2025-01279 Truxel Bridge Project - Environmental Determination for Plan Consistency (T15235000) - PART 2 — Sacramento City Council, June 24, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

RESOLUTION 2025-0041
Adopted by the Sacramento City Council
February 18, 2025
Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study (T15235000)

BACKGROUND
A. The Truxel Bridge alignment was one of the three adopted alternatives from the 2013 American River Crossing Alternatives Study. This study examined noise, visual, biological, cultural, and recreational impacts, as well as impacts on Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT), congestion, emergency response, and land use factors. The report recommended three multi-modal bridge options as the best options for mobility, to reduce VMT, and emergency response as well as provide transit and active transportation options.

B. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) awarded a grant in 2022 to the City of Sacramento, as a subrecipient to the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), to prepare the Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study.

C. The City contracted with Dokken Engineering in 2023 to prepare the Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study and Dokken has completed all of the contracted tasks.

D. Four alignment alternatives were prepared with input from relevant resource agencies, the public, advocate groups, and an internal project development team including the Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT).

E. The four alignment alternatives were evaluated against key project criteria and alternative 3B best achieved key performance outcomes.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

The Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study is accepted as complete and accurate.

SECTION 2.

Alternative 3B is adopted as the preferred alternative to guide future design, engineering, and analysis.

Resolution 2025-0041 February 18, 2025 Page 1 of 2
SECTION 3.

The City Manager or the City Manager’s designee is directed to identify and recommend actions toward implementation of the preferred alternative.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Exhibit A – Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study (818 pages) Adopted by the City of Sacramento City Council on February 18, 2025, by the following vote:

Ayes: Members Dickinson, Guerra, Jennings, Maple, Pluckebaum, Talamantes, and Mayor McCarty
Noes: Member Kaplan
Abstain: Member Vang

Absent: None
Attest: _____________________________________ Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk The presence of an electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the Sacramento City Council.

Resolution 2025-0041 February 18, 2025 Page 2 of 2
Final
Concept &
Feasibility Study
February 18, 2025
This page intentionally left blank
Table of Contents
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study i
February 18, 2025
Table of Contents
Table of Contents............................................................................................................. i Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 1 Introduction.................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Background............................................................................................................ 3

1.2 Project Description................................................................................................. 3

1.3 Project Purpose and Need..................................................................................... 6

1.4 Study Objective...................................................................................................... 6 Existing Setting.............................................................................................. 7

2.1 American River Parkway........................................................................................ 7

2.2 Floodplain/Levees.................................................................................................. 7

2.3 Residential/Commercial Structures and Businesses.............................................. 8

2.4 Right of Way .......................................................................................................... 9

2.5 Utilities ................................................................................................................... 9

2.6 Transportation........................................................................................................ 9

2.7 Planning Framework ............................................................................................ 10 Public Outreach ........................................................................................... 12

3.1 Vested Partner Identification................................................................................ 12

3.2 Pop Up Events ..................................................................................................... 14

3.3 Community Conversation No. 1 ........................................................................... 14

3.4 Community Survey............................................................................................... 15

3.5 Stakeholder Focus Meeting ................................................................................. 15

3.6 Project Website.................................................................................................... 16

3.7 Community Open House...................................................................................... 17

3.8 Sacramento Regional Transit............................................................................... 18 Preliminary Alternative Development........................................................... 19

4.1 Alternatives Analyzed........................................................................................... 19

4.2 Horizontal Alignment Alternatives ........................................................................ 19

4.3 Vertical Alignment Alternatives ............................................................................ 20

4.4 Cross Section Alternatives ................................................................................... 22

4.5 Right of Way Impacts........................................................................................... 26

4.6 Bridge Type Alternatives...................................................................................... 27 Table of Contents
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study ii
February 18, 2025

4.7 Trail Connections ................................................................................................. 30

4.8 Transit Phasing .................................................................................................... 34

4.9 Cost...................................................................................................................... 34

4.10 Traffic Analysis................................................................................................... 35 Environmental.............................................................................................. 44

5.1 Constraints Analysis............................................................................................. 44

5.2 PA&ED Recommendations .................................................................................. 46

5.3 Agency/Stakeholder Consultations ...................................................................... 48

5.4 Regulatory Permitting........................................................................................... 50 Hydraulics.................................................................................................... 51

6.1 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................. 51

6.2 Stakeholder Coordination..................................................................................... 52

6.3 Hydrology............................................................................................................. 52

6.4 Hydraulic Analysis................................................................................................ 52

6.5 Scour Analysis ..................................................................................................... 54

6.6 Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 55 Constructability ............................................................................................ 56

7.1 Bridge Width and South Approach....................................................................... 56

7.2 Foundation Installation......................................................................................... 57

7.3 Site Access .......................................................................................................... 57

7.4 Transit Lanes ....................................................................................................... 58 Locally Preferred Alternative........................................................................ 59

8.1 Alternative Selection ............................................................................................ 59 Funding Strategy ......................................................................................... 62

9.1 Funding Sources.................................................................................................. 62

9.2 Matching Funds ................................................................................................... 63

9.3 Partnerships......................................................................................................... 64

9.4 Aligning the Truxel Bridge Project with the Funding Process............................... 64 List of Tables
Table 1: Utility Owner Matrix ........................................................................................... 9 Table 2: Community Survey Feedback ......................................................................... 15 Table 3: Project Alternatives Composition..................................................................... 19 Table 4: Project Capital Cost Summary (Millions)......................................................... 34 Table of Contents
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study iii
February 18, 2025
Table 5: Project Roadway ADT and LOS...................................................................... 37 Table 6: VMT Methodologies ........................................................................................ 38 Table 7: Citywide Passenger Vehicle VMT per Capita within the City ....................... 39 Table 8: Induced VMT................................................................................................... 39 Table 9. O-D VMT by Speed Bin - Full Accounting ....................................................... 40 Table 10: O-D VMT by Speed Bin - Partial Accounting (RTAC method)....................... 41 Table 11: Transit Summary ........................................................................................... 42 Table 12: Anticipated Technical Studies ....................................................................... 47 Table 13: Anticipated Technical Studies ....................................................................... 50 Table 14: Project Alternatives Composition................................................................... 59 Table 15: Project Alternatives Ranking ......................................................................... 61 List of Figures
Figure 1. Project Vicinity.................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2. Project Location ............................................................................................... 5 Figure 3. Parkway and Levee Locations ......................................................................... 7 Figure 4. Business Locations .......................................................................................... 8 Figure 5. Outreach Capture Area .................................................................................. 12 Figure 6. Horizontal Alignment Alternative .................................................................... 20 Figure 7. Cross Section Alternative 1............................................................................ 22 Figure 8. Alternative 2 Cross Section............................................................................ 24 Figure 9. Alternative 3A Cross Section.......................................................................... 25 Figure 10. Alternative 3B Cross Section........................................................................ 25 Figure 11. Trails in the Project Area.............................................................................. 31 Figure 12. Screenline across Truxel Bridge and I-5 ...................................................... 41 Figure 13. Lower American River Floodway.................................................................. 51 Figure 14. Existing Buildings at Southern Conform (Alts 2 & 3) .................................... 56 Figure 15. SacRT Light Rail Infrastructure Installation Concept.................................... 58 Figure 16. Flowchart of Potential Funding Decisions and Options ................................ 66 Attachments
A. Project Vicinity Map
B. Project Location
C. Horizontal Alignment Alternatives
D. Vertical Alignment Alternatives
E. Cross Section Alternatives
F. Advance Planning Studies
G. Alternatives Analyzed
H. Alternative Cost Estimate
I. Right of Way Ownership
J. Utilities
K. Traffic Analysis
L. Outreach Plan
M. Outreach Meeting Summaries
N. Geotechnical Memo
O. Environmental Memo
P. Hydraulics Memo
Q. Constructability Memo
R. Funding Strategy
Executive Summary
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 1
February 18, 2025
Executive Summary
This feasibility study provides an in-depth analysis of the proposed Truxel Bridge Project (Project), designed to assess its technical, financial, and operational feasibility. The project aims to construct a multimodal bridge across the American River, serving a wide range of transportation modes. Its primary goals include improving regional mobility, easing traffic congestion, and supporting future transportation infrastructure needs. By offering a new route between Natomas and Downtown Sacramento, the bridge will significantly reduce travel times and promote more sustainable commuting options.

The study evaluates potential challenges, risks, costs, and benefits, focusing on optimizing resource allocation and minimizing risks for better project outcomes in future phases. The proposed design includes dedicated space for vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, and transit (including future light rail expansion). The bridge will enhance regional mobility, air quality, and overall connectivity by connecting to nearby trails and aligning with Sacramento’s long-term transit and sustainability goals.

A community engagement plan was developed and implemented for the Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study (Study) to raise public awareness, gather input on design and travel needs, and ensure inclusivity. It focused on involving diverse stakeholders, underrepresented groups, residents, and organizations advocating for climate action, housing, economic growth, and social equity.

The feasibility study explores three main design alternatives:

1. Alternative 1 proposes dedicated, directionally separated lanes for all modes of transportation, including vehicles, light rail, cyclists, and pedestrians. This design maximizes operational efficiency for light rail and overall safety by reducing conflicts between different users, ensuring that light rail operations remain independent of vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

2. Alternative 2 introduces a compact design by providing shared lanes for light rail and vehicular traffic, reducing the overall bridge width. A fully separated Class 1 trail for pedestrians and cyclists ensures safe, non-motorized travel across the bridge.

Additionally, this alternative incorporates a center lane to provide easy access during emergency situations. The design also offers flexibility in sensitive areas, such as near the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES).

3. Alternatives 3A & 3B (Recommended) present the widest design options, featuring separated lanes for all travel modes, with the light rail positioned on one side of the bridge. This configuration ensures maximum separation of pedestrians from vehicular traffic (and a barrier separation from light rail traffic), promoting a safer and more pleasant experience for active transportation users. While both versions of this alternative offer flexibility to reduce the bridge’s width near sensitive facilities, the overall design results in a broader footprint.

Executive Summary
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 2
February 18, 2025
These alternatives were analyzed and scored based upon multiple evaluation criteria including safety, pedestrian and cyclist stress levels, trail connectivity, emergency access, right of way impacts, and ease of construction. It was found that Alternatives 3A and 3B received the highest scores.

It is understood that this Project will have a federal nexus. Therefore, the proposed Project will require approvals under CEQA and NEPA during the next phases of the project. The City of Sacramento will be the CEQA lead and at this time, it is assumed that Caltrans will be the NEPA lead. Due to the level of impacts to environmental resources and anticipated level of public interest, it is anticipated that the Project will require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under CEQA and a Complex Environmental Assessment (EA) under NEPA.

The project is expected to have minimal hydraulic impacts to the floodplain and can likely be mitigated during final design. Erosion and scour protection will be necessary and will be handled through methods such as rip rap. Small improvements to the north levee are necessary with the project in order to provide the standard freeboard requirements.

The traffic analysis performed for the Study indicates that the forecast volumes among the various alternatives do not differ significantly and during peak hour, the alternatives will operate in a similar manner. Level of service in the local roadway network will not be impacted by the project and the bridge will operate at a level of service D. Vehicle miles traveled is shown to slightly decrease with the project in place.

The constructability assessment determined that all of the Study alternatives could be feasibly constructed with Alternatives 2 and 3 requiring careful selection of foundation installations along Sequoia Pacific Boulevard as well as significant coordination with the businesses along that roadway. The foundation selection is critical to avoid real property takes and maintain access for adjacent property owners. Site access will be a key component to develop in the next phase of the project and working days will be restricted based on flood and environmental requirements.

The bridge construction will be designed to accommodate the eventual extension of light rail to North Natomas.

Funding high-cost projects like the Truxel Bridge is a complex process. The project funding strategy involves aligning project partners, leveraging locally available resources, and positioning the Project to be competitive for state and federal funds.

Chapter 1. Introduction
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 3
February 18, 2025
Introduction

1.1 Background
Currently, a significant amount of traffic from Natomas depends on Interstate 5 (I-5) as the primary route to cross the lower American River into Downtown Sacramento. This heavy reliance on I-5 has led to severe congestion, contributing to increased commute times, poor air quality due to elevated emissions, and decreased reliability for those traveling between Natomas and downtown. There are multiple trails in the project’s vicinity, including the Two Rivers Trail along the south levee, Jedidiah Smith Memorial Trail through Discovery Park, and the Garden Highway Class I trail on the north levee. These routes are heavily used by cyclists and pedestrians who also seek efficient river crossing alternatives. The only bike and pedestrian crossing west of State Route 160, the Jibboom Street Bridge, offers limited relief as it suffers from several deficiencies, which will be detailed in Chapter 2 of this study.

Recognizing the growing need for an additional crossing, the City of Sacramento initiated the American River Crossing Alternatives Study in 2010. This study aimed to evaluate multiple potential alignments for a new crossing over the American River. After careful analysis of eight proposed alignments, Alignment 3, which follows the Truxel Road corridor and connects to Sequioa Pacific Boulevard south of the American River, was identified as the most viable and preferred option for a new crossing. The selection of this alignment was based on its potential to alleviate traffic congestion, improve air quality, and provide a more reliable and efficient route for commuters traveling between Natomas and Downtown Sacramento.

1.2 Project Description
Located near the City of Sacramento in Sacramento County, California, the proposed Truxel Bridge Project (Project) will construct a multimodal bridge spanning the American River, designed to serve multiple forms of transportation to meet the diverse needs of the community (see Figure

1. Project Vicinity and Figure 2. Project Location as well as Attachment A and Attachment B). The bridge will accommodate vehicles, providing a much-needed alternative to the heavily congested I-5 corridor for local trips. In addition to vehicular traffic, the bridge will feature dedicated pathways for pedestrians and cyclists, promoting active transportation and healthier, more sustainable commuting options. To further promote active transportation, the design of the bridge will also connect to key trails in the vicinity. All alternatives in this study incorporate planning for light rail to be consistent with long-range planning documents. However, it is important to note that dedicated light rail lanes can serve as bus lanes as an interim solution if SacRT is unable to extend light rail within the project's construction timeline. The bridge will comply with Sacramento’s Neighborhood-Friendly Bridge Policy.

The new bridge will significantly improve connectivity between Natomas and Downtown Sacramento, providing a more reliable and efficient route for local commuters. By balancing traffic congestion and offering alternative transportation options, the bridge will enhance regional mobility, reduce travel times, and contribute to improved air quality. This project not Chapter 1. Introduction
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 4
February 18, 2025
only addresses the immediate infrastructure needs of the area but also supports future growth by creating a vital link between these key regions of Sacramento.

Figure 1. Project Vicinity
Chapter 1. Introduction
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 5
February 18, 2025
Figure 2. Project Location
Chapter 1. Introduction
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 6
February 18, 2025

1.3 Project Purpose and Need
The purpose of the proposed Project is to:
• Provide a crossing of the Lower American River for all modes of transportation which will increase the ability of the community to walk, bike, and utilize public transit as an alternative to driving while being in compliance with the City of Sacramento’s Neighborhood Friendly Bridge Policy.
• Improve connectivity across the Lower American River between the Central City and South Natomas for all modes of travel in order to enhance accessibility to resources, jobs, commerce, and social exchanges.
• Increase evacuation and emergency/disaster response options for Central City and South Natomas residents and businesses.
• Enhance recreational access to the American River Parkway from both banks of the Lower American River for pedestrians and cyclists.

The proposed Project addresses the following needs:
• The Lower American River creates a barrier to mobility that causes longer trip lengths for relatively close origins and destinations which discourages walking and bicycling, leads to a dependence on automobiles, and creates inefficient transit routing. These transportation system limitations lead to negative effects on public health. • The Lower American River creates a barrier to economic activity, social exchanges, and job access between the Central City and South Natomas. In addition, lack of direct connection between the Central City and South Natomas diminishes the viability of development that has been planned and approved in the City of Sacramento’s General Plan, the River District Specific Plan, and the Sacramento Railyards Specific Plan. • Limited connectivity across the Lower American River contributes to longer emergency/disaster response times and limits evacuation alternatives. • Limited options for access to recreational facilities reduces opportunities to utilize the Lower American River Parkway, especially for those walking and biking.

1.4 Study Objective
The Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study is a comprehensive analysis conducted to assess the viability of the proposed Project. Its primary purpose is to determine whether the Project is technically, financially, and operationally feasible. The study aims to identify potential challenges, risks, and evaluate the costs and benefits. By analyzing constraints in preliminary design this feasibility study helps stakeholders make informed decisions, minimize risks, and optimize the allocation of resources for better project outcomes.

Chapter 2. Existing Setting
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 7
February 18, 2025
Existing Setting

2.1 American River Parkway
The American River Parkway, as shown in Figure 3, is a greenbelt of open space that stretches approximately 29 miles, from Folsom Dam in the northeast to the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers in the southwest. The Parkway is divided into several distinct areas, each with unique features that contribute to their individual character. The Lower American River (LAR) is designated as a “Recreation” river under both the State and Federal Wild and Scenic River Systems. Serving as the heart of the Parkway, the river offers recreational opportunities for residents and visitors throughout the Sacramento region. The American River Parkway is often affectionately referred to as "the jewel" of the Sacramento area due to its significance and natural beauty. The American River in the project area is also considered a navigable waterway per the Coast Guard.

Sacramento County manages a majority of the parkway and has the following goals:
• To provide, protect and enhance for public use a continuous open space greenbelt along the American River extending from the Sacramento River to Folsom Dam. • To provide appropriate access and facilities so that present and future generations can enjoy the amenities and resources of the Parkway which enhance the enjoyment of leisure activities.
• To preserve, protect, interpret and improve the natural, archaeological, historical and recreational resources of the Parkway, including an adequate flow of high-quality water, anadromous and resident fishes, migratory and resident wildlife, and diverse natural vegetation.
• To mitigate adverse effects of activities and facilities adjacent to the Parkway. • To provide public safety and protection within and adjacent to the Parkway.

2.2 Floodplain/Levees
The existing flood control infrastructure in
the project area consists of levees located
along both sides of the American River
Parkway (see Figure 3). The south levee runs
along the southern bank of the American
River, while the north levee is positioned
along the northern side of Steelhead Creek.

The south levee is managed by the American
River Flood Control District, and the north
levee falls under the jurisdiction of
Reclamation District 1000. This area is
located within a FEMA-designated
floodplain, with Natomas classified as a 100-
year floodplain.

South Levee
North Levee
Figure 3. Parkway and Levee Locations
Chapter 2. Existing Setting
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 8
February 18, 2025
Several agencies have jurisdiction over the floodplain and levee system, including the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Central Valley Flood Protection Board, and the American River Flood Control District. These agencies are responsible for maintaining the integrity of the levees, overseeing flood protection measures, and ensuring compliance with relevant safety and regulatory standards to reduce flood risks for the surrounding communities.

2.3 Residential/Commercial Structures and Businesses
The proposed bridge corridor passes through an area with a diverse range of residential and commercial structures, including the following (see Figure 4):

1. Chefs' Toys: A restaurant supply store that offers a wide variety of commercial kitchen equipment and supplies to the foodservice industry. – Tilt up warehouse with truck loading docks

2. BidRL: A warehouse auction business that facilitates online auctions, selling a wide range of items. – Tilt up warehouse with truck loading docks

3. Sacramento PD Evidence and Property: A government storage facility responsible for the safekeeping and management of evidence and property related to criminal investigations. – Tilt up warehouse with truck loading docks

4. WCP Solutions: A packaging and distribution company that provides a variety of industrial packaging solutions. – Tilt up warehouse with truck loading docks

5. Cal OES: A state-operated facility for the California Office of Emergency Services, responsible for coordinating emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation efforts during natural or man-made disasters. – Tilt up warehouse with truck loading docks and a 2-story office building

6. Delta Point Apartments: A residential apartment complex offering multifamily housing. – 2- story apartment buildings

7. Business Park: A commercial complex housing multiple businesses. – 2-story office building Figure 4. Business Locations
Chapter 2. Existing Setting
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 9
February 18, 2025
These businesses and facilities reflect the mixed-use nature of the area, contributing to both the local economy and community infrastructure.

2.4 Right of Way
Right of way through the Project area is held by approximately 14 different owners spread across as many as 28 parcels. Ownership consists of both private and publicly owned (City and County) parcels that are a mix of developed and undeveloped property. See Attachment I for additional information.

2.5 Utilities
Utility research was initiated via the Dig Alert website to establish a list of potential utility service providers in and around the project area. Those identified providers were contacted for verification and facility maps. Additional utility data was obtained from available City and County as-built plans and field verified data. Table 1 lists the utilities that are present within or immediately adjacent to the project site. These are also shown graphically in Attachment J.

Table 1: Utility Owner Matrix
Utility Owner
Communication ATT Distribution - California
Water & Storm Drainage City of Sacramento
Communication Comcast
Communication Consolidated Communications II
Sewer Sacramento Area Sewer District
Communication MCI WorldCom California
Electric (Transmission) Pacific Gas & Electric
Gas Pacific Gas & Electric
Water Sacramento County Water Agency
Electric (Distribution) Sacramento Municipal Utilities District - Electric Communication Wave Broadband - Sacramento Region
Communication Zayo Group LLC fna Networks 360

2.6 Transportation
Truxel Road, currently a four-lane arterial located north of the American River, is an essential roadway in the Sacramento region. Truxel Road connects to key interstates in the region such as I-5, by way of Garden Highway, and Interstate 80 (I-80). In the current City General Plan, Truxel Road between Garden Highway and West El Camino is planned to undergo a “road diet”, meaning that it will be reduced to two vehicular lanes with the extra space being designated for other transportation modes such as pedestrians, bicycles, and transit.

Chapter 2. Existing Setting
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 10
February 18, 2025
Sequoia Pacific Boulevard functions as a minor collector but is slated to become a future arterial as part of ongoing transportation planning and development. These upgrades are aligned with Sacramento Regional Transit’s (SacRT’s) Green Line extension to the Sacramento International Airport, which follows this important corridor.

There is also a strong desire from the community for new bridges in the area to be more neighborhood-friendly, enhancing connectivity without disrupting local life. Initiated with the I Street Bridge Project, the Neighborhood Friendly Bridge Policy was adopted by the City of Sacramento and is defined as a facility that:
 Provides local connectivity for short trips
 Serves all users, including bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and motor vehicles.  Contains architecturally pleasing aesthetics and does not exceed/expand the approach roadways.
 Has a target speed limit less than or equal to the approach roadways and does not connect to residential streets.
 Reduces vehicle miles traveled in the adjacent communities.

Presently, Natomas is connected to Downtown Sacramento by three main routes, each of which are struggling to meet the needs of local users. The most heavily used route, the I-5 bridge crossing, often faces high traffic volumes and significant delays, making it a major point of congestion. This freeway is also used for interstate travel and international commerce and should not be relied upon for short local trips. The second route, which utilizesthe Jibboom Street Bridge through Discovery Park, is indirect and prone to seasonal flooding, emphasizing the need for improved infrastructure to support the growing needs of the area. The third route, State Route 160, connects Natomas to the area east of the proposed bridge location, but lacks pedestrian and bike facilities that align with current transportation needs.

2.7 Planning Framework
There are numerous planning documents that set forth the vision for the transportation network in the Project area. Consistency with these plans will ensure that the Project integrates seamlessly with the broader regional vision for sustainable and connected growth.

2.7.1 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) The MTP/SCS is a document prepared by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments that sets forth a transportation and land use strategy to support an economically prosperous region. It is updated every four years and, since the 2007 edition of the document, the Truxel Bridge has been included in the Transportation Project List as “Truxel Bridge (SAC24539)”. The traffic analysis that supports this document assumes an all-modes Truxel Bridge in the long-range forecast.

Chapter 2. Existing Setting
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 11
February 18, 2025

2.7.2 American River Parkway Plan (ARPP)
The ARPP aims to protect and enhance the 23-mile-long natural corridor from the AmericanSacramento River confluence to Folsom Dam. It focuses on preserving the parkway’s ecological integrity, recreational value, and scenic beauty while balancing conservation with public use.

The ARPP’s Discovery Park Area Plan identifies a new bridge crossing at the location of the proposed Project. The crossing is identified as the Downtown Natomas Airport (DNA-RT) light rail extension, which was included in the Discovery Park Area Plan in 2008, and provided for the conveyance of transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Sacramento County Regional Parks and Planning Departments have acknowledged that the proposed Project, which is an all-modes facility and includes one lane for vehicles in each direction, would require a Discovery Park Area Plan Map Amendment to address the addition of vehicles on the crossing. Based on coordination with Sacramento County, it is anticipated that an Addendum to the previous adopted ARPP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be required before the County can approve this Area Plan Map Amendment. Public outreach will be conducted to ensure the public is involved before the EIR Addendum is approved.

2.7.3 City General Plan
The City of Sacramento’s General Plan is a "roadmap for development," the foundation upon which all land use decisions in a city are to be based. It expresses community development goals and embodies public policy relative to the distribution of future land use, both public and private.

The City recently updated their 2040 General Plan in February 2024. In this document, the Truxel Bridge is included as a 2-lane “planned arterial roadway”.

2.7.4 Sacramento Railyards Specific Plan
The Railyards Specific Plan focuses on an area of approximately 244 acres in the urban core of Sacramento, between the downtown Central Business District and the River District. The Specific Plan aims to establish downtown Sacramento as a major employment center that supports a land use mix of retail, entertainment, office and residential. Construction of a future multi-modal bridge over the American River is referenced throughout the Railyards Specific Plan EIR, which was approved in October 2016 and updated in 2019.

2.7.5 River District Specific Plan (RDSP)
The River District Specific Plan was created to support the transformation of the largely industrial 773-acre River District Area into a transit-oriented mixed use urban environment that would include residential, office, retail/wholesale, light industrial, and hospitality land uses. It was originally adopted in February 2011 and acknowledges the Truxel Bridge as a four-lane bridge containing vehicles and light rail. The traffic analysis for the RDSP utilized the SACOG assumptions that were adopted in the MTP/SCS with the Truxel Bridge in place.

Chapter 3. Public Outreach
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 12
February 18, 2025
Public Outreach
An extensive community engagement plan was prepared and implemented as part of the feasibility study. The objectives of this outreach effort were to:
• Build public awareness of the Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study, its purpose and goals;
• Obtain input on potential opportunities and challenges, travel patterns and needs, and how a new multi-modal bridge can best be designed to fit within the context of the communities that it will serve;
• Ensure that the public engagement process is inclusive and conscious of the various cultural, accessible, and technological needs of the community; • Include a diverse set of stakeholders and community members who speak for underrepresented groups affected by the proposed bridge alignment, current residents who live near the proposed bridge alignment, and community-based organizations or advocacy groups who represent climate action, housing, economic growth, and/or social equity interests.

Following is a summary of the outreach efforts conducted by the project team. A copy of the complete Truxel Bridge Community Engagement Plan is provided in Attachment L.

3.1 Vested Partner Identification
To meet the objectives of the feasibility study, the
project team developed a database consisting of a
diverse set of stakeholder agencies, groups, and
organizations that would be an integral part of the
public outreach process. These stakeholders
originated in the North Natomas, South Natomas,
and River District areas (Figure 5) and included the
following:

Nearby Residents/Property Owners:

Residents and/or property owners who live
near the proposed bridge alignment, whose
travel patterns and accessibility may be
improved by the new crossing.

Neighborhood Associations: Nearby
community and neighborhood associations.

Social Service Providers: Organizations or
agencies who provide social services to
community members in the River District or South Natomas communities.

Figure 5. Outreach Capture Area
Chapter 3. Public Outreach
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 13
February 18, 2025
Underrepresented Communities: Organizations or groups who serve underrepresented communities, such as communities of color, nearby tribal communities, low-income residents, seniors, youth, and people with disabilities.

Active Transportation Groups: Organizations and groups who advocate for people who walk, bike or take transit in the Sacramento region.

Economic Development/Local Employers: Chambers of commerce, developers, and property and business improvement districts in Sacramento Districts 3 and 4 where a new river crossing at Truxel Road may encourage increased business activity and support economic development in the area. This also includes contacts from the Railyards project and from the River District.

Education: K-12, trade, and higher educational institutions located near the proposed alignment whose students may use the future bridge to travel to school.

Health Care: Hospitals and public healthcare providers located near the proposed bridge alignment whose patients or EMTs may benefit from a new bridge to reach medical services and appointments. This includes Kaiser Permanente, with plans for a new medical facility in the Railyards just south of the American River that would greatly depend on a new river crossing to effectively serve the South Natomas Community.

Environmental Advocates: Commissions, agencies, or organizations that advocate for sustainable land use and environmental protection in the Sacramento region.

Local Destinations: Recreation, entertainment, and shopping destinations in the Sacramento region located near the proposed bridge alignment who may depend on a new river crossing for their local customer base and out-of-town visitors.

Major Employers: Major employers located in South Natomas, the River District, and North Natomas whose employees may depend on the proposed bridge to travel across the American River to their job regularly.

Parkway Interests: Sacramento County staff who manage the American River Parkway and adjacent Regional Parks land.

Transit Providers: Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT), South Natomas Transportation Management Association (TMA), and North Natomas Jibe.

Public Representatives: The offices of Congresswoman Doris Matsui and Representative Ami Bera as well as the City Council representatives for Districts 1, 3, and 4.

Over 160 agencies, groups, and organizations were identified in the initial database. Additional stakeholders were added throughout the project duration as a result of outreach events and project coordination meetings.

Chapter 3. Public Outreach
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 14
February 18, 2025

3.2 Pop Up Events
The project team attended existing community events and meetings hosted by neighborhood groups, Parent-Teacher organizations, advocacy groups, and community-based organizations for tabling opportunities and presentations.

The goal of joining these events was to meet the community where they are in order to introduce the project, build awareness of what is planned, and solicit feedback from those in attendance regarding how the City can develop a design concept that meets the community’s needs. Events attended by the team included:
o Celebrate Natomas
o South Natomas Unified Board Meeting
o North Natomas Community Coalition
Board Meeting
o Livability Summit
o River District Board Meeting
o District 3 Community Coalition Board
Meeting
o Gardenland Northgate Neighborhood
Association Board Meeting
o North Natomas Jibe Board Meeting
o Sacramento Sierra Building & Construction Trades Council Board Meeting o South Natomas Transportation Management Association Board Meeting

3.3 Community Conversation No. 1
On January 10, 2024, the project team hosted a Community Conversation at the Read Academy in South Natomas. This meeting was a moderated workshop with informational board displays and facilitated discussions between the public and project team on their preferences for concept design alternatives and ideas for making the bridge community friendly. More than 55 community members attended the meeting to receive an update on the project and provide early feedback for the study.

Key takeaways from the Community Conversation included:
 Attendees favored the inclusion of bicycle, pedestrian and public transit facilities on the bridge and felt that the bridge would encourage these active modes of transportation.  The bridge was viewed as providing a more direct route into downtown, promoting ease of travel and a more direct route for emergency vehicles.

Pop Up Event at Celebrate Natomas
Chapter 3. Public Outreach
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 15
February 18, 2025
 The American River Parkway was identified as a resource of importance to the community and there were questions as to the impact of the bridge on the Parkway.  In terms of the various cross section alternatives, there were safety concerns regarding bicycles and pedestrians traveling adjacent to vehicles and cars/transit sharing lanes.

The meeting summary for the Community Conversation can be found in Attachment M.

3.4 Community Survey
As a follow up to the Community Conversation, the City hosted an Online Community Questionnaire from February 12 - 26, 2024. The questionnaire, which received a total of 1,019 responses from the community, served as a way for the larger Sacramento community to share their input if they were unable to attend the in-person community meeting. The Questionnaire included a video presentation of the slide show from the Community Conversation and 9 questions regarding the following topics:
• Current community travel patterns/modes used across the lower American River and the purpose of their trips.
• Community benefits of the proposed bridge.
• Concerns about the proposed bridge.
• Proposed bridge cross sections.

The key benefits and concerns identified by the survey respondents are summarized in Table 2 below:

Table 2: Community Survey Feedback
Benefits Concerns
Encourages alternative modes of travel Cut through traffic on Truxel Road Provides better emergency access Ensuring safe facilities for bikes/peds on bridge Offers direct, faster access to downtown Environmental impacts to lower American River Avoids I-5 congestion Cost of bridge
A summary of the Online Community Questionnaire is provided in Attachment M.

3.5 Stakeholder Focus Meeting
On Tuesday, April 9, 2024, the City of Sacramento hosted a Stakeholder Focus Group Meeting at the Standford Settlement Neighborhood Center. The purpose of the April meeting was to present modified options for the bridge cross sections and mix of uses and gather additional feedback Chapter 3. Public Outreach
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 16
February 18, 2025
from stakeholder representatives. Ten representatives from the following organizations attended the meeting:
o 350 Sacramento
o Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG)
o North Natomas Jibe
o The River District
o Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS)
o Save the American River Association (SARA)
o Gardenland-Northgate Neighborhood Association
o The Standford Settlement Center
o Sacramento Area Bike Advocates (SABA)
o Sacramento Transit Advocates and Riders (STAR)
The meeting included a recap of the public outreach activities completed to date and feedback received as well as an overview of the feasibility study, its purpose and background, and some frequently asked questions from the community. This was followed by a review and discussion of the Truxel Bridge horizontal alignment design and proposed cross-section options. The remainder of the time was spent answering stakeholder’s questions and listening to their feedback. Observations and opinions included:
 Bicycles and pedestrians should be separated.
 Take into consideration the increasing popularity of e-bikes and their speed differences as it relates to pedestrians.
 Shared vehicle/transit lanes have a negative impact on transit efficiency but are an efficient use of space.
 Connections to the nearby bike trails are important.

A summary of the Stakeholder Focus Meeting is provided in Attachment M.

3.6 Project Website
A website was developed for the Truxel Bridge Project to provide interested parties easy access to project information. The website includes a project overview, the community benefits of the project, information regarding the cost and funding of the bridge, a list of engagement opportunities with links to meeting summaries and survey results, a schedule for the feasibility phase of the project, Frequently Asked Questions, key contacts for the project team, and links to sign up for the project mailing list.

Chapter 3. Public Outreach
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 17
February 18, 2025

3.7 Community Open House
On November 13, 2024, the project team hosted a Community Open House at the Museum of Science and Curiosity (MOSAC) in Sacramento. Seven stations were set up around the perimeter of the room, each containing exhibits that focused on key elements of the feasibility study, including overall project information, traffic analysis, environmental resources, hydraulic analysis, roadway geometrics, bridge structure, project costs, and next steps. Project team members were present at each station to answer questions and facilitate one-on-one discussion.

QR codes and hard copy comment cards were available for participants to provide feedback. Over 140 community members attended the Open House.

For interested parties that were unable to attend the meeting, an email with a link to the Open House exhibits was subsequently distributed to the project’s 960 contacts and was also posted to the website. Comments were collected for an additional three weeks after the Open House.

Feedback received at the Open House and from the subsequent solicitation included the following key themes:
 Participants expressed a desire to have all modes of travel on the bridge (cars, bicycles, pedestrians, public transit), expressing the ability to shorten their drive downtown, improve greenhouse gas emissions, and meet the City’s climate goals. Others preferred to exclude personal vehicles on Truxel Bridge expressing concerns about the impacts to the Lower American River Parkway and potential impacts to traffic on Truxel Road.  Many comments on the open house boards show concerns over how Truxel Bridge may impact traffic in surrounding neighborhoods and adjacent roads, and how the bridge structure would affect nearby wildlife and natural resources. Participants want to see how impacts will be mitigated in subsequent phases of the project.  Most attendees want to see all modes of travel separated – bicyclists and pedestrians should not have a shared path, and vehicles and light rail should not share a lane. This is also reflected in comments showing preference for Alternatives 3A and 3B. Many commenters did not prefer Alternative 1 for the lack of a physical barrier between bicyclists/pedestrians and vehicles and the effect on an adjacent building in the River District, nor did they prefer Alternative 2 because of the shared lanes between transit and vehicles.
 Comments showed concern for the safety and efficiency of travel for bicyclists and pedestrians, encouraging the use of physical barriers and separation from vehicles and public transit. Attendees also encouraged pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users to be prioritized in the bridge design to discourage vehicle use.  Some commenters also expressed concerns over the lack of parking options near the planned Truxel Bridge for people using light rail or visiting the adjacent parkway.

Chapter 3. Public Outreach
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 18
February 18, 2025
 Participants expressed a desire to have the City find ways to shorten the project timeline and expedite the project.
 While many attendees showed support for including light rail on the bridge (and some supporting both light rail and buses), some expressed opposition to including light rail and encouraged the implementation of buses on the bridge.
 Many attendees noted that more connections between Natomas and downtown/the River District are needed and encouraged the City to enhance other pedestrian and bicycle connections leading up to the planned location for Truxel Bridge. Participants expressed an interest in a public transit option to the Sacramento Airport.  Some participants want to see green space or landscaping on the bridge to encourage more active transportation.
 Some participants were interested in understanding how emergency vehicles would use the bridge as a route.

A summary of the Community Open House is provided in Attachment M.

3.8 Sacramento Regional Transit
The Project is proposed to connect Sequoia Pacific Boulevard to Truxel Road along the future Greenline Light Rail alignment planned by SacRT. To maximize the efficiency of project development and to ensure that the bridge is accommodating to all modes of traffic, the City has partnered with SacRT throughout the feasibility study phase. SacRT has attended the City’s monthly project meetings, presentations have been made on a quarterly basis to SacRT’s management, and technical focus meetings have been held with SacRT’s engineers to understand the coordination and physical parameters needed to accommodate transit facilities in the bridge design and construction. As part of this partnership, SacRT has reviewed the various alternatives considered with this study and provided feedback to the team. SacRT’s comments are located in Attachment M.

Chapter 4. Preliminary Alternative Development
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 19
February 18, 2025
Preliminary Alternative Development

4.1 Alternatives Analyzed
This study analyzed the feasibility of multiple horizontal alignment, vertical alignment, and cross section alternatives. These alternatives can be combined in numerous ways. However, certain combinations work better together as a whole than others. A summary of the combined alternatives is provided in Table 3 and presented in Attachment G.

Table 3: Project Alternatives Composition

PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 1 2 3 (A/B)
Cross Section Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternatives 3A & 3B Horizontal
Alignment
Horizontal Alignment
Alternative 1
Horizontal Alignment
Alternative 2
Horizontal Alignment
Alternative 2
Vertical Alignment Vertical Alignment
Alternative 1
Vertical Alignment
Alternative 2
Vertical Alignment
Alternative 2
Bridge Type Cast-in-Place
Prestressed Box Girder
Cast-in-Place
Prestressed Box Girder
Cast-in-Place
Prestressed Box Girder

4.2 Horizontal Alignment Alternatives
For this study, two distinct horizontal alignments were analyzed to determine the most feasible and effective route for connecting Sequioa Pacific Boulevard to Truxel Road, crossing the American River Parkway. Each alignment was evaluated based on its potential impact on the surrounding infrastructure, environment, and community, as well as its ability to meet the growing transportation needs of the region.

The connection from Sequioa Pacific Boulevard to Truxel Road across the American River was selected as the best alternative for a new bridge crossing during the American River Crossing Alternatives Study (completed in 2013). The following alternatives are variations of this crossing location. An exhibit comparing these alternatives is shown below in Figure 6 and can be found in Attachment C.

4.2.1 Horizontal Alignment Alternative 1
Horizontal Alignment Alternative 1 represents a continuation of the Green Line extension proposed by SacRT, intended to expand public transit service northward toward the Sacramento International Airport. This alignment closely follows Sequoia Pacific Boulevard, connecting to Truxel Road at the Garden Highway to better serve the Natomas area. This proposed alignment presents some challenges, as it directly impacts key infrastructure in the area. Notably, it encroaches on the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) building. Additionally, the alignment would affect a PG&E transmission tower. Any modification or relocation of these Chapter 4. Preliminary Alternative Development
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 20
February 18, 2025
facilities would need to be carefully planned to minimize disruptions to both emergency services and the energy infrastructure.

4.2.2 Horizontal Alignment Alternative 2 (Recommended)
Horizontal Alignment Alternative 2 offers a slightly modified approach to connecting Sequoia Pacific Boulevard to Truxel Road. Similar to Horizontal Alignment Alternative 1, it follows the same general route, continuing north from Sequoia Pacific Boulevard toward the American River.

A key difference in this alignment is its strategic horizontal curve, designed to avoid direct impacts on critical infrastructure and buildings in the area. By adjusting the path of the alignment, Alternative 2 attempts to ensure that no buildings, including the Cal OES facility, are directly affected by the proposed bridge with modifications to the bridge cross section at the south approach.

In addition to avoiding the Cal OES building, the curve in the alignment allows it to bypass the PG&E transmission tower. This adjustment eliminates the need for costly and complex relocations or modifications to the tower.

Figure 6. Horizontal Alignment Alternative

4.3 Vertical Alignment Alternatives
For each horizontal alignment proposed in the study, a corresponding vertical alignment was carefully analyzed to ensure the design met engineering, safety, and operational standards. The vertical alignment design was key in determining how the proposed bridge and transportation infrastructure would interact with the environment, especially when crossing major obstacles like the American River, levees, buildings, and nearby roads. Exhibits showcasing the following alternatives can be found in Attachment D.

Chapter 4. Preliminary Alternative Development
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 21
February 18, 2025

4.3.1 Vertical Alignment Alternative 1
Vertical Alignment Alternative 1 is designed to follow Horizontal Alignment Alternative 1 and is consistent with the design of the Green Line extension developed by SacRT. A key feature of Vertical Alignment Alternative 1 is its flat profile as it crosses the American River Parkway.

At the southern end of the proposed bridge, the abutment is located at the south levee of the American River. This placement is possible because of the required removal of the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) building, which would otherwise obstruct the alignment.

In terms of engineering and navigation, the design of Vertical Alignment Alternative 1 ensures that the bridge provides the necessary vertical clearance to comply with the standards set by the U.S. Coast Guard. These clearances are vital for allowing boats and other vessels to pass safely underneath the bridge. This ensures that the bridge design is not only suitable for land-based transportation but also accommodates the navigational needs of the American River.

An additional consideration of Vertical Alignment Alternative 1 is levee maintenance. The American River’s levee system plays a crucial role in flood control and must be regularly maintained to ensure its integrity. To facilitate ongoing levee maintenance, the design includes provisions for maintenance paths that will cross the bridge intersection at both the south and north levees. This will allow maintenance vehicles and crews to access both sides of the river easily, ensuring that the levee system remains functional and properly maintained without being hindered by the new bridge structure.

4.3.2 Vertical Alignment Alternative 2 (Recommended)
Vertical Alignment Alternative 2 is designed to follow the same path as Horizontal Alignment Alternative 2. This alternative maintains a minimum grade of 0.5% across the American River Parkway, ensuring adequate drainage runoff for the length of the bridge.

Vertical Alignment Alternative 2 ensures that the bridge meets the vertical and horizontal clearance requirements over the American River as established by the U.S. Coast Guard. These requirements are crucial for accommodating boat traffic on the river. The bridge must provide sufficient vertical clearance to allow larger vessels to pass underneath safely and meet horizontal clearance standards to ensure there is enough space for navigation across the width of the river.

The combination of Vertical Alignment Alternative 2 with Horizontal Alignment Alternative 2 allows the bridge to begin further south than Alternative 1. Extending the bridge further south provides an opportunity to maintain critical parking areas in the Cal OES parking lots and maintain access to loading bays that would otherwise become unusable.

One of the key improvements in Vertical Alignment Alternative 2 is its approach to levee maintenance. On the south side of the levee, the maintenance road will be routed underneath the bridge on the land side of the levee. This design ensures that levee maintenance operations are not disrupted by the bridge structure itself. Maintenance crews and vehicles will have a Chapter 4. Preliminary Alternative Development
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 22
February 18, 2025
continuous, uninterrupted path beneath the bridge, allowing them to access the levee system for essential maintenance tasks without interference.

On the north side of the levee, access to the levee for maintenance will be provided via the intersection with Garden Highway.

4.4 Cross Section Alternatives
In this study, three bridge cross sections were analyzed to determine the most effective and practical design for the connection of Sequioa Pacific Boulevard to Truxel Road. Each cross section was evaluated based on its ability to accommodate multiple modes of transportation, including light rail, vehicular traffic, cyclists, and pedestrians, while also considering safety, cost, environmental impact, and the overall usability of the bridge. The goal of this analysis was to identify the optimal balance between functionality and efficiency in supporting current and future transportation needs. An exhibit showcasing all of the cross-section alternatives analyzed can be found in Attachment E.

4.4.1 Alternative 1
Alternative 1, as shown in Figure 7, is consistent with the Green Line extension cross section proposed by SacRT. In this alternative, the light rail is centrally located on the proposed bridge.

To ensure safety and proper separation from vehicular traffic, the light rail tracks are physically divided by a vertical curb. This separation is a key safety feature, ensuring that light rail operations remain unaffected by traffic or pedestrians, while also minimizing the risk of accidents.

Figure 7. Cross Section Alternative 1
Chapter 4. Preliminary Alternative Development
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 23
February 18, 2025
For cyclists, the bridge includes dedicated Class II bike lanes adjacent to the regular traffic lanes.

Class II bike lanes are striped lanes that run alongside vehicle travel lanes but are not physically separated by barriers.

Pedestrian access is facilitated by two six-foot-wide sidewalks, one on each side of the bridge, allowing for safe foot traffic and encouraging pedestrian connectivity across the river.

Due to this separation of cyclists and pedestrians on both sides of the bridge, certain trail connections are made more difficult in this alternative, as discussed in section 4.7.

A distinguishing feature of this alternative is the directionalseparation of all modes of travel (light rail, vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians), with all northbound travel occurring on the east side of the bridge and all southbound travel on the west side. This helps to reduce conflicts between different types of users and improves overall safety. It is also the most operationally efficient cross section from the standpoint of transit due to the lack of cross overs with vehicles and pedestrians. However, this design leaves little opportunity to reduce the overall width of the bridge by consolidating or tying together pedestrian routes, meaning that the sidewalks on either side must remain separate.

As a result of its design, which accommodates all modes of transportation with dedicated and separated lanes, Alternative 1 is the second widest of all the bridge alternatives considered. This width allows for safe and efficient travel for all users but could present challenges in terms of construction costs, land use, and environmental impact. Cyclists may also prefer other alternatives since no physical barrier is provided to prevent vehicles from entering the bike lane.

4.4.2 Alternative 2
Alternative 2, as shown in Figure 8, takes a different approach to bridge design by incorporating mixed-use travel lanes that allow both light rail vehicles and motor vehicle traffic to share the same lanes. This mixed-use configuration reduces the overall width of the bridge, making it a more space-efficient option compared to other alternatives.

One of the key features of this alternative is the inclusion of a separated Class I trail. Class I trails are fully separated from vehicular traffic, providing a safe, designated path for both cyclists and pedestrians. This trail would run alongside the bridge but remain physically isolated from the roadways, offering a safe and accessible route for non-motorized travel. The separated trail ensures that pedestrians and cyclists can cross the bridge without interacting with cars or light rail vehicles, promoting both safety and comfort for those using active transportation.

Chapter 4. Preliminary Alternative Development
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 24
February 18, 2025
Figure 8. Alternative 2 Cross Section
Alternative 2 also incorporates a center lane, which can serve as an emergency access route. This lane provides flexibility in the event of an accident or emergency situation, allowing emergency vehicles to bypass regular traffic and reach their destination quickly. This feature enhances the overall safety and utility of the bridge by ensuring that emergency response services are not delayed by congestion or accidents.

Additionally, the cross section of the bridge can be further reduced near constrained areas, such as the Cal OES buildings by routing most pedestrian and bicycle traffic to North 5th Street, as outlined in Section 4.5 of the study. This allows for a narrower bridge design near these critical facilities, which can reduce impacts on the surrounding area and lower right of way costs.

From a transit operations standpoint, SacRT has identified this alternative to be the least efficient, noting that the sharing of lanes with vehicles reduces their headway times and causes delays throughout their system.

4.4.3 Alternatives 3A & 3B (Recommended)
Alternatives 3A and 3B present a slightly different approach to bridge design compared to the previous options. In both Alternatives 3A and 3B, as shown in Figures 9 and 10, each mode is separated into bi-directional couplets.

Chapter 4. Preliminary Alternative Development
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 25
February 18, 2025
Figure 9. Alternative 3A Cross Section
While the two alternatives share many design elements, Alternative 3B introduces a key variation: it repositions the light rail on the east side of vehicular traffic to avoid a crossing point at the intersection of Sequoia Pacific Boulevard where vehicles and light rail would otherwise intersect.

Figure 10. Alternative 3B Cross Section
One of the key features of these alternatives is that they provide the farthest separation between pedestrians/cyclists and cars. Pedestrian pathways are intentionally designed to be as distant as Chapter 4. Preliminary Alternative Development
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 26
February 18, 2025
possible from cars, enhancing safety and creating a more pleasant experience for those walking or cycling across the bridge. It is more desirable for bicycles to be next to light rail since light rail trains cannot wander off track. This separation improves the overall comfort and usability of the bridge for active transportation. The addition of a barrier between the bicycle/pedestrian pathway and transit provides an extra measure of safety and security for walkers, bikers, and transit operators alike.

Additionally, Alternatives 3A and 3B both offer separate lanes for pedestrians and cyclists, ensuring that each mode of active transportation has its own dedicated space. This distinction is crucial for reducing conflicts between slower-moving pedestrians and faster-moving cyclists.

Like Alternative 2, the cross section of the bridge can be reduced near sensitive facilities, such as the Cal OES buildings. By rerouting pedestrian traffic to North 5th Street, as detailed in Section

4.5 of the study, this allows for a narrower bridge design in these key areas, reducing the project’s footprint and potentially lowering construction costs and environmental impacts, without sacrificing pedestrian accessibility.

Alternatives 3A and 3B are the widest bridge option among the alternatives considered. This is primarily due to the inclusion of dedicated, separated lanes for each mode of transportation as well as the need for shoulders to accommodate disabled vehicles. While this increases the overall width of the bridge, it also ensures that each group has ample space, reducing conflicts and promoting a safer crossing.

From a transit operations perspective, Alternative 3A requires a cross-over between transit and vehicles at both ends of the bridge whereas Alternative 3B only requires one cross-over on the northern end of the bridge.

4.5 Right of Way Impacts

4.5.1 Project Alternative 1
Alternative 1 eliminates left turn movements along existing Sequoia Pacific Boulevard due to the light rail lines being placed in the median. This significantly affects the trucking operations of adjacent businesses. To mitigate this, an intersection is proposed at the south levee allowing businesses to reconfigure their access. While this intersection does mitigate some access restrictions, it will still significantly impact business operations, and some businesses and buildings may require a full acquisition rather than reconfiguring their operations. Due to this factor, its estimated that 5 parcels will need to be fully acquired, with buildings removed or completely reconfigured.

Alternative 1 will also require the removal of the Cal OES building which contains equipment used for emergency operations. The effort to relocate this building will require significant coordination efforts and relocation will be difficult.

Chapter 4. Preliminary Alternative Development
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 27
February 18, 2025
Due to the impacts to buildings on the south end of the project, Alternative 1 poses the highest right of way cost for alternatives analyzed in this study. The approximate square footage of right of way impacts by parcel for Alternative 1 is provided in Attachment I.

4.5.2 Project Alternative 2
Alternative 2 presents the least right of way impact among the alternatives analyzed. Since the light rail will operate in mixed-use lanes, existing traffic patterns can largely remain unchanged, minimizing disruption to adjacent businesses. The design's narrow cross section south of the bridge results in minimal encroachment onto adjacent parking areas and truck loading zones.

This limited impact on adjacent businesses helps preserve current operations and significantly reduces the need for costly right of way acquisitions, making Alternative 2 the most favorable in terms of minimizing right of way-related impacts. The approximate square footage of right of way impacts by parcel for Alternative 2 is provided in Attachment I.

4.5.3 Project Alternatives 3A & 3B
Alternatives 3A and 3B have slightly more impacts on adjacent businesses compared to Alternative 2. This is primarily due to the slightly wider cross-section south of the levee. In these alternatives, the light rail is positioned on one side of the road, which necessitates consolidating driveway crossings and truck operations on the east side of the roadway to maintain safety.

While these adjustments help ensure safe operations, they introduce minor disruptions to existing access and business operations, making the impact slightly greater than Alternative 2, though still less severe than Alternative 1. The approximate square footage of right of way impacts by parcel for Alternative 3 is provided in Attachment I.

4.6 Bridge Type Alternatives
This section provides a summary of the evaluations of various bridge design alternatives. These alternatives were assessed based on factors such as cost-effectiveness, adaptability to future infrastructure, and suitability for accommodating navigable waterway requirements.

4.6.1 Cast-in-Place Prestressed Box Girder (Recommended Riverside of South Levee) The recommended Cast-in-Place Prestressed (CIP/PS) Box Girder design offers several advantages. It efficiently accommodates variable width and horizontal curve geometry, making it versatile for various structural configurations. Additionally, this design is both efficient and economical. The box girder can also support the future installation of Light Rail Plinths, enabling easy integration of track systems. The design can also meet the required clearances for navigable waterways. See Attachment F for Advance Planning Studies developed for each alternative.

The CIP/PS Box Girder will require significant falsework to support construction of the spans. This has two negative impacts to the project:
• In-Water Work Windows - Trestles will be required in the American River and Steelhead Creek to support the falsework and provide construction access across the waterways.

Chapter 4. Preliminary Alternative Development
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 28
February 18, 2025
The falsework/trestles in the floodway will have seasonal and environmental work windows to ensure adequate floodway conveyance and sensitive species. Generally, the in-water work occurs from June to October. This will prolong construction when compared to precast alternatives; however, the economy of the CIP/PS box girder and other advantages outweigh the increased construction time. • Impacts to Southern Buildings – During construction, falsework will be required for the section of bridge south of
the levee. This area is
currently used for building
access, trucking, parking,
and the Two Rivers Trail
along the levee. While
impacts to building
operations cannot be
avoided, coordination with
the owners will occur during
the PA&ED phase to identify
user needs, and the final
design phase will include
falsework specifications and
requirements to provide
passage through the area
after falsework is installed
to minimize impacts to operations as much as possible.

4.6.2 Precast Prestressed Concrete Girders (Recommended Land side of South Levee) Precast prestressed concrete girders offer the advantage of requiring minimal falsework during construction, which reduces on-site labor and time. However, they are less flexible when it comes to accommodating variable width and horizontal curve geometry and are less adaptable for projects with complex layouts. The cost of using precast prestressed girders tends to be higher compared to the CIP alternative.

Construction over the American River and Steelhead Creek would be accelerated by the precast option, potentially offering construction schedule savings for the superstructure construction.

However, temporary trestles will still be required within these waterways for foundation and column construction, girder erection, and equipment access to the floodplain from the north, reducing the benefits of a precast alternative.

Sample Falsework and Trestle Construction
Chapter 4. Preliminary Alternative Development
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 29
February 18, 2025
The precast alternative would also benefit the area south of the levee, near the buildings on Sequoia Pacific Boulevard by minimizing the duration of impacts to the building’s operation and access. While the Advance
Planning Studies in
Attachment F details CIP
structures for the entire
length of the bridge, it
would be feasible to use
precast between the
buildings and this should be
a major consideration
during Type Selection to
help with business owner
coordination and right of
way acquisition.

4.6.3 Movable Bridge
To achieve a lower profile over the American River Parkway, a Movable Bridge provides the benefit of increased vertical clearance for navigable waters, allowing larger vessels to pass through without obstruction. However, this design comes with significant drawbackssuch as high maintenance and operational costs due to the mechanical components required for movement.

Additionally, the construction cost for a movable bridge is notably higher compared to fixed alternatives, making it a more expensive option in terms of both initial investment and long-term upkeep.

4.6.4 Cable Stayed or Suspension Bridge
A Cable Stayed or Suspension Bridge offers the advantage of providing a clear span over the American River floodway, eliminating the need for supports in the water and minimizing environmental impact. This design also increases clearance for navigable waters. This type of bridge is also known for its aesthetic appeal, often becoming an iconic structure in its surroundings. However, these advantages come with a high construction cost, making it a more expensive option compared to other bridge types. Cable Stayed and suspension bridges require large visual invasive supports which would not likely meet the aesthetic criteria of the Neighborhood Friendly Bridge Policy. Additionally, these large span structures have significant cyclical movement from wind and vehicle loads which will also make connections to Jedidiah Smith trail more difficult to maintain as it would require significant joint seals and cover plates at the connection between the main and trail bridges.

Sample Precast Girder Erection
Chapter 4. Preliminary Alternative Development
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 30
February 18, 2025

4.6.5 Bridge Foundations
Attachment N includes the Preliminary Foundation Report for the bridge including alternatives for driven steel pipe piles and Cast-In-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) piles as well as an initial assessment of potential liquefaction or seismic settlement. The Report recommends large diameter CIDH piles for the intermediate supports and driven pipe piles for the abutments, primarily due to potential liquefaction. The intent of the report is to provide initial pile types and depths for the purpose of cost estimating. Alternative low-vibration types like micro piles or oscillated casings for CIDH piles will be assessed
during the PA&ED
phase after site
specific geotechnical
borings have been
performed. Based on
as-built borings from
the nearest bridges
in the area, micro
piles are not
recommended;
however, future
investigations may
reveal more limited
areas of potential
liquefaction. The
installation of the inwater foundations
will require access
trestles regardless
of type.

4.7 Trail Connections
This study will focus on three major trail connections (see Figure 11), each of which plays a critical role in improving accessibility and connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists in the region.

These trail connections are integral to the overall success of the proposed bridge and infrastructure improvements, as they help link key areas of Sacramento, promoting safe, efficient, and sustainable travel alternatives for residents and visitors.

Sample In-Water Foundation Construction on Trestle
Chapter 4. Preliminary Alternative Development
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 31
February 18, 2025
Figure 11. Trails in the Project Area

4.7.1 Two Rivers Trail
The Two Rivers Trail runs adjacent to the American River and connects Jibboom Street and State Route 160 near downtown Sacramento. It provides a connection to the longer Sacramento River Parkway Trail at its western end, while also serving as a maintenance access path for the American River Flood Control District. This trail connection is crucial to maintaining operability and perpetuating active transportation access to the Sacramento trail network. The connection to the Two Rivers Trail can be achieved with all three proposed project alternatives, each having a distinct approach to aligning the trail and ensuring continuity.

For Alternative 1, the trail would be raised to match the height of the bridge abutment on the south levee, creating a signalized pedestrian crosswalk at the intersection. This option would require significant grading and the construction of retaining walls on the south levee to accommodate the elevated trail and the bridge abutment, while also ensuring room for access roadways at the intersection.

Alternative 2 proposes raising the trail on the land side of the south levee to match the bridge’s profile, avoiding the need for extensive work on the levee itself. Grading on the land side is easier to permit and maintain. To sustain full continuity, the trail and access road would be realigned to the south of the existing levee, running underneath the proposed bridge. This design allows the Chapter 4. Preliminary Alternative Development
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 32
February 18, 2025
trail to remain uninterrupted by vehicular or transit crossings. This realignment will maintain required vertical clearances for maintenance vehicles underneath the bridge.

Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2 in terms of the required work, but it offers additional flexibility by allowing the trail to be placed on either side of the bridge. Like Alternative 2, the trail and access road would be realigned underneath the bridge, ensuring continuity and ease of maintenance.

4.7.2 Jedidiah Smith Memorial Trail
The Jedediah Smith Memorial Trail is widely regarded as the premier trail in the Sacramento area, offering scenic access to nature while connecting key points from Folsom to Old Sacramento. The trail parallels the American River and is recognized for its world-class appeal, serving both recreational users and commuters. Within the limits of the proposed Project, the trail passes directly beneath the planned bridge within the American River Parkway. This makes it a critical point to connect the overall design of the project. This trail connection has garnered significant public interest due to its importance in providing continuous and accessible trail access in the region. However, it also represents one of the most complex aspects of the project’s design.

The connection of the trail to the new bridge can provide full access in Alternatives 2, 3A, and 3B, since pedestrians and cyclists are consolidated on one side of the bridge. Alternative 3B supports a full trail connection that begins on the east side of the bridge and cuts back beneath the bridge to connect with the Jed Smith Trail. Alternative 3A supports a trail connection that begins on the west side of the bridge that connects to the Jed Smith Trail farther away due to the maximum slope requirements. In contrast, Alternative 1 poses a challenge for full connectivity. Since Alternative 1 separates pedestrian and bike traffic into distinct lanes on either side of the bridge, connecting the Jedediah Smith Memorial Trail for both directions of traffic would require two separate ramp structures, one for each side of the bridge. This increases complexity and cost, making a fully connected route more difficult to achieve with this alternative. As a result, a partial connection may be necessary for Alternative 1. An alternative to constructing two ramps would be to provide a mid-block crossing for pedestrians and cyclists that would cross vehicles and transit in the middle of the bridge. This type of crossing is not ideal for light rail or vehicles and would likely require crossing signals and gates as well as CPUC coordination.

A hydraulic analysis was conducted to assess the impact of the trail connection on floodwaters and the surrounding environment. This analysis determined that the trail connection could be made on either side of the bridge with minimal impact on floodwater levels. Further reference to this analysis can be found in Chapter 6 of the study, where detailed modeling and hydrological data are provided.

The design process explored multiple horizontal and vertical alignments to identify the best solution for connecting the trail. In terms of horizontal alignment, the study found that the optimal connection point to the Jedediah Smith Memorial Trail is located west of the bridge. This location naturally aligns with the flow path of the American River, offering a smoother integration with the river’s existing trajectory, a feature favored by the Central Valley Flood Protection Board.

Chapter 4. Preliminary Alternative Development
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 33
February 18, 2025
Additionally, a landing west of the bridge provides sufficient space for the necessary ramping down of the trail to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements from either side of the bridge.

To address the safety concerns of the potential for high-speed bicycle traffic on the connecting structure, curves were introduced as a speed reduction measure. This design element helps to slow cyclists as they travel down the trail connection. While this is one effective speed management strategy, it is recommended that further analysis of additional speed reduction measures be conducted in the next phases of the project to ensure optimal safety.

Regarding vertical alignment, maintaining compliance with ADA standards was a primary design consideration. This included ensuring that the ramp grades do not exceed maximums, which is critical for making the trail accessible to users of all abilities. To further enhance usability, landings are incorporated at regular intervals along the ramps. These landings serve as resting areas for both cyclists and pedestrians, particularly for those traveling uphill. The design prioritizes both safety and comfort, ensuring that the trail remains accessible and user-friendly while connecting to the new bridge infrastructure.

In summary, the Jedediah Smith Memorial Trail connection presents both opportunities and challenges within the project. The design, which will be further refined in future phases of the project, should consider the horizontal and vertical alignments, ADA compliance, safety measures, and environmental impacts, making this trail connection a vital element of the proposed bridge project.

4.7.3 Garden Highway Class 1 Bike Path
The Garden Highway Class I Bike Path is located west of the project site beneath the I-5 and Garden Highway interchange. Connecting this path to the new bridge would offer a more direct route for pedestrians and cyclists traveling southbound to downtown Sacramento from areas between I-80, I-5, and the American River, currently reliant on the seasonally inaccessible Jibboom Street Bridge.

This connection can be integrated into all bridge alternatives by widening Garden Highway on the landward side of the levee. This would provide room for a Class I path between the river and the highway. Pedestrians and cyclists would then cross a designated pedestrian crossing at the Garden Highway to access the Truxel Road Bridge (depending on the bridge configuration), improving safety and providing more convenient access between northern Sacramento neighborhoods and downtown.

In summary, linking the Garden Highway Class I Bike Path with the new bridge infrastructure would significantly enhance pedestrian and cyclist connectivity and is feasible under all of the alternatives.

Chapter 4. Preliminary Alternative Development
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 34
February 18, 2025

4.8 Transit Phasing
The Green Line light rail extension is anticipated to follow the construction of the Truxel Bridge and is not factored into the current project's cost evaluation, except for specific elements that ensure future compatibility. To make the bridge construction cost-effective and minimize structural modifications when the Green Line extension is implemented, the bridge will be designed to accommodate necessary light rail infrastructure. This includes the incorporation of foundations and conduit for future Overhead Contact System (OCS) poles, the installation of rail plinths, and the addition of barriers needed for the light rail alignment as well as enhanced bus service. These features will help streamline future work, reduce additional costs when the extension is built, and have been incorporated into all the alternatives.

4.9 Cost
Table 4 provides a summary of preliminary estimates in current year dollars for each alternative, with all amounts presented in millions of dollars. (Detailed estimates can be found in Attachment H). These estimates provide an early approximation of the financial requirements for each option, factoring in costs related to construction, right of way acquisition, and design complexities.

Table 4: Project Capital Cost Summary (Millions)
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3A Alternative 3B Total Roadway Cost $40.3 $22.2 $22.9 $22.8
Total Structures Cost $182.0 $149.5 $188.5 $197.6
Subtotal Construction
Cost $222.3 $171.7 $211.4 $220.4
Total Right of Way
Cost $73.0 $7.5 $8.0 $8.0
Total Capital Outlay
Costs $295.3 $179.2 $218.4 $227.4
The cost of Alternative 1 is primarily influenced by the significant expenses associated with acquiring the required right of way. This alternative necessitates the relocation or removal of several businesses and reconfiguration of access routes to many others, resulting in high right of way costs.

Alternative 2 presents the lowest cost option due to its minimal right of way impacts and the narrower cross-section of the bridge. This reduction in right of way impacts means fewer disruptions to existing buildings and infrastructure, lowering the overall costs.

Alternatives 3A and 3B are very close in cost, but there is a slight variation in the cost of Alternative 3B due to the need for a sidewalk on the west side of the bridge for pedestrian continuity. The added complexity from the integration of the Jedidiah Smith Trail on the east side of the structure also contributes to the slightly higher cost. While these changes add to the Chapter 4. Preliminary Alternative Development
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 35
February 18, 2025
overall cost of Alternative 3B, the difference remains relatively minor between the two alternatives.

4.10 Traffic Analysis
A traffic analysis was performed for the Project to assist with geometric development and environmental impact assessments. The complete study is included in Attachment K and is summarized below.

4.10.1 Forecasts and Operations
Travel demand forecasts and related analysis were conducted to support the development and comparison of the following alternatives, including typical cross sections:
• Cumulative (2040) No Project: This is the Sacramento General Plan scenario with the Truxel Bridge and the Green Line LRT connection removed. • Cumulative (2040) Plus Project –Alternative 1: This is the Sacramento General Plan scenario with the Truxel Bridge configured to match Horizontal Alignment 1 as shown in Figure 6 (Section 4.2).
• Cumulative (2040) Plus Project –Alternative 2: This is the Sacramento General Plan scenario with the Truxel Bridge configured to match Horizontal Alignment 2 as shown in Figure 6 (Section 4.2).

The forecasts were developed using the Sacramento General Plan version of the SACSIM19 model developed by SACOG for the 2020 MTP/SCS.

4.10.1.1 Intersection Forecasts
Vehicle traffic volume estimates were obtained for the following three intersections using StreetLight Data:
• Truxel Road/ W El Camino Ave
• Truxel Road/ Garden Highway
• Richards Blvd/ Sequoia Pacific Blvd
Intersection turning movement volumes were estimated for average weekdays (Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays) during the period of February 1, 2023 to May 31, 2023 for AM and PM peak hours. Estimates were then averaged for the whole period. Since StreetLight data is an estimation based on sample data, this data is often adjusted using roadway counts if available. A comparison of the StreetLight volumes to the roadway counts from the City of Sacramento General Plan showed that the volumes from StreetLight were much lower. As a result, the StreetLight turning movement volumes were then adjusted using the roadway volume.

Using the SACSIM model, intersection turning movements were forecast for the three future year (2040) conditions listed above. A forecasting procedure known as the “difference method” was Chapter 4. Preliminary Alternative Development
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 36
February 18, 2025
applied to develop forecasts. The resulting forecasts indicate that the volumes between the two horizontal build alternatives do not differ significantly. From a peak hour volume perspective, the alternatives will operate in a similar manner. Additionally, the forecasts also show that the project would not increase "cut-through" trips within the South Natomas Community (see Section 4.10.4 for more information).

4.10.1.2 Operations Analysis
Traffic operations analyses were conducted to help determine geometrics and lane configuration recommendations using the same methodology applied for the General Plan. The operations analysis was limited to daily roadway level of service (LOS) consistent with the Sacramento General Plan approach. Peak hour forecasts were developed for future design purposes but were not included in the Level of Service (LOS) analysis.

Table 5 below shows the LOS and Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratios for the roadway segments in the project vicinity for the existing and cumulative scenarios. The “difference method” discussed above was also applied to the roadway volume forecasts except for the new bridge, where raw model volumes were used.

Chapter 4. Preliminary Alternative Development
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 37
February 18, 2025
Table 5: Project Roadway ADT and LOS
Roadway Name Facility ID
Existing Cumulative No Project Cumulative Plus Project – Horizontal Alignment 1
Cumulative Plus Project –
Horizontal Alignment 2
Volume
(1) LOS
V/C
Ratio
Volume
Forecast LOS
V/C
Ratio
Volume
Forecast LOS
V/C
Ratio
Volume
Forecast LOS
V/C
Ratio
Truxel Rd
between W El
Camino Ave and
Garden Hwy
8 (Existing)
7 (Cumulative)
16,374 A 0.41 20,500 F 1.03 27,600 F 1.38 27,400 F 1.37 Richards Blvd
between
Sequoia
Pacific Blvd
and Bercut Dr
8 26,432 B 0.66 35,000 D 0.88 32,000 D 0.80 33,100 D 0.83 Garden Hwy
between I-5 and
Truxel Rd
7 20,787 F 1.04 25,100 F 1.26 22,300 F 1.12 22,400 F 1.12 Garden Hwy
between Truxel
Rd and Northgate
Blvd
7 23,149 F 1.16 27,200 F 1.36 26,900 F 1.35 26,800 F 1.34 Truxel Bridge
between
Richards Blvd
and Garden
Hwy
7 - - - - - - 17,100 D 0.86 17,100 D 0.86
Notes:
(1) Data collected on 4/30/2019 and 5/1/2019 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024 Chapter 4. Preliminary Alternative Development
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 38
February 18, 2025
The segment on Truxel Road north of W El Camino Ave remains of LOS F in both No Project and Plus Project scenarios. This is consistent with the City of Sacramento General Plan analysis. The roadway volume decreases on Garden Highway with the project, but the LOS remains the same.

Truxel bridge has an LOS D.

4.10.2 Vehicle Miles Traveled
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) refers to the total number of miles traveled by a vehicle. VMT can be measured in different ways depending on the purpose of application. For this project, three types of VMT were calculated. Table 6 presents the methodologies, which are explained in detail in the sections below.

Table 6: VMT Methodologies
Method Approach
Trip Types
Included (1) Source
VMT
Efficiency
Generated
by all land
uses
Includes all vehicle “tours” (both work/commute
vehicle tours and non-work vehicle tours) per
person that start and end at land uses within the
City of Sacramento including all intermediate
stops.

II IX
XI
DAYSIM
travel diary
(SACSIM
Model) +
VMT
Outside of
SACOG(2)
Induced
VMT By Lanes Multiply total new class 1, 2, or 3 lanes by an elasticity to generate annual induced VMT.

II IX
XI XX NCST Calculator
OriginDestination
Total
Total origin-destination (OD) based network
VMT for the City of Sacramento accounting for
the entire length of travel.

II IX
XI
SACSIM Model
select zone
assigned
network
Proportional
(RTAC)
Total network level VMT for the City of Sacramento
accounting for the entire length of travel for II trips but only half of IX and XI trips.
100% of II
50% of IX
50% of XI
Notes:
(1) "Trip types included" refers to the different categories of trips that are considered in the analysis depending on the origin and destination ends of the trips. These include - II – Internal-Internal, IX – Internal-External, XI – External-Internal, XX – External-External (where internal refers to the City of Sacramento)
(2) From Replica 2019 - Average Trip Distance Data by TAZ Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024

4.10.2.1 VMT Efficiency
Passenger vehicle VMT per capita is the metric used in the Sacramento 2040 General Plan update as the metric for determining transportation impacts. Passenger vehicle VMT represents the estimated total VMT generated by trips in personal automobiles and light-duty trucks with at least one trip end (i.e., location of departure or arrival) in the city. VMT estimates and forecasts include the vehicle travel associated with residents, workers, students, visitors, etc. engaged in activities that begin and end in the city.

Chapter 4. Preliminary Alternative Development
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 39
February 18, 2025
Table 7 shows the Passenger Vehicle VMT Generated per Capita for the existing and cumulative scenarios.

Table 7: Citywide Passenger Vehicle VMT per Capita within the City 2016 Base
Year
2040 Cumulative
No Project
Plus Project -
Horizontal
Alignment 1
Plus Project -
Horizontal
Alignment 2
Total Passenger Vehicle VMT 19,442,920 21,759,336 21,735,436 21,749,666 Population – City of Sacramento 472,692 638,442 638,442 638,442 Passenger Vehicle VMT per capita 41.13 34.08 34.04 34.07 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024
As presented in Table 7, passenger vehicle VMT per capita is expected to decline slightly with the addition of the project for both Build Alternatives compared to the No Project scenario. While the VMT reduction is slight when considered at the city-wide level, changes near the project would be most visible as shown in the cut-through traffic analysis. The introduction of the bridge also creates the opportunity to make walk and bike trips, makes transit routing more efficient, and shortens vehicle trips between key origin-destination pairs like North and South Natomas to downtown Sacramento.

4.10.2.2 Induced VMT
Induced vehicle travel effects are the driving forces behind VMT changes associated with roadway capacity expansion projects. These effects can also diminish the expected congestion relief benefits of building new capacity. An independent induced VMT forecast was generated using the research-based elasticity method contained in the California Induced Travel Calculator developed by the National Center for Sustainable Transportation (NCST) at the University of California at Davis (UCD). The SACSIM model contains a portion of the induced VMT effect but does not have direct feedback to trip generation or land use. Table 8 shows the total induced VMT associated with the Truxel Bridge project.

Table 8: Induced VMT
2040 Cumulative
No Project Plus Project -
Horizontal
Alignment 1
Plus Project -
Horizontal
Alignment 2
Total Lane Miles 313.95 315.95 315.95
New Facility Lane Miles - 2 2
Total Annual Induced VMT (Million) - 5.8 5.8
Total Weekday Induced VMT - 15,890 15,890
Passenger Vehicle Weekday Induced VMT - 11,280 11,280
Source: https://travelcalculator.ncst.ucdavis.edu/
Induced VMT Elasticity for Class 2 & 3 is 0.75
Total Induced VMT includes passenger and commercial vehicle travel.

Chapter 4. Preliminary Alternative Development
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 40
February 18, 2025
Table 8 shows a daily increase in total VMT by 15,890 of which 11,280 is from passenger vehicles.

However, this calculator forecast is insensitive to project type and local context and no reduction in VMT is accounted for due to the bridge shortening existing trip lengths.

4.10.2.3 Origin-Destination VMT by Speed bin
The total VMT generated by city land uses, disaggregated by speed bin, is used to estimate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. VMT estimates and forecasts include the vehicle travel associated with residents, workers, students, visitors, etc. engaged in activities that begin and end in the city. Origin-Destination (OD) methodology was used to calculate this VMT with the following trip accounting methods.
• Full accounting of all VMT generated by the City of Sacramento - This VMT is a networkbased estimation or forecast that includes total VMT that has at least one end of the origin or destination (OD) within the city accounting for the entire length of travel. • Proportional accounting of VMT generated by the City of Sacramento - This method proportions the VMT generated by City of Sacramento according to the location of the trip start and end locations.

Tables 9 and 10 summarize the VMT by speed bin using full accounting and proportional accounting methods.

Table 9. O-D VMT by Speed Bin - Full Accounting
Speed Bin
2040 Truxel Bridge -
No Project
2040 Truxel Bridge -
Plus Project
(Horizontal
Alignment 1)
2040 Truxel Bridge -
Plus Project
(Horizontal
Alignment 2)
All Vehicles All Vehicles All Vehicles
Total VMTwithin SACOG 23,519,754 23,494,806 23,510,586 Outside SACOG 3,021,030 3,019,250 3,020,340
Total VMT 26,540,784 26,514,056 26,530,926
Notes:

Total VMT from all trips that have at least one trip end in the City of Sacramento based on the origin-destination (OD) method of tracking the full length of trips across the network for each OD pair (II+IX+XI).

VMT outside SACOG region for City of Sacramento is added on top using the IXXI trips and average trip distance outside SACOG region from Replica Spring 2019 data Source: Fehr & Peers, 2023 Chapter 4. Preliminary Alternative Development
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 41
February 18, 2025
Table 10: O-D VMT by Speed Bin - Partial Accounting (RTAC method) Speed Bin
2040 Truxel Bridge -
No Project
2040 Truxel Bridge -
Plus Project
(Horizontal
Alignment 1)
2040 Truxel Bridge -
Plus Project
(Horizontal
Alignment 2)
All Vehicles All Vehicles All Vehicles
Total VMT- within
SACOG 13,544,687 13,526,170 13,537,717
Outside SACOG 1,510,515 1,509,625 1,510,170
Total VMT 15,055,202 15,035,795 15,047,887
Notes:

Total VMT from all trips that have at least one trip end in the City of Sacramento based on the origin-destination (OD) method of tracking the full length of II trips across the network and half of IX and XI trip for each OD pair. In other words, for IX-XI VMT that has one end of a trip within the City of Sacramento only half of the IX and XI VMT is associated with the City's VMT (II+IX*0.5+XI*0.5).

VMT outside SACOG region for City of Sacramento is added on top using the IXXI trips and average trip distance outside SACOG region from Replica Spring 2019 data Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024 Alternative 1 provides better access to the businesses south of the river by adding a signalized intersection at the south end of the bridge compared to Alternative 3. This results in overall less VMT for Alternative 1.

4.10.3 Transit Ridership Forecast
The Truxel Bridge is anticipated
to ultimately carry a segment
of the Green Line LRT
extension between downtown
and North Natomas. The same
version of the SACSIM19
model was used to forecast the
potential daily transit ridership
associated with the extension
along with the associated VMT
reduction. Forecasts are based
on averaging the results from
three model runs.

The transit ridership forecasts
were summarized for LRT
service and for all transit trips
crossing the screenline shown
in Figure 12. The screenline
method gives a better
understanding of transit Figure 12. Screenline across Truxel Bridge and I-5 Chapter 4. Preliminary Alternative Development
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 42
February 18, 2025
ridership and how trips will shift between different transit lines with the introduction of a new bridge and associated transit service.

In addition to ridership, average person miles traveled (PMT) was forecast from the model by averaging the length of each transit trip. Total reduction in daily and annual VMT was also forecast based on the transit ridership forecasts. Daily VMT reduction was calculated by multiplying the daily ridership by the model’s forecast of average person trip length. A daily to annual conversion factor of 315 was used based on transit ridership data for Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT).

Table 11 summarizes the change in transit ridership, average PMT, and reduction in VMT for each cumulative scenario.

Table 11: Transit Summary
Light Rail Only All Transit Lines across Screenline
No
Project
Plus Project -
Horizontal
Alignment 1
Plus Project -
Horizontal
Alignment 2
No
Project
Plus Project -
Horizontal
Alignment 1
Plus Project -
Horizontal
Alignment 2
Daily
Ridership
- 8,313 8,322 26,651 29,965 30,093
Growth in
Daily
Ridership
- 8,313 8,322 - 3,314 3,442
Daily Average
PMT
- 3.24 3.21 6.06 5.33 5.36
Daily Total
Reduction in
VMT
- 26,934 26,713 - 17,663 18,449
Annual Total
Reduction in
VMT
- 8,484,248 8,414,790 - 5,564,040 5,811,473
Notes:

Screenline for No Project includes total ridership from all 16 lines Screenline for No Project includes total ridership from all 17 lines
Ridership Growth -Growth in Total Daily Ridership between No Project and Plus Project Alternatives Annualization Factor – 315
VMT reduction is that associated with transit riders
The table shows that ridership growth on the “Project LRT” is approximately 8,300 daily trips for both Plus Project Alternatives. However, when considering all the lines that cross the screenline, only about 3,300 are new trips. About 5,000 trips have shifted from the other transit lines.

4.10.4 Cut-through Traffic
One of the concerns of building the Truxel Bridge is the potential for an increase in cut-through traffic on neighborhood streets in South Natomas. To understand this issue, a select-link analysis was conducted for Truxel Road north of West El Camino Avenue.

Chapter 4. Preliminary Alternative Development
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 43
February 18, 2025
The results show that the project changes the pattern of trips by providing direct access to the downtown area. This increases the total volume on Truxel Road largely coming from, or going to, origins and destinations in North and South Natomas versus regional routes like Interstate 80 (I80). Traffic volumes decrease on some local roadways such as Garden Highway and West El Camino Avenue and neighborhoods near Garden Highway. On W El Camino, vehicles that use the Segment of Truxel decrease from 2,300 to 2,200. Volumes on residential streets within the neighborhood also decrease by 100-200 vehicles. Thus, the project does not contribute to an increase in local or cut-through traffic. Volumes on I-5 going NB decrease by 1,000 vehicles and SB by 1,200 vehicles.

Chapter 5. Environmental
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 44
February 18, 2025
Environmental

5.1 Constraints Analysis
Dokken’s environmental team evaluated the environmental constraints for each alternative included in this Feasibility Study to determine all future environmental clearances, consultations, permits, and mitigation that will be required to deliver this Project through construction. After database research, preliminary field surveys, and meetings with key stakeholders, it has been determined that the environmental process does not differ between either alternative.

The proposed Project would cross the Lower American River within the American River Parkway, as such there are various environmental constraints that need to be taken into consideration as this Project moves forward. An Environmental Documentation Memorandum has been prepared as part of this Feasibility Study which provides detailed information regarding these environmental constraints. However, the main environmental constraints that would affect Project cost/ schedule and are considered a concern to the public are listed below. The Environmental Documentation Memorandum is included as Attachment O.

5.1.1 American River Parkway Plan
The Project is located over the Lower American River which is classified as a recreation river within the State and Federal Wild and Scenic River Systems. The American River Parkway Plan (ARPP) is the guiding policy document for the parkway and acts as the management plan for the federal and state Wild and Scenic Rivers Acts. The ARPP is administered by Sacramento County, specifically the Regional Parks Department, and focuses on the parkway’s preservation, use, development, and administration. As such, Sacramento County Regional Parks is an important partner for the Project.

As the Project progresses, the City team will coordinate closely with Sacramento County Regional Parks and will obtain their input on the design features, temporary and permanent impacts to parkway natural and recreational resources, and mitigation. In addition, at least one Map Amendment to the Discovery Park Area Plan will be necessary. An Addendum or Supplemental/Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to the 2008 ARPP Update EIR will be required before the County can approve this Area Plan Map Amendment. Complying with the ARPP as well as avoiding, minimizing, and fully mitigating impacts to the Parkway/Lower American River will be a high priority of the Project.

5.1.2 Biological Resources
Sensitive habitat communities within the Project area include the Great Valley Riparian Forest habitat and the Lower American River. The Project alignment crosses a dense stand of Great Valley Riparian Forest and will result in both permanent and temporary impacts to this vegetation community. According to the ARPP, all compensatory mitigation for habitat impacts must be implemented within the parkway. The City team has completed initial outreach to various wildlife and regulatory agencies and the Sacramento County Parks Department and identified a Chapter 5. Environmental
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 45
February 18, 2025
potentially suitable site approximately 2 miles upstream in the Woodlake Plan Area. In the next phase of work, the City will need to work with County Regional Parks, regulatory agencies, and stakeholder groups to develop a conceptual mitigation design. Once a conceptual mitigation design is agreed upon, the next step will be to fully develop a mitigation plan and prepare a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.

Database research and preliminary field surveys determined that sensitive habitat communities provide suitable habitat for the following special status species: Chinook salmon, green sturgeon, California Central Valley (CCV) steelhead, Swainson's hawk, white-tailed kite, western pond turtle, and valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Impacts to federally listed species require Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) during the Project Approval & Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase. For state listed species, the City will need to apply for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) under California Fish and Game Code Section 2081.

5.1.3 Cultural Resources
The Project is located within the Lower American River adjacent to the confluence with the Sacramento River which was an area of regional importance during both Indigenous and historic occupational periods. There are known Native American cultural resources present within the vicinity of the Project area, including the Delta Tribal Cultural Landscape (TCL) and the Lower American River TCL. Potential avoidance will be pursued but presence/absence archaeological testing will likely be required during the PA&ED phase to determine if any previously unknown resources are present within the Project footprint. Lastly, historic-era resources within and adjacent to the Project area include the river levees, the Natomas East Main Drain, and commercial buildings.

Due to the high cultural resource sensitivity of the Project area, the City has initiated early consultation with the United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC), including ongoing email correspondence and a field visit with Tribal representatives in May 2024. The City will continue working with interested tribes throughout the project. Overall, the Project may have an adverse effect under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and a potentially significant effect under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requiring substantial attention to evaluation, assessment of effects, significance, development of mitigation, and consultation during the PA&ED phase.

5.1.4 Transportation
The purpose of the proposed Project is to construct a new multi-modal bridge connecting Truxel Road to Sequoia Pacific Boulevard across the American River, which will impact traffic patterns along Truxel Road, Garden Highway, Sequoia Pacific Boulevard, and other adjacent roads. As the Project would construct a new bridge, potential impacts to regional transportation and traffic must be analyzed under CEQA guidelines through the vehicle miles travelled (VMT) framework.

Since the City is the CEQA lead agency, this Project is required to comply with policies listed in the General Plan and the Climate Action & Adaption Plan (CAAP).

Chapter 5. Environmental
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 46
February 18, 2025
As the Truxel Bridge Project is part of the City of Sacramento’s 2040 General Plan, transportation impacts under CEQA, including VMT, are considered less than significant. Only transportation projects not included in the General Plan would potentially be considered to have a significant impact.

5.1.5 Parks and Recreational Areas
The Project area is located within the American River Regional Parkway, a Sacramento County Regional Park. Additionally, portions of Discovery Park, Two Rivers Bike Trail, and Jedediah Smith Trail are within the Project area. Should Caltrans be the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) lead agency, these resources would be treated as Section 4(f) resources and would go through the Section 4(f) evaluation process during the PA&ED phase. Public access to Discovery Park, American River Regional Parkway, Two Rivers Bike Trail, and Jedediah Smith Trail will be maintained during construction.

5.2 PA&ED Recommendations

5.2.1 CEQA/NEPA Environmental Document
It is understood that this Project will have a federal nexus, either through impacts to waters of the U.S. and/or due to federal funding. Therefore, the proposed Project will require approvals under CEQA and NEPA during the PA&ED phase. The City of Sacramento will be the CEQA lead and at this time, it is assumed that Caltrans will be the NEPA lead. Due to the level of impacts to environmental resources and anticipated level of public interest, it is anticipated that the Project will require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under CEQA and a Complex Environmental Assessment (EA) under NEPA. To streamline the process, a joint EIR/EA will likely be prepared.

5.2.2 American River Parkway Plan
The ARPP identifies a new bridge crossing the Lower American River at the Truxel Road location.

While a new bridge in the proposed location is supported by the ARPP and is specifically referenced in numerous locations including the Discovery Park Area Plan, the Discovery Park Area Plan map identifies the crossing as a Light Rail Downtown-Natomas-Airport (DNA) bridge, and Sacramento County Regional Parks has stated that an Area Plan Map Amendment will need to be processed and approved by the County in order to properly reflect the City’s proposed all-modes bridge. A CEQA analysis will be completed before the Area Plan Map Amendment will be considered/approved.

5.2.3 Environmental Technical Studies
As Caltrans is the assumed NEPA lead and the Project is off the State Highway System, a Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form will be required during the PA&ED phase, which outlines the recommended federal environmental documentation, technical studies, surveys, approvals, agency coordination, and permits required for the Project. A PES Form has been prepared as part of this effort and is included as an attachment to the Environmental Chapter 5. Environmental
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 47
February 18, 2025
Documentation Memorandum. Table 12 summarizes the technical studies that are expected to be required during the PA&ED phase to support the joint environmental document:

Table 12: Anticipated Technical Studies
Resource Type Environmental Technical
Studies1
Coordination
Biological Resources NES Caltrans
Biological Assessment
(USFWS/NMFS)
Caltrans, USFWS, NMFS
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Caltrans
+ U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) during the
design and permitting phase
Water Quality Water Quality Assessment Report Caltrans
Cultural Resources Historic Property Survey Report
/Archaeological Survey Report
Caltrans, USACE, State
Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO)
Extended Phase I Proposal/ Report Caltrans, USACE, SHPO Historical Resources Evaluation Report Caltrans, USACE, SHPO Archaeological Evaluation Report Caltrans, USACE, SHPO
Finding of Effects Report Caltrans, USACE, SHPO
Monitoring and Environmentally
Sensitive Area Action Plan
Caltrans, USACE
Memorandum of Agreement Caltrans, USACE
Late Discovery and Monitoring Plan Caltrans, USACE
Noise Noise Study Report Caltrans
NADR (Optional) Caltrans
Air Quality Air Quality Report Caltrans
Air Quality Conformity Analysis Caltrans, Sacramento Area Council of Governments
Interagency Consultation
Review Group, Federal
Highways Administration
Traffic Traffic Study Caltrans
Community Community Impact Assessment Caltrans
Chapter 5. Environmental
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 48
February 18, 2025

5.3 Agency/Stakeholder Consultations

5.3.1 Sacramento County Regional Parks
The ARPP is administered by Sacramento County Regionals Parks; therefore, frequent and regular coordination will be a priority of the Project. The City team will obtain their input on the design features, temporary and permanent impacts to parkway natural and recreational resources, and mitigation during the PA&ED and design phase.

5.3.2 Air Quality Interagency Consultation
The City is in non-attainment for ozone and PM2.5 and maintenance for PM10 under Federal regulations. As part of the Air Quality Report during the PA&ED Phase, a request for Interagency Consultation Review (ICR) will be prepared and presented to the SACOG ICR Group. This Interagency Consultation process will determine if the Project is a Project of Air Quality Concern (POAQC) under U.S. EPA’s regulations 40 CFR 93.123 (b) (1).

Resource Type Environmental Technical
Studies1
Coordination
Relocation Impact Report (Optional) Caltrans
Visual Visual Impact Assessment - Advanced
Report
Caltrans
Wild and Scenic Rivers Wild and Scenic Rivers Study Caltrans, Sacramento County, California Resource Agency,
National Park Service (NPS)
Hazardous
Materials/Hazardous
Waste
Hazardous Waste Initial Site
Assessment
Caltrans
Section 4(f) Section 4(f) Evaluation Caltrans, Sacramento County, SHPO
Floodplain Location Hydraulic Study Caltrans
Floodplain Evaluation Report Caltrans
Summary Floodplain Encroachment
Report
Caltrans

1. All technical studies listed are Caltrans specific since it is anticipated that Caltrans would be the NEPA lead agency
Chapter 5. Environmental
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 49
February 18, 2025

5.3.3 Wild and Scenic Rivers Interagency Coordination
As part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Study during the PA&ED Phase, coordination with the River Managing Agencies (Sacramento County Regional Parks and California Resources Agency) for the Lower American River is required. It may be necessary to also consult with NPS. The purpose of this consultation is to determine whether the proposed Project could have an adverse effect on the free-flowing characteristics of the river and whether the action could have the potential to alter the river segment's ability to meet the criteria that classify it as wild, scenic, or recreational.

5.3.4 Section 4(f) Programmatic Coordination
As part of the Programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation during the PA&ED Phase, interagency coordination is required with the agency having jurisdiction over the resource. For Two Rivers Bike Trail, Jedediah Smith Trail, American River Parkway, and Discovery Park, Sacramento County is the agency with jurisdiction. For the Natomas East Main Drain / historic levees and Delta TCL, SHPO is the agency with jurisdiction. Coordination with these jurisdictional agencies will consist of discussing the significance of the property, primary purpose of the land, proposed use and impacts, and proposed measures to avoid and/or minimize harm.

5.3.5 State Historic Preservation Officer Consultation
The Project will require consultation with the SHPO to obtain concurrence on any cultural resources identified that require significance evaluations, determinations of effect, and/or a memorandum of agreement under Section 106 of the NHPA.

5.3.6 Endangered Species Consultations
Database research and preliminary field surveys determined that vegetation communities within the Project area provide suitable habitat for the following federally and state listed species:

Chinook salmon, green sturgeon, California CCV steelhead, Swainson's hawk, white-tailed kite, western pond turtle, and valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Impacts to federally listed species require Section 7 consultation with USFWS and NMFS during the PA&ED phase. A Biological Assessment (BA) will be needed to fully analyze and quantify potential impacts to these species.

Caltrans will use the BA to initiate consultation with USFWS and NMFS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

As the Project will likely involve impact pile driving that has the potential to result in harmful levels of underwater sound pressure that could result in direct take of state listed fish in close proximity to the construction area during trestle installation, an ITP for Chinook salmon is expected to be required. Additionally, CDFW has asserted that any Project activities within ¼ mile of an active Swainson’s hawk nest may result in nest abandonment or other forms of “take.” There are numerous documented Swainson’s hawk nests within ¼ mile of the proposed Project and there is a high probability that Swainson’s hawk will be nesting within ¼ mile of the Project during construction. As such, an ITP for Swainson’s hawk is expected to be required to avoid potential delays during construction.

Chapter 5. Environmental
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 50
February 18, 2025

5.4 Regulatory Permitting
Numerous permits, listed in Table 13, will be required during the design phase to construct the Project. Separate regulatory permits from the USACE, CDFW, and the Water Board may be required during PA&ED in order to proceed with geotechnical work or to initiate any cultural resource investigations that require excavation and vegetation removal.

Table 13: Anticipated Technical Studies
Permit Type Regulatory Agency
§404 Nationwide Permit 141 USACE
§401 Water Quality Certification1 Water Board
Flood Encroachment Permit Flood Board & USACE 408
Group
§1600 Streambed Alteration
Agreement1 CDFW
Coast Guard Bridge Permit U.S. Coast Guard
City Tree Permit City of Sacramento

1. Required during PA&ED for geotechnical work or cultural resource investigations Chapter 6. Hydraulics
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 51
February 18, 2025
Hydraulics
The Project will cross the Lower American River floodway and introduce various encroachments, such as piers, embankment fill, and walls in order to support the structure and any trail connections. A preliminary hydraulic analysis was conducted to identify approximate impacts to water surface elevations (WSEL), levee freeboard, velocities, and scour. The complete Preliminary Hydraulic Study Report is provided in Attachment P.

6.1 Existing Conditions
The Lower American River floodway (Figure 13) is comprised of the American River channel, Discovery Park, and the Steelhead Creek channel.
• The American River channel,
which flows along the south
side of the floodway, is
approximately 400 feet wide
and up to 40 feet deep at the
project site. The banks are
relatively steep and support
significant riparian
vegetation, including large
mature trees, bushes, and
shrubs. The channel supports
a constant flow, which is
regulated by Folsom Dam,
and does not have any
significant obstructions aside
from manmade structures
up- and downstream from
the project site.
• Steelhead Creek flows along the north side of the floodway and is approximately 125 feet wide and 35 feet deep in the project area. The moderately sloped banks are covered with thick riparian vegetation consisting of mature trees and dense bushes/shrubs. Supporting a highly urbanized watershed, Steelhead Creek has a constant, year-round flow. • Discovery Park is the low-lying area between the American River and Steelhead Creek, supporting numerous recreational activities, including biking, fishing, archery, picnicking, and boat launches to the American River. The park also supports significant riparian vegetation, primarily trees, and is designed to flood when the American River and Steelhead Creek overtop their banks.

Discovery Park
Figure 13. Lower American River Floodway
Chapter 6. Hydraulics
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 52
February 18, 2025
At the project site, the Lower American River floodway is protected by levees to the north and south. Garden Highway sits atop the northern levee along the north bank of Steelhead Creek and the Two Rivers Bike Trail sits atop the southern levee along the south bank of the American River.

The existing hydraulic conditions of the Lower American River floodway within the project area are relatively stable. This section of the floodway experiences backwater effects from the Sacramento River due to its proximity. This area has mild slopes with subcritical flow, and velocities range from 6.4 to 7.2 fps within the Lower American River floodway. The Froude number in both the Lower American River channel and Discovery Park is below 0.20, indicating stable conditions without hydraulic jumps.

6.2 Stakeholder Coordination
To define the parameters and criteria to be considered as part of this preliminary hydraulic analysis, the team met and/or coordinated with several relevant agencies and stakeholders, including Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE), the U.S. Coast Guard (USGC), and American River Flood Control District (ARFCD). This coordination assisted in defining the flows for the analysis, identifying the current hydraulic model to be used in the analysis, outlining the allowable water surface elevation increases, and describing freeboard requirements for both levees and bridges. The information collected from this coordination was used to guide the analysis and evaluation of the results.

6.3 Hydrology
According to the 2024 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (FIS), a 100-year storm event in the American River channel near the project site has a flow rate of 157,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). No flow data for a 200-year storm event was available in the FIS, so it was obtained from the Central Valley Hydrology Study (CVHS), which specifies a 160,000 cfs flow rate for this event. Given that the CVHS 200-year event is also the maximum allowable flow rate out of Folsom Lake and only slightly higher than FEMA’s 100-year flow, it served as the primary inflow for the American River channel and was used to ensure that freeboard requirements were met.

Steelhead Creek, which flows parallel to American River on the north side of Discovery Park, has a 200-year flow of approximately 4,200 cfs. Both the American River channel and Steelhead Creek overtop to contribute flow to Discovery Park during large storm events.

6.4 Hydraulic Analysis

6.4.1 Criteria
The Truxel Bridge Project is required to meet FEMA, CVFPB, USACE and USCG design requirements.

Chapter 6. Hydraulics
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 53
February 18, 2025
FEMA and USACE set forth the following requirements pertaining to levees:

Levee’s must have a minimum freeboard of three feet above the water-surface level of the 100-year storm event. An additional one foot above the minimum is required within 100 feet on either side of structures (such as bridges) riverward of the levee or wherever the flow is constricted.

CVFPB provides guidance regarding freeboard on bridge structures:

Bridges must have a minimum of three (3) feet of freeboard above the design 200-year flood plain. Levees within one hundred feet of a bridge, or other structure which may constrict floodflows, must have one foot of additional freeboard.

The USCG provides the following guidance pertaining to bridge structures crossing navigable waterways (the American River):

Bridges must have 10 feet of vertical clearance above the design flow elevation of 37.4± feet (USACE SACRIVERBASIN G4 NAVD88 datum) to the lowest hittable portion of the bridge.

6.4.2 Analysis
The hydraulic analysis was performed using the USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center’s River Analysis System (HEC-RAS). An existing 2-dimensional model prepared by CBEC Eco Engineering for other Lower American River projects was used as the existing condition and was modified to include the bridge as the proposed condition. The proposed condition HEC-RAS model was created for Alternative 3 of the Truxel Bridge. Alternative 3 was determined to be the most conservative design, featuring a bridge that is 90 feet wide and 2,755 feet long. This bridge consisted of three 3-foot diameter piers and sixteen 5-foot diameter piers, with three piers proposed within the American River channel banks and two within the banks of Steelhead Creek.

Piers were modeled to have a semi-circular nose shape.

In addition to the bridge structure, connections to the Jedediah Smith Trail that traverses Discovery Park were also added, with one connection originating from the east side of the bridge and, as a separate analysis, a connection originating on the west side of the bridge.

6.4.3 Results
The preliminary HEC-RAS analysis shows a WSEL rise of 0.13 to 0.14 feet immediately upstream of the proposed Truxel Bridge within the American River channel and a WSEL rise of 0.11 to 0.12 feet within the Discovery Park portion of the floodway. The WSEL rise gradually dissipates upstream, returning to existing conditions near RM 10.

Chapter 6. Hydraulics
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 54
February 18, 2025
Adding a westerly or easterly Jedediah Smith Trail connections results in a negligible impact (0.00 to 0.01) for either connection. However, the easterly connection results in slightly higher velocities at the bridge compared to the westerly connection and the no-trail alternative. While neither trail connection significantly impacts WSEL in the floodway, the westerly connection requires fewer piers and results in a slightly smaller velocity increase near the bridge, making it a safer hydraulic alternative.

The analysis shows that velocities will increase, ranging from 2.2 to 2.3 fps, 100 feet downstream of the proposed bridge, with maximum velocities approaching 9 fps.

The bridge freeboard requirements set by all governing agencies are met using the 200-year flow frequency, accounting for the rise in WSEL. In addition, the vertical clearance from the WSEL of

37.26 feet to the lowest hittable portion of the bridge is confirmed to be around 10.14± feet, which meets the minimum Coast Guard required clearance.

The levee freeboard requirements are satisfied along both the north and south levees up through RM 10, with the exception of the segment 100 feet upstream and downstream of the proposed bridge location. Due to the addition of the bridge, an additional foot of levee freeboard is required within 100 feet of the bridge. The freeboard on the north levee will be approximately

0.5 foot less than the required 4 feet in this segment of the Lower American River floodway. Since the Garden Highway (north levee) will be raised to accommodate the new bridge crossing, the additional elevation of Garden Highway will provide more than the needed 0.5 feet of additional freeboard along the north levee for the segment that is 100 feet upstream and downstream of the bridge.

6.5 Scour Analysis
The scour analysis and recommendations for this project utilized the proposed preliminary model results in conjunction with the findings from the River Smith Engineering technical memorandum, "Geomorphic, Erosion, and Sedimentation Analysis for the Proposed Green Line Bridge Crossing over the Lower American River," completed on February 20, 2017, and the State of California Department of Transportation (DOT) memorandum, "Geological and Geotechnical Scour Evaluation for the American River Bridge," completed on March 5, 2018.

The scour analysis considered both long term aggradation/degradation as well as local (pier/abutment) scour. Based on a review of the existing soils and historic geomorphic data, the American River channel in the vicinity of the project has demonstrated relative vertical stability within the past 40 years, with bed elevation variations ranging from -3 feet to +3 feet from modest river flows.

Chapter 6. Hydraulics
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 55
February 18, 2025
Abutment scour for this project is not a major concern since they are either outside the floodplain or in areas of low velocities. However, pier scour is anticipated to present a significant concern for this project due to the composition of the underlying soils.

The south bank of the Lower American River is already armored and maintained by the ARFCD, so no erosion is expected. The north bank of the active river channel is unarmored and further movement in the river planform can be expected in that direction due to the higher project velocities.

6.6 Conclusions
The rise in WSEL in the Lower American River floodway are minor and will not compromise the levee freeboard with the proposed improvements along Garden Highway. Similarly, the trail connection has a negligible impact to WSEL, regardless of the connection location.

It is anticipated that a rise in WSEL within the FEMA floodway would necessitate processing a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) and a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR), requiring coordination with FEMA for remapping the floodplain due to this rise. However, given the minimal nature of the increase, it can potentially be mitigated by more detailed analysis and design elements during the final design phase.

Riverbed degradation is anticipated, particularly when velocities near 9 fps in the proposed conditions. The final design will mitigate for this, and the bridge foundations will be extended accordingly.

Armoring of the north bank of the Lower American River is imperative to prevent further planform movement in that direction, while modifications to existing south bank armoring are necessary to withstand the 160,000 cfs design flow.

Abutment scour is not a concern for Abutment 1 (south abutment) due to it being located outside the FEMA floodplain but warrants further investigation for Abutment 21 (north abutment) during the final design phase.

Pier scour will be addressed by removing alluvial material around support piles and replacing it with rip-rap boulders. The final design will specify rip-rap sizes capable of withstanding peak flows and velocities.

Chapter 7. Constructability
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 56
February 18, 2025
Constructability
A constructability assessment was performed on all alternatives prepared during the initial phases of the development and presented in the Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study. While all alternatives were found to be constructable, the intent of this Constructability Assessment is to highlight critical construction operations and access needs not only to determine the feasibility of the alternatives, but also to help define the project footprint and associated environmental survey areas and right of way needs. It was ultimately determined that all alternatives can be constructed as shown and are therefore feasible. A summary of the constructability assessment is provided below and the complete Constructability Memo is provided in Attachment Q.

7.1 Bridge Width and South Approach
Alternatives for the bridge ranged in width from 63 feet to 116 feet and 2,400 feet to 2800 feet in length. The most recent Advance Planning Studies, dated October 16, 2024, are included as Attachment F. The key differentiator between Alternatives 2 and 3A/B is that these alternatives extend the bridge section between two existing buildings on Sequoia Pacific Boulevard for approximately 300 feet south of the southerly American River levee. These buildings are approximately 80 feet apart. Between the buildings, the bridge width is 63 feet for Alternative 2 and 74 feet for Alternative 3A/B. While the bridge width physically fits between the existing buildings, the impacts to the building’s operations during and after construction cannot be overlooked.

Figure 14. Existing Buildings at Southern Conform (Alts 2 & 3) Communication with the building owners and their tenants to understand how they access the buildings and the equipment they use in the area between the buildings will be crucial to successfully acquire the right of way and temporary construction easements to complete the project. See Attachment I for the project right of way needs for each alternative. After bridge Chapter 7. Constructability
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 57
February 18, 2025
construction is complete, the space under the bridge will preserve many parking spaces and provide access to the existing entries and roll up doors on the sides of the buildings. However, during construction these facilities will be unusable and inaccessible due to falsework and foundation installation. This will require significant outreach and coordination during the later phases of project delivery.

Since the edge of the bridge will be a few feet away from each of the buildings, it is important to include safety fence on the edges of the bridge that will prevent people on the bridge from accessing or attempting to access either building.

7.2 Foundation Installation
Existing high voltage overhead power lines run east-west just south of Steelhead Creek and will cross over the new bridge. It is very important to design bridge foundations as far away from these lines as possible. Attachment N includes preliminary geotechnical recommendations for driven steel pipe piles and large diameter cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) concrete piles. These piles are constructed using two 250-feet tall cranes. The bridge foundations on each side of the power lines should be laid out so they provide approximately the same clearance from the lines (i.e., place the piers supporting the span under the power lines equal distances from the power lines).

The Advance Planning Studies included in Attachment F show the piers laid out immediately south of Steelhead Creek near the overhead lines to center the span on the overhead line to minimize potential impacts to the power lines. A detailed survey of the power line wire heights, as well as required clearances based on voltages should be carefully examined during the later phases of the project delivery.

Additionally, driving forces and vibrations from driven piles or driven temporary casings installed for CIDH piles adjacent to the existing buildings on Sequoia Pacific Boulevard will potentially damage the existing buildings. Oscillated casings or grouted micro piles should be considered at these locations to minimize this potential damage.

7.3 Site Access
The contractor will need numerous locations to access the site. The main roadways at each end of the project are Richards Boulevard on the south and Garden Highway on the north, with Discovery Park in between. The American River and Steelhead Creek also create barriers to the contractor’s access that will need to be improved. Numerous access points and paths of travel for the contractor and their suppliers should be identified and evaluated. Cranes, large trucks with trailers, concrete trucks, pickups, and large trailered holding tanks for the slurry circulation will need access to all areas currently separated by the river and creek. Identifying these contractor routes will dramatically improve bidding and the results. Also, a project of this magnitude will need an area for the Contractor to set up their on-site office. A few viable locations for a field office and yard should be identified and evaluated. Ultimately, large Chapter 7. Constructability
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 58
February 18, 2025
construction equipment access and temporary staging areas in the floodplain as well as access trestles over the American River and Steelhead Creek will be required. The environmental study area is included in the Environmental Document Memorandum (Attachment O). This memorandum also outlines all regulatory permits that will be required for the temporary and permanent impacts associated with the project.

The bridge spans the American River and includes four (4) sets of piers in the water, or close to the water’s edge. Performing the bridge construction will require a temporary trestle for the contractor to use to build foundations and the bridge segment over the water. Coffer dams or oscillated casings with circulated slurry and baker tanks for dewatering foundation and column installation will be required in addition to the trestle and falsework over the water. This construction will be limited by flood control and fish windows, generally restricting in-water work to the period from June to October. Working day schedules developed during final design must properly account for this restricted in-water work window.

The bridge also spans Steelhead Creek and includes one pier close to the water’s edge.

Performing the construction will require a temporary platform for the contractor to build foundations and the bridge segment over the water.

7.4 Transit Lanes
The bridge will include two sets of tracks for future Light Rail vehicles on the bridge deck. In the interim these lanes may be used for traditional buses or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). SacRT requires track plinths to be placed with the bridge construction. To facilitate use of these lanes by busses until the Light Rail is extended to the project area, the track plinths can be covered with precast deck panels. Additionally, SacRT requires foundations for the Overhead Catenary System (OCS) poles to be installed with the bridge construction. The anchors for these poles can be embedded in the median barrier.

Figure 15. SacRT Light Rail Infrastructure Installation Concept Chapter 8. Locally Preferred Alternative
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 59
February 18, 2025
Locally Preferred Alternative

8.1 Alternative Selection
Table 14: Project Alternatives Composition

PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternatives 3A & 3B Cross Section
Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternatives 3A & 3B Horizontal
Alignment
Alternative
Horizontal Alignment
Alternative 1
Horizontal Alignment
Alternative 2
Horizontal Alignment
Alternative 2
Vertical
Alignment
Alternative
Vertical Alignment
Alternative 1
Vertical Alignment
Alternative 2
Vertical Alignment
Alternative 2
Bridge Type Cast-in-Place
Prestressed Box Girder
Cast-in-Place
Prestressed Box Girder
Cast-in-Place
Prestressed Box Girder
The alternatives summarized in Section 4.1 (Table 14 above) were scored from 1 to 5, with 5 being the best, based on the following criteria:

Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety: This criterion considers how well each design incorporated methods, such as physical barriers or other means, to prevent conflicts between vehicles, cyclists, and transit.

Alternative 1 provides no physical barrier to protect cyclists and pedestrians from vehicular traffic, making it the least favorable in terms of pedestrian and cyclist safety.

Alternatives 2 and 3A/B offer improved safety. However, Alternative 3A/B ranks slightly higher because it provides a separation between cyclists and pedestrians, enhancing safety for both groups.

Pedestrian and Cyclist Stress Level: This measure considers how each alternative’s pedestrian and cyclist facilities contribute to a lower stress level for users. Low levels of pedestrian and cyclist stress are essential to promote active transportation. The more the alternative reduces user stress the higher the alternative scores.

Alternative 1 is focused primarily on vehicle traffic and does not accommodate active transportation to the same extent as the other alternatives. Alternatives 2 and 3A/B are more friendly to neighborhoods with a focus on active transportation. Alternative 3A/B is rated higher than Alternative 2 due to its clear separation of bikes and pedestrians.

Emergency Vehicle Access: This metric considered the ease with which emergency vehicles could access an accident on the bridge.

Alternative 2 offers the easiest access for emergency vehicles as the center median allows for unobstructed movement during emergencies. Alternatives 1 and 3A/B each perform Chapter 8. Locally Preferred Alternative
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 60
February 18, 2025
similarly in terms of emergency access, as they rely on vehicles pulling to the side to allow emergency vehicles to pass. Alternative 1 would rely on vehicles pulling into the Class II bike lane to allow for emergency access.

Transit Operability: This criterion evaluated how effectively each alternative allowed for optimal light rail operation, focusing on minimizing crossovers and maintaining consistent transit speeds.

Alternative 1 scores the highest because it has the least number of vehicle crossing points.

Alternative 2 creates more potential conflicts because of the mixed-use lanes on the bridge, which could slow down transit and create delays. Alternative 3A/B score higher than Alternative 2 because they avoid the mixed-use lanes but still have more conflict points than Alternative 1.

Expansion of Transit: This measure considered the disruption to traffic on the bridge during construction of the future light rail extension.

Alternatives 3A/B scores the highest in terms of future traffic expansion since the light rail tracks in these designs will largely remain outside of, and to one side of, vehicle travel lanes. This reduces potential conflicts, delays, and closures due to construction equipment. Alternative 1 scores slightly lower since the construction work will occur between two operational lanes. Alternative 2 scores the lowest in this category because it utilizes mixed-use lanes. This shared arrangement would result in more impacts to traffic and would require more complicated traffic handling during construction.

Trail Connectivity: This metric ranked alternatives based on their ability to provide seamless connections to all trails within the project area.

Alternative 1 ranks the lowest in this category because it requires separate connections from each side of the bridge, increasing the complexity and cost required to provide a complete connection to the Jedidiah Smith Trail. Alternatives 2 and 3A/B are similar in terms of connectivity being provided from one side of the bridge, but Alternative 3A/B provides a slight advantage by ensuring the separation of bikes and pedestrians, allowing for a smoother integration with trail users.

Right of Way Impacts: This criterion measured how well each design minimized disruption to adjacent businesses and avoided significant reconfigurations or relocations.

Alternative 1 has the highest impact on right of way since it requires the relocation or removal of several businesses and the reconfiguration of access to many others.

Alternative 2 has the least right of way impact because its compact mixed-use lanes allow access to remain similar to existing configurations, avoiding significant building disruptions. Alternatives 3A/B is slightly more disruptive than Alternative 2 due to the need for driveways crossing light rail tracks; however, this consolidation is still less impactful than the reconfiguration required for Alternative 1.

Chapter 8. Locally Preferred Alternative
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 61
February 18, 2025
Ease of Construction: This measure assessed how readily each alternative could be constructed, with consideration for sufficient space to accommodate construction equipment and activities.

Alternative 1 scores the highest in ease of construction since the removal of buildings opens more space for construction access. Alternative 2 scores slightly higher than Alternative 3A/B because its narrower bridge cross section allows for better maneuverability between buildings. Alternative 3A/B is slightly more difficult than Alternative 2 due to its larger cross-sectional width.

Cost: This metric scored alternatives based on overall project cost-effectiveness, taking into account long-term economic considerations.

Based on Table 4 in Section 4.9 of this report, Alternative 1 incurs significantly higher costs due to right of way impacts, making it the most expensive option overall in terms of project cost. Alternative 2 is the most cost-effective of the alternatives analyzed, benefiting from minimal right of way impacts and mixed-use lanes. Alternative 3A /B is similar in cost, falling in between Alternatives 1 and 2.

A compilation of the above metrics and the rankings for each alternative are summarized in Table

15. Table 15: Project Alternatives Ranking

PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Pedestrian and Cyclist SafetyPedestrian and Cyclist Stress LevelEmergency AccessTransit OperabilityExpansion of TransitTrail ConnectivityROW ImpactsEase of ConstructionCostTotal Alternative 1 2 2 2 5 4 3 1 5 1 25
Alternative 2 4 4 5 1 1 4 5 3 5 32
Alternative 3A 5 5 3 3 5 5 4 2 3 35
Alternative 3B 5 5 3 4 5 5 4 2 3 36
In summary, Alternative 3A and 3B perform the best overall because they balance safety, pedestrian and cyclist stress level, trail connectivity, and emergency access with lower right of way impacts and a manageable level of construction difficulty. For these reasons either Alternative 3A or 3B are recommended as the locally preferred alternative.

Chapter 9. Funding Strategy
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 62
February 18, 2025
Funding Strategy
Funding high-cost projects like the Truxel Bridge is a complex process. Most state and federal transportation funding programs are oversubscribed, especially for large projects, and even highly beneficial projects like Truxel Bridge are required to pursue programs multiple times to be awarded funds. Due to this nationwide funding scarcity, high-cost transportation projects must demonstrate exceptional benefits to the community and long-term performance outcomes to be competitive for funding assistance. Furthermore, most funding programs can only fund a portion of the total project cost, requiring projects to piece together funds from various local, regional, state, and federal sources.

To ensure funds are available in a timely manner for each phase of project delivery, the City and its project partners will require a strategic, collaborative, and flexible approach to pursuing funding programs. A successful project funding strategy will involve aligning project partners, leveraging locally available resources, and positioning the Project to be competitive for state and federal funds.

Following is a summary of the Funding Strategy prepared for the Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study. The full Funding Strategy Memorandum is provided in Attachment R.

9.1 Funding Sources
Multiple existing state and federal funding programs are designed to fund a multimodal bridge project like the Truxel Bridge. The programs are discretionary, meaning funds are competitively awarded based on meeting specific program requirements, evaluation criteria, and performance metrics. Funding programs are not permanent; they are enabled by state and federal legislations that obligate funding for a specific timeframe. In addition, the policies and plans that guide the decisions of funding agencies are also subject to change over time, especially if there is a major change in political leadership. Therefore, the City’s funding strategy for the Truxel Bridge must be nimble and align with the funding and policy landscapes as they evolve.

As of Fall 2024, the City or a project partner is eligible to pursue the following funding sources for the Truxel Bridge project:
• State Funding: California State Transportation Agency’s (CalSTA) Transit & Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP); California Transportation Commission’s (CTC) Solution for Congested Corridor Program (SCCP); CTC’s Local Planning Partnership (LPP) Competitive Program; and SACOG’s Regional Funding Rounds - State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
• Federal Funding: United States Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Program; USDOT’s Multimodal Project Delivery Grant (MPDG) – Mega Program; Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Capital Improvement Grant (CIG) Program; and SACOG’s Regional Chapter 9. Funding Strategy
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 63
February 18, 2025
Funding Rounds - Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) or Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG).

Elements of the Truxel Bridge project are well aligned with these funding sources, and similar projects have historically been funded through these programs. However, the long-term outlook of these funding programs is uncertain. The programs created and extended by the historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) will be fully awarded by the end of fiscal year 2026, and the future political leadership will have an influence on what programs are in the next transportation bill. California’s funding priorities are more predictable in the long term, yet the state’s landmark SB1 legislation will need to be renewed in 2027, which may result in changes to funding programs.

9.2 Matching Funds
Matching funds are a crucial component of pursuing state and federal funding programs. Some state programs do not have strict matching funds requirements, but the amount of matching funds available to a project does impact award selection. Generally, the total amount of federal funds dedicated to a project cannot be more than 80% of a project’s cost, and some federal programs cannot fund more than 60% of a project’s cost.

The City’s primary sources of local matching funds are development impact fee programs in the project area and Measure A sales tax revenue. These local funds can be leveraged to pursue SAOCG’s Regional Funding Rounds and state and federal programs. As the project advances toward construction, the City will need to have a larger source of matching funds to pursue larger Federal programs. The City plans to increase the amount of Measure A sales tax revenue dedicated to the Truxel Bridge project, which can be used to pursue state programs that, if awarded, will serve as a non-federal match for pursuing federal programs.

Alternative Financing Options
High-cost projects often explore alternative financing to address funding shortfalls, expedite project delivery, and deliver project benefits quickly. Project financing allows projects to receive cash upfront to advance project delivery faster than a traditional pay-as-you-go funding model. Under certain conditions, interest rates can be favorable and debt payback periods can be flexible, resulting in long-term project lifecycle cost savings. If the city pursues any financing mechanisms, it must identify a long-term funding source to pay the debt obligation, such as future Measure A sales tax revenues.

Common project financing mechanisms in the US include Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) funds, State Infrastructure Banks (SIBs), and Bonds. The Build America Bureau (BAB) and FHWA’s Center for Innovative Finance offer technical expertise to project owners interested in exploring alternative financing.

Chapter 9. Funding Strategy
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 64
February 18, 2025

9.3 Partnerships
To successfully fund and deliver the Truxel Bridge project, the City will need to coordinate with project partners to pursue certain funding sources and, in general, build consensus amongst certain partners to demonstrate to funding agencies that there is broad support for the project.

Three jurisdictions are vital in helping the City fund the Truxel Bridge project: SacRT, SACOG, and Caltrans.

SacRT plans to expand light rail, with BRT service as a precursor, into Natomas, which depends on the construction of the Truxel Bridge. SacRT’s future High Frequency Transit (HFT) expansion over the bridge also improves the likelihood of funding the Truxel Bridge project, linking the successful delivery of both projects together. Due to the interconnected nature of the two projects, the City and SacRT will benefit from developing a shared strategy for delivering the two projects in parallel. In addition, for either jurisdiction to pursue certain funding sources, they may need to coordinate or partner with the other.

Serving as the MPO and RTPA for Sacramento County, SACOG is essential in helping regionally significant projects like Truxel Bridge pursue state and federal funding. SACOG’s role is both as a sponsor and a potential funding partner. The City can only pursue state programs like SCCP by partnering with SACOG or Caltrans. SACOG also administers state and federal funding, which the City can compete for to help fund pre-construction phases and potentially acquire matching funds for the construction phase. As the Truxel Bridge project approaches closer to construction, SACOG plays a critical role in demonstrating regional support for the project.

Caltrans District 3 (D3) has an interest in the Truxel Bridge project because a new local connection over the American River will reduce the number of vehicles on the I-5 in Sacramento County.

Caltrans D3 leads the I-5 Managed Lanes Project and, as part of the project’s environmental mitigation, has up to $50 million available to invest in VMT-reduction projects along the I-5 corridor in Sacramento County. The City is interested in advancing the project quickly enough to receive a share of the environmental mitigation funds from Caltrans D3, which could be a valuable source of matching funds to pursue larger federal funding programs.

In addition to agency partners, elected officials are influential in funding regionally significant projects. Elected officials can help build broader public support for projects, develop stronger inter-agency partnerships, request earmarked funds to quicken project delivery, and emphasize the project’s critical need and benefits to funding agencies.

9.4 Aligning the Truxel Bridge Project with the Funding Process Understanding how funding agencies make decisions will help the City be more successful when pursuing funds. There are a limited number of funding programs the City and project partners can pursue, and windows for pursuing these programs are usually a year or two apart. Therefore, it is critical that the City understand how to maximize the project’s competitiveness when pursuing funding programs. A basic knowledge of how projects are evaluated within each funding Chapter 9. Funding Strategy
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 65
February 18, 2025
program will help the City position the project for greater success in an extremely competitive funding landscape.

Funding programs and the decisions of funding agencies are guided by plans and policies at the regional, state, and federal levels. The current policy landscape in California is beneficial to multimodal projects like the Truxel Bridge. Statewide plans like the Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure (CAPTI) drive funding decisions to be more performance-driven and prompt funding agencies to invest in projects that promote sustainable transportation options, reduce VMT, and make transportation networks more equitable. Regional plans and policies, which must also achieve state and federal policies and regulations, are heading in a similar direction. While updating the 2025 MTP/SCS and developing other regional plans, SACOG has urged local jurisdictions to advance projects that reduce vehicle dependency and meet the region’s challenging GHG emissions and air pollution reduction goals.

The Truxel Bridge project has many strengths that align with existing plans and policies and make it a compelling project to fund. The project will remove a major mobility barrier between two growing parts of the City, improve regional transit and rail connectivity, promote more sustainable and clean modes of transportation, reduce GHG emissions and air pollution, provide access to new opportunities and destinations, foster economic growth, and expand affordable transportation options in disadvantaged communities. Moreover, the project benefits the larger Sacramento region by shifting travel patterns, promoting mode shifts, reducing congestion on major highways, and incentivizing more efficient infill growth patterns. Positioning the Truxel Bridge as a regionally significant project enables it to pursue large federal programs like MPDG and improves its overall competitiveness amongst other projects.

Despite these strengths, the high construction cost of the Truxel Bridge project is the major hurdle for the City to deliver it on schedule. As stated above, funding decisions are becoming increasingly performance-driven, based on the results of benefit-cost analyses, VMT and GHG reduction calculations, economic impact studies, and other quantitative methods. Compelling narratives alone will not fund the project when the City pursues construction dollars. As the project approaches construction, the City will need to coordinate with project partners to determine and communicate the project’s performance and meet the specific objectives of funding programs.

Figure 16 shows the basic components of a funding strategy and provides the City with a structured approach to identifying, tracking, positioning the project for, and pursuing future funding and/or financing opportunities. Alternative Financing/Funding Considerations and Alternative Delivery Considerations are optional because they do not apply to every project. Each component will evolve as the funding landscape changes and the City and its partners make more concrete project delivery and funding decisions.

Chapter 9. Funding Strategy
Truxel Bridge Concept & Feasibility Study 66
February 18, 2025
Figure 16. Flowchart of Potential Funding Decisions and Options Attachment A. Project Vicinity Map
99 50
50 160
84 16
80 5
80 5
80 5
80 5

SACRAMENTO

SACRAMENTO
WEST

MARSTON

RIVERSIDE

NATOMAS
BRYTE

NORTHGATE

SOUTH NATOMAS
WEST

GATEWAY

CROSSING

NATOMAS

SACRAMENTO
NORTH

HEIGHTS

DEL PASO

HAGGINWOOD
AR

SACRAMENTO
EAST

SACRAMENTO

SOUTHEASTERN
LAKE

WASHINGTON
RIVER

SACRAMENTO
RIVER

AMERICAN
RIVER

SACRAMENTO
AREA

PROJECT

SHIP CHANNEL

DEEP WATER

SACRAMENTO RIVER
Attachment B. Project Location
160
5 SACRAMENTO

NORTHGATE

SOUTH NATOMAS
RIVER

SACRAMENTO
RIVER

AMERICAN
TRUXEL Rd
GARDEN Hwy
N
5th
St
N B St
Blvd

SEQUOIA

PACIFIC
BANNON St
BANNON St
RICHARDS Blvd
N
3rd
St
BERCUT Dr
W EL CAMINO Ave
SAN JUAN Rd
GATEWAY OAKS Dr
W EL CAMINO Ave
W EL CAMINO Ave
AZEVED
O
D
r
NORTHGATE Blvd
PARK Dr

NATOMAS
RICHARDS Blvd
7th
St
6th
St
5th St
RA
Blvd

ILYARDS
Ist
Jst
E St
80 AREA

PROJECT
Attachment C. Horizontal Alignment Alternatives
DR
KEER
CL
IL
M

TRAIL CONNECTION

JEDEDIAH SMITH
AM
ER
CI
AN
R
VI
ER
TW
O
R
VI
ER
S
B
KI
E
TRL

CONNECTION
TRAIL

SEQUOIAPACIFICBLVD
BLVD

RICHARDS

DISCOVERY PARK

STEELHEAD
C
REEK
G
ARD
EN
HW
Y

TRUXEL RD

W EL CAMINO AVE
Ph: 916-858-0642 Fax:916-858-0643
Folsom, CA 95630
110 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, Suite 200

ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES

FEASIBILITY STUDY

TRUXEL BRIDGE CONCEPT &
N5THST
GARDEN
HW
Y

CONNECTION
TRAIL
BLVD

RICHARDS

CONNECTION
TRAIL
LEGEND
ALTERNATIVE 2 ALIGNMENT
ALTERNATIVE 1 ALIGNMENT

PG&E TOWER

CAL OES
SCALE 1"=400'
Attachment D. Vertical Alignment Alternatives
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
45 50
55 60
65 70
75 80
85 90
95 100
105
110
115
120
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
45 50
55 60
65 70
75 80
85 90
95 100
105
110
115
120
16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00 29+00 30+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 35+00 36+00 37+00 38+00 39+00 40+00 41+00 42+00 43+00 44+00 45+00 46+00 47+00 48+00 49+00 50+00 51+00 52+00 53+00 54+00 55+00 56+00 57+00 58+00 59+00 60+00 61+00 62+00 63+00 64+00 65+00 66+00 67+00 68+00 69+00 70+00 71+00 72+00 73+00 74+00 75+00

0.00%
241' SSD
150' VC

BIKE TRAIL
Exist
CL
160 -3.85%
323' SSD
225' VC
-0.22%
285' SSD
225' VC
295' SSD
225' VC

0.08%

4.00%
OG

GREEN LINE PROFILE
LEGEND:

Ph: 916-858-0642 Fax:916-858-0643
Folsom, CA 95630
110 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, Suite 200
ALTERNATIVE 1 PROFILE

FEASIBILITY STUDY

TRUXEL BRIDGE CONCEPT &
OCT 2024
160
-0.50%
477' SSD
800' VC

4.18%
358' SSD
300' VC
374' SSD
400' VC
-4.30%
341' SSD
300' VC

0.22%
-0.14%
Ph: 916-858-0642 Fax:916-858-0643
Folsom, CA 95630
110 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, Suite 200
ALTERNATIVE 2 & 3 PROFILE

FEASIBILITY STUDY

TRUXEL BRIDGE CONCEPT &
OCT 2024
OG

COAST GUARD CLEARANCE
LEGEND:
101+00 102+00 103+00 104+00 105+00 106+00 107+00 108+00 109+00 110+00 111+00 112+00 113+00 114+00 115+00 116+00 117+00 118+00 119+00 120+00 121+00 122+00 123+00 124+00 125+00 126+00 127+00 128+00 129+00 130+00 131+00 132+00 133+00 134+00 135+00 136+00 137+00 138+00 139+00 140+00 141+00 142+00 143+00 144+00 145+00 146+00 147+00 148+00 149+00 150+00 151+00 152+00 153+00 154+00 155+00 156+00 5 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
45 50
55 60
65 70
75 80
85 90
95 100
105
110
115
120
477' SSD
800' VC
358' SSD
300' VC

0.22%

4.18%
-0.50%
374' SSD
400' VC
341' SSD
300' VC
-4.30%
-0.14%

BIKE TRAIL
Exist
CL

BIKE TRAIL
CL

BIKE TRAIL
CL
4'
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
45 50
55 60
65 70
75 80
85 90
95 100
105
110
115
120
10'
4'
Attachment E. Cross Section Alternatives
CROSS SECTION ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 3A ALTERNATIVE 3B
Attachment F. Advance Planning Study
15 1 2
3 4 6
7 10

COUNTY ROUTE POST MILE
03 SAC LOCAL N/A

TRUXEL BRIDGE CONCEPT AND FEASIBILITY STUDY
DATE PLOTTED => $DATE
FILE => $REQUEST
TIME PLOTTED => $TIME
USERNAME => $USER
DATE
DATE
DATE
DATE

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

APPROVED
R. BURNS
M. HENDRY
J. NOTTNAGEL
P. DALCIN-WALLING
10/16/24

PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS R. BURNS

PROJECT ENGINEER
BRIDGE No.:TBD
(ENGLISH) (REVISION 8/16/2021) PROJECT EA:N/A PROJECT No. & PHASE:N/A

ADVANCE PLANNING STUDY SHEET
FOLSOM, CA 95630
110 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, SUITE 200

DOKKEN ENGINEERING
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
915 I STREET

CITY OF SACRAMENTO
10/16/24
10/16/24
10/16/24

DEVELOPED ELEVATION
1" = 150'
PLAN
1" = 150'
Abut 1
PIER 2 PIER 3 PIER 4 PIER 6 PIER 7 PIER 8 PIER 9 PIER 10 PIER 11 PIER 12 PIER 13 PIER 14 PIER 15 PIER 16 Abut 17
DATUM Elev. = -140.00'
32+00 34+00 36+00 38+00 40+00 42+00 44+00 46+00 48+00 50+00 52+00 54+00 56+00 58+00 LIMITS OF SECTION "A-A" = 2,320'-0"
BB EB
RIVER

AMERICAN
E
X
IST
C
ANA
L

NATOMAS

TO SOUTH
GA
RD
EN
H
WY

DISTRICT

TO RIVERSIDE
Elev = 52.40'
BB 33+33.46
Elev = 44.73'
EB 57+20.96
-2% -2%
OG
FG
BRIDGE
TRAIL
TRAIL
A
A
PIER 5
B
B
6'-6"
PG
B-B" = 67'-6"
LIMITS OF "SECTION
FRAME 1 = 680'-0" FRAME 2 = 960'-0" FRAME 3 = 747'-6"
LANE
12'-0" VARIES

TRANSIT
12'-6"

TRANSIT
12'-6"
CURB
1'-0"
LANE
12'-0"
SDWK
6'-0"

BARRIER
1'-6"
54'-0" 54'-0"
108'-0"
14 SPACES @ 160'-0" = 2240'-0" 67'-6"
PLANNING STUDY (ALTERNATIVE 1)

SECTION A-A
1" = 10'

SECTION B-B
1" = 10'

DATE OF ESTIMATE

STRUCTURE DEPTH
LENGTH
MAX WIDTH*
AREA*
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

COST/ SQ FT
TOTAL COST**
10-16-2024
6'-6"/3'-0"
2387'-6"
116'-0"
222,953 sqft
$560.66
$125,000,000
10% MOBILIZATION
W/ 25% CONTINGENCY &
TOTAL
$172,000,000

BARRIER
2'-0"
80'-0"
SHLD
VARIES 8'-0"
SHLD
8'-0"

BARRIER
1'-6"
SDWK
6'-0"
PG

TRANSIT
12'-6"
LANE
12'-0"
SDWK
6'-0"

BARRIER
1'-6"
62'-0" 54'-0"
116'-0"
SHLD
VARIES 8'-0"
LANE
12'-0"
SHLD
8'-0"
-2%
3'-0"
-2%
SDWK
6'-0" VARIES

BARRIER
2'-0"

BARRIER
1'-6"
INCLUDED IN THE ESTIMATE ABOVE.

ADDITIONAL PROJECT COSTS. THESE COSTS ARE NOT

AND OPERATIONS OF THE BUILDING THAT WILL RESULT IN

BUT WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT ACCESSIBILITY, UTILITY

EASTERN BUILDING ON ON SEQUOIA PACIFIC BOULEVARD,
** THE BRIDGE DESIGN PHYSCALLY FITS ADJASCENT TO THE
* WIDTH VARIES, AREA USED ACCOUNTS FOR VARYING WIDTH.

FUTURE RAIL AND OCS

LIGHT RAIL PLINTHS,
CURB
1'-0"
CURB
1'-0"

TRANSIT
12'-6"
CURB
1'-0"
46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32
31 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

COUNTY ROUTE POST MILE
03 SAC LOCAL N/A

TRUXEL BRIDGE CONCEPT AND FEASIBILITY STUDY
DATE PLOTTED => $DATE
FILE => $REQUEST
TIME PLOTTED => $TIME
USERNAME => $USER
DATE
DATE
DATE
DATE

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

APPROVED
R. BURNS
M. HENDRY
J. NOTTNAGEL
P. DALCIN-WALLING
10/16/24

PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS R. BURNS

PROJECT ENGINEER
BRIDGE No.:TBD
(ENGLISH) (REVISION 8/16/2021) PROJECT EA:N/A PROJECT No. & PHASE:N/A

ADVANCE PLANNING STUDY SHEET
FOLSOM, CA 95630
110 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, SUITE 200

DOKKEN ENGINEERING
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
915 I STREET

CITY OF SACRAMENTO
10/16/24
10/16/24
10/16/24

DEVELOPED ELEVATION
1" = 150'
PLAN
1" = 150'
Abut 1
PIER 2
PIER 3
PIER 4
PIER 6 PIER 7 PIER 8 PIER 9 PIER 10 PIER 11 PIER 12 PIER 13 PIER 14 PIER 15 PIER 16 Abut 21
DATUM = -140.00'
112+00 114+00 116+00 118+00 120+00 122+00 124+00 126+00 128+00 130+00 132+00 134+00 136+00 138+00 140+00 A-A" = 307'-6"
LIMITS OF "SECTION LIMITS OF SECTION "B-B" = 2,400'-0"
BB EB
RIVER

AMERICAN
E
X
IST
C
ANA
L
T

NATOMAS

O SOUTH
GA
RD
EN
H
WY

DISTRICT

TO RIVERSIDE
Elev = 41.64'
BB 111+95.00
Elev = 44.21'
EB 139+50.00
OG
PIER 17 PIER 18
FG
113+54.94 BC
BRIDGE
TRAIL
TRAIL
A
A
B
B
PIER 5
PIER 19 PIER 20
C
C
PG
C-C" = 67'-6"
LIMITS OF "SECTION
FRAME 1 = 307'-6" FRAME 2 = 740'-0" FRAME 3 = 960'-0" FRAME 4 = 747'-6" = 240'
3 @ 80'-0" 14 SPACES @ 160'-0" = 2240'-0" 67'-6"
PLANNING STUDY (ALTERNATIVE 2)

SECTION A-A
1" = 10'

SECTION B-B
1" = 10'
67'-6"
124+00.81 EC
137+29.59 BC
-2% -2%
PG
SDWK
6'-0"

TRANSIT
12'-0"
CURB
1'-0"
LANE
12'-0"
Shld
8'-0"

BARRIER
2'-0"
35'-0" 28'-0"
63'-0"

SECTION C-C
1" = 10'
Shld
12'-0"
3'-0"
1 2
3 4
15 10
6 140'-0"
Clr
10'-6"±

BUILDING
Exist

BUILDING
Exist
Clr
6'-6"±

BUILDING
Exist

BUILDING
Exist
Shld
8'-0"

BARRIER
2'-0"
6'-0" 6'-0"
SDWK
12'-0"

TRANSIT
12'-0"
CURB
1'-0"
LANE
12'-0"
Shld
8'-0"

BARRIER
2'-0"
35'-0" 28'-0"
63'-0"
Shld
12'-0"
Shld
8'-0"

BARRIER
2'-0"
6'-0" 6'-0"
6'-6"
SDWK
12'-0"

TRANSIT
12'-0"
CURB
1'-0"
LANE
12'-0"
Shld
8'-0"

BARRIER
2'-0"
35'-0" 28'-0"
63'-0"
Shld
12'-0"
Shld
8'-0"

BARRIER
2'-0"
6'-0" 6'-0"
PG
-2% -2%
3'-0"

DATE OF ESTIMATE

STRUCTURE DEPTH
LENGTH
WIDTH*
AREA*
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

COST/ SQ FT
TOTAL COST**
10-16-2024
6'-6"/3'-0"
2755'-0"
63'-0"
190,406 sqft
$577.71
$110,000,000
10% MOBILIZATION
W/ 25% CONTINGENCY &
TOTAL
$151,000,000
IN THE ESTIMATE ABOVE.

ADDITIONAL PROJECT COSTS. THESE COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED

OPERATIONS OF THE BUILDING THAT WILL RESULT IN

WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT ACCESSIBILITY, UTILITY AND

EASTERN BUILDING ON ON SEQUOIA PACIFIC BOULEVARD, BUT
** THE BRIDGE DESIGN PHYSCALLY FITS ADJASCENT TO THE
* AREA USED ACCOUNTS FOR SOUTHERN TRAIL CONNECTION.

AND FUTURE RAIL

LIGHT RAIL PLINTHS
4 115 6 7 8 9 120 1 2 3 4 125 6 7 130 8 9 1 2 3 135 6 7 4 140
8 9
1 2
1 2 3
110

COUNTY ROUTE POST MILE
03 SAC LOCAL N/A

TRUXEL BRIDGE CONCEPT AND FEASIBILITY STUDY
DATE PLOTTED => $DATE
FILE => $REQUEST
TIME PLOTTED => $TIME
USERNAME => $USER
DATE
DATE
DATE
DATE

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

APPROVED
R. BURNS
M. HENDRY
J. NOTTNAGEL
P. DALCIN-WALLING
10/16/24

PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS R. BURNS

PROJECT ENGINEER
BRIDGE No.:TBD
(ENGLISH) (REVISION 8/16/2021) PROJECT EA:N/A PROJECT No. & PHASE:N/A

ADVANCE PLANNING STUDY SHEET
FOLSOM, CA 95630
110 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, SUITE 200

DOKKEN ENGINEERING
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
915 I STREET

CITY OF SACRAMENTO
10/16/24
10/16/24
10/16/24

AMERICAN
E
X
IST
C
ANA
L
T

NATOMAS

O SOUTH
GA
RD
EN
H
WY

DISTRICT

TO RIVERSIDE
Elev = 41.64'
BB 111+95.00
Elev = 44.21'
EB 139+50.00
-2% -2%
OG
PIER 17 PIER 18
FG
113+66.33 BC
BRIDGE
TRAIL
TRAIL
A
A
B
B
PIER 5
PIER 19 PIER 20
C
C
6'-6"
PG
-2%
PG
-2%
3'-0"
C-C" = 67'-6"
LIMITS OF "SECTION
FRAME 1 = 307'-6" FRAME 2 = 740'-0" FRAME 3 = 960'-0" FRAME 4 = 747'-6" SDWK
10'-0"
LANE
12'-0"

TRANSIT
12'-0"

TRANSIT
12'-0"
CURB
1'-0"
1'-0" CURB
LANE
12'-0"
Shld
6'-0"

BARRIER
2'-0"
37'-6" 52'-6"
90'-0"

BARRIER
1'-0"
= 240'
3 @ 80'-0" 14 SPACES @ 160'-0" = 2240'-0" 67'-6"
PLANNING STUDY (ALTERNATIVE 3)

SECTION A-A
1" = 10'

SECTION B-B
1" = 10'
LANE
12'-0"
Shld
6'-0"

BARRIER
3'-0"
SDWK
10'-0"
LANE
12'-0"

TRANSIT
12'-0"

TRANSIT
12'-0"
CURB
1'-0"
1'-0" CURB
LANE
12'-0"
Shld
6'-0"

BARRIER
2'-0"
37'-6" 52'-6"
90'-0"

BARRIER
1'-0"
LANE
12'-0"
Shld
6'-0"

BARRIER
3'-0"
67'-6"
124+02.64 EC
137+28.68 BC
-2% -2%
PG
SDWK
6'-0"

TRANSIT
12'-0"

TRANSIT
12'-0"
CURB
1'-0"
1'-0" CURB
LANE
12'-0"
Shld
6'-0"

BARRIER
2'-0"
21'-6" 52'-6"
74'-0"

BARRIER
1'-0"

SECTION C-C
1" = 10'
LANE
12'-0"
Shld
6'-0"

BARRIER
3'-0"
3'-0"
1 2
3 4
15 10
6 7
140'-0"
Clr
3'-6"±

BUILDING
Exist

BUILDING
Exist
Clr
2'-6"±

BUILDING
Exist

DATE OF ESTIMATE

STRUCTURE DEPTH
LENGTH
MAX WIDTH*
AREA*
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

COST/ SQ FT
TOTAL COST**
10-16-2024
6'-6"/3'-0"
2755'-0"
90'-0"
251,937 sqft
$555.69
$140,000,000
10% MOBILIZATION
W/ 25% CONTINGENCY &
TOTAL
$193,000,000
INCLUDED IN THE ESTIMATE ABOVE.

ADDITIONAL PROJECT COSTS. THESE COSTS ARE NOT

AND OPERATIONS OF THE BUILDING THAT WILL RESULT IN

BUT WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT ACCESSIBILITY, UTILITY

EASTERN BUILDING ON ON SEQUOIA PACIFIC BOULEVARD,
** THE BRIDGE DESIGN PHYSCALLY FITS ADJASCENT TO THE
* WIDTH VARIES, AREA USED ACCOUNTS FOR VARYING WIDTH.

FUTURE RAIL AND OCS

LIGHT RAIL PLINTHS,
9 2
3 4 135
6 7
140
8 9
130 1
1 2
125
6 7
8 4
3 2 1
7 8 9 120
6 115
4 3
2 1 110
1 2
3 4
6 10
15 7

COUNTY ROUTE POST MILE
03 SAC LOCAL N/A

TRUXEL BRIDGE CONCEPT AND FEASIBILITY STUDY
DATE PLOTTED => $DATE
FILE => $REQUEST
TIME PLOTTED => $TIME
USERNAME => $USER
DATE
DATE
DATE
DATE

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

APPROVED
R. BURNS
M. HENDRY
J. NOTTNAGEL
P. DALCIN-WALLING
10/16/24

PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS R. BURNS

PROJECT ENGINEER
BRIDGE No.:TBD
(ENGLISH) (REVISION 8/16/2021) PROJECT EA:N/A PROJECT No. & PHASE:N/A

ADVANCE PLANNING STUDY SHEET
FOLSOM, CA 95630
110 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, SUITE 200

DOKKEN ENGINEERING
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
915 I STREET

CITY OF SACRAMENTO
10/16/24
10/16/24
10/16/24
PLAN
1" = 40'
Elev = 23.82'
BB 12+19.84
Elev = 49.63'
EB 16+30.66
BRIDGE
TRAIL
A
A

PLANNING STUDY (BIKE TRAIL BRIDGE)

SECTION A-A
8" = 1'-0"
3 -1.5%
BRIDGE
PG
1'-0" 1'-0"
1'-6"
+1.5%
PATH
6'-0"
PATH
6'-0"
12'-0"
14'-0"
CURB
6"
RAILING, Typ

CHAIN LINK
SLAB

CIP R/C
1'-6"Á COLUMN
OG
R1
ABUT
R2
BENT
NATOMA
S
TO
S
OUTH
R3
BENT
R4
BENT
R5
BENT
R6
BENT
R7
BENT
R8
BENT
R9
BENT
R10
BENT
R11
BENT
R12
BENT
R13
BENT
R14
BENT

DEVELOPED ELEVATION
1" = 40'
DATUM Elev. = -10.00'
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00
13 SPANS @ 30'-0" = 390'-0" 20'-10"

LIMITS OF CHAIN LINK RAILING
BB EB
OG
WALL = 142'-3"

LIMITS OF RETAINING
BENT
R2
BENT
R3
BENT
R4
B
ENT
R5
BENT
R6
BENT
R7
BENT
R8
B
ENT
R9
BENT
R10
BENT
R11
BENT
R12
B
ENT
R13
BENT
R14
BRIDGE
D
IS
TRICT
TO
RIVERS
IDE

DATE OF ESTIMATE

STRUCTURE DEPTH
LENGTH
WIDTH
AREA
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

COST/ SQ FT

TOTAL COST
10-16-2024
1'-6"
410'-10"
14'-0"
4,103 sqft
$1,218.62
$5,000,000
10% MOBILIZATION
W/ 25% CONTINGENCY &
TOTAL
$6,900,000
13 0 129 12
8 127
Attachment G. Alternatives Analyzed
B
B
A
C
C
DR
KEER
CL
IL
M
D
D
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
3'

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BL
SHLD/
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BL
SHLD/
6'
SW
81'
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BL
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BL
6'
SW
92'
VAR
3'-18'
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
3'

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BIKE

1.5'
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BIKE
6'
SW

1.5'
84'
CL
10'
LANE
TURN
11 LANE
6'
BL SW
6' 10'
BL
6'
SW
7'
PK
SHLD/
7'
PK
SHLD/
81'
11 LANE
7'
B
B
A
C
C
A

TRAIL CONNECTION

JEDEDIAH SMITH
AM
ER
CI
AN
R
VI
ER
TW
O
R
VI
ER
S
B
KI
E
TRL

CONNECTION
TRAIL

BUILDING

PRESERVE

SEQUOIAPACIFICBLVD
BLVD

RICHARDS

DISCOVERY PARK

STEELHEAD
C
REEK
G
ARD
EN
HW
Y

TRUXEL RD

W EL CAMINO AVE
Ph: 916-858-0642 Fax:916-858-0643
Folsom, CA 95630
110 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, Suite 200
ALTERNATIVE 1

FEASIBILITY STUDY

TRUXEL BRIDGE CONCEPT &
JUNE 2024
D
D
N5THST
GARDEN
HW
Y

CONNECTION
TRAIL
BLVD

RICHARDS

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

SECTION B-B

SECTION A-A
SCALE 1"=400'

SECTION C-C

SECTION D-D
B
B
A
C
C
DR
KEER
CL
IL
M
D
D
KEEP
CLEAR
CLEAR
KEEP
6'
SW
8'
Shld
12'
LANE
12' 12'
LANE
8'
Shld
CL
58 TURN POCKET

SERVICES/

EMERGENCY
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BL
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BL
6'
SW
92'
VAR
3'-18'
CL
MPP
12'
LANE
12' 12'
LANE
2'
Shld Shld
12' 8' 8'

TURN POCKET

SERVICES/

EMERGENCY
69'
1'
2'
CL
10'
LANE
TURN
11 LANE
6'
BL SW
6' 10'
BL
6'
SW
7'
PK
SHLD/
7'
PK
SHLD/
81'
11 LANE
7'
B
B
A
C
C
A

CONNECTION
TRAIL
AM
ER
CI
AN
R
VI
ER
TW
O
R
VI
ER
S
B
KI
E
TRL

BUILDING

PRESERVE

CONNECTION
TRAIL

BUILDING

PRESERVE

SEQUOIAPACIFICBLVD
BLVD

RICHARDS

DISCOVERY PARK

NOT IMPACTED

PGE TOWER

STEELHEAD
C
REEK
G
ARD
EN
HW
Y

TRUXEL RD

W EL CAMINO AVE
Ph: 916-858-0642 Fax:916-858-0643
Folsom, CA 95630
110 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, Suite 200
ALTERNATIVE 2

FEASIBILITY STUDY

TRUXEL BRIDGE CONCEPT &
JUNE 2024
D
D
N5THST

TRAIL CONNECTION

JEDEDIAH SMITH
BLVD

RICHARDS

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

SECTION B-B

SECTION A-A

SECTION C-C

SECTION D-D
SCALE 1"=400'
B
B
A
C
C
DR
KEER
CL
IL
M
D
D
12'
LANE
12'
LANE
6'
SW
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
3'
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
CL
71'
1' 1'
6'
SHLD
6'
SHLD
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BL
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BL
6'
SW
92'
VAR
3'-18'
12'
LANE
12'
LANE
12'
BL
WAY
2 12'

TRANSIT
MASS
3'
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
10'
SW
WAY
2 CL
90'
1'
1' 1'
6'
SHLD
6'
SHLD
2'
CL
10'
LANE
TURN
11 LANE
6'
BL SW
6' 10'
BL
6'
SW
7'
PK
SHLD/
7'
PK
SHLD/
81'
11 LANE
7'
B
B
A
C
C
A

CONNECTION
TRAIL
AM
ER
CI
AN
R
VI
ER
TW
O
R
VI
ER
S
B
KI
E
TRL

BUILDING

PRESERVE

CONNECTION
TRAIL

BUILDING

PRESERVE

SEQUOIAPACIFICBLVD
BLVD

RICHARDS

DISCOVERY PARK

NOT IMPACTED

PGE TOWER

STEELHEAD
C
REEK
G
ARD
EN
HW
Y

TRUXEL RD

W EL CAMINO AVE
Ph: 916-858-0642 Fax:916-858-0643
Folsom, CA 95630
110 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, Suite 200
ALTERNATIVE 3

FEASIBILITY STUDY

TRUXEL BRIDGE CONCEPT &
JUNE 2024
D
D
N5THST

TRAIL CONNECTION

JEDEDIAH SMITH
BLVD

RICHARDS

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

SECTION B-B

SECTION A-A

SECTION C-C

SECTION D-D
SCALE 1"=400'
B
B
A
C
C
DR
KEER
CL
IL
M
D
D
12'
LANE
12'
LANE
6'
SW
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
3'
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
CL
71'
1' 1'
6'
SHLD
6'
SHLD
CL
12'
LANE
12'

TRANSIT
MASS

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
1'
6'
SW
8'
BL
1'
12'
LANE
8'
BL
6'
SW
92'
VAR
3'-18'
CL
12'
LANE
12'
LANE
6'
SHLD
6'
SHLD
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
3'
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
1' 1'
12'

TRANSIT
MASS
12'
BL
WAY
2 10'
SW
WAY
2 6'
SW
1' 2'
97'
1'
CL
10'
LANE
TURN
11 LANE
6'
BL SW
6' 10'
BL
6'
SW
7'
PK
SHLD/
7'
PK
SHLD/
81'
11 LANE
7'
B
B
A
C
C
A

CONNECTION
TRAIL
AM
ER
CI
AN
R
VI
ER
TW
O
R
VI
ER
S
B
KI
E
TRL

BUILDING

PRESERVE

CONNECTION
TRAIL

BUILDING

PRESERVE

SEQUOIAPACIFICBLVD
BLVD

RICHARDS

DISCOVERY PARK

NOT IMPACTED

PGE TOWER

STEELHEAD
C
REEK
G
ARD
EN
HW
Y

TRUXEL RD

W EL CAMINO AVE
Ph: 916-858-0642 Fax:916-858-0643
Folsom, CA 95630
110 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, Suite 200
ALTERNATIVE 3B

FEASIBILITY STUDY

TRUXEL BRIDGE CONCEPT &
JUNE 2024
D
D
N5THST

TRAIL CONNECTION

JEDEDIAH SMITH
BLVD

RICHARDS

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

BY OTHERS

IMPROVEMENTS DONE

SECTION B-B

SECTION A-A

SECTION C-C

SECTION D-D
SCALE 1"=400'
Attachment H. Alternative Cost Estimate

PID: District-County-Route: 3-Sac-TRUXEL
PM: N/A

SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost
$ 40,268,800 $ 72,644,000
$ 182,000,000 $ 328,324,000
$ 222,268,800 $ 400,968,000
$ 73,000,000 $ 82,879,068
$ 295,269,000 $ 483,848,000
$ 6,000,000
$ 14,000,000
$ 1,000,000
$ 44,290,350
$ 65,291,000
$ 361,000,000
Month / Year
Date of Estimate (Month/Year) 10 / 24
Estimated Construction Start (Month/Year) 5 / 35
Number of Working Days = 780
Estimated Mid-Point of Construction (Month/Year) 12 / 36 Estimated Construction End (Month/Year) 5 / 38
Number of Plant Establishment Days 60
COMPLETE PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT MARCH 2025
BEGIN ENVIRONMENTAL MARCH 2026
CIRCULATE DRAFT ED EXTERNALLY DECEMBER 2026
COMPLETE PA & ED SEPTEMBER 2029
COMPLETE FINAL DESIGN MARCH 2034
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION APRIL 2035
COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION APRIL 2038
Office Engineer / Cost Estimate Certifier Date Phone
Project Manager Date Phone

PLANNING COST ESTIMATE

TRUXEL BRIDGE

RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT

TOTAL STRUCTURES COST

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
FS
Sequioa Pacific Boulevard to Truxel Road
Truxel Bridge over American River
Construct new multimodal bridge over the american river connecting Truxel Boulevard to Sequoia Pacific Boulevard Alternative : Alt 1

TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST

TOTAL ROADWAY COST
Type of Estimate :

PA/ED SUPPORT
Approved by Project Manager
Program Code :

Project Limits :

Project Description:

Scope :

Reviewed by District O.E. or
Cost Estimate Certifier

TOTAL SUPPORT COST

TOTAL PROJECT COST

PS&E SUPPORT

TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS

CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT
Estimated Project Schedule
1 of 11 10/17/2024

TRUXEL BRIDGE
I. ROADWAY ITEMS SUMMARY
Cost
1 $ 2,620,000
2 $ 5,400,000
3 $ 2,500,000
4 $ 1,500,000
5 $ 8,100,000
6 $ 2,757,700
7 $ 750,000
8 $ 3,544,200
9 $ 2,717,200
10 $ 1,086,900
11 $ -
12 $ -
13 $ 9,292,800
$ 40,268,800
Robert Denison Date 916-858-0642
Jacqueline Lockhart Date 916-858-0642
By signing this estimate you are attesting that you have discussed your project with all functional units and have incorporated all their comments or have discussed with them why they will not be incorporated.

State Furnished
Section
Earthwork
Pavement Structural Section
Drainage
Specialty Items
Supplemental Work
Estimate Reviewed By :

Time-Related Overhead
Roadway Contingency
Environmental
Traffic Items
Detours
Minor Items
Roadway Mobilization

TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS
Estimate Prepared By :
2 of 11 10/17/2024

SECTION 1: EARTHWORK
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
170103 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 x 100,000.00 = $ 100,000 190101 Roadway Excavation LS 1 x 900,000.00 = $ 900,000 198010 Imported Borrow CY 18,000 x 90.00 = $ 1,620,000
$ 2,620,000
SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
390132 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) TON 15,500 x 120.00 = $ 1,860,000 260203 Class 2 Aggregate Base CY 24,000 x 60.00 = $ 1,440,000 731504 Minor Concrete (Sidewalk, Driveway, Curb and Gutter) CY 1,400 x 1,500.00 = $ 2,100,000 $ 5,400,000

TOTAL EARTHWORK SECTION ITEMS

TOTAL PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTION ITEMS
3 of 11 10/17/2024

$ -
SECTION 5: ENVIRONMENTAL
5A - ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
LS Enviro Work LS 1 x 6,000,000.00 = $ 6,000,000
Subtotal Environmental Mitigation $ 6,000,000
5C - EROSION CONTROL
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
21XXXX Erosion Control LS LS 1 x 1,500,000.00 = $ 1,500,000 Subtotal Erosion Control $ 1,500,000
5D - NPDES
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
Job Site Management LS TOTAL LS 1 x 600,000.00 = $ 600,000 Subtotal NPDES $ 600,000
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL $ 8,100,000
Supplemental Work for NPDES
Subtotal Supplemental Work for NDPS $ -
*** Applies only to project with SWPPPs.
*Applies to all SWPPPs and those WPCPs with sediment control or soil stabilization BMPs. **Applies to both SWPPPs and WPCP projects.
5 of 11 10/17/2024

$ -
SECTION 3: DRAINAGE
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
6XXXXX LS Drainage LS 1 x 2,500,000 = $ 2,500,000
$ 2,500,000
SECTION 4: SPECIALTY ITEMS
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
8XXXXX Specialty Items LS 1 x 1,500,000.00 = $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000

TOTAL DRAINAGE ITEMS

TOTAL SPECIALTY ITEMS
4 of 11 10/17/2024

$ -
SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS
6A - Traffic Electrical
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
860XXX Signals & Lighting EA 3 x 750,000.00 = $ 2,250,000 Subtotal Traffic Electrical $ 2,250,000
6B - Traffic Signing and Striping
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
82010X Channelizer EA 75 x 40.00 = $ 3,000
846007 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (ENHANCED WET NIGHT VISIBILITY) LF 6,100 x 5.00 = $ 30,500 840666 PAINT PAVEMENT MARKING (2-COAT) SQFT 280 x 5.00 = $ 1,400 840505 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE LF 11,400 x 2.00 = $ 22,800 120090 Construction Area Signs LS 1 x 50,000.00 = $ 50,000 Subtotal Traffic Signing and Striping $ 107,700
6C - Traffic Management Plan
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
120100 Traffic Control System LS 1 x $ 400,000 = $ 400,000 Subtotal Traffic Management Plan $ 400,000
TOTAL TRAFFIC ITEMS $ 2,757,700
6 of 11 10/17/2024

$ -
SECTION 7: DETOURS
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
12XXXXX Lump Sum Staging Work LS 1 x 750,000.00 = $ 750,000 $ 750,000
SUBTOTAL SECTIONS 1 through 7 $ 23,627,700
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS
8A - Americans with Disabilities Act Items
ADA Items 5.0% $ 1,181,385
8B - Bike Path Items
Bike Path Items 5.0% $ 1,181,385
8C - Other Minor Items
Other Minor Items 5.0% $ 1,181,385
Total of Section 1-7 $ 23,627,700 x 15.0% = $ 3,544,155 $ 3,544,200
SECTIONS 9: ROADWAY MOBILIZATION
Item code
999990 Total Section 1-8 $ 27,171,900 x 10% = $ 2,717,190 $ 2,717,200
SECTION 10: SUPPLEMENTAL WORK
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
Cost of NPDES Supplemental Work specified in Section 5D = $ - Total Section 1-8 $ 27,171,900 4% = $ 1,086,876
TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL WORK $ 1,086,900
Includes constructing, maintaining, and removal

TOTAL DETOURS

TOTAL MINOR ITEMS

TOTAL ROADWAY MOBILIZATION
* Includes constructing, maintaining, and removal
7 of 11 10/17/2024

$ -
SECTION 11: STATE FURNISHED MATERIALS AND EXPENSES
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
Total Section 1-8 $ 27,171,900 0% = $ -
$0
SECTION 12: TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD
Total of Roadway and Structures Contract Items excluding Mobilization $196,171,900 (used to calculate TRO) Total Construction Cost (excluding TRO and Contingency) $212,976,000 (used to check if project is greater than $5 million excluding contingency) Estimated Time-Related Overhead (TRO) Percentage (0% to 10%) = 0% Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
090100 Time-Related Overhead WD 398 X $0 = $0
TOTAL TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD $0
SECTION 13: ROADWAY CONTINGENCY
Total Section 1-12 $ 30,976,000 x 30% = $9,292,800
TOTAL CONTINGENCY $9,292,800

TOTAL STATE FURNISHED
8 of 11 10/17/2024

$ -
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
0 LF 0 LF 0 LF
0 LF 0 LF 0 LF
1 SQFT 0 SQFT 0 SQFT
0 LF 0 LF 0 LF
Bridge Removal
0 LF 0 LF 0 LF
0 LF 0 LF 0 LF
0 SQFT 0 SQFT 0 SQFT
0 LF 0 LF 0 LF
STRUCTURES MOBILIZATION 10%
Recommended Contingency: (Pre-PSR 30%-50%, PSR 25%, Draft PR 20%, PR 15%, after PR approval 10%, Final PS&E 5%) Total recommended percentages includes any quantified risk based contingency from the risk register.

STRUCTURES CONTINGENCY 30%

TOTAL COST OF STRUCTURES
Estimate Prepared By: APS attached
Division of Structures Date
$182,000,000
Cost Per Square Foot $0 $0 $0
COST OF EACH $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST OF BRIDGES $130,000,000
TOTAL COST OF BUILDINGS $0
$39,000,000
$13,000,000
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Structure Type xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Width (Feet) [out to out]
Total Building Length (Feet)
Total Area (Square Feet)
Structure Depth (Feet)
Footing Type (pile or spread) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Building Name xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX
Building 1
DATE OF ESTIMATE 00/00/00 00/00/00 00/00/00
Cost Per Square Foot $130,000,000 $0 $0
COST OF EACH $130,000,000 $0 $0
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Structure Type xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Width (Feet) [out to out]
Total Bridge Length (Feet)
Total Area (Square Feet)
Structure Depth (Feet)
Footing Type (pile or spread) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bridge Name xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX
Bridge 1
DATE OF ESTIMATE 00/00/00 12/21/18 00/00/00
9 of 11 10/17/2024

0 III. RIGHT OF WAY
Fill in all of the available information from the Right of Way Data Sheet.

A) Total Acquisition Cost $ 69,500,000
B) Appraisal Fees Estimate $
C) Mitigation Acquisition & Credits $ 3,500,000
D) Project Development Permit Fees $
E) Utility Relocation (State's Share) $
F) Relocation Assistance (RAP) $
G)
H) Title & Escrow $
I) 0% $
J) Construction Contract Work $
$
L)
M)
N)
1 When estimate has Support Costs only 2 When estimate has Utility Relocation 3 When R/W Acquisition is required Utility Estimate Prepared By
Utility Coordinator2 Phone
R/W Acquisition Estimate
Prepared By Right of Way Estimator3 Phone
$73,000,000
Clearance/Demolition
Condemnation Settlements
Note: Items G & H applied to items A + B

TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ESTIMATE
Support Cost Estimate
Prepared By Project Coordinator1 Phone
TOTAL R/W ESTIMATE: Escalated $82,879,068
RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT $1,000,000
10 of 11 10/17/2024

PID: District-County-Route: 3-Sac-TRUXEL
PM: N/A

SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost
$ 22,225,500 $ 28,343,943
$ 149,500,000 $ 190,655,757
$ 171,725,500 $ 218,999,701
$ 7,500,000 $ 8,193,778
$ 179,226,000 $ 227,194,000
$ 6,000,000
$ 14,000,000
$ 1,000,000
$ 44,290,350
$ 65,291,000
$ 245,000,000
Month / Year
Date of Estimate (Month/Year) 10 / 24
Estimated Construction Start (Month/Year) 5 / 35
Number of Working Days = 780
Estimated Mid-Point of Construction (Month/Year) 12 / 36 Estimated Construction End (Month/Year) 5 / 38
Number of Plant Establishment Days 60
COMPLETE PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT MARCH 2025
BEGIN ENVIRONMENTAL MARCH 2026
CIRCULATE DRAFT ED EXTERNALLY DECEMBER 2026
COMPLETE PA & ED SEPTEMBER 2029
COMPLETE FINAL DESIGN MARCH 2034
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION APRIL 2035
COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION APRIL 2038
Office Engineer / Cost Estimate Certifier Date Phone
Project Manager Date Phone
Approved by Project Manager
Program Code :

Project Limits :

Project Description:

Scope :

Reviewed by District O.E. or
Cost Estimate Certifier

TOTAL SUPPORT COST

TOTAL PROJECT COST

PS&E SUPPORT

TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS

CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT
Estimated Project Schedule

PLANNING COST ESTIMATE
Mission Avenue Widening

RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT

TOTAL STRUCTURES COST

TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST

TOTAL ROADWAY COST
Type of Estimate :

PA/ED SUPPORT
1 of 11 10/17/2024

Mission Avenue Widening
I. ROADWAY ITEMS SUMMARY
Cost
1 $ 3,350,000 x
2 $ 3,623,200 x
3 $ 2,000,000
4 $ -
5 $ 1,500,000
6 $ 2,567,500
7 $ -
8 $ 1,956,200 x
9 $ 1,499,700 x
10 $ 599,900
11 $ -
12 $ -
13 $ 5,129,000
$ 22,225,500 $ 10,429,100
Robert Denison Date 916-858-0642
Jacqueline Lockhart Date 916-858-0642
By signing this estimate you are attesting that you have discussed your project with all functional units and have incorporated all their comments or have discussed with them why they will not be incorporated.

State Furnished
Section
Earthwork
Pavement Structural Section
Drainage
Specialty Items
Supplemental Work
Estimate Reviewed By :

Time-Related Overhead
Roadway Contingency
Environmental
Traffic Items
Detours
Minor Items
Roadway Mobilization

TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS
Estimate Prepared By :
2 of 11 10/17/2024

SECTION 1: EARTHWORK
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
170101 Develop Water Supply LS x 10,000.00 = $ -
170103 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 x 100,000.00 = $ 100,000 190101 Roadway Excavation LS 1 x 1,300,000.00 = $ 1,300,000 198010 Imported Borrow CY 15,000 x 130.00 = $ 1,950,000 $ 3,350,000
SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
390132 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) TON 14,588 x 120.00 = 1750560 260203 Class 2 Aggregate Base CY 22,206 x 60.00 = 1332360 731504 Minor Concrete (Sidewalk, Driveway, Curb and Gutter) CY 1,029 x 525.00 = 540225 $ 3,623,200

TOTAL EARTHWORK SECTION ITEMS

TOTAL PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTION ITEMS
3 of 11 10/17/2024

$ -
SECTION 3: DRAINAGE
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
650042 60" Reinforced Concrete Pipe LF x 550.00 = $ -
6XXXXX LS Drainage LS 1 x 2,000,000 = $ 2,000,000
$ 2,000,000
SECTION 4: SPECIALTY ITEMS
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
803020 Remove Fence LF x 5.00 = $ -
800001 FENCE (TYPE BW, METAL POST) LF x 15.00 = $ -
$ -

TOTAL DRAINAGE ITEMS

TOTAL SPECIALTY ITEMS
4 of 11 10/17/2024

$ -
SECTION 5: ENVIRONMENTAL
5A - ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
Inluced in PID LS x = $ -
Subtotal Environmental Mitigation $ -
5C - EROSION CONTROL
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
21XXXX Erosion Control LS LS 1 x 1500000 = $ 1,500,000
241350 Fiber Rolls LF x 4 = $ -
Subtotal Erosion Control $ 1,500,000
5D - NPDES
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
Job Site Management LS TOTAL LS x 600,000.00 = $ -
Subtotal NPDES $ -
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL $ 1,500,000
Supplemental Work for NPDES
Subtotal Supplemental Work for NDPS $ -
*** Applies only to project with SWPPPs.
*Applies to all SWPPPs and those WPCPs with sediment control or soil stabilization BMPs. **Applies to both SWPPPs and WPCP projects.
5 of 11 10/17/2024

$ -
SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS
6A - Traffic Electrical
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
860XXX Signals & Lighting EA 3 x 750,000.00 = $ 2,250,000 Subtotal Traffic Electrical $ 2,250,000
6B - Traffic Signing and Striping
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
82010X Channelizer EA 29 x 40.00 = $ 1,160
846007 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (ENHANCED WET NIGHT VISIBILITY) LF 14,354 x 5.00 = $ 71,770 840666 PAINT PAVEMENT MARKING (2-COAT) SQFT 312 x 5.00 = $ 1,560 840505 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE LF 21,505 x 2.00 = $ 43,010 120090 Construction Area Signs LS x 15,000.00 = $ -
Subtotal Traffic Signing and Striping $ 117,500
6C - Traffic Management Plan
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
120100 Traffic Control System LS 1 x $ 200,000 = $ 200,000 Subtotal Traffic Management Plan $ 200,000
TOTAL TRAFFIC ITEMS $ 2,567,500
6 of 11 10/17/2024

$ -
SECTION 7: DETOURS
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
$ -
SUBTOTAL SECTIONS 1 through 7 $ 13,040,700
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS
8A - Americans with Disabilities Act Items
ADA Items 5.0% $ 652,035
8B - Bike Path Items
Bike Path Items 5.0% $ 652,035
8C - Other Minor Items
Other Minor Items 5.0% $ 652,035
Total of Section 1-7 $ 13,040,700 x 15.0% = $ 1,956,105 $ 1,956,200
SECTIONS 9: ROADWAY MOBILIZATION
Item code
999990 Total Section 1-8 $ 14,996,900 x 10% = $ 1,499,690 $ 1,499,700
SECTION 10: SUPPLEMENTAL WORK
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
Cost of NPDES Supplemental Work specified in Section 5D = $ - Total Section 1-8 $ 14,996,900 4% = $ 599,876
TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL WORK $ 599,900
Includes constructing, maintaining, and removal

TOTAL DETOURS

TOTAL MINOR ITEMS

TOTAL ROADWAY MOBILIZATION
* Includes constructing, maintaining, and removal
7 of 11 10/17/2024

$ -
SECTION 11: STATE FURNISHED MATERIALS AND EXPENSES
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
Total Section 1-8 $ 14,996,900 0% = $ -
$0
SECTION 12: TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD
Total of Roadway and Structures Contract Items excluding Mobilization $152,996,900 (used to calculate TRO) Total Construction Cost (excluding TRO and Contingency) $166,596,500 (used to check if project is greater than $5 million excluding contingency) Estimated Time-Related Overhead (TRO) Percentage (0% to 10%) = 0% Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
090100 Time-Related Overhead WD 398 X $0 = $0
TOTAL TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD $0
SECTION 13: ROADWAY CONTINGENCY
Total Section 1-12 $ 17,096,500 x 30% = $5,128,950
TOTAL CONTINGENCY $5,129,000

TOTAL STATE FURNISHED
8 of 11 10/17/2024

STRUCTURES CONTINGENCY 20%
Bridge 1
DATE OF ESTIMATE 00/00/00 12/21/18 00/00/00
Bridge Name xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Structure Type xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Width (Feet) [out to out]
Total Bridge Length (Feet)
Total Area (Square Feet)
Structure Depth (Feet)
Footing Type (pile or spread) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cost Per Square Foot $115,000,000 $0 $0
COST OF EACH $115,000,000 $0 $0
Building 1
DATE OF ESTIMATE 00/00/00 00/00/00 00/00/00
Building Name xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Structure Type xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Width (Feet) [out to out]
Total Building Length (Feet)
Total Area (Square Feet)
Structure Depth (Feet)
Footing Type (pile or spread) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx TOTAL COST OF BRIDGES $115,000,000
TOTAL COST OF BUILDINGS $0
$23,000,000
$11,500,000
Cost Per Square Foot $0 $0 $0
COST OF EACH $0 $0 $0

TOTAL COST OF STRUCTURES
Estimate Prepared By: APS attached
Division of Structures Date
$149,500,000
9 of 11 10/17/2024

0 III. RIGHT OF WAY
Fill in all of the available information from the Right of Way Data Sheet.

A) Total Acquisition Cost $ 4,000,000
B) Appraisal Fees Estimate $
C) Mitigation Acquisition & Credits $ 3,500,000
D) Project Development Permit Fees $
E) Utility Relocation (State's Share) $
F) Relocation Assistance (RAP) $
G)
H) Title & Escrow $
I) 0% $
J) Construction Contract Work $
$
L)
M)
N)
1 When estimate has Support Costs only 2 When estimate has Utility Relocation 3 When R/W Acquisition is required $7,500,000
Clearance/Demolition
Condemnation Settlements
Note: Items G & H applied to items A + B

TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ESTIMATE
Support Cost Estimate
Prepared By Project Coordinator1 Phone
TOTAL R/W ESTIMATE: Escalated $8,193,778
RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT $1,000,000
Utility Estimate Prepared By
Utility Coordinator2 Phone
R/W Acquisition Estimate
Prepared By Right of Way Estimator3 Phone
10 of 11 10/17/2024

PID: District-County-Route: 3-Sac-TRUXEL
PM: N/A

SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost
$ 22,865,600 $ 29,160,256
$ 188,500,000 $ 240,392,042
$ 211,365,600 $ 269,552,298
$ 8,000,000 $ 8,740,030
$ 219,366,000 $ 278,293,000
$ 6,000,000
$ 14,000,000
$ 1,000,000
$ 44,290,350
$ 65,291,000
$ 285,000,000
Month / Year
Date of Estimate (Month/Year) 10 / 24
Estimated Construction Start (Month/Year) 5 / 35
Number of Working Days = 780
Estimated Mid-Point of Construction (Month/Year) 12 / 36 Estimated Construction End (Month/Year) 5 / 38
Number of Plant Establishment Days 60
COMPLETE PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT MARCH 2025
BEGIN ENVIRONMENTAL MARCH 2026
CIRCULATE DRAFT ED EXTERNALLY DECEMBER 2026
COMPLETE PA & ED SEPTEMBER 2029
COMPLETE FINAL DESIGN MARCH 2034
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION APRIL 2035
COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION APRIL 2038
Office Engineer / Cost Estimate Certifier Date Phone
Project Manager Date Phone

PLANNING COST ESTIMATE

TRUXEL BRIDGE

RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT

TOTAL STRUCTURES COST

TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST

TOTAL ROADWAY COST
Type of Estimate :

PA/ED SUPPORT
Approved by Project Manager
Program Code :

Project Limits :

Project Description:

Scope :

Reviewed by District O.E. or
Cost Estimate Certifier

TOTAL SUPPORT COST

TOTAL PROJECT COST

PS&E SUPPORT

TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS

CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT
Estimated Project Schedule
1 of 11 10/17/2024

TRUXEL BRIDGE
I. ROADWAY ITEMS SUMMARY
Cost
1 $ 3,545,000 x
2 $ 3,814,200 x
3 $ 2,000,000
4 $ -
5 $ 1,500,000
6 $ 2,557,100
7 $ -
8 $ 2,012,500 x
9 $ 1,542,900 x
10 $ 617,200
11 $ -
12 $ -
13 $ 5,276,700
$ 22,865,600 $ 10,914,600
Robert Denison Date 916-858-0642
Jacqueline Lockhart Date 916-858-0642
By signing this estimate you are attesting that you have discussed your project with all functional units and have incorporated all their comments or have discussed with them why they will not be incorporated.

State Furnished
Section
Earthwork
Pavement Structural Section
Drainage
Specialty Items
Supplemental Work
Estimate Reviewed By :

Time-Related Overhead
Roadway Contingency
Environmental
Traffic Items
Detours
Minor Items
Roadway Mobilization

TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS
Estimate Prepared By :
2 of 11 10/17/2024

SECTION 1: EARTHWORK
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
170101 Develop Water Supply LS x 10,000.00 = $ -
170103 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 x 100,000.00 = $ 100,000 190101 Roadway Excavation LS 1 x 1,300,000.00 = $ 1,300,000 198010 Imported Borrow CY 16,500 x 130.00 = $ 2,145,000 $ 3,545,000
SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
390132 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) TON 15,439 x 120.00 = 1852680 260203 Class 2 Aggregate Base CY 23,783 x 60.00 = 1426980 731504 Minor Concrete (Sidewalk, Driveway, Curb and Gutter) CY 1,018 x 525.00 = 534450 $ 3,814,200

TOTAL EARTHWORK SECTION ITEMS

TOTAL PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTION ITEMS
3 of 11 10/17/2024

TOTAL DRAINAGE ITEMS

TOTAL SPECIALTY ITEMS
4 of 11 10/17/2024

$ -
SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS
6A - Traffic Electrical
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
860XXX Signals & Lighting EA 3 x 750,000.00 = $ 2,250,000 Subtotal Traffic Electrical $ 2,250,000
6B - Traffic Signing and Striping
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
82010X Channelizer EA 88 x 40.00 = $ 3,520
846007 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (ENHANCED WET NIGHT VISIBILITY) LF 12,068 x 5.00 = $ 60,340 840666 PAINT PAVEMENT MARKING (2-COAT) SQFT 447 x 5.00 = $ 2,235 840505 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE LF 20,454 x 2.00 = $ 40,908 120090 Construction Area Signs LS x 15,000.00 = $ -
Subtotal Traffic Signing and Striping $ 107,003
6C - Traffic Management Plan
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
120100 Traffic Control System LS 1 x $ 200,000 = $ 200,000 Subtotal Traffic Management Plan $ 200,000
TOTAL TRAFFIC ITEMS $ 2,557,100
6 of 11 10/17/2024

$ -
SECTION 7: DETOURS
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
$ -
SUBTOTAL SECTIONS 1 through 7 $ 13,416,300
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS
8A - Americans with Disabilities Act Items
ADA Items 5.0% $ 670,815
8B - Bike Path Items
Bike Path Items 5.0% $ 670,815
8C - Other Minor Items
Other Minor Items 5.0% $ 670,815
Total of Section 1-7 $ 13,416,300 x 15.0% = $ 2,012,445 $ 2,012,500
SECTIONS 9: ROADWAY MOBILIZATION
Item code
999990 Total Section 1-8 $ 15,428,800 x 10% = $ 1,542,880 $ 1,542,900
SECTION 10: SUPPLEMENTAL WORK
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
Cost of NPDES Supplemental Work specified in Section 5D = $ - Total Section 1-8 $ 15,428,800 4% = $ 617,152
TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL WORK $ 617,200
Includes constructing, maintaining, and removal

TOTAL DETOURS

TOTAL MINOR ITEMS

TOTAL ROADWAY MOBILIZATION
* Includes constructing, maintaining, and removal
7 of 11 10/17/2024

$ -
SECTION 11: STATE FURNISHED MATERIALS AND EXPENSES
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
Total Section 1-8 $ 15,428,800 0% = $ -
$0
SECTION 12: TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD
Total of Roadway and Structures Contract Items excluding Mobilization $189,428,800 (used to calculate TRO) Total Construction Cost (excluding TRO and Contingency) $206,088,900 (used to check if project is greater than $5 million excluding contingency) Estimated Time-Related Overhead (TRO) Percentage (0% to 10%) = 0% Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
090100 Time-Related Overhead WD 398 X $0 = $0
TOTAL TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD $0
SECTION 13: ROADWAY CONTINGENCY
Total Section 1-12 $ 17,588,900 x 30% = $5,276,670
TOTAL CONTINGENCY $5,276,700

TOTAL STATE FURNISHED
8 of 11 10/17/2024

STRUCTURES CONTINGENCY 20%

TOTAL COST OF STRUCTURES
Estimate Prepared By: APS attached
Division of Structures Date
$188,500,000
Cost Per Square Foot $0 $0 $0
COST OF EACH $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST OF BRIDGES $145,000,000
TOTAL COST OF BUILDINGS $0
$29,000,000
$14,500,000
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Structure Type xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Width (Feet) [out to out]
Total Building Length (Feet)
Total Area (Square Feet)
Structure Depth (Feet)
Footing Type (pile or spread) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Building Name xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX
Building 1
DATE OF ESTIMATE 00/00/00 00/00/00 00/00/00
Cost Per Square Foot $145,000,000 $0 $0
COST OF EACH $145,000,000 $0 $0
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Structure Type xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Width (Feet) [out to out]
Total Bridge Length (Feet)
Total Area (Square Feet)
Structure Depth (Feet)
Footing Type (pile or spread) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bridge Name xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX
Bridge 1
DATE OF ESTIMATE 00/00/00 12/21/18 00/00/00
9 of 11 10/17/2024

0 III. RIGHT OF WAY
Fill in all of the available information from the Right of Way Data Sheet.

A) Total Acquisition Cost $ 4,500,000
B) Appraisal Fees Estimate $
C) Mitigation Acquisition & Credits $ 3,500,000
D) Project Development Permit Fees $
E) Utility Relocation (State's Share) $
F) Relocation Assistance (RAP) $
G)
H) Title & Escrow $
I) 0% $
J) Construction Contract Work $
$
L)
M)
N)
1 When estimate has Support Costs only 2 When estimate has Utility Relocation 3 When R/W Acquisition is required Utility Estimate Prepared By
Utility Coordinator2 Phone
R/W Acquisition Estimate
Prepared By Right of Way Estimator3 Phone
$8,000,000
Clearance/Demolition
Condemnation Settlements
Note: Items G & H applied to items A + B

TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ESTIMATE
Support Cost Estimate
Prepared By Project Coordinator1 Phone
TOTAL R/W ESTIMATE: Escalated $8,740,030
RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT $1,000,000
10 of 11 10/17/2024

PID: District-County-Route: 3-Sac-TRUXEL
PM: N/A

SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost
$ 22,782,000 $ 29,053,642
$ 197,600,000 $ 251,997,175
$ 220,382,000 $ 281,050,817
$ 7,000,000 $ 7,647,526
$ 227,382,000 $ 288,699,000
$ 6,000,000
$ 14,000,000
$ 1,000,000
$ 44,290,350
$ 65,291,000
$ 293,000,000
Month / Year
Date of Estimate (Month/Year) 10 / 24
Estimated Construction Start (Month/Year) 5 / 35
Number of Working Days = 780
Estimated Mid-Point of Construction (Month/Year) 12 / 36 Estimated Construction End (Month/Year) 5 / 38
Number of Plant Establishment Days 60
COMPLETE PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT MARCH 2025
BEGIN ENVIRONMENTAL MARCH 2026
CIRCULATE DRAFT ED EXTERNALLY DECEMBER 2026
COMPLETE PA & ED SEPTEMBER 2029
COMPLETE FINAL DESIGN MARCH 2034
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION APRIL 2035
COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION APRIL 2038
Office Engineer / Cost Estimate Certifier Date Phone
Project Manager Date Phone
Approved by Project Manager
Program Code :

Project Limits :

Project Description:

Scope :

Reviewed by District O.E. or
Cost Estimate Certifier

TOTAL SUPPORT COST

TOTAL PROJECT COST

PS&E SUPPORT

TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS

CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT
Estimated Project Schedule

PLANNING COST ESTIMATE

TRUXEL BRIDGE

RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT

TOTAL STRUCTURES COST

TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST

TOTAL ROADWAY COST
Type of Estimate :

PA/ED SUPPORT
1 of 11 10/17/2024

TRUXEL BRIDGE
I. ROADWAY ITEMS SUMMARY
Cost
1 $ 3,545,000 x
2 $ 3,755,400 x
3 $ 2,000,000
4 $ -
5 $ 1,500,000
6 $ 2,566,900
7 $ -
8 $ 2,005,100 x
9 $ 1,537,300 x
10 $ 614,900
11 $ -
12 $ -
13 $ 5,257,400
$ 22,782,000 $ 10,842,800
Robert Denison Date 916-858-0642
Jacqueline Lockhart Date 916-858-0642
Supplemental Work
Estimate Reviewed By :

Time-Related Overhead
Roadway Contingency
Environmental
Traffic Items
Detours
Minor Items
Roadway Mobilization
Section
Earthwork
Pavement Structural Section
Drainage
Specialty Items

TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS
Estimate Prepared By :

By signing this estimate you are attesting that you have discussed your project with all functional units and have incorporated all their comments or have discussed with them why they will not be incorporated.

State Furnished
2 of 11 10/17/2024

SECTION 1: EARTHWORK
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
170101 Develop Water Supply LS x 10,000.00 = $ -
170103 Clearing & Grubbing LS 1 x 100,000.00 = $ 100,000 190101 Roadway Excavation LS 1 x 1,300,000.00 = $ 1,300,000 198010 Imported Borrow CY 16,500 x 130.00 = $ 2,145,000 $ 3,545,000
SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
390132 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) TON 15,399 x 120.00 = $ 1,847,880 260203 Class 2 Aggregate Base CY 23,417 x 60.00 = $ 1,405,020 731504 Minor Concrete (Sidewalk, Driveway, Curb and Gutter) CY 957 x 525.00 = $ 502,425 $ 3,755,400

TOTAL EARTHWORK SECTION ITEMS

TOTAL PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTION ITEMS
3 of 11 10/17/2024

TOTAL DRAINAGE ITEMS

TOTAL SPECIALTY ITEMS
4 of 11 10/17/2024

$ -
SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS
6A - Traffic Electrical
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
860XXX Signals & Lighting EA 3 x 750,000.00 = $ 2,250,000 Subtotal Traffic Electrical $ 2,250,000
6B - Traffic Signing and Striping
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
82010X Channelizer EA 81 x 40.00 = $ 3,240
846007 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (ENHANCED WET NIGHT VISIBILITY) LF 13,602 x 5.00 = $ 68,010 840666 PAINT PAVEMENT MARKING (2-COAT) SQFT 508 x 5.00 = $ 2,540 840505 6" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE LF 21,539 x 2.00 = $ 43,078 120090 Construction Area Signs LS x 15,000.00 = $ -
Subtotal Traffic Signing and Striping $ 116,868
6C - Traffic Management Plan
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
120100 Traffic Control System LS 1 x $ 200,000 = $ 200,000 Subtotal Traffic Management Plan $ 200,000
TOTAL TRAFFIC ITEMS $ 2,566,900
6 of 11 10/17/2024

$ -
SECTION 7: DETOURS
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
$ -
SUBTOTAL SECTIONS 1 through 7 $ 13,367,300
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS
8A - Americans with Disabilities Act Items
ADA Items 5.0% $ 668,365
8B - Bike Path Items
Bike Path Items 5.0% $ 668,365
8C - Other Minor Items
Other Minor Items 5.0% $ 668,365
Total of Section 1-7 $ 13,367,300 x 15.0% = $ 2,005,095 $ 2,005,100
SECTIONS 9: ROADWAY MOBILIZATION
Item code
999990 Total Section 1-8 $ 15,372,400 x 10% = $ 1,537,240 $ 1,537,300
SECTION 10: SUPPLEMENTAL WORK
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
Cost of NPDES Supplemental Work specified in Section 5D = $ - Total Section 1-8 $ 15,372,400 4% = $ 614,896
TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL WORK $ 614,900
Includes constructing, maintaining, and removal

TOTAL DETOURS

TOTAL MINOR ITEMS

TOTAL ROADWAY MOBILIZATION
* Includes constructing, maintaining, and removal
7 of 11 10/17/2024

$ -
SECTION 11: STATE FURNISHED MATERIALS AND EXPENSES
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
Total Section 1-8 $ 15,372,400 0% = $ -
$0
SECTION 12: TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD
Total of Roadway and Structures Contract Items excluding Mobilization $197,772,400 (used to calculate TRO) Total Construction Cost (excluding TRO and Contingency) $215,124,600 (used to check if project is greater than $5 million excluding contingency) Estimated Time-Related Overhead (TRO) Percentage (0% to 10%) = 0% Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
090100 Time-Related Overhead WD 398 X $0 = $0
TOTAL TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD $0
SECTION 13: ROADWAY CONTINGENCY
Total Section 1-12 $ 17,524,600 x 30% = $5,257,380
TOTAL CONTINGENCY $5,257,400

TOTAL STATE FURNISHED
8 of 11 10/17/2024

STRUCTURES CONTINGENCY 20%
Bridge 1
DATE OF ESTIMATE 00/00/00 12/21/18 00/00/00
Bridge Name xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Structure Type xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Width (Feet) [out to out]
Total Bridge Length (Feet)
Total Area (Square Feet)
Structure Depth (Feet)
Footing Type (pile or spread) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cost Per Square Foot $152,000,000 $0 $0
COST OF EACH $152,000,000 $0 $0
Building 1
DATE OF ESTIMATE 00/00/00 00/00/00 00/00/00
Building Name xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Structure Type xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Width (Feet) [out to out]
Total Building Length (Feet)
Total Area (Square Feet)
Structure Depth (Feet)
Footing Type (pile or spread) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx TOTAL COST OF BRIDGES $152,000,000
TOTAL COST OF BUILDINGS $0
$30,400,000
$15,200,000
Cost Per Square Foot $0 $0 $0
COST OF EACH $0 $0 $0

TOTAL COST OF STRUCTURES
Estimate Prepared By: APS attached
Division of Structures Date
$197,600,000
9 of 11 10/17/2024

0 III. RIGHT OF WAY
Fill in all of the available information from the Right of Way Data Sheet.

A) Total Acquisition Cost $ 3,500,000
B) Appraisal Fees Estimate $
C) Mitigation Acquisition & Credits $ 3,500,000
D) Project Development Permit Fees $
E) Utility Relocation (State's Share) $
F) Relocation Assistance (RAP) $
G)
H) Title & Escrow $
I) 0% $
J) Construction Contract Work $
$
L)
M)
N)
1 When estimate has Support Costs only 2 When estimate has Utility Relocation 3 When R/W Acquisition is required $7,000,000
Clearance/Demolition
Condemnation Settlements
Note: Items G & H applied to items A + B

TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ESTIMATE
Support Cost Estimate
Prepared By Project Coordinator1 Phone
TOTAL R/W ESTIMATE: Escalated $7,647,526
RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT $1,000,000
Utility Estimate Prepared By
Utility Coordinator2 Phone
R/W Acquisition Estimate
Prepared By Right of Way Estimator3 Phone
10 of 11 10/17/2024
Attachment I. Right of Way Ownership

Attachment J. Utilities
DR
KEER
CL
IL
M
AM
ER
CI
AN
R
VI
ER
TW
O
R
VI
ER
S
B
KI
E
TRL

SEQUOIAPACIFICBLVD
BLVD

RICHARDS

DISCOVERY PARK

STEELHEAD
C
REEK
G
ARD
EN
HW
Y

TRUXEL RD

W EL CAMINO AVE
Ph: 916-858-0642 Fax:916-858-0643
Folsom, CA 95630
110 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, Suite 200

UTILITIES

FEASIBILITY STUDY

TRUXEL BRIDGE CONCEPT &
N5THST
BLVD

RICHARDS
LEGEND
ALTERNATIVE 2 &3 ALIGNMENT
ALTERNATIVE 1 ALIGNMENT

TELECOME - UG (AT&T, COMCAST)

TELECOME - OH (AT&T, COMCAST)

ELECTRIC - OH (PG&E, SMUD)

GAS - PG&E
ELECTRIC - UG (PG&E, SMUD) SCALE 1"=400'
Attachment K. Traffic Analysis
Memorandum
Date: October 11, 2024
To: Pamela Dalcin-Walling, Dokken Engineering
From: Adrita Islam, Kwasi Donkor, Ron Milam
Subject: Truxel Bridge Concept Feasibility Study
SA24-0263
Introduction
Purpose
The City of Sacramento is undertaking an engineering feasibility study for a new multi-modal bridge across the lower American River between Truxel Road and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard to better connect South Natomas with the central city. This technical memorandum summarizes the traffic forecast evaluation for the feasibility study.

Project Description
A significant portion of Sacramento residents live in North and South Natomas north of the American River and rely on I-5 to access the region’s main employment and cultural hub. I-5 lacks travel options for pedestrians and bicycles resulting in more vehicle trips and longer distance trips than would occur if a local bridge was available. More vehicle travel contributes to higher levels of vehicle miles of travel (VMT), which generates air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Transit ridership is also impacted due to inefficient routing that requires buses to use I-5. To address these challenges, a new local multi-modal bridge between Truxel Road and Sequoia Pacific Boulevard is being proposed. This project is consistent with Regional Transit plans to extend light rail transit (LRT) to Sacramento International Airport. The project aims to reduce VMT, emissions, and dependence on I-5 while enhancing local multi-modal access and emergency response.

Figure 1 shows the configuration of the bridge and the three proposed Alternatives. Alternatives 2 and 3 have a similar configuration and are modeled as one scenario for transportation forecasting purposes.

The following three cumulative scenarios were analyzed to understand the effect of the project:

1. Cumulative (2040) No Project: This is the Sacramento General Plan scenario where the Truxel Bridge and the Green Line LRT connection was removed.

2. Cumulative (2040) Plus Project – Alternative 1: This is the Sacramento General Plan scenario where the Truxel Bridge configuration was modified to match Alternative 1 in Figure 1.

3. Cumulative (2040) Plus Project – Alternative 2: This is the Sacramento General Plan scenario where the Truxel Bridge configuration was modified to match Alternative 2 in Figure 1. 1,2
Truxel Bridge Alternatives
Figure 1
M:\PROJECTS\SA24\0263.00_Truxel_Bridge_Concept_Feasibility_Study\Graphics\AI\Fig01_BridgeAlternatives.ai Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study
October 11, 2024

Page 3 of 19 ends

Forecasts and Operations
This chapter includes travel demand forecasts and related analysis to support the development and comparison of up to three project Alternatives including typical cross sections. The forecasts were developed using the Sacramento General Plan version of the SACSIM19 model developed by SACOG for the 2020 MTP/SCS. As part of this task, three runs of each scenario were run. The output variables were then averaged across the runs. This was necessary due to the model’s features that introduce stochastic variation in the forecasting process. Use of multiple runs and averaging helps minimize the variation and isolate the project’s effects.

Intersection Forecast:

Vehicle traffic volume estimates were obtained for the following three intersections using StreetLight Data. • Truxel Road/ W El Camino Ave
• Truxel Road/ Garden Highway
• Richards Blvd/ Sequoia Pacific Blvd
StreetLight Data combines location based service and connected vehicle data with machine learning algorithms to understand travel patterns and estimate specific travel metrics. Estimates are validated using permanent traffic counters and embedded sensors, and normalized with multiple data sources, including parcel data, digital road network data, and census information to calculate vehicle volume estimates.

Intersection turning movement volumes were estimated for average weekdays (Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays) during the period of February 1, 2023 to May 31, 2023 for AM and PM peak hours. Estimates were then averaged for the whole period. Since StreetLight data is an estimation based on sample data, this data is often adjusted using roadway counts if available. A comparison of the StreetLight volumes to the roadway counts from the City of Sacramento General Plan showed that the volumes from StreetLight were much lower. So, the StreetLight turning movement volumes were then adjusted using the roadway volume.

Figure 2 shows the resulting turning movement volume estimates for each intersection.

Using the SACSIM model, intersection turning movements were forecast for the three future year (2040) conditions listed in the section above. A forecasting procedure known as the “difference method” was applied to develop forecasts. The difference method takes the difference between the base year model’s volume estimates and the Plus Project model’s volume forecasts and adds that to existing traffic volumes to develop future year forecasts. This method corrects for potential anomalies or errors within the model’s base year. The following formula illustrates this forecasting procedure:

Forecast Scenario = Existing Traffic Count +
(Project Scenario Model Volume – Base Year Model Volume) Figures 3, 4, and 5 show the intersection turning movements for the three cumulative forecast scenarios.

The forecasts indicate that the volumes between the two Alternatives do not differ significantly. So, from a peak hour volume perspective, the alternatives will operate in a similar manner. Additionally, the forecasts also show that the project would not increase "cut-through" trips within the South Natomas Community.

American River
American River
Truxel Rd
W El Camino Ave
Garden Hwy
Richards Blvd
Garden Hwy
5 5
3 2
1 ACE
AACCF
AACCF
F AA
AE
AE

F CC AA EA
AC
CF
AACCF
El Camino Ave Garden Hwy Richards Blvd
Sequoia Pacific Blvd
Truxel RdTruxel Rd
79 (129)
127 (438)
21 (60)
186 (114)364 (321)92 (187)
96 (302)
176 (450)
93 (72)
91 (182)
233 (255)
45 (78)
201 (188)339 (221)
72 (197)
465 (499)
95 (392)
249 (517)
17 (24)
0 (0)
18 (4)
3 (37)0 (4)0 (7)
88 (4)
683 (422)
30 (21)
8 (2)
291 (1,100)
6 (2)

1. Truxel Rd/W El Camino Ave 2. Truxel Rd/Garden Highway 3. Richards Blvd/Sequoia Pacic Blvd M:\PROJECTS\SA24\0263.00_Truxel_Bridge_Concept_Feasibility_Study\Graphics\AI\Fig01_Ex_PHTV.ai Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
and Lane Configurations -
Existing Conditions
Figure 2
AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume
Traffic Signal
Stop Sign
Turn Lane A
American River
American River
Truxel Rd
W El Camino Ave
Garden Hwy
Richards Blvd
Garden Hwy
5 5
3 2
1 ACE
AACCF
AACCF
F AA
AE
AE

F AAC EA
AC
CF
AACF
El Camino Ave Garden Hwy Richards Blvd
Sequoia Pacific Blvd
Truxel RdTruxel Rd
110 (160)200 (560)
70 (90)
190 (120)390 (350)190 (240)
130 (130)
310 (430)
180 (350)
430 (290)
490 (600)
100 (310)
370 (240)610 (490)
290 (530)
140 (420)
470 (500)
180 (330)
240 (300)
5 (20)20 (5)
5 (40)20 (20)10 (10)
5 (5)
300 (1,120)
40 (20)
200 (150)
810 (430)
100 (20)

1. Truxel Rd/W El Camino Ave 2. Truxel Rd/Garden Highway 3. Richards Blvd/Sequoia Pacic Blvd M:\PROJECTS\SA24\0263.00_Truxel_Bridge_Concept_Feasibility_Study\Graphics\AI\Fig02_CNP_PHTV.ai Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
and Lane Configurations -
Cumulative No Project Conditions
Figure 3
AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume
Traffic Signal
Stop Sign
Turn Lane A
American River
American River
Truxel Rd
W El Camino Ave
Garden Hwy
Richards Blvd
Garden Hwy
5 5
3 2
1 ACE
AACCF
AACCF
F AB

ACF AEAE

FC AA EA
ACF
ACF
AACF
El Camino Ave Garden Hwy Richards Blvd
Sequoia Pacific Blvd
Truxel RdTruxel Rd
120 (190)
310 (1,010)
90 (140)
90 (70)950 (640)180 (240)
100 (250)
520 (580)
260 (170)
170 (300)
270 (400)
240 (270)
5 (5)
250 (860)
10 (20)
380 (300)870 (640)290 (140)
130 (340)
300 (580)
10 (20)
110 (100)
630 (630)
40 (10)
130 (110)190 (450)
20 (10)
10 (40)560 (380)300 (150)
80 (10)
890 (440)
50 (30)
80 (340)
300 (1,100)
10 (10)

1. Truxel Rd/W El Camino Ave 2. Truxel Rd/Garden Highway 3. Richards Blvd/Sequoia Pacic Blvd M:\PROJECTS\SA24\0263.00_Truxel_Bridge_Concept_Feasibility_Study\Graphics\AI\Fig03_CPP_Alt1_PHTV.ai Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
and Lane Configurations -
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions - Alternative 1
Figure 4
AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume
Traffic Signal
Stop Sign
Turn Lane A
American River
American River
Truxel Rd
W El Camino Ave
Garden Hwy
Richards Blvd
Garden Hwy
5 5
3 2
1 ACE
AACCF
AACCF
F AB

ACF AEAE

FC AA EA
ACF
ACF
AACF
El Camino Ave Garden Hwy Richards Blvd
Sequoia Pacific Blvd
Truxel RdTruxel Rd
120 (180)
310 (1,010)
90 (150)
90 (70)950 (630)180 (240)
100 (250)
520 (570)
270 (170)
170 (300)
270 (400)
240 (270)
5 (5)
250 (860)
10 (20)
290 (140)870 (650)380 (300)
110 (100)
630 (630)
40 (10)
130 (340)
310 (580)
10 (20)
100 (70)
170 (460)
20 (10)
10 (50)540 (360)310 (110)
80 (30)
880 (480)
60 (60)
50 (320)
300 (1,120)
10 (10)

1. Truxel Rd/W El Camino Ave 2. Truxel Rd/Garden Highway 3. Richards Blvd/Sequoia Pacic Blvd M:\PROJECTS\SA24\0263.00_Truxel_Bridge_Concept_Feasibility_Study\Graphics\AI\Fig04_CPP_Alt23_PHTV.ai Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
and Lane Configurations -
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions - Alternative 2 and 3 Figure 5
AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volume
Traffic Signal
Stop Sign
Turn Lane A
Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study
October 11, 2024

Page 8 of 19 ends

Operations Analysis
Traffic operations analyses were conducted to help determine geometrics and lane configuration recommendations using the same methodology applied for the General Plan. The operations analysis was limited to daily roadway level of service (LOS) consistent with the Sacramento General Plan approach. Peak hour forecasts were developed for future design purposes but were not included in the Level of Service (LOS) analysis.

Table 1 outlines the criteria used to determine the Level of Service (LOS) for roadways in the City of Sacramento based on Maximum Average Daily Traffic (ADT). Each roadway is assigned a unique Facility ID, which is determined by the type of roadway and the number of lanes it has. This Facility ID is then used to identify the appropriate Average Daily Traffic (ADT) limit for the roadway, which helps assess its LOS.

Table 1: Roadway ADT Threshold
ID Facility Type Number
of Lanes
Maximum ADT per LOS

A B C D E
1 Arterial - Low Access Control
2 9,000 10,500 12,000 13,500 15,000
2 4 18,000 21,000 24,000 27,000 30,000
3 6 27,000 31,500 36,000 40,500 45,000
4 Arterial - Moderate Access Control
2 10,800 12,600 14,400 16,200 18,000
5 4 21,600 25,200 28,800 32,400 36,000
6 6 32,400 37,800 43,200 48,600 54,000
7 Arterial - High Access Control
2 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000
8 4 24,000 28,000 32,000 36,000 40,000
9 6 36,000 43,000 48,000 54,000 60,000
10 Minor Collector 2 5,250 6,125 7,000 7,875 8,750
11 Major Collector
2 8,400 9,800 11,200 12,600 14,000
12 4 16,800 19,600 22,400 25,200 28,000
13 Local Street 2 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000
Note:

Facility Type Stops / Mile Driveways Speed
Arterial - Low Access Control 4 + Frequent 25 – 35 mph
Arterial - Moderate Access Control 2 – 4 Limited 35 – 45 mph Arterial - High Access Control 1 - 2 None 45 – 55 mph
Source: Sacramento 2035 General Plan MEIR. Table 4-1
Table 2 shows the LOS and Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratios for the roadway segments in the project vicinity for the existing and cumulative scenarios. The “difference method” discussed above was also applied to the roadway volume forecasts except for the new bridge, where raw model volumes were used.

Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study
October 11, 2024

Page 9 of 19 ends

The segment on Truxel Road north of W El Camino Ave remains of LOS F in both No Project and Plus Project scenarios. This is consistent with the City of Sacramento General Plan analysis. The roadway volume decreases on Garden highway with the project, but the LOS remains the same. Truxel bridge has an LOS D.

Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study
October 11, 2024

Page 10 of 19 ends

Table 2: Project Roadway ADT and LOS
Roadway Name Facility ID
Existing Cumulative No Project Cumulative Plus Project – Alternative 1
Cumulative Plus Project –
Alternative 2
Volume
(1) LOS V/C
Ratio
Volume
Forecast LOS V/C Ratio
Volume
Forecast LOS V/C Ratio
Volume
Forecast LOS V/C Ratio
Truxel Rd between
W El Camino Ave
and Garden Hwy
8 (Existing)
7 (Cumulative)
16,374 A 0.41 20,500 F 1.03 27,600 F 1.38 27,400 F 1.37 Richards Blvd
between Sequoia
Pacific Blvd and
Bercut Dr
8 26,432 B 0.66 35,000 D 0.88 32,000 D 0.80 33,100 D 0.83 Garden Hwy
between I-5 and
Truxel Rd
7 20,787 F 1.04 25,100 F 1.26 22,300 F 1.12 22,400 F 1.12 Garden Hwy
between Truxel Rd
and Northgate Blvd
7 23,149 F 1.16 27,200 F 1.36 26,900 F 1.35 26,800 F 1.34 Truxel Bridge
between Richards
Blvd and Garden
Hwy
7 - - - - - - 17,100 D 0.86 17,100 D 0.86
Notes:
(1) Data collected on 4/30/2019 and 5/1/2019
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024
Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study
October 11, 2024

Page 11 of 19 ends

Vehicle Miles Traveled
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) refers to the total number of miles traveled by a vehicle. VMT can be measured in different ways depending on the purpose of application. For this project, three types of VMT were calculated. Table 3 presents the methodologies, which are explained in detail in the sections below.

Table 3: VMT Methodologies
VMT Efficiency
Passenger vehicle VMT per capita is the metric used in the 2023 City of Sacramento General Plan update as the metric for determining transportation impacts. Passenger vehicle VMT represents the estimated total VMT generated by trips in personal automobiles and light-duty trucks with at least one trip end (i.e., location of departure or arrival) in the city. VMT estimates and forecasts include the vehicle travel associated with residents, workers, students, visitors, etc. engaged in activities that begin and end in the city.

This metric is directly related to how the project would influence future personal vehicle travel, especially by providing access. This metric does not include commercial vehicle (e.g., truck) trips that may be generated by residential or commercial land uses (i.e., internet shopping deliveries).

Method Approach Trip Types
Included (1)
Source
VMT
Efficiency
Generated
by all land
uses
Includes all vehicle “tours” (both work/commute
vehicle tours and non-work vehicle tours) per
person that start and end at land uses within the
City of Sacramento including all intermediate
stops.

II
IX
XI
DAYSIM travel
diary (SACSIM
Model) + VMT
Outside of
SACOG(2)
Induced
VMT By Lanes Multiply total new class 1, 2, or 3 lanes by an elasticity to generate annual induced VMT.

II
IX
XI
XX
NCST Calculator
OriginDestination
Total
Total origin-destination (OD) based network VMT
for the City of Sacramento accounting for the
entire length of travel.

II
IX
XI SACSIM Model
select zone
Proportional assigned network
(RTAC)
Total network level VMT for the City of Sacramento
accounting for the entire length of travel for II trips but only half of IX and XI trips.
100% of II
50% of IX
50% of XI
Notes:
(1) "Trip types included" refers to the different categories of trips that are considered in the analysis depending on the origin and destination ends of the trips. These include - II – Internal-Internal
IX – Internal-External
XI – External-Internal
XX – External-External
(where internal refers to the City of Sacramento)
(2) From Replica 2019 - Average Trip Distance Data by TAZ Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024
Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study
October 11, 2024

Page 12 of 19 ends

Table 4 shows the Passenger Vehicle VMT Generated per Capita for the existing and cumulative scenarios.

Table 4: Passenger Vehicle VMT per Capita
2016 Base Year
2040 Cumulative
No Project Plus Project -
Alternative 1
Plus Project -
Alternative 2
Total Passenger Vehicle VMT 19,442,920 21,759,336 21,735,436 21,749,666 Population – City of Sacramento 472,692 638,442 638,442 638,442 Passenger Vehicle VMT per capita 41.13 34.08 34.04 34.07 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2024
As presented in Table 4, passenger vehicle VMT per capita is expected to decline slightly with the addition of the project for both Plus Project Alternatives compared to the No Project scenario. While the VMT reduction is slight when considered at the city-wide level, changes near the project would be most visible as shown in the cut-through traffic analysis. The introduction of the bridge also creates the opportunity to make walk and bike trips, makes transit routing more efficient, and shortens vehicle trips between key origin-destination pairs like North and South Natomas to downtown Sacramento.

Induced VMT
Induced vehicle travel effects are the driving forces behind VMT changes associated with roadway capacity expansion projects. These effects can also diminish the expected congestion relief benefits of building new capacity. An independent induced VMT forecast was generated using the research-based elasticity method contained in the California Induced Travel Calculator developed by the National Center for Sustainable Transportation (NCST) at the University of California at Davis (UCD). The SACSIM model contains a portion of the induced VMT effect but does not have direct feedback to trip generation or land use.

Table 5 shows the total induced VMT associated with the Truxel Bridge project.

Table 5: Induced VMT
2040 Cumulative
No Project Plus Project -
Alternative 1
Plus Project -
Alternative 2
Total Lane Miles 313.95 315.95 315.95
New Facility Lane Miles - 2 2
Total Annual Induced VMT (Million) - 5.8 5.8
Total Weekday Induced VMT - 15,890 15,890
Passenger Vehicle Weekday Induced VMT - 11,280 11,280
Source: https://travelcalculator.ncst.ucdavis.edu/
Induced VMT Elasticity for Class 2 & 3 is 0.75
Total Induced VMT includes passenger and commercial vehicle travel.

Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study
October 11, 2024

Page 13 of 19 ends

Table 5 shows a daily increase in total VMT by 15,890 of which 11,280 is from passenger vehicles. However, this calculator forecast is insensitive to project type and local context and no reduction in VMT is accounted for due to the bridge shortening existing trip lengths.

Origin-Destination VMT by Speed bin
The total VMT generated by city land uses, disaggregated by speed bin, is used to estimate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. VMT estimates and forecasts include the vehicle travel associated with residents, workers, students, visitors, etc. engaged in activities that begin and end in the city. Origin-Destination (OD) methodology was used to calculate this VMT with different trip accounting methods.

1. Full accounting of all VMT generated by the City of Sacramento - This VMT is a network-based estimation or forecast that includes total VMT that has at least one end of the origin or destination (OD) within the city accounting for the entire length of travel. In other words, this VMT includes trips that are internal to the city (II), originate in the city and end outside the city (IX), and trips that originate outside the city and end within the city (XI). The reported VMT was disaggregated into the following specific metrics:
a. II, IX, and XI VMT and by vehicle types as identified by the SACSIM19 Model (personal vehicle, light-medium duty trucks, and heavy-duty trucks) b. Total VMT by Speed Bin

2. Proportional accounting of VMT generated by the City of Sacramento - This method proportions the VMT generated by City of Sacramento according to the location of the trip start and end locations. For example, a trip from Sacramento County to the City of Sacramento would be proportioned 50% to each jurisdiction. In other words, II trips (those that start and end in City of Sacramento) are assigned as 100% to the city while the IX and XI trips are assigned as 50% responsibility. The reported VMT was disaggregated by II, IX, and XI and by vehicle types as identified by the SACSIM19 Model (personal Vehicle, light-medium duty trucks, and heavy-duty trucks). The reported VMT was disaggregated into the following metrics:
a. II, IX, and XI VMT and by vehicle types as identified by the SACSIM19 Model (personal vehicle, light-medium duty trucks, and heavy-duty trucks) b. Total VMT by Speed Bin
Tables 6 and 7 summarize the VMT by speed bin using full accounting and proportional accounting methods.

Alternative 1 provides better access to the businesses south of the river by adding a signalized intersection at the south end of the bridge compared to Alternative 2. This results in overall less VMT for Alternative 1.

Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study
October 11, 2024

Page 14 of 19 ends

Table 6: O-D VMT by Speed Bin - Full Accounting
2040 Truxel Bridge - No Project 2040 Truxel Bridge - Plus Project (Alt 1) 2040 Truxel Bridge - Plus Project (Alt 2) Speed Bin Personal
Vehicle
SmallMedium
Trucks
Large
Trucks All Vehicle Personal Vehicle
SmallMedium
Trucks
Large
Trucks All Vehicle Personal Vehicle
SmallMedium
Trucks
Large
Trucks All Vehicle
0-5 13,591 2,327 132 16,050 13,571 2,345 131 16,047 13,716 2,354 138 16,208 >5-10 116,207 18,444 1,071 135,722 108,742 17,186 1,005 126,933 108,958 17,241 1,000 127,199 >10-15 272,051 45,847 2,849 320,747 270,368 45,678 2,828 318,873 270,189 45,765 2,840 318,794 >15-20 1,028,580 211,119 13,529 1,253,227 1,023,191 209,982 13,387 1,246,560 1,024,675 210,271 13,409 1,248,355 >20-25 1,245,427 223,404 13,900 1,482,731 1,236,300 220,003 13,784 1,470,087 1,235,826 219,766 13,716 1,469,308 >25-30 1,651,592 283,095 18,107 1,952,794 1,686,397 290,568 18,732 1,995,697 1,688,588 290,475 18,710 1,997,773 >30-35 2,207,789 409,637 33,123 2,650,549 2,192,458 406,152 32,845 2,631,454 2,201,001 408,707 32,797 2,642,505 >35-40 1,954,900 399,004 35,900 2,389,803 1,951,735 398,546 35,452 2,385,733 1,953,001 398,993 35,680 2,387,674 >40-45 1,080,513 228,652 36,513 1,345,677 1,083,057 229,322 36,755 1,349,134 1,086,145 229,466 36,993 1,352,604 >45-50 1,295,053 303,398 37,787 1,636,239 1,283,935 300,098 38,258 1,622,291 1,269,686 296,707 37,308 1,603,701 >50-55 2,426,593 601,225 83,914 3,111,732 2,427,663 602,997 83,949 3,114,609 2,454,697 609,785 84,582 3,149,064 >55-60 3,827,117 1,040,713 161,148 5,028,979 3,824,121 1,042,321 160,381 5,026,823 3,793,293 1,031,924 160,290 4,985,507 >60-65 1,389,223 379,396 100,518 1,869,136 1,385,071 378,872 100,390 1,864,333 1,399,812 384,461 101,141 1,885,414 >65-70 229,670 26,028 70,670 326,368 229,577 26,057 70,599 326,233 229,739 26,066 70,675 326,480 >70-75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total VMTwithin SACOG 18,738,306 4,172,288 609,160 23,519,754 18,716,186 4,170,126 608,494 23,494,806 18,729,326 4,171,981 609,279 23,510,586 Outside SACOG 3,021,030 3,019,250 3,020,340
Total VMT 26,540,784 26,514,056 26,530,926
Notes:

Page 15 of 19 ends

Table 7: O-D VMT by Speed Bin - Partial Accounting (RTAC method) 2040 Truxel Bridge - No Project 2040 Truxel Bridge - Plus Project (Alt 1) 2040 Truxel Bridge - Plus Project (Alt 2) Speed Bin Personal
Vehicle
SmallMedium
Trucks
Large
Trucks All Vehicle Personal Vehicle
SmallMedium
Trucks
Large
Trucks All Vehicle Personal Vehicle
SmallMedium
Trucks
Large
Trucks All Vehicle
0-5 8,351 1,475 73 9,900 8,315 1,487 70 9,872 8,393 1,483 73 9,949 >5-10 74,385 11,484 586 86,456 68,797 10,596 548 79,942 69,081 10,678 547 80,306 >10-15 177,097 29,380 1,560 208,037 176,040 29,325 1,552 206,918 175,916 29,367 1,558 206,841 >15-20 700,396 140,481 7,504 848,381 696,584 139,689 7,426 843,698 697,539 139,860 7,440 844,839 >20-25 846,060 148,077 7,720 1,001,856 838,816 145,648 7,649 992,113 838,797 145,522 7,613 991,932 >25-30 1,062,528 176,482 9,903 1,248,913 1,089,850 181,863 10,241 1,281,954 1,091,326 181,739 10,226 1,283,291 >30-35 1,319,876 239,100 17,389 1,576,365 1,309,017 236,839 17,238 1,563,094 1,314,967 238,549 17,222 1,570,738 >35-40 1,110,872 223,255 18,558 1,352,685 1,108,587 223,078 18,337 1,350,003 1,109,571 223,318 18,449 1,351,338 >40-45 596,526 126,550 18,530 741,606 597,376 126,825 18,657 742,858 598,666 126,791 18,775 744,232 >45-50 721,316 168,936 19,327 909,579 712,928 166,925 19,550 899,403 703,412 164,524 19,058 886,994 >50-55 1,324,339 329,253 42,677 1,696,269 1,324,895 330,407 42,704 1,698,006 1,339,978 334,138 43,031 1,717,147 >55-60 2,061,888 562,671 81,541 2,706,101 2,057,967 562,930 81,138 2,702,034 2,043,260 557,964 81,103 2,682,327 >60-65 737,788 206,986 50,579 995,354 735,778 206,855 50,523 993,156 743,823 209,813 50,904 1,004,540 >65-70 114,832 13,018 35,337 163,187 114,788 13,031 35,300 163,119 114,870 13,036 35,337 163,243 >70-75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total VMTwithin SACOG 10,856,253 2,377,149 311,285 13,544,687 10,839,739 2,375,497 310,935 13,526,170 10,849,599 2,376,782 311,336 13,537,717 Outside SACOG 1,510,515 1,509,625 1,510,170
Total VMT 15,055,202 15,035,795 15,047,887
Notes:

Page 16 of 19 ends

Transit Ridership Forecast
The project includes the Green Line LRT extension between downtown and North Natomas. The same version of the SACSIM19 model was used to forecast the potential daily transit ridership associated with the extension along with the associated VMT reduction. Forecasts are based on averaging the results from three model runs.

The transit ridership forecasts were summarized for LRT service and for all transit trips crossing the screenline shown in Figure 6. The screenline method gives a better understanding of transit ridership and how trips will shift between different transit lines with the introduction of a new bridge and associated transit service.

Figure 6: Screenline across Truxel Bridge and I-5
In addition to ridership, average person miles traveled (PMT) was forecast from the model by averaging the length of each transit trip. Total reduction in daily and annual VMT was also forecast based on the transit ridership forecasts. Daily VMT reduction was calculated by multiplying the daily ridership by the model’s forecast of average person trip length. A daily to annual conversion factor of 315 was used based on transit ridership data for Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT).

Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study
October 11, 2024

Page 17 of 19 ends

Table 8 summarizes the change in transit ridership, average PMT, and reduction in VMT for each cumulative scenario.

Table 8: Transit Summary
Light Rail Only All Transit Lines across Screenline
No Project Plus Project -
Alternative 1
Plus Project -
Alternative 2
No
Project
Plus Project -
Alternative 1
Plus Project -
Alternative 2
Daily Ridership - 8,313 8,322 26,651 29,965 30,093
Growth in Daily
Ridership - 8,313 8,322 - 3,314 3,442
Daily Average PMT - 3.24 3.21 6.06 5.33 5.36
Daily Total
Reduction in VMT - 26,934 26,713 - 17,663 18,449
Annual Total
Reduction in VMT - 8,484,248 8,414,790 - 5,564,040 5,811,473 Notes:

Screenline for No Project includes total ridership from all 16 lines Screenline for No Project includes total ridership from all 17 lines Ridership Growth -Growth in Total Daily Ridership between No Project and Plus Project Alternatives Annualization Factor – 315
VMT reduction is that associated with transit riders
The table shows that ridership growth on the “Project LRT” is approximately 8,300 daily trips for both Plus Project Alternatives. However, if we look at all the lines that cross the screenline, we can see that only about 3,300 of them are new trips. About 5,000 trips have shifted from the other transit lines.

Cut-through Traffic
One of the concerns of building the Truxel Bridge is the potential for an increase in cut-through traffic through the neighborhoods in South Natomas. To understand this issue, a select-link analysis was conducted for Truxel Road north of West El Camino Avenue. A select link analysis aids the understanding of the origin-destination (O-D) patterns associated with travel across a specific roadway link or segment within a transportation network. It shows how traffic flows through the particular link, providing insights into which trips (and potential cut through trips) use that link and where they are coming from and going to.

Figures 7, 8, and 9 show the OD patterns of trips using Truxel Road north of West El Camino Avenue by showing number of trips (1000s) on roadways. These volumes are directly from the model and have not been adjusted based on counts.

The Figures show that the project changes the pattern of trips by providing direct access to the downtown area. This increases the total volume on Truxel Road largely coming from, or going to, origins and destinations in North and South Natomas versus regional routes like Interstate 80 (I-80). Traffic volumes decrease on some local roadways such as Garden Highway and West El Camino Avenue and neighborhoods Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study
October 11, 2024

Page 18 of 19 ends

near Garden Highway. On W El Camino, vehicles that use the Segment of Truxel decrease from 2,300 to 2,200. Volumes on residential streets within the neighborhood also decrease by 100-200 vehicles. Thus, the project does not contribute to an increase in local or cut-through traffic. Volumes on I-5 going NB decrease by 1,000 vehicles and SB by 1,200 vehicles.

Cumulative No Project Scenario
Select-Link for Truxel Road North of W El Camino
Graphics showing total daily trips that use the segment (1000 trips) (Licensed to Fehr Peers)
Bandwidth
SelectLink Location
Northbound daily Volume = 100
Northbound daily Volume = 10,000
Southbound daily Volume = 100
Southbound daily Volume = 10,000

1.3 1.6
1 0.8

0.2 0.2

0.7 0.7

1.3 1.3

3.5 3.4

0. 0
1 .1

0.6 0.5

0.2 0.2

0. 0
3 .4

0. 0
5 .5

0.3 0.3

12.6 14.3

9.2 10.7

2.9 4

1.6 2.3

0.8 1.3

1.9 1.7

7.2 8.7

0.8 1.3

4.7 5.5

1.4 1.2

0.8 0.7

1.9 1.5
2 1.6 8.1 8.3
2 1.6

1.1 1.7

4.8 4.5

4.8 4.4

2.8 2.4 7.3 7.3

2.8 2.4

1.3 1.3

0.5 0.3

4.4 2.51.5

1.5 1.8

2.7 0.6

3.7 0.7

3.3 4

0.8 0.3

0.8 .5
4 3.7
4 5
4 5

1.9 0.1

0.5 4.4

0.8 3.7

0.3 0.2

2.5 0.0
6 .6 0.3

0.3 Cumulative Plus Project Scenario - Alternative 1
Select-Link for Truxel Road North of W El Camino
Graphics showing total daily trips that use the segment (1000 trips) (Licensed to Fehr Peers)
Bandwidth
Selectlink Location
Northbound daily Volume = 100
Northbound daily Volume = 10,000
Southbound daily Volume = 100
Southbound daily Volume = 10,000

1.2 1.5
1 0.7

0.2 0.2

1.5 1.2

1.3 1.4
4 3.8

0.1 0. 0
2 .2

1.1 0.8

0.2 0.2

0.3 0.3

0. 0
3 .4

0.1 0. 0
5 .7

0.4 0.3

16.6 17.4

12.8 13.4

2.8 3.7

1.6 2.2

1.2 1.5

2.2 2.2 10 10.9

1.2 1.5

6.6 7.3

1.6 1.5
1 0.9

1.8 1.1

1.9 1.2 12.6 11.8

1.9 1.2

1.1 1.6

3.3 2.8

3.2 2.7

2.4 1.9 11.9 10.8

5.5 6.7

2.4 1.9

1.3 1.4

0.1 0.3

2.7 0.5 1.8

1.1 1.8

2.1 0.5
5 0.9

4.7 5.4

0.9 0.6 .6

5.4 5

5.4 6.4

0.9 0.5
3 2.5

1.8 0.0
2 .2
Cumulative Plus Project Scenario - Alternative 2
Select-Link for Truxel Road North of W El Camino
Graphics showing total daily trips that use the segment (1000 trips) (Licensed to Fehr Peers)
Bandwidth
Selectlink Location
Northbound daily Volume = 100
Northbound daily Volume = 10,000
Southbound daily Volume = 100
Southbound daily Volume = 10,000

1.2 1.5
1 0.7

0.2 0.2

1.5 1.2

1.3 1.4
4 3.8

0.1 0. 0
2 .2

1.1 0.8

0.2 0.2

0.3 0.3

0. 0
3 .4

0.1 0. 0
5 .7

0.4 0.3

16.5 17.3

12.8 13.3

2.8 3.7

1.6 2.2

1.2 1.5

2.2 2.2

9.9 10.8

1.2 1.5

6.5 7.2

1.6 1.5
1 0.9

1.8 1.1

1.9 1.2 12.5 11.7

1.9 1.2

1.1 1.6

3.3 2.8

3.2 2.7

2.4 1.9 11.8 10.7

6.7 5.5

2.4 1.9

1.3 1.4

0.1 0.3

2.6 0.5 1.8

1.1 1.8

2.1 0.5
5 0.9

4.7 5.3

0.8 0.6 .5

5.3 5

5.3 6.3

0.8 0.5

2.9 2.4

0.1 1.8

0.0 2
.2

0.1 Attachment L. Outreach Plan
Truxel Bridge
Concept and
Feasibility Study
Community
Engagement
Plan
I. Background
II. Program Purpose
The City of Sacramento is currently undertaking an engineering feasibility study for a new multi-modal bridge across the American River at Truxel Road to provide better connectivity, support land use development, and increase access to jobs for communities just north of the river including South and North Natomas where a significant portion of Sacramento City residents live, and an appreciable amount of residential growth is planned.

Also, a lack of sufficient
infrastructure for pedestrians
and bicyclists discourages
non-motorized travel resulting
in more vehicle miles traveled,
higher greenhouse gas emissions,
inefficient transit routes, and
greater impacts to public health
and air quality. Additionally,
limited connectivity leads to
longer emergency response times
and can hinder evacuation during
future natural disasters. To ensure
that a new crossing at Truxel
Road will meet the travel needs
and patterns of the community
while also achieving the project
goals, a comprehensive plan
for community engagement is
needed.

The purpose of the Truxel Bridge Concept and
Feasibility Study Community Engagement Plan is
to include the most broad-reaching, appropriate,
and equitable practices to ensure participation by
a diverse representation of stakeholders, including
nearby residents, property and business owners,
community advocacy groups, and, specifically,
members of the historically underrepresented
communities within the South Natomas and River
District neighborhoods. The plan will guide the
project team in implementing a robust community
engagement program to obtain feedback at key
project milestones that will help to inform the
concept and feasibility study.

III. Objectives
The Community Engagement Plan will be implemented to ensure that the proposed Truxel Bridge is representative of the communities’ needs and aspirations. The objectives include:

Building public awareness of the
Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility
Study, its purpose and goals;
Ensuring that the public
engagement process is inclusive and
conscious of the various cultural,
accessible, and technological needs
of the community;
Obtaining input on potential
opportunities and challenges, travel
patterns and needs, and how a new
multi-modal bridge can best be
designed to fit within the context of
the communities that it will serve;
Including a diverse set of stakeholders
and community members who speak
for underrepresented groups affected
by the proposed bridge alignment,
current residents who live near the
proposed bridge alignment, and
community-based organizations
or advocacy groups who represent
climate action, housing, economic
growth, and/or social equity interests.

To meet the objectives of the Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study, the project team will partner with a diverse set of stakeholder groups. The following list outlines the criteria for the types of agencies, groups, and organizations who will be the focus of engagement during the process. The following page includes a map of the capture area for residents, property owners, neighborhood associations, local employers and major destinations.

These stakeholder representatives will be an integral part of the public outreach process. First, the project team will make initial contact to build awareness and establish a partnership at the initiation of the project.

Next, while planning for community events and meetings, the project team will work with stakeholder partners to disseminate information about upcoming events through the communication lines to their constituents. This includes posting event fliers on their website, sending information to their constituents through an email blast or e-newsletter, posting on social media, and making announcements at their meetings.

IV. Targeted
Stakeholder
Representative
Groups
Nearby residents and
property owners:

Residents and/or property owners who live near
the proposed bridge alignment, whose travel
patterns and accessibility may be improved by
the new crossing.

Neighborhood
associations:

Nearby community and neighborhood
associations including:

South Natomas:
• Gardenland Northgate Neighborhood
Association
• Natomas Community Association
• River Oaks Community Association
• River-City-Commons
• Sonora Springs Neighborhood Watch
• South Natomas Improvement Association
• South Natomas United
• Witter Ranch Community Alliance
River District
• Marshall-New Era Neighborhood Association
• Dreher Tract Neighborhood Association
North Natomas
• Hampton Owners Association
• Natomas Creek Community Watch Group
• Natomas Park Master Association
• North Natomas Community Association
• North Natomas Community Coalition
• Regency Park Neighborhood Association
• Valley View Acres Community Association
• Valley View Acres Neighbors Working
Together
• Westlake Master Association
• Westlake Villas Community Association
Project stakeholders include but are not limited to:

Social service providers:

Organizations or agencies who provide social
services to community members in the River
District or South Natomas communities.

Including but not limited to:
• 2-1-1 Sacramento
• California Department of Social Services
• Community Resource Project, Inc.
• Department of Community Services and
Development
• El Hogar Community Programs
• Joey’s Food Locker
• Mutual Assistance Network
• River City Food Bank
• Sacramento County Department of Health
Services
• Sacramento County Department of Human
Assistance
• Sacramento County In-Home Supportive
Services
• Sacramento County Public Health - WIC
Program
• Sacramento Employment and Training
Agency
• Sacramento Food Bank and Family Services
Underrepresented
communities:

Organizations or groups who serve
underrepresented communities, such as
communities of color, nearby tribal communities,
low-income residents, seniors, youth, and people
with disabilities. Including but not limited to:
• AARP
• Asian Resources, Inc
• Black Mothers United - HerHealthFirst
• Black Parallel School Board
• California Hispanic Resource Council
• El Hogar SeniorLink
• Greater Sacramento Urban League
• Green Tech (Education & Employment)
• Iu-Mien Community Services
• Jakara Movement
• Latino Center of Art and Culture
• People Reaching Out (Pro Youth and
Families)
• Sacramento Autistic Spectrum and Special
Needs Alliance
• Sacramento Chinese Community Service
Center
• Sacramento County Adult and Aging
Commission
• Sacramento Cultural & Linguistic Center
• Sacramento Latino Community Roundtable
• Sacramento Regional Transit Mobility
Advisory Council
• Sacramento Youth Commission (SYC)
• Society for the Blind
• Stanford Senior Center
Active transportation
groups:

Organizations and groups who advocate for
people who walk, bike or take transit in the
Sacramento region. Including but not limited to:
• Civic Thread
• Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates (SABA)
• Sacramento Bike Hikers
• Sacramento Transit Advocates and Riders
(STAR)
• Sacramento Transit Riders Union (Sac TRU)
• Sacramento Walking Sticks
Economic development/
Local employers:

Chambers of commerce, developers, and
property and business improvement districts
in Sacramento Districts 3 and 4 where a new
river crossing at Truxel Road may encourage
increased business activity and support
economic development in the area. This also
includes contacts from the Railyards project and
from the River District. Including but not limited
to:
• Del Paso Boulevard Partnership
• Downtown Sacramento Partnership
• Greater Sacramento Economic Council
• Greater Sacramento Vietnamese American
Chamber of Commerce
• Metro EDGE
• Natomas Chamber of Commerce
• North Sacramento Chamber of Commerce
• River District
• Sacramento Asian Pacific Chamber of
Commerce
• Sacramento Metro Chamber of Commerce
Education:

K-12, trade, and higher educational institutions
located near the proposed alignment whose
students may use the future bridge to travel to
school. This includes:
• American Lakes School
• Bannon Creek School
• Jefferson School
• Read Academy
• Smythe Academy K-6
• Natomas Unified School District
• Sacramento City Unified School District
• Twin Rivers Unified School District
Environmental
advocates:

Commissions, agencies, or organizations
that advocate for sustainable land use and
environmental protection in the Sacramento
region. Including but not limited to:
• 350 Sacramento
• American River Conservancy
• American River Natural Historic Association
• American River Parkway Foundation
• Breathe California Sacramento Region
• Capital Region Climate Readiness
Collaborative
• City of Sacramento
• CivicWell
• Environmental Council of Sacramento
• Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency
(SAFCA)
• Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District (SMAQMD)
• Save the American River Association (SARA)
• South Natomas Transportation Management
Association
Healthcare:

Hospitals and public healthcare providers
located near the proposed bridge alignment
whose patients or EMTs may benefit from a
new bridge to reach medical services and
appointments. This includes Kaiser Permanente,
with plans for a new medical facility in the
Railyards just south of the American River that
would greatly depend on a new river crossing
to effectively serve the South Natomas, River
District and North Natomas communities.

Local destinations:

Recreation, entertainment, and shopping
destinations in the Sacramento region located
near the proposed bridge alignment who may
depend on a new river crossing for their local
customer base and out-of-town visitors.

Major employers:

Major employers located in South Natomas,
the River District, and North Natomas whose
employees may depend on the proposed bridge
to travel across the American River to their job
regularly. This also includes California State
Department of General Services.

Parkway Interests:

This includes Sacramento County staff who
manage the American River Parkway and
adjacent Regional Parks land.

Transit Providers:

Includes Sacramento Regional Transit District
(SacRT), South Natomas Transportation
Management Association (TMA), and North
Natomas Jibe.

V. Engagement
Roadmap
To ensure that the new bridge fits within
the community context of both South
Natomas and the River District, the project
team will implement the following outreach
touchpoints to obtain key input. Outreach and
communication collateral for each of the below
proposed strategies will also be available in
Spanish and other languages as needed.

A project webpage on the City of Sacramento’s website
will serve to inform the public about the project and
upcoming community engagement opportunities.

The project team will host a community conversation
within a South Natomas neighborhood. This meeting will
be open-house format with informational board displays
and facilitated discussions between the public and project team on their preferences for concept design alternatives and ideas for making the bridge community-friendly.

The project team will develop a calendar of
and attend existing community events and
meetings hosted by neighborhood groups,
Parent-Teacher organizations, advocacy
groups, and community-based organizations
for tabling opportunities and presentations.

The goal of joining these events is to meet
the community where they are in order to
introduce the project, build awareness of
what is planned, and solicit feedback from
those in attendance regarding how the City
can develop a design concept that meets the
community’s needs.

Project Webpage:

Community Conversation (1):

Pop Up Workshops
and Tabling Events:

The project team will host two community meetings at key milestones during the feasibility study. The first workshop will be hosted early in the process to gather initial input from the public on their current travel patterns and any transportation barriers they are currently experiencing, and opportunities for designing a bridge that fits within the community. The second community meeting will
provide the public with an opportunity to provide input on the refined concepts alternatives.

The project team will host a focus group
meeting with stakeholder representatives of
various interests pertaining to the new bridge:
multi-modal transportation, equity, climate
action, and economic development to obtain
feedback on bridge concepts, challenges and
opportunities, and ways to integrate the bridge
into the local community.

VI. Schedule of Outreach
Focus Group Community Workshops (2):

Meeting (1):

Contact:

Fedolia “Sparky” Harris
Project Manager and Principal Planner
(916) 808-2996
[email protected]
Attachment M. Outreach Meeting Summaries

Page 1 of 15 ends

Introduction
On January 10, 2024, the City of Sacramento hosted a
Community Conversa>on as part of the Truxel Bridge
Concept and Feasibility Study’s public outreach and
engagement process. The City’s project manager ini>ated the process by presen>ng to eight community-based
organiza>ons and associa>ons prior to the ini>al
community workshop:
• District 3 Community Coali>on
• Gardenland Northgate Neighborhood Associa>on
• North Natomas Jibe
• Sacramento Sierra Building & Construc>on Trades
Council
• South Natomas Transporta>on Management
Associa>on
• The River District
• Valley View Acres Community Associa>on
The workshop was held from 5:30 – 7:00 p.m. at Read
Academy at 2565 Millcreek Drive in Sacramento which is
within the project area of South Natomas. More than 55
community members aZended the mee>ng to receive an
update on the project and provide early feedback for the study. This in-person workshop preceded an online
engagement ques>onnaire which the City will host to
collect input from community members who were unable
to aZend the mee>ng.

Project Background
In 2013 the City completed the American River Crossings Alterna>ves Study, and City Council adopted the vision for a new mul>-modal crossing at Truxel Road as one of the recommended alignments. The Truxel Bridge alignment was recommended and adopted based on its ability to address limited connec>vity across the lower American River which creates a barrier to downtown Sacramento for communi>es north of the river. The City’s plan for Truxel Bridge will create a more direct connec>on for those walking, biking, taking transit, or driving between northern Sacramento communi>es and Sacramento’s urban core. It will also provide beZer access, improve air quality, improve job opportuni>es, enhance economic development, and improve emergency response >mes.

Mee3ng Purpose and Format
The purpose of the mee>ng was to provide community members with a project background, overview, and schedule, and gather the public’s preliminary feedback on the road layout and alignment for the Truxel Truxel Bridge loca/on
Community members review the bridge cross sec/on

Page 2 of 15 ends

Bridge. The mee>ng consisted of a presenta>on from city staff and the consultant project team followed by a
ques>on and answer session, a live poll for aZendees to share informa>on about themselves and their travel
paZerns, and small group discussions with facilitators.

Prior to the beginning of the presenta>on, board exhibits with the bridge alignment, cross-sec>on, and schedule
were displayed around the room for aZendees to review
and discuss with the project team. Comment cards were
available for any comments or ques>ons the par>cipants
wanted to share during the Q&A or in the small groups.

Presenta>on
The mee>ng began with a welcome and introduc>on from
District 3 Mayor Pro Tem, Karina Talamantes. Next Fedolia “Sparky” Harris, Principal Planner for the City of
Sacramento, provided an overview of the feasibility study, the study purpose, and the next steps for the overall
bridge development. Below are the highlights of the
presenta>on:

The Lower American River limits connec>vity between
northern Sacramento and the urban core which:
• Creates a barrier to economic ac>vity, land use
development, social exchanges, and access to jobs;
• Contributes to significant rush hour delays on I-5;
• Contributes to longer emergency response >mes
and limits evacua>on alterna>ves; and
• Creates a barrier to recrea>onal opportuni>es within the American River Parkway.

This causes longer trip lengths between origins and des>na>ons that are physically close, which:
• Discourages walking and bicycling;
• Impacts public health;
• Leads to inefficient transit rou>ng;
• Consumes more fuel; and
• Generates higher levels of air pollutants
and Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
due to the reliance on automobiles.

The City of Sacramento completed the American River Crossings Alterna>ves Study in 2013, aier which City Council adopted the vision for a new mul>-modal crossing (including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transit, and cars) at Truxel Road as one of the recommended alterna>ves and authorized further analysis.

Mayor Pro Tem Karina Talamantes welcomes
a=endees during the presenta/on
Fedolia “Sparky” Harris, City of Sacramento Project
Manager, presents on Truxel Bridge

Page 3 of 15 ends

Immediately following the presenta>on, Gladys Cornell of AIM Consul>ng facilitated a brief Q&A for any clarifying ques>ons or comments from the audience.

Next, Pamela Dalcin-Walling of Dokken Engineering provided an update on the technical work completed to date, including the geometrics, flood control, environmental, structural, and funding assessments. The matrix below iden>fies the work completed and next steps:

Area of
Assessment
Completed to Date Constraints Iden>fied Next Steps
Geometrics (Cross
Sec>on)
• Iden>fied elements for
serving mul>ple modes
of travel
• Coordinated with
stakeholders to refine
widths and placement of
cross-sec>onal elements
Exis>ng infrastructure
on Sequoia Pacific
Boulevard.

Refine cross sec>onal
elements, widths,
and loca>ons.

Geometrics
(Horizontal
Alignment)
• Iden>fied exis>ng
infrastructure (buildings,
u>li>es)
• Iden>fied exis>ng
environmental resources
• Developed alignments to
reduce impacts
• Exis>ng buildings
on Sequoia Pacific
Blvd.
• PG&E power line
towers along
Garden Highway
• Trail connec>ons
Determine if
buildings can be
avoided.

Geometrics
(Ver>cal
Alignment)
• Completed survey to
iden>fy exis>ng
eleva>ons of the site
• Iden>fied clearance
requirements from Coast
• PG&E power line
along Garden
Highway
Evaluate the extent of
walls needed.

Current development /meline for Truxel Bridge (subject to change)

Page 4 of 15 ends

Guard, FEMA, American
River Flood Control
• Levees along the
American River and
Steelhead Creek
• Eleva>on of Garden
Hwy/Truxel
Flood Control • Coordinated with Army
Corps of Engineers and
Central Valley Flood
Protec>on Board
• Obtained preliminary
concurrence on ver>cal
clearance from US Coast
Guard
• Navigable waterway
clearance
• Levee freeboard
requirements
• Allowable impacts
to water surface
eleva>ons
• Evaluate impacts
from
encroachments
• Develop
mi>ga>on op>ons
Environmental • Ini>al iden>fica>on of
biological & cultural
resources
• Coordinated with
Sacramento County
Regional Parks
• Ini>ated outreach to
Na>ve American tribes
• Cultural resources
• Biological resources
(protected species,
sensi>ve habitat, &
waters)
• Limited mi>ga>on
opportuni>es
Coordina>on with
resource agencies
(CDFW, USFWS,
NMFS) & tribes.

Structures • Iden>fied height and
length requirements for
the bridge
• Iden>fied poten>al pier
loca>ons and widths
• Iden>fied poten>al
structure types
• Ver>cal clearance
requirements from
the Coast Guard,
Army Corps, FEMA
• Environmental
resource loca>ons
as it relates to pier
placement
• Pier op>miza>on
with flood
control,
environmental
resources
• Op>mizing bridge
type with cost
• Assess founda>on
op>ons and costs
Funding Outreach to federal, state,
and local representa>ves.
• Magnitude of cost
an>cipated
• Availability of
funding sources
Iden>fy cost range for
project.

Aier the presenta>on and the ques>on-and-answer session, Gladys then facilitated a live poll with par>cipants using the online program Men>meter. The results are shown below (for all ques>ons below, par>cipants could select mul>ple op>ons).

Page 5 of 15 ends

Question 1: Who are you?
Question 2: How often do you travel across the Lower American River?

Page 6 of 15 ends

Question 3: What modes do you currently use to get to downtown/midtown Sacramento?

Question 4: What is the purpose of your travel?

Page 7 of 15 ends

Par>cipants then separated into small groups of 8 to 10 people with a facilitator. The purpose of the small group discussions was to beZer understand current travel
paZerns and issues faced by community members in
northern Sacramento, if and how a more direct connec>on may help them, any perceived issues community members
may have with a new bridge, and early feedback on the
possible lane configura>ons for the new bridge. The
following ques>ons were discussed at each table:

1. What benefits do you think you, your family, and/or
your community would have if there was a faster
connec>on between your neighborhood and
downtown/midtown?

2. What concerns might you currently have with the Truxel Bridge concept?

3. How would having a bridge that accommodates all modes of travel (auto, bike, pedestrian, and transit) change your current travel paZerns?

4. Looking at the diagram that illustrates the current lane configura>on op>ons of the bridge, please share your thoughts on what you like/dislike about each concept and why.

5. Using the map in front of you, please trace the current route(s) you take for your trips to downtown/midtown. Tell us any challenges that you may face.

Compila3on of Feedback
Below is an overview of the feedback collected during the mee>ng.

Breakout Sessions
Question 1: What benefits do you think you, your family, and/or your community would have if there was a faster
connection between your neighborhood and
downtown/midtown?
Many participants expressed a desire to have more mobility options to travel to Downtown/Midtown Sacramento,
particularly favoring the inclusion of bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit facilities on the bridge. Attendees also expressed ease of travel as a top benefit of Truxel Bridge, noting that Truxel Bridge will be easier and more direct to reach Downtown/Midtown Sacramento and that travelers
may save more on gas and parking. Other benefits that
attendees spoke about included providing more routes for emergency vehicles, avoiding flooding that is common on Small group discussions Pamela Dalcin-Walling, Consultant Lead from Dokken
Engineering, presents on Truxel Bridge

Page 8 of 15 ends

Sacramento City CouncilJune 24, 2025

Sacramento City Council
June 24, 2025