Senior Project PSR

PROJECT STUDY REPORT
(PSR)
For
Conceptual Approval of the A-Street Bridge Retrofit
and Widening Project
On
Overcrossing
A - Street
State Route 51 (Interstate 80 Business)
APPROVAL RECOMMENDED:
BRIAN POOLE, CITY OF SACRAMENTO
DATE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................... 1
Project Description
2. BACKGROUND.......................................................................................... 3
Project History
Existing Facility
3. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT..................................................... 4
Purpose
Need
4. DEFICIENCIES ........................................................................................ 5
Primary
Secondary
5. ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................... 6
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Drawings
Right-of-Way
Utilities
Construction Staging
Environmental Determination
Traffic Analysis
6. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT............................................................. 13
7. COST ...................................................................................................... 15
Funding
8. SCHEDULE...............................................................................................16
9. ATTACHMENTS...................................................................................... 18
1 - Location Map
2 - Bridge Substructure
3 - Caltrans Bridge Inspection Report
4 - GIS Analysis of Local Bicycle Commute
5 - Study Area Diagram
6 - Inbound Trip Distribution
7 - Outbound Trip Distribution
8 - Project Cost Estimate
9 - Engineering Drawings

1. INTRODUCTION
The City Council of Sacramento is in the planning stages of a new housing
community, known as McKinley Village. The proposed site for McKinley Village is
constrained between the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) on the south end and State
Route 51 (Interstate-80 Business) on the north. McKinley Village currently has two
vehicular access points at A-Street and 40th
Street. New access points have been
determined not feasible. The current access points require improvements to meet
current regulatory and accessibility standards set by the Caltrans Highway Design
Manual (HDM) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
For this project, Infinitum Engineering, Incorporated (IEI) has been hired to design
and provide a Project Study Report (PSR) for the A-Street access point. A portion of
the roadway consists of an overpass crossing I-80 Business on the west side of the
proposed development (see Location Map, Attachment 1). The existing bridge does
not provide adequate pedestrian facilities or standard lane and shoulder widths. This
affects the safety and function of future uses necessary for the McKinley Village
development. Local standards require the A-Street Bridge to undergo retrofits and
improvements to comply with seismic and accessibility demands for a collector
roadway. IEI focused design configurations based on bicycle use classifications. The
scope of this project is limited to the A-Street Bridge itself. Improvements to A-Street
to the west and the McKinley Village development to the east are addressed as
separate projects.
Project Description
One “No Build” alternative and two “Build” alternatives were considered for the
proposed project. The “Build” alternatives widen the existing two-lane overpass to
integrate bicycle accessibility set by Chapter 1000 of the Highway Design Manual.
Each design alternative incorporated pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular travel in and
out the proposed development. Each design alternative was submitted to the
Sacramento City Council for review.
All project approvals and design will be locally funded by Sacramento Area Council
of Governments (SACOG). Regular maintenance will be funded by the Bridge
Preventative Maintenance Program (BPMP).
A summary of the proposed project alternative is shown in Table 1.
1

Table 1: A-Street Bridge Project Alternatives
The purpose of this PSR is to provide a scoping document of the costs necessary to
complete studies and work necessary to move the proposed project into the PA/ED
phase. All remaining support, right of way, and construction components of the project
are preliminary estimates and will serve as a basis for the City Council.
2
Project Limits District 3- Sacramento County-
Route 51
Number of Alternatives 3
Current Capital Outlay
Construction Estimate
$3.9 Million
Current Capital Outlay Right-of-
Way Estimate
$0
Funding Source Local – SACOG
BPMP
Funding Year 2015
Type of Facility Two-lane over cross bridge
Number of Structures 1

2. BACKGROUND
Project History
The A-Street Bridge was built in 1954 to provide vehicular access to the property on
the east side of the bridge during the construction of the Elvas Freeway. The Elvas
Freeway was later renamed State Route 51, Capital City Freeway, and I-80 Business.
The construction of the freeway enclosed the property to the east of the bridge with
UPRR to the south and I-80 Business to the north. Passage over the bridge was solely
used for public access to nearly 50 acres of agricultural land. The roadway was used
by heavy duty vehicles to transport peaches, which produced an average daily volume
(ADV) of five vehicles.
The California Division of Highways (predecessor to Caltrans) incorporated the A-
Street Bridge with the Elvas Freeway Project for the purpose of developing the
property to the east. Several attempts to develop the site for residential and
commercial use have been denied over the last 30 years. On April 29, 2014, the
McKinley Village project was approved and construction operations are currently in
progress.
The A-Street Bridge will serve as one of two vehicular access points into the new
development with 336 single-family dwelling units, 40 secondary units, 2,000 square
feet of neighborhood retail, and approximately 2.4 acres of recreational use. The A-
Street Bridge will be the primary access point to Midtown and is expected to
experience a flow of 1,800 additional vehicles per day (657,000 vehicles per year).
Existing Facility
The existing A-Street overcrossing is a Category 5 bridge. The structure consists of a
two span, continuous reinforced concrete T-beam. It is supported by concrete wing
wall abutments and a two pier concrete bent positioned on the centerline median of I-
80 Business (see Bridge Substructure, Attachment 2). It also has a vertical clearance of
17 feet over the existing freeway. A sidewalk runs along the southern side with short
open panel railings on either side of the bridge. The bridge is skewed at 15 degrees,
and aligns itself with A-Street, which runs parallel to B Street to the south.
The 116-foot bridge is owned and maintained by Caltrans and is routinely checked to
ensure it is structurally sound under existing conditions (see Caltrans Bridge
Inspection Report, Attachment 2). Historically, the bridge has met traffic demands.
The traffic demands of the McKinley Village development has categorized the bridge
was functionally obsolete. The bridge deck does not have adequate lane widths,
shoulder clearances, or sidewalks meet current ADA and HDM standards.
Furthermore, the bridge does not have the required lighting and pedestrian railing.
3

3. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
Purpose
The purpose of the proposed project is to address safety concerns and improve
capacity for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian travel in and out the McKinley Village
community. Rehabilitation to the bridge will improve connectivity between
surrounding neighborhoods. In summary, the A-Street Bridge design alternatives were
designed to meet each of the following objectives required by the City of Sacramento:
1. Aesthetically pleasing
2. Promote alternative modes of transportation
3. Create a pedestrian friendly development according to ADA standards
4. Provide adequate access points for vehicular traffic according to HDM
standards
5. Provide convenient access to surrounding amenities
Need
One of the goals of the McKinley Village Project is to extend the life of the A-Street
Bridge, and introduce safe alternative modes of transportation. The existing
infrastructure does not meet the projected transportation demand. Improvements are
needed to accommodate the increased loads of vehicular traffic and provide for
alternative modes of transportation. McKinley village lies between Midtown and East
Sacramento, two neighborhoods with high bicycle use. The geographic location of the
proposed development allows the stakeholders to implement the Sacramento County
Bicycle Master Plan.
Letters of concern to developers of the McKinley Village Project have expressed there
are other key areas to be addressed with respect to the A-Street Bridge. The Marshall
School/New Era Park Neighborhood Association expressed their desire for enhanced
pedestrian safety by placing lighting fixtures along the bridge. This also demanded
assurances of the soundness and longevity of the A Street Bridge. A-Street Bridge is
60 years old and will see nearly 1,800 vehicles per day with the proposed
development. Overall, there is concern the bridge is functionally obsolete for the
purpose of serving the needs of the McKinley Village Project. Retrofits to the bridge
are necessary to meet McKinley Village and the City of Sacramento’s goal of
providing safe alternative modes of transportation to the region.
4

4. DEFICIENCIES
The A-Street Bridge does not have the required lane and shoulder widths or adequate
pedestrian facilities. As previously noted, the purpose of the A-Street Bridge is to
provide a safe path for the residents of McKinley Village to travel to and from
surrounding neighborhoods. Improvements to the A-Street Bridge are needed for this
development. After careful analysis, IEI has developed primary and secondary
deficiencies that need to be resolved for the bridge to meet standards, safety
requirements and projected traffic demands.
Primary
Primary deficiencies of A-Street Bridge include: lighting, fencing, barriers, paving,
striping, sidewalks, bike lanes, and vehicular lane widths. These deficiencies are
primarily related to inadequate vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle accessibility.
Lighting on the bridge currently does not exist. Proper lighting will enhance safety on
and off the road and from criminal activity. The A-Street Bridge will serve as an
overpass and requires adequate guard railing on both sides of the bridge. The current
barrier is a 3 foot high concrete railing and does not meet current safety measures for
bridge roadways. An upgrade is required for new lighting and chain link fence
installation. The existing bridge does not have striping on the deck surface. This poses
a risk to pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists sharing the road. New stripping is
proposed on the roadway per current standards. The A-Street Bridge also has 5 foot
wide sidewalks. Caltrans standards for sidewalks on bridges are 6 feet wide for safety
and accessibility. The bridge also will need new paving to meet safety standards under
dry and wet weather conditions for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Secondary
Field surveys in the study area indicate there are significant levels of bicycle and
pedestrian activity but current conditions do not allow for the facilitated mobility of
alternative modes of transportation. A traffic analysis anticipates an increase in bicycle
and pedestrian activity (See GIS Analysis of Bicycle Commute, Attachment 4).
According to the Bicycle Master Plan there was an 80% increase in the Bike Commute
Month held in 2007. One of the goals of the BMP is to increase bicycle usage to 100%
for all trips by 2030. Providing a Class I bicycle path would enhance access and safety
to Midtown, Downtown and the American River bike trail. The BMP states Class I
bike paths is the most requested facility and would encourage the use of bicycles.
Aesthetics is another secondary deficiency. In its current state the bridge would not
meet the aesthetic vision of McKinley Village. Aesthetics will distinguish a transition
to and from McKinley Village
5

5. ALTERNATIVES
IEI has proposed three design alternatives in which two “Build” alternatives and one
“No Build” alternative were considered. For each design alternative, the A-Street
Bridge was retrofitted to accommodate pedestrians, bicyclist, and vehicles that will
use the roadway as an ingress and egress route to Midtown. Schematics portraying
each design alternative were submitted to the Sacramento City Council to be reviewed
and evaluated. All improvements to the bridge were to Caltrans design standards. For
each design alternative, pedestrian facilities were also designed to satisfy ADA
standards.
Alternative 1
The Alternative 1 bridge design consists of a Class I bike path added to the north side
of the bridge. Figure 1 displays a virtual simulation of the proposed overpass facing
west. This alternative requires an expansion to the existing deck to incorporate a two-
way bike path. The proposed design physically separates the bike path from vehicular
and pedestrian traffic with a permanent barrier to be used for additional lighting
facilities. Caltrans standards require railing on the north and south sides of the bridge
have a minimum height of 42-inches. Upgrading the existing columns to meet seismic
standards would extend the lifespan of the bridge. Caltrans’ approval is required to
widen the bridge on the north side and undergo additional construction to the
substructure to support the proposed design.
Fig. 1: Alternative 1 – Class I Bike Path
After reviewing the proposed alternatives for the A-Street Bridge the Sacramento City
Council chose this “Build” alternative. The proposed design was chosen with intent to
provide safety and comfort for all modes of transportation. A 6-foot ADA compliant
sidewalk will be installed on the south side of the bridge and extend to match the
approaching roadway on the east and west. Stringent requirements for bridge design
propose 12-foot lanes with a shoulder clearance for the inner and outer lanes. A bridge
widening of 16-feet would accommodate a bike path separate from the roadway.
6

Type 26 barrier railing with type 7 chain link fencing will be standard for the vehicular
and pedestrian railing. All guard railings will incorporate acorn style lighting fixtures
at 50-foot increments. For the Class I bike path, AASHTO standards require a paved
width for a shared use path of 6-feet and additional 2-foot clearances is required for
gutter and railing components.
The widened bridge section, will be structurally dependent on the existing bridge. A
concrete slab would be attached to the existing bridge using slab seat extenders in
order to construct the bike path. The slab will be supported by the construction of an
additional column located at north edge of the slab. This column will be positioned on
the center-dividing median of the I-80 Business, adjacent to the existing A-Street
Bridge columns. The new section will also require a widening of Abutments 1 and 3,
or the construction of new abutments for the new section.
Alternative 2
The second alternative design consists of a Class II bikeway on each side of the
bridge. Figure 2 displays a virtual simulation leaving the McKinley Village
community. This design requires a widening of the bridge to incorporate a bike lane
and pedestrian sidewalk on each side of the road. To provide these facilities,
cantilevered slabs on both sides of the existing bridge were proposed to provide
adequate space for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrian traffic.
Fig. 2: Alternative 2 – Class II Bikeway
This design was not chosen because it was incompatible with the upstream and
downstream approaches. A Class I bikeway is planned through McKinley Village to
Midtown and the American River Bike Trail. Bicyclists would have to cross the street
at each approach to accommodate the alternating Class I and Class II bikeways. This
would be unsafe for bicyclist and does not meet the need of this project.
7

Alternative 3
The Alternative 3 bridge design focused on a Class III bike route. Figure 3 displays a
westward view of the “No Build” alternative. The focal point of the project would
solely be to bring the bridge up to code with minimal cost. Widening of the bridge is
not required for this alternative. Bicyclist would share the existing road with vehicles.
Fig. 3: Alternative 3 – Class III Bike Route
In alternative 3, the Class III bikeway applied another standard roadway layout often
seen throughout the Sacramento region with minimal renovation. This design was not
chosen because it was incompatible with the planned Class I bike route. The transition
between Class I and Class III would cause bicyclist to merge with traffic. This may
cause congestion and pose a safety threat. This design does not meet the purpose and
need of this project.
Drawings
Refer to Engineering Drawings, Attachment 9, for detailed layouts of the proposed
Class I facility design.
Right-Of-Way
Additional Right of Way totaling nearly 2.0 acres may be required to construct the
new widened section of the A-Street Bridge. Expansion of Abutments 1 and 3 require
this additional Right of Way. The potentially affected properties are as follows:
● 003-0061-011 – City of Sacramento
● 003-0050-012 – City of Sacramento
8

All properties listed above are currently undeveloped. The right-of-way required for
this project is presumed to be necessary for active development interests adjacent to
the limits of the proposed project.
Utilities
Underground utility facilities such as water, electrical, and gas lines are not in conflict
within the limits of the proposed project. Each approach on the east and west side of
the bridge is undeveloped. A UB Permit Code will be required for the placement of
new utility facilities.
Electrical conduit piping will be placed alongside the south end of the bridge to
accommodate lighting fixtures placed on the edge of the pedestrian railing. Additional
electrical conduits shall be placed at a location near the edge of the existing bridge and
the north end of the proposed widened portion. Each utility conduit running alongside
the bridge will have cathodic protection and be electrically isolated from the structure.
Maximum voltage and a description of carrier conduits will be inscribed on each
conduit for safety precautions. Conduits can be placed inside barriers, sidewalks and
box girder cells, depending on the voltage.
Water and gas lines will be cased and located near roadway shoulders. Waterlines will
use box girder cells and gas lines will require separate steel encasement. Additional
permitted encroachments shall be located between girders and should not be exposed
to view. Utility mapping will not permit utility facilities on the exterior of the bridge
unless they are enclosed and appear as an integral part of the bridge. If utility facilities
cannot be concealed within the structure of the bridge, exposed conduits are to be
painted or covered with an approved coating that would match the color of the
structure. Future maintenance will be set to the satisfaction of Caltrans.
Caltrans, New Home Company (developer of McKinley Village Project), and utility
companies will further coordinate installation plans for utility mapping associated with
this project.
Construction Staging
A staged construction approach is planned to construct the improvements of the
existing bridge and will be closely coordinated with other ongoing projects in the area.
Proper staging and planning is needed to minimize effects on traffic during the
construction of a new column on I-80 Business. Maintaining free flow traffic and
constructing the new column without delays is the goal of construction staging. Night
work may be necessary during construction to minimize congestion during heavy
9

traffic hours. In addition to the new column, expansion of the existing abutments or
construction of new abutments could also affect I-80 Business traffic as the shoulder
of the freeway will be reduced during construction.
Falsework for the bridge will be designed to act as a temporary structure and will be
formed prior to the pouring of the new concrete column and deck. Bridge falsework
also acts as support while structural rebar for the new column and deck is installed
before the concrete is poured. The bridge falsework will match the vertical clearance
of the existing bridge at 17 feet.
Environmental Determination
The key environmental issue and anticipated level of environmental documentation for
the A-Street Bridge have been presented in the McKinley Village Environmental
Impact Report (EIR). The proposed project design would require heavy construction
along undeveloped lands. This would interfere with the existing landfill site on the
west end of the A-Street Bridge. The loss of acreage of foraging habitat has been
accounted for in mitigation and requires the replacement of approximately 52 acres of
land in the Yolo Bypass. This figure includes land loss as a result to improvements to
A-Street and the off-site portion of detention basins.
New developments will generate additional activity within the area. However, animal
species have adapted to the urban environment due to the close proximity of the
existing freeway system. The introduction of cars, noise and lights in this area would
not be distinguishable from the ambient noise of the freeway and will not introduce
activities that are not already in existence in the larger surrounding area. Ongoing
activities around this location have previously caused special bird species to select
nesting sites in trees in residential neighborhoods. When the approach on the west side
of the bridge is constructed, fencing and landscaping on both sides of the roadway will
prevent access into the closed portion of the landfill. Security measures will ensure no
public access is permitted.
The McKinley Village development anticipates degraded air quality. The construction
of McKinley Village is expected to produce pollutants: Ozone (!!), Carbon Monoxide
(CO), Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), and Particulate Matter
(!"!" and !"!.!). Each is known to become detrimental to the health of residents of
Sacramento over long and short term exposure. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air
Quality Management District (SMAQMD) in coordination with the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) is monitoring pollutants produced by material and
equipment used to construct McKinley Village. It is estimated short term construction
emissions will produce 85 lbs/day of NOX and long term operational emissions will
produce 65 lbs/day of ROG and NOX.
10

SMAQMD has set rules and policies that will be enforced to reduce emissions
produced by the construction of McKinley Village. Vehicles and equipment producing
50 horsepower or more must be approved by SMAQMD before entering the premises.
These high powered components produce large amounts of NOx. Regulating vehicles
allowed would reduce NOx levels to 20%. The California Air Resources Board
(CARB) approves any levels under the 45% standard. A timeline of equipment use
will have to be submitted and maintenance of equipment will be done on a weekly
basis.
When construction of McKinley Village is finalized the ambient air quality will still be
impacted by the residents of McKinley Village. Residents will produce daily pollutant
emissions and contribute to the decline of air quality. The Sacramento 2030 General
Plan is designed to reduce air contamination by promoting alternative modes of
transportation. The design proposal for the A-Street Bridge will widen the existing
infrastructure to incorporate sidewalks and a separate bike path. The City of
Sacramento anticipates the proposed design would significantly improve air quality by
2030.
Traffic Analysis
On November 12, 2013 the City of Sacramento published a comprehensive traffic
analysis study of the proposed McKinley Village neighborhood as part of the project’s
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR determined improvements would be
“less than significant” at three local intersections (Alhambra Boulevard/H Street;
Alhambra Boulevard/E Street; and 33rd Street/McKinley Boulevard). The study
analyzed projected traffic flows generated by the McKinley Village community (see
Study Area Diagram, Attachment 5). Traffic was evaluated based on the Level of
Service (LOS). LOS A portrays the least congested traffic conditions and F portrays
roadways that are unable to meet traffic capacity demands. The acceptable LOS for
Sacramento roadways is at LOS D.
As part of the study, 16 streets and 25 intersections east of the I-80 Business were
analyzed. According to the study, McKinley Village will generate 266 trips during
the AM peak hour and 341 trips in the PM peak hour. These figures estimate
approximately 3,500 daily trips within the region (see Attachment 5 and 6 for Inbound
and Outbound Trip Distribution). The 16 roadway segments analyzed east of I-80
Business met LOS qualifications set by City standards. The analysis determined 23
intersections have a LOS that will remain unaffected. The McKinley Village Project
will increase time delay at two intersections. The intersection at E Street and 30th
will
experience an additional 19-second delay in the AM peak hour. The northbound
freeway onramp near E Street and 30th will also experience a high signal delay. The
11

The Alhambra/H Street intersection, which is already at LOS F in the AM peak hour
would be impacted by traffic generated by McKinley Village. However, mitigations
(signal improvements) funded by McKinley Village will improve the intersection to
LOS D in the AM peak hour.
The traffic analysis studied future traffic forecasts of McKinley for 2035. This analysis
determined that McKinley Village would have a significant impact on few
intersections (Alhambra Boulevard/H Street; Alhambra Boulevard/E Street; and
McKinley Boulevard/33rd Street). McKinley Village will be required to fund
corresponding improvements and with these improvements. Overall, the complete
analysis based on the traffic forecasts for 2035 determined that the McKinley Village
development would result in “insignificant” changes.
12

6. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Since the McKinley Village project initialized the project in 2007, design consultants
have conducted various investigation reports in and around the site. These results were
used by the City of Sacramento to prepare a draft EIR to evaluate potential
environmental effects. Alternatives were presented to address substantive impacts. The
draft EIR compared existing and post-project conditions to determine whether the
impacts found were deemed significant according to City of Sacramento standards.
A 45-day comment period was imposed to allow stakeholders time to address
additional traffic, air quality and safety concerns associated with the proposed
development. Stakeholders addressed their concerns about current and future
conditions of the A-Street Bridge. Representatives from Friends of the Sawinson’s
Hawk (FOSH) have stated:
“The project fails to analyze or mitigate for the environmental impacts of the
conversion of the A street from a non-public gated dirt maintenance road to a paved
public thoroughfare with pedestrian and bicycle access and landscaping.”
The age and current traffic flow of the A-Street bridge raises concerns regarding the
future loads it will carry with an increased volume to accommodate future traffic
demands. In order to modernize and promote alternative modes of transportation,
pedestrian facilities on either side of the bridge transition are being addressed.
Stakeholders involved in the development have met with developers to identify
potential impacts on bike and pedestrian accessibility. A representative from SABA
claimed:
“Under the cumulative analysis of traffic impacts, traffic volumes at the
entrances/exits to/from the project at A Street to the west and 40th street to the east
are predicted to reach 3,000-3,600 ADT… If these traffic flows are experienced, the
traffic calming measures may need to be enhanced to ensure vehicle speeds on A
Street through the project remain below 25 mph.”
Safety for pedestrians and bicyclists commuting around the A-Street Bridge are a
primary concern. Developers have guaranteed that the design modifications of the
street, sidewalk and bike path will be compliant with federal, state and local regulatory
standards. In order to enhance the safety of commuters, barriers separating slow and
fast moving traffic is an alternative to be considered. A Class I bike path would also
provide a high level of comfort and safety for bicyclist of all skill levels.
After the comment period closed, the draft EIR was further accessed to address
necessary revisions to the project based on community concerns. A final EIR was then
prepared and circulated to public agencies and presented to the City Council. The
13

City Planning and Design Commission and Riverview Capital Investments held
multiple public meetings throughout 2014 to allow for public testimony. The
McKinley Village Project and preliminary traffic infrastructure was presented to the
Sacramento City Council and passed with a 6-3 vote. The design of ingress and egress
routes will be further developed with Caltrans approval. Regular meetings with the
public will serve as a basis for the final design. Final documentation will be presented
to the City Council for funding.
14

7. COSTS
The following table contains a project estimate cost for retrofitting and widening the
A-Street Bridge. For an in depth list of materials and cost needed for this alternative
see Attachment 7.
Table 2: Cost estimate for Alternative 1- Class I Bike Route
Funding
Funding for the McKinley Village would be provided by the Sacramento Area Council
of Governments (SACOG) and the developer, New Home Company. The SACOG
plans to fund a $150,000 using the Neighborhood Transportation Management Plan
(NTMP) for the west end approach of the A-Street Bridge. New Home Company will
fund transportation related projects acting as an ingress and egress into the
development. There is another $100,000 in reserve for additional studies relating to the
McKinley Village Project.
The A-Street Bridge would be eligible for the Bridge Preventative Maintenance
Program (BPMP). The Highway Bridge Program (HBP) sets aside $300 million
federal dollars to assist the BPMP in rehabilitating public highway bridges. The bridge
has a sufficiency rating of 88 and qualifies for funding. Funding by BPMP allows for
sufficiency rating to exceed this value. BPMP funds maintenance related costs such as:
deck treatment, painting, scouring, drainage, and repairing approach slabs.
15
SUBTOTAL $2,642,000
TIME RELATED OVERHEAD $264,000
ROUTING MOBILIZATION ( @ 10 % ) $323,000
1. DES SECTION SUBTOTAL BRIDGE ITEMS $3,229,000
2. OFFICE OF BRIDGE DESIGN - NORTH CONTINGENCIES (@ 20%) $646,000
3. OFFICE OF BRIDGE DESIGN - CENTRAL BRIDGE TOTAL COST $3,875,000
4. OFFICE OF BRIDGE DESIGN - SOUTH COST PER SQ. FOOT $960.00
5. OFFICE OF BRIDGE DESIGN - WEST BRIDGE REMOVAL (CONTINGENCIES INCL.)
6. OFFICE OF BRIDGE DESIGN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAWORK BY RAILROAD OR UTILITY FORCES
GRAND TOTAL $3,875,000
BUDGET ESTIMATE AS OF $3,875,000

8. SCHEDULE
The schedules for Segment 1 and 2 are shown below. Segment 1 references dates
associated with preliminary documentations required prior to construction of the
proposed bridge.
Segment 1
Milestones Delivery Date
(Month, Day, Year)
Program Project April 29, 2014
Begin PA&ED December 2014
Circulate Draft ED August 2015
End PA/ED January 2016
Project Design July 2016
Right of Way Certification October 2016
Ready to List January 2017
Approve Contract February 2017
Begin Construction February 2017
The City of Sacramento voted in favor of the McKinley Village Project on April 29,
2014. The proposed development includes approaches leading into the community.
Design for the A-Street Bridge Retrofit and Widening Project will be coordinated
with Caltrans to complete the PA&ED and project design phases. Preliminary
documentation for design and utility coordination will approximately take a total of
18 months for completion. Certification and permit requirements will begin August
2016.
Segment 2 references in-field construction milestones. Project will be expected for
completion by end of Summer 2017.
16

Segment 2
Milestones Delivery Date
(Month, Year)
Begin Construction February 2017
Safety Plan March 2017
Foundation Construction/Column March 2017
Utility Placement July 2017
Steel Erection July 2017
Deck and Forms Rebar August 2017
Deck Construction August 2017
Project Completion September 2017
17

9. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Location Map
18

Attachment 2: Bridge Substructure
19

Attachment 3: Caltrans Bridge Inspection Report
(Continue on next page)
20

Attachment 4: GIS Analysis of Bicycle Commute
24

Attachment 5: Study Area Diagram
25

Attachment 6: Inbound Trip Distribution
26

Attachment 7: Outbound Trip Distribution
27

Attachment 8: Project Cost Estimate- Alternative I: Class I Bike Path
28!

A-STREET BRIDGE RETROFIT AND WIDENING
Page Page
ELEVATION VIEW 1 of 10 BENT LAYOUT 7 of 10
PLAN VIEW 2 of 10 BENT DETAILS 8 of 10
FOUNDATION PLAN 3 of 10 SLAB SEAT EXTENDER LAYOUT 9 of 10
ABUTMENT PLAN 4 of 10 SLAB SEAT EXTENDER DETAILS 10 of 10
ABUTMENT DETAILS 5 of 10
DECK AND GIRDER DETAILS 6 of 10
GENERAL PLAN
DRAWN BY: O. Meda
A-STREET BRIDGE RETROFOT AND WIDENING
CITY OF SACRAMENTO
Infinitum Engineering
Incorporated
6000 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95819
MATERIAL: CONCRETEBRIDGE NO. 24 0131DATE: 12-12-14
APPROVED BY: B. Rocha DATE: 12-12-14
LOCATION: 03-SAC-051-1.77-SAC

57'-6" 57'-6"
115'
TOP OF BOW LEVEE
EL 44.0
TOP OF BOW LEVEE
EL 44.0
CONCRETE PILES LENGTH FOR
ESTIMATING = 45'-0"
7.52%
PVC13+00
EL39.11
PROFILE GRADE
PVT17+00
EL39.25
-7.25%
400' V.C
DATUM EL 0.00
14 15 16
El. 18.00
BENT
ABUT. 3ABUT. 1
TO A STREET TO MCKINLEY VILLAGE
17PVC15+00
EL48.2
17' VC
ELEVATION VIEW
DRAWN BY: B. Perez
A-STREET BRIDGE
CITY OF SACRAMENTO
Incorporated
6000 J Street
SCALE: 1
32" = 1'-0"
MATERIAL: CONCRETEBRIDGE NO. 24 0131
SHEET: 1 OF 10
DATE: 12-12-14

12'
12'
10' SHOULDER CLEAR
PAINT "Br. No. 24-131"
B.B 14+44.91
EL 45.99
TO "A" STREET
14
TO29thSTREET
2:1
20' 12' 12' 10'20'12'12'10'
15 16"E2" LINE
S 63"55' E
SKEW
15°
32'32'
TOROSEVILLE
SR51EastboundLanes
SR51WestboundLanes
"E2"15+0289P.O.T.
"B"44+66.28P.O.T.
2:1
2:1
E.B. 15+60387
EL 45.81
45
44
N 41°05'E
6'
5'
6'
8'
22'-0"
N
TO MCKINLEY VILLAGE
2:1
2:1
℄ROADWAY
A REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE BEAM GUARD RAILING
B MATCH EXISTING GRADE AND CROSS SLOPE
C RECONSTRUCT WINGWALL
D NEW BRIDGE DECK (14'-0" ± width x 115'-0" ± length)
A
A
B
15'
2:1
TOP OF BOW LEVEE
10'
15'
2:1
2:1
TOP OF BOW LEVEE
C
D
PLAN VIEW
DRAWN BY: B ROCHA
CITY OF SACRAMENTO
Incorporated
6000 J Street
SCALE: 1:300
MATERIAL: ConcreteBRIDGE NO. 24 0131
SHEET: 2 OF 10
DATE: 12-12-14
APPROVED BY: B. ROCHA DATE: 12-12-14

12'
12' B.B 14+44.91
EL 45.99
TO "A" STREET
TO29thSTREET
14
20' 12' 10'12'20'12'12'10'
15 16
S 63"55' E
SKEW
15°
32'32'
TOROSEVILLE
SR51EastboundLanes
SR51WestboundLanes
E.B. 15+60387
EL 45.81
45
44
N 41°05'E6'
5'
6'
6'
22'-0"
N
TO MCKINLEY VILLAGE℄ROADWAY
A TYPE 26 BARRIER RAILING. TYPE 7 CHAIN LINK FENCING AT NORTH AND SOUND ENDS
B FALSEWORK - MINIMUM WIDTH OF TRAFFIC OPENING
C SEE ABUTMENT PLAN
B
15'
TOP OF BOW LEVEE
15'
TOP OF BOW LEVEE
C
A
TEMP. RAILING(TYPE K)
FOUNDATION
TYPICAL SECTION
ELEV 18.0
1' 6' 12' 12' 5' 6'
35' 16'
51'-0" ±
1'
4'
6'6'
SLAB EXTENDER
17' VC
NEW COLUMN
EXISTING COLUMN
8'
℄ROADWAY
SCALE 1
32" = 1'-0"
NTS
A
FOUNDATION VIEW
DRAWN BY: B ROCHA
CITY OF SACRAMENTO
Incorporated
6000 J Street
SCALE: VARIES
SHEET: 3 OF 10
DATE: 12-12-14

3'
3'
19'-6"
31'-6"
12'
12'
19'-6"
ROADWAY
7'-6"
12'
6"
2'
1'-6"
1'-6"
1'-6"
1'-6"
1
2 " EXPANSION
JOINT MATERIAL
IN WALL ONLY
1
2 " EXPANSION
JOINT MATERIAL
IN WALL ONLY
ELEV.45.67ABUT.1
ELEV.45.75ABUT.
3
ELEV. 45.82 ABUT. 1
ELEV. 45.59 ABUT. 3
ELEV. 46.00ELEV. 46.00
ELEV. 18.00
ELEV. 31.00 ABUT. 1 RT.
ELEV. 27.50 ABUT. 3 RT.
ELEV. 34.00 ABUT. 1 LT.
ELEV. 31.5 ABUT. 3 LT.
1
2" EXPANSION JOINT IN
WALL ONLY
1
WALL ONLY
3
WALL ONLY
3
WALL ONLY
PLAN
(ABUTMENT 1 SHOWN)
(ABUTMENT 3 SIMILAR)
ELEVATION
NOTE
EXISTING ABUTMENT EXTENDS LENGTH OF EXISTING BRIDGE
(35'-0")
WILL WIDEN 16'-0" ± ON THE NORTH SIDE TO SUPPORT WIDENING
WING WALLS WILL EXTEND 10'-0" ±
ABUTMENT PLAN
DRAWN BY: J. CHEUNG
CITY OF SACRAMENTO
Incorporated
6000 J Street
SCALE: 1:50
SHEET: 4 OF 10
DATE: 12-12-14

SECTION AA SECTION BB
5'-3" 5'-3"
10'-6"
9'
1'-6"
1'-6"
3'-9" 3'-9"
1'-6"
10'-6"
1'-6"
3'
3'
14'-4" 14'-4"
28'-8"
2'
6"
6'-6"
3"
3"
3"
6"
3'
3"
4'-6"
4'-6"
9'
3'
31
2" 31
2"
7'
FOOTING PLAN
P.C.C PILES
E COLUMN AND FOOTING
15°
STA. 15+02.05
1 TOT. 6
1
2 U
3
4 @18
3
4 @6
E COLUMN AND FOOTING
BENT DETAILS
DRAWN BY: O. MEDA
CITY OF SACRAMENTO
Incorporated
6000 J Street
SCALE: 1
32" = 1'-0"
SHEET: 8 OF 10
DATE: 12-12-14

35'
3'
8'-5"
8'-5"
8'-5"
8'-5"
18'-6" 18'-6" 18'-6"
55'-4 5
8"
8" 1'-4"8"
1'
1'
A
A
A
B
B
6"
6"
BEARING ABUT. 1 OR 3 BENT 2
2-
3
4 CONTINUOUS1'
4'-2"
GIRDER LAYOUT
GIRDER ELEVATION
6"
6"
6"
2'
3
4 ''
1"
NTS
SECTION A-A
NTS
SECTION B-B
5
8"
3
4"
5
8"
1
2"
1
2"
3
4"
DECK AND GIRDER DETAILS
DRAWN BY: J. CHEUNG
CITY OF SACRAMENTO
Incorporated
6000 J Street
SCALE: 1
8" = 1'-0"
SHEET: 6 OF 10
DATE: 12-12-14

ELEVATION
PLAN OF BENT
35'-2"
17'-7" 17'-7"
NOTE
CURBS AND RAILING NOT SHOWN
FACEOFEXTERIORGIRDER
NOTE
RAILING NOT SHOWN
EL 26.0
FACEOFEXTERIORGIRDER
℄ROADWAY
℄ BENT
℄ BENT
EL 18.0
3
4 @ 18
1 1
4 J DOWELS (22)
℄ BENT 3'
14'
P.C.C Piles
4-1 1
4 x 20 LEVEL
5-1 1
4 x 30
5'-913
16" 4'-6 1
16" 4'-67
8"
3'
4'
BENT LAYOUT
DRAWN BY: O. Meda
A-STREET BRIDGERETROFIT AND WIDENING
CITY OF SACRAMENTO
Incorporated
6000 J Street
SCALE: 1
32" = 1'-0"
SHEET: 7 OF 10
DATE: 12-12-14

2'-0"
1'-0"
4'-8"
2'-8"
4'-10"
1'-4"
BENT
BRACKET
SUPPORT TUBE
EXISTING MOUNTING BARS EXISTING HINGE ASSEMBLY
SLAB EXTENDER DETAILS
DRAWN BY: O. MEDA
CITY OF SACRAMENTO
Incorporated
6000 J Street
SHEET: 10 OF 10
DATE: 12-12-14

TACK WELD
2.5 " BORE
FOR PIN
BRACKET
PIN
HSS 12 X 6 X
GRADE 500B
CJP
7 " PLATE
7" PLATE
NOTE
FOR DETAILS NOT SHOWN
SLAB BRIDGE SEAT EXTENDER DETAILS
NO. 10 SHEET
PLAN VIEW
BRACKET SIDE VIEW
SUPPORT TUBE
SIDE VIEWEND VIEW
PIN SIDE VIEWPIN END VIEW
3" GRADE 50
ROUND BAR
7"4"
4"2"
6"
1'-1"
4" 2"
4"
2"2"6"
1'-4"
BOLTS
7"
3 " DIA. HOLE
1'-0"
1'-0"
6" 6"
4"
3" DIA. HOLE
4"
2"
6"6"
6"
2" X 4" X 6" ELASTOMERIC
BEARING PAD MATERIAL
ATTACH TO TUBE WITH
ADHESIVE
3 " DIA. HOLE
EXTENDER ASSEMBLY
4'-8"
2'-8" 2'-0"
6"5"
1'-0"
SUPPORT TUBE
NTS NTS
SLAB EXTENDER LAYOUT
DRAWN BY: O. MEDA
CITY OF SACRAMENTO
Incorporated
6000 J Street
SCALE: 3" = 1'-0"
SHEET: 9 OF 10
DATE: 12-12-14

Senior Project PSR

More Related Content

What's hot

Senior Project PSR