Aircraft Manufacturina
336412
Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing
336413
Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing 336414
Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
336415
Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Propulsion Unit and Propulsion Unit Parts Manufacturing 336419
Other Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing 336510
Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturina
336611
Ship Building and Repairing
336612
Boat Buildina
336991
Motorcycle, Bicycle, and Pads Manufacturing
336992
Military Armored Vehicle, Tank, and Tank Component Manufacturing 336999
All Other Transportation Equipment Manufacturina
337 Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing
337110
Woad Kitchen Cabinet and Countertop Manufacturing
337121
Upholstered Household Furniture Manufacturing
337122
NOnuphalsiered Wood Household Famitre Manufacturing
337126
Household Fumitare )except Wood and Upholstered) Manufacturing 337127
Institutional Furniture Manufacturing
337211
Wood Office Fumitare Manufacturina
337212
Custom Architectural Woodwork and Millwork Manufacturing 337214
Office Fumiture )except Wood' Manufacturing
337215
Showcase, Partiacn, Shelving, and Locker Manufacturing
337910
Mattress Manufacturing
337920
Blind and Shade Manufacturing
339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing
339112
Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
339113
Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing
339114
Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturina
339115
Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturina
339116
Dental Laboratories
339910
Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturina
339920
Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing
339930
Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturina
339940
Office Supplies )except Paper) Manufacturing
339950
Sign Manufacturing
339991
Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device Manufacturing
339992
Musical Instrument Manufacturina
339993
Fastener, Baton, Needle, and Pin Manufacturing
339994
Broom, Brush, and Mop Manufacturing
339995
Burial Casket Manufacturing
339999
All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
42 Wholesale Trade
423 Merchant Wholesders, Durable Goods
423110
Automobile and Other Motor Vehicle Merchant Wholesalers 423120
Motor Vehicle Saddles and New Parts Merchant Wholesalers 423130
Tire and Tube Merchant Wholesalers
423140
Motor Vehicle Pads (Used) Merchant Wholesalers
423210
Furniture Merchant Wholesalers
423220
Home Famishing Merchant Wholesalers
423310
Lumber, Plywood, Millwork, and Wood Panel Merchant Wholesalers 423320
Brick, Stone, and Rebted Construction Material Merchant Wholesalers 423330
Roofing, Sidina, and Insulation Material Merchant Wholesalers 423390
Other Construction Material Merchant Wholesalers
423410
Photographic Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 423420
Office Equipment Merchant Wholesalers
423430
Computer and Computer Peripheral Equipment and Software Merchant Wholesalers 423440
Other Commercial Equipment Merchant Wholesalers
423450
Medical, Dental, and Hospital Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 423460
Ophthalmic Goods Merchant Wholesalers
423490
Other Professional Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 423510
Metal Service Centers and Other Metal Merchant Wholesalers 423520
Coal and Other Mineral and Ore Merchant Wholesalers
423610
Electrical Apparatus and Equipment, Wiring Supplies, and Rebted Equipment Merchant Wholesalers 423620
Household Appliances, Electric Housewares, and Consumer Electronics Merchant Wholesalers 423690
Other Electronic Parts and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers 423710
Hardware Merchant Wholesalers
423720
Plumbing and Hoofing Equipment and Suedies (Hydronics) Merchant Wholesalers 423730
Warm Air Heating and Air-Conditionina Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 423740
Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 423810
Construction and Minina )except Oil Well) Machinery and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers 423820
Farts and Garden Machinery and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers 423830
Industal Machinery and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers
423840
Industrial Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
423850
Service Establishment Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 423860
Transportation Equipment and Stipples (except Motor Vehicle) Merchant Wholesalers 423910
Sportina and Recreational Goods and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers 423920
Toy and Hobby Goods and Stipples Merchant Wholesalers
423930
Recyclable Material Merchant Wholesalers
423940
Jewelry, Watch, Precious Stone, and Precious Metal Merchant Wholesalers 423990
Other Miscellaneous Durable Goods Merchant Wholesalers

TUMF Non -Residential Cate rn Detailed NAICS Corteseondenee TUMF Category

SCAG RTP/SCS
NAICS Two DWI Code
NAICS Three Glatt Code NAICS Six Plait Code
Empbyment Categories
NAICS Code I rinses Title
NAICS Code (NAICS idle NAICS Code I NAICS 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
Packaged Frozen Food Merchant Wholesalers
424430
Dairy Product (except Dried or Canned) 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 Temtinakl 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 Electric Power Generation
221121
Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Conhol
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-eaul ROikoads
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 Possenaer 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 Scut¢a6
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 Conhol
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
Fight 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 Exp¢ss 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

TUMF Non -Residential Cate ry Detailed NAICS Correspondence TIIMF Category
SCAG RTP/SCS NAILS Two Doll Code NAILS Three Digit Code NAICS Six gipir Code EmOloyment Categories NAILS Code NAILS Title NAILS Code NAILS idle NAILS Code NAILS Title Retail Trade
44-45 Reldi hale
441 Mobr Vehkle and PaM Dealers
441110
New Car Dealers
441120
Used Car Dealers
441210
Recreational Vehicle Dealers
441222
Boot Dealers
441227
Motorcycle, ATV, and All Other Motor Vehicle Dealers
441330
Automosve Pads and Accessories Retailers
441340
Tire Dealers
444 Building MOterkl and Garden Equipment and Suppl@s Dealers 444110
Home Centers
444120
Paint and Wallpaper Retailers
444140
Hardware Retailers
444180
Other Building Material Dealers
444230
Outdoor Power Equipment Retailers
444240
Nursery, Garden Center, and Farm Supply Retailers
445 Food and Beverage Retailers
445110
Supermarkets and Other Grocery Retailers )except Convenience Retailers) 445131
Convenience Retailers
445132
Vending Machine Operators
445230
Fruit and Vegetable Retailers
445240
Meat Retailers
445250
Fish and Seafood Retailers
445291
Baked Goods Retailers
445292
Confectionery and Nut Retailers
445298
All Other Specialty Food Retailers
445320
Beer, Wine, and Liquor Retailers
449 Runtime, Nome Furnishings, Sec -honks, and Applance Retailers 449110
Furniture Retailers
449121
FIOor Covering Retailers
449122
Window Treatment Retailers
449129
All Other Home Fumishings Retailers
449210
Electronics and Appliance Retailers
455 General Merchandise Retailers
455110
Department Stores
455211
Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters
455219
All Other General Merchandise Retailers
456 Health and Personal Care Retalers
456110
Pharmacies and Drug Retailers
456120
Cosmetics, Beauty Supplies, and Perfume Retailers
456130
Optical Goods Retailers
456191
Food (Health) Supplement Retailers
456199
All Other Health and Personal Care Retailers
457 Gasoline Stations and Fuel Dealers
457110
Gasoline Stations with Convenience Stores
457120
Other Gasoline Stations
457210
Fuel Dealers
458 Clothing, Clothing Aeeessodes, Shoe, and Jewelry Retailers 458110
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Retailers
458210
Shoe Retailers
458310
Jewelry Retailers
458320
Luggage and Leather Goods Retailers
459 Sporting Goods, Hobby, Musical Insrument,
Book
and Miscellaneous Retailers
459110
Scodimg Goods Retailers
459120
Hobby, Toy, and Game Retailers
459130
Sewing, Needlework, and Piece Goods Retailers
459140
Musical Instrument and Supplies Retailers
459210
Book Retailers and Newt Dealers
459310
Florists
459410
Office Supplies and Stationery Retailers
459420
Gift, Novelty, and Souvenir Retailers
459510
Used Merchandise Retailers
459910
Pet and Pet Supplies Retailers
459920
Ad Dealers
459930
Manufactured (Mobile) Home Dealers
459991
Tobacco, Electronic Cigarette, and Other Smoking Supplies Retailers 459999
All Other Miscellaneous Retailers

TUMF Non -Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence TUMF Category
SCAG RTP/SCS NAILS Two Nall Code NAILS Three Digit Code NAILS Six Digit Code Employment Categories NAILS Code
NAILS Title NAILS Code
NAILS Title NAILS Code NAILS Title
Information
51 inormalion
512
Motion Picture and Sound Regarding Industries
512110
Motion Picture and Video Production
512120
Motion Picture and Video Distribution
512131
Motion Picture Theaters 'except Drive -Ins'
512132
Drive -In Motion Picture Theaters
512191
Teleproduction and Other Postproduction Services
512199
Other Motion Picture and Video Industries
512230
Music Publishers
512240
Sound Recording Studios
512250
Record Production and Dishibution
512290
Other Sound Recording Industries
513
Publhhing Industries
513110
Newspaper Publishers
513120
Periodical Publishers
513130
Book Publishers
513140
Directory and Mailing List Publishers
513191
Greeting Card Publishers
513199
All Other Publishers
513210
SoHwore Publishers
516
Broadcasting and Content Providers
516110
Radio Broadcat0na Stations
516120
Television Broadcasting Stations
516210
Media Sheomina Disttbufion Services, Social Networks, and Other Media Networks and Content Providers 517
Telecommunlcallons
517111
Wired Telecommunications Carriers
517112
Wireless Telecommunications Caniers'except Satellite)
517121
Telecommunication Resellers
517122
Agents for Wireless Telecommunications Services
517410
Satellite Telecommunication
517810
All Other Telecommunication
518
Computing Infrashucture Providers, Data Processing, Web Nosting, and Related Servkes 518210 Computing Infrastructure Providers, Data Processina, Web Hostna, and Related Services 519
Web Search Portals, Libraries, Archives, and Other IMormaton Services 519210 Libraries and Archives
519290 Web Search Portals and All Other Information Services Financial ActNthes
52 Rnance and Insurance
521
Monehay AuthorMes-Central Bank
521110 (Monetary Authorities -Central Bonk
522
Credit intermediation and Related AettoHes
522110
Commercial Banking
522130
Credit Unions
522180
Savings Institution and Other Depository Credit Intermediation 522210
Credit Card Issuing
522220
Sales Financing
522291
Consumer Lending
522292
Real Estate Credit
522299
Intemational, Secondary Market, and All Other Nondepository Credit Intermediation 522310
Mortgage and NOnmort0a0e Loan Brokers
522320
Financial Transactions Processina, Reserve, and Clearinghouse ACNvities 522390
Other Activities Related to Credit Intermediation
523
Securilles, Commodity Contracts,
and Other Rnanclal
Inveshnenh and Related ACMNIes
523150
Investment Banking and Securities Intermediation
523160
Commodity Contracts Intermediation
523210
Securities and Commodity Exchanges
523910
Miscellaneous Intermediation
523940
Portfolio Management and Investment Advice
523991
Trust, Fiduciary, and Custody Activities
523999
Miscellaneous Financial Investment Activities
524
Insurance Carders and Related Activities
524113
Direct Life Insurance Carriers
524114
Direct Health and Medical Insurance Carvers
524126
Direct Property and Casualty Insurance Canters
524127
Direct Title Insurance Carders
524128
Other Direct Insurance (except Life, Health, and Medical' Canters 524130
Reinsurance Canine
524210
Insurance Agencies and Brokerages
524291
Claims Adiustina
524292
Pharmacy Benefit Management and Other Third Party Adminilha0On of Insurance and Pension Funds 524298
All Other Insurance Related Activities
525
Funds, Trusts, and Other Bnanclal
Vehkles
525110
Pension Funds
525120
Health and Welfare Funds
525190
Other Insurance Funds
525910
Open -End Investment Funds
525920
Trusts, Estates, and Agency Accounts
525990
Other Financial Vehicles
53 Real Estate and Rental and Leaving
531
Real Estate
531110
Lessors of Residential Buildings and Dwellings
531120
Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings 'except Miniwarehoosesl 531130
Lessors of Miniwarehouses and Self -Storage Units
531190
Lessors of Other Real Estate Property
531210
Offices of Real Estate Agents and Brokers
531311
Residential Property Managers
531312
Nonresidential Properly Managers
531320
Offices of Real Estate Appraisers
531390
Other Activities Related to Real Estate
532
Rental and Leasing Services
532111
Passenger Car Rental
532112
Pasenger Car Leasing
532120
Truck, Utility Trailer, and RV 'Recreational Vehicle' Rental and Leasing 532210
Consumer Electronics and Appliances Rental
532281
Formal Wear and Costume Rental
532282
Video Tape and Disc Rental
532283
Home Health Equipment Rental
532284
Recreational Goods Rental
532289
All Other Consumer Goods Rental
532310
General Rental Centers
532411
Commercial Air, Rail, and Water Transpadaton Equipment Rental and Leasing 532412
Conshoc0on, Mining, and Forestry Machinery and Equipment Rental and L0051n5 532420
Office Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing
532490
Other Commercial and Industdal Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing 593
Lessors al Nonfinancial Intangible Assets (except
Copyrighted Works)
533110 Le55Ors of Nonfinancial Intangible Assets 'except Copyrighted W ork51