3. Background &
Assumptions
• Riverside County Will Grow
• Transportation Needs Will Remain
• Transportation Investments Help the
Economy
• Transportation Funding Will be Challenging
4. Transportation Projects
Create Jobs
$2.5 Billion Investment in Transportation Creates Over 30,000 Jobs*
Project Project Costs/
Jobs
Western Riverside $145.6 million
County Interchanges 1,800 jobs
Coachella Valley $55.4 million
Interchanges on the 700 jobs
I-10
SR-91 Projects $1.64 billion
20,100 jobs
Scott Road to $68.5 million
I-10/Palm Drive 15/215 800 jobs
Grade Separations $600 million
7,300 jobs
*Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
6. ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Eastern County Western County
• 10/Bob Hope • Green River (local widening
Drive/Ramon Road project)
• 10/Indian Canyon Drive* • 91/La Sierra Avenue
• 10/Palm Drive/Gene Autry Interchange Project
Trail* • 91/Van Buren Blvd. Bridge
and Interchange
*March 9: Joint • I-215/4th Street
Ribbon Cutting Interchange**
Ceremony
**February 15: Ribbon
Cutting Ceremony
7. ACCOMPLISHMENTS
• SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project
– $20 million TIGER grant
– Highly competitive - $527 million available nationally
• 828 applications received totaling $14.1 billion in
requests
• Grants capped at $20 million
– Grant will leverage part of a $445 million TIFIA loan
(Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act)
• One-third of project cost
8. Current Projects
91 Corridor
I-215 South Improvement
Project Project(s)
I-215 Central
Project
Extension of
60/215 East Commuter
Junction Rail Service
9. Current Projects
• Under Construction
– 60/215 East Junction – (Moreno Valley/Riverside)
– I-215 (Murrieta)
• Imminent Construction:
– SR-91 (Riverside)
• Pursue Environmental Clearance:
– Bi-county I-215 project
– SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project
– Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension
– I-15 Corridor Improvement Project
– Mid County Parkway
12. What is the Mid County Parkway ?
A 16 mile transportation corridor designed to relieve local and
regional traffic congestion in the San Jacinto and Perris areas,
and surrounding Riverside County communities.
13. Planning for Future Growth:
• Riverside County grew by 42% between 2000 and 2010.
Riverside and San Bernardino County combined are more
populous then 25 of the nations 50 states. (Census 2010)
• The City of Perris and San Jacinto are among the five fastest
growing cities in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. City
of Perris with 89% growth and City of San Jacinto with 86%
between 2000 and 2010.
14. Relieve Traffic Congestion and
Reduce Travel Times
2010 27,500
2040 79,000
2010 11,800
2040 50,900
187% increase
331%
increase
15. Riverside County Integrated Project –
“RCIP”
Three-part Program
(First of a kind effort to integrate these critical elements):
• General Plan – Blueprint for future
• MSHCP - Habitat conservation –
- Protect 146 species
- Acquire 153,000 acres
• CETAP – New transportation corridors
16. CETAP receives national recognition
under White House Executive Order
13274 for Environmental Streamlining:
Environmental Streamlining
”Improve project delivery without compromising
environmental protection”
Environmental Stewardship
“Demonstrating that we are mindful of the natural and
human environment while addressing mobility and safety
needs of the public”
Source: FHWA Website
17. CETAP- East West Corridor
•Study area encompassed 1000 sq. miles
•14 alternatives evaluated, 120+ miles
•Modeling showed alternatives in the
northern part of the study area provided the
greatest transportation benefit
18. Public Input:
RCIP, CETAP, and Mid County Parkway -
From1999 to 2008, over 9 years of public and
agency participation
Over 21 public meetings focusing specifically
on transportation which helped guide us to MCP
10 public meetings on MCP
19. Recap of MCP DEIR/DEIS
Public Review Period and
Comments Received
(Oct 2008 – Jan 2009)
• Three public information meetings, two public hearings,
1st District public meeting
• Over 4,500 newsletters with comment cards were sent out in
October 2008.
• Over 3,100 comments received.
20. Key Themes in Public Comments
1. Concern about the cost and timing of available funds for
the project.
2. Comments suggested making improvements to existing
facilities and raised concerns regarding issues in the western
portion of the project area between I-15 and I-215, including
impacts to the communities and to existing habitat
reserves.
3. The public would like to understand when and how the
project would be constructed; a project construction
phasing plan should be developed and disclosed to the public.
21. RCTC Action 2009:
1) Focus MCP limits to I-215 and SR79 in response to comments received on the
Draft EIR/EIS;
2) Maintain a long term plan for a future E-W CETAP Corridor between I-215 and
I-15;
3) Prioritize up to $7M in Regional Arterial, TUMF, or federal funds to the County
of Riverside for the preparation of the environmental document for their
Cajalco Road widening project;
4) Consider re-initiation of the CETAP corridor analysis between the I-215 and
I-15 if the County’s Cajalco Rd project is not environmentally cleared by 2013;
5) Prepare a phasing plan for the MCP (east of I-215) and support the County’s
efforts to prepare a phasing plan for Cajalco Road (between I-15 and I-215)
that ensures equity in the funding and capacity improvements on each project;
and
6) Reconsider funding priorities for east-west regional arterials as part of the
Commission’s Measure A Regional Arterial Program, once the economy
improves.
23. CETAP Mid County Parkway
I-15 to I-215 Corridor
Riverside 60
Moreno
91 Valley
79
Corona
CAJALCO RD
RAMONA EXPWY
Perris San Jacinto
15
74 74 Hemet
Menifee
24. Mid County Parkway
Van Buren Blvd
Perris Blvd
Alt 4 Modified
SJ River Bridge
Design Variation
Ramona San Jacinto North
Cajalco Rd Design Variation
Alt 5 Modified Nuevo Rd
Alt 9 Modified
Warren Rd
25. Project Re-evaluation:
• Modification of Alternatives
• Reduction in impact to homes, businesses, school,
fire station and park
• I-215
• Cajalco Road
• Placentia Interchange
• Evaluate opportunity to shorten bridge over SJ River
26. Project Re-evaluation:
• Preparation of supplemental and revised technical studies
• Traffic, Air, Noise, Right of Way Data, Engineering
• NES, Cultural, Paleo, Community, Floodplain, Visual,
Water Quality, 4f, USACE Conditional Assessment
• Recirculated Draft EIR / Supplemental Draft EIS
• Public Hearing on Draft REIR/SEIS
27. Traffic Summary
• Peak Hour Travel Time along the corridor improves from 44 minutes to 15
minutes
• Level of Service at intersections along Ramona Expressway improve to
Level of Service (LOS) D or better.
• LOS on I-215 between Van Buren and Nuevo Road improves.
• Benefits
– Reduction in expected traffic congestion along the Ramona
Expressway from I-215 to SR-79
– Freeway facility that would improve travel times for travelers in the
corridor.
– Lessens the travel burden on existing routes and increases longevity
of proposed improvements on existing facilities.
28. Ramona Expressway and MCP Alt 9 Modified
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Forecasts
2040 No Build and Build
79,000
52,700 60,500
27,700
63,500
93,800
N/A
N/A
81,800
76,200
Legend:
Mid County Parkway
2040 ADT
XX,XXX No Build
XX,XXX Build
29. South North I-215
Bound Bound
Level of Service (LOS)
2040 No Build and Build
F- F
F+ E
F- F
F+ E
E
D
F
D
Mid County Parkway
Legend:
F E
Mid County Parkway E C
2040 LOS
X No Build
X Build
30. New Connection Reports
• Two NCR Conceptual Acceptability received in 2008
– I-15 / MCP IC – includes modifications to exist interchanges
– I-215 / MCP IC – includes new Placentia IC and modifications
to existing interchanges
• Supplemental NCR at I-215/MCP IC
– includes new Placentia IC and modifications to existing interchanges
– submitted to FHWA Fall 2011
31. I-215 Improvements
Modified
Ramona Expressway
Rider Street
Placentia Ave
Perris
Blvd
Redlands Ave
Evans Rd
Nuevo Rd
32. I-215
Improvements
Mixed Flow Lane
in each Direction
– 6.5 Miles
Auxiliary lanes
Improvements to between I-215/
Existing I-215/ MCP Interchange
Cajalco Ramona and Service
Interchange Interchange to the
North and South
–1.5 Miles
New I-215/
Placentia Avenue
Interchange Alt 9
33. Existing
I-215
3 MF 3 MF
Three (3) Mixed Flow lanes in each direction from
Nuevo Road to Van Buren Blvd
34. Proposed
Median Widening
I-215
3 MF 1 MF 1 MF 3 MF
Add One (1) Mixed Flow Lane in each direction in existing
median from Nuevo Road to Van Buren Blvd
– 6.5 Miles
35. Proposed
Outside Widening
I-215
1 or 2 1 or 2
Auxiliary Auxiliary
Lane 4 MF 4 MF Lane
Add One (1) or Two (2) Auxiliary Lanes in each direction from MCP/I-
215 Interchange North and South to adjacent service interchange
– 1.5 Miles
36. PA/ED
Assumptions
• The Environmental Document will clear the entire 16 mile
facility for construction.
• It is RCTC’s intent to proceed to construction of the entire
MCP facility so that it would be opened to the public at the
same time.
• If after the ROD, RCTC does not have full funding for
construction, the MCP may be constructed in phases, per
FHWA major project guidelines. At that time, RCTC would
request FHWA concurrence on issuing a determination of an
Operationally Independent and Non-Concurrent
Construction (OINCC) for the 1st phase.
37. Phase 1 - Year 2020 Proposed Improvements
Provide an
Interchange Provide a Four-Lane facility on the Ramona
at I-215/
Placentia Ave Expwy Alignment from one half mile West
of Bernasconi Rd to one half mile West of
Warren Road with Interchanges at
Reservoir, Town Center and Park Center
Add a Mixed Flow Lane and a signalized intersection at Bernasconi
In each direction of Rd.
traffic along I-215
between Nuevo Road Likely built in conjunction with the County
and Van Buren Avenue and local land development projects with
County conditions.
38. Phase 2 - 2030 Proposed Improvements
Provide a Four-Lane Freeway
Alternative 9 Modified from one half mile West of
Warren Road to one half mile
Provide improvements to East of Warren Road with an
the existing I-215/Cajalco Interchange at Warren Road
/Ramona Interchange
Provide an
Provide a Four-Lane Freeway
Interchange
from one half mile West of Extend MCP as an
at MCP/
Bernasconi Rd to I-215 with Arterial Roadway from
Bernasconi Rd
Interchanges at Redlands one half mile East of
Avenue, Evans Road and Warren Road to
Ramona Expwy/ Antelope Road Ramona Expwy with an
and ramps to the North only at Interchange at SR-79
I-215/MCP- WB/NB and SB/EB
Connectors.
39. Phase 3 – 2040 Proposed Improvements
Alternative 9 Modified
Widen Mid County Parkway
to six lanes from
I-215 to SR-79
Provide Full
Interchange at
I-215/ MCP– WB/SB Provide Freeway to
and NB/EB Connectors Freeway Interchange
at MCP/ SR-79
40. MCP Milestones:
2009 - 2010 2011 2012 2013 and beyond
•Project Focused to I-215
• Prepare / Update / Revise • Admin RDEIR/SDEIS •RCTC Action - Certify
to SR-79
Technical Studies: Jan - May review - January EIR / Approve Project
•Modified Project Scope
•ROD Approval
•Technical Study Reviews: May •RDEIR / SDEIS Circulation
• Updated Traffic Model
– Sept and Public Hearing - June •Corp ROD and Permit
Preliminary Traffic and
Engineering Decision
•Approve Tech Studies: Sept - •Response to Comments
•Agreement on Refined November •Final Design
Purpose and Need
•Preliminary LEDPA • Right of way
•Discussion on Modified •Prepare RDEIR/SDEIS: Oct– acquisition
Range of Alternatives Dec
Package: Nov - Dec •Final EIR/EIS
• Construction
Welcome and an overview of what we plan to cover. I think we need to emphasize that we have a fast-moving presentation that covers a lot of ground that also has planned breaks that will allow them to ask questions.
Before charging into the next section, we can ask for questions and comments on what we just covered at this point.
RCTC took action to start a project level document in the Cajalco Ramona Corridor area based on the greatest transportation benefit as identified in HCLE studies.
What is the Mid County Parkway ?A 16 mile transportation corridor designed to relieve local and regional traffic congestion in the San Jacinto and Perris and surrounding Riverside County communities. This slide shows the study area considered for the new facility.
Let me provide a bit of history on how we got here tonight. In 1999, to address the challenges facing Riverside County, the Board of Supervisors initiated the Riverside County Integrated Project, known as RCIP, to try and address expected growth in the County. It was recognized that land use and infrastructure decisions are often driven by environmental issues, so an integrated program was formed to coordinate development of a new countywide general plan, a multispecies habitat conservation plan, and a major transportation corridor plan, which was called the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process, or CETAP.
In keeping with the goals of this Executive Order to:“Improve project delivery without compromising environmental protection”And“Demonstrating that we are mindful of the natural and human environment while addressing mobility and safety needs of the public”Participating agencies signed a Partnership Agreement to expedite the Review process for Mid County Parkway in October 2003. While we had to continue to meet all the requirements under the Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, the Clean Water Act and Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act, having the Executive Order has helped keep this project moving through a rapidly developing County. Through the agency partnership agreement, Federal and State resource agencies have been involved in the development of the alternatives and review of the environmental studies. This cooperative effort meets the spirit of the Environmental Streamlining Executive Order.
RCTC took action to start a project level document in the Cajalco Ramona Corridor area based on the greatest transportation benefit as identified in HCLE studies.
The public has had a significant role in shaping the development of the Mid County Parkway. There has been over 9 years of public input beginning with developing a vision for the County through RCIP, a transportation plan through CETAP, and now a project level corridor known as Mid County Parkway.Prior to the initiation of the project level work on the Mid County Parkway, 21 transportation specific meetings were held.Specifically for the Mid County Parkway, in September 2004 we held three meetings to obtain input to develop preliminary alternative alignments. In December 2004 we held three public scoping meetings to gather input on the preliminary alternatives and environmental issues to be addressed in the draft EIR/EIS. In August 2005 we held a meeting to seek input on refinements to the project alternatives that came from the value analysis study. And in October 2008, we held three open house style public information meetings.
