City of Rialto
Office of the City Manager
150 S. Palm Avenue • Rialto, California 92376
Tel: (909) 820-2528 • Fax: (909) 820-2527 • Web: www.yourrialto.com
October 5, 2021 Via Email: [email protected]
Dr. Ray Wolfe, Executive Director
San Bernardino County Transportation Authority
1170 W. Third Street
San Bernardino, CA 92410
RE: 2021 Update to the 10-Year Deliver Plan – Valley Highway Programs Item 15, SBCTA Board of Directors Meeting
Dear Dr. Wolfe,
On behalf of the Mayor and Council of the City of Rialto, I am submitting this comment letter to you and your staff regarding Consent Item 15 relat ed to the 2021 Update to the 10 -Year Delivery Plan – Valley Highway Programs. Specifically, the City of Rialto requests that the 2021 Update be revised to correctly reflect the information provided to your staff with the March 2021 Update related to th e I -10/Riverside Avenue Interchange, Phase 2 . Currently, Table 2 “Valley Freeway Interchange Projects Program Delivery Plan Project Status” lists “TBD” as to Schedule, Cost and Phase. Enclosed as Attachme nt 1 is t he March 2021 Update provided by my staff to SBCTA that should be identified in Table 2 showing the following status:
• Environmental Approval (both CEQA/NEPA): April 2016
• Project Report Equivalent December 2016
• PS&E 2023
• ROW 2023
• Ready to Advertise 2023/2024
• Award 2023/2024
The March 2021 Update identified a total cost estimate of $33.5 million to widen the existing UPRR bridge to accommodate two new northbound left turn lanes onto westbound I -10. The costs for the separate phases are:
• ROW $2,200,000 (includes environmental mitigation) • Utility Relocation $2,600,000
• PS&E $2,350,000
• Construction $23,500,000
• Construction Management $2,800,000
Dr. Ray Wolfe
October 5, 2021
The City initially pursued funding for this project through the Highway Bridge Program (H BP), and the bridge was initially qualified for funding as a St ructurally Deficient bridge. As a “High Cost” bridge project, Caltrans limited the City ’s funding to preparation of the Project Report Equival ent (PRE) , which was comp leted in December 2016. The project was initially programmed in the HBP with funding pushed to “Beyond Years ” pending completion of the PRE and determination on whether the bridge could be widened or required replacement.
Based on the analysis included in the PRE, it was determined that the concern for Alkali -Silica Reaction (ASR) and chloride content reaction leading to corrosion o f the bridge reinfor cement were not substantiated.
Therefore, widening the existing bridge was identified as a preferred alternative. The scope of the project is defined as:
The proposed project would widen the current five-lane bridge over the UPRR to a seven -lane bridge in order to match the c onfiguration of the Riverside Avenue Bridge over I -10. However, the added two lanes would be utilized for extending the existing left -turn pockets from the Riverside Bridge over I - 10 southerly onto the Riverside Avenue Bridge over the UPRR, and thereby wou ld not involve additional through lanes nor increase capacity. The proposed bridge widening would include five lanes in the northbound direction: two lanes that feed into the two left -turn lanes for the I-10 westbound on- ramp; two through lanes; and one sh ared through/right -turn lane. In the southbound direction, the proposed bridge widening would maintain the two through lanes. Construction would also include outside shoulders on each side of Riverside Avenue extending south from the railroad bridge to Slo ver Avenue. Sidewalks and a Class II bike lane would be provided on each side of Riverside Avenue, within the project limits.
I note for emphasis the fact that this project does not add through lanes to increase capacity but is an extension of the lane configuration on the I-10 / Riverside Ave. Overpass completed in 2011.
In March 2 018 Caltrans determined the bridge no long er qualified for funding in the HBP, in part due to the City’s findings regarding ASR and chloride content reaction. A copy of the Caltrans determination is included as Attachment 2. Therefore, the project has been eliminated from the HBP, and it is very unlikely the bridge will ever qualify in the future given the fiscal constraints on the HBP and the current prioritization policy on programming new projects.
Proceeding with this project is urgent. Rialto has commenced a Citywide traffic analysis on truck routes , and has current data identifying both ADT and Truck ADT taken from April 2021 . On Riverside Ave . from the I -10 Ramps south to Slover Ave. the data shows ADT of 37,613 with Truck ADT of 7,787 – indicating 20.7% truck volume on this highly traveled roadway segment. Importantly, the data shows that on Riversi de Ave. from San Bernardino Ave. to the I -10 Ramps that ADT reduces slightly to 35,459 but with Truck ADT significantly dropping off to 170 (0.5% truck volume) consistent with the fact that Riverside Ave. north of I-10 is not a truck route. This confirms the urgency of expanding the Riverside UPRR Bridge to accommodate the nearl y 8,000 trucks per day that pass over the UPRR bridge to access the I-10 ramps.
Dr. Ray Wolfe
October 5, 2021
Our request is to enter into a funding agreement now with SBCTA to start the PS&E, ROW and Utility Relocation phases at a total cost of $7,150,000 with SBCTA share at 72.6% or $5,190,900. The City will allocate funding for the 27 .4% Developer Fair Share and coordinate funding agreements with Colton ($513,284) and San Bernardino County ($154,769) for their respective shares.
The 2021 Update to the 10-Year Delivery Plan should identify the construction phase within the Delivery Plan, with an estimate of $26,300,000 with SBCTA share at 72.6% or $19,093,800 . According to the staff report, Table 5 demonstrates that the 2021 Update shows improved revenue o f nearly $19 million for the FY 2021/2022 to 2030/2031 period, and with yet to be realized bond proceeds to finance programmed projects, it appears possible to identify the construction phase of this project in the Delivery Plan.
I appreciate your consideration of my request. If you have any que stions, please contact me by email at [email protected] or at 909-820-2528.
Sincerely,
Marcus L. Fuller
City Manager
With copy to:
Andrea Zureick, SBCTA – via email [email protected]
Mayor & Council
RIVERSIDE AVENUE OVERHEAD BRIDGE WIDENING AND REPLACEMENT MARCH 2021
SCHEDULE
Project Milestones
Scheduled Delivery
Date
(Month Year)
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT APPROVAL April 2016
PROJECT REPORT EQUIVALENT December 2016
PS&E 2023
RIGHT OF WAY 2023
READY TO ADVERTISE 2023/2024
AWARD 2023/2024
Riverside Ave/UPRR Overhead Bridge
Preliminary Project Cost Estimate
ALTERNATIVE 1 - Bridge Widening
ROADWAY
Earthwork Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
Roadway Excavation CY $270 359 $96,930
Imported Borrow CY $37 16,065 $594,405
Clearing and Grubbing AC $15,000 2 $30,000
Subtotal Earthwork $721,335
Pavement Structural Section Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement CY $450 154 $69,300
Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) TON $96 5,868 $563,328
Class 2 Aggregate Base C Y $85 1,624 $138,040
Subtotal Pavement Structural Section $770,668
Drainage Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
Storm Drains LS $45,500 1 $45,500
Cap Inlet (New Inlet) EA $2,860 2 $5,720
Minor Concrete (Catch Basin) EA $19,500 2 $39,000
Water Quality Treatment LS $130,000 1 $130,000
Water Pollution Control LS $130,000 1 $130,000
Subtotal Drainage $350,220
Specialty Items
Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
Retaining Wall SF $85 7,500 $637,500
Structure Excavation (Retaining Wall) CY $150 1,700 $255,000 Roadside Sign - Two Post EA $663 1 $663
Minor Concrete (Curb & Gutter) CY $884 99 $87,516
Minor Concrete (Sidewalk) CY $858 168 $144,144
Minor Concrete (Curb Ramp) CY $3,600 47 $169,200
Subtotal Specialty Items $1,294,023
Traffic
Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
Permanent Signing & Striping LS $45,500 1 $45,500
Transportation Management Plan LS $13,000 1 $13,000
Traffic Control Signal and Lighting System LS $260,000 2 $520,000 Street Lighting EA $13,000 19 $247,000
Subtotal Traffic $825,500
Removal Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
Remove Inlet EA $2,080 2 $4,160
Remove Manhole/Inlet EA $2,600 2 $5,200
Remove Roadside Sign (Wood Post) EA $286 1 $286
Remove Concrete Sidewalk (SQYD) CY $31 740 $22,940
Remove Concrete (Curb & Gutter) LF $12 2,505 $30,060
Remove Guard Rail LF $17 320 $5,440
Subtotal Removal $68,086
Other Items
Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
Minor Items LS $427,700 1 $427,700
Mobilization LS $445,753 1 $445,753
Supplemental Work LS $260,000 1 $260,000
State Furnished Materials and Expenses LS $310,700 1 $310,700 Time-Related Overhead LS $607,100 1 $607,100
Roadway Contingency 25% $5,473,985 1 $5,473,985
Subtotal Other Items $7,525,238
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $11,555,070
STRUCTURE
Bride Structure Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
Widening LS $9,884,000 1 $9,884,000
TOTAL STRUCTURES $9,884,000
RAILROAD
Railroad Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
Railroad Track Work LS $1,950,000 1 $1,950,000
Railroad Design Approvals LS $39,000 1 $39,000
UPRR Design Approvals LS $39,000 1 $39,000
C&M Agreement with UPRR LS $39,000 1 $39,000
TOTAL RAILROAD $2,067,000
$23,506,070
RIGHT OF WAY
Right of Way Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
Partial Parcel Acquisition LS $1,300,000 1 $1,300,000
Temporary Construction Easements LS $195,000 1 $195,000 Title / Escrow / Legal fees LS $325,000 1 $325,000
Environmental Mitigation LS $32,500 1 $32,500
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY $1,852,500
UTILITY RELOCATION
Utility Relocation Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
Power Distribution Line Relocation LS $2,600,000 1 $2,600,000 TOTAL UTILITY RELOCATION $2,600,000
$27,958,570
SUPPORT SERVICE FEES Cost
Design (10%) $2,350,607
Construction Management (12%) $2,820,728
Environmental Mitigation $350,000
TOTAL ENGINEERING SERVICE FEES $5,521,335
$33,500,000
Alternative 1
Accuracy Range
(-15% Low) Estimated (+25% High)
$28,475,000 $33,500,000 $41,875,000
CAPITAL COST SUBTOTAL
TOTAL COST
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
1 Marcus Fuller
From: Crawford, Eileen@DOT <IMCEAEX-_O=EXCHANGELABS_OU=EXCHANGE+ 20ADMINISTRATIVE+20GROUP+20+28FYDIBOHF23SPDLT+29_CN=RECIPIENTS_CN= 43B72E4F6DD84B2195379B5474AB662F-S141027@namprd09.prod.outlook.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2018 11:46 AM
To: Lee, David@DOT; Vergel De Dios, Alberto C@DOT
Cc: Newton, Linda A@DOT; Peterson, Robert W@DOT; Fereshtehnejad, Reza@DOT Subject: D08 54C0062 Riverside Ave Application Review
Greetings All,
I have completed the review of the 6A application dated 12/19/2016 and the Project Study Report (PSR) dated 12/21/2016 for Riverside Ave over Metro-link and BNSF Railroad (Br. No. 54C0062) submitted by the City of Rialto. The application is for rehabilitation/replacement of the bridge. At the time of the initial application (2010) the Bridge Inspection Report (BIR) dated 11/13/2011, stated this bridge as structurally deficient with a sufficiency rating of 79.0.
The bridge was eligible for HBP funding for rehabilitation, however, due to this project requesting a lane increase from 5 lanes to 7 lanes, not programmed in the current Regional Transportation Plan and the scope was not clear, the project was programmed as a project study only. Riverside Ave is classified as Urban Principal Arterial roadway on the National Highway System.
The 1959 construction consisted of simple PC/PS “I” girder span with CIP/RC deck on RC pier wall abutments. The bridge was lengthened in 1972 by 5 spans, for a total of 6 spans, with five continuous CIP/RC box girder spans with two hinges on one open end RC seated abutment and one closed end cantilever abutment. The project completed preliminary engineering and obtained environmental approval by using SAFETEA-LU DEMO funds and National Highway Performance Program (NHPP). CEQA is approved. NEPA determination as Categorical Exemption was approved on April 25, 2016. Caltrans widen Riverside Avenue Bridge over I-10 in 2011.
I have the following concerns that need to be addressed prior to this project being programmed:
Federal Project Number (FPN) 5205(016) was programmed in May 2013 as a project study only and required completion of the PSR within three years of time. Following a request by HBP Managers in October 2016 the 6A and PSR were submitted for review. This action completes the requirements of 5205(016) and this project should now be closed and final voucher requested by the agency.
The 6A Application utilized the BIR(2011) to indicate that the structure is Structurally Deficient(SD) and Sufficiency Rating (SR) of 79.9. However, the PSR took an in depth look at the deck deficiencies of the bridge. Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR), Chloride Content Reaction and Compressive Strength Testing were completed on the existing structure and no evidence was found that limited the structural capacity of the bridge. The original BIR (2011) and the current BIR(2015) work recommendations are to address the deck cracking.
The current BIR (2015) indicates no deficiencies (not Structurally Deficient) and the Sufficiency Rating of 83.3.
Therefore this bridge is no longer eligible for Highway Bridge Program funding.
This bridge has not qualified as Functionally Obsolete in either BIR(2011) or BIR(2015).
At this time, the HBP does not have the capacity to program High Cost Projects. The construction phase is currently programmed at $35 Million.
2 The HBP, by definition is to repair or replace deficient bridges. The only deficient element of this bridge is a result of deck cracking and the recommended work is a polyester overlay. This work can be accomplished with a Bridge Preventive Maintenance Plan.
The HBP managers understand that to improve the traffic flow and turning movements along this route, the local agency intends to widen this structure. However, the HBP program is not a congestion driven program. At this time, this bridge is not eligible for the HBP program.
If you have additional questions or concerns, we are available to discuss this project at your convenience.
Best regards,
Eileen
Eileen Crawford, P.E.
Highway Bridge Program Manager
Office of Bridge, Bond and Safety Programs
Division of Local Assistance
Caltrans
1120 N Street, MS 1
Sacramento, California 95814
916-653-5740
How did we do? Help us serve you better! Caltrans Local Assistance Customer Service Survey Link https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CTLocalAssistanceFeedback