RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN

Document Sample
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN Powered By Docstoc
					Riverside County Integrated Project




  Community and Environmental Transportation
       Acceptability Process (CETAP)




              Working Paper No. 7b
      Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the
 HEMET TO CORONA/LAKE ELSINORE CORRIDOR
                     (DRAFT)




                          Prepared for the
  County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency
                              and the
            Riverside County Transportation Commission




                           Prepared by:
                            TransCore
        with Jacobs/Sverdrup, LSA, and Dudek & Associates



                         October 3, 2000
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)


                                                                  TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF THE CETAP PROCESS .................................................................... 1

DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................................................................ 2

PURPOSE OF THIS WORKING PAPER ............................................................................................................... 3

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................... 5

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CETAP CORRIDOR STUDIES, DEVELOPMENT OF THE CIRCULATION
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, AND TRANSIT SYSTEM PLANNING.............................................. 9

PERTINENT ELEMENTS OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY VISION ................................................................ 9

PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT FOR THE HEMET TO CORONA/LAKE ELSINORE CORRIDOR
.................................................................................................................................................................................... 11

INITIAL ALTERNATIVES BEING CONSIDERED ........................................................................................... 11

EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES BY SEGMENT .............................................................................. 14

EVALUATION OF THE BENEFITS OF THE ALTERNATIVES..................................................................... 15

EVALUATION OF THE ENGINEERING ISSUES AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................................................................................... 21

EVALUATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS OF THE SEGMENTS ..... 28

RELATIONSHIP TO PROPOSED RESERVE AREAS ...................................................................................... 31

EVALUATION SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 32

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................ 35




October, 2000                                                                                                                                                Page ii
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)




       EVALUATION OF INITIAL ALTERNATIVES IN THE HEMET TO CORONA/LAKE
                               ELSINORE CORRIDOR

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF THE CETAP PROCESS

The purpose of this working paper is to provide data and information assessing transportation alternatives
being examined in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor. The evaluation of alternatives is being
conducted as part of the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP)
in western Riverside County. CETAP is one part of a three-part planning and implementation program
called the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP), being undertaken by the County of Riverside and
the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). The other two parts are the development of a
Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and a new county General Plan.

A central purpose of CETAP is to examine the need and opportunities for the development of new or
expanded transportation corridors in western Riverside County. The prospect of the doubling of
population and employment over the next 20 years is creating a sense of urgency for determining
potential locations for new or expanded highway and/or transit corridors in western County. However, it
is important to carry out these activities in concert with the identification of habitat requirements, land use
plans, and other public infrastructure needs.

The CETAP effort is proceeding under the overall direction of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors
and the Riverside County Transportation Commission. An advisory committee has been established to
guide CETAP. Six working papers have been previously prepared for the CETAP advisory committee:

•    Working Paper No. 1 – Description of CETAP Corridors. Thirteen corridors were originally
     identified, representing the movement of people and goods to and from broadly-defined origin and
     destination points within, to, and from Western Riverside County.
•    Working Paper No. 2 - Corridor Evaluation Criteria. The criteria were used to assist the advisory
     committee in recommending the corridors to carry forward for further study.
•    Working Paper No. 3 - Evaluation of Corridors. Working Paper 3 incorporates most of the
     information in Working Papers 1 and 2. It describes how each of the 13 corridors rated against the
     evaluation criteria. It was an important part of the basis for recommending the four corridors to be
     carried forward for further study.
•    Working Paper No. 4 – Evaluation Criteria for Transportation Alternatives. These criteria are being
     used to examine the benefits, costs, and impacts of the various transportation options identified in
     each of the four prioritized corridors.
•    Working Paper No. 5 – Purpose and Need Statements for the Four Prioritized Corridors. The Purpose
     and Need Statements describe why transportation improvements are needed in each of the four
     prioritized corridors. This working paper is an important foundation for the evaluation of alternatives
     within each of the corridors.
•    Working Paper No. 6 – Screening-Level Evaluation of Alternatives in the Four Priority Corridors

Prior work in CETAP resulted in decisions to forward selected corridors for more detailed study. Four
corridors, representing broadly-defined areas for movement of people and goods, were identified as
priority for the County:

•    Banning/Beaumont to Temecula (with emphasis on the southern portion from Winchester to south of
     Temecula),
•    Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore,


October, 2000                                                                                                     Page 1
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)


•    Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County, and
•    Riverside County to Orange County.

CETAP is currently at the stage of considering possible transportation improvements or “alternatives” in
each of these four corridors. These alternatives include a range of highway and transit improvements. It
is possible that one or more of these improvements ultimately could be recommended in their respective
corridor. Environmental documentation sufficient to serve as the basis for right-of-way preservation for a
preferred alternative will be provided for each of these corridors. This environmental documentation is
required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). Draft environmental documents are to be prepared by mid-2001. Following the preparation
of these documents, public outreach meetings and hearings will be held, and decisions will be made on a
preferred alternative in each corridor. This will set the stage for preservation of rights-of-way or other
actions associated with the implementation of future transportation improvements. It should be noted
that, although the objective in the corridor is to reserve rights-of-way to enable construction of a preferred
alternative, other improvements within the corridor may also be identified as part of the analysis, or as
part of the development of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The environmental clearance for
acquisition of right-of-way for a future transportation facility is one part of the larger overall effort. The
specific schedule being pursued for the Banning/Beaumont to Temecula Corridor and the Hemet to
Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor includes the following steps:

•    Late October, 2000 – Public meetings are held to obtain input on how to narrow down the number of
     alternatives
•    December, 2000 – Decision is made as to alternatives to be carried forward into more detailed study
•    July, 2001 – Draft environmental document is made available for public review and comment.
     Another set of public meetings is held to obtain input to the decision on the preferred alternative.
•    End of 2001 – Final environmental document is prepared, and a decision is made on the preferred
     alternative

DEFINITIONS

It is important to have a common understanding of terms being used in this working paper. Some of the
terms used, and their definitions, are stated below:

•    Corridor – A general geographic area linking origins and destinations between which people and
     goods travel or are transported. The four general corridors being studied as part of CETAP were
     listed earlier.
•    Alternative - A major transportation option for carrying people and goods within that corridor. An
     alternative may define a particular mode of travel (e.g. transit or highway) or an alignment (transit,
     highway, or both together)
•    Alignment – The physical line followed by an alternative. Alignments may provide for either transit
     and/or highway travel, depending on the alternative.
•    Segment – Sometimes alignments need to be broken up into subsections so that variations or options
     can be examined in those subsections. These subsections are called “segments.” Segments can be
     mixed and matched in various combinations to form a complete alignment. This may help in the
     development of alignments that avoid or minimize impacts to communities and to the environment as
     much as possible.




October, 2000                                                                                                     Page 2
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)




PURPOSE OF THIS WORKING PAPER

The purpose of this working paper is primarily to provide information useful in screening down a set of
initial alternatives to a more limited number of promising alternatives that can be evaluated in greater
detail in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor. The intent is to screen out those alternatives that
either appear to have unacceptable impacts or those that do not appear to address the project purpose and
need, prior to carrying those alternatives into the full environmental analysis required in the EIR/EIS.
This working paper does not make such a recommendation, it only presents information that can be used
as the basis for making the recommendation of which alternatives to eliminate. Following the publication
of this working paper, a set of public meetings will be conducted, and discussions will be held with
agencies in the corridor to provide input to this decision-making process.

The Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore corridor is represented by a broadly defined land area that links the
Hemet/San Jacinto area with areas along I-15 between Corona and Lake Elsinore (Exhibit 1). It has been
defined in this fashion because it is potentially linked with decisions that may come out of the analysis of
the Riverside to Orange County Corridor. For example, additional transportation capacity could be
conceived through expansion of the SR-91 in the Corona area or through a new route to the south of SR-
91 closer to the Lake Elsinore area. As shown in Exhibit 1, existing connectors between Corona and
Hemet are via multiple routes: SR-74, I-215, I-15, and SR-91 or via the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco
Road connecting to the I-15 and SR-91. SR-74, I-215 and I-15 connect Hemet to Lake Elsinore.

The concept for evaluation of alternatives is to start with a wide range of possible improvement options
(described later in this working paper), and to narrow those down to alternatives that are deemed to be
most promising for the improvement of transportation in this corridor in the future. It is important to note
that the transportation improvements that are ultimately recommended may not be built right away. Some
may be as much as 10 years or 20 years away. But by conducting early planning and identification of the
specific transportation modes and alignments, other decisions such as the development of land, provision
of associated infrastructure, and actions to protect the environment can proceed with an understanding of
how it all fits together over time. This is the essence of the philosophy behind the RCIP.

It should also be noted that the interaction of transportation and land use is critical to consider in shaping
both land use plans and the transportation system. CETAP has already considered how five different land
use scenarios could affect transportation. Additional work is being conducted on how the alternative land
use plans being formulated as part of the General Plan could affect transportation and how transportation
could interact with those plans. Additional evaluation of land use plans will be conducted in association
with the detailed transportation alternatives that are carried forward for further analysis after December
2000.

Working Paper 6 provides additional information on the background of the corridors, the CETAP process,
and the overall transportation strategy defined for Western Riverside County. A “Purpose and Need
Statement” was also developed for the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor, and has been provided to
Federal and state resource agencies for review. The next section explains the methodology being used to
evaluate the alternatives.




October, 2000                                                                                                     Page 3
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)




                                                      Exhibit 1
                                        Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor




                                        "
                                        !
                                        60

                                        Riverside
                                                                       .
                                                                       -
                                                                       ,215
                                                                                                                                                           .
                                                                                                                                                           -
                                                                                                                                                           ,    10


                      .
                      -
                      ,  15   San ta Ana Rive r
                                                                                 "
                                                                                 !
                                                                                 60

                                                                                                        "
                                                                                                        !
                                                                                                        60                                       "
                                                                                                                                                 !
                                                                                                                                                 60

                                                                                                   Moreno
                         Corona               "
                                              !
                                              91
                                                                     Ales san dro Blvd
                                                                                                   Valley                             Gi
                                                                                                                                                                Banning
                                                                                                                                         lm
                                                  M any
                                                   oc on
                                                   C




                                                                        Van Bu ren Blvd           March                                    an
                                                     ki R




                                                                                                                                                Sp
                                                       ng d




                                                                                                  Airforce
                                                                                                                Lake Perris                        r
                                                         bi




                                                                                                  Ba se                                                ing
                                                            rd




                                                                                                                                                                     "
                                                                                                                                                           s
                                                  El So bra nte Rd                                                                                             Rd
                                                                                                                                                                     !
                                                                                                                                                                     79

                                                                              Ca jalco Rd
                                                                                                .
                                                                                                ,
                                                                                                -215
                                                                                                                                      Ramo na
                                                                                                                                      Express way
                                                                                                                                                                                  San
                                                                                                                                                                                  Jacinto
                                              La ke Math ews
                                                                                                        Perris
                                 .
                                 -
                                 , 15

                                                                                                   Pe rris

                                                                                          "
                                                                                          !
                                                                                          74       Airport


                                                                                                        Etha nac Rd          "
                                                                                                                             !
                                                                                                                             74                                                                 "
                                                                                                                                                                                                !
                                                                                                                                                                                                74


                                                  Lake
                                                                                                                                                          Hem et-Ryan A irpo rt   Hemet
                                                                                                                              Sim ps on Rd

                                                  Elsinore                                                                     Dom enig oni Pkwy
                                                                                                       Ne wport Rd

                                                                                                  roa
                                                                                                     d
                                                                                              Rail yon Rd            .
                                                                                                                     -
                                                                                                                     ,2 15               "
                                                                                                                                         !
                                                                                                                                         79
                                                                                               Ca n
                                                                                                                                                   Diamond Val ley Lake

                                                     "
                                                     !
                                                     74
                                                                                         .
                                                                                         -
                                                                                         ,
                                                                                         15


                                                                                                                                                   Lake Skinn er




                                                                                                                                                                                            N


                                                                                                                                                                                    W                E


                                                                                                                                                                                            S



     0               5                      10                       15                          20                          25 Miles




October, 2000                                                                                                                                                                Page 4
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)


It should also be noted that the interaction of transportation and land use is critical to consider in shaping
both land use plans and the transportation system. CETAP has already considered how five different land
use scenarios could affect transportation. Additional work is being conducted on how the alternative land
use plans being formulated as part of the General Plan could affect transportation and how transportation
could interact with those plans. Additional evaluation of land use plans will be conducted in association
with the detailed transportation alternatives that are carried forward for further analysis after December
2000.

Working Paper 6 provides additional information on the background of the corridors, the CETAP process,
and the overall transportation strategy defined for Western Riverside County. A “Purpose and Need
Statement” was also developed for the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor, and has been provided to
Federal and state resource agencies for review. The next section explains the methodology being used to
evaluate the alternatives.

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY

A set of evaluation criteria has been established as the basis for analyzing the alternatives in the Hemet to
Corona/Lake Elsinore corridor. The development of the criteria was documented in Working Paper 4.
There are two basic questions that are being asked for each of the alternatives within the Hemet to
Corona/Lake Elsinore corridor:

•    Within each corridor, how do the alternatives compare to one another for each of the criteria?
•    How well does each alternative address the purpose and need for improvement, as defined in the
     Purpose and Need Statement?

Working Paper No. 7b contains a “screening level” evaluation of the initial alternatives. The purpose is
to provide enough insight into the pros and cons of the alternatives against each of the criteria, and against
the Purpose and Need, so that we can eliminate from further consideration those alternatives that have no
likelihood of possible future implementation. It would not be fruitful to carry those alternatives into more
detailed evaluation. Evaluation at the “screening level” means that the evaluation is more qualitative than
quantitative, but may still have some quantitative elements. The evaluation methodology is as follows:

•    A “long list” of alternatives has been developed for the corridor. This includes an array of possible
     solutions to the transportation problems identified in the Purpose and Need Statement. Other
     variations of these alternatives may be introduced later, depending on the outcome of the evaluation
     and the promise of any of the initial alternatives.
•    These will be cut down to a “short list” of alternatives for further consideration. The basis for cutting
     down to the short list will involve a comparison of each alternative against the evaluation criteria and
     against the Purpose and Need. We will be seeking to eliminate those alternatives that have no
     likelihood of possible future implementation. Variations of alternatives may need to be identified to
     address specific issues that arise later on (e.g. avoidance of specific environmental resources).
•    Ultimately, at the conclusion of the CETAP process, a preferred alternative will be selected as an
     outcome of the environmental process. This may be a combination of improvements, not necessarily
     just one improvement. The evaluation of these alternatives will be a more rigorous, quantitative
     evaluation that will be included in the EIR/EIS for the corridor.

The criteria to be used for the screening-level evaluation and for the more detailed evaluation (to be
conducted after December 2000), are the same. The primary difference is that the screening-level
evaluation will be conducted on a more qualitative basis, and the detailed evaluation will be conducted on
a more quantitative basis. Exhibit 2 shows the evaluation criteria to be used for the evaluation of



October, 2000                                                                                                     Page 5
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)


alternatives. The development of the criteria was documented in Working Paper No. 4. The Performance
Indicators used by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) were used as a starting
point for the development of the criteria in Exhibit 2.

Several of the criteria were analyzed on a quantitative basis using the RIVSAN travel demand forecasting
model maintained by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for the Inland Empire.
RIVSAN is a sub-regional model covering the entire SCAG region but focusing with more detail on
Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The RIVSAN model has been used and maintained by SCAG
for over 10 years as the principal travel demand analysis tool for Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.
The model was validated for 1994 and currently projects to year 2020. It maintains a relationship to the
SCAG regional model, which is used for air quality conformity determinations for the Regional
Transportation Plan and the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. The SCAG modeling
system includes four modeling time periiods (a.m., p.m., mid-day and night) and five trip purposes.
Documentation can be found in appendices supporting the 1998 Regional Transportation Plan.

One of the main additions to the SCAG Performance Indicators was a set of criteria covering the potential
community and environmental impacts of individual alternatives. These are discussed in more detail in
later sections of the report, but generally include the following:

1. Air Quality – Most transportation improvements will have only a slight impact on air quality. In
   highly congested corridors, highway improvements will generally reduce emissions. In less
   congested corridors, a highway improvement may increase or decrease emissions, depending on the
   specific circumstances. Transit improvements tend to reduce vehicle travel and thereby reduce
   emissions. Net increase in air emissions could occur where new corridors have growth inducing
   effects, or make single occupant auto travel more feasible.
2. Noise – Noise levels would increase as traffic speeds and/or traffic volumes increase throughout the
   corridor. For rail alternatives, impacts would be intermittent, corresponding to the amount of time it
   would take a train to pass each noise receptor. The environmental evaluation presented in this report
   focuses on the presence of residential land uses within a given segment, since residences are
   considered sensitive noise receptors.
3. Displacements – Various alternatives may require the displacement of residences or businesses.
   Although agencies seek to avoid displacements, property acquisition may be unavoidable in order for
   an alternative to work. State and Federal law governs the fair treatment of potentially displaced
   persons. The environmental evaluation presented in this report focuses on the presence of existing
   residential land uses and non-residential land uses (retail, office, industrial, and public facilities)
   within a given segment that may have a potential for displacements.
4. Trails, Parks, and Public Recreation Areas - Potential direct or indirect impacts to public parklands
   and trails are an important consideration and would trigger the need for a Section 4(f) evaluation.
   Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act requires that avoidance alternatives be
   considered as well as all possible measures to minimize harm.
5. Visual - Visual impacts are considered to be high where alternatives result in major landform
   alterations, removal of vegetation, or construction of large structures (e.g., use of elevated structures
   would increase visual impact). The environmental evaluation presented in this report focuses on the
   presence of residential land uses within a given segment, since residents are considered sensitive
   viewers, and would be more susceptible to visual impacts than non-residential viewers.
6. Biological Resources – In some cases, potential transportation corridors may pass through areas in
   which it is desired to protect sensitive plant and animal species and their habitat. In some cases,
   potential transportation corridors may pose serious impacts. In others, impacts can be mitigated
   through designing crossings for wildlife, habitat replacement, etc. The basis for much of the
   biological analysis comes from data developed as part of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
   Plan (MSHCP) and from the map of the Potential Preserve Planning Areas. The Potential Preserve


October, 2000                                                                                                     Page 6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)


      Planning Area Map was developed in the MSHCP as a working concept for areas that could
      potentially be preserved in Western Riverside County. No decisions have been made on the actual
      areas to be preserved. References to species locations were taken from the MSHCP species data. The
      environmental evaluation presented in this report focuses on the potential effects of each segment on
      native plant communities (vegetation), existing habitat reserves, and sensitive species.
7.    Cultural Resources (Archaeological/historical resources) - Potential impacts to archaeological
      resources would be high for those alternatives requiring excavation within the first ten feet below the
      surface. For excavations deeper than ten feet, the impacts would be minimal to negligible. Impacts
      to historic sites would occur where there are direct or indirect impacts to structures greater than 50
      years old. The environmental evaluation presented in this report focuses on known historic resources
      and areas with a high potential to yield archaeological or historic resources (e.g., areas near
      waterbodies, old mining areas, etc.).
8.    Water Resources (i.e. waters of the U.S.) - Impacts to water resources will be small in cases where
      construction would occur within existing right-of-way. Water resources have the greatest risk of
      being affected when the acquisition of new right-of-way is required. The alternatives may have the
      potential to directly or indirectly impact adjacent bodies of water, drainage patterns, erosion and
      sedimentation activities, etc. The environmental evaluation presented in this report focuses on the
      number of crossings of blue line streams within each segment, as well as the linear footage of water
      resources affected.
9.    Geotechnical (addressed for major impacts in the screening phase and in more detail for full
      environmental documentation) - The potential for seismic safety impacts would be higher when
      elevated structures are used. Other geotechnical concerns, such as landslide potential, are higher
      where cut or fill slopes would be required.
10.   Farmlands Each alternative may impact existing agricultural lands. The environmental evaluation
      presented in this report focuses on the acreages of Prime, Unique, Farmlands of Statewide
      Importance, and Farmlands of Local Importance affected within each segment.

Environmental and community issues are discussed at a general level for each alternative, and are based
on the data developed for the General Plan and MSHCP. The engineering, environmental, and
community issues are summarized in the evaluation matrices contained in this working paper. The
evaluation matrices identify each alternative (broken down by segment) in a column, and the evaluation
criteria in the rows. A summary evaluation matrix is provided at the end of the document.

It is important to note that virtually any alternative that involves physical construction may have an
impact of some kind. The presence of an impact does not mean that the alternative should be eliminated,
nor does the absence of an impact mean that the alternative should be selected. The selection of
alternatives involves a process of identifying and examining the potential benefits, costs, and impacts of
each alternative and, having considered the entire range of information, determining the most appropriate
action. There are many aspects to consider, and the evaluation criteria cannot be used as a type of
“formula” or point system, out of which emerges the final answer. The evaluation criteria are designed to
provide a systematic review of the pros and cons of each alternative and to provide the results to the
stakeholders and decision-makers, who will make recommendations on how to carry the process forward.
The evaluation criteria will not be weighted as part of the evaluation process. Each stakeholder will need
to determine the importance of any particular criterion and take the range of criteria into account when
recommending alternatives for elimination.




October, 2000                                                                                                     Page 7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)


                          Exhibit 2. Evaluation Criteria for CETAP Alternatives
CATEGORY                                           EVALUATION CRITERIA
Mobility                                                      Peak period travel time for selected trips
                                                              PM peak period highway speed
                                                              Total extreme to moderate congested miles
                                                              (freeway and total)
                                                              Vehicle hours of travel
                                                              Percent of PM peak period travel in delay
                                                              Volume on corridor transportation facilities
                                                              (highway and transit)
                                                              Level of service on corridor facilities

Accessibility                                                 Work opportunities within 25 minutes
                                                              Work opportunities over 100 minutes
                                                              Non-work opportunities within 10 minutes

Environment                                                   Change in emissions for ROG, NOx, and CO
                                                              Biological impacts
                                                              Cultural resource impacts (historic and
                                                              archaeological)
                                                              Displacements (residential and business)
                                                              Impacts on land use, parks, and recreation areas
                                                              Noise impacts
                                                              Visual impacts
                                                              Impacts on water resources
                                                              (Note:     Hazardous materials impacts and
                                                              geotechnical impacts are also identified, where
                                                              potentially significant)
Reliability                                                   Trip time between selected origins and
                                                              destinations
Safety                                                        Fatal and injury accidents per million vehicle
                                                              miles
Livable communities                                           Vehicle trip reduction
                                                              Vehicle miles traveled reduction
Equity                                                        Potential benefits to low income groups
                                                              Potential impacts on low income groups
Physical/Operational Feasibility                              Issues associated with engineering and
                                                              construction
Cost and Cost-effectiveness                                   Capital cost
                                                              Operating and maintenance cost
                                                              Net present value and/or benefit cost ratio

Customer satisfaction                                         Community acceptance and support
Economy                                                       Support      of    economic    development
                                                              opportunities
                                                              Benefits to goods movement
Consistency with Riverside County vision                      Consistency with vision




October, 2000                                                                                                     Page 8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)


RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CETAP CORRIDOR STUDIES, DEVELOPMENT OF
THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, AND TRANSIT SYSTEM
PLANNING

The CETAP corridor studies are one part of a multi-pronged transportation program under the RCIP. In
addition to the four priority corridors listed earlier, the circulation element of the General Plan is being
evaluated to determine the location and type of roadways needed to support future development. Once
the General Plan land use plans have completed their initial public review, the buildout land use plans will
be analyzed using a travel demand forecasting model to assess the consistency of the circulation element
with the land use plan. Roadways may be added, modified, or deleted based on that analysis to develop a
balanced system.

Finally, a transit planning effort has been undertaken for Western Riverside County to determine how
transit should support existing and future development. This is being coordinated with the activities of
the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), particularly the 10-year Strategic Plan for transit, which is currently
being completed by RTA. In a related activity, the CETAP planning effort has developed a framework
called the Transit Oasis Concept. Basically, OASIS incorporates the following ideas:

•    High-speed linkages or “express routes” between major nodes of activity in Riverside County
     and adjacent counties along a “spine network.”

•    Local circulator vehicles at about 10-minute intervals within each node. These circulators would
     carry passengers within the nodes and connect them to the express network.

•    Building on the Transit OASIS theme where these local circulators and express systems meet.
     They are intended to be places of significant activity, places where people want to work, live, relax,
     and conduct their business.

OASIS is not the only part of Riverside County’s envisioned transit system. The county will continue to
provide important traditional transit services, such as local fixed route service and dial-a-ride. The transit
spine network that would constitute the express routes has been identified through both CETAP and RTA
planning efforts. There are two parts of the spine network that coincide with the Banning/Beaumont to
Temecula and Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore corridors: a line up the SR-79 corridor from Temecula to
the San Jacinto Branch Line and the San Jacinto Branch Line itself. Additional evaluation of specific
modes and alignments will take place as the work on the EIR/EIS begins for each corridor later this year
and in early 2001. Implementation of actual service will come through the funding, operations planning,
and initiation of service by RTA and RCTC. The plan for implementation will need to come through a
collaborative effort of RTA, the cities, and RCTC. A map of the transit spine network was included in
CETAP Working Paper 6.

PERTINENT ELEMENTS OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY VISION

One of the evaluation criteria pertains to consistency with the county vision. To obtain the full flavor of
the vision, the vision document itself should be reviewed. This can be obtained on the RCIP web site,
rcip.org. For purposes of focusing on transportation, the following statements have been extracted as
representative of the transportation portions of the vision. The vision is stated in terms of conditions as
they would be envisioned to exist in the future, if the RCIP is implemented. These statements on
transportation are not meant to fully convey the vision, but to provide a general sense of the vision, so that
the alternatives can be weighed in light of these ideas and principles. The transportation portion of the
vision states:



October, 2000                                                                                                     Page 9
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)




Our transportation system has kept pace amazingly well with the growth in population, employment and
tourism that demand mobility. New and expanded transportation corridors connect growth centers at key
locations throughout the County. Several corridors have built-in expansion capability to accommodate
various forms of transit and some are now providing express bus service to Metrolink stations. These
same corridors are designed with a high regard for the environment, including provision of critical
wildlife corridor crossings so that our open spaces can sustain their habitat value.
1. Major new and expanded transportation corridors accommodating automobiles and other transit
     modes are now partially developed, with funding for additional segments underway.

2. Strategies of job creation, coupled with improvements to the transportation system, allow County
     residents to have access to a wide range of job opportunities within reasonable commute times.

3. Riverside County and its communities are preeminent in their commitment to providing public
     transportation facilities and services to all people who need them. Where shortfalls remain, strategies
     are in place to expand universal access services as funding can be established.

4. New fuels technologies continue to be carefully analyzed so that commitments to specific
     technologies are not premature and wasteful of limited funding.

5. Selected alternative fuels are in use to provide some of the multiple transportation choices people now
     enjoy.

6. Toll-way options are being explored as a means of achieving improved capacity in critical corridors.

7. Investment in and expansion of the existing freeway and arterial street networks continue to be a
     critical part of our comprehensive transportation system development.

8. Strategically planned truck routes (including some exclusive truck lanes) provide for the movement of
     goods as a critical component of our transportation system.

9. Promotion of efficient intermodal freight facilities in the Inland Empire has achieved a shift of a
     portion of the goods previously moved by trucks onto the rail freight system.

10. The land use/transportation connection is a key part of the development process and has served to
     reduce the number of vehicle trips compared to earlier patterns of development.

11. Direct and immediate access to multi-purpose open space areas is provided in most areas of the
     County.

12. The transportation system is now financially supported sufficient to ensure that what is built can be
     adequately maintained.

13. Ample use is made of advanced transportation technology to ensure that the physical infrastructure is
     used to its maximum potential.

14. Reliable, real-time information is readily available to travelers for all major transit system routes,
     including fares, schedules, and current level of service on major roadways in the region to assist
     travelers in making choices regarding routes and mode of travel.




October, 2000                                                                                                    Page 10
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)


Additional aspects of the vision pertaining to transportation (but included in other portions of the vision)
include:

•    A comprehensive transportation system operates at regional, countywide, community and
     neighborhood scales.
•    Broadening of choices provided by the transportation and vastly expanded communications systems
     have resulted in reduced vehicle miles and vehicle hours traveled
•    Innovative designs allow for increased density in key locations, such as near transit stations
•    Mixed-use development occurs at numerous urban concentrations in city spheres and unincorporated
     communities, many of which include residential use
•    Riverside County and its communities are preeminent in their commitment to providing public
     transportation facilities and services
•    The land use/transportation connection is a key part of the development process

PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT FOR THE HEMET TO CORONA/LAKE
ELSINORE CORRIDOR

A Purpose and Need Statement has been developed for the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore corridor. It
describes the nature of the proposed actions in the corridor and the need for improvements. The Purpose
and Need Statement is in the process of being reviewed by the Federal and state agencies that are
signatories to the NEPA/404 Memorandum of Understanding. In summary, the following describes the
purposes for action in the corridor:

•    improve the projected future LOS and reduce the amount of congestion delay on the freeway system
     and the arterial network;
•    implement strategies to reduce the projected length of time that freeway facilities will operate at LOS
     F;
•    implement strategies to increase the efficiency of moving people and goods throughout the corridor;
•    expand the available route choices for moving people and goods throughout the corridor;
•    expand the available transportation mode choices for moving people and goods within the corridor;
•    provide efficient access to existing development and to areas selected for future development through
     the RCIP process;
•    provide efficient access to existing and planned recreation areas;
•    promote the economy of Riverside County as well as the local economies within the corridor by
     fostering the access that will allow for the creation of jobs and improvement of the job-housing
     balance in this portion of the County.
•    preserve right-of-way for a preferred alternative and secure concurrence from appropriate local,
     regional, state, and federal agencies to allow the preferred alternative to be constructed at the time
     funding becomes available.

INITIAL ALTERNATIVES BEING CONSIDERED

Both highway and transit options are being considered as possible transportation alternatives. For every
highway alignment, it is assumed that right-of-way will also be reserved for transit, unless stated
otherwise. In some cases, the transit alignment may depart from the highway alignment, to serve
particular populations. Exhibit 3 shows the alignment alternatives as solid lines. Where a transit
alignment varies from the main alignment, it is denoted as a dashed line.




October, 2000                                                                                                    Page 11
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)


Highway and Transit Right-of-Way Preservation Alternatives (reservation of transit rights-of-way
and/or High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes are included along with highway lanes)

Both highway and transit options are being considered as possible transportation alternatives. For every
highway alignment, it is assumed that right-of-way will also be reserved for transit, unless stated
otherwise. In some cases, the transit alignment may depart from the highway alignment, to serve
particular populations. Exhibit 3 shows the alignment alternatives as solid lines. Where a separate transit
alignment is being considered (e.g. the San Jacinto Branch Line), it is denoted as a dashed line.

1. Build Ramona Expressway as a freeway from SR-79 to I-215 and build Cajalco Road as a freeway
   from I-215 to El Sobrante Road. Continue along El Sobrante Road north of Lake Mathews and back
   to Cajalco Road continuing to an interchange at I-15. There are three variations in alignments to be
   considered linking the intersection of La Sierra Ave./El Sobrante Road with the Cajalco Road/I-15
   interchange, as shown in Exhibit 3. These will be termed the north, central, and south segments of
   the Cajalco alignment, or alternatives 1a, 1b, and 1c.
2. Build Ramona Expressway as a freeway from SR-79 to I-215 and build Cajalco Road as a freeway
   from I-215 to El Sobrante Road. Continue along Mockingbird Canyon Road to Van Buren Boulevard
   connecting to SR-91.
3. Upgrade Van Buren Blvd. to an expressway or freeway from I-215 to SR-91.
4. Realign SR-74 on the west side of I-215 to connect directly with SR-74 on the east side of I-215
   using the Ethanac Road connection. Continue as a freeway on exist SR-74 to new SR-79 alignment
   (the SR-79 alignment is being determined as part of a separate study by RCTC and Caltrans). For
   connection to I-15, five variations exist:
        a) Upgrade SR-74 between Ethanac Road and I-15 along the existing SR-74 alignment.
        b) Build a new alignment from the Ethanac Road/SR-74 junction to the north of existing SR-74,
             joining Lake Street at I-15. Continue westward across I-15 to the Cleveland National Forest,
             where the alignment would potentially link up with a future Riverside County to Orange
             County alignment.
        c) From the Ethanac Road/SR-74 junction, follow SR-74 to the El Toro Cut Off Road and then
             follow the Nichols Road alignment due west to the Nichols Road/I-15 interchange. Continue
             westward across I-15 to the Cleveland National Forest, where the alignment would
             potentially link up with a future Riverside County to Orange County alignment.
        d) Build a new alignment to the south of existing SR-74. The southerly alternative would
             extend from I-15 south of North Main Street to the Ethanac Road extension near the San
             Jacinto River crossing.
        e) From Ethanac Road extension near San Jacinto River Crossing build new alignment south to
             Riverside Street, continue west on Riverside Street to El Toro Cut Off Road / Nichols Road.
             Follow Nichols Road alignment west to I-15 interchange. Continue westward across I-15 to
             the Cleveland National Forest, where the alignment would potentially link up with a future
             Riverside County to Orange County alignment.
5. Extend Domenigoni Parkway as a freeway to the northwest, along the San Jacinto Branch Line, to
   Ethanac Road. Extend Ethanac Road westward and connect to I-15 using one of the alignments (a, b,
   c, d, or e) identified in alternative 4 above.
6. Extend Domenigoni Parkway as a freeway from SR-79 to I-15. From Domenigoni Parkway proceed
   west connecting to Newport Road continuing to Railroad Canyon Road/Goetz Road. For connection
   to I-15 two variations exist: (This alternative could include connection to the east side of Hemet via
   Domenigoni Parkway extension along north side of Diamond Valley Lake).
        a) Follow Railroad Canyon connecting to I-15.
        b) New Alignment to the south of Railroad Canyon Road bypassing Canyon Lake area
             connecting to I-15.



October, 2000                                                                                                    Page 13
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)


Additional Explanation of Transit Options
As indicated, provision for rail or busway options would be included in each of the alignment alternatives
listed above. The following more specifically lists the station locations and types of service that could be
considered.

1. Provide rail service within one of the defined highway alignments listed above, connecting to north-
   south transit routes at I-15, I-215, and SR-79. Major transit stops would be located at those junctions,
   plus the cities of Hemet, San Jacinto, and Perris, as appropriate for the alignment.
2. Provide express bus service on busway or HOV lanes within one of the defined highway alignments
   listed above, connecting to north-south transit routes at I-15, I-215, and SR-79. Major transit stops
   would be located at those junctions, plus the cities of Hemet, San Jacinto, and Perris, as appropriate
   for the alignment.
3. Implement commuter rail service on the existing San Jacinto Branch Line to downtown Riverside and
   provide stations at San Jacinto, Hemet, Winchester, a location east of Perris, Perris, and March ARB.

In addition, supporting strategies for transit, ridesharing, and Intelligent Transportation Systems would be
assumed to exist, as appropriate, for each of the alternatives. These would include:

•    Promotion of vanpooling/ridesharing/telecommuting
•    Support and promotion of transit improvements through trip subsidies, employer-provided transit
     passes, etc.
•    Intelligent Transportation System improvements (e.g. freeway control, signal coordination, transit
     operational improvements)

It should be noted that the realignment of SR-79 from Lamb Canyon to Domenigoni Parkway is
proceeding under separate study. A realignment of SR-79 will be assumed in the general vicinity of
Warren Road.


EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES BY SEGMENT

Each of the transportation alternatives for the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore corridor can be thought of
as consisting of multiple segments or subsections. Exhibit 3 shows how the alignments have been broken
up into segments. Each segment has been assigned a letter and number. Exhibit 4 shows which segments
make up each alternative. The evaluation of engineering issues and of environmental and community
impacts is organized around these segments. In this way, it will be possible to determine which segments
have the greatest and least impact, and thereby be in a better position to develop the detailed alternatives
(i.e. those to be evaluated further after December 2000) so as to have the least impact possible, while still
providing good transportation service. In other words, the best segments will be packaged together to
come up with the most promising and least impacting alternatives. The remainder of this document
provides the results of the evaluation of the alternatives and the individual segments. The evaluation of
the transportation benefits of each alternative is presented first, followed by the evaluation of the impacts
of the individual segments. A summary is provided at the end of the working paper.




October, 2000                                                                                                    Page 14
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)


 Exhibit 4. Segment Numbers Corresponding to the Alignment Alternatives for the Hemet
                         to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor

Alignment                                                                                 Corresponding Segment
Number                   Alignment Name                                                   Numbers
1a                       Ramona/El Sobrante/North                                         A1,A5,A6
1b                       Ramona/El Sobrante/Central                                       A1,A5,A7
1c                       Ramona/El Sobrante/South                                         A1,A5,A8
2                        Ramona/Van Buren                                                 A1,A2,A4
3                        Van Buren                                                        A3,A4
4a                       SR-74/Central/SR-74                                              B1,B2,B3,B5,B7
4b                       SR-74/North/Lake                                                 B1,B2,B3,B4,D1
4c                       SR-74/Central/Nichols                                            B1,B2,B3,B5,B6,D2
4d                       SR-74/South                                                      B1,B2,B8,B10
4e                       SR-74/South/Nichols                                              B1,B2,B8,B9,B6,D2
5a                       Domenigoni North                                                 C1,C3,B2,B3,B5,B7
5b                       Domenigoni North/SR-74/North/Lake                                C1,C3,B2,B3,B4
5c                       Domenigoni North/SR-74/Central/Nichols                           C1,C3,B2,B3,B5,B6,D2
5d                       Domenigoni North/SR-74/South                                     C1,C3,B2,B8,B10
5e                       Domenigoni North/SR-74/South/Nichols                             C1,C3,B2,B8,B9,B6,D2
6a                       Domenigoni South/North Railroad Canyon                           C2,C5,C6,C8
6b                       Domenigoni South/South Railroad Canyon                           C2,C5,C7,C8


EVALUATION OF THE BENEFITS OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Mobility

Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT), Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT), and Average Speed

The SCAG year 2020 transportation model for Riverside County was used to estimate the potential
impacts of selected alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore corridor. A year 2020 base
condition was established assuming the existing highway network plus funded projects. In addition, the
base condition assumed a six-lane freeway from SR-79 in Lamb Canyon to Domenigoni Parkway. Even
though this improvement is not funded, it was assumed to exist in the 2020 base condition to provide a
“worst case” 2020 scenario in terms of the amount of traffic that may use this corridor. For consistency,
the corridor alternatives all assumed a six-lane freeway for the highway portion of the alignment. These
assumptions may be modified in later analyses, based on the amount of traffic that could be anticipated.
All six of the basic alternatives were tested using the model, except for Alternative 2 (Ramona to Cajalco
to Mockingbird Canyon to Van Buren), which would likely have results ranging between Alternative 1
and Alternative 3. It should be noted that Van Buren was modeled as a freeway, to maintain consistency
with the analysis for the other alternatives, even though upgrading Van Buren to a freeway would be
extraordinarily difficult, given the existing development along that roadway. More likely, Van Buren
could only become as much as an expressway, with limited driveway access, but retaining traffic signals.
This means that that the benefit of improving Van Buren would be less than that shown in the model
results reported in this working paper.

The changes in VMT and VHT for the three transit alternatives were estimated by assuming specific
characteristics of the transit service and estimating the changes that could occur as a result. This analysis
was conducted at a screening level, based on assumptions of the amount of ridership that could be


October, 2000                                                                                                    Page 15
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)


expected, compared to comparable transit operations elsewhere. More detailed analyses will be
conducted of transit once the alternatives have been narrowed down to a more limited number. For the
express bus option, it was assumed that there would be a bus each 15 minutes for the a.m. and p.m. peak
periods and at one hour intervals outside the peak periods. An average of 30 passengers per bus was
assumed. These are believed to be conservatively high estimates for this corridor. For the rail option, it
was assumed that line ridership would be 4000 per day, which is nearly twice what the Riverside to
Orange County Metrolink line carries today, and about as much as the Riverside to Los Angeles line
carries today.

Prior to presenting the modeling results, it is important to understand the context of growth in this
corridor. Exhibit 5 shows the expected increases in population and employment in Western Riverside
County to year 2020. Those cities considered to be the most significant contributors to growth in the
corridor are highlighted. The estimates are in the process of being revised by the Western Riverside
Council of Governments and SCAG. Additional growth in the corridor is expected beyond 2020. A
preliminary analysis of this potential additional growth to a buildout level was conducted based on the
“vision plan” for land use (Alternative 3) being developed as part of the General Plan land use plan.
Based on this analysis, the following can be estimated.

•    Along the Ramona Expressway/Cajalco Road Alignment (Alternative 1), residential buildout and
     employment at buildout are both expected to be 60 percent greater than in 2020.
•    Along the Van Buren Alignment (Alternative 3), residential buildout is expected to be 10 percent
     greater than in 2020, and employment at buildout is expected to be 50 percent greater than in 2020.
•    Along the SR-74/Ethanac Road alignments (Alternatives 4 and 5), residential buildout is expected to
     be 60 percent greater than in 2020, and employment at buildout is expected to be 90 percent greater
     than in 2020.
•    Along the Domenigoni/Newport/Railroad Canyon alignment (Alternative 6), residential buildout is
     expected to be 50 percent greater than in 2020, and employment at buildout is expected to be 90
     percent greater than in 2020.

     Exhibit 5. Forecasts for Population and Employment Growth for Western Riverside
                                           County
 (Source: Western Riverside Council of Governments – Cities in BB to Temecula Corridor Highlighted)
                                    Population                         Employment
                            2000       2020 % Increase 2000             2020      % Increase
   Banning                   26,065     42,904        65%        8,387   15,081           80%
   Beaumont                  12,235     51,972       325%        4,162   16,241          290%
   Calimesa                   7,440     24,002       223%        1,345    4,520          236%
   Canyon Lake                9,148     10,562        15%        1,973    2,800           42%
   Corona                   122,384 149,575           22%       45,000   71,725           59%
   Hemet                     61,085     83,291        36%       18,344   27,489           50%
   Lake Elsinore             30,365     70,665       133%        7,821   23,015          194%
   Moreno Valley            147,511 208,284           41%       29,860   62,351          109%
   Murrieta                  47,990     99,190       107%        7,852   24,963          218%
   Norco                     25,754     30,005        17%        9,184   10,918           19%
   Perris                    33,797     90,273       167%       11,058   28,501          158%
   Riverside                259,917 349,643           35% 120,915 196,445                 62%
   San Jacinto               26,953     63,184       134%        5,968   14,228          138%
   Temecula                  54,181 122,018          125%       25,200   43,900           74%
   Unicorporated            342,568 663,182           94% 100,307 183,206                 83%
   Total                  1,207,393 2,058,750         71% 397,376 725,383                 83%


October, 2000                                                                                                    Page 16
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)


This means that some of the alternatives could have traffic volumes 50 to 90 percent greater in the
buildout condition than those shown in this report. The growth beyond 2020 is expected to be less for the
Van Buren alignment, given that this area will be closer to buildout by year 2020. These numbers should
be viewed as order-of-magnitude only, and additional analysis will be conducted of the actual buildout
land use scenario, once it has undergone further review, later in CETAP.

In terms of overall regional (all of the Los Angeles Region) and Western Riverside County traffic
projections, the following trends are anticipated to occur between now and year 2020:

•    The number of regional vehicle trips is projected to increase by 45 percent
•    The regional vehicle miles of travel (VMT) are projected to increase by 61 percent
•    The regional vehicle hours of travel (VHT) are projected to increase by 120 percent
•    Regional average vehicle speed is projected to drop by 27 percent
•    Western Riverside County VMT is projected to increase by 145 percent
•    Western Riverside County VHT is projected to increase by 250 percent, assuming the currently
     programmed transportation improvements
•    Western Riverside County average speed is projected to drop by 30 percent

Exhibit 6 indicates the changes in regional VMT, VHT, and average speed that could be projected to
occur as a result of the various alternatives. The changes in VMT and VHT were developed by comparing
the modeling results for year 2020 with the alternative against the modeling results for year 2020 without
the alternative. Year 2020 without the alternative is referred to as the 2020 Base Condition. Results for
transit have been kept separate from the highway portion of the alternatives so that the potential effect of
highway and transit improvements can be determined individually.

Exhibit 6. Change in VMT, VHT and Speed for Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake
   Elsinore Corridor (table shows differences for each alternative from the 2020 base)

                                           Regional Statistics                             Riverside Co. Statistics
Alternative                         VMT          VHT             Avg.                  VMT          VHT           Avg.
                                  (Millions) (Millions)         Speed                (Millions) (Millions)       Speed
                                                               (MPH)                                            (MPH)
2020 Base                         460.209     20.054         22.95                   55.454      1.840        30.14
Cajalco/Ramona (Alt 1)            +.491       -.060          +.09                    +.827       -.005        +.54
Van Buren (Alt 3)                 +.433       -.092          +.13                    +.507       +.001        +.26
SR-74/Ethanac (Alt 4)             +.462       -.037          +.07                    +.594       -.026        +.76
Domenigoni/Ethanac/SR             +.359       -.049          +.07                    +.457       -.038        +.90
-74 (Alt 5)
Domenigoni/Newport/R              +.752            -.139             +.20            +.545            -.046             +1.08
R Canyon (Alt 6)
Rail, Hemet to Lk.                -.054            -.010             +.01            -.054            -.010             +.13
Elsinore or Corona along
defined alignment
Express Bus, Hemet to             -.047            -.008             +.01            -.047            -.008             +.10
Lk. Elsinore or Corona
along defined alignment
Commuter rail on San              -.108            -.020             +.02            -.108            -.020             +.27
Jacinto Branch line



October, 2000                                                                                                    Page 17
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)


The express bus alternative assumed 8 buses per peak period traveling between Hemet, and Lake Elsinore
or Corona carrying an average of 30 persons each and 10 buses outside the peak periods. The rail option
along the defined alignments assumed 4000 passengers per day between Hemet and Lake Elsinore or
Corona. This is comparable to the ridership on the Riverside to Los Angeles Metrolink line today, and
nearly double the ridership on the Riverside to Orange County line. The commuter rail alternative on the
San Jacinto Branch line assumed 2000 passengers per day, since the service would be more limited than
assumed in the rail alternative within the defined alignments. It should be noted that the passenger hours
in transit were not included in the VHT totals.

When interpreting the information on VMT, VHT and speed, the reader should recognize the following
general principles:
• The reduction in VHT is probably the best overall indicator of the transportation value added by an
   improvement. The vast majority of transportation improvements reduce VHT. VHT is very
   important, because it is a measure of the efficiency of the transportation system and translates directly
   to savings of time. This means that the cost of goods transportation is lower, people can get to work
   and other destinations faster, and mobility generally improves.
• VMT may go up or down, depending on the exact nature of the improvement. New highway
   alignments can sometimes reduce VMT because it provides a new, more direct route between certain
   locations. New or expanded highways can also increase VMT, because people might go more out of
   their way to use the new or expanded facility. In general, highway improvements tend to increase
   VMT, while transit and ridesharing improvements tend to reduce VMT.
• Average speed is a way of combining VMT and VHT together to indicate the extent to which the
   overall average speed of traffic goes up or down. The vast majority of improvements will cause the
   average speed to increase.
• All these statistics will not vary a great deal from one alternative to another or compared to the base
   condition, when measured at the regional level, or even at the county level. But small percentage
   changes at the regional level can still mean that major benefits are occurring. The benefits will be
   particularly noticeable in the vicinity of the new transportation facility.

Exhibit 6 shows that the Domenigoni to Newport Road to Railroad Canyon Road alignment provides the
greatest reduction in VHT. The Van Buren alignment provides the next largest benefit. The
Cajalco/Ramona alignment provides a slightly greater reduction in VHT than either of the alignments
using Ethanac Road. But of the alignments using Ethanac Road, the connection from Domenigoni
Parkway along the San Jacinto Branch Line to Ethanac Road provides slightly greater benefit. It is also in
an area that has higher future growth potential than along existing SR-74.

Traffic Volume Changes

Exhibit 7 identifies projected changes in traffic volumes for year 2020 for the analyzed highway
alternatives, compared to the volumes for the 2020 Base Condition. A negative number for an alternative
means that the 2020 volume for that alternative at that location is lower than the volume for the 2020 base
condition at the same location. A positive number means that the alternative produces higher traffic
volumes at that location than the 2020 base condition. Some of the observations from this analysis
include:

•    On the Cajalco/Ramona alignment (Alternative 1), the highest volumes are just to the east of I-215, at
     an estimated 130,000 vehicles per day for year 2020. The volume drops to about 60,000 on the
     section between La Sierra and I-15 and 70,000 on the section just west of SR-79. Thus, the highest
     concentration is in the central section of the corridor.




October, 2000                                                                                                    Page 18
300
400




                                                              Exhibit 7
                               Change in Daily Traffic Volumes from The 2020 Base for Each Alternative

                                                                                        304,000
                                                                                         25,700
                                                                                        -17,100
                                                                                         -9,600                                    89,000
                                                                                         -8,900        184,000                     -8,700
                                                                                        -13,100         -5,700                      1,300
                                                 35,000
                                                                                                        -1,200                     -4,500
                                                 -4,300
                                                                                                        -2,500                     -3,000
                                                116,500
                                                                                                        -1,700                     -2,300
                                                 -3,500
                              254,000                                                                   -1,700
                                                 -2,900
                              -17,200            -2,800
                               14,800
                              -11,400                                         184,000
                              -10,700                                          -5,100
                               -8,400                                          -4,000
                                                                               -9,200                                                                                    106,000
                                                                               -7,900                                                                                    -34,600
                                                                              -13,800                               62,000              41,000                              -100
                                                                                                                    69,400              33,400                             1,500
                                                            Van                                                                                        39,000             -3,300
                                                                                                                    10,300              -1,300
                                                                                                                                                       33,300                300
                             250,000                                            42,000                                 200             -15,800
                                                                                                                                                          900
                              35,800                                            -2,000                               4,200             -10,500
                                                                                                                                                      -13,900
                              -5,100                                            94,200                               3,700             -10,600
                                                                                                                                                       -7,200
                              44,000                                              -600
                                                                                                           Ramona Pkwy                                 -6,600
                              34,300                                              -300
                              47,200                                Cajalco        200
         442,000
        -188,400
                                                                                              34,000
           8,500                             9,000                                            63,100
             700                            51,500         20,000          25,000                                                            43,000             45,000
                                                                                             -14,000                         176,000
             500                               900         58,400          64,900                                                            -5,000             -4,500
                                                                                              -4,800                           3,400
          -2,600                            -1,000        -14,000         -12,100                                                               400                  0             77,000
                                                                                              -4,100                          10,700
                                            -1,100         -7,200          -4,600                                                            64,900             66,400              2,800
                                                                                              -2,900                          -7,300
                                            -1,000         -6,900          -3,800                                                              -200                400                300
                   206,000                                 -6,500          -3,100                                            -10,400         -7,200             -6,400             -2,300
                       300                                                                                                   -17,100
                                                                       50,000                                                                                                      -1,100
                    -3,700                                                                                                                                                          3,600
                                                                       -2,500
                    48,800
                                                                       -2,000
                    45,600                                                                                                                                                                   56,000
                                                                       50,800
                    51,300                                                                                                                                                                   -3,300
                                                                       53,000                               „ -
                                                                       -6,700                               „ -                                                                                -100
                                                                                                            „ -                                                                             -18,000
                                   55,000                                                                  57,100                                                                            28,900
           KEY                    -13,100                                                                  53,400                                                                            43,300
      Base                        -13,900                                                                   „
      Cajalco (1)                 -18,100
      Van Buren (3)               -18,000                                                                                                    46,000
                                                                                                         36,000                             -11,500                       60,000
      74/Ethanac (4)               76,300
                                                                                                         -4,100                             -11,100                       -8,200
      Dom./Ethanac (5)                                                                                   -3,400                                                           -7,500
      Dom /Newport                                                                                                                           -8,900
                                                                                                         -8,400                              -3,400                      -18,000
                                                                                                         -6,600                              80,400                       -9,800
                                                                                                         62,000                                                          -31,000
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)




•    The Van Buren alignment (Alternative 3), when modeled as a freeway, has a very high volume, in the
     range of 150,000 vehicles per day. As explained earlier, it is unlikely that Van Buren would ever be
     able to be converted to a freeway. But the high volume points to the importance of this facility to
     mobility in this part of Riverside County.
•    The SR-74/Ethanac alignment (Alternative 3)

Accessibility

Accessibility is being evaluated only qualitatively at this point. Work opportunities within 25 minutes
would increase with any of the highway options, putting Hemet, Perris, Moreno Valley, Lake Elsinore,
and Coroan all in closer proximity to one another on the basis of time. A trip that could take 80 minutes
during peak periods in year 2020 between Hemet and Corona (without a freeway) would take
approximately 35 minutes if a freeway facility were in place throughout the length of the corridor, a
reduction in trip time of over one half.

Environment

Air Quality

Exhibit 8 shows the estimated changes in regional daily emissions for the various alternatives for reactive
organic gases (ROG), carbon monoxide (CO), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). The other environmental
factors are treated in a separate section.

     Exhibit 8. Percent Changes in Regional Daily Emissions for Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore
                               Alternatives (compared to 2020 Base)

         Alternative                             ROG                              CO                               NOx
Cajalco/Ramona (Alt 1)                          -.194%                          -.205%                           -.107%
Van Buren (Alt 3)                               -.311%                          -.348%                           -.143%
SR-74/Ethanac (Alt 4)                           -.172%                          -.121%                           -.036%
Domenigoni/Ethanac/SR-74                        -.162%                          -.171%                           -.080%
(Alt 5)
Domenigoni/Newport/RR                           -.460%                          -.520%                           -.203%
Canyon (Alt 6)
Rail, Hemet to Lk. Elsinore                     -.012%                          -.012%                           -.012%
or Corona along defined
alignment
Express Bus, Hemet to Lk.                       -.010%                          -.010%                           -.010%
Elsinore or Corona along
defined alignment
Commuter rail on San                            -.024%                          -.024%                           -.024%
Jacinto Branch line




October, 2000                                                                                                    Page 20
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)




EVALUATION OF THE ENGINEERING ISSUES AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
THE ALTERNATIVES

Exhibit 9 presents an evaluation matrix dealing specifically with the physical/opoerational feasibility of
the alternatives. These issues are addressed by segment of each alignment, and reference should be made
to the segment numbers contained in Exhibit 3. The analysis is based on comparing the existing terrain
and facility conditions to that resulting from the proposed alternative. The main purpose of the matrix is
to identify the physical/operational feasibility and cost of each segment within the alternatives currently
under consideration. The physical feasibility of a major improvement may be limited due to topography,
existing development, etc. This is also reflected in the cost. Alternatives that have no physical or
operational feasibility for capacity enhancements (highway or transit) would not be reasonable to carry
forward for further evaluation in the EIR/EIS. For each engineering evaluation category in the matrix, a
description of the category and a summary of the evaluation are provided below.

The physical/operational feasibility of an alternative can be broken down into three engineering areas of
consideration 1) resulting facility, 2) construction of the facility and 3) operation and maintenance of the
facility.


Resulting Facility/Alignment

The resulting facility is defined as the end product. Terrain can affect the resulting facility / alignment.
The resulting facility / alignment can be rated by a segment’s conformance to highway standards.

Terrain

          Description

Terrain describes the topography as flat, rolling or mountainous and identifies whether the segment
utilizes an existing alignment or consists of new alignment. Generally, it is easier to meet highway
standards in flat/rolling terrain as opposed to mountainous terrain. In mountainous terrain, acceptable
horizontal and vertical alignments become more difficult to achieve, resulting in increased construction
costs associated with the engineered solution (bridge structures, large cuts, tunnels, etc..) and the
accompanying construction method. The segments are rated as very good, good, acceptable, poor or very
poor.

          Evaluation Summary

The segment’s rating for terrain ranges from good to very poor. Segments C5, C6, C7, C8, D1, and D2
are rated acceptable. Segments A6, A7, A8, and B10 are rated poor and B4 is rated very poor. The
ratings for acceptable, poor and very poor terrain are listed below for alignments where different
segments or combinations of segments can be used for a specific connection.




October, 2000                                                                                                    Page 21
                                                                        EXHIBIT 9. ENGINEERING EVALUATION
Hemet to Corona / Lake Elsinore
                     Segments                                           A1                        A2                           A3                              A4                          A5
                     Description                           Ramona Exwy/ Cajalco Rd       Mockingbird Canyon Van Buren Blvd. From I-215 to Van Buren Blvd. from                  El Sobrante Rd. from
                                                           from SR-79 to El Sobrante Rd. Rd from El Sobrante Mockingbird Canyon Rd.       Mockingbird Canyon                    Mockingbird Canyon Rd.
                                                           El Sobrante Rd from Cajalco Rd to Van Buren Blvd.                              Rd. to SR-91.                         to La Sierra Ave.
                                                           Rd to Mockingbird Canyon
                                                           Rd.
Physical/Operational Feasibility                                      Good                      Good                      Acceptable                          Poor                        Good
Alignment                                                             Good                      Good                      Acceptable                      Acceptable                   Acceptable
                       Terrain                                         Good                      Good                         Good                            Good                       Good
                                           Flat/Rolling             26.2 miles                 3.0 miles                    8.1 miles                       3.6 miles                  6.5 miles
                                          Mountainous                0.0 miles                 0.0 miles                    0.0 miles                       0.0 miles                  0.0 miles
                                    on New Alignment                 0.0 miles                 0.0 miles                    0.0 miles                       0.0 miles                  0.0 miles
                                 on Existing Alignment              26.2 miles                 3.0 miles                    8.1 miles                       3.6 miles                  6.5 miles
                                                  Total             26.2 miles                 3.0 miles                    8.1 miles                       3.6 miles                  6.5 miles
                     Standards                                         Good                      Good                      Acceptable                      Acceptable                 Acceptable
                                          Design Speed                70 mph                    70 mph                       70 mph                          70 mph                     70 mph
                                                                                                                                                                                    60 mph/ 1 curves
                                   Interchange Spacing            Meets Standards           Meets Standards               Non-Standard                    Non-Standard                    N/A
                                 Truck Climbing Lanes                   No                        No                          No                              No                          No
Construction Issues                                                Acceptable                   Good                      Acceptable                       Very Poor                      Good
                  Constructability                                     Good                   Very Good                       Good                         Very Poor                      Good
                                     Grade Separations          10 Water Crossings         0 Water Crossings           0 Water Crossings                4 Water Crossings          1 Water Crossings
                                                               1 Railroad Crossings       0 Railroad Crossings        1 Railroad Crossings             1 Railroad Crossings       0 Railroad Crossings
                                   Construction Method                Normal                     Normal                      Normal                           Normal                     Normal
    Level of Effort in Maintenance of Traffic                      Very High                      Low                         High                             High                       Low
                             Major Stage Construction                  Yes                         No                         Yes                              Yes                         No
         Impact to Local Traffic (roads crossed/cut-off)                55                         12                          35                               10                         19
Impact to Local Traffic (roads crossed/cut-off per mile)                2.1                        4.0                         4.3                              2.8                        2.9
                   Local Access (level of development)                 Light                      Light                       Light                         Moderate                      Light
Cost                                                                  $438                       $71                          $149                            $164                         $89
Construction Costs (in Millions $) (freeway)                           $319                       $58                         $115                             $81                         $59
Right of Way Costs (in Millions $) (300 ft of ROW)                     $119                       $14                          $34                             $83                         $30
Greenbelt & Utilities (in Millions $) (200 ft)                          $77                       $9                           $21                             $52                         $20
       Construction & ROW Cost (Millions $ / Mile)                     $16.7                     $23.8                        $18.3                           $45.6                       $13.6
Visual Impacts                                                         Low                       Low                          Low                             Low                         Low
                                              Exposure                 Low                       Low                           Low                             Low                         Low
                                   Resulting Landscape                 Low                       Low                           Low                             Low                         Low
Other                                                      Interchange spacing is 3.3                            Inter spacings are 3.3 miles from   Interchange spacings are   Metropolitian Water
                                                           miles from Van Buren Blvd.                            Ramona Exwy. & 1.5 miles            2.0 miles from La Sierra   District located on the
                                                           Complex interchange at I-215                          from Cactus Ave. Complex inter      Ave. & 1.6 miles from      South side of the
*Interchange is abbreviated as Inter                       due to location of RR.                                at I215 due to location of RR.      Adams St.                  alignment.
                                                                            EXHIBIT 9. ENGINEERING EVALUATION
Hemet to Corona / Lake Elsinore
                     Segments                                            A6                            A7                            A8                          B1                            B2
                     Description                           New Alignment from La Sierra New Alignment from La New Alignment from La                     SR-74 from Sanderson Ethanac Rd. from Matthews Rd.
                                                           Ave. to Cajalco Rd.          Sierra Ave. to Cajalco Sierra Ave. to Cajalco Rd.               Ave. to Matthews Rd. to Goetz Rd. Extend Ethanac Rd.
                                                           Northern Route               Rd. Central Rte        Southern Route                                                from Goetz Rd., west to
                                                                                                                                                                             Mcpherson Rd. Ethanac Exten.
Physical/Operational Feasibility                                    Very Poor                         Poor                          Poor                       Good                      Acceptable
Alignment                                                            Very Poor                        Poor                       Very Poor                     Good                       Acceptable
                       Terrain                                          Poor                          Poor                          Poor                         Good                         Good
                                         Flat/Rolling                 0.0 miles                     0.0 miles                     0.0 miles                   10.0 miles                    4.1 miles
                                        Mountainous                   6.5 miles                     6.8 miles                     6.8 miles                    0.0 miles                    0.0 miles
                                  on New Alignment                    6.0 miles                     4.8 miles                     4.8 miles                    0.0 miles                    1.3 miles
                               on Existing Alignment                  0.5 miles                     2.0 miles                     2.0 miles                   10.0 miles                    2.8 miles
                                                Total                6.5 miles                      6.8 miles                    6.8 miles                    10.0 miles                    4.1 miles
                      Standards                                      Very Poor                        Poor                       Very Poor                       Good                      Acceptable
                                        Design Speed                   70 mph                        70 mph                        70 mph                       70 mph                       70 mph
                                                                  60 mph/ 3 curves                                            60 mph/ 2 curves
                                   Interchange Spacing             Non-Standard                   Non-Standard                 Non-Standard                Meets Standards                Non-Standard
                                 Truck Climbing Lanes                    Yes                          Yes                            Yes                         No                           No
Construction Issues                                                     Poor                      Acceptable                    Acceptable                  Acceptable                        Poor
                   Constructability                                  Very Poor                         Poor                         Poor                         Good                     Acceptable
                                      Grade Separations          2 Water Crossings              2 Water Crossings            2 Water Crossings            2 Water Crossings            1 Water Crossings
                                                                1 Railroad Crossings           1 Railroad Crossings         1 Railroad Crossings         1 Railroad Crossings          1 Railroad Crossings
                                   Construction Method         Blasting, Independent.         Blasting, Independent.       Blasting, Independent.               Normal                       Normal
                                                                     Alignments                     Alignments                   Alignments
     Level of Effort in Maintenance of Traffic                       Very Low                       Very Low                        Low                      Very High                      Moderate
                             Major Stage Construction                    No                             No                           No                         Yes                           No
         Impact to Local Traffic (roads crossed/cut-off)                  2                              2                            2                         52                            18
Impact to Local Traffic (roads crossed/cut-off per mile)                 0.3                            0.3                          0.3                        5.2                           4.4
                   Local Access (level of development)                  Light                          Light                        Light                      Light                         Light
Cost                                                                    $180                          $174                          $174                        $146                          $99
Construction Costs (in Millions $) (freeway)                            $148                          $141                          $141                        $104                           $80
Right of Way Costs (in Millions $) (300 ft of ROW)                       $32                           $33                           $33                         $42                           $19
Greenbelt & Utilities (in Millions $) (200 ft)                           $22                           $22                           $22                         $26                           $13
      Construction & ROW Cost (Millions $ / Mile)                       $27.7                         $25.6                         $25.6                       $14.6                         $24.1
Visual Impacts                                                      Very High                        High                           High                        Low                           Low
                                              Exposure                Very High                     Moderate                        High                        Low                           Low
                                   Resulting Landscape                Very High                      High                           High                        Low                           Low
Other                                                      Consistent with proposed          Consistent with proposed   Consistent with proposed                                Interchange spacing is less than 1
                                                           alternative for inter-cnty (Riv   alternative for inter-     alternative for inter-county                            mile from the existing SR-74 / I-
                                                           /OC). Difficult construction      county (Riv to OC).        (Riv to OC). Inter spacings                             215 interchange. Difficult
                                                           due to mining excavation.         Inter spacings are 1.0     are 1.0 miles from El Cerrito                           Interchange Construction at I-
                                                           Inter spacings are 1.0 miles      miles from El Cerrito      Rd. & 1.1 miles from                                    215. Provides for good route
*Interchange is abbreviated as Inter                       from El Cerrito Rd. & 1.1         Rd. & 1.1 miles from       Weirick Rd. Construct                                   continuity for SR-74.
                                                           miles from Weirick Rd.            Weirick Rd.                conflicts with existing dam.
                                                                          EXHIBIT 9. ENGINEERING EVALUATION
Hemet to Corona / Lake Elsinore
                      Segments                                          B3                            B4                           B5                        B6                             B7
                      Description                            Ethanac Rd. from        New Alignment from        SR-74 SR-74 from Ethanac           Nichols Rd. from SR-74 to SR-74 from Nichols Rd. to I-15.
                                                             Mcpherson Rd. to SR-74. at Ethanac Rd. to I-15/Lake St. Rd. to Nichols Rd.           I-15.
                                                                                     Northern Route
Physical/Operational Feasibility                                      Good                          Poor                      Acceptable                    Good                      Acceptable
Alignment                                                             Good                           Poor                        Good                       Good                           Poor
                        Terrain                                      Good                        Very Poor                       Good                       Good                          Good
                                              Flat/Rolling         1.9 miles                      0.0 miles                    3.4 miles                  2.4 miles                     1.8 miles
                                             Mountainous           0.0 miles                     7.8 miles                     0.0 miles                  0.0 miles                     0.0 miles
                                       on New Alignment            0.0 miles                      7.8 miles                    0.0 miles                  0.0 miles                     0.0 miles
                                    on Existing Alignment          1.9 miles                      0.0 miles                    3.4 miles                  2.4 miles                     1.8 miles
                                                     Total         1.9 miles                     7.8 miles                     3.4 miles                  2.4 miles                     1.8 miles
                      Standards                                      Good                       Acceptable                       Good                    Acceptable                       Poor
                                             Design Speed           70 mph                         70 mph                       70 mph                     70 mph                        70 mph
                                      Interchange Spacing        Meets Standards               Meets Standards               Meets Standards            Non-Standard                   Non-Standard
                                    Truck Climbing Lanes               No                            Yes                           No                        No                            No
Construction Issues                                                Very Good                         Poor                     Acceptable                    Good                       Acceptable
                   Constructability                                Very Good                      Very Poor                    Very Good                     Good                          Good
                                        Grade Separations       0 Water Crossings            1 Water Crossings              0 Water Crossings         0 Water Crossings             0 Water Crossings
                                                               0 Railroad Crossings         0 Railroad Crossings           0 Railroad Crossings      0 Railroad Crossings          0 Railroad Crossings
                                     Construction Method              Normal               Blasting, Indep. Align.,               Normal                    Normal                        Normal
                                                                                             Elevated Structure,
                                                                                            Difficult Construction
     Level of Effort in Maintenance of Traffic                         Low                        Very Low                     Very High                  Very Low                      Very High
                               Major Stage Construction                 No                            No                          Yes                        No                            Yes
           Impact to Local Traffic (roads crossed/cut-off)               9                             0                          17                         13                             9
  Impact to Local Traffic (roads crossed/cut-off per mile)              4.7                           0.0                         5.0                        5.4                           5.0
                     Local Access (level of development)               Light                        Light                        Light                      Light                         Light
Cost                                                                   $42                          $210                          $46                       $102                           $66
Construction Costs (in Millions $) (freeway)                            $33                          $171                          $31                       $90                            $57
Right of Way Costs (in Millions $) (300 ft of ROW)                      $9                            $39                          $16                       $12                            $8
Greenbelt & Utilities (in Millions $) (200 ft)                          $6                            $27                          $10                       $8                             $5
         Construction & ROW Cost (Millions $ / Mile)                   $21.9                         $26.9                        $13.6                     $42.3                          $36.4
Visual Impacts                                                        Low                       Very High                         Low                    Moderate                          Low
                                                Exposure               Low                        Very High                       Low                     Moderate                         Low
                                     Resulting Landscape               Low                        Very High                       Low                     Moderate                         Low
Other                                                        Provides for good route   Consistent with proposed                                   Consistent with proposed Interchange spacings are 1.6
                                                             continuity for SR-74.     alternative for inter-county (Riv                          alternative for inter-county miles from Nichols Rd. & 1.2
                                                                                       to OC). Tunnel Possibility.                                (Riv to OC). Interchange miles from Main St
                                                                                       Inter spacing is 2.8 miles from                            spacing is 1.6 miles from I-
*Interchange is abbreviated as Inter                                                   Nicholas Rd. Difficult Inter                               15/SR-74 Interchange
                                                                                       construction due to Vertical
                                                                                       Alignment.
                                                                          EXHIBIT 9. ENGINEERING EVALUATION
Hemet to Corona / Lake Elsinore
               Segments                                                 B8                           B9                         B10                         C1                           C2
                      Description                            New Alignment from          Riverside St. from Dowling    New Alignment from        New Alignment from SR-      New Alignment from SR-79 at
                                                             SR-74 at Mcpherson Rd.,     Rd. to SR-74 at Nichols Rd.   Riverside St. at          79 at Domenigoni Pkwy. to   Domenigoni Pkwy. to
                                                             south to Riverside St.                                    Dowling Rd.,              Lindenberger Rd.            Lindenberger Rd. Southern
                                                                                                                       southwest to I-15 at N.   Northern Route              Route
                                                                                                                       Main St.
Physical/Operational Feasibility                                       Good                         Good                       Poor                       Good                         Good
Alignment                                                           Acceptable                      Good                    Very Poor                  Acceptable                    Acceptable
                        Terrain                                        Good                          Good                       Poor                       Good                         Good
                                              Flat/Rolling           3.6 miles                     1.9 miles                  0.0 miles                  4.3 miles                    4.6 miles
                                             Mountainous             0.0 miles                     0.0 miles                  3.9 miles                  0.0 miles                    0.0 miles
                                       on New Alignment              3.6 miles                     0.0 miles                  3.9 miles                  4.3 miles                    4.6 miles
                                    on Existing Alignment            0.0 miles                     1.9 miles                  0.0 miles                  0.0 miles                    0.0 miles
                                                     Total           3.6 miles                     1.9 miles                  3.9 miles                  4.3 miles                    4.6 miles
                       Standards                                    Acceptable                       Good                       Poor                    Acceptable                   Acceptable
                                            Design Speed              70 mph                        70 mph                     70 mph                     70 mph                       70 mph
                                      Interchange Spacing               N/A                          N/A                    Non-Standard              Meets Standards              Meets Standards
                                    Truck Climbing Lanes                No                           No                         Yes                         No                           No
Construction Issues                                                 Very Good                       Good                        Poor                      Good                          Good
                   Constructability                                 Very Good                    Very Good                      Poor                        Good                         Good
                                        Grade Separations        0 Water Crossings            0 Water Crossings          0 Water Crossings           1 Water Crossings            1 Water Crossings
                                                                0 Railroad Crossings         0 Railroad Crossings       0 Railroad Crossings        0 Railroad Crossings         0 Railroad Crossings
                                     Construction Method               Normal                       Normal             Blasting, Independent.              Normal                       Normal
                                                                                                                             Alignments
     Level of Effort in Maintenance of Traffic                       Very Low                       Low                      Very Low                      Low                          Low
                               Major Stage Construction                 No                           No                          No                         No                           No
           Impact to Local Traffic (roads crossed/cut-off)               6                           11                           5                         14                            5
  Impact to Local Traffic (roads crossed/cut-off per mile)              1.7                          5.8                         1.3                        3.3                          1.1
                     Local Access (level of development)               Light                        Light                       Light                      Light                        Light
Cost                                                                    $64                          $24                        $127                       $78                          $81
Construction Costs (in Millions $) (freeway)                            $46                          $14                        $107                        $56                          $58
Right of Way Costs (in Millions $) (300 ft of ROW)                      $18                          $10                         $20                        $22                          $23
Greenbelt & Utilities (in Millions $) (200 ft)                          $12                          $7                          $13                        $15                          $16
         Construction & ROW Cost (Millions $ / Mile)                   $17.6                        $12.5                       $32.5                      $18.0                        $17.7
Visual Impacts                                                      Moderate                        Low                        High                        Low                       Moderate
                                                Exposure              Low                            Low                     Very High                     Low                        Moderate
                                     Resulting Landscape             Moderate                        Low                       High                        Low                         Low
Other                                                        Interchange spacing is 3+                                 Interchange spacings
                                                             miles from I-215/SR-74                                    are 1 mile from Main
                                                             Interchange.                                              St. & 0.7 miles from
                                                                                                                       Railroad Canyon Rd.
*Interchange is abbreviated as Inter                                                                                   No route continuity
                                                                                                                       with proposed Riv-OC
                                                                                                                       alternative
                                                                          EXHIBIT 9. ENGINEERING EVALUATION
Hemet to Corona / Lake Elsinore
               Segments                                                  C3                          C4                         C5                            C6                        C7
                     Description                            New Alignment from              Lindenberger Rd.        Newport Rd. from                Railroad Canyon Rd. from New Alignment from Goetz
                                                            Domenigoni Extension            between Northern and    Lindenbergrer Rd. to Murrieta   Goetz Rd,. west to       Rd. to Railroad Canyon Rd.
                                                            (Northern Route (C1)) to SR-    Southern Routes.        Rd. New Alignment from          Railroad Canyon Rd. tie tie in point.
                                                            74.                                                     Murrieta Rd. to Railroad        in point.
                                                                                                                    Canyon Rd.
Physical/Operational Feasibility                                    Acceptable                      Good                   Acceptable                        Poor                  Acceptable
Alignment                                                               Poor                     Acceptable                 Acceptable                       Poor                   Acceptable
                        Terrain                                         Good                         Good                   Acceptable                    Acceptable                 Acceptable
                                            Flat/Rolling              3.6 miles                    2.1 miles                 5.0 miles                     2.8 miles                  2.6 miles
                                           Mountainous                0.0 miles                    0.0 miles                 0.0 miles                     0.0 miles                  0.0 miles
                                     on New Alignment                 3.6 miles                    0.0 miles                 1.5 miles                     1.0 miles                  2.6 miles
                                  on Existing Alignment               0.0 miles                    2.1 miles                 3.5 miles                     1.8 miles                  0.0 miles
                                                   Total              3.6 miles                    2.1 miles                 5.0 miles                     2.8 miles                  2.6 miles
                      Standards                                         Poor                         Poor                   Acceptable                    Acceptable                 Acceptable
                                           Design Speed                70 mph                       70 mph                    70 mph                        70 mph                     70 mph

                                    Interchange Spacing             Non-Standard                     N/A                  Meets Standards                     N/A                       N/A
                                  Truck Climbing Lanes                  No                           No                         No                            No                        No
Construction Issues                                                 Acceptable                      Good                    Acceptable                       Poor                      Good
                   Constructability                                 Acceptable                   Very Good                  Acceptable                    Acceptable                    Good
                                      Grade Separations          0 Water Crossings            0 Water Crossings          0 Water Crossings             1 Water Crossings         1 Water Crossings
                                                                0 Railroad Crossings         0 Railroad Crossings       0 Railroad Crossings          0 Railroad Crossings      0 Railroad Crossings
                                   Construction Method                 Normal                       Normal                     Normal                        Normal                    Normal
     Level of Effort in Maintenance of Traffic                          Low                          Low                     Moderate                        High                       Low
                              Major Stage Construction                   No                           No                       No                             Yes                        No
          Impact to Local Traffic (roads crossed/cut-off)                12                            4                       16                              6                          1
 Impact to Local Traffic (roads crossed/cut-off per mile)                3.3                          1.9                      3.2                            2.1                        0.4
                    Local Access (level of development)                 Light                        Light                   Moderate                      Very High                    Light
Cost                                                                    $69                          $31                       $182                           $80                       $47
Construction Costs (in Millions $) (freeway)                             $51                         $21                        $91                           $30                       $34
Right of Way Costs (in Millions $) (300 ft of ROW)                       $18                         $10                        $91                           $51                       $13
Greenbelt & Utilities (in Millions $) (200 ft)                           $12                         $6                         $57                           $33                       $9
        Construction & ROW Cost (Millions $ / Mile)                     $19.1                       $14.5                      $36.4                         $28.7                     $18.2
Visual Impacts                                                          Low                         Low                     Moderate                      Moderate                     High
                                              Exposure                  Low                          Low                      Low                          Moderate                    High
                                   Resulting Landscape                  Low                          Low                     Moderate                      Moderate                   Moderate
Other                                                       Interchange spacing is less
                                                            than 2 miles from SR-74/I-215
                                                            interchange. Difficult
*Interchange is abbreviated as Inter                        Interchange Construction at
                                                            I-215
                                                                 EXHIBIT 9. ENGINEERING EVALUATION

Hemet to Corona / Lake Elsinore
                  Segments                                             C8                                       D1                                         D2

                                                       New Alignment from Railroad           Lake St. from I-15 to Orange County        Nichols Rd. from I-15 to Orange County
                    Description                        Canyon Rd. tie in point to I-15.      Alternative                                Alternative

Physical/Operational Feasibility                                      Poor                                     Poor                                    Acceptable
Alignment                                                             Poor                                     Poor                                    Acceptable
                   Terrain                                         Acceptable                               Acceptable                                 Acceptable
                                      Flat/Rolling                  1.6 miles                                1.5 miles                                  2.5 miles
                                     Mountainous                    0.0 miles                                0.0 miles                                  0.0 miles
                              on New Alignment                      1.6 miles                                1.5 miles                                  2.5 miles
                           on Existing Alignment                    0.0 miles                                0.0 miles                                  0.0 miles
                                            Total                   1.6 miles                                1.5 miles                                  2.5 miles
                    Standards                                         Poor                                     Poor                                    Acceptable
                                       Design Speed                  70 mph                                   70 mph                                     70 mph
                               Interchange Spacing               Non-Standard                           Meets Standards                             Non-Standard
                             Truck Climbing Lanes                      No                                      No                                         No
Construction Issues                                               Acceptable                                  Poor                                    Acceptable
                Constructability                                      Poor                                 Very Poor                                  Acceptable
                                  Grade Separations            1 Water Crossings               1 Water Crossings                   0       1 Water Crossings                 0
                                                              0 Railroad Crossings                     Railroad Crossings                         Railroad Crossings
                               Construction Method                   Normal                                  Normal                                     Normal
    Level of Effort in Maintenance of Traffic                         Low                                     Low                                        Low
                          Major Stage Construction                     No                                      No                                         No
     Impact to Local Traffic (roads crossed/cut-off)                    1                                       1                                          4
  Impact to Local Traffic (roads crossed/cut-off per                   0.6                                      0.7                                        1.6
                                               mile)
               Local Access (level of development)                    Light                                    Light                                      Light
Cost                                                                   $70                                      $24                                        $46
Construction Costs (in Millions $) (freeway)                           $62                                      $17                                        $33
Right of Way Costs (in Millions $) (300 ft of                           $8                                       $8                                        $13
ROW)
Greenbelt & Utilities (in Millions $) (200 ft)                        $5                                       $5                                         $9
   Construction & ROW Cost (Millions $ / Mile)                       $43.6                                    $16.3                                      $18.2
Visual Impacts                                                       High                                   Very High                                    High
                                          Exposure                   High                                   Very High                                    High
                               Resulting Landscape                  Moderate                                Moderate                                    Moderate

Other                                                  Interchange spacing is 0.4 miles      Consistent with proposed alternative for   Consistent with proposed alternative for
                                                       from Railroad Canyon Rd. No           inter-county (Riv to OC). Elevated         inter-county (Riv to OC). Interchange
                                                       route continuity with proposed Riv-   Structure Likely. Difficult Interchange    spacing is 1.6 miles SR-74/I-15
*Interchange is abbreviated as Inter                   OC alternative                        Construction due to Vertical Alignment
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)




•    For the northerly connection between El Sobrante Road and I-15, segments A6, A7 and A8 could be
     used. Each of these segments is rated poor. Of these, the central alignment would be most feasible
     from an engineering perspective.
•    For connection from SR74 to I-15 at I-15, segments B4 , B6, B7, B10 could be used. Segment B10 is
     rated poor and B4 is rated very poor.
•    For connection from SR74 to I-15 at SR74, segments B3/B5, B8/B9 and B8 could be used. None of
     the segments are rated acceptable, poor or very poor.
•    For connection from Domenigoni Parkway to I-215, segments C1 and C2 could be used. Neither of
     these segments are rated acceptable, poor or very poor.
•    For connection from Goetz Road to Railroad Canyon Road, segments C6 and C7 could be used. Both
     segments C6 and C7 are rated acceptable.
•    For connection from I-15 to Riverside/OC alternative D1 or D2 could be used. Segments D1 and D2
     are rated acceptable.

Standards

          Description

Standards are minimum requirements for a facility to meet federal and state requirements as a highway
facility. This section describes a segment’s level of conformance to three highway standards. The
segments are rated as very good, good, acceptable, poor or very poor.

•    Design speed is the allowable speed as determined by the horizontal alignment.
•    Interchange spacing is the minimum required distance between adjacent interchanges. A minimum
     distance of 1.8 miles is required from a freeway-freeway interchange to an adjacent interchange. A
     segment is assumed to have an interchange when joining an existing freeway or diverging from
     existing expressway. These interchanges are measured for conformance with the standard.
•    Truck climbing lanes are required as determined by preliminary vertical alignment and topography.

     Evaluation Summary

The segment’s rating for standards ranges from good to very poor. All segments are rated as good except
for the following: A3, A4, A5, B2, B4, B6, B8, C1, C2, C5, C6, C7 and D2, are rated acceptable, A7, B7,
B10, C3, C4, C8 and D1, are rated poor, and A6 and A8 are rated very poor. The ratings for acceptable,
poor and very poor are listed below for alignments where different segments or combinations of segments
can be used for a specific connection.

•    For the northerly connection between El Sobrante Road and I-15, segments A6, A7 and A8 could be
     used. Segment A7 is rated poor. Segments A6 and A8 are rated very poor.
•    For connection from SR74 to I-15 at I-15, segments B4, B6, B7, B10 could be used. Segments B4
     and B6 are rated acceptable. Segments B7 and B10 are rated poor.
•    For connection from SR74 to I-15 at SR74, segments B3/B5, B8/B9 and B8 could be used. Segment
     B8 is rated acceptable.
•    For connection from Domenigoni Parkway to I-215, segments C1 and C2 could be used. Segments
     C1 and C2 are rated acceptable.
•    For connection from Goetz Road to Railroad Canyon Road, segments C6 and C7 could be used. Both
     segments C6 and C7 are rated acceptable.
•    For connection from I-15 to Riverside/OC alternative D1 or D2 could be used. Segment D2 is rated
     acceptable and D1 is rated poor.


October, 2000                                                                                                    Page 23
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)




Construction Issues

This criterion qualifies the overall condition of a segment based upon its constructability and the level of
effort required in maintaining traffic during construction.

Constructability

          Description

Constructability describes the level of difficulty in constructing the facility due to requirements for special
construction methods, environmental restrictions and topography. The segments are rated as very good,
good, acceptable, poor or very poor.

•    Grade separations are structures that are required when the facility crosses a roadway, waterway or
     railroad. The evaluation matrix lists the number of grade separations resulting from major water and
     railroad crossings. These separations could have impacts on schedule and construction method.
•    Construction method identifies potential construction techniques that may be required, that either
     deviate from the norm or are associated with difficult construction.

     Evaluation Summary

The segment’s rating for constructability ranges from very good to very poor. All segments are rated
very good or good except for the following: B2, C3, C5, C6 and D2, are rated acceptable, A7, A8, B10,
and C8 are rated poor and A4, A6, B4 and D1 are rated very poor. The ratings for acceptable, poor and
very poor are listed below for alignments where different segments or combinations of segments can be
used for a specific connection.

•    For the northerly connection between El Sobrante Road and I-15, segments A6, A7 and A8 could be
     used. Segments A7 and A8 are rated poor. Segment A6 is rated very poor.
•    For connection from SR74 to I-15 at I-15, segments B4, B6, B7, B10 could be used. Segment B10 is
     rated poor. Segment B4 is rated very poor.
•    For connection from SR74 to I-15 at SR74, segments B3/B5, B8/B9 and B8 could be used. None of
     these segments are rated acceptable, poor or very poor.
•    For connection from Domenigoni Parkway to I-215, segments C1 and C2 could be used. . None of
     these segments are rated acceptable, poor or very poor.
•    For connection from Goetz Road to Railroad Canyon Road, segments C6 and C7 could be used.
     Segment C6 is rated acceptable.
•    For connection from I-15 to Riverside/OC alternative D1 or D2 could be used. Segment D2 is rated
     acceptable and D1 is rated very poor.

Maintenance of Traffic

Maintenance of traffic describes the level of effort required to maintain traffic mobility and minimize
community impacts during construction. The level of effort required is rated as very low, low, moderate,
high or very high.

     Description




October, 2000                                                                                                    Page 24
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)


•     Major stage construction identifies the need to sequence construction, so that traffic mobility is
     maintained.
•    Impact to local traffic is the number of roads potentially impacted by construction. A total and an
     average per mile are listed.
•     Local access identifies the level of traffic management required to maintain access to local residents
     and businesses during construction, and is determined by the segment’s level of development.

     Evaluation Summary

The level of effort required for maintenance of traffic during a segment’s construction ranges from very
low to very high. All segments are rated very low or low except for the following: B2 and C5 are rated
moderate, A3, A4 and C6 are rated high, and A1, B1, B5, and B7 are rated very high. The ratings for
moderate, high and very high are listed below for alignments where different segments or combinations of
segments can be used for a specific connection.

•    For the northerly connection between El Sobrante Road and I-15, segments A6, A7 and A8 could be
     used. None of these segments are rated moderate, high or very high.
•    For connection from SR74 to I-15 at I-15, segments B4, B6, B7, B10 could be used. Segment B7 is
     rated very high.
•    For connection from SR74 to I-15 at SR74, segments B3/B5, B8/B9 and B8 could be used. Segment
     B5 is rated very high.
•    For connection from Domenigoni Parkway to I-215, segments C1 and C2 could be used. Neither of
     these segments are rated moderate, high or very high.
•    For connection from Goetz Road to Railroad Canyon Road, segments C6 and C7 could be used.
     Segment C6 is rated high.
•    For connection from I-15 to Riverside/OC alternative D1 or D2 could be used. . Neither of these
     segments are rated moderate, high or very high.


Operation and Maintenance

          Description

Operational considerations include any operational requirements other than normal maintenance of the
facility. For example, reversible lanes have a daily operational requirement of moving barriers and
changing signing.

          Evaluation Summary

None of the highway alternatives have operational requirements other than the normal maintenance,
therefore this criteria is not listed in the matrix. Operation and maintenance will be required for transit
vehicles. These are incorporated in the costs by alternative. Possible operation as toll roads will be
examined in the EIR/EIS, and would require additional operational effort.


Cost

Cost is the potential cost of a high capacity transportation enhancement(s). The costs are very
approximate planning-level costs at this stage. Cost is the sum of the construction cost of a six-lane




October, 2000                                                                                                    Page 25
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)


freeway and the right-of-way cost for a freeway/transit facility. Costs are summarized by alternative in a
separate table.

Construction Costs

          Description

This includes the segment’s cost of construction for a six-lane freeway. If a segment joins an existing
freeway or diverges from an existing expressway the segment’s construction cost includes cost for an
interchange at these points. This will make some segments cost appear much higher in comparison to
another segment of equal length in similar terrain.

Right-of-Way Costs

     Description

•    Right-of -way cost Freeway/Transit (300 ft) is the cost for freeway and transit right-of-way
     preservation. Cost includes right-of-way for a six-lane freeway, high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes
     and transit; approximately 300 feet.

•    Right-of-way cost Greenbelt/Utility (200 ft) is the cost for greenbelt and utility right-of-way
     preservation. Cost includes right-of-way for a greenbelt and utility location; approximately 200 feet.

Construction and Right-of-Way Cost Million $ / Mile

          Description

This is the unit cost per mile for construction and right-of-way (freeway/transit) procurement.

          Evaluation Summary

For costs by segment, see Exhibit 9. For costs by alternative (an aggregation of segments) see Exhibit 10.

Visual Impacts

          Description

This describes the level of impact based upon the new facility’s resulting landscape and earth exposure.
The level of impact is rated as very low, low, moderate, high or very high.

•    Exposure is the level of visibility to the public eye based upon topography and proximity to
     development.
•    Resulting landscape is the level of impact from major landform alterations, removal of vegetation and
     the construction of large structures.




October, 2000                                                                                                    Page 26
                                    EXHIBIT 10. ALIGNMENT COST SUMMARY
Hemet to Corona / Lake Elsinore

                                 Construction   Right-of-Way Cost                                        Alignment Name
Alignment   Segment   Distance      Cost         Freeway/Transit    Total Cost     Cost/Mile
 Number                miles     $ (millions)      $ (millions)     $ (millions)   M$/mile
                                                                                               Ramona / El Sorbante / North
   1a         A1        26.2        $319              $119             $438
              A5        6.5          $59               $30              $89
              A6        6.5         $148               $32             $180
                        39.2        $525              $182             $707         $18.0
                                                                                               Ramona / El Sorbante / Central
   1b         A1        26.2        $319              $119             $438
              A5        6.5          $59               $30              $89
              A7        6.8         $141               $33             $174
                        39.5        $519              $182             $701         $17.7
                                                                                               Ramona / El Sorbante / South
   1c         A1        26.2        $319              $119             $438
              A5        6.5          $59               $30              $89
              A8        6.8         $104               $42             $146
                        39.5        $482              $191             $673         $17.0
                                                                                               Ramona / Van Buren
    2         A1        26.2        $319              $119             $438
              A2        3.0          $58               $14              $71
              A4        3.6          $81               $83             $164
                        32.8        $457              $216             $674         $20.5
                                                                                               Van Buren
    3         A3        8.1         $115               $34             $149
              A4        3.6          $81               $83             $164
                        11.7        $195              $117             $313         $26.7
                                                                                               SR74 / Central / SR74
   4a         B1        10.0        $104               $42             $146
              B2        4.1          $80               $19              $99
              B3        1.9          $33               $9               $42
              B5        3.4          $31               $16              $46
              B7        1.8          $57               $8               $66
                        21.2        $304               $94             $398         $18.8
                                                                                               SR74 / North / Lake
   4b         B1        10.0        $104               $42             $146
              B2        4.1          $80               $19              $99
              B3        1.9          $33               $9               $42
              B4        7.8         $171               $39             $210
              D1        1.5          $17               $8               $24
                        25.3        $404              $117             $521         $20.6
                                                                                               SR74 / Central / Nichols
   4c         B1        10.0        $104               $42             $146
              B2        4.1          $80               $19              $99
              B3        1.9          $33               $9               $42
              B5        3.4          $31               $16              $46
              B6        2.4          $90               $12             $102
              D2        2.5          $33               $13              $46
                        24.3        $369              $110             $480         $19.7
                                    EXHIBIT 10. ALIGNMENT COST SUMMARY

Hemet to Corona / Lake Elsinore

                                 Construction   Right-of-Way Cost                                        Alignment Name
Alignment   Segment   Distance      Cost         Freeway/Transit    Total Cost     Cost/Mile
 Number                miles     $ (millions)      $ (millions)     $ (millions)   M$/mile
                                                                                               SR74 / South
   4d         B1        10.0        $104               $42             $146
              B2        4.1          $80               $19              $99
              B8        3.6          $46               $18              $64
              B10       3.9         $107               $20             $127
                        21.6        $336               $99             $435         $20.1
                                                                                               SR74 / South / Nichols
   4e         B1        10.0        $104               $42             $146
              B2        4.1          $80               $19              $99
              B8        3.6          $46               $18              $64
              B9        1.9          $14               $10              $24
              B6        2.4          $90               $12             $102
              D2        2.5          $33               $13              $46
                        24.5        $366              $113             $479         $19.6
                                                                                               Domeningoni North / SR74
   5a         C1        4.3          $56               $22              $78
              C3        3.6          $51               $18              $69                     / Central / SR74
              B2        4.1          $80               $19              $99
              B3        1.9          $33               $9               $42
              B5        3.4          $31               $16              $46
              B7        1.8          $57               $8               $66
                        19.1        $307               $92             $399         $20.9
                                                                                               Domeningoni North / SR74
   5b         C1        4.3          $56               $22              $78
              C3        3.6          $51               $18              $69                     / North / Lake
              B2        4.1          $80               $19              $99
              B3        1.9          $33               $9               $42
              B4        7.8         $171               $39             $210
                        21.7        $390              $107             $497         $22.9
                                                                                               Domenigoni North / SR74
   5c         C1        4.3          $56               $22              $78
              C3        3.6          $51               $18              $69                     /Central / Nichols
              B2        4.1          $80               $19              $99
              B3        1.9          $33               $9               $42
              B5        3.4          $31               $16              $46
              B6        2.4          $90               $12             $102
              D2        2.5          $33               $13              $46
                        22.2        $372              $108             $480         $21.6
                                    EXHIBIT 10. ALIGNMENT COST SUMMARY
Hemet to Corona / Lake Elsinore

                                 Construction   Right-of-Way Cost                                        Alignment Name
Alignment   Segment   Distance      Cost         Freeway/Transit    Total Cost     Cost/Mile
 Number                miles     $ (millions)      $ (millions)     $ (millions)   M$/mile
                                                                                               Domenigoni North / SR74 / South
   5d         C1        4.3          $56               $22              $78
              C3        3.6          $51               $18              $69
              B2        4.1          $80               $19              $99
              B8        3.6          $46               $18              $64
              B10       3.9         $107               $20             $127
                        19.5        $339               $96             $436         $22.3
                                                                                               Domenigoni North / SR74
   5e         C1        4.3          $56               $22              $78
              C3        3.6          $51               $18              $69                     / South / Nichols
              B2        4.1          $80               $19              $99
              B8        3.6          $46               $18              $64
              B9        1.9          $14               $10              $24
              B6        2.4          $90               $12             $102
              D2        2.5          $33               $13              $46
                        22.4        $369              $111             $480         $21.4
                                                                                               Domenigoni South
   6a         C2        4.6          $58               $23              $81
              C5        5.0          $91               $91             $182                     / North Rail Road Canyon
              C6        2.8          $30               $51              $80
              C8        1.6          $62               $8               $70
                        14.0        $241              $172             $413         $29.5
                                                                                               Domenigoni South
   6b         C2        4.6          $58               $23              $81
              C5        5.0          $91               $91             $182                     / South Rail Road Canyon
              C7        2.6          $34               $13              $47
              C8        1.6          $62               $8               $70
                        13.8        $246              $135             $380         $27.6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)




     Evaluation Summary

The level of visual impact ranges from low to very high. All segments are rated low except for the
following: B6, B8, C2, C5 and C6 are rated moderate, A7, A8, B10, C7, C8, and D2 are rated high and
A6, B4, and D1 are rated very high. The ratings for moderate, high, and very high are listed below for
alignments where different segments or combinations of segments can be used for a specific connection.

•    For the northerly connection between El Sobrante Road and I-15, segments A6, A7 and A8 could be
     used. Segments A7 and A8 are rated high. Segment A6 is rated very high.
•    For connection from SR74 to I-15 at I-15, segments B4, B6, B7, B10 could be used. Segment B6 is
     rated moderate. Segment B10 is rated high. Segment B4 is rated very high.
•    For connection from SR74 to I-15 at SR74, segments B3/B5, B8/B9 and B8 could be used. Segment
     B8 is rated moderate.
•    For connection from Domenigoni Parkway to I-215, segments C1 and C2 could be used. Segment C2
     is rated moderate.
•    For connection from Goetz Road to Railroad Canyon Road, segments C6 and C7 could be used.
     Segment C6 is rated moderate. Segment C7 is rated high.
•    For connection from I-15 to Riverside/OC alternative D1 or D2 could be used. Segment D2 is rated
     high and segment D1 is rated very high.


EVALUATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS OF THE
SEGMENTS

Exhibit 11 shows the Environmental and Community Impact Evaluation matrix for the Hemet to
Corona/Lake Elsinore alternatives. It was gathered from federal, State, regional, and local agencies,
including the County of Riverside. The data are current at least of December, 1999, and are intended to
be used for a screening level analysis of the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Transportation Corridor
alternatives. The main purpose of the matrix is to identify environmental and community resources
potentially affected within specific segments of each alternative alignment currently under consideration.
The information provided identifies resources within 500 feet of the centerline of each proposed
alignment. For each community and environmental resource category in the matrix a description of the
resource and a summary of the evaluation is provided below.


NATIVE VEGETATION

Resource Description

The matrix shows the number of acres impacted of native vegetation considered to be of high sensitivity
for each segment. Native vegetation considered to be of high sensitivity for the purpose of this evaluation
includes the following: coast live oak woodlands, diegan coastal sage scrub, oak woodlands, open water
reservoirs and ponds, riparian forests, riparian scrub, Riversidian sage scrub, southern cottonwood/willow
riparian, and southern willow scrub.




October, 2000                                                                                                    Page 28
                                                 EXHIBIT 11. ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY IMPACT EVALUATION
Hemet to Corona / Lake Elsinore

                  Category                                      A1                               A2                        A3                     A4                              A5
                 Description                     Ramona Exwy/Cajalco Rd from       Mockingbird Canyon Rd from   Van Buren Blvd. From   Van Buren Blvd. from           El Sobrante Rd. from
                                                 SR-79 to El Sobrante Rd.          El Sobrante Rd to            I-215 to Mockingbird   Mockingbird Canyon Rd.         Mockingbird Canyon Rd.
                                                 El Sobrante Rd from Cajalco Rd to Van Buren Blvd.              Canyon Rd.             to SR-91.                      to La Sierra Ave.
                                                 Mockingbird Canyon Rd.
Total Acreage by Segment                                       3,000                            600                      1,000                     300                          600
Native Vegetation - High Sensitivity                            100                             100                       60                       70                           20
(# of acres affected)

Sensitive Species - Number of Species                           20                             7                           5                        1                            5
Affected

Relationship to Proposed Preserve Areas                      Linkage                          Edge                    No Impact                No Impact                     No Impact
(linkage crossing, core crossing, edge impact,
or no impact)

Impacts to Approved Reserves                          San Jacinto/Lake Perris            Lake Mathews/             Sycamore Canyon/            No Impacts                  Lake Mathews/
                                                                100                     Estelle Mountain               March Air                                          Estelle Mountain
                                                                                               140                    Force Base                                                 230
                                                                                                                          50

Farm Lands (# of acres affected)
  - Prime                                                      400                             0                          9                        10                           20
  - Statewide                                                  400                             0                         30                        100                          20
  - Unique                                                      40                             2                         50                         10                          90
  - Local                                                     1,300                            90                        200                         1                          200

Parks & Recreations Areas                             Lake Perris State Park                   0                      Open Space       California Citrus State Park              0
(Federal, State & County)                                     100                                                         5                        90
(# of acres affected)

Land Use
  - Residential Parcels Affected                               700                            200                        600                       100                           8
  -    Non-Residential Parcels Affected                         30                             2                         100                       30                            0
      (Retail, Office, Industrial, School, and
      Public Facilities)

Water Resources
  - Number of Crossings                                         20                              5                         10                        6                            1
  - Approx. Linear Footage Affected                           45,400                         25,600                     15,000                    9,100                        2,300

Known Historic Properties Affected                            None                           None                        None                     None                         None

Archaeology - High Sensitivity                                3,000                           600                        1,000                     300                          600
(# of acres affected)
                                                 EXHIBIT 11. ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY IMPACT EVALUATION
Hemet to Corona / Lake Elsinore

                  Category                                  A6                     A7                    A8                     B1                               B2
                 Description                     New Alignment from    New Alignment from     New Alignment from    SR-74 from Sanderson Ave.   Ethanac Rd. from Mathews Rd.
                                                 La Sierra Ave. to     La Sierra Ave. to      La Sierra Ave. to     to Mathews Rd.              to Goetz Rd. Extend Ethanac Rd.
                                                 Cajalco Rd.           Cajalco Rd.            Cajalco Rd.                                       from Goetz Rd., west to
                                                 Northern Route        Central Route          Southern Route                                    Mcpherson Rd.
                                                                                                                                                Ethanac Extension
Total Acreage by Segment                                 1,300                  1,300                 1,000                   2,100                              400
Native Vegetation - High Sensitivity                      500                    700                   600                     200                               60
(# of acres affected)

Sensitive Species - Number of Species                      7                      7                    18                       21                               2
Affected

Relationship to Proposed Preserve Areas               Linkage/Core          Linkage/Core          Linkage/Core             Linkage/Core                    Linkage/Core
(linkage crossing, core crossing, edge impact,
or no impact)

Impacts to Approved Reserves                         Lake Mathews/          Lake Mathews/         Lake Mathews/             No Impacts                      No Impacts
                                                    Estelle Mountain       Estelle Mountain      Estelle Mountain
                                                            50                     80                   240

Farm Lands (# of acres affected)
  - Prime                                                 60                     30                    30                      300                               10
  - Statewide                                             40                     10                    5                       20                               200
  - Unique                                                200                    100                   50                       0                                0
  - Local                                                 70                     70                    90                      700                              100

Parks & Recreations Areas                                  0                      0                     0                Gibbel City Park                        0
(Federal, State & County)                                                                                                       7
(# of acres affected)

Land Use
  - Residential Parcels Affected                           20                    20                    20                     1,000                              10
  -    Non-Residential Parcels Affected                    10                     8                     8                      200                               0
      (Retail, Office, Industrial, School, and
      Public Facilities)

Water Resources
  - Number of Crossings                                    10                    10                    10                       5                                2
  - Approx. Linear Footage Affected                      21,500                37,300                35,700                   3,100                            2,300

Known Historic Properties Affected                       None             Temescal Tin Mine           None                     None                            None

Archaeology - High Sensitivity                           1,300                  1,300                 1,000                   1,200                             200
(# of acres affected)
                                                 EXHIBIT 11. ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY IMPACT EVALUATION
Hemet to Corona / Lake Elsinore

                  Category                                  B3                          B4                           B5                        B6                      B7
                 Description                     Ethanac Rd. from          New Alignment from SR-74      SR-74 from Ethanac Rd.   Nichols Rd. from SR-74   SR-74 from Nichols Rd.
                                                 Mcpherson Rd. to SR-74.   at Ethanac Rd. to I-15/Lake   to Nichols Rd.           to I-15.                 to I-15.
                                                                           St. Northern Route
Total Acreage by Segment                                   300                         1,400                        400                      300                       200
Native Vegetation - High Sensitivity                       100                          700                         70                       100                       100
(# of acres affected)

Sensitive Species - Number of Species                       7                           12                          14                        21                        5
Affected

Relationship to Proposed Preserve Areas                  Linkage                  Linkage/Core                 Linkage/Core              Linkage/Core              Linkage/Core
(linkage crossing, core crossing, edge impact,
or no impact)

Impacts to Approved Reserves                            No Impacts                Lake Mathews/                 No Impacts                No Impacts                No Impacts
                                                                                 Estelle Mountain
                                                                                         2
                                                                                    Steel Peak
                                                                                         70

Farm Lands (# of acres affected)
  - Prime                                                    0                           0                           0                        0                         0
  - Statewide                                                0                           0                           0                        0                         0
  - Unique                                                   0                           0                           0                        0                         0
  - Local                                                   20                          50                           6                        90                        50

Parks & Recreations Areas                                   0                           0                            0                         0                        0
(Federal, State & County)
(# of acres affected)

Land Use
  - Residential Parcels Affected                            30                          2                           100                       40                        70
  -    Non-Residential Parcels Affected                      1                          0                            10                        3                         5
      (Retail, Office, Industrial, School, and
      Public Facilities)

Water Resources
  - Number of Crossings                                     1                           10                           2                         4                        1
  - Approx. Linear Footage Affected                       2,500                       25,800                       2,100                     3,300                     500

Known Historic Properties Affected                         None                       None                         None                      None                     None

Archaeology - High Sensitivity                             300                        1,400                         400                      300                       200
(# of acres affected)
                                                 EXHIBIT 11. ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY IMPACT EVALUATION
Hemet to Corona / Lake Elsinore

                  Category                                   B8                          B9                         B10                         C1                           C2
                 Description                     New Alignment from      Riverside St. from Dowling Rd. New Alignment from          New Alignment from          New Alignment from
                                                 SR-74 at Mcpherson Rd., to SR-74 at Nichols Rd.        Riverside St. at            SR-79 at Domenigoni Pkwy.   SR-79 at Domenigoni Pkwy. to
                                                 south to Riverside St.                                 Dowling Rd., southwest to   to Lindenberger Rd.         Lindenberger Rd.
                                                                                                        I-15 at N. Main St.         Northern Route              Southern Route
Total Acreage by Segment                                    800                         200                          700                        500                          400
Native Vegetation - High Sensitivity                        300                          70                          400                         6                           50
(# of acres affected)

Sensitive Species - Number of Species                       8                          12                           12                          3                            7
Affected

Relationship to Proposed Preserve Areas                   Core                        Core                         Core                     No Impact                    No Impact
(linkage crossing, core crossing, edge impact,
or no impact)

Impacts to Approved Reserves                           No Impacts                  No Impacts                   No Impacts                 No Impacts                   No Impacts

Farm Lands (# of acres affected)
  - Prime                                                  0                           0                            0                          40                            40
  - Statewide                                              0                           0                            0                         200                           100
  - Unique                                                 0                           0                            0                          80                            0
  - Local                                                  20                          50                           20                        200                           200

Parks & Recreations Areas                                   0                           0                            0                          0                            0
(Federal, State & County)
(# of acres affected)

Land Use
  - Residential Parcels Affected                           30                          40                            2                          0                           50
  -    Non-Residential Parcels Affected                    0                           0                             0                          0                           0
      (Retail, Office, Industrial, School, and
      Public Facilities)

Water Resources
  - Number of Crossings                                     7                           1                            4                          2                            1
  - Approx. Linear Footage Affected                      15,900                       1,100                        6,100                      1,100                        4,100

Known Historic Properties Affected                        None                        None                         None                       None                         None

Archaeology - High Sensitivity                             800                         200                          700                       500                           400
(# of acres affected)
                                                 EXHIBIT 11. ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY IMPACT EVALUATION
Hemet to Corona / Lake Elsinore

                  Category                                  C3                        C4                             C5                            C6                          C7
                 Description                     New Alignment from       Lindenberger Rd. between   Newport Rd. from                  Railroad Canyon Rd. from New Alignment from
                                                 Domenigoni Extension     Northern and               Lindenbergrer Rd. to Murrieta Rd. Goetz Rd,. west to Railroad Goetz Rd. to Railroad
                                                 (Northern Route (C1)) to Southern Routes.           New Alignment from Murrieta Rd. Canyon Rd. tie in point.      Canyon Rd. tie in point.
                                                 SR-74.                                              to Railroad Canyon Rd.
Total Acreage by Segment                                    300                       200                           500                            300                        300
Native Vegetation - High Sensitivity                         0                         10                            70                            80                         200
(# of acres affected)

Sensitive Species - Number of Species                       1                         4                              1                              12                          12
Affected

Relationship to Proposed Preserve Areas                 No Impact                 No Impact                      No Impact                         Edge                        Edge
(linkage crossing, core crossing, edge impact,
or no impact)

Impacts to Approved Reserves                           No Impacts                No Impacts                     No Impacts                      No Impacts                  No Impacts

Farm Lands (# of acres affected)
  - Prime                                                  80                        60                             40                               0                          0
  - Statewide                                              30                        10                             30                               0                          0
  - Unique                                                  0                        0                               0                               0                          0
  - Local                                                  200                       70                             100                              0                          10

Parks & Recreations Areas                                   0                         0                 Menifee Lakes Country Club      Canyon Lake Country Club                0
(Federal, State & County)                                                                                          10                             10
(# of acres affected)

Land Use
  - Residential Parcels Affected                            8                         6                             500                             200                         1
  -    Non-Residential Parcels Affected                     2                         0                             30                              30                          0
      (Retail, Office, Industrial, School, and
      Public Facilities)

Water Resources
  - Number of Crossings                                     0                         1                              4                               1                          1
  - Approx. Linear Footage Affected                         0                       5,700                          7,200                           1,600                      1,300

Known Historic Properties Affected                        None                      None                           None                            None                       None

Archaeology - High Sensitivity                             50                        200                            300                             200                        200
(# of acres affected)
                                                 EXHIBIT 11. ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY IMPACT EVALUATION
Hemet to Corona / Lake Elsinore

                  Category                                            C8                                   D1                                            D2
                 Description                     New Alignment from Railroad Canyon Lake St. from I-15 to Orange County Alternative Nichols Rd. from I-15 to Orange County
                                                 Rd. tie in point to I-15.                                                          Alternative
Total Acreage by Segment                                             200                                  300                                           500
Native Vegetation - High Sensitivity                                 100                                   60                                           100
(# of acres affected)

Sensitive Species - Number of Species                             8                                         3                                           10
Affected

Relationship to Proposed Preserve Areas                      Core/Linkage                                  Core                                        Core
(linkage crossing, core crossing, edge impact,
or no impact)

Impacts to Approved Reserves                                  No Impacts                                No Impacts                                  No Impacts

Farm Lands (# of acres affected)
  - Prime                                                         0                                         0                                            0
  - Statewide                                                     0                                         0                                            0
  - Unique                                                        0                                         0                                            0
  - Local                                                         20                                        20                                          100

Parks & Recreations Areas                                         0                                         0                                            0
(Federal, State & County)
(# of acres affected)

Land Use
  - Residential Parcels Affected                                  0                                         0                                            0
  -    Non-Residential Parcels Affected                           3                                         0                                            0
      (Retail, Office, Industrial, School, and
      Public Facilities)

Water Resources
  - Number of Crossings                                           2                                         3                                            3
  - Approx. Linear Footage Affected                             2,800                                     6,300                                        5,300

Known Historic Properties Affected                               None                            Butterfield Stage Station                      Third Serrano Adobe

Archaeology - High Sensitivity                                   200                                       300                                          500
(# of acres affected)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)




Evaluation Summary

Impacts to native vegetation with a high sensitivity range from 700 acres affected for segments A7 and
B4 to no impacts for segment C3. The affected number of parcels is listed below for alignments where
different segments or combinations of segments can be used for a specific connection:

•    For the connection between La Sierra Avenue and the I-15, segments A6, A7, or A8 could be used.
     Segment A6 affects 500 acres of sensitive vegetation, segment A7, as mentioned above, affects
     approximately 700 acres of sensitive vegetation, and segment A8 affects over 600 acres of sensitive
     vegetation.
•    Either segment C6 or C7 could be used for the connection between Goetz Road and Railroad Canyon
     Road. Segment C6 affects 80 acres of sensitive vegetation while segment C7 affects under 200 acres
     of sensitive vegetation.


SENSITIVE SPECIES

Resource Description

A separate matrix was produced by Dudek and Associates that contains detailed information on sensitive
species potentially occurring within or adjacent to each alternative alignment segment. Biological
constraints and reserve design issues were addressed by examining the MSHCP database for sensitive
species information for the vicinity of potential CETAP corridors and extrapolating to potential corridors
based on habitat where data are apparently lacking. The distribution of the Stephens= kangaroo rat was
not an important consideration for listed species because of the existing reserve system, except where a
corridor may affect dispersal of the species between core reserves. Other than existing occurrences in the
database, there was no rigorous attempt to extrapolate areas for relatively common focus species such as
coyote, black-tailed jackrabbit, San Diego pocket mouse, desert woodrat, horned lark, etc., because these
species could occur almost anywhere in scrub and/or grassland habitats in the study area.


Evaluation Summary

The number of sensitive species affected ranges from 21 species for segment B1 and 21 species for
segment B6 to one specie for segments A4, C3, and C5. The affected number of species is listed below
for alignments where different segments or combinations of segments can be used for a specific
connection:

•    For the connection between La Sierra Avenue and the I-15, segments A6, A7, or A8 could be used.
     Segments A6 and A7 each affect seven sensitive species, while segment A8 contains 18 sensitive
     species.
•    Either segment C6 or C7 could be used for the connection between Goetz Road and Railroad Canyon
     Road. Segments C6 and C7 each affect 12 sensitive species.




October, 2000                                                                                                    Page 30
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)


RELATIONSHIP TO PROPOSED RESERVE AREAS

Resource Description

Proposed reserves are areas tentatively proposed to be preserved for sensitive species as part of the
MSHCP.

Evaluation Summary

Segments A6, A7, A8, B1, B2, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, C8, D1, and D2 cross proposed core reserve
areas. Segments A6, A8, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, and B8 cross linkages between core reserve areas.
Segments A2, C6, and C7 impact the edges of reserve areas. Segments A3, A4, A5, C1, C2, C3, C4, and
C5 have no impact on reserve areas.


IMPACTS TO APPROVED RESERVES

Resource Description

A Reserve is generally defined (with the exception of the March Air Reserve Base) as land that will not
be developed because it has been specifically reserved as habitat area for threatened or endangered
species, such as the Stephen=s Kangaroo Rat.


Evaluation Summary

The possible impacts to approved reserves range from 240 acres of the Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain
reserve in segment A8 to no impacts for a majority of the segments. The affected number of acres is
listed below for alignments where different segments or combinations of segments can be used for a
specific connection:

•    For the connection between La Sierra Avenue and the I-15, segments A6, A7, or A8 could be used,
     and all three of these segments will impact the Lake Mathews and Estelle Mountain reserves.
     Segment A6 affects approximately 50 acres, segment A7 affects 80 acres, and segment A8, as stated
     above, affects approximately 240 acres of approved reserves.
•    Either segment C6 or C7 could be used for the connection between Goetz Road and Railroad Canyon
     Road. Neither of these segments has any impact on reserve areas.


FARM LANDS

Resource Description

The farmland information used in compiling the matrix is current as of 1996 conditions. The matrix lists
four key categories of farmland defined as follows:

•    Prime Farmland is irrigated land with the best combinations of physical and chemical features able to
     sustain long term production of agricultural crops. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and
     moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields.




October, 2000                                                                                                    Page 31
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)


•    Farmland of Statewide Importance is irrigated land similar to Prime farmland that has a good
     combination of physical and chemical characteristics for the production of crops. This land has minor
     shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture than Prime farmland.
•    Unique Farmland is comprised of lesser quality soils used for the production of the state=s leading
     agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated, but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards
     as found in some climatic zones in California.
•    Farmland of Local Importance is land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined
     by the county=s Board of Supervisors and local advisory committee.


Evaluation Summary

Impacts to Prime Farmland range from approximately 400 acres affected for segment A1 to no affect for
14 of the segments. Impacts to Farmland of Statewide Importance range from approximately 400 acres
affected for segment A1 to no impact for 14 of the segments. Impacts to Unique Farmland range from
approximately 200 acres affected for segment A6 to no acres affected for 19 of the segments. Impacts to
Farmland of Local Importance range from approximately 1,300 acres affected for segment A1 to no
impact for segment C6. Affected acres (totals for all four categories of farmland) are listed below for
alignments where different segments or combinations of segments can be used for a specific connection:

For the connection between La Sierra Avenue and the I-15, segments A6, A7, or A8 could be used.
Segment A6 affects approximately 370 acres of farmland, A7 affects approximately 200 acres of
farmland, and A8 affects approximately 200 acres of farmland.
Either segment C6 or C7 could be used for the connection between Goetz Road and Railroad Canyon
Road. Segment C6 has no effect on farmland, while segment C7 affects 10 acres of farmland.


PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS

Resource Description

The matrix includes impacted federal, state, county, and city parks and recreation areas. Recreation areas
also include recreation/open space designations within the existing land use coverage.


Evaluation Summary

The number of park and recreation acres affected within the segments range from approximately 100
acres in segment A1 to no impact for a majority of the segments. The affected number of acres is listed
below for alignments where different segments or combinations of segments can be used for a specific
connection:

•    For the connection between La Sierra Avenue and the I-15, segments A6, A7, or A8 could be used.
     Segments A6 and A8 have no impact on park and recreation areas, while segment A7 impacts seven
     acres of park and recreation areas.
•    Either segment C6 or C7 could be used for the connection between Goetz Road and Railroad Canyon
     Road. Segment C6 affects ten acres of the Canyon Lake Country Club while segment C7 does not
     affect any park and recreation land.




October, 2000                                                                                                    Page 32
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)


LAND USE

Resource Description

Land use within the segments are separated into two categories. The “residential” category includes all
residential uses, such as rural residential, single family detached, mobile homes, and single family
attached (condos/townhomes/multi-family). Residential land uses are an important consideration since
they have a greater sensitivity to noise and visual effects of transportation facilities. The ΑNon-
residential≅ category includes light industrial/business park, retail/office, warehouse, schools, and public
facilities. At this level of analysis, parcels are identified as “affected” regardless of whether or not a
structure exists on site. More detailed evaluation will be conducted for the EIR/EIS to determine whether
any displacements/relocation of these land uses would be required.


Evaluation Summary

Residential

The number of residential parcels affected ranges from 1,000 for segment B1 to none for segments C1,
C8, D1, and D2. The affected number of parcels is listed below for alignments where different segments
or combinations of segments can be used for a specific connection:

•    For the connection between La Sierra Avenue and the I-15, segments A6, A7, or A8 could be used.
     Each of these segments affects 20 parcels of residential land use.
•    Either segments C6 or C7 could be used for the connection between Goetz Road and Railroad
     Canyon Road. Segment C6 affects approximately 200 parcels of residential land use, and C7 affects
     one residential parcel.


Non-Residential

The number of non-residential parcels affected ranges from approximately 200 for segment B1 to none
for segments A5, B2, B4, B8, B9, B10, C1, C2, C4, C7, D1, and D2. The affected number of parcels is
listed below for alignments where different segments or combinations of segments can be used for a
specific connection:

•    For the connection between La Sierra Avenue and the I-15, segments A6, A7, or A8 could be used.
     Segment A6 affects ten parcels of non-residential land use, and both segments A7 and A8 each affect
     eight parcels.
•    Either segment C6 or C7 could be used for the connection between Goetz Road and Railroad Canyon
     Road. Segment C6 affects approximately 30 parcels of non-residential land use, and segment C7 has
     no affect on non-residential land uses.


WATER RESOURCES

Resource Description

Water resources for the purpose of the matrix are defined as potential jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
which fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The matrix shows the number of



October, 2000                                                                                                    Page 33
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)


blueline stream crossings (both bisections and longitudinal) for each corridor alternative segment. The
total number of linear feet of potential encroachment within waters of the U.S. within each segment is
also shown.


Evaluation Summary

Number of Crossings

The number of crossings of potential waters of the U.S. ranges from 20 crossings for segment A1 to no
crossings for segment C3. Affected crossings are listed below for alignments where different segments or
combinations of segments can be used for a specific connection:

•    For the connection between La Sierra Avenue and the I-15, segments A6, A7, or A8 could be used.
     Each of these segments has ten crossings.
•    Either segment C6 or C7 could be used for the connection between Goetz Road and Railroad Canyon
     Road. Each of these segments has one crossing.


Approximate Linear Footage Affected

The approximate linear footage of potential waters of the U.S. affected ranges from 45,400 in segment A1
to none in segment C3. Transportation facilities most often cross waters of the U.S. These crossings are
typically made with bridges or culverts. Segments such as A1 with a high number of potential linear feet
of encroachment have longitudinal encroachments within the 1,000 foot wide corridor. However, while
crossings of potential waters of the U.S. may be unavoidable, it may be possible to shift the alignment
within the 1,000 foot wide corridor to avoid a longitudinal encroachment.

The affected number of linear feet of potential waters of the U.S. is listed below for alignments where
different segments or combinations of segments can be used for a specific connection:

•    For the connection between La Sierra Avenue and the I-15, segment A6, A7, or A8 could be used.
     Segment A6 affects nearly 21,500 linear feet of potential waters of the U.S., while segments A7 and
     A8 affect approximately 37,300 and 35,700 linear feet, respectively.
•    Either segment C6 or C7 could be used for the connection between Goetz Road and Railroad Canyon
     Road. Segment C6 affects approximately 1,600 linear feet of potential waters of the U.S., while
     segment C7 affects approximately 1,300 linear feet.


HISTORIC PROPERTIES

Resource Description

The matrix shows the alternative alignment segments that potentially impact an identified historic
property. Historic properties are defined as those properties that are eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places, the California Register, or are locally designated as historically significant.




October, 2000                                                                                                    Page 34
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)




Evaluation Summary

Segment A7 affects the Temescal Tin Mine, segment D1 affects the Butterflied Stage Stations, and
segment D2 affects the Third Serrano Adobe.


ARCHAEOLOGY

Resource Description

For this evaluation, areas with a high sensitivity for archaeological resources are defined as all areas
within one mile of a blueline stream, within one mile of a spring, and within a half mile of a well. Both
existing and previously existing wells and springs are included. Areas in the general proximity of water
sources are more likely to contain archaeological resources because pre-historic humans and the animals
they hunted needed water to survive.


Evaluation Summary

The affected number of acres with a potentially high sensitivity for archaeological resources ranges from
approximately 3,000 acres for segment A1 to approximately 50 acres for segment C3. The affected
number of acres with a high sensitivity for archaeological resources is listed below for alignments where
different segments or combinations of segments can be used for a specific connection:

•    For the connection between La Sierra Avenue and the I-15, segments A6, A7, or A8 could be used.
     Segments A6 and A7 each affect approximately 1,300 acres with a high sensitivity for archaeological
     resources, while segment A8 affects approximately 1,000 acres with a high sensitivity for
     archaeological resources.
•    Either segment C6 or C7 could be used for the connection between Goetz Road and Railroad Canyon
     Road. Segments C6 and C7 each affect approximately 200 acres with a high sensitivity for
     archaeological resources.


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This section summarizes some of the major points concerning the pros and cons of the various
alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore corridor. Several bullet points are provided for each
alternative alignment. These are not the only points that should be addressed, but represent at least some
of the major findings of the analysis of transportation, engineering, and environmental issues. The
alternatives are re-stated below, followed by several bullet points concerning each of the alternatives.

Highway and Transit Right-of-Way Preservation Alternatives (reservation of transit rights-of-way
and/or High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes are included along with highway lanes)

1. Build Ramona Expressway as a freeway from SR-79 to I-215 and build Cajalco Road as a freeway
   from I-215 to El Sobrante Road. Continue along El Sobrante Road north of Lake Mathews and back
   to Cajalco Road continuing to an interchange at I-15.
   • Provides a moderate reduction in VHT compared to the other alternatives




October, 2000                                                                                                    Page 35
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)


     •    Alignment is in difficult terrain between La Sierra Ave. and I-15. The central alignment may be
          preferred from an engineering standpoint.
   •
2. Build Ramona Expressway as a freeway from SR-79 to I-215 and build Cajalco Road as a freeway
   from I-215 to El Sobrante Road. Continue along Mockingbird Canyon Road to Van Buren Boulevard
   connecting to SR-91.
   • Was not modeled, but would tend to have VHT reductions between those of alternatives 1 and 3
   • Would substantially affect the rural character of the area along Mockingbird Canyon Road.
   • Land uses along Van Buren Boulevard are not compatible with freeway type design. Would
       likely need to be maintained as an expressway, limiting driveway access but allowing at-grade
       intersections and traffic signals.
3. Upgrade Van Buren Blvd. to an expressway or freeway from I-215 to SR-91.
   • Van Buren Blvd. is in a corridor with high traffic demand, as evidenced, by the very high volume
       along this alignment when tested as a freeway.
   • Land uses along Van Buren Boulevard are not compatible with freeway type design. Would
       likely need to be maintained as an expressway, limiting driveway access but allowing at-grade
       intersections and traffic signals.
   • Is an alignment that could provide a reasonable amount of transit ridership, given development
       along its length and proximity to other developed areas. But developing exclusive transit right-
       of-way would be very difficult in this location.
   • Impacts would be more on the community, less on the environment.
   • Provides an important connection to March Air Reserve Base
4. Realign SR-74 on the west side of I-215 to connect directly with SR-74 on the east side of I-215
   using the Ethanac Road connection. Continue as a freeway on existing SR-74 to new SR-79
   alignment.
   • Eliminates the disconnected sections of SR-74 and provides a more direct east-west connection.
   • Implementing a freeway along SR-74 east of I-215 would be difficult, as individual businesses
       currently proliferate along existing SR-74.
   • Has one of the lower reductions VHT
   • Serves an area that will grow substantially beyond year 2020
   • For connection to I-15, five variations exist, each with different community and environmental
       issues:
       a) Upgrade SR-74 between Ethanac Road and I-15 along the existing SR-74 alignment.
           • This alignment would impact some of the existing businesses along SR-74, but has more
                limited environmental impact than some of the other options.
       b) Build a new alignment from the Ethanac Road/SR-74 junction to the north of existing SR-74,
           joining Lake Street at I-15. Continue westward across I-15 to the Cleveland National Forest,
           where the alignment would potentially link up with a future Riverside County to Orange
           County alignment.
           • Topography is quite difficult along this alignment to the east of I-15.
       c) From the Ethanac Road/SR-74 junction, follow SR-74 to the El Toro Cut Off Road and then
           follow the Nichols Road alignment due west to the Nichols Road/I-15 interchange. Continue
           westward across I-15 to the Cleveland National Forest, where the alignment would
           potentially link up with a future Riverside County to Orange County alignment.
           • Would impact some of the businesses and homes along SR-74 and Nichols Road, but
                generally has less impact on some of the potential core habitat preservation areas.
       d) Build a new alignment to the south of existing SR-74. The southerly alternative would
           extend from I-15 south of North Main Street to the Ethanac Road extension near the San
           Jacinto River crossing.



October, 2000                                                                                                    Page 36
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)


               • This alignment would likely have the greatest impact on potential habitat preserve areas,
                 but would reduce the impact on businesses and residences compared to alignments along
                 existing SR-74.
        e) From Ethanac Road extension near San Jacinto River Crossing build new alignment south to
             Riverside Street, continue west on Riverside Street to El Toro Cut Off Road / Nichols Road.
             Follow Nichols Road alignment west to I-15 interchange. Continue westward across I-15 to
             the Cleveland National Forest, where the alignment would potentially link up with a future
             Riverside County to Orange County alignment.
             • This alignment would impact some of the core preservation areas, but to a lesser extent
                 than option d. It would reduce the impact on homes and businesses.
5. Extend Domenigoni Parkway as a freeway to the northwest, along the San Jacinto Branch Line, to
   Ethanac Road. Extend Ethanac Road westward and connect to I-15 using one of the alignments (a, b,
   c, d, or e) identified in alternative 4 above.
   • This alternative provides moderate benefit in terms of VHT reduction in year 2020.
   • It has the same alignment issues in the western end as a through e under alternative 4.
   • The eastern half of this alignment (i.e. east of I-215) serves one of the larger areas for future
        growth in Western Riverside County.
   • The eastern portion impacts fewer businesses than following the SR-74 alignment between Hemet
        and Perris.
   • The eastern portion has little or no impact on potential preserve areas
6. Extend Domenigoni Parkway as a freeway from SR-79 to I-15. From Domenigoni Parkway proceed
   west connecting to Newport Road continuing to Railroad Canyon Road/Goetz Road. For connection
   to I-15 two variations exist:
        a) Follow Railroad Canyon connecting to I-15.
        b) New Alignment to the south of Railroad Canyon Road bypassing Canyon Lake area
             connecting to I-15.
        • This alternative had the highest VHT reduction of any of the alternatives. It is located in an
             area of substantial future growth and that has significant existing traffic problems (e.g.
             interchange between I-15 and Railroad Canyon Road.
        • A freeway alignment through the Canyon Lake area and the south end of Lake Elsinore
             would be very difficult to achieve and would have substantial impacts on existing
             development.
        • The alignment has relatively little impact on potential preserve areas, primarily only crossing
             a potential habitat linkage along I-15.

Additional Explanation of Transit Options
1. Provide rail service within one of the defined highway alignments listed above, connecting to north-
   south transit routes at I-15, I-215, and SR-79. Major transit stops would be located at those junctions,
   plus the cities of Hemet, San Jacinto, and Perris, as appropriate for the alignment.
   • Reduces VHT, but by a relatively small amount.
   • Reduces VMT
   • Little impact on the environment
   • Operating cost tends to be out of scale with the lower density areas such a line would serve.
2. Provide express bus service on busway or HOV lanes within one of the defined highway alignments
   listed above, connecting to north-south transit routes at I-15, I-215, and SR-79. Major transit stops
   would be located at those junctions, plus the cities of Hemet, San Jacinto, and Perris, as appropriate
   for the alignment.
   • Reduces both VMT and VHT, but only by a small amount.
   • Operating cost tends to be more in scale with the lower density areas in these locations.



October, 2000                                                                                                    Page 37
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)


3. Implement commuter rail service on the existing San Jacinto Branch Line to downtown Riverside and
   provide stations at San Jacinto, Hemet, Winchester, a location east of Perris, Perris, and March ARB.
   • This alternative provides transit service to a corridor that is already experiencing significant
       traffic congestion and delay problems and may be more likely to attract passengers than other
       alignments.
   • Reduces both VMT and VHT, but only by a small amount.

In addition, supporting strategies for transit, ridesharing, and Intelligent Transportation Systems would be
assumed to exist, as appropriate, for each of the alternatives. These would include:
1. Promotion of vanpooling/ridesharing/telecommuting
2. Support and promotion of transit improvements through trip subsidies, employer-provided transit
    passes, etc.
3. Intelligent Transportation System improvements (e.g. freeway control, signal coordination, transit
    operational improvements)
    • None of these strategies alone will generate significant savings in VHT or reduction in traffic
         along Winchester Road.

Exhibit 12 provides a summary of the evaluation of the alternatives against the evaluation criteria. It also
rates the alternatives against the purpose and need. The matrix uses a high/medium/low assessment to
indicate the extent to which the alternative provides an impact or benefit. This is a qualitative assessment
by the CETAP consulting team. Individual stakeholders should make an effort to understand the impacts,
benefits, and costs of the alternatives from their own perspectives and to provide their input to the RCIP.




October, 2000                                                                                                    Page 38
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT
CETAP Working Paper No. 7b – Evaluation of Initial Alternatives in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (DRAFT)




 Exhibit 12. Evaluation of Alternatives Against the Criteria for the Hemet to Corona/Lake
                   Elsinore Corridor (High/H = Best, Low/L = Worst)


                                                       Multimodal Alignment Alternatives                                                                                                                                                Transit                                                                                             Other
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Elements                                                                                          Alternatives




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Promote vanpooling/ridesharing/telecommuting
                                                                                                                                                                     Domenigoni/Newport/Railroad Canyon (Alt 6)




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Commuter Rail on San jacinto Branch Line




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Support/promote transit improvements
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Express Bus Hemet to Lk. E/Corona
                                                                                                                             Domenigoni/Ethanac/SR-74 (Alt 5).




                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Rail from Hemet to Lk. E/Corona
     EVALUATION CRITERIA
                                                       Cajalco/Ramona (Alt 1)




                                                                                                     SR-74/Ethanac.(Alt 4)
                                                                                Van Buren (Alt 3).




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ITS improvements
MOBILITY                                                      H                           H                             H                                        H                            H                   M                                 M                                     M                                                                      L                     L                                    L
ACCESSIBILITY                                                H                            H                             H                                        H                            H                   M                                 M                                     M                                                                      L                     L                                    L
ENVIRONMENT                                                M                               L                             L                                       M                       M                        M                                  H                                     H                                                                   H                     H                                     H
RELIABILITY                                                  H                            H                             H                                        H                            H                   M                                 M                                     M                                                               M                         M                                      M
SAFETY                                                      M                           M                             M                                          M                       M                           L                                 L                                      L                                                                  L                     L                                   M
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES                                        M                            M                             M                                          M                       M                        M                                  H                                     H                                                              M                         M                                      M
EQUITY                                                      M                           M                             M                                          M                       M                        M                                 M                                     M                                                               M                         M                                      M
PHYSICAL/OPERATIONAL FEASIBILITY                           M                               L                          M                                          H                       M                        H                                  H                                     H                                                                   H                     H                                     H
COST                                                           L                        M                             M                                          M                       M                        M                                 M                                     M                                                                    H                     H                                     M
COMMUNITY SUPPORT (left blank until public
meetings are held)
ECONOMY                                                      H                            H                             H                                        H                            H                   M                                 M                                     M                                                                      L                     L                                    L
CONSISTENCY WITH RIVERSIDE COUNTY                            H                            H                             H                                        H                            H                    H                                 H                                     H                                                                   H                     H                                     H
VISION
ADDRESSES PURPOSE AND NEED                                   H                            H                           M                                          M                            H                   M                                 M                                     M                                                                      L                     L                                    L




October, 2000                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Page 39