Attachment 2 - Baseline Agreement.pdf — Rialto City Council, January 13, 2026

Project Baseline Agreement Page 1 of3
ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017

PROJECT BASELINE AGREEMENT
Resolution
Active Transportation Program
Local Partnership Program (Competitive)
Solutions for Congested Corridors Program
State Highway Operation and Protection Program
Trade Corridor Enhancement Program

2.1 This Project Baseline Agreement (Agreement) effective on (will be completed by CTC), is made by and between the California Transportation Commission (Commission), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Project Applicant, , and the Implementing Agency, , sometimes collectively referred to as the “Parties”.

Whereas at its meeting the Commission approved and included in this program of the , he parties are entering into this Project Baseline Agreement to document the project cost, schedule, scope and benefits, as detailed on the Project Programming Request Form attached hereto as the Project Report attached hereto as , as the baseline for
project monitoring by the Commission.

3. The undersigned Project Applicant certifies that the funding sources cited are committed and expected to be available; the estimated costs represent full project funding; and the scope and description of benefits is the best estimate possible.

The Project Applicant, Implementing Agency, and Caltrans agree to abide by the following provisions:

4.1 To meet the requirements of the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Senate Bill [SB] 1, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) which provides the first significant, stable, and on-going increase in state transportation funding in more than two decades.

4.2 To adhere, as applicable, to the provisions of the Commission:

Resolution , “Adoption of Program of Projects for the Active Transportation Program”, dated Resolution , “Adoption of Program of Projects for the Local Partnership Program”, dated Resolution , “Adoption of Program of Projects for the Solutions for Congested Corridors Program”, dated
Resolution , “Adoption of Program of Projects for the State Highway Operation and Protection Program”, dated
Resolution , “Adoption of Program of Projects for the Trade Corridor Enhancement Program”, dated
ATTACHMENT 2

4.All signatories agree to maintain and make available to the Commission and/or its designated representative, all work related Project Baseline Agreement
Project Baseline AgreementPage 3 of3
SIGNATURE PAGE TO PROJECT BASELINE AGREEMENT Resolution Date Implementing Agency Date Date District Director California Department of Transportation Director California Department of Transportation Date Date

EXHIBIT A
Project Programming Request Form
STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

PROJECT PROGRAMMING REQUEST (PPR)
PRG-0010 (REV 08/2020)
ePPR-5205-2024-0003 v0.1
PPR ID
Amendment (Existing Project) YES NO 08/18/2025 13:53:07Date Programs LPP-C LPP-F TCEPSCCP STIP Other
08 District EA Project ID
1348
PPNO
City of Rialto
Nominating Agency
Caltrans District 8
Co-Nominating Agency
SCAG
MPO
Local Assistance
Element
Amparo Corona
Project Manager/Contact
909-421-7244
Phone
[email protected]
Email Address
I-10/Riverside Ave Freight Improvement Project
Project Title
County Route PM Back PM Ahead
San Bernardino Cou 10 19.900 20.000
In Rialto, on Riverside Avenue, from Slover Avenue to the eastbound Interstate 10 on- and off-ramps. Widen the bridge, which crosses the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) West Colton rail yard from five lanes (current) to seven lanes, allowing for the extension of existing dedicated northbound left-turn lanes on the Riverside Avenue bridge across I-10. Fill a sidewalk gap to provide continuous sidewalk on Riverside Avenue from I-10 to Slover Avenue.

Location (Project Limits), Description (Scope of Work)
Component Implementing Agency
City of RialtoPA&ED
City of RialtoPS&E
City of RialtoRight of Way
City of RialtoConstruction
Legislative Districts
50,45Assembly: 23Senate: 33Congressional:

Project Milestone Existing Proposed
Project Study Report Approved 12/15/2016
Begin Environmental (PA&ED) Phase 09/09/2014
CE/CECirculate Draft Environmental Document Document Type Draft Project Report 12/15/2016
End Environmental Phase (PA&ED Milestone) 04/25/2016
Begin Design (PS&E) Phase 05/05/2022
End Design Phase (Ready to List for Advertisement Milestone) 06/01/2026 Begin Right of Way Phase 12/01/2024
End Right of Way Phase (Right of Way Certification Milestone) 12/01/2025 Begin Construction Phase (Contract Award Milestone) 12/01/2026 End Construction Phase (Construction Contract Acceptance Milestone) 12/01/2029 Begin Closeout Phase 01/01/2030
End Closeout Phase (Closeout Report) 01/01/2031
STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

PROJECT PROGRAMMING REQUEST (PPR)
PRG-0010 (REV 08/2020)
ePPR-5205-2024-0003 v0.1
PPR ID
08/18/2025 13:53:07Date
The purpose of the project is to widen the existing Riverside Avenue Bridge over the UPRR to match the Riverside Avenue Bridge over the I-10, as well as to provide a continuous sidewalk on the east side of the roadway.

Need: The existing Riverside Avenue Bridge over the UPRR experiences bottleneck congestion along the bridge segment. The existing left-turn pockets at the I-10 westbound entrance ramp is heavily used by large trucks queuing to access the I-10 freeway. The insufficient capacity of the existing left-turn pockets causes spillover traffic into the northbound through lanes on the bridge segment. Additionally, the existing lane configuration of the Riverside Avenue Bridge over the UPRR does not match the lane configuration of the newly widened Riverside Avenue Bridge over the I-10. Finally, there is an existing sidewalk gap at the southern end of the project area, just north of the intersection of Riverside Avenue and Slover Avenue. This gap prevents pedestrians, especially those originating in the nearby residential community, from safely accessing daily destinations.

Purpose and Need
NHS Improvements YES NO 3Roadway Class Reversible Lane Analysis YES NO Inc. Sustainable Communities Strategy Goals YES NO Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions YES NO Project Outputs
Category Outputs Unit Total
Pavement (lane-miles) Local road - reconstructed Miles 0.5 Operational Improvement Intersection / Signal improvements EA 2 Operational Improvement Two-way left turn lanes EA 1
Operational Improvement Turn pockets constructed EA 1
Active Transportation Sidewalk miles Miles 0.4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

PROJECT PROGRAMMING REQUEST (PPR)
PRG-0010 (REV 08/2020)
ePPR-5205-2024-0003 v0.1
PPR ID
08/18/2025 13:53:07Date
Additional Information
STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

PROJECT PROGRAMMING REQUEST (PPR)
PRG-0010 (REV 08/2020)
ePPR-5205-2024-0003 v0.1
PPR ID
Performance Indicators and Measures
Measure Required For Indicator/Measure Unit Build Future No Build Change Congestion
Reduction TCEP Change in Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay Hours 14,933 15,593 -660 TCEP Change in Daily Truck Hours of Delay Hours 3,285 3,430 -145 Throughput
(Freight) TCEP Change in Truck Volume # of Trucks 16,471 16,471 0 TCEP Change in Rail Volume # of Trailers 0 0 0
# of Containers 0 0 0
Velocity
(Freight) TCEP Travel Time or Total Cargo Transport
Time Hours 1,199,154 1,252,112 -52,958
Air Quality &
GHG (only
‘Change’
required)

LPPC, SCCP,

TCEP, LPPF
Particulate Matter PM 2.5 Tons 0.15 0.15 0
PM 10 Tons 0.16 0.16 0

LPPC, SCCP,
TCEP, LPPF Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Tons 20,717 21,632 -915

LPPC, SCCP,
TCEP, LPPF Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Tons 0.25 0.25 0

LPPC, SCCP,
TCEP, LPPF Sulphur Dioxides (SOx) Tons 0.16 0.16 0

LPPC, SCCP,
TCEP, LPPF Carbon Monoxide (CO) Tons 15.23 15.23 0

LPPC, SCCP,
TCEP, LPPF Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Tons 5.6 5.6 0
Safety LPPC, SCCP,
TCEP, LPPF Number of Fatalities Number 0.2 0.2 0

LPPC, SCCP,
TCEP, LPPF Fatalities per 100 Million VMT Number 0.49 0.49 0

LPPC, SCCP,
TCEP, LPPF Number of Serious Injuries Number 12.43 17.74 -5.31

LPPC, SCCP,

TCEP, LPPF
Number of Serious Injuries per 100
Million VMT Number 30.31 43.28 -12.97
Economic
Development

LPPC, SCCP,
TCEP, LPPF Jobs Created (Only ‘Build’ Required) Number 352 0 352 Cost
Effectiveness
(only ‘Change’
required)

LPPC, SCCP,

TCEP, LPPF
Cost Benefit Ratio
Ratio 1.63 0 1.63
STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

PROJECT PROGRAMMING REQUEST (PPR)
PRG-0010 (REV 08/2020)
ePPR-5205-2024-0003 v0.1
PPR ID
08 District EA Project ID
1348
PPNO
San Bernardino County
County
10 Route
I-10/Riverside Ave Freight Improvement Project
Project Title
Existing Total Project Cost ($1,000s)
Component Prior 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 29-30+ Total Implementing Agency E&P (PA&ED) City of Rialto
PS&E City of Rialto
R/W SUP (CT) City of Rialto
CON SUP (CT) City of Rialto
R/W City of Rialto
CON City of Rialto
TOTAL
Proposed Total Project Cost ($1,000s) Notes

E&P (PA&ED)
PS&E 3,413 3,413
R/W SUP (CT) 1,669 1,669

CON SUP (CT)
R/W 3,359 3,359
CON 7,441 29,800 37,241
TOTAL 15,882 29,800 45,682
Fund #1: Local Funds - Local Transportation Funds (Committed) Program Code Existing Funding ($1,000s)
Component Prior 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 29-30+ Total

E&P (PA&ED)
PS&E

R/W SUP (CT)

CON SUP (CT)
R/W
CON
TOTAL
City of Rialto
Funding Agency
NotesProposed Funding ($1,000s)

E&P (PA&ED)
PS&E 909 909
R/W SUP (CT) 1,669 1,669

CON SUP (CT)
R/W
CON
TOTAL 2,578 2,578
STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

PROJECT PROGRAMMING REQUEST (PPR)
PRG-0010 (REV 08/2020)
ePPR-5205-2024-0003 v0.1
PPR ID
Fund #2: Federal Disc. - Housing & Urban Development (Committed) Program Code Existing Funding ($1,000s)
Component Prior 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 29-30+ Total

E&P (PA&ED)
PS&E

R/W SUP (CT)

CON SUP (CT)
R/W
CON
TOTAL
Funding Agency
NotesProposed Funding ($1,000s)

E&P (PA&ED)
PS&E

R/W SUP (CT)

CON SUP (CT)
R/W
CON 800 800
TOTAL 800 800
Fund #3: Local Funds - SBCTA Major Arterial Reimbursement (Committed) Program Code Existing Funding ($1,000s)
Component Prior 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 29-30+ Total

E&P (PA&ED)
PS&E

R/W SUP (CT)

CON SUP (CT)
R/W
CON
TOTAL
Funding Agency
Local Funds - San Bernardino
County Transportation (SBCTA)
Major Arterial Reimbursement
NotesProposed Funding ($1,000s)

E&P (PA&ED)
PS&E

R/W SUP (CT)

CON SUP (CT)
R/W
CON 6,641 6,641
TOTAL 6,641 6,641
STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

PROJECT PROGRAMMING REQUEST (PPR)
PRG-0010 (REV 08/2020)
ePPR-5205-2024-0003 v0.1
PPR ID
Fund #4: SB1 TCEP - Trade Corridors Enhancement Account (Uncommitted) Program Code Existing Funding ($1,000s)
Component Prior 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 29-30+ Total

E&P (PA&ED)
PS&E

R/W SUP (CT)

CON SUP (CT)
R/W
CON
TOTAL
Funding Agency
Regional Share
NotesProposed Funding ($1,000s)

E&P (PA&ED)
PS&E

R/W SUP (CT)

CON SUP (CT)
R/W
CON 17,900 17,900
TOTAL 17,900 17,900
Fund #5: SB1 TCEP - Trade Corridors Enhancement Account (Uncommitted) Program Code Existing Funding ($1,000s)
Component Prior 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 29-30+ Total

E&P (PA&ED)
PS&E

R/W SUP (CT)

CON SUP (CT)
R/W
CON
TOTAL
Funding Agency
State Share
NotesProposed Funding ($1,000s)

E&P (PA&ED)
PS&E

R/W SUP (CT)

CON SUP (CT)
R/W
CON 11,900 11,900
TOTAL 11,900 11,900
STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

PROJECT PROGRAMMING REQUEST (PPR)
PRG-0010 (REV 08/2020)
ePPR-5205-2024-0003 v0.1
PPR ID
Fund #6: Local Funds - County Funds (Committed) Program Code Existing Funding ($1,000s)
Component Prior 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 29-30+ Total

E&P (PA&ED)
PS&E

R/W SUP (CT)

CON SUP (CT)
R/W
CON
TOTAL
Funding Agency
San Bernardino County
Transportation (SBCTA) Public
Share per Nexus
NotesProposed Funding ($1,000s)

E&P (PA&ED)
PS&E 2,504 2,504

R/W SUP (CT)

CON SUP (CT)
R/W 3,359 3,359
CON
TOTAL 5,863 5,863

EXHIBIT B
Project Report

Riverside Avenue Overhead Bridge Widening and Replacement December 2016

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................1

2. RECOMMENDATION ......................................................................................3

3. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................3

4. PURPOSE AND NEED .......................................................................................4

5. ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................9

6. SYSTEM PLANNING & COORDINATION.................................................13

7. RIGHT OF WAY ..............................................................................................14

8. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION/DOCUMENTS .........................14

9. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AS APPROPRIATE .....................................15

10. FUNDING, PROGRAMMING AND ESTIMATE ........................................16

11. DELIVERY SCHEDULE ................................................................................17

12. RISKS.................................................................................................................17

13. EXTERNAL AGENCY COORDINATION...................................................18

14. PROJECT PERSONNEL ................................................................................18

15. ATTACHMENTS .............................................................................................18

Riverside Avenue Overhead Bridge Widening and Replacement December 2016
1 1. INTRODUCTION

Project Description:

The City of Rialto (City) proposes to widen or replace the Riverside Avenue Bridge (54C0062) over the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) to bring the existing bridge to current standards and improve traffic safety by allowing a better lane configuration with the newly constructed bridge. This project is being prepared under Federal Aid Project No. HPBRLS 5205 (016), City of Rialto Project No. 140813.

The project segment of Riverside Avenue is classified in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element as a “Modified Major Arterial II” with 120 feet (ft.) of right-of- way (ROW) for six travel lanes and a median. Riverside Avenue is a regionally significant roadway because it connects to Interstate 210 (I-210) and Interstate 10 (I- 10) in the City of Rialto. North of I-210, Riverside Avenue connects to La Sierra Avenue and provides access to Interstate I5 (I-15), South of I-10, Riverside Avenue becomes Main Street and provides access to State Route 60 (SR-60) and State Route 91 (SR-91) in the City of Riverside. The project area on Riverside Avenue extends from the Interstate 10 (I-10) eastbound ramps to Slover Avenue.

Figure 1, Project Limit

The existing Riverside Avenue Bridge over the UPRR has three through lanes in the northbound direction and two through lanes in the southbound direction. It has a posted speed of 50 MPH at the north and the south of the project limits. The bridge

Riverside Avenue Overhead Bridge Widening and Replacement December 2016
2 measures approximately 495 ft. long with a varying width of 85’-2” to 71’. It was initially built in 1957 as a single span bridge over the Southern Pacific Railroad’s mainline track. In 1971, the bridge was lengthened by five more spans to accommodate the expansion of the Colton Yard. The Colton Yard is owned by Union Pacific Railroad after the acquisition in 1988.

This bridge is separated from the Riverside Avenue I-10 Bridge by the I-10 eastbound ramps. The I-10 eastbound ramps, westbound ramps, their corresponding intersections with Riverside Avenue, and the Riverside Avenue Bridge over I-10 were widened in 2011 by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the City of Rialto as part of an interchange improvement project at 1-10/ Riverside Avenue. The widenned interchange currently narrows down to match the existing bridge over UPRR as it has a varying median.

Three alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, have been considered. The No Build Alternative would allow the Riverside Avenue Bridge over the UPRR tracks to remain as is today. Alternative 1 proposes to widen the existing bridge on both sides to allow a better lane configuration with the newly constructed interchange and provide structural enhancement. Alternative 2 proposes to replace the existing bridge with a new structure that meets current design standards in addition to improving the existing lane configuration.

Alternative 1 proposes to widen the current bridge on both sides allowing a lane configuration at the UPRR Bridge that matches the adjacent intersections. 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 shared through/right-turn lane. The added two lanes would extend the existing left-turn pockets from the Riverside Bridge over I-10 southerly onto the Riverside Avenue UPRR Bridge. This approach would provide a safer condition by eliminating short distance traffic weaving. In the southbound direction, the proposed bridge widening would maintain the two through lanes to Slover Avenue. The bridge widening would also include outside shoulders on each side of Riverside Avenue extending south from the railroad bridge to Slover Avenue. A sidewalk and a Class II bike lane would be provided on each side of Riverside Avenue within the project limits. The existing railroad bridge will also be retrofitted based on the findings of the structure integrity investigation.

Alternative 2 proposes a full replacement of the Riverside Avenue Bridge over UPRR. The new bridge would follow the same lane configuration described in Alternative 1. The profile grade would also be adjusted to improve the existing sub- standard 0.1% slope near the EB On/Off Ramps.

Both proposed build alternatives would require sliver acquisitions from four industrial parcels located between Cameron Way and Slover Avenue. This additional right of way would be needed to accommodate the widened roadway. A retaining wall would also be used at the toe of slope to minimize impacts to adjacent parcels. A paved Riverside Avenue Overhead Bridge Widening and Replacement December 2016
3 parking lot on Valley Boulevard, northeast of the project site has been identified as a construction staging area.

The initial estimated cost of this project is $23.64 million for Alt 1 and $40.5 Million for Alt 2. The estimated project cost includes design, construction, right of way, and support. The Project completed preliminary engineering and obtained environmental approval. The Project Design – Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) Phase II of the project will be completed upon approval of this report.

The project’s preliminary engineering and environmental documents was done by using SAFETEA-LU DEMO funds and National Highway Performance Program (NHPP).

2. RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that since the environmental document has been completed and approved that authorization be granted to proceed to the PS&E. The project anticipates having a cooperative coordination on High Cost Project Agreement between the City and Caltrans for the PS&E phase of this project.

3. BACKGROUND

It has been the City of Rialto’s long term desire to address traffic safety by improving the lane configuration at the intersections of the proposed project limits as well as to address the structural integrity of the bridge.

The proposed improvements in this report were initiated from a report done by Caltrans in 2011 stating that Riverside Avenue Bridge over Union Pacific Railroad is “Structurally Deficient”. Furthermore, there has been a City concern, based on previous studies, of the presence of Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR) in the bridge and the life span limitation that this might bring.

This segment of Riverside Avenue has very limited access from adjacent properties.

Cameron Way is the only collector road that intersects between Slover Avenue and the I-10 EB ramps. Access to Cameron Way is limited to a right-in and right-out.

There are also two driveways south of Cameron Way, one serves an auto body shop and the other serves a gas station. These driveways are also limited to right turn movements only.

In the year 2014, Riverside Avenue had an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) count of 29,601 vehicles traveling daily on the bridge, consisting of a northbound volume of 14,301 and a southbound volume of 15,300.

Vehicle classification counts revealed that during peak hours (AM and PM); passenger vehicles constitute 90% of vehicular traffic using this segment of the road Riverside Avenue Overhead Bridge Widening and Replacement December 2016
4 and bridge. The key exception is in the morning when northbound truck traffic is heavy and constitutes over 20% of the overall traffic flow. Over a 24‐hour long period, cars account for at least 60% of traffic flow, 2‐axle trucks account for approximately 22% of traffic flow, and 3‐axle and 4‐axle‐and‐up trucks account for the remainder traffic flow at approximately 15% ‐ 18%. As the number shows, truck traffic is heavy on Riverside Avenue.

The traffic study indicated that the existing intersections at I-10 on-off ramps and Slover Avenue have a LOS of “C/C” in the morning and a LOS of “C/D” in the evening, respectively. In 2040, with the projected increase of traffic in the area and with no improvements done, the LOS at the intersections will be raised to “E/F” in the AM and “F/F” in the PM. Even with the proposed improvements the LOS in the AM will be “D/E” and “E/F” in the PM.

4. PURPOSE AND NEED

Purpose:

The purpose of the project is to reconstruct the existing Riverside Avenue Bridge over the UPRR to match the Riverside Avenue Bridge over the I-10.

Need:

The existing Riverside Avenue Bridge over the UPRR experiences bottleneck congestion along the bridge segment. The existing left-turn pockets at the I-10 westbound entrance ramp are heavily used by large trucks queuing to access the I-10 freeway. The insufficient capacity of the existing left-turn pockets causes spillover traffic into the northbound through lanes on the bridge segment. Additionally, the existing lane configuration of the Riverside Avenue Bridge over the UPRR does not match the lane configuration of the newly widened Riverside Avenue Bridge over the I-10.

Problem, Deficiencies, Justification
The existing lane configuration is creating unsafe traffic conditions, widening the bridge and extending the left turn lanes will improve weaving conditions and reduce bottleneck and vehicular collisions.

The aging structure has been identified by Caltrans to be structurally deficient. There are also signs of ASR detected in the bridge piers, therefore; reducing its life span.

The existing structure lacks sufficient width to meet the newly rebuilt interchange over I-10. The existing bridge experiences bottleneck congestion along the bridge segment. The existing left-tum pockets at the I-10 westbound entrance ramp are heavily used by large trucks queuing to access the I-10 freeway aggravating congestion. The insufficient capacity of the existing left-tum pockets causes spillover traffic into the northbound through lanes on the bridge segment creating unsafe conditions.

Riverside Avenue Overhead Bridge Widening and Replacement December 2016
5 Widening and retrofitting the existing bridge will improve overall safety for both vehicular and truck traffic. Furthermore; replacing the bridge with an up-to-date standard and seismic design safety would extend its serviceability from an already limited life span.

Caltrans inspected the existing Riverside Avenue Bridge over the Union UPRR on November 3, 2011. Caltrans’ inspection determined the bridge to be "Structurally Deficient" with a sufficiency rating of 79.0. It is important to note that the term "Structurally Deficient" neither means that the structure itself is at imminent risk of collapse nor represents a risk to public health and safety.

The Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR) study that was previously conducted showed that all the samples tested detected the presence of ASR. The ASR gel was present in the hardened paste and coated reacted particles, but the majority of cracks in all samples were empty. There were no other signs in the sample to assess the significance of ASR damage to the bridge integrity.

Chloride Content Reaction - The threshold chloride content to indicate corrosion is between 1.0 lb. /yd3 and 1.5 lb. /yd3 (Mehta & Monteiro). Per laboratory testing, chloride content is between 0.24 lb. /yd3 and 0.78 lb. /yd3 in the various samples.

Based on these test results and field observations, there is little indication of chloride corrosion of the bridge rebar.

Compressive Strength Test – Compressive strength taken from both the 1971 and 1959 structures were tested. Concrete strength of 1971 structure samples varies between 4,450 to 5,400 psi. This is above the as-built minimum specified design strength of f ’c = 3,250 psi. Concrete strength of the 1959 sample is 6,890 psi, well above the as-built minimum specified design strength of f ’c = 1,200 psi.

Regional and System Planning
The proposed project is not included in the following systems:
• Interstate System
• National Highway System
• Freeway and Expressway System
• Scenic Highway System
• Interregional Road System
• Extralegal Load Network

The proposed project is located south of the I-10 freeway, separated from the Riverside Avenue I-10 Bridge and immediately south of the I-10 eastbound ramps.

Riverside Avenue serves two major City redevelopment project areas, Downtown (Central Business District) and Gateway, according to the City’s General Plan. The Gateway redevelopment (adopted in 1985) is the closest and will be impacted from the project site.

According to the City’s General Plan, the Gateway Project Area spans the area Riverside Avenue Overhead Bridge Widening and Replacement December 2016
6 around I-10. The focus of this project area is to reduce visual blight at the southern entrance to the City. Additional efforts include planning for efficient use of underutilized properties and relieving traffic congestion. This area is well suited for retail development opportunities given its freeway frontage and proximity and available land.

The circulation element from the General Plan classified this segment of Riverside Avenue as a Modified Major Arterial II. Modified Major Arterial II has three lanes of travel in each direction and medians. The extra travel lanes are meant to accommodate the heavy traffic flow on Riverside Avenue near the I-10 freeway intersection. Class II bike lanes were planned on the Riverside Avenue as part of the circulation element for City’s bike master plan. Public transits were not planned along this segment of Riverside Avenue according to the General Plan.

Traffic
The proposed project will improve traffic safety by widening the bridge to seven (7) lanes including shoulders and sidewalks on both sides to match the dimensions of the adjacent Caltrans bridge. The Project will improve traffic operations at the bridge and better handle higher volumes of truck traffic. The proposed project will maintain a LOS of “E” for the Slover Avenue intersections based on a 2% growth rate at the opening year 2020. It is recommended that the City program improvements at the intersection of Riverside Avenue at Slover Avenue after Year 2020 before the level of service reaches “F” and no longer meets the City’s minimum requirements.

The current and forecasted traffic conditions for the proposed project within the project area are summarized in this section.

Current Traffic
A traffic operations analysis report was completed for this project in 2015. The analysis covers the current year (2014), the opening year (2020) and future year (2040) and is consistent with the standard minimum 20-year design horizon.

Table 4.1 summarizes the existing LOS during the AM and the PM peak hours for the studied intersections. During the AM peak hour, the LOS at both the intersection of Riverside Avenue at Slover Avenue and the intersection of Riverside Avenue at I‐10 Eastbound ramps are “C”. During the PM peak hour, the LOS at the intersection of Riverside Avenue at Slover Avenue is “D” and at the intersection of Riverside Avenue at I‐10 Eastbound ramps is “C”.

Riverside Avenue Overhead Bridge Widening and Replacement December 2016
7 Table 4.1 Existing (2014) Level of Service
Intersection AM Peak PM Peak
LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C

1. Cedar Avenue / I-10 Westbound Ramps1 C 32.8 0.90 D 39.5 0.77

2. Cedar Avenue / I-10 Eastbound Ramps D 37.5 0.88 D 46.4 0.98

3. Cedar Ave / Slover Avenue D 43.8 0.71 D 44.7 0.73

4. Riverside Avenue / I-10 Westbound Ramps C 26.0 0.72 C 29.7 0.61

5. Riverside Avenue / I-10 Eastbound Ramps C 21.8 0.69 C 27.3 0.87

6. Riverside Avenue / Slover Avenue C 25.0 0.85 D 46.4 1.00 Sources: FPL and Associates, Inc. Traffic Study, June 1, 2015

1. Intersections 1-4 are nearby intersections outside of our project area for traffic level comparison.

The traffic growth rate in the study area was determined by the joint meeting between Caltrans District 8 and the City of Rialto at 2% annually for each future year.

Forecasted Traffic
Construction is planned to begin in FY 2018 and finish in FY 2020, the latter year being when the project is complete and open to the public for use. Based on the 2% growth rate, traffic volumes were forecasted for Opening Year 2020. The opening year (2020) Build Alternatives will result in the elimination of the existing critical bottlenecks and unsafe weaving conditions.

Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 summarize Opening Year 2020 LOS during the AM and the PM peak hours for the six studied intersections without and with the proposed project being implemented.

The LOS for the No Build scenario, shown in Table 4.2, at the intersection of Riverside Avenue at Slover Avenue is “C” during the AM peak hour and “E” during the PM peak hour. The LOS for the intersection of Riverside Avenue at I‐10 Eastbound ramps is “C” and “D” during AM and PM peak hours, respectively.

Table 4.2 Opening Year (2020) Level of Service - No Build Intersection AM Peak PM Peak
LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C

1. Cedar Avenue / I-10 Westbound Ramps1 D 46.2 1.04 D 44.1 0.87

2. Cedar Avenue / I-10 Eastbound Ramps D 46.6 0.99 E 66.8 1.11

3. Cedar Ave / Slover Avenue D 47.5 0.78 D 46.1 0.82

4. Riverside Avenue / I-10 Westbound Ramps C 29.6 0.85 C 31.9 0.69

5. Riverside Avenue / I-10 Eastbound Ramps C 24.4 0.78 D 35.4 0.99

6. Riverside Avenue / Slover Avenue C 30.9 0.96 E 71.7 1.12 Sources: FPL and Associates, Inc. Traffic Study, June 1, 2015

1. Intersections 1-4 are nearby intersections outside of our project area for traffic level comparison.

Riverside Avenue Overhead Bridge Widening and Replacement December 2016
8 The LOS for the Build scenario, shown in Table 4.3, at the intersection of Riverside Avenue at Slover Avenue is “C” during the AM peak hour and “E” during the PM peak hour. The LOS for the intersection of Riverside Avenue at I‐10 Eastbound ramps is “C” for both AM and PM peak hours.

It should be noted that traffic turning from Riverside Avenue to the I‐10 Eastbound on‐ramp is significant. In the morning, there are 1,074 PCEs turning to the on‐ramp (510 right turns and 564 left turns). In the evening, there are 1,251 PCEs turning to the on‐ramp (739 right turns and 512 left turns).

Table 4.3 Opening Year (2020) Level of Service - Build Intersection AM Peak PM Peak
LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C

1. Cedar Avenue / I-10 Westbound Ramps1 D 46.2 1.04 D 44.1 0.87

2. Cedar Avenue / I-10 Eastbound Ramps D 46.6 0.99 E 66.6 1.11

3. Cedar Ave / Slover Avenue D 45.8 0.78 D 42.7 0.82

4. Riverside Avenue / I-10 Westbound Ramps C 30.0 0.85 C 29.0 0.69

5. Riverside Avenue / I-10 Eastbound Ramps C 22.2 0.69 C 29.8 0.79

6. Riverside Avenue / Slover Avenue C 25.9 0.85 E 69.8 1.11 Sources: FPL and Associates, Inc. Traffic Study, June 1, 2015

1. Intersections 1-4 are nearby intersections outside of our project area for traffic level comparison.

Under the future year or horizon year (2040) Tables 4.4 and Table 4.5 summarize LOS during the AM and the PM peak hours for the six study intersections without and with the proposed project being implemented.

The LOS for the No Build scenario, as shown in Table 4.4, at the intersection of Riverside Avenue at Slover Avenue is “F” during the AM peak hour and “F” during the PM peak hour. The LOS for the intersection of Riverside Avenue at I‐10 Eastbound ramps is “E” and “F” during AM and PM peak hours, respectively.

Table 4.4 Horizon Year (2040) Level of Service – No Build Intersection AM Peak PM Peak
LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C

1. Cedar Avenue / I-10 Westbound Ramps1 F 148.1 1.59 F 118.4 1.25

2. Cedar Avenue / I-10 Eastbound Ramps F 128.4 1.40 F 180.8 1.56

3. Cedar Ave / Slover Avenue F 105.8 1.07 F 98.6 1.17

4. Riverside Avenue / I-10 Westbound Ramps F 95.5 1.34 D 41.3 0.98

5. Riverside Avenue / I-10 Eastbound Ramps E 66.6 1.11 F 162.6 1.39

6. Riverside Avenue / Slover Avenue F 131.6 1.35 F 233.5 1.59 Sources: FPL and Associates, Inc. Traffic Study, June 1, 2015

1. Intersections 1-4 are nearby intersections outside of our project area for traffic level comparison.

The LOS for the Build scenario, as shown in Table 4.5, at the intersection of Riverside Avenue Overhead Bridge Widening and Replacement December 2016
9 Riverside Avenue at Slover Avenue is “E” during the AM peak hour and “F” during the PM peak hour. The LOS for the intersection of Riverside Avenue at I‐10 Eastbound ramps is “D” and “E” during AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The proposed project will improve the LOS for the intersection of Riverside Avenue at I‐ 10 Eastbound ramps during the PM peak hour from “F” to “E.”

With the LOS for the intersection of Slover Avenue at Riverside Avenue still being “F,” the City should plan for additional improvements to at least meet the minimum LOS requirement of “E.”
Table 4.5 Horizon Year (2040) Level of Service - Build Intersection AM Peak PM Peak
LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C

1. Cedar Avenue / I-10 Westbound Ramps1 F 148.1 1.59 F 118.3 1.25

2. Cedar Avenue / I-10 Eastbound Ramps F 128.3 1.40 F 180.8 1.56

3. Cedar Ave / Slover Avenue F 105.6 1.07 F 97.8 1.17

4. Riverside Avenue / I-10 Westbound Ramps F 95.7 1.34 D 39.7 0.98

5. Riverside Avenue / I-10 Eastbound Ramps D 38.2 0.92 E 71.4 1.11

6. Riverside Avenue / Slover Avenue E 72.0 1.19 F 195.7 1.57 Sources: FPL and Associates, Inc. Traffic Study, June 1, 2015

1. Intersections 1-4 are nearby intersections outside of our project area for traffic level comparison.

Collision Analysis
Data for traffic accidents along Riverside Avenue between Valley Boulevard and Slover Avenue for a 3‐year period between May 1, 2011 and May 1, 2014 were obtained from the City. The traffic accident data were categorized by “locations” and are summarized in Attachment G, Accident Occurrences on Riverside Ave.

The figure is comprised of eight “tables” for each of the locations identified in the traffic accident report provided by the City. The tables list the number of occurrences for each type of accident in a particular location. The highest number of accidents, totaling 107, took place outside of the project area along Riverside Avenue between the I‐10 Westbound on‐ and off‐ramps and Valley Boulevard. Meanwhile, there were 63 total accidents at the intersection of Riverside Avenue at the I‐10 Eastbound on‐ and off‐ramps, as well as 64 total accidents at the intersection of Riverside Avenue at Slover Avenue. The majority of traffic accidents were non‐injury accidents.

5. ALTERNATIVES

This Project Report Equivalent is being prepared for the proposed project in support of the approved Environmental Document. Two Build alternatives are being analyzed for this project: Alternative 1 - Bridge Widening and Alternative 2 – Bridge Replacement. The two build alternatives have the same layout configuration and are referred in this document as the (proposed project).

Riverside Avenue Overhead Bridge Widening and Replacement December 2016
10 No Build Alternative
The No Build alternative would not construct any bridge improvements and would not provide any traffic safety improvements at the Riverside Avenue Bridge over the UPRR. The No Build alternative would not address future traffic demands and would allow the Riverside Avenue Bridge over the UPRR tracks to remain as is today.

Build Alternatives
The proposed project would widen or replace the current five-lane bridge over the UPRR to a seven-lane bridge in order to match the configuration 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 would 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 shared 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 Slover Avenue. Sidewalks and a Class II bike lane would be provided on each side of Riverside Avenue, within the project limits.

In either alternative, it would require sliver acquisitions from four industrial parcels in order to accommodate the widened of the roadway between Cameron Way and Slover Avenue. Retaining wall will also be used at the toe of slope minimize impact to adjacent parcels.

The conceptual design for the proposed project is shown on Attachment A, B, and C, Typical Section, Plan and Profile.

The estimated cost of this project is $23.6 million for Alternative 1 and $40.5 million for Alternative 2. The estimated project cost includes design, construction, right of way, and permitting.

5A. Alternative 1 – Bridge Widening

Typical Section
This alternative widens the existing bridge on the outside with a constant width of 23’ for the northbound and a range of 18’ to 23’ for the southbound. The new bridge width will include a new sidewalk and bike lane for the southbound and a new bike lane for the northbound. The roadway width is then reduced from 105’to 88’ at Slover Ave intersection. The Right-of-Way width for this segment of Riverside Avenue varies from 267’ to 100’. The roadway cross slope and fill slope will match the existing at 1.5% and 1:1.5 respectively. Any toe of the slope that extends beyond the existing right-of-way will be avoided by using a retaining wall with a 10’ minimum setback from the right-of-way line to allow for easier maintenance.

Riverside Avenue Overhead Bridge Widening and Replacement December 2016
11 The roadway section south of Cameron Way will be at a maximum width of 100’ from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk. This width is the same as the existing right-of-way and thus slivers of parcels will be needed for temporary and permanent easements. Driveways and landscaping along the east side of Riverside Avenue will be impacted and will be reconstructed. The right-of-way over the UPRR tracks will be sufficient to accommodate for the bridge widening and no additional parcels will be needed with the exception of UPRR clearance.

At the Rialto Channel, the widened fill slope will be either further retained with a wall or by lengthening the existing box culvert. The improvements at the channel will require a further hydraulic study to determine the appropriate type of improvement.

Horizontal Alignment
No horizontal change from existing alignment.

Vertical Alignment
No vertical change from existing alignment.

Walls
Any toe of slope exceeding the existing right-of-way will be avoided by using a retaining wall with a 10’ minimum setback from the existing right-of-way line to allow for easy maintenance.

Structures
The proposed bridge alternative consists of a six-span structure which is a combination of cast-in-place posttensioned concrete box girder and precast concrete girder similar to the existing bridge. Spans 1 through 5 are cast-in-place concrete box girder and span 6 consists of Caltrans precast concrete I-Girder in order to match the existing type construction with depth of 4’-6” and 4’-4”, respectively. The construction of the widened bridges will meet all minimum clearance set by the railroad.

The proposed abutment 1 will be similarly constructed as the existing being supported by 24” steel piles. A new abutment 7 for the widening segments will be constructed on 24” CIDH piles in the same location of the existing abutment wing wall to avoid any interference to the existing abutment and MSE walls. This approach will provide an even alignment for the existing and new abutments. Intermediate piers supporting the bridge superstructure is assumed to be supported by single 6-foot diameter columns resting on 24”-diameter steel pipe pile foundations.

Right-of-Way
The project would require sliver acquisitions from four industrial parcels in order to accommodate the widened bridge and transition to the roadway between the bridge and Slover Avenue. These four parcels (013231201, 013231202, 013231209, and 025424113) are located immediately north of Slover Avenue and are shown on Riverside Avenue Overhead Bridge Widening and Replacement December 2016
12 Attachment E. A paved parking lot on Valley Boulevard, northeast of the project site has been identified as a construction staging area.

Traffic Handling
Traffic will remain open on Riverside Avenue with reduced lane width to accommodate the construction. Impacts to roadway traffic will be minor. Rail traffic would require coordination with UPRR for staging and determination of track closure windows.

5B. Alternative 2 – Bridge Replacement

Typical Section
This alternative replaces the existing bridge with a new structure to improve structural deficiencies. The new bridge width will include a new sidewalk and a bike lane on the southbound direction and a new bike lane on the northbound direction. The roadway width is then reduced from 99’to 88’ at Slover Ave intersection. The right-of-way width for this segment of Riverside Avenue varies from 267’ to 100’. The roadway cross slope and fill slope will match existing at 1.5% and 1:1.5 respectively. Any toe of the slope that extends beyond the existing right-of-way will be avoided using a retaining wall with a 10’ minimum setback from the existing right-of-way line to allow for easier maintenance.

The roadway section south of Cameron Way will have a maximum width of 100’ from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk. This width is the same as the existing right-of-way and thus slivers of parcels will be acquired for temporary and permanent easement. Driveways and landscaping along the east side of Riverside Avenue will be impacted and will be reconstructed. The right-of-way over the UPRR tracks will be sufficient for the bridge widening and no additional parcels are needed with the exception of UPRR clearance.

At the Rialto Channel, widened fill slope will be either further retained with a wall or by lengthening the existing box culvert. The channel will require further hydraulic studies to assess the type of improvement that will be required.

Horizontal Alignment
No horizontal change from existing alignment will be necessary.

Vertical Alignment
The vertical alignment will change slightly over the bridge to improve the slope from the existing 0.1% to 0.5%. The vertical sight distance will maintain a minimum of 40 MPH as posted on Riverside Avenue.

Walls
Any toe of the slope extending beyond the existing right-of-way will be retained by using retaining wall with a 10’ minimum setback from the existing right-of-way line to allow for easier maintenance.

Riverside Avenue Overhead Bridge Widening and Replacement December 2016
13 Structures
The bridge structure for this alternative will be replaced with a new structure that is

36.5’ shorter than the previous and with only 5 spans instead of 6. The superstructure will be constructed with precast prestressed concrete girders. This type of construction does not require falsework hence minimizing interruption to the railroad traffic; it would also shorten the construction time which is ideal where a bridge structure over crosses railroad tracks. The depth of the superstructure is anticipated to be 5’-11”.

New abutment 1 will be supported by three rows of steel piles whereas abutment 6 will be constructed on 4-foot diameter drilled shaft due to limitation on the existing abutment wall. Each interior support will consist of three 7-foot diameter columns that are founded on sixteen 24-inch diameter steel pipe piles. The construction of the widened bridges will meet all minimum clearance set by the railroad. However this construction of Abutment 6 in front of the existing abutment wall will reduce the existing minimum horizontal clearance of 25 feet to the centerline of the nearby track, therefore a crash wall is proposed to be constructed in front of the drilled shafts to provide a minimum horizontal clearance of 15 feet to the centerline of the track.

Right-of-Way
The project would require sliver acquisitions from four industrial parcels in order to accommodate the widened bridge and transition to the roadway between the bridge and Slover Avenue. These four parcels (013231201, 013231202, 013231209, and 025424113) are located between Slover Avenue and Cameron Way and are shown on Attachment E. A paved parking lot on Valley Boulevard, northeast of the project site has been identified as a construction staging area.

Traffic Handling
This proposed alternative would allow for traffic along Riverside Avenue to remain open during construction by reducing lane widths and employing a two stage bridge construction replacement method. If the City opts for a full closure method to reduce construction duration a single stage bridge construction method could be used, under this approach traffic would be rerouted through either Cedar Avenue, Pepper Avenue, or Rancho Avenue via Aqua Mansa Road. These options would be determined carefully as to minimize impacts to local traffic and business. Rail traffic would require coordination with UPRR to establish construction windows for track closures.

5C. Rejected Alternatives
Our study did not identify any rejected alternatives.

6. SYSTEM PLANNING & COORDINATION
The proposed project is not included in the following systems:
• Interstate System
Riverside Avenue Overhead Bridge Widening and Replacement December 2016
14 • National Highway System
• Freeway and Expressway System
• Scenic Highway System
• Interregional Road System
• Extralegal Load Network

The proposed project is located south of the I-10 freeway, separated from the Riverside Avenue I-10 Bridge and immediately south of the I-10 eastbound ramps.

Riverside Avenue serves two major city redevelopment project areas, Downtown (Central Business District) and Gateway, according city’s General Plan. The Gateway redevelopment is the closest and will be impacted from the project site.

7. RIGHT OF WAY

The project would require sliver acquisitions, as discussed in previous sections, from four industrial parcels in order to accommodate the widening of the roadway between Cameron Way and Slover Avenue.

The project will also require construction and permanent easements from UPRR.

See Attachment F.

8. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION/DOCUMENTS

Section 21080.13 of the Public Resources Code lists the statutory exemption from the requirements of CEQA for railroad grade separations as follows: "This division shall not apply to any railroad grade separation project which eliminates an existing grade crossing or which reconstructs an existing grade separation” The Riverside Avenue bridge widening meets this definition. The project’s Notice of Exemption is shown on Attachment H.

The project NEPA determination to receive federal funds was approved on April 25, 2016. The project’s Categorical Exemption/Categorical Exclusion Determination Form is shown on Attachment H.

The State has determined that this project has no significant impacts on the environment as defined by NEPA, and that there are no unusual circumstances as described in 23 CFA 771.117(b). As such, the project is categorically excluded from the requirements to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act. The State has been assigned, and hereby certifies that it has carried out the responsibility to make this determination pursuant to Chapter 3 of Title 23, United States Code, Section 326 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated June 07, 2013, executed between the FHWA and the State. The State has determined that the project is a Categorical Exclusion under: 23 CFA 771,117(c): activity (c) (27).

Riverside Avenue Overhead Bridge Widening and Replacement December 2016
15 Environmental document is available upon request.

9. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AS APPROPRIATE

Transportation Management Plan
Prior to the start of construction activities, the Project Engineer will ensure that a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) is developed during final design. The Project Engineer will require the construction contractor to implement the TMP during project construction to address short-term traffic circulation and access impacts during project construction. Specifically, during final design, a qualified traffic engineer will prepare the TMP, which will include, but not be limited to, the elements described below to reduce traveler delays and enhance traveler safety during project construction. The TMP will be approved by the City of Rialto Public Works Director, or designee, during final design and be incorporated into the plans, specifications, and estimates. The TMP for the proposed project will include the following elements and strategies:

• During construction, the contractor will be required to coordinate all road closures and detour plans with applicable fire, emergency, medical, and law enforcement providers, to minimize temporary delays in provider response times. • The TMP will include construction staging, detours, and road closures, as applicable.
• Traffic control plans and related specifications, to be completed during final design of the proposed project, will be developed in accordance with applicable city requirements. These plans and specifications will include elements such as:
advance roadside signs and portable changeable message signs; traffic surveillance; lane/shoulder closures; and temporary signing/striping on local streets and Interstate 10 (I-10).
• The proposed project will implement a public outreach program to keep the surrounding community abreast of the project’s progress and construction activities.
• Construction will be coordinated with nearby projects. Coordination is important to address possible temporary increases in traffic due to detours from nearby projects.
• The proposed project will include provisions for maintaining pedestrian and bicycle access at all times during construction.
• The proposed project will include contingency plans that specify the actions that will be taken in the event that something unexpected occurs with respect to construction activities or traffic operations. The contractor will review these plans and incorporate them into the contractor’s contingency plan.

Riverside Avenue Overhead Bridge Widening and Replacement December 2016
16 Utilities

Riverside Avenue within this segment has very limited utilities located within its right-of-way. There is a Fiber Optics line owned by Verizon that parallels at the base of the I-10 eastbound MSE wall and adjacent to the Riverside Avenue bridge abutment #2. There is an existing underground AT&T telephone line, on the west side of the bridge that is within the roadway Right-of-Way but far enough from abutment and pier construction. At the intersection of the Riverside Avenue and Slover Avenue, overhead power line crosses Riverside Avenue and extends north for a short distance to provide power to adjacent parcels. There is also a CMP pipe that crosses Riverside Avenue on north side of Slover Avenue and drains into the Rialto Channel. Service providers in the study area are shown in Table 9.1.

Type of utilities identified within or near the project area.

 ATT Buried Cable
 Sewer Lines
 Water Lines
 Gas Lines
 Electrical OH
 Electrical UG
 HP Steel Petroleum Pipeline
 Storm Drains

Table 9.1 Utility Service Providers in the City of Rialto Utility Category Utility Provider
Water City of Rialto and West Valley Water District
Sewer City of Rialto
Gas Southern California Gas Company
Electricity Southern California Edison
Cable Television Time Warner and AT&T Uverse
Telecommunication Verizon and AT&T
Sources: City of Rialto. Website: http://www.rialtoca.gov.

10. FUNDING, PROGRAMMING AND ESTIMATE

Funding
It has been determined that this project is eligible for Federal-aid funding.

Programming
The project was programmed with funds primarily from Federal transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). SCAG and Caltrans are responsible for developing plans and manage the funding so it can be evenly distributed to various agencies.

Riverside Avenue Overhead Bridge Widening and Replacement December 2016
17 Riverside Avenue Overhead is listed in the 2017 FTIP which covers fiscal year (FY) 2016/17 - 2021/22. The project is anticipated to go to construction in FY 2018 and be completed by FY 2020.

Fund Source Fiscal Year Estimate
HBRRP Prior 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 Future Total Component In thousands of dollars ($1,000)
PE Support 75 2,950 3,025
Right-of-Way
Support 50
Construction
Support
Right-of-Way
Construction 5,506 11,012 20,986 37,500
Total 75 16,518 40,575

11. DELIVERY SCHEDULE

Project Milestones
Scheduled Delivery
Date
(Month Year)
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT APPROVAL April 2016
PROJECT REPORT EQUIVALENT December 2016
PS&E 2017
RIGHT OF WAY 2018
READY TO ADVERTISE 2018/2019
AWARD 2018/2019

12. RISKS

 Determinations of right-of-way needs, specifically UPRR requirements, are yet to be determined.
 Stage of construction for widening or replacement of bridge for vehicular and rail traffic.
 Possible construction and demolition or bridge replacement challenge due to limited construction area and active rail traffic.

Riverside Avenue Overhead Bridge Widening and Replacement December 2016
18 13. EXTERNAL AGENCY COORDINATION

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

The project requires the following coordination:

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Fish and Game Code Section1602
Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement

Regional Water Quality Control Board
Clean Water Act Section 401
Water Quality Certification

Local Agency
Agreements with

Railroads
UPRR

14. PROJECT PERSONNEL

Hector Gonzalez, PE Project Manager (909) 421-4986

Robert Eisenbeisz, Public Works Director/City Engineer (909) 820-2525

Keyvan Pirbazari, P.E. Project Manager Jacobs (714) 835-6355

Daryoush Haghighi, PE, SE Structural Engineer Jacobs (714) 835-6355

Walt Quesada, P.E. Project Engineer Jacobs (909) 974-2738

Richard Yu, P.E. Project Engineer Jacobs (909) 974-2738

David Garcia, Project Engineer Jacobs (909) 974-2738

15. ATTACHMENTS

A. Alternative 1 –Plan & Profile
B. Alternative 2 –Plan & Profile
C. Alternatives 1 & 2 Typical Section
D. Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate
E. Utility Layout
Riverside Avenue Overhead Bridge Widening and Replacement December 2016
19 F. R/W Layout Plan
G. Accident Occurrences on Riverside Avenue
H. Environmental Clearance - Approved CEQA and NEPA forms I. Advance Planning Study – Alternatives 1 and 2

Riverside Avenue Overhead Bridge Widening and Replacement December 2016
20 Attachment A
Alternative 1 – Layout and Profile

Riverside Avenue Overhead Bridge Widening and Replacement December 2016
21 Attachment B
Alternative 2 – Layout and Profile

Riverside Avenue Overhead Bridge Widening and Replacement December 2016
22 Attachment C
Typical Sections

Riverside Avenue Overhead Bridge Widening and Replacement December 2016
23 Attachment D
Preliminary Construction Cost
Estimate

Riverside Ave/UPRR Overhead Bridge
Preliminary Project Cost Estimate
ALTERNATIVE 1 - Bridge Widening

ROADWAY
Earthwork Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
Roadway Excavation CY $28 359 $10,052
Imported Borrow CY $37 16,065 $594,405
Clearing and Grubbing AC $10,650 2 $21,300
Subtotal Earthwork $625,757
Pavement Structural Section Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement CY $260 154 $40,040
Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) TON $88 5,868 $516,384
Class 2 Aggregate Base CY $50 1,624 $81,200
Subtotal Pavement Structural Section $637,624
Drainage Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
Storm Drains LS $35,000 1 $35,000
Cap Inlet (New Inlet) EA $2,200 2 $4,400
Minor Concrete (Catch Basin) EA $15,000 2 $30,000
Water Quality Treatment LS $100,000 1 $100,000
Water Pollution Control LS $100,000 1 $100,000
Subtotal Drainage $269,400
Specialty Items Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
Retaining Wall SF $70 7,500 $525,000
Structure Excavation (Retaining Wall) CY $78 1,700 $132,600 Roadside Sign - Two Post EA $510 1 $510
Minor Concrete (Curb & Gutter) CY $680 99 $67,320
Minor Concrete (Sidewalk) CY $660 168 $110,880
Minor Concrete (Curb Ramp) CY $800 47 $37,600
Subtotal Specialty Items $873,910
Traffic Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
Permanent Signing & Striping LS $35,000 1 $35,000
Transportation Management Plan LS $10,000 1 $10,000
Traffic Control Signal and Lighting System LS $200,000 2 $400,000 Street Lighting EA $10,000 19 $190,000
Subtotal Traffic $635,000
Removal Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
Remove Inlet EA $1,600 2 $3,200
Remove Manhole/Inlet EA $2,000 2 $4,000
Remove Roadside Sign (Wood Post) EA $220 1 $220
Remove Concrete Sidewalk (SQYD) CY $24 740 $17,760
Remove Concrete (Curb & Gutter) LF $9 2,505 $22,545
Remove Guard Rail LF $13 320 $4,160
Subtotal Removal $51,885
Other Items Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
Minor Items LS $329,000 1 $329,000
Mobilization LS $410,000 1 $410,000
Supplemental Work LS $200,000 1 $200,000
State Furnished Materials and Expenses LS $239,000 1 $239,000 Time-Related Overhead WD $467,000 1 $467,000
Roadway Contingency 25% $4,271,576 1 $4,271,576
Subtotal Other Items $5,916,576
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $9,010,152

STRUCTURE
Bride Structure Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
Widening LS $6,227,000 1 $6,227,000
TOTAL STRUCTURES $6,227,000

RAILROAD
Railroad Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
Railroad Track Work LS $1,500,000 1 $1,500,000
Railroad Design Approvals LS $30,000 1 $30,000
UPRR Design Approvals LS $30,000 1 $30,000
C&M Agreement with UPRR LS $30,000 1 $30,000
TOTAL RAILROAD $1,590,000
$16,827,152

RIGHT OF WAY
Right of Way Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
Partial Parcel Acquisition LS $1,000,000 1 $1,000,000
Temporary Construction Easements LS $150,000 1 $150,000 Title / Escrow / Legal fees LS $250,000 1 $250,000
Environmental Mitigation LS $25,000 1 $25,000
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY $1,425,000

UTILITY RELOCATION
Utility Relocation Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
Power Distribution Line Relocation LS $2,000,000 1 $2,000,000 TOTAL UTILITY RELOCATION $2,000,000
$20,252,152
SUPPORT SERVICE FEES Cost
Design (9%) $1,682,715
Construction Management (8%) $1,346,172
Environmental Mitigation $350,000
TOTAL ENGINEERING SERVICE FEES $3,378,887
$23,600,000

CAPITAL COST SUBTOTAL

TOTAL COST

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
Riverside Ave/UPRR Overhead Bridge
Preliminary Project Cost Estimate
ALTERNATIVE 2 - Bridge Replacement

ROADWAY
Earthwork Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
Roadway Excavation CY $28 340 $9,520
Imported Borrow CY $37 16,120 $596,440
Clearing and Grubbing AC $10,650 2 $21,300
Subtotal Earthwork $627,260
Pavement Structural Section Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement CY $260 154 $40,040
Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) TON $88 5,868 $516,384
Class 2 Aggregate Base CY $50 1,624 $81,200
Subtotal Pavement Structural Section $637,624
Drainage Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
Storm Drains LS $35,000 1 $35,000
Cap Inlet (New Inlet) EA $2,200 2 $4,400
Minor Concrete (Catch Basin) EA $15,000 2 $30,000
Water Quality Treatment LS $100,000 1 $100,000
Water Pollution Control LS $100,000 1 $100,000
Subtotal Drainage $269,400
Specialty Items Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
Retaining Wall SF $70 6,150 $430,500
Structure Excavation (Retaining Wall) CY $78 1,650 $128,700 Roadside Sign - Two Post EA $510 1 $510
Minor Concrete (Curb & Gutter) CY $680 99 $67,320
Minor Concrete (Sidewalk) CY $660 168 $110,880
Minor Concrete (Curb Ramp) CY $800 47 $37,600
Subtotal Specialty Items $775,510
Traffic Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
Permanent Signing & Striping LS $35,000 1 $35,000
Transportation Management Plan LS $10,000 1 $10,000
Traffic Control Signal and Lighting System LS $200,000 2 $400,000 Street Lighting EA $10,000 19 $190,000
Subtotal Traffic $635,000
Removal Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
Remove Inlet EA $1,600 2 $3,200
Remove Manhole/Inlet EA $2,000 2 $4,000
Remove Roadside Sign (Wood Post) EA $220 1 $220
Remove Concrete Sidewalk (SQYD) CY $24 740 $17,760
Remove Concrete (Curb & Gutter) LF $9 2,505 $22,545
Remove Guard Rail LF $13 320 $4,160
Subtotal Removal $51,885
Other Items Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
Minor Items LS $329,000 1 $329,000
Mobilization LS $410,000 1 $410,000
Supplemental Work LS $200,000 1 $200,000
State Furnished Materials and Expenses LS $239,000 1 $239,000 Time-Related Overhead WD $467,000 1 $467,000
Roadway Contingency 25% $4,174,679 1 $4,174,679
Subtotal Other Items $5,819,679
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $8,816,358

STRUCTURE
Bride Structure Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
Replacement LS $20,189,000 1 $20,189,000
TOTAL STRUCTURES $20,189,000

RAILROAD
Railroad Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
Railroad Track Work LS $2,000,000 1 $2,000,000
Railroad Design Approvals LS $30,000 1 $30,000
UPRR Design Approvals LS $30,000 1 $30,000
C&M Agreement with UPRR LS $30,000 1 $30,000
TOTAL RAILROAD $2,090,000
$31,095,358

UTILITY RELOCATION
Utility Relocation Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost
Power Distribution Line Relocation LS $2,000,000 1 $2,000,000 TOTAL UTILITY RELOCATION $2,000,000
$34,545,358
SUPPORT SERVICE FEES Cost
Design (10%) $3,109,536
Construction Management (8%) $2,487,629
Environmental Mitigation $350,000
TOTAL ENGINEERING SERVICE FEES $5,947,164
$40,500,000

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION

CAPITAL COST SUBTOTAL

TOTAL COST
Riverside Avenue Overhead Bridge Widening and Replacement December 2016
24 Attachment E
Utility Layout

Riverside Avenue Overhead Bridge Widening and Replacement December 2016
25 Attachment F
Right of Way Layout Plan

SOURCE: Bing (2013); JL Patterson (05/23/2014)
I:\JLP1401\GIS\APE.mxd (3/1/2016)
MAP 3
0 50 100
FEET
LEGEND
Existing Right of Way
Caltrans Existing Right of Way
Proposed Right of Way
Area of Potential Effects (APE)
Bridge Widening
Bridge Footing
Sidewalks
Striping
Parcels
Proposed Retaining Wall
Staging Area
Valley
Blvd
Slover
Ave
§¨¦10
Sheet 1 of 4
HPBRLS 5205 (016)
Riverside Avenue Over UPRR Bridge Widening Project
Area of Potential Effects
SOURCE: Bing (2013); JL Patterson (05/23/2014)
I:\JLP1401\GIS\APE.mxd (3/1/2016)
MAP 3
0 50 100
FEET
LEGEND
Existing Right of Way
Caltrans Existing Right of Way
Proposed Right of Way
Area of Potential Effects (APE)
Bridge Widening
Bridge Footing
Sidewalks
Striping
Parcels
Proposed Retaining Wall
Staging Area
Valley
Blvd
Slover
Ave
§¨¦10
Sheet 2 of 4
HPBRLS 5205 (016)
Riverside Avenue Over UPRR Bridge Widening Project
Area of Potential Effects
SOURCE: Bing (2013); JL Patterson (05/23/2014)
I:\JLP1401\GIS\APE.mxd (3/1/2016)
MAP 3
0 50 100
FEET
LEGEND
Existing Right of Way
Caltrans Existing Right of Way
Proposed Right of Way
Area of Potential Effects (APE)
Bridge Widening
Bridge Footing
Sidewalks
Striping
Parcels
Proposed Retaining Wall
Staging Area
Valley
Blvd
Slover
Ave
§¨¦10
Sheet 3 of 4
HPBRLS 5205 (016)
Riverside Avenue Over UPRR Bridge Widening Project
Area of Potential Effects
SOURCE: Bing (2013); JL Patterson (05/23/2014)
I:\JLP1401\GIS\APE.mxd (3/1/2016)
MAP 3
0 50 100
FEET
LEGEND
Existing Right of Way
Caltrans Existing Right of Way
Proposed Right of Way
Area of Potential Effects (APE)
Bridge Widening
Bridge Footing
Sidewalks
Striping
Parcels
Proposed Retaining Wall
Staging Area
Valley
Blvd
Slover
Ave
§¨¦10
Sheet 4 of 4
HPBRLS 5205 (016)
Riverside Avenue Over UPRR Bridge Widening Project
Area of Potential Effects
Riverside Avenue Overhead Bridge Widening and Replacement December 2016
26 Attachment G
Accident Occurrences on Riverside
Avenue

Riverside Avenue Overhead Widening Project

FPL and Associates, Inc. 36

Figure 10: Accident Occurrences on Riverside Avenue

Figure 10: Accident Occurrences on Riverside Avenue
Riverside Avenue Overhead Bridge Widening and Replacement December 2016
27 Attachment H
Environmental Clearance -
Approved CEQA and NEPA forms

Riverside Avenue Overhead Bridge Widening and Replacement December 2016
28 Attachment I
Advance Planning Study –
Alternatives 1 and 2

Advance Planning Study
For
Riverside Avenue/UPRR Overhead Bridge Widen or
Replace

December 16, 2016

Section 1 – Advance Planning Study Report

Existing Bridge Structure
The existing Riverside Avenue Overhead (BR No. 54C‐62) is located in the City of Rialto, San Bernardino County. It was originally constructed in 1957 as an 82‐foot long single span bridge overcrossing the Union Pacific Rail Road (UPRR) main tracks with precast prestressed concrete girder superstructure supported on seat type abutments. Later in 1971 it was modified by addition of 5 more continuous reinforced concrete box girder spans with total length of approximately 414 feet in order to accommodate crossing over the entire UPRR rail yard. All foundations are supported on steel piles except the northerly Abutment 7 which is supported on spread footing type foundation.

Existing Bridge Condition
The last inspection of the bridge was performed in 2011. The inspection report indicated that the existing piers 2, 3, 4 & 5 columns have hair cracks with possible presence of alkali‐silica reactivity (ASR) gel. In addition other components of the bridge such as deck slab appear to have inadequate concrete cover by several exposed transverse rebars. A field investigation and coring program was conducted in 2014 to determine the extent of the deterioration due to ASR gel and the compressive strength of the columns. The conclusion from this investigation was that the ASR was well contained within concrete and its presence did not have a noticeable effect in reducing the concrete compressive strength and did not appear to be the source of deterioration. Upon examination of the concrete core samples, the hairline cracks on the columns were observed only at the surface and did not propagate deep into the concrete cores.

The core sampling from the footings was not performed at the time due to lack of permit to take core sample in the UPRR rail yard facilities. However the core sampling of the footings will be performed prior to bridge type selection. It should be noted that there is no record of seismic retrofitting of the existing bridge.

Proposed Structures
The proposed project considers a wider bridge than the existing for addition of two more lanes to the current five‐lane traffic for a total of seven traffic lanes in order to match the configuration of the nearby existing Riverside Avenue Bridge over I‐10 to mitigate the operation deficiencies without increasing capacity.

Structures Alternatives
There are two alternatives to consider for this project:

1. Widening of the existing bridge on both sides

2. Replacing the existing bridge with a new structure

Alternative 1‐Existing Bridge Widening
This alternative considers salvaging the existing bridge and widening it by 23 feet on each side for a total of 46 feet to accommodate 7‐lane of traffic. The existing bridge will require some repair work. However, as discussed in the above, the physical condition of the bridge foundations is unknown. Core samples will be taken from the footings to perform the lab test in order to determine the degree of deterioration and reduction of compressive strength of the concrete, if any, due to the presence of ASR. In addition seismic evaluation of the existing bridge should be performed to determine whether seismic retrofit is required.

Superstructure
The proposed bridge alternative consists of a six‐span structure which is a combination of cast‐ in‐place posttensioned concrete box girder and precast concrete girder similar to the existing bridge. Spans1 through 5 is cast‐in‐place concrete box girder and span 6 consists of Caltrans precast concrete I‐Girder in order to match the existing type construction. The 23‐foot widening segment on each side stays constant throughout the length of the bridge. The width of the widened bridge would vary from 117’‐0” at abutment 1 to 131’‐2” at Abutment 7. The total length of the widened bridge will be approximately 495 feet long similar to the length of the existing bridge. The structure depth for cast‐in‐place box girder segment is considered to be 4’‐ 6” (spans 1 to 5) and 4’‐4” for precast girder on span 6.

Substructure
Abutments‐
The proposed Abutment 1 is seat type, similar to the existing abutment, supported on 24” diameter steel pipe piles. However the existing Abutment 7 wall is retaining the road and cannot be removed, therefore for the widening a seat abutment is proposed to be constructed on top of three‐foot diameter drilled shafts located behind the existing abutment wall. The existing abutment wing walls should be removed to make the drilling operation of the shafts possible in the existing gap area between the MSE wall and the back of the existing abutment wall.

Intermediate Piers‐
The widened bridge superstructure is assumed to be supported by single 6‐foot diameter columns resting on 24”‐diameter steel pipe pile foundations.

Falsework and Minimum Clearances
A segment of the structure, span 6, which is over the UPPR mainline track, does not require falsework because of the precast girder construction. The minimum vertical clearance over the tracks will be 23’‐7” which meets the UPRR requirement and the existing horizontal clearance of 25 feet would be maintained. However, spans 1 through 5 are cast‐in‐ place construction and will require falsework. Considering a 2.5‐foot falsework depth, the minimum vertical clearance over the other tracks during the construction would be 21 feet which also meets the UPRR temporary clearance requirement.

Alternative 2‐Bridge Replacement
This alternative considers complete removal of the existing bridge and replacing it with a new construction. It is proposed to reduce the length of the new bridge from 496 feet for the case of Alternative 1, to 459.5 feet by locating the new abutment 1 to the north of the existing abutment hence eliminating one span and constructing a new five‐span bridge.

Superstructure
It is proposed for this alternative the superstructure be constructed with precast prestressed concrete girders. This type of construction does not require falsework hence minimizing interruption to the railroad traffic; it would also shorten the construction time which is ideal where a bridge structure over crosses railroad tracks. The depth of the superstructure is anticipated to be 5’‐11”; spans will be made continuous for live loading. The bridge width varies from 112’‐8” at Abutment 1 to 135’‐8” at Abutment 6.

Substructure
Abutments‐
A tall seat abutment type is proposed for Abutment 1 supported on three rows of steel pipe piles with front row piles battered. At Abutment 6 however, since the existing abutment wall is retaining the road, it cannot be removed. Therefore the new Abutment 6 will be constructed on 4‐foot diameter drilled shafts located in front of the existing abutment wall.

Intermediate Piers‐
Each interior support will consist of three 7‐foot diameter columns that are fixed at the top to the pier cap and are hinged at the base to the pile caps in order to reduce the cost of foundation. The columns are founded on sixteen 24‐inch diameter steel pipe piles.

Falsework and Minimum clearances
The construction of the precast girder superstructure does not require falsework over the tracks. The minimum vertical clearance over the tracks is 24’‐10” which meets the UPRR requirement. However this construction of Abutment 6 in front of the existing abutment wall will reduce the existing minimum horizontal clearance of 25 feet to the centerline of the nearby track, therefore a crash wall is proposed to be constructed in front of the drilled shafts to provide a minimum horizontal clearance of 15 feet to the centerline of the track.

Section 2 – APS Check List

Section 3 – Bridge Cost Estimates

GENERAL PLAN ESTIMATE ADVANCE PLANNING ESTIMATE
Revised - December 3, 2007
RCVD BY: IN EST:

OUT EST:

BRIDGE: Riverside Avenue Bridge (Widen) (Alternative 1) BR. No.: 54C-62 DISTRICT:

TYPE: Combined CIP/PS & Precast prestress Concrete Girders RTE:

CU: TBD CO:

EA: TBD PM:

LENGTH: 496.00 WIDTH: 46'-widening AREA (SF)= 22,816
DESIGN SECTION:
# OF STRUCTURES IN PROJECT : EST. NO.

PRICES BY : COST INDEX:

PRICES CHECKED BY : DATE:

QUANTITIES BY: DATE:

CONTRACT ITEMS TYPE UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
1 Excavation CY 1,730 $70.00 $121,100.00
2 Structural Backfill CY 724 $75.00 $54,300.00
3 Structural Concrete Bridge 5000 psi CY 1,600 $825.00 $1,320,000.00 4 Structural Concrete Bridge 4000 psi CY 390 $800.00 $312,000.00 5 Structural Concrete Bridge Footing CY 1,020 $525.00 $535,500.00 6 Bar Reinforcing Steel LB 644,000 $1.15 $740,600.00
7 Prestressing Steel LB 56,166 $1.80 $101,098.80
8 Furnished Precast Prestress Concrete Girder (89') CA I42 EA 7 $20,000.00 $140,000.00 9 24-inch Dia. Steel Pile LF 2,007 $60.00 $120,420.00
10 Pile Drive EA 51 $1,600.00 $81,600.00
11 Cast-in-Drilled Hole Cocnrete Piling 36" Dia. LF 335 $475.00 $159,125.00 12 Joint Seal MR=2" LF 180 $75.00 $13,500.00
13 Concrete Barrier Type 26 Mod LF 1,033 $125.00 $129,125.00 14 Chain Link Railing Type 7 LF 1,033 $65.00 $67,145.00 15 Bridge Removal Lump Sum LS 1 $125,000.00 $125,000.00 16 Elastomeric Bearing Pads EA 79 $700.00 $55,300.00
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
SUBTOTAL $4,075,814
TIME RELATED OVERHEAD $407,581
ROUTING MOBILIZATION ( @ 10 % ) $498,155

1. DES SECTION SUBTOTAL BRIDGE ITEMS $4,981,550

2. OFFICE OF BRIDGE DESIGN - NORTH CONTINGENCIES (@ 25%) $1,245,388

3. OFFICE OF BRIDGE DESIGN - CENTRAL BRIDGE TOTAL COST $6,226,938

4. OFFICE OF BRIDGE DESIGN - SOUTH COST PER SQ. FOOT $272.92

5. OFFICE OF BRIDGE DESIGN - WEST BRIDGE REMOVAL (CONTINGENCIES INCL.)

6. OFFICE OF BRIDGE DESIGN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WORK BY RAILROAD OR UTILITY FORCES GRAND TOTAL $6,226,938
COMMENTS: BUDGET ESTIMATE AS OF $6,227,000
Escalated Budget Estimate to Midpoint of Construction * Escalation Rate per Year
Years Beyond Escalated Years Beyond Escalated
Midpoint Budget Est. Midpoint Budget Est.
14 2 5
3 * Escalated budget estimate is provided for information only, actual construction costs may vary. Escalated budget estimates provided do not replace Departmental policy to update cost estimates annually.

GENERAL PLAN ESTIMATE ADVANCE PLANNING ESTIMATE
Revised - December 3, 2007
RCVD BY: IN EST:

OUT EST:

BRIDGE: Riverside Avenue Bridge (Replacement) (Alternative 2BR. No.: 54C-62 DISTRICT:

TYPE: Precast prestress Concrete Girders RTE:

CU: TBD CO:

EA: TBD PM:

LENGTH: 459.50 WIDTH: 124' (average) AREA (SF)= 57,056
DESIGN SECTION:
# OF STRUCTURES IN PROJECT : EST. NO.

PRICES BY : COST INDEX:

PRICES CHECKED BY : DATE:

QUANTITIES BY: DATE:

CONTRACT ITEMS TYPE UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
1 Excavation CY 4,088 $70.00 $286,160.00
2 Structural Backfill CY 2,906 $75.00 $217,950.00
3 Structural Concrete Bridge 4000 psi CY 4,772 $800.00 $3,817,600.00 4 Structural Concrete Bridge Footing CY 1,875 $525.00 $984,375.00 5 Approach Slab CY 345 $600.00 $207,000.00
6 Bar Reinforcing Steel LB 1,693,610 $1.15 $1,947,651.50 7 Furnished Precast Prestress Concrete Girder (94') CA BT61 EA 58 $35,000.00 $2,030,000.00 8 Furnished Precast Prestress Concrete Girder (81') CA BT61 EA 16 $30,000.00 $480,000.00 9 24-inch Dia. Steel Pile LF 12,228 $60.00 $733,680.00
10 Pile Drive EA 303 $1,600.00 $484,800.00
11 Cast-in-Drilled Hole Cocnrete Piling 48" Dia. LF 659 $700.00 $461,300.00 12 Joint Seal MR=2" LF 248 $75.00 $18,600.00
13 Concrete Barrier Type 26 Mod LF 998 $125.00 $124,750.00 14 Chain Link Railing Type 7 LF 998 $65.00 $64,870.00
15 Bridge Removal Lump Sum LS 1 $1,200,000.00 $1,200,000.00 16 Elastomeric Bearing Pad EA 148 $700.00 $103,600.00
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
SUBTOTAL $13,162,337
TIME RELATED OVERHEAD $1,316,234
ROUTING MOBILIZATION ( @ 10 % ) $1,608,730

1. DES SECTION SUBTOTAL BRIDGE ITEMS $16,087,300

2. OFFICE OF BRIDGE DESIGN - NORTH CONTINGENCIES (@ 25%) $4,021,825

3. OFFICE OF BRIDGE DESIGN - CENTRAL BRIDGE TOTAL COST $20,109,125

4. OFFICE OF BRIDGE DESIGN - SOUTH COST PER SQ. FOOT $352.45

5. OFFICE OF BRIDGE DESIGN - WEST BRIDGE REMOVAL (CONTINGENCIES INCL.)

6. OFFICE OF BRIDGE DESIGN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WORK BY RAILROAD OR UTILITY FORCES GRAND TOTAL $20,109,125
COMMENTS: BUDGET ESTIMATE AS OF $20,109,000
Escalated Budget Estimate to Midpoint of Construction * Escalation Rate per Year
Years Beyond Escalated Years Beyond Escalated
Midpoint Budget Est. Midpoint Budget Est.
14 2 5
3 * Escalated budget estimate is provided for information only, actual construction costs may vary. Escalated budget estimates provided do not replace Departmental policy to update cost estimates annually.

Section 4 – General Plans and Typical Sections

EXIST ROADWAY
BB
ABUT 1
PIER 2

EXIST ROADWAY
EB
ABUT 7
PIER 6PIER 5

EXISTING STRUCTURE
PIER 4PIER 3

CITY OF RIALTO
6' DIA COLUMN, TYP
SCALE:

PLAN
1" = 30'

TO RIVERSIDE

TO RIALTO

EXISTING TRACKS, TYP
PIER 2 PIER 3 PIER 5
PIER 6
ABUT 1
ABUT 7
LEGEND:

AS SHOWN
0 60'30'30'
GRAPHIC SCALE:
10'20'
1" = 30'

CL CL CL
CL
SCALE: 1" = 30'

ELEVATION
1 OF 2

L RIVERSIDE AVENUEC
EB STA 31+50.62
BB STA 26+54.62
496'-0" (MEASURED ALONG CENTERLINE OF RIVERSIDE AVENUE) PIER 4CL
HINGE 1CL
HINGE 2CL
= DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC
= INDICATES UPRR TRACKS
= BRIDGE WIDENING
KEY NOTES:
1 2
1 2

MSE WALL
EXIST

CIDH PILE
3'-0" DIA
Elev 1051.69
Elev 1082.09
Elev 1082.15
CHAIN LINK RAILING (TYPE 7)

CONCRETE BARRIER

POINT OF MINIMUM VERTICAL CLEARANCE

FOOTING, TYP
PROPOSED BVC 22+05.61
EVC 30+05.61
PVI 30+72.98
N.T.S.

RIVERSIDE AVENUE PROFILE GRADE
SPAN 6
89'-0"
SPAN 5
92'-3"
SPAN 4
94'-6"
SPAN 3
94'-6"
SPAN 2
71'-9"
SPAN 1
54'-0"

MIN CLR
23'-7"
N 00°29'22" W

MIN CLR
25'-0"

7.50%

0.10% 0.40%
800.00' VC
ALTERNATIVE 1
117'-0"
131'-2"

RIVERSIDE AVE BRIDGE (WIDEN)
PLANNING STUDY 1 OF 2

VEHICULAR TRAFFIC

RAILROAD TRAFFIC

TWO WAY

CLEARANCE

TEMPORARY VERTICAL

TRAFFIC OPENING

WIDTH OF

HORIZONTAL CLEAR WIDTHVERTICAL CLEARANCE
X
X
PEDESTRIANS.

C. TEMPORARY TRAFFIC LANES SHARED WITH
B. FALSEWORK OPENING(S) REQUIRED:

A. NO FALSEWORK ALLOWED OVER TRAFFIC.

4. TRAFFIC WILL PASS UNDER THE STRUCTURE
STAGE CONSTRUCTION WILL NOT BE REQUIRED.

3. TRAFFIC WILL BE CARRIED ON THE STRUCTURE.

2. TRAFFIC WILL BE DETOURED AWAY FROM RIVERSIDE AVE.

1. EXISTING ALIGNMENT. TRAFFIC ON RIVERSIDE AVE.

CLTRACK
NO FALSEWORK ALLOWED OVER UPRR TRACK.
12/15/2016
3:53:09 PM
pw:\\DC1CLUS01.jacobs.com:Jacobs_JLPatterson\Documents\Engineering\City Of Rialto\001 - Riverside Ave UPRR Bridge Widening\Drawings\Structural\WIDEN-GP.dgn zucchip
with the OWNER.
not provided for in agreements
not be used for any purpose
held confidential; and shall
OWNER and shall be
remain the property of the
furnished herewith shall
cations, and/or information
all plans, drawings, specifi-
Information confidential
ORANGE, CA 92868
SUITE 300
725 TOWN & COUNTRY ROAD
DRAWING NO.

REVISION SHEET NO.

SCALE

APPROVED BY

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY
DATE
CONTRACT NO.

PHYSICAL
ENTITY

CONTRACT

DESIGNATORITEM

LINECOST

ELEMENTNUMBER

PROJECT WORK

ELEMENT
SUB

BY APPDATEREV DESCRIPTION
D. HAGHIGHI
P. ZUCCHI
K. PIRBAZARI
DECEMBER 19, 2016
306 7 8 9 1 2
± 1.5% ± 1.5%MATCH EX. SLOPE MATCH EX. SLOPE

CHAIN LINK FENCE, TYP

WITH SIDEWALK, TYP
TYPE 26 BARRIER (MOD)

POUR, TYP

CLOSURE

WIDENING
23'-0"

VARIES

WIDENING
23'-0"

0 10' 20'10'
GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 10'

BOX GIRDER

POST-TENSIONED

CAST-IN-PLACE
R.C. BOX GIRDER

CAST-IN-PLACE

EXISTING

CITY OF RIALTO
MATCH EX. SLOPE

CHAIN LINK FENCE, TYP

WITH SIDEWALK, TYP
TYPE 26 BARRIER (MOD)

POUR, TYP

CLOSURE

WIDENING
23'-0"

WIDENING EXISTING STRUCTURE
4'-4"
45'-1"± 45'-1"±
6' DIA COLUMN, TYP

RIVERSIDE AVE
18'-0"
6' DIA COLUMN, TYP
PIERS 2 & 3

VARIES AT
4'-6"±, TYP

AS SHOWN
CL

SCALE: 1" = 10'
TYPICAL SECTION - PIER 6 (LOOKING SOUTH)
117'-0" AND VARIES

RIVERSIDE AVECL

EX. SLOPE
MATCH
2 OF 2
SDWK
5'-0"
SDWK
5'-0"
SDWK
5'-0"
SCALE: 1" = 10'
TYPICAL SECTION - PIER 2 (LOOKING NORTH)
4'-6", TYP
TYP
1'-0" 1'-0"
TYP
1'-0"
ALTERNATIVE 1

I-GIRDER, TYP
PC/PS

RIVERSIDE AVE BRIDGE (WIDEN)
PLANNING STUDY 2 OF 2

DATE OF ESTIMATE

STRUCTURE DEPTH
LENGTH
AREA
COST/SQ FT INCLUDING:
10% MOBILIZATION &
25% CONTINGENCY
TOTAL COST =
=
=
=
=
=
12/19/2016
4'-4"
496'-0"
46'-0"WIDTH (TOTAL)
22,816 SQ FT
327.50
7,472,000
PLANNING ESTIMATE:
12/15/2016
3:55:14 PM
pw:\\DC1CLUS01.jacobs.com:Jacobs_JLPatterson\Documents\Engineering\City Of Rialto\001 - Riverside Ave UPRR Bridge Widening\Drawings\Structural\WIDEN-TYPICAL.dgn zucchip
with the OWNER.
not provided for in agreements
not be used for any purpose
held confidential; and shall
OWNER and shall be
remain the property of the
furnished herewith shall
cations, and/or information
all plans, drawings, specifi-
Information confidential
ORANGE, CA 92868
SUITE 300
725 TOWN & COUNTRY ROAD
DRAWING NO.

REVISION SHEET NO.

SCALE

APPROVED BY

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY
DATE
CONTRACT NO.

PHYSICAL
ENTITY

CONTRACT

DESIGNATORITEM

LINECOST

ELEMENTNUMBER

PROJECT WORK

ELEMENT
SUB

BY APPDATEREV DESCRIPTION
D. HAGHIGHI
P. ZUCCHI
K. PIRBAZARI
DECEMBER 19, 2016
12/15/2016
1:54:10 PM
pw:\\DC1CLUS01.jacobs.com:Jacobs_JLPatterson\Documents\Engineering\City Of Rialto\001 - Riverside Ave UPRR Bridge Widening\Drawings\Structural\REPLACEMENT - GP.dgn zucchip
with the OWNER.
not provided for in agreements
not be used for any purpose
held confidential; and shall
OWNER and shall be
remain the property of the
furnished herewith shall
cations, and/or information
all plans, drawings, specifi-
Information confidential
ORANGE, CA 92868
SUITE 300
725 TOWN & COUNTRY ROAD
DRAWING NO.

REVISION SHEET NO.

SCALE

APPROVED BY

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY
DATE
CONTRACT NO.

PHYSICAL
ENTITY

CONTRACT

DESIGNATORITEM

LINECOST

ELEMENTNUMBER

PROJECT WORK

ELEMENT
SUB

BY APPDATEREV DESCRIPTION
D. HAGHIGHI
P. ZUCCHI
K. PIRBAZARI
DECEMBER 19, 2016
306 7 8 9 1 2 3

CITY OF RIALTO
SCALE:

PLAN
1" = 30'

TO RIVERSIDE

TO RIALTO

ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS

EXISTING TRACKS, TYP
459'-6" (MEASURED ALONG CENTERLINE RIVERSIDE AVENUE)
PIER 2 PIER 3 PIER 4 PIER 5
ABUT 1

CL CL CL CL
SCALE: 1" = 30'

ELEVATION

AS SHOWN
1 OF 2

TYPICAL SECTION

EXIST TRACKS, TYP
PIER 5PIER 4PIER 3ABUT 1
459'-6" (MEASURED ALONG CENTERLINE RIVERSIDE AVENUE)
SPAN 5
81'-6"
SPAN 4
94'-6"
SPAN 3
94'-6"
SPAN 2
94'-6"
SPAN 1
94'-6"
LEGEND:
= DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC
= INDICATES UPRR TRACKS
= BRIDGE WIDENING
KEY NOTES:
1 2
1 2
BB EB
EB STA 31+45.37
BB STA 26+85.87
Ele
v 1053.07 0.53%
Ele
v 1081.17
Ele
v 1082.79

CL RIVERSIDE AVENUE
7'-0" DIA COL, TYP
ABUT 6
ABUT 6PIER 2

CRASH WALL

PROPOSED
3 3
3 FOOTING TO REMAIN

EXISTING ABUTMENT

MSE WALL
EXIST

MSE WALL
EXIST
4 EXISTING ABUTMENT WALL TO REMAIN
STRUCTURE APPROACH TYPE N(30S)
CHAIN LINK RAILING (TYPE 7)
CONCRETE BARRIER (TYPE 26)

POINT OF MINIMUM VERTICAL CLEARANCE
4 EVC 29+25.00
PVI 32+30.41
BVC 22+25.00
N.T.S.

RIVERSIDE AVENUE PROFILE GRADE
N 00°29'22" W

7.50%

CIDH PILE
4'-0" DIA

MIN CLR
15'-0"

MIN CLR
24'-10"
700.00' VC
ALTERNATIVE 2
112'-8"
135'-8"

CLTRACK
TOS
TOS

RIVERSIDE AVE BRIDGE (REPLACEMENT)
PLANNING STUDY 1 OF 2

VEHICULAR TRAFFIC

RAILROAD TRAFFIC

TWO WAY

CLEARANCE

TEMPORARY VERTICAL

TRAFFIC OPENING

WIDTH OF

HORIZONTAL CLEAR WIDTHVERTICAL CLEARANCE
X
X
PEDESTRIANS.

C. TEMPORARY TRAFFIC LANES SHARED WITH
FALSEWORK OPENING IS NOT REQUIRED OVER UPRR TRACK.

B. FALSEWORK OPENING(S) REQUIRED:

A. NO FALSEWORK ALLOWED OVER TRAFFIC.

4. TRAFFIC WILL PASS UNDER THE STRUCTURE
STAGE CONSTRUCTION WILL NOT BE REQUIRED.

3. TRAFFIC WILL BE CARRIED ON THE STRUCTURE.

2. TRAFFIC WILL BE DETOURED AWAY FROM RIVERSIDE AVE.

1. EXISTING ALIGNMENT. TRAFFIC ON RIVERSIDE AVE.
12/15/2016
2:03:09 PM
pw:\\DC1CLUS01.jacobs.com:Jacobs_JLPatterson\Documents\Engineering\City Of Rialto\001 - Riverside Ave UPRR Bridge Widening\Drawings\Structural\REPLACEMENT -TYPICAL.dgn zucchip
with the OWNER.
not provided for in agreements
not be used for any purpose
held confidential; and shall
OWNER and shall be
remain the property of the
furnished herewith shall
cations, and/or information
all plans, drawings, specifi-
Information confidential
ORANGE, CA 92868
SUITE 300
725 TOWN & COUNTRY ROAD
DRAWING NO.

REVISION SHEET NO.

SCALE

APPROVED BY

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY
DATE
CONTRACT NO.

PHYSICAL
ENTITY

CONTRACT

DESIGNATORITEM

LINECOST

ELEMENTNUMBER

PROJECT WORK

ELEMENT
SUB

BY APPDATEREV DESCRIPTION
D. HAGHIGHI
P. ZUCCHI
K. PIRBAZARI
DECEMBER 19, 2016 AS SHOWN

CITY OF RIALTO
SCALE: 1" = 10'
TYPICAL SECTION - PIER 5
0 10' 20'10'
GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 10'
2 OF 2
5'-11"

L RIVERSIDE AVE BRIDGEC
MEDIAN
VARIES
LANE
12'-0"
LANE
12'-0"
BIKE
5'-0"
SDWK
5'-0"
SDWK
5'-0"
BIKE
5'-0"
LANE
12'-0"
LANE
12'-0"
LANE
12'-0"
LANE
12'-0"
LANE
12'-0"
131'-6" & VARIES
65'-9" & VARIES65'-9" & VARIES
FG
TYP
7'-0" DIA COL
-1.5% -1.5%

LANE LANE
1'-0"1'-0"
TYPE 7, TYP

CHAIN LINK RAILING

GIRDER, TYP

PC/PS BULB-TEE
ALTERNATIVE 2

DATE OF ESTIMATE

STRUCTURE DEPTH
LENGTH
AREA
COST/SQ FT INCLUDING:
10% MOBILIZATION &
25% CONTINGENCY
TOTAL COST =
=
=
=
=
=
12/19/2016

RIVERSIDE AVE BRIDGE (REPLACEMENT)
PLANNING STUDY 2 OF 2
5'-11"
459'-6"
124'-2" (AVERAGE)WIDTH
57,056 SQ FT
352.45
20,189,000
PLANNING ESTIMATE:

Section 5 – Structural Preliminary
Geotechnical Report

A Report

JACOBS
725 Wes
Orange,

STRUC
T

RIVERSI

RAILROA
BRIDGE

RIALTO,

Project N

Esteban
Staff En
g

V.R. Nad
Geotech

DiazYo
u
1616 Eas
Santa An

Decembe

t Prepared fo
S
st Country Ro
CA 92868

TURE PREL

IDE AVEN
AD
NO. 54C60
, CALIFORN
No. 2014-015
Villanueva
gineer
deswaran
nical Engine
urman & Ass
st 17th Stree
na, CA 9270
er 15, 2016
or:
oad, Suite 3

LIMINARY G

UE OVER H
002
NIA
5 eer 2390
sociates
et
05-8509
300

GEOTECHNI

HEAD (WI

ICAL REPO
DEN OR
ORT

REPLACE)
OVER U

UNION PA CCIFIC

D I A Z Y O U R M A N
& A S S O C I A T E S
1616 EAST 17th STREET SANTA ANA, CA 92705-8509 TEL. (714) 245-2920 FAX (714) 245-2950 ii
K:\DATAFLS\PROJECTS\2014\2014-015\REPORT\SPGR\SPGR V1.DOCX

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES ..................................................................................................... 1 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................ 1 PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................ . 1 3.1 EXISTING STRUCTURE ............................................................................................. 2 3.2 PROPOSED STRUCTURE ......................................................................................... 3 3.3 WIDENING ...................................................................................................... 3 3.3.1 REPLACEMENT .............................................................................................. 3 3.3.2 4 DATA REVIEW ................................................................................................................. 4 5 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND TESTING PROGRAM ........................................................ 4 6 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM .............................................................................. 4 7 GEOLOGY, SURFACE/SUBSURFACE CONDITION, AND GROUNDWATER LEVEL .... 4 GEOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 4 7.1 SURFACE CONDITION .............................................................................................. 5 7.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITION ....................................................................................... 5 7.3 GROUNDWATER ........................................................................................................ 6 7.4 8 SCOUR POTENTIAL ........................................................................................................ 6 9 CORROSION POTENTIAL ............................................................................................... 6 10 PRELIMINARY SEISMIC RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 6 GROUND RUPTURE .................................................................................................. 6 10.1 SEISMIC GROUND MOTION ...................................................................................... 6 10.2 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL AND SEISMIC SETTLEMENT ....................................10 10.3 LANDSLIDE AND SLOPE INSTABILITY ....................................................................10 10.4 11 AS-BUILT FOUNDATION DATA ...................................................................................... 10 12 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................10 BRIDGE...................................................................................................................... 10 12.1 13 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................11 14 ADDITIONAL FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING ....................................................... 12 15 LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................................12 16 BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................................................................................................13

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - EXISTING BRIDGE FOUNDATIONS .......................................................................... 3 Table 2 - IDEALIZED PROFILE ................................................................................................ . 5 Table 3 - MAJOR FAULT CHARACTERIZATION IN THE PROJECT VICINITY ........................ 7 Table 4 - DESIGN HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRUM ......................... 8

iii
K:\DATAFLS\PROJECTS\2014\2014-015\REPORT\SPGR\SPGR V1.DOCX

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - VICINITY MAP ........................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 - DESIGN HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRUM ....................... 9

LIST OF APPENDICES

- LOG OF TEST BORINGS (LOTB) AND AS-BUILT PLANS APPENDIX A - ADVANCED PLANNING STUDY DOCUMENTS FROM JACOBS APPENDIX B - PRELIMINARY PILE AXIAL CAPACITIES APPENDIX C

1 K:\DATAFLS\PROJECTS\2014\2014-015\REPORT\SPGR\SPGR V1.DOCX 1 INTRODUCTION
This structure preliminary geotechnical report (SPGR) provides preliminary geotechnical information for the advanced planning study (APS) of the proposed Widening or Replacement of Riverside Avenue Over head over Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in Rialto, California. The information provided in this report is based on review of available as-built data, review of existing subsurface and groundwater data in the project vicinity, and discussions with representatives of Jacobs. No field exploration has been performed at this time. Jacobs authorized this work on December 8, 2016.
2 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The purpose of our study was to provide geotechnical input for the APS. The scope of our services consisted of reviewing available data and developing preliminary conclusions regarding site conditions, geologic and seismic setting, corrosion potential, and conceptual foundation type. This SPGR has been prepared in general accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Foundation Report Preparation for Bridge Foundations (Caltrans, 2009c). 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project will consist of widening Riverside Avenue between Interstate (I) 10 and Slover Avenue and will include widening or replacement of the existing Riverside Avenue overhead over UPRR in the City of Rialto, California. The existing six-span, approximately 495- foot-long bridge structure will be widened in each direction by 23 feet or replaced with a wider, five-span, approximately 460-foot-long new bridge structure.

PROJECT LOCATION 3.1
The project site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1 . The latitude and longitude for the project site are 34.068690 north and 117.370170 west, respectively.

2 K:\DATAFLS\PROJECTS\2014\2014-015\REPORT\SPGR\SPGR V1.DOCX

Figure 1 - VICINITY MAP

EXISTING STRUCTURE 3.2
The existing Riverside Avenue overhead over UPRR (Bridge) was originally constructed in late 1958 as a single-span bridge and lengthened by 5 more spans in 1971 to accommodate the expansion of the rail yard. The existing Bridge has six spans and is approximately 495 feet long and approximately 70 to 85 feet wide. A summary of the existing bridge foundation is presented in Table 1. The minimum vertical clearance under the existing bridge is approximately 22 feet.

There are mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls present near Abutment 7.

As-built logs of test borings (LOTBs) are attached in Appendix A.

3 K:\DATAFLS\PROJECTS\2014\2014-015\REPORT\SPGR\SPGR V1.DOCX Table 1 - EXISTING BRIDGE FOUNDATIONS

LOCATION PILE TYPE

APPROXIMATE

PILE/FOOTING TOP

ELEVATION
(feet)

APPROXIMATE

SPECIFIED PILE TIP

ELEVATION
(feet)

DESIGN PILE

CAPACITY
(kips)
Abutment 11 Driven HP 10x42 1,060 Unknown 90
Pier 21 Driven HP 10x42 1,039 1,020 90
Pier 31 Driven HP 10x42 1,040 1,021 90
Pier 41 Driven HP 10x42 1,042 1,023 90
Pier 51 Driven HP 10x42 1,043 1,025 90
Pier 61,2
Driven HP 10x42
(1971) and existing
piles, likely driven
HP-type piles
(1958)
1,043 1,025 90
Abutment 72,3 Shallow spread
footing 1,045 N/A --
Notes:

1. Based on as-built plans for Bridge Number 54C-62 (Caltrans, 1971).

2. Based on as-built plans for Bridge Number 54C-62 (Caltrans, 1958).

3. Abutment wall has tie-back anchors.

PROPOSED STRUCTURE 3.3
WIDENING 3.3.1
The General Plan (GP) and typical section developed by Jacobs for the widening option are included in Appendix B. The Bridge will be widened by approximately 23 feet on both sides.

The widened bridge will be approximately 117 to 131 feet wide.

REPLACEMENT 3.3.2
The GP and typical section developed by Jacobs for the replacement option are included in Appendix B. The new bridge will have 5 spans, approximately 460 feet long and 120 to 131 feet wide and will have a minimum clearance of approximately 24 feet.

4 K:\DATAFLS\PROJECTS\2014\2014-015\REPORT\SPGR\SPGR V1.DOCX 4 DATA REVIEW
A list of documents reviewed is presented in the bibliography, Section 16. Selected as-built plans and LOTBs available for the existing Bridge are provided in Appendix A. Subsurface data from adjacent Riverside Avenue Overcrossing over I-10 was also reviewed. Select ed subsurface data from adjacent sites are also included in Appendix A. The Caltrans documents and Caltrans ARS On-line tool and spreadsheets along with United States Geological Survey (USGS) interactive deaggregation tool (USGS, 2013) were reviewed to develop the acceleration response spectrum (ARS). Geological maps and data published by the USGS and California Geological Survey (CGS; formerly known as California Division of Mines and Geology [CDMG]) were also reviewed.
5 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND TESTING PROGRAM
No subsurface investigation was performed for the project. 6 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
No geotechnical laboratory testing program was conducted for this project. 7 GEOLOGY, SURFACE/SUBSURFACE CONDITION, AND

GROUNDWATER LEVEL
GEOLOGY 7.1
The site is located in the northeastern portion of the San Bernardino Valley near the base of the San Bernardino Mountains where the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Province meets the Transverse Range Geomorphic Province. The San Gabriel Mountains portion of the Transverse Range Geomorphic Province is bound by the Cucamonga Fault system to the south. T he San Bernardino Mountains to the southwest are bounded by the San Andreas Fault. The San Bernardino Mountains and the San Gabriel Mountains to the Northwest consist of Mesozoic intrusive crystalline rocks and crystalline metamorphic rocks that make up the majority of the eastern portion of the Transverse Ranges of California. The San Bernardino Valley consists of deep deposits of Tertiary and Quaternary sedimentary alluvial sediments.

The site geology consists of fills overlying alluvial soils to depths that will impact/influence project design and construction.

The site is located within a seismically active area.

5 K:\DATAFLS\PROJECTS\2014\2014-015\REPORT\SPGR\SPGR V1.DOCX SURFACE CONDITION 7.2
The roadway at the site was generally level at an approximate elevation of 1,080 feet. The ground surface below the existing bridge near the railway tracks was generally level at an approximate elevation of 1,050 feet.

SUBSURFACE CONDITION 7.3
The subsurface soils at the site generally consist of granular silty sands, sands with silts, and gravels. The soils, with the exception of some loose pockets, are generally medium dense to very dense. For the purposes of preliminary design, the subsurfa ce conditions along the proposed bridge are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 - IDEALIZED PROFILE

SOIL TYPE

DEPTH BELOW

RAIL TRACKS
(feet)

ELEVATION
(feet)

TOTAL UNIT
WEIGHT
(pcf)

SHEAR STRENGTH

PARAMETERS
Cohesion
(psf)
Friction Angle
(degrees) Top Bottom
Fills and
natural silty
sands and
sands with
silts, loose to
dense
0 to 20 -- 1,030 120 -- 33
Natural
sands with
silts,
medium
dense to
very dense
20 to 29 1,030 1,021 125 -- 36
Natural
sands with
silts and
gravels,
dense to
very dense
29 to 70 1,021 980 130 -- 40
Notes:
 Simplified soil types.
 pcf = pounds per cubic foot.
 psf = pounds per square foot.

Based on the soil types shown in the LOTB and blow count data in the project vicinity, the shear wave velocity for the upper 30 meters (100 feet) of soils (V S30) was estimated to be 390 meters per second (m/s).

6 K:\DATAFLS\PROJECTS\2014\2014-015\REPORT\SPGR\SPGR V1.DOCX GROUNDWATER 7.4
Based on the review of the LOTBs, groundwater was not detected in the previous borings to depths of 70 feet below the ground surface (bgs). Based on review of available information , we judge that the groundwater is likely at depths greater than 150 feet bgs. 8 SCOUR POTENTIAL
Scour is not a design concern because the proposed Bridge is not located within an active streambed.
9 CORROSION POTENTIAL
No corrosion test results were available for the project site. Based on the corrosion test data from adjacent sites and anticipated soil types at the site, we judge that the potential for corrosion is low.
10 PRELIMINARY SEISMIC RECOMMENDATIONS
GROUND RUPTURE 10.1
No known active faults were located within the project site boundaries, and the project site was not located within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone ( APEFZ; CGS, 2007). Therefore, we consider the possibility of surface rupture at the proposed bridge site to be low.

SEISMIC GROUND MOTION 10.2
The site is located within a seismically active region. The characteristics of nearby faults are summarized in Table 3.

The design ARS was developed based on current Caltrans seismic design procedure. Based on this Caltrans seismic design procedure, the peak ground acceleration (PGA) for the site was calculated to be 0.79g. The current Caltrans procedure considers both deterministic and probabilistic (975-year return period) approaches and enveloping the spectra developed by using both methodologies.

7 K:\DATAFLS\PROJECTS\2014\2014-015\REPORT\SPGR\SPGR V1.DOCX Table 3 - MAJOR FAULT CHARACTERIZATION IN THE PROJECT VICINITY FAULT1 FID2

SITE-TO-FAULT
DISTANCE3
(kilometers) TYPE4 MMAX
5 DIP AND
DIRECTION6
BASIN
EFFECTS7
Rx RRUP Z1.0
(m)
Z2.5
(km)
San Jacinto (San
Bernardino) 336 2.01 2.01 SS 7.7 90°, V N/A N/A
San Jacinto (San
Bernardino Valley
Section)
310 5.70 5.70 SS 7.7 90°, V N/A N/A
San Andreas (San
Bernardino S) 325 14.40 14.40 SS 7.9 90°, V N/A N/A
Notes:

1. Caltrans fault database (Caltrans, 2012).

2. FID = Fault identification Number.

3. The Rx distance is defined as the closest distance to the fault trace or surface projection of the top of the rupture plane. The RRUP is defined as closet distance from the project site to the fault rupture plane. The distance measurements are approximate.

4. SS = Strike-slip.

5. MMAX = Maximum earthquake magnitude.

6. V = vertical direction.

7. Z1.0 = Depth to shear wave velocity of 1,000 m/s; Z2.5 = Depth to shear wave velocity of 2,500 m/s.  Values presented in the above table were determined using the Caltrans A RS online tool (Caltrans, 2016).
 Site location used for analysis: Latitude = 34.068690 and Longitude = -117.370170.

The recommended design horizontal ARS is summarized in Table 4 and presented on Figure 2.

8 K:\DATAFLS\PROJECTS\2014\2014-015\REPORT\SPGR\SPGR V1.DOCX Table 4 - DESIGN HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRUM PERIOD
(seconds)
HORIZONTAL 5% DAMPED SPECTRAL ACCELERATION (g)
Deterministic
Probabilistic Design
San Jacinto (San Bernardino
Valley Section)
CA Minimum
Spectrum

0.01 0.526 0.223 0.786 0.786

0.05 0.655 0.284 1.215 1.215

0.1 0.865 0.425 1.465 1.465

0.15 1.015 0.507 1.652 1.652

0.2 1.111 0.523 1.798 1.798

0.25 1.141 0.502 1.776 1.776

0.3 1.139 0.477 1.759 1.759

0.4 1.104 0.422 1.620 1.620

0.5 1.065 0.365 1.520 1.520

0.6 1.024 0.311 1.435 1.435

0.7 0.993 0.270 1.374 1.374

0.85 0.941 0.224 1.269 1.269
1 0.892 0.190 1.178 1.178

1.2 0.776 0.154 0.998 0.998

1.5 0.642 0.118 0.814 0.814
2 0.480 0.080 0.626 0.626
3 0.306 0.046 0.409 0.409
4 0.221 0.031 0.296 0.296
5 0.173 0.023 0.243 0.243
Note:

1. Design acceleration response spectrum is the envelope of deterministic and probabilistic spectra.

012345
Period (Seconds)
0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1

1.2 1.4

1.6 1.8
2 Spectral Acceleration (g)
Caltrans ARS
Figure 2 - DESIGN HORIZONTAL AC CELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRUM Notes:

1. Caltrans ARS based on Caltrans ARS Online Tool, Version 2.3.08.

2. Location: 34.068690, -117.370170.

3. Soil Site Class C (NEHRP), Vs30 = 390 m/s.

4. Damping = 5%.

5. Caltrans ARS shown is an envelope of d eterministic and probabilistic spectra.

10 K:\DATAFLS\PROJECTS\2014\2014-015\REPORT\SPGR\SPGR V1.DOCX LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL AND SEISMIC SETTLEMENT 10.3
The project site has not yet been mapped for seismic hazard zones by CGS. The groundwater level at the site is estimated to be deeper than 150 feet. Medium-dense to very dense sands are generally estimated to be present at the site. The potential for soil liquefaction and seismic settlement are therefore estimated to be very low at the project site.

LANDSLIDE AND SLOPE INSTABILITY 10.4
The site area has not yet been mapped by CGS for seismic hazards including landslides. Based on the level topography of the site, the landslide potential at the site is low. The embankment fill slopes are mostly inclined approximately at 1.5H:1V and paved. These slopes are also judged to be stable.
11 AS-BUILT FOUNDATION DATA
As-built LOTBs and structural plans are presented in Appendix A. As indicated in Table 1 , Abutment 1 through Pier 6 of the existing bridge structure are supported on 45-ton, driven HP 10x42 piles. The piles lengths at the piers likely ranged from about 18 to 20 feet. Even though no information on pile length at Abutment 1 was available in the as-built plans reviewed, we judge that the abutment piles likely tipped near elevation 1,025 feet similar to those at the piers (i.e., the pile length at Abutment 1 probably was about 35 feet). Abutment 7 was supported on shallow spread foundation, approximately 11 feet wide and 90 feet long, near elevation 1,045 feet.

The abutments and bents of adjacent Riverside Avenue Overcrossing at I-10 were supported on shallow spread foundations near elevation 1,047 feet.
12 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
BRIDGE 12.1
We judge that the proposed structure (widen and replace options) can be supported on shallow spread foundations or on pile foundations. Shallow foundations may require some removal and recompaction of loose sands that might be present at the site; consequently shallow foundation construction will result in larger excavations in comparison to pile foundation installation. Based on discussions with JACOBS, we understand that it is preferable to minimize excavations near existing facilities and use pile foundations for support of the proposed structure similar to

11 K:\DATAFLS\PROJECTS\2014\2014-015\REPORT\SPGR\SPGR V1.DOCX existing. Both driven and cast- in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles are feasible at the site. Because of the presence of very dense sands and gravels, low-displacement driven piles such as steel H- piles or open ended steel pipe piles are preferred instead of the large displacement concrete piles or closed-ended steel pipe piles. Near the northern abutment (Abutment 7 for the widen option and Abutment 6 for the replace option), there are existing MSE walls and other facilities, and based on our discussions with Jacobs, we understand it is preferable to use CIDH concrete piles at this location to minimize disturbances during pile installation.

For driven piles, the primary construction consideration will be drivability in very dense sandy soils and gravels. Both H piles and open-ended pipe piles are feasible at the site. If compression load demand controls the pile design, we recommend that H piles be selected for foundation support. If lateral load demands control the pile design then we recommend selection of open-ended pipe pile for supports. Steel pipe piles have structural properties that results in higher lateral resistance than H-piles and if needed internal drilling through the pipe piles can be used to advance the pile to the specified pile tip elevation.

For CIDH piles, the primary consideration is the presence of granular sands that have significant potential for caving during construction. Casing and/or wet drilling methods will be required for construction of CIDH piles.

Based on our discussions with Jacobs, we understand that 24- inch diameter, 0.375” thick, open ended steel pipe piles will be utilized for all foundation supports except the northern abutment.

At the northern abutment, 3- to 4-foot-diameter CIDH concrete piles will be used.

For planning purposes, the preliminary axial pile capacity charts provided in Appendix C can be used to estimate the required pile lengths. We have also included preliminary axial pile capacities for steel H piles (HP 14x72 and HP 18x135) for comparison and, if applicable, for alternate foundation selection.
13 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
The proposed driven piles will need to extend through upper soils that may contain gravels. The potential for driving refusal within the gravel should therefore be evaluated carefully. Difficult driving conditions may also be encountered within the dense and very dense sands. Extreme caution should be exercised in the selection of a suitable pile-driving hammer system to drive theses piles to the specified tip elevations. Internal drilling may needed to install the piles to specified tip elevations. A pile drivability analysis will need to be performed based on dynamic wave equation analysis program (WEAP) once the pile driving system is known.

12 K:\DATAFLS\PROJECTS\2014\2014-015\REPORT\SPGR\SPGR V1.DOCX The proposed CIDH piles will extend through cohesionless granular materials. The cohesionless soils have potential to slough and cave during CIDH pile installation or when subject to vibration load from the adja cent traffic. The “wet” construction method or temporary casing should be used for ease of construction and to reduce the potential for CIDH pile anomalies. When “wet” construction methods are used, the integrity of concrete should be checked using downhole gamma-gamma and/or cross-hole sonic testing; PVC inspection pipes should be installed within the CIDH piles to facilitate the testing. There should be at least one inspection tube for every foot of diameter of the CIDH piles. Difficult drilling conditions also should be anticipated to penetrate the very dense sandy soils present at the site. In general, a minimum of 24 hours should be allowed between placing concrete in one pile shaft and drilling any nearby shafts or performing any other excavations within three pile diameters.

The preliminary cost estimates for foundation installation should include for provisions noted above.
14 ADDITIONAL FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING
Additional field investigation consisting of a minimum of 5 to 7 soil borings will be required for final design of the proposed project. The borings should be sufficiently deep to provide the subsurface conditions at the proposed abutment and pier locations. The field investigation and laboratory testing should incorporate Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) and collecting soils samples for index properties, shear strength, and corrosion. 15 LIMITATIONS
This SPGR is intended for the use of Jacobs for the design of the proposed Riverside Avenue Overhead in Rialto, California. This report is based on the project as described and the information obtained from previous geotechnical data. The findings and recommendations contained in this report are based on data review and preliminary engineering analyses. In addition, soils and subsurface conditions encountered in the previous borings are presumed to be representative of the project site. However, subsurface conditions and characteristics of soils between exploratory borings can vary. The findings reflect an interpretation of the direct evidence obtained. The recommendations presented in this report should be confirmed or modified based on appropriate site-specific investigation during the preliminary/final design phase. DYA should be notified of any pertinent changes in the project plans or if subsurface conditions are found to vary from those described herein. Such changes or variations may require a re-evaluation of the recommendations contained in this report.

13 K:\DATAFLS\PROJECTS\2014\2014-015\REPORT\SPGR\SPGR V1.DOCX The data, opinions, and recommendations contained in this report are applicable to the specific design element(s) and location(s) that is (are) the subject of this report. They have no applicability to any other design elements or to any other locations, and any and all subsequent users accept any and all liability resulting from any use or reuse of the data, opinions, and recommendations without the prior written consent of DYA.

Services performed by DYA have been conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions. No other representation, expressed or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended.
16 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Applied Technology Council and Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (ATC-49/MCEER), 2003, Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Highway Bridges, Part II: Commentary and Appendices.

California Geological Survey , 2007, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (APEFZ) maps, Geographic Information System (GIS) data files.

Caltrans, 1958, As-Built Plans, LOTB, Riverside Avenue Overhead Project - Bridge No. 54C-62.

October, 1958.

Caltrans, 1971, As-Built Plans, LOTB, Riverside Avenue Overhead Project - Bridge No. 54C-62.

July, 1971.

Caltrans, 2009a, As-Built Plans, LOTB, Riverside Avenue Overhead Project - Bridge No. 54C-

62. September, 2009.

Caltrans, 2009b, Guidelines for Structures Foundation Reports, Version 2, updated December 2009.

Caltrans, 2009c, Foundation Report Preparation for Bridge Foundations, December 2009.

Caltrans, 2012a, Caltrans Fault Database, Version 2a, October 2012.

Caltrans, 2012b, Methodology for Developing Design Response Spectrum for Use in Seismic Design Recommendations, November 2012.

Caltrans, 2012c, Corrosion Guidelines, Materials Engineering and Testing Service, Corrosion Technology Branch, November 2012.

Caltrans, 2012d, Caltrans Test Method 112, August, 2012.

Caltrans, 2013, Seismic Design Criteria, Version 1.7, April 2013.

Caltrans, 2014a, Memo to Designers 3-1, June 2014.

14 K:\DATAFLS\PROJECTS\2014\2014-015\REPORT\SPGR\SPGR V1.DOCX Caltrans, 2014b, California Amendments to the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications – Sixth Edition, January 2014.

Caltrans, 2014c, Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, December 2014.

Caltrans, 2015, Standard Specifications & Plans.

Caltrans, 2016, ARS Online Tool, Version 2.3.08.

Ensoft Inc., 2012 , SHAFT, Computer Program for analyzing the axial capacity and short-term settlement of drilled piles under axial loading.

Ensoft Inc., 2015 , APILE, Computer Program for analyzing the axial capacity and short-term settlement of driven piles under axial loading.

Group Delta Consultants, Inc., 2007, Addendum 1 – Geotechnical Design Report, I-10 Riverside Avenue Interchange Improvement. August, 2007.

Group Delta Consultants, Inc., 2007, Structure Foundation Report – Rialto Channel Box Culvert (Replace Portion). May, 2007.

Group Delta Consultants, Inc. , 2007, Structure Foundation Report – MSE Retaining Wall Nos. 318 and 321. March, 2007.

Group Delta Consultants, Inc. , 2009, Revised Materials Report, I-10 Riverside Avenue Interchange Improvement. April, 2007. Revised June 2009.

Hart, E. W., and Bryant, W. A., Revised 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps: State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. 38 Pages (Last Edited October 25, 2002 version reviewed on June 22, 2011 at CGS’ web page:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Map_index/F4E.htm#SW.

JACOBS, 2016, Project Plan and E-mail Communication.

United States Geological Survey, 2013, 2008 PSHA Interactive Deaggregation Tool

K:\DATAFLS\PROJECTS\2014\2014-015\REPORT\SPGR\SPGR V1.DOCX - APPENDIX A

LOG OF TEST BORINGS (LOTB)

AND AS-BUILT PLANS

ClibPDF - www.fastio.com
ClibPDF - w ww.fastio.com
ClibPDF - w ww.fastio.com
ClibPDF - www.fastio.com
ClibPDF - www.fastio.com
ClibPDF - w ww.fastio.com
ClibPDF - w ww.fastio.com
ClibPDF - w ww.fastio.com
ClibPDF - w ww.fastio.com
ClibPDF - w ww.fastio.com
ClibPDF - www.fastio.com
ClibPDF - www.fastio.com
ClibPDF - w ww.fastio.com

Approximate Project Location
Date Ave
Alice Ave
Sycamore Ave
Willow Ave
Marion Way
Riverside Ave
Valley Blvd
10 GD B-1
GD B-2 GD B-3
GD B-4
GD B-7
GD B-5
GD B-8
GD B-6
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Legend
Existing Boring Locations
Figure 2 - SITE PLAN
Document Path: K:\datafls\PROJECTS\2014\2014-015\Figures\GIS\Site Plan.mxd 0 300150
Feet

/g2/g3/g4/g2/g4
/g2/g3/g4/g5/g4
/g2/g3/g4/g6/g4
/g2/g3/g4/g7/g4
/g2/g3/g4/g8/g4
/g2/g3/g4/g9/g4
/g2/g3/g4/g10/g4
/g2/g3/g4/g11/g4
/g4 /g2/g4/g4/g5/g4/g4/g6/g4/g4/g7/g4/g4/g8/g4/g4/g9/g4/g4/g10/g4/g4/g11/g4/g4/g12/g4/g4/g2/g3/g4/g4/g4/g2/g3/g2/g4/g4/g2/g3/g5/g4/g4/g2/g3/g6/g4/g4 /g2/g3/g4/g2/g4
/g2/g3/g4/g5/g4
/g2/g3/g4/g6/g4
/g2/g3/g4/g7/g4
/g2/g3/g4/g8/g4
/g2/g3/g4/g9/g4
/g2/g3/g4/g10/g4
/g2/g3/g4/g11/g4
/g13/g14
/g15/g16/g17/g15/g18
/g15/g18
/g2/g3/g4
/g13/g14
/g15/g16/g17/g15/g18
/g15/g18
/g2/g3/g5
/g13/g14
/g15/g16/g17/g15/g18
/g15/g16
/g15/g16/g17/g15/g18
/g2/g3/g6
/g13/g14
/g15/g18
/g15/g18
/g15/g16
/g15/g18
/g2/g3/g7
/g13/g14
/g15/g18
/g2/g3/g8
/g13/g14
/g15/g18
/g15/g18
/g2/g3/g9
/g13/g14
/g15/g18
/g15/g18
/g2/g3/g10
/g13/g14
/g15/g18
/g2/g3/g11
/g12/g13/g14/g15/g16/g17/g18/g19/g1/g16/g20/g21/g17/g22/g1/g23/g24/g21/g25/g13/g20/g19/g26/g1/g27/g28/g28/g29 /g19/g20/g19/g30/g16/g15/g13/g21/g17/g26/g1/g27/g28/g28/g29 /g19/g20/g21/g22/g23/g24/g25/g20/g26/g1/g27/g28/g2/g10/g29/g28/g2/g2/g15/g13/g18/g16/g28/g29/g30/g15 /g25/g31/g32/g33/g34/g28/g1/g1/g3/g1/g18/g24/g21/g14/g14/g1/g14/g19/g18/g15/g13/g21/g17 /g31/g32/g19/g29/g15/g26/g1/g1/g1/g37/g82/g85/g76/g81/g74/g3/g76/g81/g73/g82/g85/g80/g68/g87/g76/g82/g81/g3/g83/g85/g72/g86/g72/g81/g87/g72/g71/g3/g75/g72/g85/g72/g76/g81/g3/g76/g86/g3/g69/g68/g86/g72/g71/g3/g82/g81/g3/g74/g72/g82/g87/g72/g70/g75/g81/g76/g70/g68/g79/g3/g72/g91/g83/g79/g82/g85/g68/g87/g76/g82/g81 /g3
/g19/g20/g19/g30/g16/g15/g13/g21/g17/g26/g1/g27/g28/g28/g29 performed by Group Delta, Inc. (GDI, 2007) for the Riverside Overhead/I-10 project. RIVERSIDE AVENUE/I-10 OVERHEAD

SUBSURFACE CROSS SECTION

K:\DATAFLS\PROJECTS\2014\2014-015\REPORT\SPGR\SPGR V1.DOCX - APPENDIX B

ADVANCED PLANNING STUDY DOCUMENTS FROM JACOBS

1 2/1 5/201 6
2:25:46 PM
pw: \\DC1CLUS01.jacobs.com:Jacobs_JLPatterson\Documents\Engineering\Ci ty Of Rial to\001 - Riverside Ave UPRR Bridge Widening\Drawings\Structural \REPLACEMENT - GP.dgn zucchip
with the OWNER.
not provided for in agreements
not be used for any purpose
held confidential; and shall
OWNER and shall be
remain the property of the
furnished herewith shall
cations, and/or information
all plans, drawings, specifi-
Information confidential
ORANGE, CA 92868
SUITE 300
725 TOWN & COUNTRY ROAD
DRAWING NO.

REVISION SHEET NO.

SCALE

APPROVED BY

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY
DATE
CONTRACT NO.

PHYSICAL
ENTITY

CONTRACT

DESIGNATORITEM

LINECOST

ELEMENTNUMBER

PROJECT WORK

ELEMENT
SUB

BY APPDATEREV DESCRIPTION
D. HAGHIGHI
P. ZUCCHI
K. PIRBAZARI
DECEMBER 19, 2016
306 7 8 9 1 2 3

CITY OF RIALTO
SCALE:

PLAN
1" = 30'

TO RIVERSIDE

TO RIALTO

ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS

EXISTING TRACKS, TYP
459'-6" (MEASURED ALONG CENTERLINE RIVERSIDE AVENUE)
PIER 2 PIER 3 PIER 4 PIER 5
ABUT 1

CL CL CL CL
SCALE: 1" = 30'

ELEVATION

AS SHOWN
1 OF 2

TYPICAL SECTION

CL RIVERSIDE AVENUE
7'-0" DIA COL, TYP
ABUT 6
ABUT 6PIER 2

CRASH WALL

PROPOSED
3 3
3 FOOTING TO REMAIN

EXISTING ABUTMENT

MSE WALL
EXIST

MSE WALL
EXIST
4 EXISTING ABUTMENT WALL TO REMAIN
STRUCTURE APPROACH TYPE N(30S)
CHAIN LINK RAILING (TYPE 7)
CONCRETE BARRIER (TYPE 26)

POINT OF MINIMUM VERTICAL CLEARANCE
4 EVC 2 9
+2 5
.00
PVI 3 2
+3 0
.4 1
BVC 2 2
+2 5
.00
N.T.S.

RIVERSIDE AVENUE PROFILE GRADE
N 00°29'22" W

7.50%

CIDH PILE
4'-0" DIA

MIN CLR
15'-0"

MIN CLR
24'-1 0"
700.00' VC
ALTERNATIVE 2
1 1 2'-8"
1 35'-8"

CLTRACK
TOS
TOS

RIVERSIDE AVE BRIDGE (REPLACEMENT)
PLANNING STUDY 1 OF 2
1 2/1 5/201 6
2:26:41 PM
pw: \\DC1CLUS01.jacobs.com:Jacobs_JLPatterson\Documents\Engineering\Ci ty Of Rial to\001 - Riverside Ave UPRR Bridge Widening\Drawings\Structural \REPLACEMENT -TYPICAL.dgn zucchip
with the OWNER.
not provided for in agreements
not be used for any purpose
held confidential; and shall
OWNER and shall be
remain the property of the
furnished herewith shall
cations, and/or information
all plans, drawings, specifi-
Information confidential
ORANGE, CA 92868
SUITE 300
725 TOWN & COUNTRY ROAD
DRAWING NO.

REVISION SHEET NO.

SCALE

APPROVED BY

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY
DATE
CONTRACT NO.

PHYSICAL
ENTITY

CONTRACT

DESIGNATORITEM

LINECOST

ELEMENTNUMBER

PROJECT WORK

ELEMENT
SUB

BY APPDATEREV DESCRIPTION
D. HAGHIGHI
P. ZUCCHI
K. PIRBAZARI
DECEMBER 19, 2016 AS SHOWN

CITY OF RIALTO
SCALE: 1" = 10'
TYPICAL SECTION - PIER 5
0 10' 20'10'
GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 10'
2 OF 2
5'-1 1"

LANE LANE
1'-0"1'-0"
TYPE 7, TYP

CHAIN LINK RAILING

GIRDER, TYP

PC/PS BULB-TEE
ALTERNATIVE 2

RIVERSIDE AVE BRIDGE (REPLACEMENT)
PLANNING STUDY 2 OF 2

EXIST ROADWAY
BB
ABUT 1
PIER 2

EXIST ROADWAY
EB
ABUT 7
PIER 6PIER 5

EXISTING STRUCTURE
PIER 4PIER 3

CITY OF RIALTO
6' DIA COLUMN, TYP
SCALE:

PLAN
1" = 30'

TO RIVERSIDE

TO RIAL TO

EXISTING TRACKS, TYP
PIER 2 PIER 3 PIER 5
PIER 6
ABUT 1
ABUT 7
LEGEND:

AS SHOWN
0 60'30'30'
GRAPHIC SCALE:
10'20'
1" = 30'

CL CL CL
CL
SCALE: 1" = 30'

ELEVATION
1 OF 2

MSE WALL
EXIST

CIDH PILE
3'-0" DIA
Elev 1 051.69
Elev 1 082.09
Elev 1 082.1 5
CHAIN LINK RAILING (TYPE 7)

CONCRETE BARRIER

POINT OF MINIMUM VERTICAL CLEARANCE

FOOTING, TYP
PROPOSED BVC 22+05.61
EVC 30+05.61
PVI 30+72.98
N.T.S.

RIVERSIDE AVENUE PROFILE GRADE
SPAN 6
89'-0"
SPAN 5
92'-3"
SPAN 4
94'-6"
SPAN 3
94'-6"
SPAN 2
71'-9"
SPAN 1
54'-0"

MIN CLR
23'-7"
N 00°29'22" W

MIN CLR
25'-0"

7.50%

0.10% 0.40%
800.00' VC
ALTERNATIVE 1
1 1 7
'-0"
131'-2"

RIVERSIDE AVE BRIDGE (WIDEN)
PLANNING STUDY 1 OF 2

CLTRACK
1 2/1 5/201 6
2:38:32 PM
pw: \\DC1CLUS01.jacobs.com:Jacobs_JLPatterson\Documents\Engineering\Ci ty Of Rial to\001 - Riverside Ave UPRR Bridge Widening\Drawings\Structural \WIDEN-GP.dgn zucchip
with the OWNER.
not provided for in agreements
not be used for any purpose
held confidential; and shall
OWNER and shall be
remain the property of the
furnished herewith shall
cations, and/or information
all plans, drawings, specifi-
Information confidential
ORANGE, CA 92868
SUITE 300
725 TOWN & COUNTRY ROAD
DRAWING NO.

REVISION SHEET NO.

SCALE

APPROVED BY

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY
DATE
CONTRACT NO.

PHYSICAL
ENTITY

CONTRACT

DESIGNATORITEM

LINECOST

ELEMENTNUMBER

PROJECT WORK

ELEMENT
SUB

BY APPDATEREV DESCRIPTION
D. HAGHIGHI
P. ZUCCHI
K. PIRBAZARI
DECEMBER 19, 2016
306 7 8 9 1 2
± 1.5% ± 1.5%MATCH EX. SLOPE MATCH EX. SLOPE

CHAIN LINK FENCE, TYP

WITH SIDEWALK, TYP
TYPE 26 BARRIER (MOD)

POUR, TYP

CLOSURE

WIDENING
23'-0"

VARIES

WIDENING
23'-0"

0 10' 20'10'
GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 10'

BOX GIRDER

POST-TENSIONED

CAST-IN-PLACE
R.C. BOX GIRDER

CAST-IN-PLACE

EXISTING

CITY OF RIALTO
MATCH EX. SLOPE

CHAIN LINK FENCE, TYP

WITH SIDEWALK, TYP
TYPE 26 BARRIER (MOD)

POUR, TYP

CLOSURE

WIDENING
23'-0"

WIDENING EXISTING STRUCTURE
4'-4"
45'-1"± 45'-1"±
6' DIA COLUMN, TYP

RIVERSIDE AVE
18'-0"
6' DIA COLUMN, TYP
PIERS 2 & 3

VARIES AT
4'-6"±, TYP

AS SHOWN
CL

SCALE: 1" = 10'
TYPICAL SECTION - PIER 6 (LOOKING SOUTH)
117'-0" AND VARIES

RIVERSIDE AVECL

EX. SLOPE
MATCH
2 OF 2
SDWK
5'-0"
SDWK
5'-0"
SDWK
5'-0"
SCALE: 1" = 10'
TYPICAL SECTION - PIER 2 (LOOKING NORTH)
4'-6", TYP
TYP
1'-0" 1'-0"
TYP
1'-0"
ALTERNATIVE 1

I-GIRDER, TYP
PC/PS

RIVERSIDE AVE BRIDGE (WIDEN)
PLANNING STUDY 2 OF 2
1 2/1 5/201 6
2:28:40 PM
pw: \\DC1CLUS01.jacobs.com:Jacobs_JLPatterson\Documents\Engineering\Ci ty Of Rial to\001 - Riverside Ave UPRR Bridge Widening\Drawings\Structural \WIDEN-TYPICAL.dgn zucchip
with the OWNER.
not provided for in agreements
not be used for any purpose
held confidential; and shall
OWNER and shall be
remain the property of the
furnished herewith shall
cations, and/or information
all plans, drawings, specifi-
Information confidential
ORANGE, CA 92868
SUITE 300
725 TOWN & COUNTRY ROAD
DRAWING NO.

REVISION SHEET NO.

SCALE

APPROVED BY

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY
DATE
CONTRACT NO.

PHYSICAL
ENTITY

CONTRACT

DESIGNATORITEM

LINECOST

ELEMENTNUMBER

PROJECT WORK

ELEMENT
SUB

BY APPDATEREV DESCRIPTION
D. HAGHIGHI
P. ZUCCHI
K. PIRBAZARI
DECEMBER 19, 2016

K:\DATAFLS\PROJECTS\2014\2014-015\REPORT\SPGR\SPGR V1.DOCX - APPENDIX C

PRELIMINARY PILE AXIAL CAPACITIES

0 200 400 600 800100 300 500 700
NOMINAL RESISTANCE (kips)
50 40
30 20
10 0
DEPTH (feet)
24-Inch Steel Pipe Pile
Compression (Plugged - Static and Seismic)
Compression (Unplugged - Static and Seismic)
Tension (Static and Seismic)

0 400 800 1200 1600
NOMINAL RESISTANCE (kips)
60 40
20 0
DEPTH (feet)
4-FOOT CIDH (ABUT. 6)
Compression (Static and Seismic)
Tension (Static and Seismic)

0 400 800 1200200 600 1000
NOMINAL RESISTANCE (kips)
60 40
20 0
DEPTH (feet)
3-FOOT CIDH (ABUT. 7)
Compression (Static and Seismic)
Tension (Static and Seismic)

0 200 400 600100 300 500
NOMINAL RESISTANCE (kips)
50 40
30 20
10 0
DEPTH (feet)
HP14-72
Compression (Static and Seismic)
Tension (Static and Seismic)

ANTICIPATED RANGE

0 200 400 600100 300 500
NOMINAL RESISTANCE (kips)
50 40
30 20
10 0
DEPTH (feet)
HP18-135
Compression (Static and Seismic)
Tension (Static and Seismic)

ANTICIPATED RANGE

K:\DATAFLS\PROJECTS\2014\2014-015\REPORT\SPGR\SPGR V1.DOCX

DISTRIBUTION

E-mail: Jacobs
725 Town and Country Road
Orange, CA 92868

QUALITY CONTROL REVIEWER

Somadevan Niranjanan
Associate Engineer

VRN/EMV:dr

Section 6 – Bridge Inspection Report

California Department of Transportation
Division of Maintenance

Structure Maintenance and Investigations

BRIDGE

INSPECTION

RECORDS

INFORMATION
SYSTEM

The requested documents have been generated by BIRIS.

These documents are the property of the California Department of Transportation and should be handled in accordance with Deputy Directive 55 and the State Administrative Manual.

Records for “Confidential” bridges may only be released outside the Department of Transportation upon execution of a confidentiality agreement.

ClibPDF - www.fastio.com
ClibPDF - www.fastio.com
ClibPDF - www.fastio.com
ClibPDF - www.fastio.com
ClibPDF - www.fastio.com
54C0062 RIVERSIDE AVENUE OH 0.1 MI S OF I-10
11/03/2011 [AAAG]
100 - PHOTO-Routine-Roadway View
Photo No. 1
Routine deck view looking north on Riverside.

54C0062 RIVERSIDE AVENUE OH 0.1 MI S OF I-10
11/03/2011 [AAAG]
101 - PHOTO-Routine-Elevation View
Photo No. 1
Routine elevation view looking south easterly from east bound offramp.

54C0062 RIVERSIDE AVENUE OH 0.1 MI S OF I-10
11/03/2011 [AAAG]
101 - PHOTO-Routine-Elevation View
Photo No. 1
Panographic attempt at elevation view looking westerly. Railroad signal frame blocked view

EXHIBIT C
Performance Metrics Form

Rialto City CouncilJanuary 13, 2026

Rialto City Council
January 13, 2026