Sacramento City Council
June 24, 2025

162
• I refer to Ms. Chapman, "You've got a fast car.." and you will drive it that way in this scenario.
• No train
• Too wide.
• No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians from vehicles. • No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles. • Cost!
• The size and cost
• No separa5on for pedestrians. Car drivers are reckless and cyclists are menaces to pedestrians.
• No glaring concerns, aside from cost.
• No separa5on
• The cost and amount of 5me it would take to complete (freeway construc5on of 50 has been going on for years and it seems like they are s5ll working on the same sec5on) • None
• No physical barriers for bikes and pedestrians and the bike lane serves as emergency access.
• No physical barrier between vehicles and pedestrians and bicycles • People trying to get to the middle of the street for transit lane. • Seems like an inefficient use of space
• this is too compilate.
• "Risk to bikes/peds
• Cost"
• Too expensive.
• It's not clear why the sidewalks and bike lanes can't all be on the same side of the road. • Cost of ini5al project and upkeep maintenance.
• Seperated direc5ons make it impossible to turn around on bike • No space for vehicle breakdowns, bikers ocen ignore direc5on signs and would mow down walkers
• Doesn't priori5ze bikes enough.
• The size and cost seem to be dispropor5onal to the benefits over other designs. The forced direc5onality could prove tricky depending on traffic and 5me of day. • Same as above - all plans don't address fundamental climate issues of increased VMT and need for more focused in-fill development close to bridge that has only local transporta5on modes only - walk, bike, RT
• Conges5on especially during emergencies
• The cost, lack of physical barriers, and having to cross train tracks and car lanes to change direc5ons when biking.
• I don’t like rail transit
• Expense
163
• Seems like any minor accident would cause large delays • Too few lanes, no barrier between pedestrian/bike and vehicles, uncovered pedestrian/bike paths
• All of these op5ons are horrible. Widen I5 if you want to increase traffic flow capacity. • All the cons
• Lack of shoulder space for emergency access. No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bicyclists from vehicles.
• No shoulder, no barriers,
• No barriers
• Crime, vehicle use, light rail use that we do not need nor want. • Cost
• All the CONs listed above. This seems to be more expensive while having less benefits than Op5on B.
• Cars
• The bike lanes is not separated from traffic by a concrete divider. The light rail has very small floor dividers separa5ng itself from the rest of traffic. • Increased traffic and the money could be used elsewhere • Bike lanes not physically separated, increasing danger to bikers. Side walks too narrow, reducing comfort levels and safety for pedestrians.
• All of the cons
• It's most expensive
• Emergency vehicles in bike lane is a dangerous idea.
• No emergency lane.
• most expensive
• Cost, limited connec5on to American River Trail.
• none
• See 8d
• None.
• All of the cons men5oned
• No concerns.
• Biggest footprint, without providing more safety (shoulder, barriers, emergency lane) • Most expensive.
• Again, don’t have cars get access
• Is there a way to allow vehicles to use light rail lanes? • This would significantly interfere with crosstown traffic on Garden Highway. As soon as people realize that, they will immediately be against this bridge. There is minimal value in a bridge connec5ng Truxel and the Rail Yards, because once you are over, you s5ll have to cross major thoroughfares with long lights to get anywhere. People will s5ll clog J street and go around, A beler solu5on is expanding Garden and Arden to connect Natomas to Business 80 and 160. This is what other more developed city’s would do, 164
• No need for two walking paths. Why straddle the road like that? • It might be confusing for cyclists and they may use the wrong sides. • Cost
• Too wide of a bridge
• Terrible design, this would be like any other class 2 bike lane and sidewalk in the city, where it's dangerous to ride or walk. Think the hilarious bike lanes on 65th expy, nobody uses them because it's suicide.
• There is no way bikes won’t go both direc5ons
• Too big. Too costly. Opposed to auto bridge through parkway. • I'm not usually a proponent of the most expensive projects. • all of the cons
• Indifferent
• Cost
• No physical separa5on across modes in favor of buffer space; it's already the most expensive op5on, why not add a concrete or other physical barrier alongside the buffer? • No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from traffic. • The use of emergency access as an excuse to not protect cyclists and pedestrians.

Emergency vehicles can access the bridge plenty fine using the transit lanes and weaving in between cars. Even beler, emergency vehicles would have 0 issues accessing the bridge if no cars were allowed on it.
• It would ruin the American river parkway
• Let's be honest, some pedestrians won't follow the direc5onal rule. • Giving mul5direc5onal could get confusing and could poten5ally cause more accidents. • can you get more crea5ve about trail access?
• No barriers between pedestrians and cars. Less walkable • No barrier between pedestrians/bicyclists and cars. Paint doesn’t protect people, barriers do.
• None
• I don't think the bike lane direc5ons will be followed. • Most expensive
• Limited trail access
• Connec5vity to trail/ separa5ng direc5ons of travel for bike lanes . • Why is separa5ng direc5ons of travel being separated a good thing? It makes it harder to turn around on a bike, and limits access to the JS Trail. • this setup i think might be prone for accident
• 2 bike lanes and 2 sidewalks. one side walk. 2 way bike lane • no cars please
• I think the transit lines maybe able to be narrowed to 1 lane across the bridge and widen to 2 once over the bridge. Save some money
• No emergency lane. No physical barrier.
165
• None
• Not safe
• Emergency
• No emergency lane. Sidewalk and bike lanes may be too narrow. No barriers. • As walker, biker, it is hard to change direc5on, we cannot go to opposite way un5l we finish the bridge.
• One direc5on traffic, par5cularly for bikes, is difficult (if not, impossible) to enforce.

Narrow lanes are very problema5c in Sacramento and cars are only geing larger. • "One direc5onal bike lane provides limited connec5vity to Jedediah Smith Trail • Widest cross-sec5on
• Most expensive
• Bike lane is the only space available for emergency access/vehicle breakdowns • No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles" • Expensive.
• Should be local traffic only or toll for everyone else. • Limited connec5vity to Jedediah Smith Trail. People may get confused on which side of the bike path they need to be on and make unsafe lane switches across the bridge. • Not much
• No barrier between cars and bikes , most expensive
• If another plan with separate rights of way for rail and pedestrian traffic would be cheaper that would be preferable.
• no emergency lane.
• How the transi5on of traffic will happen on either side of the bridge. The cons out weigh the pros.
• No physical Barriers
• seems like just a worse version of the others
• No shoulder again could cause lots of trouble with a breakdown or accident stalling traffic and nega5ng the benefits of the bridge.
• Perhaps just some kind of barrier between the vehicle lanes and the bike lane, or at least between the bike lane and the sidewalk.
• Limited connec5on to bike trail, increased risk of cyclist-car incidents. Does not promote biking or walking. Very car centric.
• Bike lane is the only space available for emergency access/vehicle breakdowns • none
• Too much wasted space
• everything. this is the worst op5on.
• None
• wider bridge, greater exposure of cyclist to vehicles. Remove the vehicles. • I don't like transit in the middle. It causes traffic and people accidents. • Accidents
166
• There needs to be a barrier between cars and cyclists • Too expensive. Would like to see combined light rail and cars like first but bike path on each side like this.
• Having separate light bar Lane seems like a waste of space and money. I also don’t like that it’s the highest cost
• No barrier
• cost
• All the cons
• Just put physical barriers between the vehicle and bicycle lanes. Emergency vehicles can manage with the remaining space. Protect cyclists and pedestrians. • most expensive, limited bike access/safety
• That the bike lane is the only place for emergency vehicles or breakdowns. • i don't like the one direc5onal bike lanes and that it's the most expensive op5on • Bikers are unlikely to follow the direc5on.
• S5ll the transit lines. Bridge would be by far superior if it was only a car/bike/pedestrian bridge.
• none
• No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles • "Absolutely no space for emergency vehicles so if something does happen, instead of being a minor slowdown, it's going to cause actual traffic. • And s5ll no barriers between pedestrians and traffic, pedestrian safety is largely ignored and is finally geing some alen5on thanks to that new law in SF about not parking too close to the crosswalk, dayligh5ng or something.
• And of course the price. I understand that projects like this are expensive, but I would say both Plan A and B are both beler op5ons than this one, AND this one is more expensive, so I would rule out Plan C immediately and just weigh A & B." • small to no shoulder
• The en5re bridge concept to handle traffic from autos, trucks, trains, buses, etc. • There’s already a bridge to the River District off Northgate Blvd • Most expensive, no real advantage over B
• No physical barriers protec5ng bike lane
• cost/5me to construct
• That cars will end up in the bike lane and then bikes will have to go on the sidewalk • Lack of space for emergency vehicles, no physical separa5on for bike/pedestrian lanes, and where would the light rail lines go on the downtown side? What impact would that have on the neighborhood?
• One lane on Truxel is nuts. It would push traffic to Azeveedo. Not to men5on how will this impact student walking to and from Natomas High. Just a traffic fatality in the making
• Not safe for bicycles
167
• The lack of a barrier between pedestrians and vehicles. • Cost; no physical barrier between pedestrians/bikes and vehicles • Who rides RT it’s unsafe
• Cost and limited connec5on to Smith trail. No physical barrier for bike lanes. • Maybe put the transit as close as possible to either put up safety for bikers/pedestrians and/or increase the shoulder.
• It doesn't feel developed enough
• Seems like it will take a long 5me to build and gain approval. • I don't have any concerns.
• Emergency vehicles
• none
• cost
• Not as safe as op5on B
• Cyclists not using the correct lane of direc5on
• need more lanes for cars
• most expensive
• Not an efficient use of bridge width for bike, pedestrians, vehicles and transit. • Doesn't seem worth it, not that different from B
• While this is close to the best, the lack of a protec5ve barrier for bikers is s5ll incredibly hazardous, alongside limited trail access. Whoever designs these bridges clearly doesn’t ride their bike. Cars are incredibly deadly to bikers and pedestrians - there needs to be a protec5ve barrier, this is no longer op5onal. Bikers will only use the trail if they feel safe and this is just a con5nua5on of the deadly roads we’re using now. • "One direc5onal bike lane provides limited connec5vity to Jedediah Smith Trail • Bike lane is the only space available for emergency access/vehicle breakdowns • No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles" • None
• Mixed use lanes are a beler op5on
• Costs too much
• doesn't connect to the bike trail
• My concern is that the bike advocates will only have their own agenda heard and pushed. Not everyone can ride a bike or wants to ride a bike. When you’re lugging kids to school and carrying groceries, going to sports prac5ce. Commu5ng to work. You can’t “ride” a bike for everyday life. Sacramento is known for suppor5ng families and what I love about the city. Please consider our families! This bridge would have a posi5ve impact.
• One direc5on bike lanes will be dangerously used in the opposite direc5on. • Most expensive without having any physical barriers for cyclists. They should find a way to be added in this op5on.
• Added traffic on Richards Blvd.
168
• Need peds and bikes on just one side.
• no physical barriers and limited connec5vity to Jedediah Smith trail. • why not narrow it with one rail lane? how ocen would the both be at the same spot? is it a safety concern if there is just one?
• Not wide enough. One transit/rail line. Need an emergency lane. • I think some5mes cyclists will travel against the flow of traffic. • "No physical barrier for bike and pedestrian lanes
• "
• Cost and. Lack of connec5on to JS Trail
• No one uses transit. Too big, too many cars
• No emergency lane. No barriers between bike lanes and pedestrian lanes or bike lanes and vehicle traffic.
• No shoulder for vehicle breakdowns.
• I already have trouble turning off of my street on to Truxel due to traffic. Addi5onal traffic would make it nearly impossible. If you want more people to walk or bike, a bike and pedestrian only bridge would be beler. We don't need more cars on Truxel! • Cost
• Bike lane is the only space for an emergency
• No physical barrier separa5ng peds & bikes from vehicles • Do not like that there is no separa5on between pedestrians and cars. • Bikes are dangerous
• Need to add physical barriers to block cars from bikes and pedestrians. • Most expensive, difficulty connec5ng to the bike trail • I don’t knoe
• Expensive, reduced shoulder
• Limited connec5vity
• heavy traffic with transit Lane
• "One direc5onal bike lane provides limited connec5vity to Jedediah Smith Trail • Widest cross-sec5on
• Most expensive
• Bike lane is the only space available for emergency access/vehicle breakdowns • No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles" • Bike lanes need a physical barrier from automobiles, especially if the auto lanes are narrower.
• Not an emergency lane available, same concern than for op5on B • Light Rail ending up on Truxel in front of homes, beside bedrooms, blocking SNCC and library and park. Cuing off west side of Truxel. County B of Ed already cut off our school
• The cost may be high but its a worthwhile investment. • Lack of protec5on from cars. Access to trail
169
• I don’t believe narrow lanes will reduce speed. Most expensive. Bike lanes used for emergency vehicles. No separa5on for pedestrians and bikes • No barrier for bike lanes
• Beler
• Poorly planned
• No connec5on to the bike.
• No physical barriers. Most expensive.
• Limited connec5on to bike trail. Lack of separated bike trail is dangerous. • Compromises bike and pedestrian safety
• Two way bike lanes should be on one side w beler access to bike trail • This is a Trojan horse for a 4-Lane bridge. We need only a two-lane bridge consistent with our city’s neighborhood-friendly bridge policy.
• Limited access to the trail.
• Bike lane is the only space available for emergency access/vehicle breakdowns • too expen
• I don't undersand bike trail connec5ons. I suspect they are inferior. High cost • widest cross sec5on, most expensive, no physical barriers • Lack of physical barrier
• Most expensive =least likely to be built sooon
• Expense
• Lack of ART access on one side
• Most expensive
• Why can't emergency vehicles use transit lanes, like on Op5on B? • Narrow lanes and no physical separa5on from the cars. Too dangerous. Need a barrier. • Everything else
• The cost and the one-way foot & bike traffic lanes.
• inefficient use of space
• No physical barriers between vehicles and pedestrians • "1. No barriers
• 2. Wasted space."
• n/a
• emergency vehicles must use bike paths; no barriers separa5ng vehicles from pedestrians and bikes (drivers drive too fast and no separa5on is dangerous); limited connec5on to Jed Smith trail; most expensive op5on
• None
• No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles • Two pedestrian paths aren’t necessary. Separa5ng the car lanes requires too much width. This op5on is wider than it needs to be.
• Intersec5on conflicts
• "Most expensive
170
• Bike lane is the only space available for emergency access/vehicle breakdowns" • Raised bike path does not provide adequate protec5on from the cars. Need to have physical wall
• Couldn't we just turn the vehicle lanes into dedicated lanes for emergency services? • I s5ll don’t see why there can’t be a barrier between cars and bikes/peds — make the lanes narrower or make the ped/bike mixed use. There’s plenty of space here and peds would probably be rare on this bridge
• Get the train out of the middle of the bridge.
• No breakdown lanes
• No physical separa5on for peds and bikes from drivers. • Cost
• pedestrians crossing traffic to get to train or car
• Need for sidewalks on both sides.
• "cost
• Nothing
• Bike lane is the only space available for emergency access/vehicle breakdowns. No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles. • Car lanes make the bridge larger and create more environmental damage to the Parkway and too much traffic. The bridge should not include cars. • There is no barrier between the bike path and vehicle lane and mixed bicycle and sidewalk use. The lack of barrier is an invita5on for drivers to use the combined sidewalk and bike lane as a bypass when the travelway is congested. Combine op5on A (one side is the mul5purpose path and the other side a sidewalk) with C (transit lane in the center). Pedestrians and bicyclists use each side of the pathway as a two-way travel instead of one-way.
• I'm not convinced that reduced shoulders and narrower lanes will cause everyone to drive slower.
• Too many cars. Get rid of them!
• Separa5ng the bike lanes is unnecessary and may cause confusion. • Cost, no physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles • A is beler for the future.
• Poorly planned out; too expensive.
• Removing prime riparian habitat is a detriment to wildlife who are already stressed with homeless individuals, their loose dogs etc.
• I don't like the separated bike lane and the fact that both emergency vehicles and breakdowns will use this space.
• where do the people in the public transit enter and exit? • Na
• Bikes and pedestrians deserve beler than painted buffers and parked SacPD cruisers in the bike lane. I repeat everything I said about op5ons A and B leaving the door open to 171
stupid or malicious drivers interfering with light rail opera5ons or mowing down pedestrians.
• Shared Transit lane with vehicles would be beler than rail-only. Direc5onal bike lanes separated could be an issue.
• Need more room for emergency vehicles
• Confusion of right of way.
• see cons above
• The higher construc5on costs and insufficient access for emergency vehicles. • No physical barrier between cars and bikes and pedestrians. • "Most expensive
• Bike lane is the only space available for emergency access/vehicle breakdowns • No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles" • dangerous lack of physical barrier. separated direc5ons for peds and bikes is unnecessary waste of space.
• No physical barrier between vehicles and bikes.
• I see no benefit in this one over the previous ones
• If on bike / foot, and you need to turn around, you'd need to travel the en5re distance of the bridge, which is a considerable distance for ac5ve modes. • You’re certainly trying every possible permuta5on to con5nue a car-centric culture. We don’t want cars on the bridge!!
• ped and bike mixing, lack of good connec5on to bike trail. • Same as B
• No concerns
• It's clear that you lose so much versa5lity by having the LRT in the middle. Not sure why you would favor
• Same concerns as op5on b
• most expensive sounds like an immediate no.
• High cost. Would be less if autos not allowed.
• All the cons; Probably way expensive
• Difficult to cross on feet
• Cost and unintended consequences of addi5onal traffic in areas that didn't used to have this type of access
• none
• None.
• flow doesn't seem great
• Less traffic is able to cross
• The bullet point regarding emergency vehicles using bike lane is concerning. • Overwhelmingly skewed figures; prohibi5ve construc5on costs. Residents and businesses directly nega5vely impacted due to inability to turn lec at almost every 172
intersec5on. Residents would be forced to go through their neighborhoods just to get to a place to turn lec.
• No access to trails
• Too expensive
• Breakdowns having to use the bike lane. Addi5onal cost. • Op5on A, B and C are trying to do too much, and in the mean5me, another sec5on of the American River Parkway falls vic5m to an unrealis5c project. • Poten5al extension north on Truxel and impact on exis5ng neighborhood. • None.
• Cost to maintain.
• Widest cross-sec5on
• None
• Limited op5on for JD Smith Connec5on.
• Everything.
• Not enough vehicle lanes -- should be 2 lanes each way. • Literally none. This is the only construc5on project I want the city to fund fully because it's the one that impacts me on a day to day basis.
• The layout will feel familiar to users. Minimal use of transit lanes most 5mes of the day. • None
• Yet again, why cars? No protected bike lanes.
• It allows car traffic. In an effort to reduce VMTs, fend off induced demand, and incen5vize people to take transit and bike, cars should NOT have a place on this new bridge.
• Cars - we don't need addi5onal car access, we need safer year-round bike and walk access. bike lanes and sidewalks not separated - they need to be separated. • No barrier between pedestrians and vehicles
• cost
• Reduced lane size & shoulders would not reduce driving speed • "Most expensive.
• Largest footprint so most effect on environment.
• No physical barriers between pedestrians/bicycles and cars. • No lane dedicated to emergency vehicles."
• Please see response in 6 other.
• Expensive. Mixed direc5ons for bikes and pedestrians seems unnecessary. Too expensive.
• Trying to do too much with too lille space
• too much reserva5on for light rail.
• Worried about emergencies
• "Possibility of making one of the bike/walk side to become emergency vehicle use. •
173
• Looks like you can add the barricade between vehicle lane and bike lane." • Since it is the most expensive, it might be cost prohibi5ve. • Limited bike lame
• No shoulders to accommodate breakdowns. No physical barrier separa5ng bicycles and autos.
• More expensive. Limited trail access, no space for emergency vehicles or breakdown.

No physical barriers between cars and pedestrians and bikes • No barriers between peds and the auto s
• Bikes and pedestrians aren't protected; costs associated with road maintenance is great, and will increase wear and tear of bridge.
• Cyclists might go the wrong way
• Poor trail connec5vity.
• none.
• Cars
• Vehicle traffic
• none
• Again, fuel-burning vehicles included.
• Bike lane being used by emergency vehicles if needed. No physical barriers between bikes and pedestrians and cars.
• Cost, but it would be worth it.
• No physical barrier between bikes and vehicles. This is not ideal and poten5ally unsafe. • Same as op5on b.
• Bike lane is the only space available for emergency access/vehicle breakdowns • No physical separa5on between pedestrians and vehicles. Only one car lane in each direc5on. Connec5vity to Jedediah Smith Bike Trail needs to be smooth and direct.

Maybe out all pedestrians on one side of bridge and all bikers on the other side. • Its big!
• complicates pedestrian connec5vity, expensive
• Too wide.. Unsafe for people on bicycles and on foot. Speeding. • no physical separa5on between vehicular traffic and bicycling • None
• Same as op5on b. Too wide, no physical barrier.
• Too much space for walking and biking by spliing the sides up. • There will be too much traffic and conges5on. It’s not worth it • No separa5on between pedestrians and cyclists.
• It's the most expensive and destruc5ve to our natural beau5ful Sacramento. • There is literally no reason why you can't have a physical barrier set up to protect bicyclists and pedestrians.
• Too wide, bike lanes unfriendly, eliminate vehicles and reduce light rail to a single lane. 174
• Bike lane connec5vity issues. Emergency services using bike lanes. But if we get to the airport by train that makes it all worth it.
• No physical barriers, cyclists need a safe space to cross the river. • None
• Same as 8d
• Poor connec5on to Jedidiah Smith trail, inadequate/unacceptable emergency access • None
• Like rail
• Harder for cyclists to switch direc5ons
• too wide, too expensive, no good parkway bike trail connec5on • The bike lane should be on the same side of the bridge, puing four lanes of traffic between the bike lanes means cyclists are going to use whatever side is convenient for them regardless if it's the right direc5on. If you make a safety feature unbelievably inconvenient to use people are not going to use it
• looks expensive to build and maintain with tax dollars • limited emergency space, and no physical barrier to protect peds and bikes from cars. • Expense
• So many ways to get downtown, less save the money and create more shelters downtown for the homeless.
• None
• No hay barra fisica.
• None.
• limited trail access; most expensive; no emergency lane; no physical barriers; impact on area once river crossed
• My main concern is that there is no barrier to protect pedestrians. • Traffic
• There's no way people are going to abide by the one way bike lanes. This will cause accidents and traffic there
• "Hopefully there is a curb between car / bike.
• Cars s5ll make for a noisy bridge experience. "
• Transit and vehicle lanes should switch places. The most separa5on for bikes/peds • interferes/intrudes with Discovery Park landmark for concerts, picnic/events area, boat launch, american river bike/walk path etc., which is great for community as it exists.

Here it would be counter produc5ve and wasteful use of resources for said purpose. • This is, by far, the worst design, the most dangerous and the most expensive. • Missing barriers from car to bike lane and bike to pedestrian area • Do not like separa5on of bikes and pedestrian lanes on the two sides of the bridge. • lack of protected bike lanes
• No barriers between vehicles and cyclists/pedestrians. Separated bike lane direc5ons. • Too much money.
175
• Minimized space for bikes, right next to a vehicle lane. That signals unsafe crossing for many cyclists.
• No barriers for pedestrians, no emergency lane
• This would easily become gridlocked and pose risks to cyclists and pedestrians. • None
• To congested and not a great design for walking, running,bike riding or traffic movement. • I don't think there should be a vehicle lane. If there is going to be a bridge it should be for pedestrians, bikes, and public transit.
• access for emergencies
• Bike path shouldn’t be separated. Bike path needs to connect to the Jedidiah smith bike trail. Cars shouldn’t be allowed on the bridge.
• BRT instead of rail???
• Too big, access to bike trail is limited
• Excessive. We do not have nearly enough foot traffic or bicycle traffic to jus5fy the extra lanes on both sides of the bridge.
• I think it will be a terrible waste to not have full bi direc5onal connec5vity with the ART, without that just make it all for cars. Truly the least elegant solu5on • No protec5ons for bike lanes.
• I'm concerned about the car lanes and the increased traffic in the area. • ALL the cons. It's toon expensive and too wide and there is no reason vehicles can't share lanes
• Everything. This is a cool ass bridge that will allow people to actually cross the river when it is flooded when on bike or foot. Why half ass the real useful aspects of this bridge. There are already soooo many lanes on the free ways to cross and conges5on is the only thing holding back more people from driving. This will not solve any car conges5on problems because having more lanes won’t do that. Don’t ruin a legi5mately cool thing here go to waste by giving in to cars
• Bicycle safety and one direc5onal bike lanes
• "It has the greatest environmental impact.
• It's the most expensive."
• Lille separa5on between cars and bikes. Is that at least a raised curb? Could there be flexible delineators? Why is there less connec5vity to Jed Smith Trail? • The bike paths and transit lanes should have greater separa5on to prevent errant or scofflaw drivers from using the bike/transit lanes as their personal passing lanes. • I am concerned that the bridge will be too wide and increase the footprint of the bridge.

I am concerned about the nega5ve impacts of including vehicles traffic on the bridge (noise, traffic, pollu5on to air and water, trash). I am concerned about there being a lack of barriers between cars and pedestrians.
• The bike lane should absolutely not be used for vehicles. If it is for "breakdowns," people will start parking and driving there.
• No physical barrier for pedistrian.
176
• Cars being close to bikes and pedestrians.
• all the cons
• Not good use of car and transit space, too large.
• Climate Change impacts and see above comments.
• Wish that trains and emergency vehicles could use the same lane • Unprotected bike and pedestrian paths. I don't mind the emergency vehicles using the bike lane, but hopefully theres something to protect the riders. • "Single-direc5on, separated bike lanes make it difficult for bicyclists to travel together - that's a big turnoff.
• Sidewalks are not going to be single-direc5on no maler what you do, so it makes lille sense to try to separate them."
• Shoulder
• Want more access to the Jedediah Smith Trail
• Sac will probably choose it even though it’s ridiculous • No barrier to protect pedestrians and narrow the roadway. One direc5on bike lanes separated by numerous lanes of traffic does not feel comfortable as a biker. The bike lane should not be sacrificed for broken-down vehicles. • None
• no physical barrier between pedestrians/bikes from vehicles. • There is no physical separa5on between motor vehicles and bike lanes. This design is dangerous and people will be killed because of it.
• no physical barrier for bikes and pedestrians
• Doesn't work well with bike trail, humans get no protec5on from vehicles. • Use of bike lanes for emergency vehicles.
• Should have physical barriers from car traffic.
• "Widest cross-sec5on
• Most expensive
• Bike lane is the only space available for emergency access/vehicle breakdowns • No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles" • Having only one way bike lines on each side may be less accessible and safe. No barriers separa5ng cars from pedestrians and bikers. No dedicated emergency lane. Most expensive. Cheaper this bridge is, the less likely we’ll have people fight against it. •
• Don’t think a separate walking lane on each side is necessary. • Not really a nega5ve, but I’m sure a crea5ve solu5on could be found to link both bike direc5ons from the bridge to the trail.
• Cost and danger to pedestrians and cyclists.
• emergency lane?
• The limited bike trail connec5ons. If too wide may be an eyesore at this loca5on. Bike lane as emergency access not op5mal.
177
• Cost. Limited bike path connec5vity with Jedediah Smith Trail. No physical barrier protec5ng bike/ped from vehicles.
• Overall costs and lack of benefits from costs. It feels like too many things and not the simplest solu5on to solve connec5vity.
• Most expensive
• "Trail access
• No barrier between bikes and cars"
• connec5vity to trail. should be easy fix.
• cost
• Again, there needs to be a physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles and to prevent impa5ent motorists from using spaces that they shouldn't. • It has a wide footprint.
• I don't like that there is not protected bike lanes or pedestrian walking lanes • Expensive
• Concerns you list.
• Price
• Not as safe
• This is the widest cross sec5on, which might cause a conges5on problem at the connec5on to Truxel Road. I do not support the Green Line on Truxel Road. Lack of physical barriers between motorized traffic and bike lane. • "You have too much faith in humans using common sense for this setup. •
• Feels like too big and urban of a city. Keep Sacramento's charm. " • No barriers, no space for emergency vehicles
• Bikes not physically separated from vehicles
• Automobiles speeding and encroaching into bike lanes to swerve around other automobiles. Cyclist crossing to connect to American River Parkway trail • Less physical barrier between cycles and traffic than Op5on A. • seems needlessly large. would also prefer that peds/bikes are all on one side of the bridge together (people ride in the wrong direc5on all the 5me anyway, so a two way path makes more sense)
• cost and s5ll encourages people to drive.
• Unneeded new bridge for vehicle/transit.
• No barrier between bikes and cars and the limited trail access. • No emergency lane could lead to back ups in case of accident or stall • "Inclusion of car traffic.
•
• Sidewalk and bike lane are not at different grades."
• "Again, why two transit lanes, when they aren't sharing the vehicle lanes? 178
• - If this is the widest cross-sec5on, does it impact Sequoia Pacific parking and buildings more?
• - More Expensive.
• "
• cars close to bikes
• "I have a deep deep concern that the city keeps telling us there is no money to fix exis5ng streets and yet here we are talking about building a stupid bridge. • "
• Cyclists will use the bike lanes in whatever direc5on they want. • Needs physical barrier for bike and pedal to be safe. Poor trail connec5on. • most expensive, limited emergency access
• No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles • Personal autos allowed
• Emergency vehicles in bike lanes.
• no barrier between pedestrians/bikes & motor vehicle traffic • I dislike how it once again does not priori5ze pedestrian safety • No emergency or shoulder lanes. No barriers.
• Cyclist safety
• less separa5on of bikes and cars
• I don't like that there aren't physical barriers between the pedestrians and the cars. • Bridge without automobiles only.
• Vehicles on bridge. No room for emergency vehicles to bypass traffic. • too wide and expensive
• Cost, nothing protec5ng pedestrians and bicyclists.
• None
• Light rail, outside lane , wit maybe a sta5on on the bridge • Bicycles and pedestrians aren’t separated by a barrier from cars. Meaning travel for bicycles and pedestrians isn’t really safe.
• Lack of separa5on in bike trail and traffic
• None
• Bike lane direc5ons being separated, no physical separa5on for the bike lane, • WHY ARE YOU PUTTING CYCLISTS NEXT TO CARS UNPROTECTED??? • Private vehicle lanes will increase VMTs as those trips become more convenient. • Expense
• None
• Most expensive. Least likely to get completed.
• Safety. Cyclist and pedestrian need a solids barrier between them and vehicle lane. • No barrier between cars and bike/peds. Why do emergency vehicles need to take bike lane. You don't suggest emergency vehicles drive on sidewalks! What's the difference? Bad access to Jed Smith trail
179
• Too wide, affec5ng habitat on the American River Parkway side • Bike and ped traffic should be physically separated from vehicle lanes. • $$
• There needs to be a physical barrier
• I don’t like how pedestrians are separated on narrow paths divided by a road for cars. • No physical barrier separa5ng bikes from vehicles
• bikes lanes are unprotected
• The separa5on between vehicle lanes
• The same as b
• No physical barrier for bikes and pedestrians.
• People do not know how to use one way bike paths
• Safety
• more commuters using secondary roads to bypass I5 conges5on • "No physical protec5on for cyclists
• Wrong way cyclists would force cyclists into automobile lanes" • Biggest concern is if this is the most expensive op5on, how long will it take to complete? • Lack of bike/pedestrian separa5on
• No separa5on between car traffic and the bike lanes is very discouraging for cyclists and pedestrians alike. It won’t feel safe with cars flying past. Sure, cars may travel slower with smaller shoulders, but speeding and Sacramento is extremely common. Having cars fly past at 40-50 mph is a discouraging unsafe experience. • Bike lanes should be together. Too auto oriented. I would prefer no private automobiles. • It’s only one lane.
• Not sure what is meant by "limited connec5vity" to bike trail • Vehicle lanes would increase VMT, impacts to air quality and climate. • Most expensive
• Fast cyclists would be right next to pedestrians (not safe), and the grade separa5on between the traffic lane and the bike lane looks like a hazard. I would prefer no grade separa5on, but if it's needed it should be between the bike lane and the sidewalk. Also there's no good op5on here for people who want to ride two abreast, e.g. people riding with kids. As a cyclist I don't think this is a good or safe configura5on. • Ligh5ng hasn’t been men5oned concern about how well lit it will be. • Size (environmental impact of) and expense.
• None
• Too wide and too expensive
• Most costly
• cost delays to project geing completed
• No place for emergency vehicles
• Same reason a op5on A and B
• None
180
• No physical barrier.
• All bridge op5ons are a horrible idea and they should not waste any more 5me money or effort on such a bad idea.
• Most expensive
• Cars
• One direc5onal
• Concerns about lack of physical barrier
• I'm concerned that the dedicated transit lanes will not be used enough to jus5fy 33% of the bridge to be dedicated to transit.
• Too narrow, slow, & conges5on,
• Bike access could be a concern, unless the major flow palern is not inhibited by the limited access.
• Expense and no physical barrier.
• Bike lane for emergency vehicles and limited bike access to trail • No separa5on of the bike lanes
• Vehicles pollu5on, light rail would bring crime, already have many means of traveling north/south by vehicles.
• None
• No emergency lane. If transit lane can double as an emergency lane this could be the best op5on.
• It seems to take up the most amount of space width-wise. • No emergency lanw
• Price
• "We have so many other needed road improvements and repairs and other programs that would be a beler use of those funds.
• "
• There are more cons than pros.
• Lack of physical barriers protec5ng bikes from autos
• No barrier between cars and pedestrians/bikes
• Same concern as op5on B.
• Lack of shoulder.
• Too expensive.
• Too wide/more costly, lack of physical barrier between peds/cyclists and cars. Reduced connec5vity to bike trail.
• Too expensive
• Need bike lanes and peds access both ways
• "Overkill. Too large a project footprint. Redundant.
• See my answers to previous ques5ons."
• All of the above.
181
• Vehicle lanes are not needed. This was intended by the county and SacRT to be a transit/walking/bicycling bridge. Lack of width measurements makes the cross-sec5on less useful and subject to misinterpreta5on.
• No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians/bikes from vehicles. • No barriers between cyclists and cars
• only 2 lanes open for vehicles.
• No physical barrier separa5ng pedestrians and bikes from vehicles • How wide is it?
• This one is also too wide, and expensive. We need a narrow footprint if we want the community to support the project.
• Inability of cyclists to turn around will lead to cyclists riding the wrong direc5on. • Truxel would become a highway and it would be impossible to walk to the park or enjoy the community.
• Vehicular traffic is s5ll included. The lack of physical separa5on to protect cyclists and pedestrians is outdated and dangerous. The size of the bridge is too large. The cost is higher. The connec5on for bicyclists to the trail is the weakest. • I don’t like that there’s no physical barrier separa5ng bicyclists from vehicle lane. Cost of the bridge.
• "Seems a waste to have a separate transit lane
• Limited connec5on to bike trail.
• Most expensive"
• No men5on of priori5zed signals for transit, no barriers separa5ng cars from bikes • It is the widest cross-sec5on with the most impact to the area below. No physical barriers between bike/pedestrian and vehicles.
• Limited connec5vity
• None
• Cost.
• Again, there should not be private vehicle travel lanes as part of this project. • Where is the protec5ve barrier between bikes and cars?? That is very important. I don't want to be squished. Just omit the car lanes.
• Too wide. Too costly. Redundant features,
• Destruc5on of environment
• That the bike lanes appear to be unprotected. We cannot allow personal vehicle drivers to dictate bridge design. Transit, pedestrian, cyclist, and emergency vehicle access should be priori5zed in that order.
• Car traffic is not separated from pedestrians and bikes. • limited connec5vity to the bike trail, it's the most expensive op5on and there is no physical separa5on between cyclists, pedestrians, and cars. I don't like that emergency vehicles or vehicle breakdowns would have to use the bike lanes • Cars will collide with transit and bikers.
182

11. Do you have any other ques5ons about Truxel bridge? • Includes at least one transit lane, even if mixed-use lane • Please consider making this ped/bike/mass transit bridge only. Cars already dominate so much of the area.
• This city is sorely lacking in the ac5ve transporta5on department - can we finally address the fact that too much infrastructure is dedicated to cars?? Thank you. • While I like that mul5ple modes are being considered, it s5ll seems like you are trying to accommodate drivers more than anyone else. Cars and drivers should be the least priori5zed
• "No private cars on the bridge!!
• The Mayors' Commision on Climate Change calls for 40% Ac5ve Transporta5on, 50% Transit and Shared.
• We actually need to make design choices that support our goals, in order to achieve healthy, safe, connected, and sustainable community in our city. " • Priori5ze safe pedestrian and bicycle experiences
• Are there other alterna5ves that do not propose automobile lanes? That should be considered.
• Plans for addressing poten5al homeless camps and increased crime in neighborhood • I think op5on A is the best op5on by far, honestly. Hopefully drivers aren't interested in taking this bridge because of the "slow transit" and take the other bridges instead. • Just know I totally support geing this built Sacramento needs another river crossing and light rail needs to go all way to airport.
• Please make it pedestrian and transit only
• Why are there cars? This bridge could be open to emergency traffic without being open to cars. Without car lanes this bridge would have a smaller impact on the environment and would cost less (probably) because it doesn't have to be so wide • You have an opportunity to do something cool that isn't just more room for cars. Don't fuck it up.
• I would like to see a bike and transit focused alterna5ve. Incen5vize public transit, reduce auto traffic in the area and focus on safe, protected bike lanes. • Give me a big, wide sidewalk. Give me a two-way cycle track. Give me light rail. Give me a bus/emergency vehicle lane, physically separated from the people walking and rolling. • Do not allow cars - this should be a transit and bike/walk only bridge • It would be much beler if there were a car free op5on which would solve most of these problems. Other than that Op5on c is my most preferred op5on. • Yes. Please make this bridge for pedestrians and bicyclists only. You'll sleep beler at night.
• There should be no car lanes
• Just no cars. Make this bridge a jewel in the city and not another dumping ground for trash and miscellaneous liler.
• Not at the moment
183
• Would rather see it be for bikes and lightrail only
• The effects of forcing a Truxel lightrail bridge on the South Natomas community will affect the peace and quiet of the neighborhood, increase traffic which will create traffic nightmares, affect the safety of our children (K-12) who walk along Truxel to school and home, and affect the safety of families who walk to/visit the South Natomas Park/Library/and Community Center. The lightrail project for Truxel will also decrease property values, increase local crime at local grocery centers and possibly force grocery stores to close and relocate elsewhere (greatly affec5ng residence who walk to these loca5ons for their family groceries and needs). It will affect the peace and quiet of the neighborhood, the safety of the community, the safety to our children, unwanted dricers, policing deficiencies, environmental hazard to the American River Parkway and its wildlife (deers, wild birds, turkeys, ducks, geese and plant life), and speeding and unwanted heavy traffic near and on residen5al streets. Overall, it will put an en5re community at risk and change demographically
• We need more bridges across the river to connect Natomas to Downtown. The bridges should accommodate all modes of transporta5on.
• I would be interested in seeing the bridge without roads for car and truck traffic, but s5ll have an emergency lane as needed.
• No reason to spend money on another automobile crossing when there's plenty of other op5ons nearby that are really only safe for cars. I'd much rather have a safe place for pedestrians and bike commuters than another car access there. • Is there a fourth version without car traffic? I could envision a narrow bridge that accommodates rail, cycle, and ped traffic. It could perhaps have one vehicle lane to include access for emergency vehicles and bus traffic, leaving rail unimpeded. • Please limit this to transit and bicycles. Make this bus only if there must be travel lanes. • Priori5ze green transporta5on; walking and biking! We don’t need another through route for vehicles.
• There are very few riverfront areas in Sacramento that are free from the noise and pollu5on of cars. Let us please have one river space without cars. The traffic benefits of allowing cars is negligible, but the human cost is high. • No
• Seriously you want to solve traffic issues??? DONT INCLUDE CARS. ENCOURAGE BIKING AND PUBLIC TRANSIT. “Just one more lane bro” come on.
• It is needed, but it should not include cars. Transit, biking and walking only. • Make it an ac5ve transporta5on bridge with public transit access and help city meets its climate and adapta5on goals.
• This bridge should last at least a 100 years, so get it right the first 5me. Cost should not drive the design. I know that seems out of touch-but this is serving an important need! Do it right!
• All of these op5ons kind of suck. Cars should be the last considera5on. Infrastructure is to move PEOPLE not cars. We should be building more rail and SAFE ac5ve 184
infrastructure. Focusing this heavily on cars will just end up discouraging people from using the rail and biking.
• nope
• "Why do we have to do.
• You should spend the funds on Law Enforcement and fixing current roads" • Given that "poten5al cut-through traffic in adjacent neighborhoods" seems to be a concern about this project, why are there no car-free op5ons on the table? • No
• Yeah. Let's see a proposal for Northgate instead. There are more businesses that would benefit from light rail on Northgate verses making our quit community in unlivable. • Private automobile should not be allowed on the bridge at all. There should be a reliable car free op5on to cross the river when discovery park is flooded. • Cyclists and pedestrians already need to cross on I5 when discovery park is flooded and should have the privilege of using a car free bridge to cross the river. Cars do not need another op5on to cross the river. If cars are going to use the bridge,the cycling lanes need to be physically separated. Cars already drive in the bike lane on garden highway, what would stop them from doing it on the bridge?
• There is absolutely no reason this plan should perpetuate car-dependent travel on a route like this.
• Private automobiles should not be allowed on the new bridge. Cyclists and pedestrians are already forced to cross I5 when discovery park is flooded so they should not have to share another river crossing with cars. Private cars can cross anywhere but Cyclists and pedestrians are forced to use limited, dangerous op5ons. NO PRIVATE VEHICLES SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON THE BRIDGE.
• Op5on c should include the Transit lines as addi5onal vehicle lane. • I think it will meet resistance from locals but another crossing is overdue. • It is disappoin5ng that private vehicles are being priori5zed with this bridge. There is not a need for a private vehicle crossing when I-5 is so close by. This bridge should accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and emergency vehicles ONLY. • No. Though i do con5nue to be deeply concerned about the environmental impact. • Favor transit and ac5ve transporta5on over private cars • No
• "As a transporta5on engineer studying at UC Davis' Ins5tute of Transporta5on Studies for graduate school, I suggest priori5zing transit on this corridor. If vehicle travel is permiled on this bridge, it will induce vehicle travel and increase VMT. Op5on A will nega5vely impact transit travel 5mes as vehicle conges5on increases, and unlike automobiles, light rail transit will not be able to detour around broken-down vehicles, making that op5on a non-starter. I applaud the City of Sacramento for taking a mul5- modal perspec5ve, but I think that perspec5ve needs to be applied at a network level and not just be hyper-focused on this bridge. Reasonable alterna5ves already exist for drivers where they don't exist for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders; this bridge's 185
design should factor that in. Not allowing vehicles would also benefit emergency vehicles as they would not be delayed by traffic.
• As a u5litarian cyclist, the increased connec5vity this bridge provides will increase my op5ons and I won't have to worry as much about flooding during the wet months." • No
• No
• My commute would cause me to transfer my job outside of Sacramento due to Immanent domain taking my building.
• Please don’t run cars and lightrail in the same lane. • I'm overall concerned about a bridge/street through the American River Parkway. I think the city should priori5ze open spaces and consider other op5ons for traffic mi5ga5on.

Perhaps consider only having peds/bikes/transit on this bridge • I wish the building of this bridge could be accelerated. Wai5ng un5l almost 2040 for comple5on seems like a long 5me, especially since this was discussed back when South and North Natomas were first built out in the late 1980's. • Aside from the fact that EVs do not actually help the environment, they are much heavier than ICE vehicles. The bridge needs to be able to accommodate the added weight.
• Build it, if at any point in the future, we get that stadium, the New Hospital, It is needed NOW
• This project should be dropped. Focus instead on Alterna5ve 8. • I love it. Thank you for the leadership. Let's get this built. • I am excited and eager to see this bridge built. As a homeowner off Truxel and Pebblewood, I am greatly looking forward to transit op5ons from South Natomas to downtown, and hopefully up to the light rail.
• I am in support of the construc5on of this bridge, as someone who lives in Natomas, I would welcome addi5onal methods of geing to the down and mid-town areas of Sacramento more directly.
• Op5on B preferred, but other solu5ons should be considered • Good discussion.
• The Green Line i.e. light rail to SMF is long overdue. Build it and they will come! • i support adding more infrastructure for public transit, bikes, and pedestrians. we need to reduce build infrastructure that forces people into cars so we can reduce vehicle miles traveled.
• I really want a car-free bridge. Transit, emergency vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians only. I have total confidence you can come up with some solu5on to accommodate emergency vehicles on transit tracks, just like they do in Downtown. There is no need to add car capacity, especially given the I5 is already being widened in the same area. The soon-to-be adopted 2040GP has aggressive VMT reduc5on goals, but an all-modes bridge would work against that goal and detract from the livability of the area and the enjoyability of the bridge by other users.
186
• Please don’t take another 10-20 years to build the bridge. It sucks that S Natomas residents only have I-5 with increasing traffic and lots of big rig trucks to get downtown. • No
• Don't pursue this project.
• I want to resume bicycle commu5ng between downtown and south Natomas and current condi5ons make it too difficult. A beler op5on is desperately needed and the effort to make the bridge accessible to and convenient for cars nega5vely impacts cost, space, and quality of the other modes of transporta5on. Lose the cars and see what else is possible!
• Bridge should only be for cycling and walking
• No light rail
• protected bikeways cri5cal to allow for ac5ve transporta5on. to avoid vehicle miles and conges5on. priori5ze bikes and transit into downtown.
• no
• "Other op5ons other than the Truxel Bridge should be considered to minimize or eliminate the impact of a the bridge to the neighbor hoods and residents on and nearby Truxel in South Natomas. There has been no recent discussion of how this bridge will impact the Truxel in South Natomas. If light rail is placed on the bridge how will the light rail construc5on that will be required on Truxel affect the cross streets and homes currently on Truxel. Will they need to be removed/modified? How does this removal affect the long 5me neighborhoods and residents that have been there for over 50 years.
• 1. A light rail alignment from downtown north via I-5 then to I-80 and connect it at Truxel. This alignment will completely minimize the environmental problems with the Truxel bridge project.
• 2. A light rail alignment from downtown connec5ng at Northgate blvd. Northgate Blvd is a commercial not a residen5al corridor (like Truxel in South Natomas). Running light rail would be appropriate on Northgate. Installing light rail on Northgate would also improve the business and commerce on this corridor. Improvements that have been promised by city government and studies for many years. "
• I would very much like to see this bridge be built to shic our city away from cardependent sprawl and to more modern mul5modal strategies that cost a lot less in the long term and will do things such as decrease obesity, lower carbon emissions, increase public health and civic pride, etc.
• Let's do it. Be the change you want to see, city people. Build the bridge. • The Truxel Bridge should accommodate only pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit and no cars. We want to encourage others to use alterna5ve transporta5on to reduce conges5on on the I-5 and elsewhere. As a motorists that travels between Natomas and downtown on a regular basis for work, the I-5 may experience some slow downs, but has never golen so bad for an alterna5ve route. As a bicylist that travels between both areas, my choices are very limited especially when Discovery Park floods in the winter. 187
The bridge is highly needed more for non-motorists. I urge that you reconsider the current op5ons and focus it on ways to encourage more pedestrian, bicyclists, and public transporta5on traffic.
• Suggest modifying Op5on B to eliminate sidewalk and make it Mul5-use. Then, with the bit of addi5onal space from elimina5ng sidewalk add a barrier. It’s a short stretch for crossing whereas cyclists and pedestrians can navigate and coexist for the short dura5on. The barrier provides the added protec5on.
• really needed?
• No
• N/A
• No
• Is Truxel Rd going to be improved for bicycles
• just make the bridge
• Please consider building the bridge with dedicated, protected bike lanes and NO op5on for automobiles. Thus encouraging a greener environment by making it more convenient for commuters to use public transporta5on or bicycle. • If the City seriously wants to reduce vehicle miles traveled and GHG emissions, should really consider a No-Car Alt. or Time-Limited Car Alt. Maybe just allow cars during morning and evening commutes and restrict all other 5mes. • Can the money be used for other concerns and/or exis5ng road repairs needed ? • I live in Modesto but some5mes cycle in Sacramento. I hope a car free space becomes part of this plan.
• I already men5oned Tilicum Bridge in Portland, while I would (among thousands/day) use for cycling frequently, walking/running and transit occa5onally. A "must" when I hosted visitors. Hell, we're the CA capital! Why not enhance the QOL for both locals and visitors with an exemplar!
• Privately owned vehicles should be the bolom of the list of priori5es as they are not accessible to all members of society. Public transit, cyclists, pedestrians, and other micro mobility op5ons should be priority.
• Needs two lanes each way for traffic
• Who are the old white men city planners that con5nue to design the same failed designs?? Ped/Bike/Transit only for a bridge would be the most successful path forward for access into City Center from Natomas. Ac5ve transporta5on folks. Look to Tillicum Crossing for a lille inspira5on. Or re5re.
• There should be a car-free op5on that priori5zes exclusively transit and ac5ve forms of transporta5on. This connec5on is an opportunity to encourage and accommodate mode shic, which will do more to alleviate traffic/conges5on concerns on other crossings than adding lanes ever could.
• Op5on a is best
• If it is cheaper, then I would suggest no sidewalks. Just a mul5-purpose path because I don't see a lot of people walking on this bridge. I mostly see cars and bikers. 188
• I've lived in the area for 65 years and as the roads get wider we just have MORE automobile traffic. Don't make it easier for automobiles. Encourage other modes of transport.
• "Prely much everything was said in the comments for op5on B above. • The problem is that the decision makers for projects like this are all car-centric persons who think, maybe in the back of their minds, how they would be ""inconvenienced"" by having to use an op5on other then driving around in a climate controlled entertainment convenient steel cage protected monster-mobile."
• Do Not do this!!
• No awkward alleys or covered areas where homeless can hang out. Leave it nice and open
• A bridge at Truxel should accomplish a connec5on between downtown and north Sacramento without increasing car traffic to the neighborhoods which already see too much high-speed travel in alempt to bypass the freeway. It should provide a means of crossing which excludes automobile traffic.
• The Truxel Bridge should be a car-free bridge that supports the safest forms of ac5ve transporta5on.
• A wider bridge is okay with me.
• Is car-free an op5on?
• Why isn’t there a car-free op5on under considera5on?
• There is too much space dedicated to cars in all versions of the truxel bridge. There needs to be a removal of all private vehicle lanes from the bridge in order to create a safer and quicker travel route for residents and visitors of Sacramento. If emergency services are a concern, then there could be new prac5ces on how to allow emergency service vehicles to use transit lanes. This is commonly done in many different countries such as the Netherlands. Example: minute 0:55
hlps://www.instagram.com/reel/C3i7CHgRZI4/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== • Why is there no design with a protected bike lane?
• I would prefer an alterna5ve that does not have vehicle lanes. My preference is a bridge that accommodates just pedestrians, bikes, and bus/light rail. Since the green line is a long way off, the ini5al transit lanes could be bus only lanes with emergency vehicle access. If light rail to Natomas ever happens, rail and wire infrastructure could added while s5ll allowing emergency vehicle access. A bridge without cars on it would be significantly safer, quieter and more pleasant, allowing people to linger and enjoy the views of the river, city skyline, nature, etc. Omiing vehicle lanes would also narrow the width of the bridge, which I assume would save some money in capital costs. • Although I don't travel in this area much, a reliable connec5on here across the river is very important
• None
189
• I like the idea of having another crossing point and will use it for accessing the bike trail and walking. Really hope it reduces conges5ons between N & S Natomas as a result of the added public transporta5on accessibility and ability to easier bike and walk. • Please priori5ze transit, pedestrians, and cyclists. Remember that automobiles and emergency vehicles already have routes between both loca5ons and so can adapt when necessary.
• Excited!
• Could this be a transit/bike/pedestrian only bridge? Why do we need to allow vehicles? • No
• have we studied the effects on Nisenan historic sites in the proposed path? • No
• U5lize or update the bridge on Northgate.
• No train and prefer no cars too much traffic will be on truxel • Bridge should be for bus/ rail, emergency (center) and walk/bike only • This bridge will bring more homeless, more downtown crime to our community. Not to men5on the environmental impact to the American River parkway. The animals that live there will be displaced and forcing them to move into neighborhoods. • Don’t build it
• I'm honestly not convinced that it's even necessary...and I say that as someone who lives within walking distance.
• Get the Light Rail built. Stop closing Discovery Park. Its bridge is the only safe way for cyclists and pedestrians to commute to downtown.
• Timeline of when the bridge is expected to be in service, as well as determining the means of funding for the project.
• For this op5on it seems prudent to have the Rail limited to a single track that is controlled for the rail passage at both the north and south bridge entrance. The car traffic and Bicycle traffic will be a steady flow. The rail cars are more intermilent and could be qued at various stops prior to this bridge transit point. If you are going to the expense of building a bridge an5cipate the regional usage for the corridor to SMF in the decades to come. Safety 1st. Cost Effec5veness & Durability of Infrastructure for the decades to come 2nd.
• Nope, thank you for puing this out for public comment! • Why isn't there an op5on proposed that has no cars? An op5on only for pedestrian, bike, and light rail use should be available to choose from. • If it actually comes with an expansion of the transit network, it will be a posi5ve, if not this will only be a major waste of public funds
• None.
• New bridges planned over the Sacramento River should come before this one. They’re more important for traffic flow, climate goals & recrea5on. • None.
190
• These are all small scale, bike/ped-friendly. I like that they are not designed to be a major thoroughfare.
• I’d really like it to be built and hope it can be architecturally unique. • "You MUST protect the lives of the Wild Turkeys, other wildlife and na5ve plants and trees because we enjoy them so much, plus they have a right to live too. • Nature must survive.
• ONE MILLION species face ex5nc5on by 2030.
• If feasible — provide a CULVERT or some way for Wildlife to cross under Garden Hwy. • Please please please keep pedestrians at the forefront of your mind when crea5ng this plan! Bikers ocen disrespect them and mow them down when there is not a physical barrier between a bike path and a walking path. Most important to me is having a physical barrier between bikers and walkers
• All new bridges must priori5ze bikes and pedestrians. Also take into account e-bikes.

They are too fast for bike paths.
• "How is this being addressed in new planning of the General Plan update and/or in the current drac city and county CAPs?
• Old assessments only list South Natomas impacts; new assessments have added North Natomas. Need new assessments of VMT impacts with North Natomas included. Likely to be increases in VMT if auto traffic is allowed on bridge which is inconsistent with federal, state, regional and local goals (e.g., 19% reduc5on in GHGs to get new federal grant funds)."
• Concerns about construc5on disrup5on throughout Natomas during lengthy build out • None
• I would prefer if the bridge were nice looking, it should allow ample lanes and it should deter homeless people from congrega5ng on or near it
• No cars please. Only mixed trail use, sidewalks and public transit • I think this bridge will be a waste of money if we allow cars on it. I think we can maximize the benefit the bridge gives us by making it solely a transit/bike path/walking path.
• Of these op5ons, Op5on A seems closest. But why not eliminate the shoulder in favor of separa5ng automobiles from transit?
• All of these op5ons are horrible. Widen I5 if you want to increase traffic flow capacity. • Op5on B, with added physical barrier between cars and bikes would be my best op5on! Otherwise any of the op5ons will be a plus for something long overdue. Let's get light rail all the way to the airport!!
• The design should be aesthe5c. Many of our current river crossings lack ar5s5c interest.

We only have one chance to do it right.
• Cost? Timeline? Parking on Natomas side to take public transport? • Do we really have extra money to add another unneeded connec5on to Downtown? • How soon can we start the project?
191
• It would be an easier exercise of engineering to EXCLUDE private autos from this bridge.

Why do cars have to ruin everything? This should be a transit priority bridge with accommoda5ons for ac5ve transit users, since it leads straight to the Railyards! Imagine:
people who want/have to drive can s5ll take I-5, and people who want to AVOID traffic and take the new bridge can be priori5zed via PUBLIC & ACTIVE TRANSIT. • No cars allowed. If Cars must be allowed make it only zero emission cars or carpools. • When would this bridge be completed?
• Unnecessary.
• Possibly add some curves in the driving lanes as traffic calming. This would otherwise be a very long and straight stretch of road, which encourages high speeds. • I want this to happen!
• no
• How soon the bridge could be build?
• Sacramento need to stop building roads and bridges that won't meet future needs. We know this will be a major thorough fair in the future therefore we should build a bridge to meet future use. I feel like a two lane bridge is too small. Why not a four lane bridge? We all know that is more feasible and conducive. Another example of not proper planning is East Commerce Rd between Olumwa and North Park Dr: it was originally built as a two lane road and is s5ll a one way going south but 3 lanes going north. I simply recommend building a bridge for what we know we need, a 4 lane bridge. I know everyone want to force and encourage transit use but let's be realis5c; un5l California has a robust transit system like Chicago or NYC, California's transit doesn't really take most people where they necessarily need to go. That is why a por5on of people don't take transit. I think a bridge that accommodates 4 lanes of car traffic and the transit trains would be a smart move on the part of the city of Sacramento • The sooner the beler for this project to proceed and be implemented. It's been needed for a very, very long 5me.
• No.
• No cars
• Has anyone thought outside of the box? There’s nothing imagina5ve or brilliant proposed here. Put pedestrians, cyclists, and safety first. Get a rail connec5on to the airport ASAP. Get this done. Sacramento is a dinosaur.
• You should widen Garden Highway, put up barriers to keep pedestrians off Garden Highway and I-5. Put up barrier to keep homeless out of Natomas. • No
• New infrastructure is an opportunity to reconsider and correct the mistakes of the past.

We don't need more cars downtown, we need to encourage transit and cycling. The benefits are well known and understood.
• Homeless coming into natomas and traffic on truxel is already horrible. Truxel at san juan is already at capacity at commute 5mes
192
• It should be prely and encourage bikes and walking theough safety, space, convenience and beauty. That is the only way that we are a city of the future. • Essen5al that Pedestrian & light rail only op5on be presented. • Primary concern is if the majority of the community wants this. Secondly, the cost. Is Sacramento in a good place to do this.
• no
• We need to expand transporta5on op5ons as the city expands. New roads are necessary
• I am disappointed that car traffic has to be at this crossing, I would've liked at least an op5on to have the Truxel crossing be mul5-modal but not allow private vehicles like Portland's Tilikum Crossing. I'm also a bit concerned that Op5on A, which has both rail and road traffic using the same lane, has the most pros and the least cons listed. Mixing the two modes results in a poor experience for transit riders and drivers alike. I would prefer the bridge going forward to separate modes of travel, allowing for smoother opera5ons in the long-term future even at greater expense when compared to Op5on A. • "Please consider not allowing cars on this bridge. Our city is par5cipa5ng in the Vision Zero project and part of that is foregoing the construc5on of car infrastructure to instead bolster ac5ve transit and rail access. By con5nuing to make cars the most convenient and feasible form of transporta5on in Sac, you're directly suppor5ng every single traffic injury and fatality that happens within city limits.
• All that being said, this project is a great addi5on to this city and I look forward to riding over it on the light rail and on my bicycle once it is constructed! Thank you to all the engineers, planners, consultants, and policy makers for your work on this!! " • Seems like a waste of money since there are already 2 other ways to get to downtown from Natomas and they are only 2 miles apart. There is also a bike trail that goes to old Sac already. Spend the money on fixing El Centro Rd now that its golen a lot busier • Not having a safe way to travel from Natomas to cross over the American river bums me out. I like taking my wife and kids on bike rides and would love to safely travel that route!
• This bridge should definitely cater towards bicycles and walkers! So many more people would use alterna5ve transport if it was more accessible. • It doesn’t seem too reasonable to have automobiles allowed on the bridge. There are already two freeways dedicated to providing vehicle access to the Central City. There is no current bridge for the green line and pedestrians and bicyclists must either use the dangerous sidewalk on CA-160, risk their safety on Pipe’s Bridge, or detour for Discovery Park, which ocen floods and is inaccessible. I love the idea of the bridge and the ameni5es it would provide for the community but vehicle access is not a priority. • Looking forward to having more access and relieving pressure on I-5 • Separated or protected bike and pedestrian lanes should be a priority to encourage use of these op5ons. Dedicated transit would be nice but will likely be underu5lized. • How will a bridge that allows cars improve air quality? 193
• no i hope it can get sine sooner
• I believe this project should be faslracked. A construc5on start date of past year 2030 is dragging your feet. We need this connec5on, it will alleviate the traffic conges5on and make access to downtown more pleasant. Improving connec5vity to that area of downtown is cri5cal to revitalizing and making it an alrac5ve area to live. Thank you and please hurry this project along!
• How fast the process to build the bridge for the community. • Please add speed cameras and red light cameras. People already treat truxel like a race track
• When would this be implemented?
• "The Truxel Bridge is an opportunity to connect, engage, jump start revitaliza5on of exis5ng and new neighborhoods, and unleash the growing poten5al of Sacramento. For this reason, it is more important than ever to use this project and the opportuni5es it provides to add a light rail (and improved/added bus routes) that can would actually encourage residents in South and North Natomas to travel easily to downtown. Eventual light rail to SMF would be one of the greatest public transporta5on projects seen in the city and this is the perfect way to get it over the river! Connec5ng the river district, rail yards projects, and Sacramento Valley/Amtrak sta5on, and downtown/old town makes this a no-brainer.
• Lastly, although there is a drive against increasing car-centric projects, this mix would help to create a safer alterna5ve to using I-5 between downtown and Natomas. As much as we idealize a world that is less car dependent and walkable, we have to admit the use, need, and importance of vehicles as part of a well-rounded and efficient city landscape. "
• Can you limit to local traffic only? How to limit pass through traffic? • Yeah, but maybe unrelated. Why does the city not focus on connec5ng the 80 to the 50.

Build a pass from Northgate or more east and have it connect just acer Wal. Add some off ramps. I know it is large expense, but that is what is really missing. • Please hurry. Rail service to Natomas and beler pedestrian access would be great! • This survey does NOT address broader concerns. I would rather spend tax payer money to address crime and homelessness -- this impacts me, and most residents, a lot more.

If one isn't safe, other things like this bridge doesn't maler that much. • Is there any indica5on as the what the posted speed limit will be? Class III E-bike may be able to travel with vehicle traffic.
• No
• I am very excited for this bridge. It is long overdue and will really help connect north sacramento to downtown. Theres a good poten5al to really enhance the truxel corridor in the future, which would be great!
• Let's make sure the lite rail line comes across and gets out to the airport! Time for Sacramento to grow up.
• It is a great idea that is long overdue. Build it!
194
• This area of the American River parkway is a massive asset for the Sacramento community- specifically for the robust cycling community. Embraceing and building on that would be hugely beneficial to the local economy.
• no
• How will downstream major intersec5ons be impacted at san juan and el camino? • be a city of the future. people need an op5on to move across the river other than being forced to use autos. encourage alternate modes of travel (other than reliance on cars). • Let's do whatever we need to do to make this happen. I would also suggest that if costs are prohibi5ve, we could eliminate including cars and/or bike lanes as their are other op5ons for both of those.
• Focus on public transport and low carbon transport, RT, bikes and pedestrians • Happy to see this project go, used to live in this area and it was needed 20 years ago.

Light Rail needs to connect downtown to the airport.
• I am all for it!!! Moving here from SF I was a bit surprised at how bad public transit is here. For a city that is progressive, Sacramento really is not. The fact that no city-rail system connects Natomas is prely scary. Especially that there is not rail system to the Airport!!! This should have been done a long 5me ago. Both the bridge and rail line to Airport. For a city that has a big river running through it I am surprised there is not more bridges like Chicago, Portland, Aus5n and many more.
• Don’t waste your money for something that won’t really benefit much and cost tax payers dollars.
• Definitely in favor of an addi5onal route from Natomas into downtown. • "We need safer transporta5on for cyclists. Bike trails with barriers turn into streets without any bike lane. Bike Lanes appear and then disappear in the streets. I rarely see people pulled over by police for distracted or reckless driving. If people are going to be allowed to drive recklessly and distracted, we need to protect cyclists using, at the very least, a barrier.
•
• If Discovery Park is flooded, there isn't much cyclists can do to get from natomas to downtown, especially on the west side."
• It will bring more homeless people to NATO as since city hasn't done enough to solve this problem.
• Please build the bridge
• There should always be physical barriers between cars and pedestrians/cyclists. If vehicles are on the bridge keep their speeds low. Perhaps a car-free bridge would be best? Light rail, pedestrians, and cyclists only.
• no
• Just make sure you're paying alen5on to the impact it has on surrounding ancillary roads. Not just the eye on the prize of it being a connector, because there's going to be many side streets that will be impacted because of this, pay alen5on. • Project 5me and cost.
195
• Don't bring the light rail into Natomas!
• No
• Must be built to ensure ease of transit access to streamline Green Line development from downtown to Natomas. Must incen5vize transit and other ac5ve transporta5on such as walking or biking. Must NOT priori5ze vehicle traffic, and any considera5ons for automobiles must be done in such a way that traffic is calmed as much as possible. • Glad we are thinking about this op5on, something is really needed to bypass the river and move people back and forth from neighborhoods to downtown. We need to be more like Portland and u5lize bike trails, walking, light rail, bridges, trolly's etc. • No
• no
• Why build a bridge when the 160 connects one block from Truxel (Northgate Blvd).

Seems like a waste of resources.
• Bridges are cool
• Hate this plan. Leave cars where they belong, the amount of traffic it would generate does not belong in our neighborhood.
• Will Truxel side streets receive alen5on (keep clear road markings) as Truxel traffic increases. Over the last 10-15 years entering Truxel Rd from Bannon Creek Rd has become more treacherous.
• Plans should consider the traffic that area gets for Acershock and other fes5vals, and for other events downtown. It would be ideal to have RT stops so that taking RT from Natomas to Discovery Park is feasible.
• Install movable barriers to help prevent car collisions with bikes and transit but allow occassional emergency access.
• Build it
• Make sure it has light rail on the bridge.
• If it's possible to have a separate walking/biking lane that would probably be safer. • Please build a bridge
• Please push this project forward to open up this area of town... • Lets get this bridge built! Traffic is insane on richards blvd alone. I'd love to use the bridge to get into downtown instead of hopping on the freeway. • How would this effect the park?
• no
• no
• Conges5on bleeding over and into adjacent neighborhoods • If car lanes are not included I am 100% opposed. Americans drive cars!!!!! Stop bowing down to bike, transit and walking crowd. Not the majority of us! • Long overdue, need light rail to Natomas and SMF
• why isn't there a decked op5on for LRT tracks and autos to be under with the peds and bikes over?
196
• I absolutely love this project and can’t wait to use it for both transit and bicycling.

However, I very much dislike that the only proposal that includes a protected bike barrier is one that takes away the dedicated transit lanes. I would rather see no cars than a shared transit lane. I really think that both need to be included in the project in an Op5on D, as bikers will only use it if they feel safe. And personally, I would only feel safe on 1 and 1/2 of these bridges as a biker. This should really be the main goal of this project since it’s connec5ng to the bike trail too.
• No
• I think whoever brought this up should be fired. There is crime and fuckin junky camps everywhere that needs to be addressed through law enforcement not shily small homes and dumb fucking ideas
• couldn't happen soon enough.
• Will the homeless impact the pedestrian and cyclist safety since they camp in that area? Will it give move homeless to gravitate to Natomas with this bridge? • I think it's an awesome idea!
• This is such a great idea for our city. Natomas con5nues to rapidly grow as a community.

This would have a posi5ve impact on our city.
• I am concerned that we would be spending all of this money on a new bridge and we have not yet made the Jedediah Smith trail a year-round, all weather, trail that is not regularly flooded, including in the vicinity of the proposed Truxel bridge. • Please don't let the an5-vehicle ped and bike folks determine what this bridge will look like.
• I'd prefer the bridge accommodate light rail, pedestrians and bikes exclusively, not cars • no
• Why are only these limited alterna5ves being analyzed.. Seems to overly favor clearly flawed Op5on A.
• no
• Why not think about a wider bridge, as an op5on, from the beginning? • How about no lanes for cars on the bridge?
• I supper this project as it would allow more travel op5ons for everyone, save travel 5me, and allow future light rail connec5on that'll connect downtown, Natomas, and Sacramento airport.
• Should be for walkers bikes and er vehicles. Address addi5onal homeless camps and crime
• I5 is impossible to pass. 1 accident on I80 or I5 means hours to pass • I really don't see a benefit by having vehicles and transit use the bridge. Keeping it to pedestrians and bicycles would work beler all around.
• If it were to be built, there should be a physical barrier for vehicle traffic so impa5ent drivers won't be able to abuse any of the non-vehicle por5ons of the bridge. • Let the voters decide whether they want this idio5c proposal. 197
• A pedestrian bridge would be beler. Truxel is the only outlet to my street and there is already too much traffic. I would be a prisoner in my home because I could not get off of my street. Vehicles can already take I-5 or Highway 16. • More lanes for cars
• No to the bridge, are taxes con5nue increasing. There is already access through Northgate. She should focus on other needs in our district, not a bridge. • Will it be built sooner than 13 years from now? I would like to see it before I’m too old to walk or drive it
• This is long overdue. Get it done!
• No bike lanes please
• Cars are just one form of transporta5on. The most inefficient and unsustainable electric or not. Please make sure this bridge isn’t swayed to benefit only cars and make sure it’s a transit solu5on for everyone.
• There are currently no trams that go up truxel, so would the trams stop at discovery park? Or would they con5nue up truxel? How would this impact discovery park? • Mp
• N/a
• Currently, acer dark in the winter 4:30 pm) there is no safe bike route across the river.

Just make that happen. It’s embarrassing that we don’t have that. • Hopefully KV will be out of office shortly and this stupidity will cease. • Bridge just for walking and cars. Due to environment friendly. • "- The Truxel Road alignment is less than ideal for many reasons including the impact to business and increase traffic load at Richards/I-5. It would be beler to 5e Garden Hwy to 7th or 10th St.
• - Your 5meline for approvals is excep5onally op5mis5c. The EIR/EIS process alone will take 2 years. For the Corps, 408 permission requires 100% design to be approved. The bridge will also likely require a standard permit under Sec5on 10 of the RHA and Sec5on 404 of the Clean Water Act, which cannot be issued un5l prac5cable alterna5ves, including the other alignments, have been evaluated and the 408 permission is approved."
• cost
• Will it look prely and modern or will it just be a concrete crossing like 1-5? Also as a cyclist I never get to explore that area because it's hard to cross over the river. If a bridge gets built I'd certainly visit SoNa (south natomas) more. I might be too old though by the 5me it's finished because I'm 34 and I think I saw the 5meline says comple5on by like 2038 or something haha I'll be like 50 by then. 50 year olds s5ll enjoy a nice leisure bike ride across the river though!
• Yes, when?
• Light Rail ending up on Truxel in front of homes, beside bedrooms, blocking SNCC and library and park. Cuing off west side of Truxel. County B of Ed already cut off our school
198
• It would be nice if the green line was extended and crossed this bridge into Natomas giving Natomas residents access to downtown via public transit. • Barriers save lives
• Only 2 lanes of car traffic. Not enough room if there is as an accident. I don’t think we need light rail on Truxel.
• What will it look like. What will it cost.
• Beler
• When start building? When would be opera5onal? Would transit go to airport in the future?
• There needs to be an op5on without car lanes. Car travel lanes will only induce driving demand and decrease public safety
• It will very help reduce I5 traffic jam. It is good for people work in downtown. • When is SacRT light rail plan for Airport service expected to be funded? • "Narrow footprint to reduce Parkway impacts by:
• 1. Single track transit & alternate north & south bound. • 2. Raise walk/bike paths to 2nd level.
• 3. Emergency vehicles use auto/transit lanes + wireless • command traffic signals/
• 4. Combine transit & auto lanes similar to downtown.
• Add 4 abutment overlooks & connect trail to Parkway.
• Add Parkway view plaorm midway of bridge trail."
• Transit/Light Rail, and bike/ped should be high quality to encourage mode shic. • Is light rail to use the bridge?
• It doesn't have to be all things to all people, it could have just been a LRT line to the airport.
• No
• Every 5me I come back from Europe I'm embarrassed all over again by our lack of public transporta5on. If Sacramento is going to be a legi5mate city, we need light rail into Natomas and to the airport. Hopefully the Truxel Bridge is a first step. • None that I can currently think of at this 5me.
• Where does it go once it crosses the river? Richards? • This should have been completed many years ago and will be very much a mode of transporta5on to N Sac and the much needed airport!
• Should Garden Hwy. be widened at this new intersec5on to allow for right turn lane (North) from Garden onto Truxel?
• No. Thank you! I live not far from the I Street Bridge. It's nice to see new bridges in the process of going from ideas and concepts to geing implemented! I'm looking forward to our new bridge that will be replacing vehicle traffic on the I Street Bridge! The Truxel Bridge will be yet another element of great progress in this regard! • No, build it
199
• Why does only one op5on provide a physical barrier between people cycling or walking and fast moving automobiles
• Efficient transit should be the highest priority. Only one pedestrian lane is necessary. The design should be informed by traffic modeling and economics more than this survey.

Kudos for engaging the public, but this survey oversimplifies the variables associated with the different design op5ons for public input to be very valuable. We are too ignorant to provide useful informa5on based on the informa5on presented in this survey. You should ask more general ques5ons than this. Also, the pros and cons included herein seem to show some survey bias in regard to the design op5ons. Finally, funding the new I Street bridge seems more important than this bridge to me, based on my limited knowledge of the two projects. Thanks for the opportunity to provide input. • Survey does not ask about the impact on surface streets and the people who live there.

Survey is keeping the issues separate but the issues are not. There is significant impact on both ends of the proposed bridge.
• Why can’t the rail be a single track for most por5ons with passing tracks at either end or the middle? It would save on width and create minimal delay for trains • Priori5zing conges5on due to vehicle breakdowns over peds, bikes and transit does not align with city goals. How ocen are breakdowns expected to happen? Why expose people to risk hourly, daily for an occasional event?
• What is the prospec5ve 5meline?
• What will be done to keep the bridge underneath from housing animals or the homeless?
• This bridge should unequivocally priori5ze transit, bikes and peds over cars • Difficult to make judgements without actual lane, sidewalk, shoulder, trail dimensions, configura5ons of connec5ng streets (Truxel and Sequoia Pacific) and expected traffic volumes, transit opera5ons, bike/ped demand, and details of poten5al connec5ons to both Jed Smith trail and Two Rivers trail. Are there any associated improvements planned for bikeways in River District?
• cost and where is the money going to come from we can't get our potholes fixed how can we afford a bridge.
• The bridge and light rail to airport are cri5cal for economic development, conges5on relief, addressing climate change, transit oriented development/housing for North Natomas, City of Sacramento and region.
• Please do not include cars on this bridge. It will create too much traffic on the approach streets and more environmental degrada5on to our beau5ful American River Parkway. • Has the planning team abandoned the proposed transit stop at Discovery Park? Using it as a park-and-ride facility? Did the team develop a plan to deal with the park closure during the flooding season? Are there plans to protect pedestrians and bicyclists exi5ng the bridge on the city streets? Will there be dictated turn lanes to and away from the bridge?
• This should be a priority project because we need light rail to the airport. 200
• Get it done!
• Why are we undertaking this when the city has no money? • Why can't a bridge be built further east of the proposed area where there are no riparian habitats that will be destroyed? We voted down this measure years ago and now it is being forced against the voter's wishes. Please consider an alterna5ve loca5on well away from riparian habitat.
• "where is the money coming from? My neighborhood needs its streets fixed and you are building a bridge to Natomas? insane
• NA
• "None of these alterna5ves are sensible or safe or effec5ve. Honestly you should scrap these and start over. Please at least include an alterna5ve that doesn't include cars travel lanes. And for the love of God ditch whatever Fire Department / Police Department feedback or bespoke design manual guidelines that are forcing you to double the width of every alterna5ve and/or give cars and police cruisers the green light to drive in an unprotected bike lane.
• Please be bold and don't be afraid to design something that isn't compliant with every single design ""standard."" Just choose what's important to priori5ze (i.e. bike safety, walking safety, LRT speed and safety) and set your non-nego5able design standards based on those priori5es, NOT based on giant 33+ foot fire trucks and the latest Caltrans junk science about car throughput.
• If there is a real issue with safety on narrow bridges like the I Street bridge, make FD or Metro Fire PROVE IT with data. Don't rely on their conjecture or let them ruin every possible good project we have in the pipeline."
• No
• Who is paying?
• Op5on B but widen a bit more for a physical barrier between cars and bikes and and an emergency lane/shoulder area
• what will the aesthe5c design be? will it have anything ar5s5c about it? so it's interes5ng or prely to look at?
• generally, i would prefer A over B. although i don't love sharing a driving lane with transit, it is more important to keep bikes and pedestrians safe with physical separa5on. • No
• Take away the cars or don’t build the bridge. Use the money to improve transit and center that and ac5ve transporta5on in all your planning. • This is a long overdue and extremely important to the people of sacramento that live north of the river having access to reliable transporta5on op5ons into the central city. • 2050? No one will be around to take responsibility for the effort. • Please don't allow cars on the bridge. There are so many driving alterna5ves • more bridges! more bridges just for bikes and pedestrians! • Portland successfully built a transit/bike bridge without autos. Why can't we? • Build it
201
• no
• No.
• How will the cost be paid for?
• This project should have been scrubbed when it was first proposed. $$$s spent on studies and studies have (possibly) been used to shore up the deficits that con5nue to plague RT. I s5ll have analyses reports from the first assault on specially South Natomas residents as well as pe55ons signed by nearly 5,000 people against light rail on Truxel. • Natomas neighbors need this!! It takes way too long to take I5 to get to downtown. • Yes. How can we move it forward faster.
• I think it's a great idea. I live near the Garden Highway entrance to I5 and would love another route into downtown.
• This bridge is a bad example of community planning. Have you even studied how many people and bikes will use this bridge if cars, public transport and emergency vehicles are the dominant users?
• Necessary for the Light Rail connec5on to SMF
• None.
• None
• Rail transporta5on to and from the airport?
• Yes, why do we need this bridge? It is going to disrupt South Natomas between I-80 and Garden Highway. It will also cause a great deal of disrup5on to our environmental habitat along the river and the park. There should be another route for such a bridge.

This is not the best route and it will also cause a lot of extra traffic especially if there is a light rail aspect. People will be required to drive to a loca5on in order to catch a light rail so it is not a good idea at all. The idea of a bridge is good but not in this loca5on. It would greatly impact residen5al homes along Truxel between Garden Highway and I-80 and also there are the many music fes5vals that always close Truxel Road between West El Camino and Garden Highway. What we could really use in Natomas is bus rapid transit, not light rail and tracks. And these proposals aren't really great either. I can see many crashes occurring with the many types of vehicles and pedestrians using this. Just because there are lanes doesn't mean people will s5ck to those lanes. And I don't think anyone has really considered the impact to the community of South Natomas. We have bus service and several routes to get to downtown and points east, west, and north already. From my house, the bus takes 10 minutes to get downtown. It takes longer to drive, even with a new bridge. And there will be major traffic issues as well because there's only 1 lane in each direc5on.
• Not enough vehicle lanes -- should be 2 lanes each way. • I want to keep abreast of current developments and mee5ngs I can alend. Apparently this started a while ago and I only heard about it because I stumbled into a Starbucks I don't normally go to. I'm super excited this is happening finally • not needed. the green bridge thru discovery park is fine • Please build it!
202
• Why do all these proposals include car traffic. Stop inducing demand! CalTrans is already widening I-5. Cars have plenty of op5ons to get from S. Natomas to Midtown and Downtown. Make the bridge for public transit and ac5ve transporta5on, not for private cars and it will reduce VMT. Building another car bridge just funnels more traffic into the neighborhoods and gives people more incen5ve to keep driving. • It is my understand that this design did not originally include car traffic at all. This bridge should not allow cars. Adding more space for cars just means more cars will fill it.

Emergency vehicles can share a lane with the light rail track. In an effort to reduce VMTs, fend off induced demand, and incen5vize people to take transit and bike, cars should NOT have a place on this new bridge.
• We don't need addi5onal car access. I do like the green line access - it would be amazing to have light rail service to Natomas!
• Invest in cleaning up the city and river & our roads. A bridge is not going to increase ac5vity DT un5l there is a desirable DT. It will not help traffic. Na5mas is literally 2-3 miles to DT. A bridge is not needed. Truxel and Garden Hwy does not need increased traffic. People do not take regional transit. It is not reliable or safe. It degrades neighborhoods. Clean up this city 1st!
• In my opinion, Op5on A is the best op5on. It's the only op5on with physical barriers between pedestrians/bicyclists and cars, and it's the only op5on with a dedicated lane for emergency vehicles. I used to commute to Roseville on Riego/Baseline off Hwy 99 and it scared me that emergency vehicles are not able to reach accidents quickly if traffic is heavy because of how the road is configured. I don't want to see that happen on the new bridge. I'm also disappointed this project has taken so long. I alended mee5ngs back in the 1990s about extending light rail to the airport and possible river crossing points. It shouldn't take 50 years to build infrastructure as important as this is. • Homeless from downtown will come into south natomas, which already has some issues. We have elementary schools nearby the Truxel garden highway area and this safety issue needs to be taken into account. The highway and Northgate has worked well for going into downtown, no need for another bridge.
• Op5on B is good, but please add a barrier between the bike path/sidewalk and traffic lanes.
• Omit the auto traffic
• "You need to update your assump5ons.
• Every day the deadly linkage between car driving and air quality weakens. As electric cars slowly take over, Sacramento's air will get beler and beler. One day this decade, we will enjoy air quality alainment and shed the burdensome regula5ons that alempt to restrict vehicle use and increase transit use. You are designing a bridge for transit, a bridge that will soon lose its primary design considera5on. • It is hard to get people to use transit since the offering is so poor. Imagine trying to get an electric car owner, which will be prely much everyone, who charges their car with 203
SMUD's clean energy, to put up with the dubious transit experience because other people want to force them into it.
• Today folks are passive-aggressive about transit. Tomorrow expect belligerence and shou5ng demands for conges5on reduc5on.
• Please don't saddle us with a 100 year bridge that will only serve its design goals for 10 years."
• Full width of bridge should be greater; we will see increase use over the years, and this will eventually get congested
• Maybe a compromise of A, B and C would work where the bike lanes and side walk are only on one side of the bridge and where there are two car lanes on the bridge where one lane shares with the light rail. I think traffic can be handled with priority traffic signals given to light rails and emergency vehicles to keep them moving. • No.
• Great ideas long 5me coming and long 5me needed.
• I-5 and 160 are close and provide access across the river for personal vehicles already.

Please consider removing car lanes from the project en5rely, as the current modes of transporta5on support community needs already.
• Light rail must be priori5zed
• How soon could it be ready?
• Design it to not include cars please.
• Please just a bridge for bikes, walking, and Public transit. There are enough vehicles traveling through midtown.
• my comment, as a cyclist, is that I will appreciate a curb between the bike lane and vehicle lane. That said, riding at night will feel safer if there are cars going through because it provides "eyes on the street" to prevent muggings etc. • Please offer a design that excludes fuel-burning vehicles. Reduce VMT, reach climate goals, priori5ze ac5ve transporta5on.
• I would prefer to see a dedicated bridge for transit, bikes and walkers only. We should be encouraging non-vehicle travel, especially to the Jedediah Smith trail connec5on and the American River Parkway.
• Keep vehicles out of bike lanes always.
• Should plan to call brinier the RT through Natomas all the way to airport. • I would love the light rail to come i to Natomas and up Truxel on the bridge. I work in lower downtown and would love this bridge to give me a light rail commute op5on. • Please make sure that light rail goes down this bridge. People need transit connec5ons from Natomas and to Natomas.
• Can the bridge be constructed to exclude cars? Another car bridge over the river is redundant and will only cause induced demand. A pedestrian/transit only bridge will encourage less car use and decrease car traffic in the area. • How is connec5ng traffic on south side of American River solved? 204
• I am extremely excited about the idea of this bridge! Natomas feels cut off from downtown, despite being so close, because the only real op5on is I5. Jibboom requires driving through a park. This would great improve our neighborhoods and city connectedness.
• In general, personal vehicles have plenty of access already though I5 and 160. Make the car travel lanes for emergency vehicles only and increase facili5es for pedestrians, cyclists and mass transit.
• Which mode of transporta5on is priority in this bridge? Please do not let it be cars; these already govern our streets. Make the bridge pedestrian friendly. • I think adding a line to the airport is a great idea. • Why have cars at all? They can get on the freeway. Transit and bike\pedestrian only is sufficient there.
• Yes. We have a viable route through discovery park but the city does not upkeep the route or area. There is a bridge there. How is that working?? Not well due to safety issues. Two women have already been murdered there.
• Take the bridge somewhere else
• Let’s get the light rail extension built asap
• Aesthe5cs of the bridge design
• I think this bridge will help Natomas from being separated from downtown. The access through Discovery Park is too hard to get to and floods in the winter. Natomas needs beler access to downtown for public transporta5on and cyclists • No need to have auto traffic, mass transit emergency vehicles, bikes and pedestrians will cover it, make far less expensive
• Build it today!
• doesn't seem like a useful addi5on. The money would be beler spent expanding the interstate 5 bridge
• perhaps the 2nd transit lane could be u5lized as a flex lane both for cars and transit? Then the middle traffic lane could change direc5on with the commute? • How will this impact Garden Highway Dr? Specifically between Truxel and I-5 where traffic is already congested during peak commu5ng 5mes. • Why not make it a walking path/ bike path only. Already plenty of ways to get downtown. Plus the future green line light rail by I5 makes this a huge waste of 5me and money.
• None
• "Cual es la probability of dad Que Au
• Enter la poblacion de homeless en El area de Truxel. " • Please, please, PLEASE construct this bridge. As a long 5me Sacramento resident, this would be an extreme game changer.
• what is the impact on the area once river crossed
• I would love for this bridge to be exclusive to bikes, walking, scooters, etc as well as public transit if possible. Sacramento is a very car dominant city and Natomas/Northgate 205
are two par5cularly car dominant neighborhoods as it is, I feel like this would be a great opportunity to set a new precedent towards a less car dependent version of Sacramento that would benefit all ci5zens and our local environment! • None
• What is the 5meline for comple5on?
• Could transit be used to create a buffer between car lanes? • I realize this might be a lille late, but I suggest revisi5ng bridge op5ons, and consider one of the loca5ons where it will not collide with discovery, Park, and where it will be more useful and feasible for the intended purpose.
• Bridge should embrace the old charm of Sacramento - the modern I st bridge selected to get built is horrendous
• Could it include access to Discovery Park?
• it would be beler without cars. would be good with sidewalk and bike lanes and transit separated by barriers in the middle
• While this survey is focused on the bridge, is there somewhere I can find more info on the future plans/5meframes for expansion of the light rail? • Why isn't there a choice with no vehicles? How will we reach our climate goals is vehicles are allowed onto the bridge? I-5 is currently under plans for widening - thanks Caltrans - not!. It is up to us to stop building roads for vehicles and instead helping to encourage more people to use transit. Taking vehicles out of the equa5on is a move in the right direc5on.
• I think this bridge is a horrible and useless idea there is currently 4 ways to get to downtown Sacramento either walking or bicycling. This bridge is NOT needed at all. The cost of this bridge is astronomical and a waste of money. The current public transit can get you to the same are from 95833 in 6 minutes this bridge will save zero 5me if you travel by public transit. Lastly the impact to the most beau5ful park and trail in the Sacramento city will be astonishing sad.
• I would like an op5on for vehicles to exit into discovery park. I also hope that this project would be coupled with a revitaliza5on of the Richards blvd area. • Make this bridge a car-free, ac5ve transporta5on bridge, otherwise don't put it in. We have enough car-centric infrastructure. We need more safe pathways for bikes, walking, and buses.
• Living in south Natomas for the last 25 years, I feel the community would benefit most from op5on A . It has smart fluid movement for both pedestrian and vehicle,while promo5ng enjoyment for crossing both sides of the river young and old. • I don't think there should be a vehicle lane. If there is going to be a bridge it should be for pedestrians, bikes, and public transit.
• if it costs more for this one than the comparable op5ons above, why not go with one of the other two op5ons?
• This bridge is supposed to reduce emissions, which means that it shouldn’t have cars. It shouldn’t be a massive eyesore on the River. It should be architecturally prely and it 206
should shorten bike and transit commutes. Cars on the bridge will only make it wider, uglier, and more dangerous.
• When will we get transit to SMF?
• Looks great. Any op5on would be a huge improvement.
• Much needed improvement and truxel is the right place for it. • What is the plan to mi5gate more traffic on the garden highway. What is the expected conges5on impact west bound between northgate and truxel? Will there be more auto traffic on garden highway in the area as a result of the bridge? • Op5on A looks to be the best for cyclists/bikers. This would help reduce the need to drive a car to cross the river, especially when discovery park is flooded. • I believe this bridge should focus on alternatove modes of transporta5on outside of cars.

Public transit, biking, and walking are more important and will increase access without adding more traffic to the area.
• City needs to address impacts of this bridge on the roads of SN - and incorporate improvements into the study. Save all trees on Truxel; rebuild sound walls, improve ligh5ng and safety - do the same for the other streets too - GH, W. El Camino, Azevedo. • Discovery park is an awesome recrea5onal place. I/5 severely degrades the quality of that space with the insane noise levels and constant smell of car pollu5on. Don’t let cars on this and ruin even more of the park. Let people get away from the horrible externali5es of cars please. I cross the river everyday for work and the lille signs that say “bikes can use freeway during floods” is a slap in the face. Building this for cars is a slap too. Built something other than for cars for once and it may actually have some good outcomes.
• "Why do we need a bridge that will discharge motorists onto Richards Blvd? Then where do they go? They s5ll have to travel on Richards to either I5 or 160. In either case, they will just be rejoining the flow of traffic coming off those 2 bridges. They might just as well have used one of those 2 bridges since they wind up in those traffic lanes anyway.

They same type of situa5on holds for motorists who cross the bridge onto Truxel Road. • The best alterna5ve is no bridge at this or any point on the Lower American River that will destroy so much of the parkway environment."
• Please share overhead plans for each op5on that show the en5re bridge from end to end, including how it will join up with exis5ng streets. • Op5on C is, bar none, the best op5on. With some minor tweaks, it can be the superior op5on. Though, I would like to know why cars are even allowed at all? Why not make it a bike/ped/transit only bridge? Emergency vehicles could s5ll use it, but it should be lec to bus and light rail vehicles, bikes and pedestrians. Transit moves more people than cars, making transit good will have a greater effect on traffic conges5on than adding a couple more lanes of car traffic. The only solu5on to traffic is viable alterna5ves to driving.
207
• I do not think that cars should be allowed on Truxel Bridge. It would be my preference to see Truxel Bridge either not built, or to see the bridge be restricted to pedestrians and bikes.
• I don't see discussion about the undesirability of bisec5ng the park. • A must if you want pedestrians to use it is to have a physical barrier. Otherwise, it's too dangerous. Paint on the road doesn't protect cyclist and people walking. If created for only vehicles, then what's the point. This is the first step in actually geing the green line to the airport.
• Cars should not be allowed on bridge.
• Why are we s5ll talking about facilita5ng drivers?
• Why don't you just upgrade 160 and Northgate and really lessen your footprint. The cuty has already been exploi5ng Discovery as its lilke windfall concert venue, taking public space abd limited habitat. What lucky developers will get dibs on lucra5ve waterfront property on the south side? I think the Parkway needs con5nuity, nit all chopped into rectangles as the bridge will create with yet more barriers and more opportuni5es for humans to keep trashing the lower Parkway, where us no so rich people get to experience our city. Thanks for taking Miller park out if the equa5on and really thanjs for leing homeless burn down our shrinking riparian environment. No to your bridge giving taxpayers another burden for some developers to reap the rewards. • Take cars out of the planning
• Can vehicle lanes be narrowed? Are 12 c wide lanes necessary? We should be encouraging transit and pedestrian uses over faster auto travel. Drivers should not feel comfortable going over 20-25 miles an hour in an urban area. We should not be incen5vizing more people to drive into urban areas by making wider bridges for cars. • No
• I don't really see myself using this bridge much other than driving to S. Natomas on occasion. As a boat owner, am concerned about ver5cal clearance under the bridge.

We currently cannot access the American River during high water 5mes since the Jiboom Street Bridge is sta5onary. As long as the new bridge has at least the same clearance as Jiboom, then it will make no difference to boaters and I would be fine with it. • I’d like to see an alterna5ve that does not allow motor vehicles (emergency vehicle access preserved). The alterna5ves presenta5on men5ons the need to reduce GHG emissions yet none of the op5ons have alterna5ves that are car-free. The Truxel Bridge should be modeled acer the Tilikum crossing in Portland, OR. Prohibi5ng car access will also narrow the bridge and preserve more of the riparian environment in the river. • I do believe ridership will increase on transit when the light rail goes all the way to the airport which is something to keep in mind
• If you do not protect bike lanes with concrete barriers or solid bollards, cars will take advantage and use the mixed use trails. Please also consider fixing the small bridge over the creek just east of this project, below Azusa st. This bridge will allow cyclists and pedestrians to reach the bike trail easily. Otherwise, please expedite this project. 208
• Need some sort of physical barrier for cars and bikes/pedestrians. • Disappoin5ng but not surprising to see car traffic priori5zed in every design. Doubtless city engineers will con5nue to put pedestrians and cyclists at risk where this project connects to the unsafe exis5ng condi5ons on either side of the river. Why isn’t that included in this study? How safe every part of a project is is cri5cal to actual ac5ve transporta5on usage, and the fact that it’s not even alluded to in this survey indicates that City of Sacramento will con5nue to launder “sustainable” grant funding for carcentric designs and engineering. We need hardworking leaders who care about ac5ve transit in city government.
• Will it be well lit in evening?
• "Why are these the only widths/cords sec5ons considered? Why not a similar Op5on C that’s slightly wider to accommodate shoulders, allowing space for car breakdowns and emergency vehicles to pass?
• Any op5on chosen should be striped with 11 foot-wide lanes max, 10 foot-wide ideally. " • This mode of transporta5on should be above or below ground. These neighborhoods are walking community neighborhoods. That could change the neighborhood and community.
• Any new road infrastructure should be public, emergency and ac5ve transit only. • "I feel that Op5on A is the best op5on due to its lower cost and lower footprint on the river parkway. It provides the needed mul5modal connec5vity and offers an opportunity to expose Sacramento residents to mixed use lanes. I feel that this would be an important part of our shic away from a completely auto-dependent culture. • Op5on C is the most comprehensive but also the most expensive. By providing vehicles with dedicated lanes, I do not think it would do as much to create awareness in our community about the benefits of mul5modal transporta5on. • Op5on B has neither the benefits of the small-scale solu5on of Op5on A nor the comprehensive improvements of Op5on C."
• I really support connec5ng these areas for pedestrians and cyclists to the various communi5es.
• I am totally for extending light rail into Natomas and providing bike lanes, but I don’t think vehicular traffic should be a part of this. I5 and 160 are already perfectly fine op5ons. Adding car traffic just makes the project larger and more expensive both upfront and in future repair costs.
• "That's a great idea, thank you!
• Bike and pedestrian safety and accessibility should be the number one priority.

Transient accessibility should be number 2.
• what is expected increase in cut through traffic? already northgate gets a lot of commuters bypassing through from 160/i80.
• Is the implica5on that the widest cross sec5on bridges have the highest environmental impact? Environmental impact is also an important factor when considering what likes/concerns I have with each proposed op5on.
209
• How will this be paid for and what impacts will construc5on have? • The only other ques5on I would have is how long is it going to take I've been wai5ng for over 25 years for the green line :)
• I think it's a good idea and should include the light rail line to the airport that the City has been discussing, if possible.
• Do not build it. Feels like too big and urban of a city. Keep Sacramento's charm. If there's not enough space, let the people go to another neighborhood, not flood into ours. We are not a dumping ground for downtown's homeless. It will harm our ecosystems that have made due with us for decades there. Stop the expansion. • Why truxel instead of northgate as long as the city allows out of control camping along the parkway there is no viable solu5on
• Very excited for this!
• will there be a weight limit? I can see this as a poten5al I-5 detour for accidents and shipping trucks using the route thinking that they are bea5ng traffic. • Construc5on should minimize disrup5on of/impacts to the American River parkway.

Contrast with the ongoing Business 80 improvements, which have done a very poor job providing the alternate route--the route itself and the shabby condi5on of the path. • does it need to have a vehicle travel lane? we seem to do fine with having I5 today. a small bridge with one lane per direc5on isn't going to alleviate traffic anyway, so I don't really see why we must have a vehicle lane. we can save money and priori5ze rail and bikes and walkers
• With so many bridges nearby, wouldn't it make more sense to make this a walk/bike bridge only.
• It will completely change how we can get to the city and will make the area so much beler.
• This will not be an amenity for waking and biking unless the City commits to public safety investments in the River District and south Natomas. This requires mi5ga5on of the large unhoused popula5on. Currently, the Two Rivers Trail is unusable for regular people. Discovery Park only feels safe when there is a concert or other large event. • when is construc5on expected to start and stop?
• Is it vital to include auto traffic? A pedestrian/bike/transit bridge would be an appealing alterna5ve for many commuters. See the Tillikum bridge in Portland. • How will current parking, parking lots and buildings located on Sequoia Pacific Blvd. be impacted?
• based on these it seems like op5on B but having lightrail separate traffic and bikers would be the best
• The city beler get its act together because if there is money for this bridge there beler darn well be money to fix the streets with the city...my neighborhood hasn't had its streets fixed in over 20 years and they are falling apart. So forget any new construc5on un5l you can fix exis5ng problems and if the city is $50 million in the hole, where is the rabbit being pulled from to pay for this bridge?
210
• Take vehicles off the table as a considera5on. They're adding unnecessary cost and danger to the project. Model project acer Tilikum Crossing in Portland, OR. If we want to be serious about our climate goals, ac5ve transporta5on and public transit need to be faster/beler/cheaper than driving personal vehicles. By accommoda5ng vehicles, we're encouraging more status quo while expec5ng a different result. • Would prefer bridge for transit, bike, and pedestrians only. • Why are you sta5ng the same con about no barrier to bikes and people on all three, why doesn't one op5on have bollards or something to protect people? • The transit connec5ons this bridge will provide are the most important benefit it will provide. Its use for automobiles should be considered secondary to pedestrian, bike, & transit uses.
• No
• minimizing the grade on the approaches would make it more bike/ped friendly • "There is a lot of jus5fiable opposi5on to this project. The city council should reconsider the 160 op5on. Light rail is a community asset than can provide benefits for the underserved Gardenland community. The commercial corridor along Northgate would benefit.
• The American River Parkway is supposedly our “crown jewel”. We need to treat it as such; it has been impacted enough."
• No
• Just ready for a new get get in to downtown, & avoid i-5 all together • Considering cars have a much easier 5me detouring, the Truxel bridge should be really focused on pedestrians, bicycles and transit, since they are most affected when discovery Park is flooded
• Can light rail share one track over bridge and split rail on other side? Have a good bus op5on before light rail is possible. Don’t need shoulders on short bridge. • No
• I like op5on B the most from these op5ons. I think op5on A is the worst of the 3 • Why is there no op5on for transit lanes next to bike lanes if the bike lane is unprotected? Cyclists are going to die with op5on B or C. Op5on A is going to slow down transit so much no one will want to take it.
• Why do all op5ons assume private vehicle access when river crossing is already adequately accommodated (at great taxpayer expense)? At best, only emergency vehicles should be accommodated, and that can be done without private motor vehicle access. What the area desperately needs is light rail and easy ac5ve mobility access across the river.
• If approved, how long to o build
• What aesthe5c design elements are being considered for the project? Will this bridge be connec5ng to discovery park as well, or just to the neighborhood? • Important to create transit link between central city and Natomas neighborhoods. 211
• The bridge needs to be safe for pedestrians and cyclists. This can be done by having a solid barrier between vehicles and walking/ cycling lanes. Also light rail has to be a part of the project. Need to get light rail out to the Sac Interna5onal Airport. • Auto traffic should be limited as much as possible on this bridge. There are beler routes for cars to take. This bridge should be concentrated for bike/peds, transit and emergency vehicles only!!! Certainly no truck travel.
• Would support transit & bike/ped op5on only
• I am concerned that the bridge lanes are constricted by the building loca5ons on the north side of the river. Can the bridge structure be narrow as it squeezes between the buildings then widen for the rest of the span?
• As someone who (being a pedestrian) has been hit by a car... there needs to be barriers to protect pedestrians
• I do not think making this bridge for cars is necessary. Drivers already have a mul5tude of op5ons to get over the river including I-5 and 160. We should focus on the light rail and providing safer op5ons for geing over the river for pedestrians. • No, it seems prely clear
• It was clear that the community does not want this project to happen. • No
• Please study a connec5on without automobile lanes. This will reduce emissions, reduce noise, and reduce impacts to the ARP. It will also provide a more pleasant experience for walkers and cyclists.
• What steps will be taking to ensure that the environment is not affected? • Truxel road must be remade to include separated, protected bike lanes, widen the sidewalks considerably, and narrow the car travel lanes to make the arterial road that feeds the bridge welcoming for all modes of transporta5on. This will allow the bridge to meet its poten5al in carrying all modes of transporta5on over the American River. • Perhaps public transit could not use this route to provide more personal vehicle access and beler use for emergencies.
• I don't think 2 lanes are necessary for light rail- they can queue on either side of the bridge to wait for cross traffic in the unlikely event that there are 2 trains crossing at the same 5me.
• This bridge could be avoided by improvements to nearby exis5ng bridges. • The Truxel bridge would be a huge deal for connec5ng Downtown to Natomas. This can boost the economy and give direct access without going on I-5 • N/A
• The designs look good. Light rail needs to be removed. • I'm concerned about an increase in traffic on Truxel. Also concerned about problems as a result of rain or flooding.
• Nope
• I could care less about any inconvenience to affluent bike trails users regarding "connec5on to Jedediah Smith trail"
212
• I am pro-bridge IF the traffic is controlled to keep speed low before the bridge, on the bridge and on the adjacent streets (Richards, Truxel, W. El Camino). Currently, the speed limits are too high on these adjacent roads fostering a noisy, semi-dangerous experience if you are not in a car when on these roads. The building of the bridge is an opportunity to rethink the speed limits, install traffic circles, landscape medians properly so that the South Natomas area looks beler and is more bike/walk friendly - a more fiing road environment for a residen5al community. Currently, it is loud, dangerous and ugly. • Not a good idea. Put the train along the freeway and along our homes! • None, just make it safe.
• No.
• The bridge will undoubtedly cause more traffic , more congested streets both downtown and in Natomas . The city can't take care of the streets it has already so now it's suppose to add a bridge less than 2 miles from the freeway to a twou lane steee and what's wrong with opening traffic to and through discovery park seeing how there is already a bridge there that exist already .
• Do A but without cars and use the sholder space to add larger sidewalks on both sides or even reduce the bridge width. Ill
• this beler not raise taxes. Also aren’t we about to have a hospital built in Natomas here soon?
• I believe an assessment should be conducted to find the op5mal solu5on for this space. • It will be interes5ng to see if the funding can be secured to build this bridge, and if RT will do their part in regards to light rail.
• Not a good idea with all the new state buildings & warehouses in the area. All the new appts. & transients.
• Good luck. A lot of Natomas residents support the bridge. • No
• Would Sequoia Pacific be widened? What would the connec5ng the bridge to the street entail? Would addi5onal crosswalks be added? How would this affect the large number of semi-trucks that u5lize the street? Would Sequoia Pacific's flooding problem be solved?
• Shouldn't this be a bike/walk bridge only. There are already many ways of geing to and from these areas via mobile transporta5on.
• No
• The overall window is very long. 2039 is very far.
• The Truxel Bridge is a very important project for the growth of Sacramento. • Combine A & B. In op5on B, removing the sidewalk and making the path mul5-purpose would allot for bikes and pedestrians. The sidewalk space could be used for emergency vehicles.
• "We have so many other needed road improvements and repairs and other programs that would be a beler use of those funds.
• No.
213
• If it happens please try to keep clean Do NOt Allow homeless shelters. • Not a good idea. Keep our neighborhood small and Not connected !!! • Once it lands downtown, how will that integra5on into farther downtown happen? • I think all modes of transporta5on should be accommodated. Many have voiced that they do not want automobiles to be allowed on the bridge. To spend this kind of money on a bridge, it should have the ability to serve all types of users. I wouldn't support building a bridge that is only serves a small group of people. With this in mind, I think Op5on A would be best.
• I don’t support a new bridge at this loca5on.
• Just do it!
• Drivers already have plenty of ways to cross the river. I want to make sure public transit, walking, and cycling are priori5zed.
• If light rail is removed there would be beler accommoda5on for pedestrians, bikes, and vehicles. Shoehorning light rail into the bridge concept seems unnecessary. • I think it’s a nice idea for enhancing mobility in these neighborhoods. I would hope that we tread as lightly as possible on this beau5ful waterfront area and it’s delicate ecosystem. A narrow bridge would be best, and if we could exclude cars altogether I’d be happy, but I know that’s unlikely.
• Private vehicles must not be permiled. Allowing private vehicles will cause a massive increase in traffic on Truxel. Because there is no street infrastructure south of the River, traffic on the bridge will back up causing backups on Truxel. Due to induced demand traffic on I5 will not improve. Any Truxel bridge should use automated bollards or similar to exclude private vehicles and only allow buses and emergency vehicles. Such exclusive use will make buses as efficient as light rail. Adding dedicated bus lanes on Truxel will make bus travel from all of Natomas as fast as light rail at a frac5on of the cost. • Light rail should come up Northgate, where there is already a bridge and connects directly to light rail on 12th, where they are planning on building a sta5on. • Why isn’t there an op5on that excludes vehicular traffic? • I like op5on C the best but, if cost is an issue, combine elements from A and C. Similar to op5on C, have transit and autos share one lane on each side and have a lane in the center for emergency access only. Remove shoulder from Op5on A. Add physical barrier separa5ng bikes from shared transit/auto lane. Keep bike and ped elements on both sides on the bridge consistent with op5on C.
• Why can't you build transit, bicycle and pedestrian access next to Interstate 5 instead.

This seems like a big expense and too much impact to the area just to save some people 5me on their commute. Our history has shown if you make driving easier it reduces drive 5me for a few years then homes are built and the new bridge will be gridlock anyway.
• Build it asap!!
• "Has there been any research on best prac5ces for crea5ng more walkable/transit friendly ci5es?
214
• What safety measures will be implemented to make sure this bridge is designed to be safe at all 5mes, including night 5me, different weather condi5ons, air quality, etc.? " • Need beler architecture and design.
• "If the City is serious about the Climate Ac5on Plan and soon-to-be-final 2040 General Plan ac5ve transporta5on, GHG, noise, environmental, and other stated goals/ac5ons, lanes for private vehicles should NOT be part of this project. Keeping one travel lane for BRT/evacua5on in case of emergency is understandable.
•
• Please include ques5ons surrounding desire for private vehicle ownership as a part of the project in future surveys and outreach mee5ngs. Thanks." • Please take away the private vehicle lanes! The city needs to promote train travel and ac5ve transport, not private vehicles.
• Less than 1 mile away there is already a bridge. For a City which strives to be "Green," this is a shameful destruc5on of the Parkway which should be the center-piece of the City rather than a valuable resource that has been ignored. For over 20-years, the City has dumped its homeless popula5on along the lower Parkway, this project will complete the ruin of a valuable riparian habitat.
• We are building a much needed transit bridge over the American River. We have the ability to design this bridge in a way that supports green line light rail expansion to the Sacramento Interna5onal Airport. All steps should be taken to facilitate efficient light rail uses above all else. We may need future express service from Sac Valley Sta5on to SMF and light rail passengers cannot be forced to share lanes with vehicle traffic or the service will not be accountable and 5mely as an alterna5ve to personal vehicle traffic to the airport.
• "If we're looking to build as inexpensively as possible, remove all automobile traffic from the alterna5ves. People have other op5ons for geing across the river, and should the Green Line be built, there will be less cars on the road and the need for a fourth automobile bridge across the river will drop significantly. • A pedestrian bridge can also serve as a new symbol for Sacramento, similar to the Tilikum Crossing in Portland or the (Can't remember its name) beau5ful transit bridge in Vancouver, BC. We don't always need to accommodate vehicle traffic, and we can always design the ped/transit bridge to accommodate emergency vehicles. It's not rocket science, get rid of the cars!!"
• No personal vehicles on Truxel Bridge. It makes it bloated, and the project should be ONLY transit and ac5ve transporta5on. Anything else will increase VMTs and put the city in the wrong direc5on in mee5ng its climate goals. If we really are in a climate emergency, as the council declared, transit needs to be the priority, not personal vehicles.

L....._ Multi-Purpose Shoulder Vehicle & Transit
Lane
Emergency
Lane
Vehicle & Transit
Lane
Shoulder
I
-
Path
------------------------------------------------
Option A: Mixed Use Travel Lanes with Trail Connection
Bike Path
(Cycle Track)
Vehicle
Lana
Vehicle
Lane
Transit
Lane
Transit
Lane
Option B: Separated Transit with Trail Connections
Sidewalk Bike
Lane
Vehlcle
Lane
Transit
Lane
Transit
Lane
Vehlcle
Lane
Bike
Lane Sidew�
Option C: Sacramento RT Green Line
Truxel Bridge
Concept and Feasibility Study
The City of Sacramento is planning
for a new bridge across the
Lower American River that will
create a better connection for
those traveling between north
Sacramento communities and downtown Sacramento.

The City’s goals of providing better access between
communities will improve air quality, enhance job
opportunities and economic development, and improve
emergency response.

We want your feedback on Truxel Bridge!
Take the Online Community Questionnaire now until February 26 Visit bit.ly/TruxelBridgeQuestionnaire
or scan the QR code.

For more information, visit the project website at bit.ly/TruxelBridge or contact Fedolia “Sparky” Harris at [email protected] Truxel Bridge
Concepto y estudio de viabilidad
La ciudad de Sacramento planea
construir un nuevo puente sobre
el American River que creará una
mejor conexión para quienes viajen
entre las comunidades del norte
de Sacramento y el centro de la
ciudad. Los objetivos de la ciudad de proporcionar
un mejor acceso entre las comunidades mejorarán
la calidad del aire, aumentarán las oportunidades
de trabajo y el desarrollo económico, y mejorarán la
capacidad de respuesta ante emergencias.
¡Queremos conocer su opinión sobre el Puente Truxel!
Responda al Cuestionario comunitario en línea ahora
y hasta el 26 de febrero
Ingrese en bit.ly/TruxelBridgeQuestionnaire
o escanee el código QR
Para más información, ingrese en el sitio web del proyecto bit.ly/TruxelBridge o póngase en contacto con Fedolia “Sparky” Harris enviando un correo electrónico a [email protected].

Introduction
On Tuesday, April 9, 2024 from 3:00 – 4:30 p.m., the City of Sacramento hosted a Stakeholder Focus Group
MeeIng as part of the Truxel Bridge Concept and
Feasibility Study’s public outreach and engagement
process. The meeIng was held at the Stanford SeOlement
Neighborhood Center located at 450 West El Camino
Avenue.

Prior to the stakeholder meeIng, the City hosted an
introductory community meeIng in January 2024 and
launched a follow-up online quesIonnaire in February
2024, which garnered 1,019 responses from the
community about various project elements like the
proposed bridge alignment and cross secIons. The purpose of the April meeIng was to present modified opIons for the bridge cross secIons and mix of uses and gather addiIonal feedback from stakeholder representaIves.
10 RepresentaIves from the following organizaIons aOended the meeIng:
• 350 Sacramento
• Sacramento Area Council of Governments
(SACOG)
• North Natomas Jibe
• The River District
• Environmental Council of Sacramento
(ECOS)
• Save the American River AssociaIon
(SARA)
• Gardenland-Northgate Neighborhood
AssociaIon
• The Sandford SeOlement Center
• Sacramento Area Bike Advocates (SABA)
• Sacramento Transit Advocates and Riders
(STAR)
Project Background
In 2013, the City completed the American River Crossings AlternaIves Study, and the City Council adopted the
vision for a new mulI-modal crossing at Truxel Road as
the recommended alignment. The Truxel Bridge
alignment was recommended and adopted based on its
ability to address limited connecIvity across the lower American River, creaIng a barrier to downtown
Sacramento for communiIes north of the river. The City’s plan for Truxel Bridge will create a more direct connecIon for those walking, biking, taking transit, or driving
between northern Sacramento communiIes and
Sacramento’s urban core. It will also provide beOer
Pamela Dalcin-Walling, Dokken Engineering, (back right), presents to a:endees about Truxel Bridge
Proposed loca@on for Truxel Bridge

access, improve air quality, increase job opportuniIes, enhance economic development, and reduce emergency
response Imes.

PresentaIon
The meeIng began with a welcome from Gladys Cornell,
Outreach Manager with AIM ConsulIng, who reviewed the
meeIng agenda, introduced the project team, and
provided a recap of the public outreach acIviIes
completed so far as well as the feedback received. Below are some of the key benefits and concerns that the team has heard from the community:

Key Benefits: Key Concerns:
• Encourages alternaIve modes of
travel
• Provides beOer emergency access
• Offers direct, faster access to
downtown
• Avoids I-5 congesIon
• Cut through traffic on Truxel Road
• Safe faciliIes for bikes/peds on bridge
• Environmental impacts to the Lower American
River
• Cost of bridge
Next, Fedolia “Sparky” Harris, Principal Planner and the City’s Project Manager, provided an overview of the
feasibility study, its purpose and background, and some frequently asked quesIons from the community. Below are the FAQs and their acknowledged answers.
• Can the project be built if environmental impacts
are idenIfied?
o Yes, most projects have some level of
environmental impact. These impacts must
be idenIfied, disclosed to the public, and
minimized.
• Can a different bridge locaIon be considered as
one of the alternaIves?
o Aker the need for an American River bridge crossing was idenIfied, the City of Sacramento completed the American River Crossing AlternaIves Study, which idenIfied Truxel Road as the preferred locaIon. The City Council would have to approve revisiIng other bridge locaIons.

Gladys Cornell (center) begins the presenta@on
Sparky Harris (center) provides a project overview

• Will the environmental document require consideraIon of mulIple alternaIves? o At this Ime, it is anIcipated that the project’s CEQA document will be an Environmental Impact Report. The City will be responsible for selecIng feasible project alternaIves that accomplish the project’s objecIves and that also may avoid or substanIally lessen significant environmental effects.
• Can a bridge without cars be considered as one of the alternaIves? o At this Ime, the project addresses the need for a local jurisdicIon mulI-modal crossing of the lower American River that includes vehicle lanes. This has been established in the Sacramento General Plan and recognized in the Metropolitan TransportaIon Plan/Sustainable CommuniIes Strategy 2035, Sacramento Area Council of Governments, 2012.

Following Sparky’s introducIon, Pamela Dalcin-Walling, Project Manager with Dokken Engineering, reviewed the Truxel Bridge horizontal alignment design and proposed cross-secIon opIons. Below are the proposed cross secIons presented to the community earlier in 2024, and then the modified cross secIons with community feedback incorporated.

Cross SecIons: OpIon C

Benefits:
§ All modes and directions are separated
§ Jed Smith connection for the west side
§ Reduced shoulder control speeds
Likes:
§ Separated transit lanes
§ Placement of transit in the middle
§ Bike lanes/sidewalks on both sides
§ Directional consistency of all modes
Dislikes:
§ No barrier between cars and bikes
§ Wider bridge
§ Partial trail connectivity

Cross SecIons: OpIon B

Benefits:
§ All modes are separated
§ Jed Smith connection
§ Reduced shoulder control speeds
Likes:
§ Separation of bikes, peds, vehicles, and transit
§ A narrower shoulder discourages speeding
Dislikes:
§ No barrier between cars and bikes
§ No dedicated emergency lane
§ Greater environmental impact

Cross SecIons: OpIon B1

Variation:

Swap transit and cars to provide separation from bikes/peds.

Cross SecIons: OpIon B2

Variation:

Swap transit and cars to provide separation from bikes/peds.

Combine bikes/peds for the Multipurpose Path on the west.

Cross SecIons: OpIon B3

Variation:

Swap transit and cars to provide separation from bikes/peds.

Combine bikes/peds for Multipurpose Path on the east.

Cross SecIons: OpIon A

Benefits:
• Narrowest
• Least environmental impacts
• Lowest cost
• Emergency lane
• Shoulders
• Multi-purpose path
• Jed Smith connection
• Physical barrier between vehicles/ bikes & peds
• Combined vehicles and transit in same lanes controls speeds Likes:
• Separation of bikes/peds
• Placement of various modes
• Low costs
• Shoulders & Emergency Lane
Dislikes:
• Shared vehicle/transit lanes
• Not enough bike/ped separation

Cross SecIons: OpIon A1

VariaIon:

Reduces width by removing sidewalk

Stakeholder Feedback
All community feedback from the discussion is below, with the project team members' responses in bold below.

• How long is the span of the bridge?
o Close to 3,000 feet
• Good, I think sharing tracks with Light Rail for a
short amount of Ime is not that bad.
• All opIons only have two lanes (one in each
direcIon) for vehicles?
o Yes.
• As a resident, I appreciate that you’re considering
transit-only lanes. I don’t want to own a car
anymore. I think they’re unsafe and I do want to
bike more. I think the lack of car-free opIons is
unfair to the lowest-income residents. There may be a bias in the feedback you’re gerng from the community. If we conInue with car-inclusive infrastructure, that will not help to miIgate VMT, and climate goals of the City.

Stakeholder discusses cross sec@on op@ons

o We hear you, and to address those, we
try to lower the barriers by making the
quesIonnaire as accessible as possible.

We work with local stakeholder
organizaIons to reach priority
populaIons. We also raise awareness by
holding pop-up workshops in the
community where the community
already gathers.
o In terms of the VMT calculaIons, we are
working on analyses that are anIcipated
to show that making the route to
downtown more direct actually lowers
VMT (VMT per capita).
• It sounds like you would be digging twice.
o We don’t anIcipate digging again when RT is installed, we build the bridge so that transit accommodaIons can be added easily.
• Is there a cost difference based on what type of transit is included on the bridge? o We don’t currently have any cost esImates.
• I heard someone say that this is not consistent with the American Parkway Plan, is that true? o The American River Parkway plan shows a transit/pedestrian/bike-only bridge. We can’t build anything unIl we update that plan to reflect the kind of bridge we want to build. We anIcipate working with the County to amend the Parkway Plan during the environmental phase.
• E-bikes are becoming more popular. Regular bikes and e-bikes creates a deterrent for mixing. The speed differences in an area with pedestrians may be concerning. I do like the idea of having a barrier between bicyclists and pedestrians.
• If there is a rounded lip (elevated bike lane), would it encourage people to drive onto it if they were frustrated? But having a sharp corner could also be dangerous for bicyclists if they fall off. o Do you have a preference for a specific cross secIon? o I think that bikes should be separate from pedestrians. So, an opIon that has bikes on one side to connect to trail. But is separate.
• Could you eliminate one shoulder on OpIon A, and make it narrower? For OpIon A1 – Make it with four-foot shoulders, then the middle lane would be for breakdowns and emergency vehicles. • Upcoming bikeway guidelines are going to say 8-foot minimum either direcIon for cycletracks.

For anywhere, and it’s because of the different types of bikes now. The City is obligated to consider it.
• New vehicle/transit lanes are unacceptable. They are pinch points in the transit system and incur unnecessary slowdowns. In turn, there will be lots of money spent to eventually fix it. That would be true whether it ends up being LRT or BRT/bus. That’s my organizaIon's view.

A:endees discuss the cross sec@ons

• When looking at the different opIons, I would
prefer to have transit and vehicles, because they
have 15-minute headways. I would think sharing
that space is more efficient. I don’t think it’s
acceptable to have walking and biking mixed.

People feel more comfortable when there is a
physical barrier protecIng them. I feel like it may
be beOer to consolidate space.
• The shoulders on OpIon A seem like it’s almost
begging for people to drive up onto them.
• I don’t think I’m on that technical level, but if
there were no cars, some people work late into
the night, work mulIple jobs, and work odd
hours. Using public transportaIon requires Ime
that some people don’t have. Most people will
have their friends or parents drop them off. I like
the idea of public transportaIon, but the reality is that people may not use it. • Caltrans is purng in extra lanes on I-5, does that mean this bridge is not needed? o The short answer is no. They have looked at Truxel bridge as potenIal miIgaIon, but not a replacement for any of the traffic. This bridge has the potenIal to reduce VMT.

The goal is to not increase VMT. They’re supporIve.
o Caltrans has said they would put in auxiliary lanes to the airport. My quesIon is if there are cars on this bridge, would they not have to add lanes on I-5? o The Truxel Bridge is intended to serve people coming from North/South Natomas.

Those improvements on I-5 are intended to serve the whole I-5 corridor. Right now, Truxel Bridge would divert some of the local traffic off I-5. • Because of how transit currently works, it currently gets stuck behind cars most of the Ime. In reality, if we started to eliminate that with new development, some people might take public transit from point A to point B. I get that this is difficult and has been years in the making, but eliminaIng anything to discourage people from driving will help to improve our world for the future.
• If we do have cars and transit sharing, there needs to be strong public educaIon to make sure people know how it will help the community. I used to take the bus downtown, but it’s a different use of your Ime. I like OpIon A the best.
• As we’re looking at the American River Parkway and the two rivers on southern side. You’ll want to make sure there are the smoothest connecIons. I think people walking may also be interested as well. Yes, the difficulty in people looking to travel in a way besides transit is preOy bleak. It’s going to be many years. With any luck, there will be more transformaIon in the mobility network. We need to make sure there is efficient transit travel.

A:endees discuss the cross sec@ons

• As a transportaIon advocate, my prioriIes are walking, biking and transit, so I do support the bridge.
• Because there’s ambiguity about what kind of transit, let’s not overbuild it. I do like the mixed lanes, it creates more flexibility as the opIons evolve. • This project has been going on for over 10 years. We’ve become more climate oriented. By the Ime this thing gets built, it could be another 10 years. Part of me wants to see whether or not we should go back to Council with the future in mind. We know what’s going on with the climate.

Is there a mechanism to revisit that with council, or have some future focus? We’re talking about the present, but this bridge will get built in 10 years Ime. o We have to base our plans on future plans (like General Plan), that already take future projecIons into account. The best they can do is plan for the future based on land use planning, etc.
• We’re thinking about future recommendaIons, and things are being built right now that are using older planning documents or old criteria. I just want to make sure we are considering that. • Right now all the plans exclude car-free conversaIons. The plans are not being funded right now.

We would be funding it in the future.
• If we are giving RT dedicated right of way, that would be easier to sell. As soon as you start mixing uses, RT would lose some of that control.
o RT doesn’t want anything in the middle between transit lanes/space (shoulders/extra lanes). Not saying no emergency access, but just not between. • Could RT communicate with LRT vehicles to keep them off the bridge in case of emergencies? o Yes, but if they are already on the bridge, they would have to stop if there is a car broken down on the shoulder.

Next Steps
Finally, the project team reviewed next steps with the stakeholders. The project team will be taking the stakeholders input and making further versions of the cross secIons for the next community meeIng in Fall 2024.

Administrative Office
1102 Q Street, Suite 3000, Sacramento, CA 95811
Human Resources
2810 O Street, Sacramento, CA 95816
www.sacrt.com
Equal Opportunity Employer
To Fedolia “Sparky” Harris,
SacRT has been an active partner in the Truxel Bridge conceptual design process guided by Dokken Engineering and the City of Sacramento. The Truxel Bridge project is in the early stages of development requiring more refinement and direction from City Council.

SacRT staff held an internal meeting on August 27th, 2024, to discuss numerous bridge design alternatives and provide comments for the future refinement of those alternatives. Below are highlighted comments, suggestions, clarifications and guidance to the City of Sacramento (originally provided September 6th, 2024) for the Truxel Bridge project:

Alignments:
• An alignment where trains are next to bikes/peds is potentially problematic without a barrier.
• SacRT is concerned about the potential crossover designs as it can increase the risk of train vs car collisions, as well as motorists possibly entering the exclusive railway and being impossible or very difficult to remove.
• Consider modifying the pedestrian crossing design of the future intersection at garden highway to ensure pedestrians only cross on three legs. This would allow the bridge/roadway connection to have less conflicts with light rail turning movements. • The alternatives display long intersections on the bridge, which may have a traffic delay.

CPUC:
• Speeds will be slow through these segments due to curves and may lead to possible train/car collisions concerns.
• CPUC could conceivably raise the same concerns and should be contacted sooner than later in this project development process.

Traffic Study:
• A traffic study has been done to estimate vehicle volumes, but did not include the analysis of intersection delays at the crossovers. The City has confirmed the next phase of project development will conduct more traffic analysis (i.e. the environmental section will examine delay plus the internal circulation of the buildings).
• The clarification of the City traffic division’s involvement in the development of this project would be appreciated.

Safety:
• There was some uncertainty if vertical barriers would exist between transit and bike/ped, in the scenario where the two features are next to one another. Please clarify in the final report.
• There is consensus that if trains are next to bikes/peds, there should be a vertical barrier between them, to prevent bikes/peds from accidentally straying in front of a train. The barrier type and height can be determined in the next phase of review if agreed upon in practice now.
• Please consider determining if there are any documents or studies that can be added to the final product that state center vs side running transit is safer on a shared bridge.

Bus vs Rail Awareness:
• SacRT internally discussed the consequences of rail and overhead not being constructed at the same time as the bridge. Tracks on bridges require electrical isolation and the use of track plinths for fixing the future track elements.
• Track plinths must be incorporated into the deck of the bridge at the time of bridge construction, (i.e. cannot be retrofitted later).
• SacRT asks this Truxel Bridge project team to examine if other bridges in the Country have exposed plinths, but a temporary roadway placed over the plinths for an operable bus service. Currently, a bus running on future or planned rail tracks is not possible without an engineering solution. At a bare minimum, SacRT can assume increased bridge costs due to this information.
• Lastly, footings for future OCS will also require 13-foot-deep footings, and that curved track will require even more footings. Consultant profiles do show a 3-foot width between tracks, presumably for OCS poles, and presumably their design and cost estimates would include those OCS pole footings, because the bridge cannot be retrofitted later. SacRT requests verification with the City and consultant on this aspect of the design.

Kevin Schroder
Senior Planner
Sacramento Regional Transit District
1-279-234-8374
[email protected]
Attachment N. Geotechnical Memo
JULY 2024
PREPARED FOR:

DOKKEN ENGINEERING
110 BLUE RAVINE ROAD, SUITE 200
FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA 95630
PREPARED BY:

GEOCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
3160 GOLD VALLEY DRIVE, SUITE 800
RANCHO CORDOVA, CALIFORNIA 95742
GEOCON PROJECT NO. S2815-05-01

PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION REPORT
Truxel Road Bridge
Sacramento, California
Project No. S2815-05-01
July 31, 2024

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Pamela Dalcin-Walling, PE
Dokken Engineering
110 Blue Ravine Road, Suite 200
Folsom, California 95630
Subject: PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION REPORT

TRUXEL ROAD AT AMERICAN RIVER BRIDGE

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
Ms. Dalcin-Walling:

In accordance with your authorization, we herein submit our Preliminary Foundation Report (PFR) for the proposed Truxel Road at American River bridge project located in Sacramento, California.

This report generally evaluates the geotechnical conditions for the proposed bridge based on previous subsurface explorations and geotechnical laboratory test data for the project area and provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations for project planning and preliminary design. Additional site-specific subsurface exploration, geotechnical laboratory testing, and engineering analysis will be required for design-level project recommendations.

Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this PFR or if we may be of further service.

Respectfully submitted,
GEOCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Ronald E. Loutzenhiser, PE, GE
Senior Engineer
Jeremy J. Zorne, PE, GE
Senior Engineer

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION REPORT PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................ 1

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK .......................................................................................................................... 1

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................................. 2

3.1 Background and Site Description.................................................................................... 2

3.2 Proposed Structures........................................................................................................ 2

3.3 Pertinent Project Information......................................................................................... 3

4.0 EXCEPTIONS TO POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.............................................................................. 3

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION.................................................................................................. 4

6.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM............................................................................................... 5

7.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS....................................................................................................... 5

7.1 Geology ........................................................................................................................... 5

7.2 Surface Conditions.......................................................................................................... 5

7.3 Subsurface Conditions .................................................................................................... 6

7.3.1 Levee/Embankment Fill (Unit 1) ........................................................................ 7

7.3.2 Alluvium (Units 2 through 4).............................................................................. 7

7.4 Pertinent Soil Conditions or Geologic Hazards............................................................... 8

7.4.1 Landslides........................................................................................................... 8

7.4.2 Embankment Failures ........................................................................................ 8

7.4.3 Ground Subsidence............................................................................................ 8

7.4.4 Expansive Soils................................................................................................... 9

7.4.5 Collapsible Soils.................................................................................................. 9

8.0 GROUNDWATER........................................................................................................................... 9

9.0 AS-BUILT DATA...........................................................................................................................10

10.0 SCOUR DATA ..............................................................................................................................10

11.0 CORROSION EVALUATION..........................................................................................................11

12.0 SEISMIC INFORMATION .............................................................................................................11

12.1 Ground Motion Hazard ................................................................................................. 11

12.2 Other Seismic Hazards ..................................................................................................12

12.2.1 Surface Fault Rupture ......................................................................................12

12.2.2 Liquefaction and Seismic-Induced Ground Surface Settlements.....................12

12.2.3 Pile Downdrag..................................................................................................14

12.2.4 Lateral Spreading Potential..............................................................................15

12.2.5 Seismic Slope Stability......................................................................................15

12.2.6 Tsunami Risk ....................................................................................................15

13.0 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................15

13.1 Deep Foundations.........................................................................................................16

13.1.1 Special Considerations for Driven Piles............................................................19

13.1.2 Driven Pile Acceptance Criteria........................................................................19

13.1.3 Special Considerations for CIDH Concrete Piles...............................................20

13.2 Retaining Walls/Wingwalls ...........................................................................................20

13.3 Embankment and Approach Fill Earthwork ..................................................................21

TABLE OF CONTENTS

13.3.1 Materials for Fill ...............................................................................................22

13.3.2 Fill Area Preparation and Fill Placement..........................................................23

14.0 GENERAL NOTES TO DESIGNER..................................................................................................23

15.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS............................................................................................24

15.1 Construction Advisories................................................................................................24

15.2 Construction Considerations that Influence Specifications..........................................24

15.3 Construction Monitoring and Instrumentation ............................................................24

16.0 DISCLAIMER AND CONTACT INFORMATION..............................................................................25

17.0 CLOSURE.....................................................................................................................................26

17.1 Foundation and Grading Plan Review...........................................................................26

17.2 Limitations and Uniformity of Conditions.....................................................................26

18.0 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................27

FIGURES
Figure 1, Vicinity Map
Figure 2, Site Plan
Figure 3, Geologic Map
Figure 4, Preliminary Recommended Design Response Spectrum

APPENDIX A

PREVIOUS BORING LOGS, LOGS OF TEST BORINGS, AND LABORATORY TESTING BY OTHERS

APPENDIX B

ANALYSES AND CALCULATIONS
Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 1 - July 31, 2024

PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION REPORT

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Preliminary Foundation Report (PFR) presents our preliminary geotechnical conclusions and recommendations for the proposed Truxel Road at American River bridge project located in Sacramento, California. The approximate site location is depicted on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The purpose of this report is to generally evaluate subsurface geologic and geotechnical conditions for the proposed bridge and to provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations for use in bridge concept and feasibility study evaluation. Given the preliminary nature of this study, this report should not be relied upon for final project design.

The preliminary recommendations presented herein are based on our review of the existing subsurface and laboratory test data for the project area, preliminary engineering analyses, and our experience with similar soil and geologic conditions. No subsurface investigation was performed as part of our study. The logs of borings, laboratory test results, and logs of test boring (LOTB) sheets used in our review are presented in Appendix A. Preliminary engineering analyses and calculations are presented in Appendix B.

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
Our scope of work included:
• Reviewing published geologic maps, aerial photographs, preliminary project plans, in-house documents, geotechnical information by Geocon and others, and other literature pertaining to the site to aid in evaluating geologic conditions and hazards that may be present. A list of referenced materials is provided in Section 18 of this report. • Performing a site reconnaissance to review existing site conditions. • Performing preliminary engineering analyses to develop geotechnical design criteria and evaluate existing site conditions.
• Preparing this PFR in general accordance with Caltrans’ Foundation Reports for Bridges (2021).

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 2 - July 31, 2024

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 Background and Site Description
The American River and adjacent Garden Highway extend east-west near the project location, with Garden Highway located on the north river levee. The south river levee is topped by a paved pedestrian / bicycle path. The north and south river levees are approximately 2,400 feet apart. The American River directly abuts the south levee and Steelhead Creek (also known as the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal / Arcade Creek) abuts the north levee. Discovery Park and undeveloped riparian floodplain area occupy the area in between. Truxel Road is an arterial connector currently extending north from the Garden Highway beyond Interstate 80 and terminating in the North Natomas area of the City of Sacramento. Approximately 1,500 feet south of the river, Richards Boulevard is an east-west aligned arterial connector extending through the “River District”, a largely commercial / industrial area of Sacramento. Richards Boulevard connects to Jibboom Street and Interstate 5 (I-5) on the west and State Route 160 (SR-160) on the east. There are no other arterial street connectors that cross the American River between I-5 and SR-160 for vehicular traffic and the only option for pedestrian/bicycle traffic in the area is the Jibboom Street bridge, an old local access vehicular bridge east of I-5, or the Sacramento Northern Bikeway, a converted rail bridge east of SR-160.

Land use in the project area is generally residential north of the American River and commercial/industrial with some residential south of the river. Major bodies of water near the proposed bridge site include the American River, Steelhead Creek, an approximately 50-acre pond within the floodplain area north of the American River, and the Sacramento River approximately 4,000 feet west.

3.2 Proposed Structures
The improvements discussed herein are based on preliminary project plans and design loading information provided by Dokken Engineering. Elevations used in this report are based on the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88), which is the datum currently used for the project . The proposed bridge structure will be a 20-span, cast-in-place, prestressed concrete box girder and voided slab bridge. Preliminary bridge details are provided in Table 3.2.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 3 - July 31, 2024
TABLE 3.2

PRELIMINARY PROPOSED BRIDGE DETAILS
Bridge Details
Bridge Station Line “Truxel” Line
Begin Bridge (BB), Station 112+12.50
End Bridge (EB), Station 140+12.49
Bridge Length, feet 2,800 (20 spans: 4 at 80, 15 at 160, 1 at 80) Bridge Width, feet 92.0 (based on the widest alternative being considered) BB Elevation, feet 40.84
EB Elevation, feet 43.15
Abutment 1 Pile Type and Number of Piles 24-inch diameter driven steel pipe piles, 30 piles Bent Pile Type and Number of Piles
(per support) 96” Diameter cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) pile, 4 to 6 piles Abutment 21 Pile Type and Number of Piles 24-inch diameter driven steel pipe piles, 30 piles Pile cutoff elevations, abutment pile cap elevations, pile layout, and other specific details are not available at this time. Associated retaining walls may be required for this project; however, no design details are currently available. No other structures (sound walls, ground-supported overhead signs, etc.) are currently proposed for this project.

The proposed project configuration and approximate bridge alignment are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2.

3.3 Pertinent Project Information
A summary list of references used in this study is presented in Section 18. Key project information was obtained from the following:

1. General Plan, Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study, Dokken Engineering, undated.

2. Additional project information and topography provided electronically by Dokken Engineering.

4.0 EXCEPTIONS TO POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Unless otherwise stated, this PFR was developed and prepared in general conformance with Caltrans’ current policies.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 4 - July 31, 2024

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
A site-specific geotechnical investigation has not yet been performed for the project. Existing geotechnical information referenced for this PFR include the following:
• Intra-Division Correspondence, III-Sac-238-B, Beltline Freeway, State of California, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways, Materials and Research Department, August 4, 1959.

Boring D-1 is assumed to be located near the northwest corner of the intersection of Truxel Road and Garden Highway based on the description on the boring log. • Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program, Department of Water Resources, June 2008, Boring Nos. WCSBAR_001B and WCSBAR_002M.
• Geotechnical Investigation, Township 9 – Parcels 8 and 15A, Sacramento, California, Geocon Consultants, Inc. (Project No. S9498-05-11), December 2014, cone penetration test (CPT) soundings CPT1, CPT2, and CPT5.
• Geotechnical Investigation, Township 9 – Seven Parcels, North Side of Richards Blvd between 5th and 7th Streets, Sacramento, California, Geocon Consultants, Inc. (Project No. S9498-05- 18), September 16, 2020, CPT soundings CPT2020-1, CPT2020-2. • Additional Geotechnical Investigation Summary, Township 9 – Phase A1/A3, 7th Street and Chill Avenue, Sacramento, California, Geocon Consultants, Inc. (Project No. S9498-05-20), September 26, 2022, Borings B1 and B2.
• Structure Preliminary Geotechnical Report for [Interstate 5] American River Bridge (Widen), Caltrans, File No. 03-Sac-5-PM 24.82, Bridge No. 24-0068, July 10, 2020. This project is located approximately ½ mile west (downstream) of the proposed bridge alignment with a similar bridge length over the same river and the explorations show generally similar soil conditions as expected at the project location. Explorations from this report are provided for reference only and were not used in our preliminary analysis given the distance from the project alignment, age of the data (1960’s), and lack of laboratory test results.

No ground surface elevation data was stated for Boring D-1 so we assumed an elevation based on the current ground surface profile has been used. Elevations for the CPT soundings are also unknown and were also assumed in a similar manner. Explorations included in the American River Bridge SPGR reference benchmarks that are not shown within the Sacramento City database; the reference datum and elevation adjustment to NAVD 88 for these explorations are unknown.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 5 - July 31, 2024

6.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
No geotechnical laboratory testing was performed as part of our study. Geotechnical laboratory test results provided in the referenced documents listed in Section 5.0 consisted of the following:
• In-Place Dry Density and Moisture Content: ASTM D2937 (CTM 226) • Grain Size Distribution: ASTM D422
• Atterberg Limits: ASTM D4318
• Unconfined Compression: ASTM D2166
• Consolidation: ASTM D2435
Laboratory test results are provided in Appendix A.

7.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS

7.1 Geology
The site is located within the Great Valley Geomorphic Province of California, more commonly referred to as the Sacramento Valley. The Sacramento Valley is a broad depression bounded by the Sierra Nevada mountain range to the east and the Coast Ranges to the west. The Sacramento Valley has been filled with a thick sequence of sediments derived from weathering of the adjacent mountain ranges resulting in a stratigraphic section of Cretaceous, Tertiary and Quaternary deposits.

The site is located near the central portion of the Sacramento Valley, about midway between the Coast Ranges and the Sierra Nevada mountains. The American River extends approximately east-west through the site and joins the north-south aligned Sacramento River approximate 4,000 feet west/downstream of the bridge site. Alluvial sediments at the site have been deposited primarily during flood stages of the American River, as well as those of the Sacramento River and other minor local watercourses. Past development included constructing earthen levees along the north and south river banks and an embankment supporting Truxel Road extending north from the Garden Highway.

7.2 Surface Conditions
The proposed bridge alignment will cross the existing north and south levees, the American River, and the floodplain area (Steelhead Creek and Discovery Park), meeting up with existing roadways beyond the levees. North of the north levee, the ground surface elevation is at approximate elevation 17 feet with Truxel Road on an ascending embankment that climbs to elevation 40 feet at the top of the levee Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 6 - July 31, 2024
where the roadway ends at the intersection with the Garden Highway. South of the Garden Highway, the embankment slope descends to elevation 10 feet at Steelhead Creek. South of the creek, the ground surface elevation gradually climbs from approximate elevation 20 feet to approximate elevation 30 feet at the north bank of the American river approximately 1,700 feet to the south. The north bank of the American River has an approximate 20-foot drop into the river channel. At the south bank of the American River, the levee climbs to an elevation of 40 feet and then descends to approximate elevation 28 feet on the land side. Levee embankment slopes adjacent to the proposed bridge location vary from approximately 2.5:1 to 3:1 based on available topographic mapping. Site drainage occurs via sheet flow in undeveloped areas. There are no significant existing cut or fill areas in the immediate project area, other than the levee and roadway approach embankments.

The waterside levee embankments and the Discovery Park area are heavily vegetated with mature trees, brush, blackberry bushes, and other vegetation. Overhead utilities cross Truxel Road immediately north of the intersection with Garden Highway. High voltage transmission lines parallel Garden Highway approximately 300 feet to the south (south of Steelhead Creek); a tower supporting these lines exists due south of the intersection of Truxel Road and Garden Highway.

7.3 Subsurface Conditions
The following descriptions of subsurface conditions are based on the exploration logs presented in Appendix A and our geotechnical experience in the area. The exploration logs in Appendix A are those that are closest to the project alignment and/or extend the deepest below grade. These explorations were used for our preliminary analysis for this project. We note that most of these explorations are at least 500 feet away from the proposed bridge alignment and soil conditions indicated herein may not be fully representative of the subsurface conditions along the project alignment. Also included in Appendix A are the American River Bridge Log of Test Borings No. 1 through No. 5. These logs are from the I-5 bridge approximately ½ mile west of the proposed bridge alignment and have been included for reference but were not used in our preliminary project analysis due to the large distance from the site, lack of geotechnical laboratory test data, and lack of elevation information.

Soils described in the sections below are generally broken out into four major units:
• Unit 1 Levee/embankment fill
• Unit 2 Recent alluvium, channel deposits, and overbank deposits • Unit 3 Older river channel deposits/alluvium (dense to very dense gravel and sand layer) • Unit 4 Older alluvium
Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 7 - July 31, 2024

7.3.1 Levee/Embankment Fill (Unit 1)
The levee/embankment fill (Unit 1) encountered in the 2008 borings by the Department of Water Resources generally consists of dense sand with varied silt content (SP-SM, SM) and stiff to very stiff clay (CL) with varied sand content. This layer extends from the ground surface to approximate elevation 27 feet in Boring WCSBAR_001B and approximate elevation 21 feet in Boring WCSBAR_002M. These borings are located approximately 450 feet east of the proposed bridge alignment.

7.3.2 Alluvium (Units 2 through 4)
Alluvial soils were encountered below the levee embankment fill (Unit 1) in Borings WCSBAR_001B and WCSBAR_002M and from the ground surface (or below minor fill thicknesses associated with roadway or building pad construction) in the remaining explorations. This alluvium can be divided into three units (Units 2 through 4). The borings and CPT soundings used for evaluation are located approximately 450 to 1,800 feet east of the south bridge abutment location with one boring apparently located approximately 200 feet west of the north abutment location (Boring D-1, location assumed based on a somewhat vague description on the boring log).
• Unit 2 (Recent alluvium, channel deposits, and overbank deposits): Unit 2 soils extend from the ground surface or below Unit 1 soils to approximate elevation -26 feet. These soils generally consist of very loose to medium dense poorly-graded sand (SP), poorly-graded sand with silt (SP-SM), silty sand (SM), clayey sand (SC), and low plasticity sandy silt (ML) and soft to stiff silt (ML), elastic silt (MH), and clay (CL). These soils appear to transition from a more granular soil profile to the south to more cohesive soils to the north. These soils, where non-cohesive and below groundwater, are potentially liquefiable during a design level earthquake. These materials are also generally subject to settlement/consolidation under superposed loads. • Unit 3 (Older river channel deposits/alluvium): Unit 3 soils consist of a layer of dense to very dense gravel (GP) / cobble materials with varying amounts of sand and silt. These soils extend to approximate elevation -60 feet in explorations near the south river levee. The Caltrans boring north of the river (Boring D-1) did not penetrate more than a few feet into this unit and the unit thickness is unknown at this location. These soils are competent for support of foundation loads but the gravel and cobble content can make pile driving or drilling for deep foundation elements difficult to perform.
• Unit 4 (Older alluvium): Unit 4 soils underlie Unit 3 materials to the maximum depth explored of approximately 111.5 feet (elevation -91.5 feet) and generally consist of dense to very dense poorly-graded sand (SP), well-graded sand with silt (SW-SM), and silty sand (SM) and hard silt (ML), clayey silt (CL-ML), and clay (CL). These soils are competent for support of foundation loads.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 8 - July 31, 2024
A similar soil profile was generally indicated in the Caltrans Logs of Test Borings (1960’s) included in the SPGR for the I-5 bridge located approximately ½ mile west of the proposed bridge alignment. While included here for general reference, these borings have not been used for preliminary project analysis.

These logs indicate that a change in Unit 2 soil conditions occurs across the American River floodplain near the north bank of the American River channel, with sandy soils near the active river channel transitioning to clayey soils to the north. Based on geologic mapping, we expect a more varied transition at the proposed bridge location due to mapped river meanders. Unit 3 gravel/cobbles zones are indicated to be somewhat variable in elevation and thickness along this alignment (indicated elevation of first encounter ranges from -20 feet to -30 feet and bottom of these layers varies from -33 feet to - 75 feet [or lower], with interbedded zones of clay, silt, and sand). Similar variation may be encountered along the project alignment. We note that the elevations indicated within this paragraph are based on a currently unknown/possibly local datum and not on the project datum (NAVD 88).

7.4 Pertinent Soil Conditions or Geologic Hazards
The following sections discuss other potential geologic hazards evaluated for the project including landslides, embankment failures, ground subsidence, expansive soils, and collapsible soils.

7.4.1 Landslides
No landslides were observed during our site investigation. Other than bank loss due to scour, landslides or similar slope failures are not a hazard for the site.

7.4.2 Embankment Failures
No embankment failures were observed during our site investigation. The site and vicinity are generally flat and level. Slopes of existing levees/embankments in the project area appear to be performing well without overt indications of significant failures. Other than the existing levees and the Truxel Road approach embankment to Garden Highway, there are no significant embankment slopes on or adjacent to the site.

7.4.3 Ground Subsidence
Ground subsidence is a regional phenomenon that occurs where underlying loose geologic units undergo a densification process. Subsidence can result from the extraction of mineral resources and/or groundwater, as well as the rapid settlement induced by seismic activity. There is potential for ground subsidence in Unit 2 soils due to liquefaction-induced ground settlement, particularly along the southern portion of the project alignment. Given the proximity of the American and Sacramento Rivers, regional ground subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal is not anticipated.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 9 - July 31, 2024

7.4.4 Expansive Soils
Expansive soils possess a high swelling or shrinking potential due to change in moisture content. The common materials associated with high expansion potential are clays. The majority of the near surface onsite soil is silt and sand, with some low-plasticity clays noted within the borings that penetrate the levee embankment. Proposed foundations will be supported below a depth where significant moisture variation is expected. Thus, expansive soils are not a consideration for bridge foundation design or new roadway approach embankments.

7.4.5 Collapsible Soils
Collapsible soils are unsaturated soils that undergo a large volume change upon saturation, even without increase in external loads. Soils that generally display collapsible potential are porous and have a low dry density. No porous or honeycomb structure was noted within the reviewed boring logs. Bridge foundations will penetrate through less competent and potentially liquefiable Unit 2 soils to bear within Unit 3 and possibly Unit 4 soils. Thus, the potential for collapsible soils are not a consideration for foundation design.

8.0 GROUNDWATER
Where recorded, previous explorations encountered groundwater at depths ranging from approximately 13.7 to 35.1 feet (elevation -5.0 to 6.1 feet). Table 8.0 summarizes the groundwater encounters, including the dates encountered, approximate depths, and elevations. Top of exploration elevations are estimated/assumed based on available data for several explorations; actual exploration and groundwater elevations may vary at these locations.

TABLE 8.0

SUMMARY OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER
Exploration
No.

Exploration
Date
Exploration
Depth (feet)
Surface
Elevation
(feet)
Groundwater
Depth (feet)
Groundwater
Elevation
(feet)
B2 9/2/2022 86.5 21.0 22.0 -1.0
D-1 8/4/1959 50.0 15.01 20.0 -5.0
WCSBAR_002M 6/19-20/2008 97.0 41.2 35.1 6.1
CPT1 12/15/2014 46.8 21.51 19.4 2.1
CPT2 12/15/2014 50.2 21.51 19.8 1.7
CPT5 12/15/2014 66.1 35.01 33.0 2.0
CPT2020-1 8/19/2020 38.9 20.01 13.7 6.3
CPT2020-2 8/19/2020 48.2 20.01 14.5 5.5
Average 2.2
Note: 1. Surface elevation is estimated or assumed based on available data.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 10 - July 31, 2024
Groundwater elevations from the online SGMA Data Viewer maintained by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) shows a groundwater elevation at the project site of approximately -10 feet for Spring 2023, the most recent interval provided. The above DWR elevation is in NAVD 88, which is consistent with the project datum.

Caltrans used a design groundwater elevation of 23 feet in their 2020 SPGR for the proposed I-5 bridge widening approximately ½ mile downstream (west) of the project alignment. This elevation is also in NAVD 88.

Given the above, a design groundwater elevation of 23 feet was used for our preliminary analysis based on the controlling design groundwater elevation recommended by Caltrans near this project location.

Fluctuations of groundwater levels may occur due to variations in precipitation, temperature, and other factors. Depth to groundwater can also vary significantly due to localized pumping, irrigation practices, and seasonal fluctuations. Therefore, it is possible that future groundwater may be higher or lower than the levels observed during the referenced investigations.

9.0 AS-BUILT DATA
There is no existing bridge structure at the proposed project location. The As-Built plans indicate the I-5 bridges to the west are supported by driven 45-ton piles. These piles are indicated to consist of a combination of Alternative “Z” Raymond Step Taper piles (both 12-inch and 15-inch diameters at the top of pile) and 14BP117 steel H-piles. Additional details on the pile types and locations used, installed lengths, and construction difficulties are available in the Caltrans report for this structure (2020).

10.0 SCOUR DATA
The proposed bridge will span the American River and Steelhead Creek. No scour information is available in the I-5 bridge SPGR. A Caltrans Foundation Report (FR, 2022) for the American River Bridge for State Route 51 (Business 80) approximately three miles east (upstream) of the project site indicates that long term scour is to be anticipated only within the active river channel (no depth provided) and local scour between approximately 4 to 18 feet may be expected at all pier support locations.

A preliminary hydraulics memo has been prepared for this project (Dokken Engineering, July 2024).

According to the memo, with design peak flow “some bed scour may occur that may not be replenished as the upstream in-channel stored sediments are slowly being depleted.” Also, the bridge foundations are anticipated to be designed below scour depths and local scour at support locations/levee embankment slopes will be mitigated by use of rip-rap boulders and armoring.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 11 - July 31, 2024
Preliminary scour estimates for this project provided by Dokken Engineering indicate between 2 and 5 feet of total scour are anticipated at pier locations. The results of a detailed hydraulics analysis will need to be considered and incorporated into the future Foundation Report (FR) for the project.

11.0 CORROSION EVALUATION
No soil corrosivity testing has been performed as part of the existing geotechnical evaluations reviewed near this project site. Soil corrosion potential testing will be performed as part of the geotechnical investigation for final project design and presented in the project FR.

12.0 SEISMIC INFORMATION

12.1 Ground Motion Hazard
The design response spectrum for the Safety Evaluation Earthquake (SEE), as specified in Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria with October 2019 interim revisions (v2.0), is the probabilistic response spectrum representing the horizontal ground motion at the site with a 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years (return period of 975 years). The United States Geological Survey (USGS) 2014 National Seismic Hazard Map is used as the basis to determine the design Acceleration Response Spectrum (ARS). The preliminary ARS for the site was estimated using Caltrans’ ARS Online web tool (V3.1.0, accessed June 11, 2024).

Table 12.1 summarizes the site-specific information used for the analysis and the ARS Online results.

TABLE 12.1

ARS ONLINE SUMMARY
Approx.

Latitude,
°
Approx.

Longitude,
°
Estimated Shear
Wave Velocity
(VS30)1, feet/second
Design Peak
Ground
Acceleration
(PGA)2, g
Deaggregated Mean
Earthquake Moment
Magnitude (M)
Mean Site- to-Source
Distance
(R)3, miles
Site
Soil
Class4

38.6043 -121.4963 700 0.26 6.68 55.4 S2
Notes:

1. Estimated time-average shear wave velocity for the upper 100 feet of soil at the site.

2. Where “g” represents the acceleration due to gravity.

3. Mean site-to-source distance for 1.0 second period spectral acceleration.

4. Based on the subsurface soil conditions encountered within the foundation’s zone of influence and Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria Sections 6.1 and 6.2.3. Site Soil Class S1 is considered competent and Site Soil Class S2 is considered non-competent (marginal, poor, soft, potentially liquefiable, and soil susceptible to lateral spreading).

The bridge is not located within a deep sedimentary basin per Caltrans ARS Online. Based on the subsurface materials encountered during previous referenced investigations nearby, the site is anticipated to be generally underlain by soft to stiff and loose to very dense alluvial soils, which most Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 12 - July 31, 2024
closely reflects a Caltrans Soil Profile Type D. The shear wave velocity, VS30, was calculated using an average of the shear wave correlations obtained from the four Geocon CPTsreferenced for project design in which shear wave velocity measurements were obtained (CPT-1, CPT-5, CPT2020-1, and CPT2020-2).

The preliminary recommended design response spectrum for the proposed replacement bridge is presented as Figure 3 (Preliminary Recommended Design Response Spectrum).

12.2 Other Seismic Hazards

12.2.1 Surface Fault Rupture
The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as established by the State Geologist around known active faults. Local field reconnaissance revealed no indications of an active fault trace at the site. Review of available literature indicates there are no active fault traces within 1,000 feet of the project location. The USGS maps the nearest active fault as the Hunting CreekBerryessa fault system located over 40 miles west of the project location. Given the above, no fault rupture hazard analysis is required for this project.

12.2.2 Liquefaction and Seismic-Induced Ground Surface Settlements Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated cohesionless soils are subject to a temporary loss of shear strength due to pore pressure buildup under the cyclic shear stresses associated with intense earthquakes. Primary factors that trigger liquefaction are moderate to strong ground shaking (seismic source), the presence of relatively clean, loose granular soils (primarily poorly graded sands and silty sands), and saturated soil conditions (shallow groundwater).

The site is not located in a currently established State of California Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction.

However, soil and groundwater conditions exist near the site that may be susceptible to seismic-induced liquefaction and the Soil Site Class is designated as S2 per the current Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria guidance. We preliminarily evaluated liquefaction potential using both the measured parameters in the referenced CPT soundings and the SPT blow counts measured in the referenced borings. The CPT-based analysis was performed using the CLiq software program (v. 2.2.0.37 by GeoLogismiki) following the Youd, et. al (2001) analysis method. The SPT-based analysis was performed following Youd, et. al (2001) per the Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction Evaluation module (Caltrans 2020). A peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.26g developed using ARS online (see Section 12.1) was used in liquefaction analysis per Caltrans guidelines. We used a design groundwater elevation of 23 feet.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 13 - July 31, 2024
We estimated post-liquefaction settlement under the PGA ground motions using the CLiq software following the methodology of Zhang, et. al (2002) for the CPT-based analysis and the methodology of Boulanger and Idriss (2008) for the SPT-based analysis. For the borings, we excluded soil layers that had relative densities of “dense” or “very dense” based on N60 blow counts (Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction Evaluation) or the (N1)60 blow count was greater than 25 (AASHTO LRFD BDS).

A summary of our preliminary liquefaction analysis is included in Appendix B. Table 12.2.2 summarizes the results of the analyses.

TABLE 12.2.2

PRELIMINARY LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Exploration
Approximate
Exploration
Elevation,
ft
Approximate
Depths of
Potentially
Liquefiable
Zone,
ft
Approximate
Elevations of
Potentially
Liquefiable Zone,
ft
Approximate
Thickness of
Potentially
Liquefiable
Zone,
ft
Estimated
Vertical
Settlement,
in.

B1 20.0 0 – 43.0 -23.0 – 20.0 43.0 16.0
B2 21.0 0 – 47.0 -26.0 – 21.0 47.0 16.9
CPT1 21.5 20.0 – 44.3 -22.8 – 1.5 24.3 4.0
CPT2 21.5 13.9 – 49.0 -27.5 – 7.6 35.1 5.3
CPT5 35.0 32.8 – 59.9 -24.9 – 2.2 27.1 2.4
CPT2020-1 20.0 7.6 – 38.2 -18.2 – 12.4 30.6 7.8
CPT2020-2 20.0 13.9 – 49.0 -27.5 – 7.6 35.1 9.4
D-1 No liquefaction
WCSBAR_001B No liquefaction
WCSBAR_002M No field blow counts or soil laboratory data for liquefaction analysis Based on our preliminary evaluation, several soil layers near the southern portion of the bridge alignment between elevation -27.5 to 20 feet are considered potentially liquefiable as a result of the design-level (PGA) earthquake ground motion; however, Boring WCSBAR_001B does not appear to have potentially liquefiable zones. This may be due to previous levee improvements performed in the location of that test boring, natural variation in geologic depositions, differences in sampling equipment/methods, or other reasons. The only nearby exploration we have to reference north of the American River channel is Boring D-1, which indicates that potentially liquefiable soils are not present near the northern end of the bridge alignment. Based on the CPT data, the thickness of these soil layers are variable and up to about 30 feet thick. Our CPT- and SPT-based analyses indicates that post-liquefaction vertical ground settlements of up to approximately 17 inches may occur; however, CPT-based analyses are typically preferred to SPT-based analyses. The average estimated liquefaction-induced settlement from CPT-based analyses is approximately 6 inches. It is typical geotechnical practice to assume that the magnitude of differential liquefaction settlement is approximately one-half of the estimated total liquefaction settlement.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 14 - July 31, 2024
Another secondary effect of liquefaction is the potential for liquefaction-induced sand boils or ground loss. In this case, pore water pressure induced within liquefied strata exerts significant upward forces and results in ejecta of the liquefied soil at the ground surface. Sand boils/ground loss may be resisted by a “capping layer” of non-liquefiable soil. At this site, there is not a sufficiently thick, non-liquefiable soil layer overlying the potentially liquefiable layers within the channel. Therefore, there is a potential for localized ground loss due to sand boils at the site.

Given the above, we anticipate that strong ground shaking due to a seismic event would likely cause liquefaction of some soil layers at/near the proposed bridge location resulting in ground surface settlement (subsidence) and potentially localized ground loss within the channel due to sand boils, particularly along the southern portion of the bridge alignment. We considered these conditions in developing preliminary recommendations for foundation design. Since sand boils may occur, the postliquefaction vertical settlements at the pier locations presented herein should be considered minimum, lower-bound estimates as sand boils can result in additional, unquantifiable ground loss.

Each bridge support location will be supported on deep foundation elements that extend below the liquefiable soil to bear within Unit 3 and Unit 4 materials. The effects of liquefaction have been considered in the preliminary foundation design. Per Caltrans design guidelines, abutments are not designed for Extreme Limit State axial loading conditions. However, the piles for the abutments should extend through Unit 1 and Unit 2 soils to bear within more competent, underlying materials.

12.2.3 Pile Downdrag
Piles at the pier and abutment locations will extend through any potentially-liquefiable soil layers to bear within competent underlying soils. Per Caltrans design guidelines abutments are not designed for Extreme Limit State loading conditions (including liquefaction).

Based on the existing ground profile data and preliminary pile loading conditions provided by Dokken Engineering, we have performed preliminary liquefaction-induced downdrag analysis for a typical pile at Piers 9-20 using the guidance provided in the Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction-Induced Downdrag module (January 2020), which relies on the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification with California Amendments (April 2019), Caltrans Memo to Designers 3-1, Deep Foundations (June 2014), and the various modules of the Caltrans Geotechnical Manual (latest versions). The piles at these support locations share the highest pile loads and would also likely experience the most downdrag if they are penetrating potentially liquefiable soils. A spreadsheet documenting the preliminary liquefaction-induced downdrag analyses performed for the Extreme Limit State loading conditions following these document guidelines is included in Appendix B. Table 12.2.3 summarizes the results of the analyses.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 15 - July 31, 2024
TABLE 12.2.3

PRELIMINARY LIQUEFACTION-INDUCED DOWNDRAG ANALYSIS SUMMARY Explorations (Various)
Approximate Elevations
of Potentially
Liquefiable Zone,
ft
Downdrag Zone
Bottom Elevation,
ft
Estimated Downdrag
Load,
kips/pile
Piers (96” CIDH) -27.5 – 20.0 -18 2,357
Note: Downdrag loads were calculated for 96-inch diameter CIDH piles at a typical pier location.

12.2.4 Lateral Spreading Potential
Since there appears to be a potential for seismic-induced liquefaction, the possibility of lateral spreading during a liquefaction event should be considered. Lateral spread potential should be evaluated as part of the analysis for the design FR after a site-specific field investigation is completed and updated topographic and cross-section information is available for the project.

12.2.5 Seismic Slope Stability
Given the limited project information at this time, slope stability modeling has not been performed as part of this preliminary study. Slope stability should be evaluated as part of the analysis for the design FR after a site-specific field investigation is completed and updated project details and topographic/cross-section information is available for the project.

12.2.6 Tsunami Risk
Tsunamis are large sea waves caused by submarine earthquakes, landslides, or volcanic eruptions. Per Caltrans Memo to Designers 20-13, a tsunami hazard is significantly reduced for projects located greater than ½ mile from the coast or at elevations greater than 40 feet. The proposed bridge is located approximately 40 miles inland from the nearest large bay (Suisun Bay) connected to the Pacific Ocean.

Sacramento County does not have a California Official Tsunami Inundation Map. Based on the above information and per MTD 20-13, a tsunami hazard does not exist at the site.

13.0 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The following preliminary recommendations are for the Truxel Road Bridge as shown on the referenced General Plan (undated) by Dokken Engineering. These recommendations are based on select existing subsurface information data in the general project area and are provided solely for the project feasibility study (not for construction).

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 16 - July 31, 2024

13.1 Deep Foundations
Based on the anticipated structural loading, reported soft to stiff/very loose to medium dense nearsurface soil conditions in the previous investigations near the project location, estimated liquefaction ground settlements, the potential for ground loss due to sand boils, and the anticipated scour conditions at the site, shallow foundations are not considered suitable and the proposed bridge will require deep foundations for support. The deep foundations will penetrate through the relatively soft/liquefiable soil to bear within the underlying hard/dense, non-liquefiable materials.

Based on the subsurface conditions at the proposed bridge location and the design loading requirements, the structure may be supported by large diameter cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) concrete piles at the pier locations and Caltrans Class 200 driven piles at Abutments (24-inch diameter steel pipe piles driven open-ended). Given the anticipated thickness of potentially liquefiable soils at the pier foundation locations (approximately 30-foot depth below bottom of pile cap), potential loss of lateral support asthe result of a liquefaction event, and limited penetration anticipated during driving into the underlying dense gravel soils, Class 200 driven piles are not considered a feasible foundation option at the pier locations from a geotechnical perspective. Class 200 driven piles are only considered potentially feasible at the abutment locations because Extreme Limit State loading conditions are not considered for abutment design; however, detailed slope stability and lateral pile analysis will be required to confirm their use is acceptable for this project. Although not analyzed as part of this preliminary study, larger diameter cast-in-steel-shell (CISS) piles may also be suitable for the project at both abutment and pier locations.

Due to the presence of the granular soil and groundwater, temporary casing and/or wet construction methods will be required during CIDH concrete pile installation.

According to current Caltrans guidelines, preliminary foundation designs for abutments and bents were analyzed using the latest American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications (BSD) with Caltrans Amendments methodology. We used the APILE and SHAFT software programs which incorporate the α method for clays and β method for sands per FHWA guidelines. For the piers, the piles are assumed to act individually given the single row of piles at each support location. As abutment piles are anticipated to be tipped into dense to a thick layer of dense to very dense granular materials and the pile capacity is generated predominantly through end-bearing, Caltrans does not require settlement analysis to be performed and settlement of abutment pile foundations was not analyzed for this preliminary study.

Preliminary foundation recommendations are provided herein.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 17 - July 31, 2024
Seismic-induced soil liquefaction may cause settlement of the liquefiable and overlying soil layers. For the pile foundations, the movement may influence the axial load distribution in the piles, including negative skin friction/downdrag. Pile design presented herein incorporates the recommendations of the Liquefaction-Induced Downdrag module of the Caltrans Geotechnical Manual.

Pier pile foundations will penetrate through overlying potentially liquefiable soils to bear within dense to very dense and very stiff to hard alluvial soil. Per Caltrans design guidelines, abutment piles are not designed for Extreme Limit State loading conditions.

Preliminary design pile tip elevations for the piers shown below have been lowered by two feet below the controlling design tip elevation to account for the bottom portion of the pile that cannot be tested using gamma-gamma testing (untested concrete zone) per the recommendations of the Caltrans Castin-Drilled-Hole (CIDH) Pile Foundations module.

CIDH concrete piles will develop their support from side frictional resistance for the Service and Strength Limit States and from both side frictional resistance and end bearing for the Extreme Limit State. Tables 13.1A through 13.1C summarize the preliminary foundation design loads and recommended tip elevations. Calculations are presented in Appendix B. The pile tip elevations for the piers extend below the limits of the previous geotechnical investigations at the site and we assume similar soil conditions extend to the depths of the proposed pile tips.

TABLE 13.1A

PRELIMINARY PILE FOUNDATION DESIGN DATA TABLE
Support
No.

Pile
Type
Finished
Grade
Elevation
(feet)
Cut-off
Elevation
(feet)
Pile Cap Size
(feet)
Permissible
Settlement
under Service
Load
(inches)
Number of
Piles per
Support B L
Abut 1 24” dia. PP 25.0 20.0 14 94 1.0 30
Piers 96” CIDH -6.0 to 25.0
(varies)
-16.0 to 20.0
(varies) N/A N/A 1.0 4 to 6 (varies)
Abut 21 24” dia. PP 25.0 20.0 14 94 1.0 30
Note: N/A = not applicable.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 18 - July 31, 2024
TABLE 13.1B

PRELIMINARY PILE FOUNDATION FACTORED DESIGN LOADS
Support
No.

Service-I Limit State
(kips)
Strength/Construction Limit State
(Controlling Group, kips)
Extreme Event Limit State
(Controlling Group, kips)
Total
Load Per
Support
/ Column
Permanent
Loads Per
Support /
Column
Compression Tension Compression Tension
Per
Support
Max. Per
Pile
Per
Support
Max. Per
Pile
Per
Support
Max. Per
Pile
Per
Support
Max. Per
Pile
Abut 1 3,150 2,700 4,725 210 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Piers 2,400 1,800 3,600 3,600 0 0 2,700 2,700 0 0
Abut 21 3,150 2,700 4,725 210 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Note: N/A = not applicable.

TABLE 13.1C

PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Support
Location
Pile
Type
Cut-off
Elevation
(feet)
Required Nominal Resistance
(kips) Preliminary
Design Tip
Elevations
(feet)2,3,5
Preliminary
Tip Elevation
(feet)4,6
Strength / Construction Extreme Event
Comp.
(φqs=0.7, φqp=0.7)1
Tension
(φqs=0.7)
Comp.
(φqs=1.0, φqp=1.0)
Tension
(φqs=1.0)
Abut 1 24”
dia. PP 20.0 300 0 N/A 0
-31 (a-I)
N/A (b-I)
N/A (a-II)
N/A (b-II)
N/A (c)
N/A (d)
-31
Piers 96”
CIDH
-16.0 to

20.0 (varies)
5,150 0 2,700 0
-127 (a-I)
N/A (b-I)
-85 (a-II)
N/A (b-II)
-58 (a-III)
N/A (c)
N/A (d)
-129
Abut 21 24”
dia. PP 20.0 300 0 N/A N/A
-31 (a-I)
N/A (b-I)
N/A (a-II)
N/A (b-II)
N/A (c)
N/A (d)
-31
Notes:

1. Resistance factor φqs is for skin friction and φqp is for end bearing.

2. Design tip elevations are controlled by: (a-I) Compression (Strength Limit), (b-I) Tension (Strength Limit), (a-II) Compression (Extreme Event-During Earthquake), (a-III) Compression (Extreme Event-Post Earthquake/Downdrag), (b-II) Tension (Extreme Event), (c) Settlement, and (d) Lateral.

3. Design tip elevation for lateral load was provided by the structural engineer.

4. The specified tip elevation shall not be raised above the design tip elevations for tension, lateral, and tolerable settlement.

5. N/A = not applicable or not available.

6. For CIDH piles, the pile tip elevation has been lowered 2 feet to account for the bottom portion of the pile that cannot be tested using gamma-gamma testing.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 19 - July 31, 2024
Settlement of piles imposing the design axial load is expected to be less than ½ inch. Settlements should be essentially complete shortly after completion of the bridge superstructure.

Lateral pile analysis will be performed by the structural engineer. Soil parameters for lateral pile analysis will be provided in the FR following our field investigation and laboratory testing for this project.

13.1.1 Special Considerations for Driven Piles
Driven piles should be constructed in accordance with the requirements of Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 49-2.

Due to the presence of hard/very dense soil layers, difficult driving conditions may be encountered prior to reaching the specified tip elevations. The contractor should have all equipment available onsite to install the piles to the design tip elevation. For this project, jetting or vibrating of piles is not an allowable method of pile installation.

13.1.2 Driven Pile Acceptance Criteria
The contractor should prepare and submit a complete Driving System Submittal per Caltrans’ Standard Specifications Section 49-2.01A(3)(b) prior to construction.

Static or dynamic pile load testing to evaluate driven pile axial capacity is not considered necessary.

Driven pile acceptance criteria should be based on the criteria set forth in Section 49-2.01A(4)(c) of Caltrans’ Standard Specifications. The piles must be driven to at least nominal driving resistance and specified tip elevations shown on project plans. Specifically, within the last foot of pile driving, a formula correlating the installation hammer blows and manufacturer’s hammer energy rating to the nominal driving resistance is required for driven pile field acceptance.

Piles that demonstrate “refusal” as much as 3 feet above specified tip elevation may be accepted without review/consultation. Acceptance of piles meeting formula bearing at levels higher than this should be made only on the basis of specific review by Geocon. Driving “refusal” can be defined as piles achieving 1½ times the nominal resistance in compression.

Piles that do not attain the required nominal driving resistance at the specified tip may be considered acceptable with formula bearing on redrive after a minimum 24-hour “set period.” Depending on the soil conditions at the pile location, a longer set period may result in a higher driving resistance during redrive. If there is more than one “soft” pile, then Geocon will designate which pile(s) is/are to be redriven. Do not use a cold hammer for redriving.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 20 - July 31, 2024
If the nominal driving resistance is attained for the pile designated to be redriven, the remaining piles in that footing are considered satisfactory and further driving will not be required. If redriving the designated pile demonstrates that the nominal driving resistance has not been attained, redrive all “soft” piles in the footing until the nominal driving resistance is attained.

13.1.3 Special Considerations for CIDH Concrete Piles
Pile construction should conform to the requirements of Caltrans’ Standard Specifications Section 49, including the preparation and submittal of a complete Pile Installation Plan per Section 49-3.02A(3)(b) by the contractor prior to construction.

Groundwater/seepage will be encountered within the foundation construction depths. Zones of gravel and cobbles have been noted in Unit 3 soils (Section 7.3.2) and may be present in other soil units. CIDH concrete pile installation will require using the wet construction methods (including the installation of PVC inspection pipes for acceptance testing) and the use of temporary casing will be required. Wet construction methods may require concrete placement under slurry. The contractor should review subsurface conditions and select the appropriate wet construction methods. Geocon should be contacted if permanent casing is proposed, since the geotechnical capacity may be affected.

The standard specification that allows the contractor to revise specified pile tip elevations is intended for driven piles only. Tip elevation revision is not allowed for drilled shafts. An engineered length for skin friction resistance primarily controls the specified CIDH pile depth, and the drilling process has no inherent measurement (analogous to blow count) to verify the resistance.

A Geocon representative should observe all CIDH pile excavations prior to placing reinforcing steel or concrete. If unanticipated soil conditions are encountered, foundation modifications may be required.

13.2 Retaining Walls/Wingwalls
Table 13.2 summarizes our preliminary lateral earth pressure recommendations in terms of equivalent fluid pressure (EFP) for design.

TABLE 13.2

PRELIMINARY LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES
Condition Equivalent Fluid Density
Active 35 pcf
At-rest 55 pcf
Seismic Increment 10 pcf
Note: pcf = pounds per cubic foot
Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 21 - July 31, 2024
Unrestrained walls should be designed using the active case. Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.001H (where H is the height of the wall). Walls restrained from movement should be designed using the at-rest case. The above soil pressures assume level backfill under drained conditions within an area bounded by the wall and a 1:1 plane extending upward from the base of the wall.

To resist lateral movement of retaining wall foundations, a passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid density of 350 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) may be used for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly compacted engineered fill soils or undisturbed natural soil. This passive pressure is based on the assumption that a horizontal surface extends at least 5 feet or three times the depth of the footing or shear key, whichever is greater, beyond the face of the retaining wall foundation. If sloping ground is present in front of footings, a reduced passive resistance will apply. We should be contacted if this condition exists. A friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used for resistance to sliding between soil and concrete. Combined passive resistance and friction may be utilized for design provided that the passive resistance is reduced by 50%.

Backfill soil placed behind walls and wing walls should be primarily granular in nature and conform to Caltrans requirements for structure backfill (Standard Specifications Section 19-3.02). All structure backfill should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum density as determined by CTM 216.

Walls should have a back-drainage system similar to Caltrans’ Revised Standard Plan RSP B0-3, Bridge Detail 3-1 or an approved geocomposite chimney type drain material. The back-drainage system should provide positive drainage to daylight and be maintained such that it does not clog with debris and allow a buildup of hydrostatic pressure.

13.3 Embankment and Approach Fill Earthwork
From a geotechnical perspective, embankments and fill slopes may be constructed at inclinations of 2:1 or flatter. Embankments constructed in accordance with Caltrans requirements should possess adequate factor of safety against slope instability. Consideration should be given to the use of slope paving, rip-rap, or other surface treatments to minimize surficial erosion until adequate erosion-resistant vegetation can become established. All roadway drainage should be directed to appropriate collection and discharge facilities to prevent run-off from flowing over the tops of slopes.

Based on the field explorations and experience in the area, soil generated from onsite and local excavations are likely suitable for use as embankment and general fill. However, some screening and selection may be required depending on excavation location and intended use. For example, retaining wall (structure) backfill may require the use of primarily granular (sandy) soil rather than silty or clayey Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 22 - July 31, 2024
soil. Similarly, select, low-expansive soil may be required within specific portions of the bridge approach embankments, near the abutments. All grading should be performed in conformance with Section 19 of Caltrans’ Standard Specifications or equivalent.

Backfill placed within the full width of the embankment and within 150 feet of the abutment is considered structure backfill. All structure backfill should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM D1557. All compaction on the project should be based on this test method. All other backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction.

Structural fill should be compacted in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches (loose thickness) and brought to final design elevations. Each lift should be moisture-conditioned and compacted. New fill should be benched into existing embankment fill as the fill is placed. Benches should extend at least 3 feet laterally into the existing embankment fill.

New embankments and roadway areas will be supported on primarily very loose to medium dense granular soils and/or soft to stiff cohesive soils that will experience settlement as fill is placed. Minor surface settlement may occur primarily as a result of compression within the new fill itself. Settlement magnitudes and time durations will need to be estimated once a site-specific field investigation and laboratory testing program is performed. Per Caltrans (1959), consolidation tests indicate that clayey silt soils may consolidate up to 2 feet with up to 30 feet of few fill embankment construction; however, no settlement duration was provided. New fill should be placed as soon as practical to allow settlement to occur prior to construction of overlying pavement sections.

13.3.1 Materials for Fill
Excavated soil generated from cut operations at the site are suitable for use as general fill in structural areas provided they are examined and selectively placed during grading in accordance with the following recommendations:
• Deleterious material, material with greater than 3% organics, and debris should be exported from the site and not incorporated into structural fill. We anticipate limited quantities of these materials (primarily organics).
• Backfill placed behind retaining walls should consist of “structure backfill” meeting Section 19-3.02B of Caltrans’ Standard Specifications. In addition to the criteria shown in Section 19-3.02B, structure backfill should have a “very low” to “low” expansion potential (Expansion Index of 50 or less), a Liquid Limit less than 50, and a Plasticity Index of 15 or less.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 23 - July 31, 2024
• Import fill material should be primarily granular with a “very low” to “low” expansion potential (Expansion Index less than 50), a Liquid Limit less than 50, Plasticity Index of 15 or less, be free of organic material and construction debris, and not contain rock larger than 6 inches in greatest dimension.
• Environmental characteristics and corrosion potential of import soil materials should also be considered. Proposed import materials should be sampled, tested, and approved by Geocon prior to its transportation to the site.

13.3.2 Fill Area Preparation and Fill Placement
Areas to be developed should be cleared and stripped of existing structures/pavements, obstructions, trees, bushes, grass, roots, and the upper few inches of soil containing organic debris. Soils/organics removed by stripping can be transported offsite or stockpiled for use in landscaping. Existing drainage and utility lines or other existing subsurface structures that are not to be utilized, if any, should be removed, destroyed or abandoned in compliance with applicable regulations.

In general, all loose, soft, or wet surficial soil in the areas planned to receive new improvements or fill materials should be removed to expose competent materials. The actual removal depth is dependent upon the depth to competent materials.

All earthwork, grading, and engineered fill placement and relative compaction testing for new fill should conform per Caltrans’ Standard Specifications, Section 19. New embankment fill placed on sloping ground and adjacent to existing embankments/slopes should be keyed and benched in accordance with Caltrans’ Standard Specifications. Ponding or jetting of backfill should not be permitted.

14.0 GENERAL NOTES TO DESIGNER
This preliminary report has been prepared for project planning purposes only. Site-specific subsurface investigation and geotechnical laboratory testing will be required for project design. This report is prepared based on the currently available project information including the proposed structures and foundations described herein. Geocon must be contacted for review and possible revised recommendations if the proposed structures and foundations are changed.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 24 - July 31, 2024

15.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

15.1 Construction Advisories
Traffic control with roadway, lane, and shoulder closures and detours are anticipated during construction. In addition, there are overhead and underground utilities along or near the proposed bridge alignment. The Contractor should verify these utility conditions and plan the construction activities accordingly.

Commercial structures exist immediately adjacent and residential structures within approximately 200 feet of the proposed driven pile foundation locations. The impact of noise and vibration due to pile driving may need to be mitigated by limitation on hours of the day for driving piles. The recommendations of the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Guidance Manual, including Chapter 9 (General Procedures for Addressing Vibration Issues) should be followed. Evaluation for specific pile driving equipment can be performed once the contractor completes their Driving System Submittal.

15.2 Construction Considerations that Influence Specifications All grading should be performed in conformance with Section 19 of Caltrans’ Standard Specifications or equivalent. Backfill placed behind retaining walls should have a very low to low expansion potential.

The extent and placement of the low-expansive soils should conform to Caltrans’ Geotechnical Manual, Embankments (December 2014) Figure 1. Quality assurance during construction should conform to Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 6-2.01A, including the use of the CTM 216 test method for relative compaction testing.

The Contractor should verify the existing utility line conditions. These areas should not be used for stockpiling of construction materials. Any conflicts should be reviewed prior to construction.

15.3 Construction Monitoring and Instrumentation
Site grading, footing excavations, pile excavation and driving activities, removal of any unsuitable soils or oversize material, and replacement and compaction of backfill and subgrade should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record. Faces of cut slopes in alluvial materials should be observed by an engineering geologist for indications of instability. Appropriate field tests should be conducted to provide quality control, quality assurance for structural fills and related earthwork elements.

The Contractor should execute a monitoring program for structures in proximity to any deep excavations so that appropriate modifications to the excavation/shoring system and/or foundation type are implemented to minimize the surface deflection or structure damage in a timely manner.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 25 - July 31, 2024

16.0 DISCLAIMER AND CONTACT INFORMATION
The preliminary recommendations contained in this report are provided for project feasibility analysis only and are based on specific project information regarding structure type, location, and design loads that have been provided by Dokken Engineering and on existing geotechnical data in the general project vicinity. A site-specific geotechnical investigation including laboratory testing will be required in order to provide design-level recommendations for the project.

Any questions regarding the above recommendations should be directed to the Rancho Cordova Office of Geocon at 916-852-9118.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 26 - July 31, 2024

17.0 CLOSURE

17.1 Foundation and Grading Plan Review
Geocon should review the grading plans and foundation plans as project design progresses to determine whether additional analysis and/or recommendations are required.

17.2 Limitations and Uniformity of Conditions
The preliminary recommendations of this report are based on a review of existing geotechnical information and will be revised following our geotechnical investigation for this project. If the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon.

Our professional services were performed in accordance with generally acceptable geotechnical engineering principles and practices in the site area at this time. No warranty is provided, express or implied.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 27 - July 31, 2024

18.0 REFERENCES

1. AASHTO and California Department of Transportation, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 2017 (Eighth Edition) with California Amendments (AASHTO-CA BDS-6), December 2023.

2. California Department of Transportation, ARS Online V3.1.0, https://arsonline.dot.ca.gov/index.php?, accessed June 11, 2024.

3. California Department of Transportation, Bridge Design Specifications, Section 4 – Foundations, November 2003.

4. California Department of Transportation, Bridge Design Specifications, Section 5 – Retaining Walls, August 2004.

5. California Department of Transportation, Corrosion Guidelines, Version 3.2, May 2021.

6. California Department of Transportation, Geotechnical Manual, latest version of the individual sections.

7. California Department of Transportation, Memo to Designers 3-1, Deep Foundations, June 2014.

8. California Department of Transportation, Seismic Design Criteria, version 2.0, April 2019.

9. California Department of Transportation, Soil and Rock Logging, Classification, and Presentation Manual, December 2022.

10. California Department of Transportation, 2023, Standard Plans.

11. California Department of Transportation, 2023, Standard Specifications.

12. California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, April 2020.

13. California Department of Water Resources, geologic mapping from the Flood Emergency Response Information Exchange (FERIX), undated.

14. Department of Water Resources, Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations Program, June 2008.

15. Dokken Engineering, General Plan, Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study, undated.

16. Dokken Engineering, Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study, Preliminary Hydraulic Study Report, July 2024.

17. Geocon Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical Investigation, Township 9 – Parcels 8 and 15A, Sacramento, California, Project No. S9498-05-11, December 2014.

18. Geocon Consultants, Inc., Geotechnical Investigation, Township 9 – Seven Parcels, North Side of Richards Blvd between 5th and 7th Streets, Sacramento, California, Project No. S9498-05-18, September 16, 2020.

Truxel Road Bridge
Preliminary Foundation Report
Geocon Project No. S2815-05-01 - 28 - July 31, 2024

19. Geocon Consultants, Inc., Additional Geotechnical Investigation Summary, Township 9 – Phase A1/A3, 7th Street and Chill Avenue, Sacramento, California, Project No. S9498-05-20, September 26, 2022.

20. California Department of Transportation, Structure Preliminary Geotechnical Report for American River Bridge (Widen), File No. 03-Sac-5-PM 24.82, Bridge No. 24-0068, July 10, 2020.

21. State of California, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways (Caltrans), Materials and Research Department, Intra-Division Correspondence, III-Sac-238-B, Beltline Freeway, August 4, 1959.

22. Unpublished reports, aerial photographs, and maps on file with Geocon Incorporated.

Sacramento
River

PROJECT

ALIGNMENT
Southside
Park
Capital
Park
Discovery
Park
American River

SACRAMENTO
WEST

SACRAMENTO

RI VERF RONT
S T
FI FTH
S T
C S T
A S T

CUMMINS WAY

RI SKE L N

SACRAMENTO AVE
3R
D
S
T
4T
H
S
T

ANDREW S T
5T
H
S
T
D
O
U
GLAS
S T

RI VER CRES T DR
B ST
S OUTH
RI VER
RD

SOULE S T

L I GHTHOUS E DR
E S T
D ST
G ST
F ST

FOUNTAI N D R

W EST CA P ITOL AVE
2N D S T

TOW ER BRIDGE GTW Y
I ST
ELDER
D
R
COUNTY
R
D 136
10TH
ST
11TH
ST
P ST
9TH
ST
Q ST
8TH
ST
16TH
ST
15TH
ST

CAPITOL MALL
I ST
H ST

HISTORIC ALY
14TH
ST
N ST
L ST
J ST
G ST
12TH
ST

FAT ALY

LIESTAL ALY
17TH
ST
F ST
18TH
ST
N C ST
E ST
19TH
ST
T ST
5TH
ST
D ST

GARDEN HW Y
N 16TH
ST
N B ST

DEMOCRACY ALY
24TH
ST
3RD
ST
NO
RTHG

ATE BLV
D
25TH
ST

GATEWAY OAKS DR
O
R S
ST
T

RAI LYARDS BLVD
4TH
ST

RICHARDS BLVD
S ST

CAPITOL AVE

TRUXEL RD
2ND
S T
20TH
ST
F
RONT
S
T

CHINATOWN ALY

GOVERNMENT ALY
23RD
ST
W S T
N 12TH ST
26TH
ST

JAZZ ALY

EGGPLANT ALY
A

MERICAN AV
W E

EL CAMI NO AVE
K ST

IMPROV ALY

OPERA ALY

MATSUI ALY

I STREET BRG

AZUSA ST
21ST
ST
22ND
ST
U ST
13TH
ST
C ST

NEIGHBORS ALY
7TH
ST
A ST
6TH
S
T

DEL PASO BLVD

BERCUT DR

ATHENA AVE
N
6TH S T
DOS
RIOS
ST
N
O
R
T
H

VI EW DR

RI VER PLAZA DR
M

ORELL S T
N
7TH
ST
N
5TH
ST

HAWK AVE

SOLONS ALY

QUILL ALY
V ST

RICE ALY

KAYAK ALY
N D ST

HARDING AVE

WILSON AVE

RI VERINE WAY
N 10TH
ST
JIBBO
O
M ST

VINE S T

BANNON ST
N
3RD
ST

CIRIC AVE VENTURE OAKS
WAY
CONSULTANTS, INC.
3160 GOL D VA L L E Y DR - S UI T E 800 - RA NCH O COR DOVA, CA 95 742 PHON E 916. 852.9 118 - FAX 916 .852 .9132
S2815-05-01 July 2024 Figure 1

VICINITY MAP
Sacramento,
California
Truxel Road Bridge
GEOCON 7/18/2024 USER Brown M PATH C:\Users\Brown M\OneDrive - Geocon, Inc\GIS_Graphics\Projects\S2815-05-01_Truxel_Road_Bridge\01_ReportMaps\Figure_1_Vicinity_Map.mxd 0 2,000
Scale in Feet
N

SACRAMENTO
SAN

FRANCISCO

LOS ANGELES

SAN DIEGO

PROJECT

LOCATION

REDDING

BAKERSFIELD
FRESNO
Steelhead Creek
American River
PIER 20
American River Bridge
Explorations Area

PROPOSED
BRIDGE
Sacramento River
B2
B1
CPT1
CPT2
CPT5
CPT 2020-1
CPT 2020-2
WCSBAR_001B
WCSBAR_002M
D-1
HINGE
PIER 9
PIER 5
PIER 6
PIER 10
PIER 14
PIER 16
PIER 2
PIER 7
PIER 8
PIER 11
PIER 18
HINGE
PIER 13
PIER 12
PIER 15
PIER 17
PIER 3
PIER 19
PIER 4
1 2
3 4
115+00
6 7
8 9
120+00
1 2
3 4
125+00
6 7
8 9
130+00
1 2
3 4
135+00
6 7
8 9
140+00
1 2
3 GARDEN HWY
N
5TH
ST

MI L L CREEK DR
N
7TH
ST

RICHARDS BLVD

SEQUOI A

PACI FI C
BLVD

CANNERY AVE

BERCUT DR

R IVERINE WAY

S ANDCAS TLE WAY
CHI LL
AVE
N
6TH
ST

H ELMSMAN WAY

CAPI TAL PARK
DR
VI NE
S T

SCALEHOUSE
ST

TOWNSHIP NINE AVE

NATOMAS PARK DR

JIBBOOM ST

AZUSA ST

TRUXEL RD

MOS S Y BANK DR

CR E EKSI DE OAKS DR
N
3RD
ST
CONSULTANTS, INC.
0 500
Scale in Feet
3160 GOL D VA L L E Y DR - S UI T E 80 0 - RA NCH O C ORDOVA , CA 9 5742 PHON E 9 16. 852.9 118 - FA X 91 6.852 . 913 2
S2815-05-01 July 2024 Figure 2

SITE PLAN
Sacramento,
California
Truxel Road Bridge
Legend
Approximate Exploratory Boring Location
(Geocon 2022)
Approximate Cone Penetration Test Location
(Geocon 2020)
Approximate Cone Penetration Test Location
(Geocon 2014)
Approximate Boring Location
(DWR 2008)
Approximate Boring Location
(Caltrans 1959)
American River Bridge Explorations, 1963-64
(See Appendix A, for reference only)
GEOCON 7/30/2024 USER Brown M PATH C:\Users\Brown M\OneDrive - Geocon, Inc\GIS_Graphics\Projects\S2815-05-01_Truxel_Road_Bridge\01_ReportMaps\Figure_2_Site_Plan.mxd B2
CPT2020-2
WCSBAR_002M
CPT5
D-1
Proposed Bridge Design Drawing by Dokken Engineering

PROJECT

ALIGNMENT
3RD ST
C S T

ANDREW S T
A ST

RE GATTA LN
6TH S T
4TH ST

CUMMI NS WAY
5TH ST
B ST 8TH ST

REUTER DR

WATERC OLOR LN

FOUNTAI N DR
2ND ST

JAMES S T

W I LL I AM S T

LI GHTH OUS E DR

ELIZABETH ST

CALIFORNIA ST

WELLAND WAY
COUNTY RD 136
Ra
Rb
W 1937
Ha (Agr)
Hn
Hob
Rch Rcs
L
Hcs
Rcs
Ha (Urb)
Ha (Agr)
W 1937
Rch
Rch
Ha (Urb)
Hcs
Rcs
Rcs
Rcs
Rdc
Hob
Rb
Rms
Hcs
Hob
Rch 1873
ML
ML
W 1854 RR
RR
Ra
Rch
Rcs
Rcs
BP
Rcs
Rch
1854
Rch
Rpb
BP
Rch
ML
Rcs
Rcs Hs
Ra
Ra
Hch
Ra
Hch
W 1937
Hch
R Rb b
Rb
Rb
Rb Rb
Rb
Rob
Rch 1854
Rch
Rch
Rb
Rdc
Rb Hch
Ra
Ra
Ra
Ra Rch
Ra
W 1937
L
Hfy
Rob
Hob Rob
Rob
Rob
Rob
Rch
Hcs
Hn
Hob
Rch
Hob
Hob
Rch
Ra
Rob Rob
Hob
Hcs
Rob
Hob
Hch
Ra
Ra
Ra
Hch
Rob
Rb
Ra
Ra
Hch
Hch
BP
Ra
Rpb
Rch
1854
L
Hs
Ra
R
Ra
Hch
Rb
Rb
W 1937
Rcs
Ra
Ra

S TONECREEK
D
R
N C ST

GARDEN HWY
N 16TH
ST
N B ST

NORMINGTON DR

TRUXEL RD

RAI LYARDS BLVD

NORCROSS
DR

RICHARDS BLVD
5TH ST

S EAMI S T DR

W EL CAMI NO AVE

MOREL L CT
N 12TH S T
ERI N
DR
N 18TH
ST

DORINE WAY

NORTHGATE BLVD

AZUSA ST

CANNERY AVE

WATERWHEEL DR
A ST

NORCUT CT

NORGARD CT
BERCUT
DR

THELMA AVE

NORTHGLEN ST

ATHENA AVE

CHI LL AVE

PI PEVI NE ST

HAGGIN AVE
N 6TH S T

GATEWAY OAKS
DR
DOS
RIOS
ST

NORTHVIEW DR

BRUNSWI CK WAY

NORBERT WAY

MORELL ST
N 7TH
ST

FAIRWEATHER
DR

TOWNSHIP NINE AVE
N 5TH
ST

HAWK AVE

JIBBOOM ST
N D ST

SANDCASTLE WAY

MI LLCREEK DR
AHERN
ST
12TH
ST

AZEVEDO DR

S EQUOI A PACI FIC
BLVD
7TH
S T

RI VERI NE WAY

WATER ST

NATOMAS PARK DR

RI VER PLAZA DR
6TH
ST

RINGLET AVE
N 10TH
ST

NORTHEY DR

DREHER ST

BASLER ST

MENDEL WAY

THORNTON AVE

VINE ST

WILSON AVE

NORTHFIELD DR
S
UN
BEAM
AVE

BANNON ST

CAPI TOL OAKS
DR
N 3RD
ST

CIRIC AVE

GREENLEA AVE
M

OS S Y BANK DR

S UMMI T TUNNEL AVE

VENTURE OAKS
WAY
CONSULTANTS, INC.
3160 GOL D VA L L E Y DR - S UI T E 80 0 - RA NCH O C ORDOVA , CA 9 5742 PHON E 9 16. 852.9 118 - FA X 91 6 .852 .9 13 2
S2815-05-01 July 2024 Figure 3

GEOLOGIC MAP
Sacramento,
California
Truxel Road Bridge
GEOCON 7/18/2024 USER Brown M PATH C:\Users\Brown M\OneDrive - Geocon, Inc\GIS_Graphics\Projects\S2815-05-01_Truxel_Road_Bridge\01_ReportMaps\Figure_3_Geologic_Map.mxd 0 1,000
Scale in Feet
N
Unit Explanation
Alluvial Deposits
Alluvial deposits; undifferentiated
Alluvial fan deposits
Basin deposits
Borrow pit
Channel bar deposits
Channel deposits
Channel meander scroll deposits
Crevasse splay deposits
Distributary channel deposits
Levee
Made land
Marsh deposits
Overbank deposits
Point bar
Railroad embankment
Road embankment
Water
BP
Ha
Hch/Rch
Hcs/Rcs
Hfy
Hn
Hs
L
ML
R
RR
Ra
Rb
Rdc
Rms
Hob/Rob
Rpb
W
Notes:

1. R=Recent, H=Holocene, and lowercase letters represent the actual deposit type.

2. Geologic data from the CA Department of Water Resources Flood Emergency Response Informaiton Exchange (FERIX)
https://ferix.water.ca.gov/lep/
ARS Data for:

Soil Profile (VS30): 213 m/s
or: 699 ft/s
Rupture Distance: R: 89.1 km
or: 55.4 mi
PGA (HPGA): 0.26 g
S2815-05-01 July 2024 Figure 4

0.10 0.00
Seismic Loading Table

0.25 0.45

0.57 0.71

0.16 0.12

0.09 0.50

0.75 1.00

0.67 The ARS curve was developed based on the USGS 2014 national Seismic Hazard Map for a 975 year return period (Hazard Model/Edition Dynamic Conterminous U.S. 2014
(Update) (V4.2.0) hazard data obtained by using ARS Online v3.1.0). Modifications for basin effects and/or near fault effects were applied, where applicable, per Appendix B of SDC v2.0 with October 2019 Interim Revisions.

SEE Design - Ground Motion Data Sheet
PGA Mean Moment
Magnitude (M) for PGA: 6.68

0.30 RECOMMENDED PRELIMINARY DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM
California
Sacramento,
Truxel Road Bridge
Truxel Road Bridge
-121.496300
Longitude, degrees

38.604300
Latitude, degrees
Period, T
(s)

5.00 4.00

3.00 2.00
Spectral Acceleration,
Sa (g)

0.74 0.26

0.46 0.20

0.0 0.1

0.2 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7

0.8 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Spectral Acceleration, Sa(g)
Period (s)
Acceleration Response Spectrum
5% Damping

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

PREVIOUS BORING LOGS, LOGS OF TEST BORINGS, AND

LABORATORY TESTING BY OTHERS















































!"





















#



$%#$&'
$%#()(
$%#*
$%#%+)(
$%#%%
$%#%()(
$%#%*
$%#,+)(
$%#,%
*
-
%,
%(
!
./0
"1/
2//"
)))
0!
/
/
3&!"&0$/4
)))
!"&0$/
50
$
/
0!/0
//"0"!5
0/!"6/
3$5782")4
/". "/
65/"/
/
!"/0

9 0/65
/01
/)8/5) 












!


"

#$
%
01
/!"1
3)6)2)4
5!"&0/


&
'
((
)

*
05&7"/0
65"/"
3:4
)))
6.&'
/
)))
"0
//"0"!5
"/"
"/0!
/60!"!5
+
%
,
;
<
(
*
-
=
>
%+
%%
%,
%;
%<
%(
%*
%-
%=
%>
,+
,%
,,
,;
,<
5! //
)
3)4
"/"
!$

+
',-

.
/
1$5
)))
!
&&66/2&
)))
7"/0
"$/
50
///
6
!"!5
!".551
!
050/

><>=#+(#,+
"57.!
>
!"!5
/?50"!5)@

+>8,+8,, 3&64
/A&!/"
/(-0











5"/B "./
5
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
.57
./0/5
!/
51
"
"./
/6!2!6
$50!
50
"0/6.
56"!5

"
"./
"/
!!6"/)
!"
!
5"
700"/
"5
$/
0/0//""! /
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
"
5"./0
56"!5

"!/)
05@/6"
5) &,&
1-1(- 05@/6"
/ *2
3
&


$

43

$


# 




#






 


# C



C


















0
/






$%#,()(
$%#,*
$%#;+)(
$%#;%
$%#;()(
$%#;*
$%#<+)(
$%#<%
$%#<*
%(
,%
%>
,-
*;
!
./0
"1/
2//"
)))
0!
/
/
3&!"&0$/4
)))
!"&0$/
50
$
/
0!/0
//"0"!5
0/!"6/
3$5782")4
/". "/
65/"/
/
!"/0

9 0/65
/01
/)8/5) 












!


"

#$
%
01
/!"1
3)6)2)4
5!"&0/


&
'
((
)

*
05&7"/0
65"/"
3:4
)))
6.&'
/
)))
"0
//"0"!5
"/"
"/0!
/60!"!5
,(
,*
,-
,=
,>
;+
;%
;,
;;
;<
;(
;*
;-
;=
;>
<+
<%
<,
<;
<<
<(
<*
<-
<=
<>
5! //
)
3)4
"/"
!$

+
',-

.
/
1$5
)))
!
&&66/2&
)))
7"/0
"$/
50
///
6
!"!5
!".551
!
050/

><>=#+(#,+
"57.!
>
!"!5
/?50"!5)@

+>8,+8,, 3&64
/A&!/"
/(-0












5"/B "./
5
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
.57
./0/5
!/
51
"
"./
/6!2!6
$50!
50
"0/6.
56"!5

"
"./
"/
!!6"/)
!"
!
5"
700"/
"5
$/
0/0//""! /
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
"
5"./0
56"!5

"!/)
05@/6"
5) &,&
1-1(- 05@/6"
/ *2
3
&


$

43

$




















0
/






# 
C

C


!
./0
"1/
2//"
)))
0!
/
/
3&!"&0$/4
)))
!"&0$/
50
$
/
0!/0
//"0"!5
0/!"6/
3$5782")4
/". "/
65/"/
/
!"/0

9 0/65
/01
/)8/5) 












!


"

#$
%
01
/!"1
3)6)2)4
5!"&0/


&
'
((
)

*
05&7"/0
65"/"
3:4
)))
6.&'
/
)))
"0
//"0"!5
"/"
"/0!
/60!"!5
(+
(%
(,
(;
(<
((
(*
(-
(=
(>
*+
*%
*,
*;
*<
*(
**
*-
*=
*>
-+
-%
-,
-;
-<
5! //
)
3)4
"/"
!$

+
',-

.
/
1$5
)))
!
&&66/2&
)))
7"/0
"$/
50
///
6
!"!5
!".551
!
050/

><>=#+(#,+
"57.!
>
!"!5
/?50"!5)@

+>8,+8,, 3&64
/A&!/"
/(-0












5"/B "./
5
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
.57
./0/5
!/
51
"
"./
/6!2!6
$50!
50
"0/6.
56"!5

"
"./
"/
!!6"/)
!"
!
5"
700"/
"5
$/
0/0//""! /
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
"
5"./0
56"!5

"!/)
05@/6"
5) &,&
1-1(- 05@/6"
/ *2
3
&


$

43

$


6#



















0
/




































.








6
!"
$%#=()(
$%#=*
$%#>+
$%#>(
=%
(+
-<8>
!
./0
"1/
2//"
)))
0!
/
/
3&!"&0$/4
)))
!"&0$/
50
$
/
0!/0
//"0"!5
0/!"6/
3$5782")4
/". "/
65/"/
/
!"/0

9 0/65
/01
/)8/5) 












!


"

#$
%
01
/!"1
3)6)2)4
5!"&0/


&
'
((
)

*
05&7"/0
65"/"
3:4
)))
6.&'
/
)))
"0
//"0"!5
"/"
"/0!
/60!"!5
-(
-*
--
-=
->
=+
=%
=,
=;
=<
=(
=*
=-
==
=>
>+
>%
>,
>;
><
>(
>*
>-
>=
>>
5! //
)
3)4
"/"
!$

+
',-

.
/
1$5
)))
!
&&66/2&
)))
7"/0
"$/
50
///
6
!"!5
!".551
!
050/

><>=#+(#,+
"57.!
>
!"!5
/?50"!5)@

+>8,+8,, 3&64
/A&!/"
/(-0











5"/B "./
5
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
.57
./0/5
!/
51
"
"./
/6!2!6
$50!
50
"0/6.
56"!5

"
"./
"/
!!6"/)
!"
!
5"
700"/
"5
$/
0/0//""! /
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
"
5"./0
56"!5

"!/)
05@/6"
5) &,&
1-1(- 05@/6"
/ *2
3
&


$

43

$




.






!"

D<)(








































$50!
"/0!"/
"
%%%)(
2//"
05&7"/0
5"
/&0/
$6'2!/
7!".
/"
6//"
05&"

6/
7!".
5!
6&""!
$%#%++)(
$%#%+(
$%#%%+
>=8%+
*=
!
./0
"1/
2//"
)))
0!
/
/
3&!"&0$/4
)))
!"&0$/
50
$
/
0!/0
//"0"!5
0/!"6/
3$5782")4
/". "/
65/"/
/
!"/0

9 0/65
/01
/)8/5) 












!


"

#$
%
01
/!"1
3)6)2)4
5!"&0/


&
'
((
)

*
05&7"/0
65"/"
3:4
)))
6.&'
/
)))
"0
//"0"!5
"/"
"/0!
/60!"!5
%++
%+%
%+,
%+;
%+<
%+(
%+*
%+-
%+=
%+>
%%+
%%%
5! //
)
3)4
"/"
!$

+
',-

.
/
1$5
)))
!
&&66/2&
)))
7"/0
"$/
50
///
6
!"!5
!".551
!
050/

><>=#+(#,+
"57.!
>
!"!5
/?50"!5)@

+>8,+8,, 3&64
/A&!/"
/(-0












5"/B "./
5
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
.57
./0/5
!/
51
"
"./
/6!2!6
$50!
50
"0/6.
56"!5

"
"./
"/
!!6"/)
!"
!
5"
700"/
"5
$/
0/0//""! /
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
"
5"./0
56"!5

"!/)
05@/6"
5) &,&
1-1(- 05@/6"
/ *2
3
&


$

43

$






















!"













!"


















#




# 




# 





$,#$&'
$,#()(
$,#*
$,#%+
$,#%+)(
$,#%%
$,#%()(
$,#%*
$,#,+)(
$,#,%
>
>
>
%+
!
./0
"1/
2//"
)))
0!
/
/
3&!"&0$/4
)))
!"&0$/
50
$
/
0!/0
//"0"!5
0/!"6/
3$5782")4
/". "/
65/"/
/
!"/0

9 0/65
/01
/)8/5) 












!


"

#$
%
01
/!"1
3)6)2)4
5!"&0/


&
(
((
)

*
05&7"/0
65"/"
3:4
)))
6.&'
/
)))
"0
//"0"!5
"/"
"/0!
/60!"!5
+
%
,
;
<
(
*
-
=
>
%+
%%
%,
%;
%<
%(
%*
%-
%=
%>
,+
,%
,,
,;
,<
5! //
)
3)4
"/"
!$

+
',-

.
/
1$5
)))
!
&&66/2&
)))
7"/0
"$/
50
///
6
!"!5
!".551
!
050/

><>=#+(#,+
"57.!
>
!"!5
/?50"!5)@

+>8,+8,, 3&64
/A&!/"
/('0











5"/B "./
5
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
.57
./0/5
!/
51
"
"./
/6!2!6
$50!
50
"0/6.
56"!5

"
"./
"/
!!6"/)
!"
!
5"
700"/
"5
$/
0/0//""! /
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
"
5"./0
56"!5

"!/)
05@/6"
5) &,&
1-1(- 05@/6"
/ *2
3
&


$

43

$


#







# 







#





# 















0
/
$,#,(
$,#;+
$,#;(
$,#<+
$,#<(
*
,
%<
=
>
!
./0
"1/
2//"
)))
0!
/
/
3&!"&0$/4
)))
!"&0$/
50
$
/
0!/0
//"0"!5
0/!"6/
3$5782")4
/". "/
65/"/
/
!"/0

9 0/65
/01
/)8/5) 












!


"

#$
%
01
/!"1
3)6)2)4
5!"&0/


&
(
((
)

*
05&7"/0
65"/"
3:4
)))
6.&'
/
)))
"0
//"0"!5
"/"
"/0!
/60!"!5
,(
,*
,-
,=
,>
;+
;%
;,
;;
;<
;(
;*
;-
;=
;>
<+
<%
<,
<;
<<
<(
<*
<-
<=
<>
5! //
)
3)4
"/"
!$

+
',-

.
/
1$5
)))
!
&&66/2&
)))
7"/0
"$/
50
///
6
!"!5
!".551
!
050/

><>=#+(#,+
"57.!
>
!"!5
/?50"!5)@

+>8,+8,, 3&64
/A&!/"
/('0











5"/B "./
5
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
.57
./0/5
!/
51
"
"./
/6!2!6
$50!
50
"0/6.
56"!5

"
"./
"/
!!6"/)
!"
!
5"
700"/
"5
$/
0/0//""! /
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
"
5"./0
56"!5

"!/)
05@/6"
5) &,&
1-1(- 05@/6"
/ *2
3
&


$

43

$














0
/
# 
C

C


# 




 C





















$,#(+
<-
!
./0
"1/
2//"
)))
0!
/
/
3&!"&0$/4
)))
!"&0$/
50
$
/
0!/0
//"0"!5
0/!"6/
3$5782")4
/". "/
65/"/
/
!"/0

9 0/65
/01
/)8/5) 












!


"

#$
%
01
/!"1
3)6)2)4
5!"&0/


&
(
((
)

*
05&7"/0
65"/"
3:4
)))
6.&'
/
)))
"0
//"0"!5
"/"
"/0!
/60!"!5
(+
(%
(,
(;
(<
((
(*
(-
(=
(>
*+
*%
*,
*;
*<
*(
**
*-
*=
*>
-+
-%
-,
-;
-<
5! //
)
3)4
"/"
!$

+
',-

.
/
1$5
)))
!
&&66/2&
)))
7"/0
"$/
50
///
6
!"!5
!".551
!
050/

><>=#+(#,+
"57.!
>
!"!5
/?50"!5)@

+>8,+8,, 3&64
/A&!/"
/('0











5"/B "./
5
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
.57
./0/5
!/
51
"
"./
/6!2!6
$50!
50
"0/6.
56"!5

"
"./
"/
!!6"/)
!"
!
5"
700"/
"5
$/
0/0//""! /
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
"
5"./0
56"!5

"!/)
05@/6"
5) &,&
1-1(- 05@/6"
/ *2
3
&


$

43

$
















0
/
.









!"




D<)(























$50!
"/0!"/
"
=*)(
2//"
05&7"/0
/65&"/0/
"
,,
2//"
$6'2!/
7!".
/"
6//"
05&"

6/
7!".
5!
6&""!
$,#=()(
$,#=* =,
!
./0
"1/
2//"
)))
0!
/
/
3&!"&0$/4
)))
!"&0$/
50
$
/
0!/0
//"0"!5
0/!"6/
3$5782")4
/". "/
65/"/
/
!"/0

9 0/65
/01
/)8/5) 












!


"

#$
%
01
/!"1
3)6)2)4
5!"&0/


&
(
((
)

*
05&7"/0
65"/"
3:4
)))
6.&'
/
)))
"0
//"0"!5
"/"
"/0!
/60!"!5
-(
-*
--
-=
->
=+
=%
=,
=;
=<
=(
=*
5! //
)
3)4
"/"
!$

+
',-

.
/
1$5
)))
!
&&66/2&
)))
7"/0
"$/
50
///
6
!"!5
!".551
!
050/

><>=#+(#,+
"57.!
>
!"!5
/?50"!5)@

+>8,+8,, 3&64
/A&!/"
/('0










5"/B "./
5
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
.57
./0/5
!/
51
"
"./
/6!2!6
$50!
50
"0/6.
56"!5

"
"./
"/
!!6"/)
!"
!
5"
700"/
"5
$/
0/0//""! /
52
&$&026/
65!"!5
"
5"./0
56"!5

"!/)
05@/6"
5) &,&
1-1(- 05@/6"
/ *2
3
&


$

43

$

Cone Size 10cm squared Soil Beha *Soil behavior Referance vior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
0 300
TIP
TSF 0 8

FRICTION
TSF 0 8
Fs/Qt
% 0 100
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - clayey silt to silty clay
6 - sandy silt to clayey silt
7 - silty sand to sandy silt
8 - sand to silty sand
9 - sand
10 - gravelly sand to sand
11 - very stiff fine grained (*)
12 - sand to clayey sand (*)

CPT DATA
DEPTH(ft)SOILBE
HAVIOR
TYP
E
CPT1
Township Nine – Parcels 8 and 15A
Sacramento,
California
S9498-05-11 December 2014 Figure A1 P H O N E 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 11 8 – FA X 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 1 3 2 3160 GOLD VALLEY D R – S U I T E 8 0 0 – R A N C H O C O R D O VA , C A 9 5 7 4 2 Depth 5.413ft
Ref*
Delay 11.87ms
Velocity*
Depth 10.007ft
Ref 5.413ft
Delay 19.30ms
Velocity 488.39ft/s
Depth 14.928ft
Ref 10.007ft
Delay 27.19ms
Velocity 563.29ft/s
Depth 20.013ft
Ref 14.928ft
Delay 35.47ms
Velocity 581.94ft/s
Depth 25.262ft
Ref 20.013ft
Delay 43.75ms
Velocity 613.63ft/s
Depth 30.020ft
Ref 25.262ft
Delay 52.11ms
Velocity 556.77ft/s
Depth 34.941ft
Ref 30.020ft
Delay 60.23ms
Velocity 596.14ft/s
Depth 40.026ft
Ref 34.941ft
Delay 67.26ms
Velocity 714.65ft/s
Depth 44.948ft
Ref 40.026ft
Delay 74.06ms
Velocity 717.34ft/s
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (ms)
Hammer to Rod String Distance 1.778 (m)
* = Not Determined
Shear Wave
Velocity Waveforms –
CPT1
Township Nine – Parcels 8 and 15A
Sacramento,
California
S9498-05-11 December 2014 Figure A6 P H O N E 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 11 8 – FA X 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 1 3 2 3160 GOLD VALLEY D R – S U I T E 8 0 0 – R A N C H O C O R D O VA , C A 9 5 7 4 2 Cone Size 10cm squared Soil Beha *Soil behavior Referance vior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
0 300
TIP
TSF 0 8

FRICTION
TSF 0 8
Fs/Qt
% 0 100
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - clayey silt to silty clay
6 - sandy silt to clayey silt
7 - silty sand to sandy silt
8 - sand to silty sand
9 - sand
10 - gravelly sand to sand
11 - very stiff fine grained (*)
12 - sand to clayey sand (*)

CPT DATA
DEPTH(ft)SOILBE
HAVIOR
TYP
E
CPT2
Township Nine – Parcels 8 and 15A
Sacramento,
California
S9498-05-11 December 2014 Figure A2 P H O N E 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 11 8 – FA X 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 1 3 2 3160 GOLD VALLEY D R – S U I T E 8 0 0 – R A N C H O C O R D O VA , C A 9 5 7 4 2 Cone Size 10cm squared Soil Beha *Soil behavior Referance vior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
0 300
TIP
TSF 0 8

FRICTION
TSF 0 8
Fs/Qt
% 0 100
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - clayey silt to silty clay
6 - sandy silt to clayey silt
7 - silty sand to sandy silt
8 - sand to silty sand
9 - sand
10 - gravelly sand to sand
11 - very stiff fine grained (*)
12 - sand to clayey sand (*)

CPT DATA
DEPTH(ft)SOILBE
HAVIOR
TYP
E
CPT5
Township Nine – Parcels 8 and 15A
Sacramento,
California
S9498-05-11 December 2014 Figure A5 P H O N E 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 11 8 – FA X 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 1 3 2 3160 GOLD VALLEY D R – S U I T E 8 0 0 – R A N C H O C O R D O VA , C A 9 5 7 4 2 Depth 10.007ft
Ref*
Delay 15.70ms
Velocity*
Depth 14.928ft
Ref 10.007ft
Delay 20.39ms
Velocity 948.20ft/s
Depth 20.177ft
Ref 14.928ft
Delay 27.81ms
Velocity 670.54ft/s
Depth 24.934ft
Ref 20.177ft
Delay 34.69ms
Velocity 669.74ft/s
Depth 35.925ft
Ref 24.934ft
Delay 52.03ms
Velocity 622.05ft/s
Depth 40.026ft
Ref 35.925ft
Delay 57.50ms
Velocity 741.24ft/s
Depth 44.948ft
Ref 40.026ft
Delay 64.37ms
Velocity 709.19ft/s
Depth 50.033ft
Ref 44.948ft
Delay 70.93ms
Velocity 769.16ft/s
Depth 55.610ft
Ref 50.033ft
Delay 78.12ms
Velocity 771.34ft/s
Depth 60.039ft
Ref 55.610ft
Delay 83.67ms
Velocity 794.50ft/s
Depth 65.125ft
Ref 60.039ft
Delay 90.31ms
Velocity 762.52ft/s
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (ms)
Hammer to Rod String Distance 1.778 (m)
* = Not Determined
Shear Wave
Velocity Waveforms –
CPT5
Township Nine – Parcels 8 and 15A
Sacramento,
California
S9498-05-11 December 2014 Figure A7 P H O N E 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 11 8 – FA X 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 1 3 2 3160 GOLD VALLEY D R – S U I T E 8 0 0 – R A N C H O C O R D O VA , C A 9 5 7 4 2 Net Area Ratio .8
Cone Size 15cm squared Soil Beha *Soil behavior Referance vior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0 500
TIP
TSF 0 6

FRICTION
TSF 0 10
Fs/Qt
% 0 250
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - clayey silt to silty clay
6 - sandy silt to clayey silt
7 - silty sand to sandy silt
8 - sand to silty sand
9 - sand
10 - gravelly sand to sand
11 - very stiff fine grained (*)
12 - sand to clayey sand (*)

CPT DATA
DEPTH(ft)SOILBE
HAVIOR
TYP
E
CPT1
Township 9 – Seven Parcels
North of Richards Boulevard between 5th and 7th Streets Sacramento, California
S9498-05-18 September 2020 Figure A1 P H O N E 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 11 8 – FA X 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 1 3 2 3160 GOLD VALLEY D R – S U I T E 8 0 0 – R A N C H O C O R D O VA , C A 9 5 7 4 2 Net Area Ratio .8
Cone Size 15cm squared Soil Beha *Soil behavior Referance vior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 0 500
TIP
TSF 0 6

FRICTION
TSF 0 10
Fs/Qt
% 0 250
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - clayey silt to silty clay
6 - sandy silt to clayey silt
7 - silty sand to sandy silt
8 - sand to silty sand
9 - sand
10 - gravelly sand to sand
11 - very stiff fine grained (*)
12 - sand to clayey sand (*)

CPT DATA
DEPTH(ft)SOILBE
HAVIOR
TYP
E
CPT2
Township 9 – Seven Parcels
North of Richards Boulevard between 5th and 7th Streets Sacramento, California
S9498-05-18 September 2020 Figure A2 P H O N E 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 11 8 – FA X 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 1 3 2 3160 GOLD VALLEY D R – S U I T E 8 0 0 – R A N C H O C O R D O VA , C A 9 5 7 4 2 Depth 4.99ft
Ref*
Arrival 9.45mS
Velocity*
Depth 10.01ft
Ref 4.99ft
Arrival 17.73mS
Velocity 471.97ft/S
Depth 15.03ft
Ref 10.01ft
Arrival 26.01mS
Velocity 547.79ft/S
Depth 20.01ft
Ref 15.03ft
Arrival 33.59mS
Velocity 623.83ft/S
Depth 26.08ft
Ref 20.01ft
Arrival 44.06mS
Velocity 561.81ft/S
Depth 30.02ft
Ref 26.08ft
Arrival 50.07mS
Velocity 640.73ft/S
Depth 35.01ft
Ref 30.02ft
Arrival 57.89mS
Velocity 628.27ft/S
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Depth 39.44ft
Ref 35.01ft
Arrival 64.29mS
Velocity 683.06ft/S
Time (mS)
Hammer to Rod String Distance (ft): 5.83
* = Not Determined
Shear Wave
Velocity Waveforms –
CPT1
Township 9 – Seven Parcels
North of Richards Boulevard between 5th and 7th Streets Sacramento, California
S9498-05-18 September 2020 Figure A4 P H O N E 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 11 8 – FA X 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 1 3 2 3160 GOLD VALLEY D R – S U I T E 8 0 0 – R A N C H O C O R D O VA , C A 9 5 7 4 2 Depth 5.09ft
Ref*
Arrival 11.80mS
Velocity*
Depth 10.27ft
Ref 5.09ft
Arrival 21.56mS
Velocity 416.94ft/S
Depth 15.19ft
Ref 10.27ft
Arrival 29.30mS
Velocity 576.90ft/S
Depth 20.01ft
Ref 15.19ft
Arrival 36.64mS
Velocity 622.90ft/S
Depth 30.02ft
Ref 20.01ft
Arrival 54.06mS
Velocity 558.83ft/S
Depth 35.01ft
Ref 30.02ft
Arrival 62.42mS
Velocity 587.17ft/S
Depth 40.03ft
Ref 35.01ft
Arrival 70.85mS
Velocity 587.87ft/S
Depth 45.01ft
Ref 40.03ft
Arrival 77.34mS
Velocity 761.95ft/S
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Depth 48.72ft
Ref 45.01ft
Arrival 80.39mS
Velocity 1207.52ft/S
Time (mS)
Hammer to Rod String Distance (ft): 5.83
* = Not Determined
Shear Wave
Velocity Waveforms –
CPT2
Township 9 – Seven Parcels
North of Richards Boulevard between 5th and 7th Streets Sacramento, California
S9498-05-18 September 2020 Figure A5 P H O N E 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 11 8 – FA X 9 1 6 . 8 5 2 . 9 1 3 2 3160 GOLD VALLEY D R – S U I T E 8 0 0 – R A N C H O C O R D O VA , C A 9 5 7 4 2 tration made wi
levation shown.

FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION

BORING PROFILE

APPROACH FILLS FOR
SACRAMENTO 8 AMERICAN RIh4ER

FREEWAY CROSSINGS
DATE DWG. NO DIST. COLJNTY ROUTE SEC SHtE.T
238 8 2 3

3.25P

1.0P
17 2
S01A_001_002B
S02A_002_003B
S03A_003_004T
Pushed Shelby
tube at 1000 psi;
tube damaged
S04A_004_006S
S05A_007_007P
S06A_010_012S
S07A_012_012P
Driller notes very
easy drilling
S08A_015_017S
Sample numbers 9
and 10 not used
S11A_017_018P
38 15
27 6
62 43
12 17
100
56 44
67 10
44 64
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
11 HD
HD
Asphalt and Gravel Road Base.
[LEVEE FILL]
LEAN CLAY with Sand (CL); dark olive brown (2.5Y
3/3); moist; 85% very high dry strength fines; 10% fine to medium sand; 5% subrounded gravel, max. 1/2 in..
[LEVEE FILL]
SILTY SAND (SM); dense; dark yellowish brown (10YR
3/6); 72% fine to medium sand; 27% medium plasticity
fines; 1% fine to coarse, subrounded gravel, max.

1.2 in.; portion of fines are clay-sized.
[LEVEE FILL]
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL); very stiff; dark olive brown
(2.5Y 3/3); moist; 50% medium plasticity, medium dry
strength fines; 40% fine to medium sand; 10% fine to
coarse, subrounded gravel, max. 1 in..
[Approximate bottom of Levee Fill at10'].

Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM); medium dense;
yellowish brown (10YR 5/4); dry; 94% fine to medium
sand; 6% fines; 0% gravel.

SANDY SILT (ML); medium dense; brown (10YR 5/3);
moist; 62% low plasticity, low dry strength fines; 38%
fine sand; 0% gravel.
10 13
18 [31]
3 4
5 [9]
4 5
7 [12]

FIELD LOG REVIEWER
G. Bradner

HAMMER TYPE, MAKE/MODEL, WEIGHT/DROP
Marl, automatic, 140 lbs / 30-inch drop

FIELD LOGGER
M. Horse

BOREHOLE BACKFILL OR COMPLETION
5% bentonite grout

DATE STARTED
6/5/08

VERTICAL INCLINED

DRILLING ROD TYPE AND DIAMETER
6" HSA, 94mm

HELPER'S NAME
R. Ryon/M. Ageev

CONSULTANT COMPANY
GEI Consultants, Inc.

DRILLING METHOD
0 - 3 ft: HA, 3 - 11.5 ft: HSA, 11.5 - 70 ft: Rotary Wash

TOTAL DEPTH OF FILL
10 ft

DRILL RIG MAKE AND MODEL
MARL M-10 (Gregg Rig No. D-44)

CASING TYPE, DIAMETER, INSTALLATION DEPTH
Surface, 6-in., 10 ft

ELEVATION DATUM
NAVD 88

GROUND ELEVATION

36.74 ft

TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING

70.0 ft

HAMMER EFFICIENCY
83%

DRILLING CONTRACTOR
Gregg Drilling & Testing, Inc.

DRILL BIT SIZE AND TYPE (HOLE DIAMETER)
5-inch drag bit

DRILLER'S NAME
E. Santellan

DATE COMPLETED
6/5/08
GROUNDWATER READING: DURING DRILLING
N/A due to rotary wash drilling method

AFTER DRILLING (DATE-TIME)
X

SAMPLER TYPE(S)
Bag, DCore(2.5"), PCore(2.5"), Shelby(2.37"), SPT(1.375") Elevation, feet PP or TV, tsf
Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations
Program
Engineering Support Services Water Content, %
LABORATORY DATA Material Graphics

REMARKS
Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Fines,
N% < #200 60(ASTM)

LOG OF BORING
WCSBAR_001B
Sheet 1 of 4
Final Report Version 5/21/2010
Depth, feet
Recovery, %
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 Sample Location
Sample Number Other Lab Tests

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)
Blows per 6 in.
[Blows per ft]
Borehole Location: South Bank Crest County: Sacramento
Survey Method: GIS/LiDAR
Channel / River Name / Feature: American River
Easting: 6,709,533.17
Latitude: 38.59961 Longitude: -121.48260
Levee Station or Milepost: 1078+45 Levee Mile: 1.51
Coordinates: Northing: 1,980,607.03
Levee Segment
Coord. System: CA State Plane Zone II
DWR LEVEE U/NU SOIL LOG REV1; AMERICAN RIVER LEVEE BORINGS 6-16-2010.GPJ; DWR OFFICIAL LIBRARY 032210.GLB; 6/16/10 FILL 35 30
25 20

0.75P

0.75P

0.75P
40 46
30 21
S12A_020_022S
S13A_023_023P
S14A_025_027S
S15A_027_027P
S16A_030_032S
S17A_033_033P
S18A_035_037S
S19B_037_038P
S19A_040_040P
S20A_040_042S
S21A_043_043P
48 29
44 58
19 11
26 21
15 30
24 44
69 44
14 44
62 72
100
61 55
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
HD
SG
HD
SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; dark yellowish
brown (10YR 4/6); wet; 56% fine sand; 44% low
plasticity fines; 0% gravel; portion of fines are
clay-sized.

SANDY SILT (ML); medium dense; dark yellowish
brown (10YR 4/6); moist; 60% low plasticity, low dry
strength, rapid dilatancy fines; 40% fine sand; 0%
gravel.

As above except 42% sand; 58% fines.

LEAN CLAY (CL); medium stiff; very dark greenish gray
(10GY 3/1); wet; 95% very high dry strength, low
toughness fines; 5% sand; 0% gravel.

SILTY SAND (SM); medium dense; greenish black
(10GY 2.5/1); moist; 81% fine to medium sand; 19%
fines; 0% gravel.

Well-Graded SAND with Silt (SW-SM); medium dense;
dark olive gray (5Y 3/2); moist; 89% fine to coarse
sand; 11% fines; 0% gravel.
7 9
10 [19]
5 7
8 [15]
5 7
4 [11]
8 11
11 [22]
8 8
9 [17]
Elevation, feet
PP or TV, tsf
Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations
Program
Engineering Support Services Water Content, %
LABORATORY DATA Material Graphics

REMARKS
Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Fines,
N% < #200 60(ASTM)

LOG OF BORING
WCSBAR_001B
Sheet 2 of 4
Final Report Version 5/21/2010
Depth, feet
Recovery, %
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
Sample Location
Sample Number Other Lab Tests

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)
Blows per 6 in.
[Blows per ft]
Borehole Location: South Bank Crest County: Sacramento
Survey Method: GIS/LiDAR
Channel / River Name / Feature: American River
Easting: 6,709,533.17
Latitude: 38.59961 Longitude: -121.48260
Levee Station or Milepost: 1078+45 Levee Mile: 1.51
Coordinates: Northing: 1,980,607.03
Levee Segment
Coord. System: CA State Plane Zone II
DWR LEVEE U/NU SOIL LOG REV1; AMERICAN RIVER LEVEE BORINGS 6-16-2010.GPJ; DWR OFFICIAL LIBRARY 032210.GLB; 6/16/10 15 10
5 0
-5
22 22
S22A_045_047S
Box 1
Representative
S23A_048_048P
S24A_050_052S
Box 2
Representative
S25A_052_053P
No Recovery
Driller notes
gravels/cobbles
S27A_057_058P
S28A_060_062S
No Recovery
Rig chatter
Rig shaking; driller
notes
gravel/cobbles
No Recovery
No Recovery
Rig chatter and
shaking; driller
notes
gravel/cobbles

2.75 in. cobble
fragments in core
barrel slough
8 11
29 28
47 26
72 86
67 38
0 60
61 0
0 0
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
Well-Graded SAND with Silt (SW-SM); as above.

Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM); medium dense;
dark olive gray (5Y 3/2); moist; 92% fine to coarse
sand; 8% fines; 0% gravel.

Well-Graded GRAVEL (GW); dense; cobbles present.

Well-Graded SAND with Silt (SW-SM); medium dense;
dark olive gray (5Y 3/2); moist; 89% fine to coarse
sand; 11% fines; 0% gravel.

Gravel and Cobbles.
8 10
11 [21]
9 10
10 [20]
17 19
15 [34]
8 10
9 [19]
50/4"
[REF]
Elevation, feet
PP or TV, tsf
Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations
Program
Engineering Support Services Water Content, %
LABORATORY DATA Material Graphics

REMARKS
Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Fines,
N% < #200 60(ASTM)

LOG OF BORING
WCSBAR_001B
Sheet 3 of 4
Final Report Version 5/21/2010
Depth, feet
Recovery, %
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70
Sample Location
Sample Number Other Lab Tests

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)
Blows per 6 in.
[Blows per ft]
Borehole Location: South Bank Crest County: Sacramento
Survey Method: GIS/LiDAR
Channel / River Name / Feature: American River
Easting: 6,709,533.17
Latitude: 38.59961 Longitude: -121.48260
Levee Station or Milepost: 1078+45 Levee Mile: 1.51
Coordinates: Northing: 1,980,607.03
Levee Segment
Coord. System: CA State Plane Zone II
DWR LEVEE U/NU SOIL LOG REV1; AMERICAN RIVER LEVEE BORINGS 6-16-2010.GPJ; DWR OFFICIAL LIBRARY 032210.GLB; 6/16/10 -10
-15
-20
-25
-30
Borehole terminated at 70 feet. Backfilled with 5% bentonite grout.

Elevation, feet
PP or TV, tsf
Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations
Program
Engineering Support Services Water Content, %
LABORATORY DATA Material Graphics

REMARKS
Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Fines,
N% < #200 60(ASTM)

LOG OF BORING
WCSBAR_001B
Sheet 4 of 4
Final Report Version 5/21/2010
Depth, feet
Recovery, %
70 71
72 73
74 75
76 77
78 79
80 81
82 83
84 85
86 87
88 89
90 91
92 93
94 95
Sample Location
Sample Number Other Lab Tests

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)
Blows per 6 in.
[Blows per ft]
Borehole Location: South Bank Crest County: Sacramento
Survey Method: GIS/LiDAR
Channel / River Name / Feature: American River
Easting: 6,709,533.17
Latitude: 38.59961 Longitude: -121.48260
Levee Station or Milepost: 1078+45 Levee Mile: 1.51
Coordinates: Northing: 1,980,607.03
Levee Segment
Coord. System: CA State Plane Zone II
DWR LEVEE U/NU SOIL LOG REV1; AMERICAN RIVER LEVEE BORINGS 6-16-2010.GPJ; DWR OFFICIAL LIBRARY 032210.GLB; 6/16/10 -35
-40
-45
-50
-55

2.5P

0.45T

1.75P

0.35T
17 28 13
Piezometer Cap
12" Morrison
Flush Mounted
Vault
Ready Mix
Concrete
6 7
Gravel Road Base; compacted.
[LEVEE FILL]
SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL); very stiff; olive brown (2.5Y
4/4); moist; 70% medium plasticity, very high dry
strength, slow dilatancy, medium toughness fines; 30%
fine to medium sand; 0% gravel.

As above except very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2);
45% sand; 55% fines.
[LEVEE FILL]
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM); olive yellow
(2.5Y 6/8); dry; 94% fine to medium sand; 6% low
plasticity fines; 0% gravel.
[LEVEE FILL]
SILTY SAND with Gravel (SM); olive brown (2.5Y 4/3);
dry; 60% fine to medium sand; 20% fine to coarse,
subrounded to rounded gravel, max. 1.25 in.; 20% low
plasticity fines.
[LEVEE FILL]
Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM); olive brown
(2.5Y 4/3); dry; 93% fine to medium sand; 7% low
plasticity fines; 0% gravel.
[LEVEE FILL]
LEAN CLAY with Sand (CL); stiff; light olive brown
(2.5Y 5/4); moist; 85% very high dry strength, no
dilatancy, medium toughness fines; 15% fine sand; 0%
gravel.
1-foot thick Sandy Lean Clay (CL) lense; 40% fine sand; 60% medium plasticity fines.

HD
HD
S01A
Box1
S02A
S02B
Box2
S03A

DRILL RIG MAKE AND MODEL
ProSonic, Full-size Sonic

DRILLING CONTRACTOR
Boart Longyear/Prosonic

DRILL BIT SIZE AND TYPE (HOLE DIAMETER)
6-inch OD carbide

DATE COMPLETED
6/20/08
GROUNDWATER READING: DURING DRILLING
36 ft

AFTER DRILLING (DATE-TIME)

35.11 ft on 6/26/08 9:25AM

DATE STARTED
6/19/08

VERTICAL INCLINED

DRILLING ROD TYPE AND DIAMETER
6-inch OD sonic

ELEVATION DATUM
NAVD 88

GROUND ELEVATION

41.18 ft

TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING

97.0 ft

HAMMER EFFICIENCY
N/A%

TOTAL DEPTH OF FILL
20 ft

HELPER'S NAME
D. King/S. McNulty

CONSULTANT COMPANY
GEI Consultants, Inc.

DRILLER'S NAME
C. Hill
X

BOREHOLE BACKFILL OR COMPLETION
See piezometer installation notes

DRILLING METHOD
0 - 97 ft: Sonic

CASING TYPE, DIAMETER, INSTALLATION DEPTH
None

FIELD LOG REVIEWER
J. Myers

HAMMER TYPE, MAKE/MODEL, WEIGHT/DROP
None

FIELD LOGGER
M. Horse

SAMPLER TYPE(S)
4-inch ID core barrel
NPiezometer Installation Schematic 60(ASTM) PP or TV, tsf Water Content, % Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Elevation, feet 40 35
30 25
Depth, feet
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 REMARKS AND

PIEZOMETER
INSTALLATION Material Graphics
NOTES

LABORATORY DATA

LOG OF BORING
WCSBAR_002M
Sheet 1 of 5
Final Report Version 5/21/2010
Fines, % < #200

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)
Sample Location Other Lab Tests Sample Number Blows per 6 in. [Blows per ft] Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations
Program
Engineering Support Services
DWR LEVEE U/NU SOIL + PIEZ LOG REV1; AMERICAN RIVER LEVEE BORINGS 6-16-2010.GPJ; DWR OFFICIAL LIBRARY 032210.GLB; 6/16/10 Borehole Location: South Bank Crest County: Sacramento
Survey Method: GIS/LiDAR
Channel / River Name / Feature: American River
Easting: 6,706,270.57
Latitude: 38.60170 Longitude: -121.49400
Levee Station or Milepost: 1044+59 Levee Mile: 0.88
Coordinates: Northing: 1,981,351.55
Levee Segment
Coord. System: CA State Plane Zone II FILL

0.1P

0.1P
5% Bentonite
Grout
2" ID Sch. 40
PVC Blank
Casing
10 77
53 CLAYEY SAND (SC); 60% fine to medium sand; 40%
medium plasticity fines; 0% gravel.

Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM); dark yellowish
brown (10YR 4/6); dry; 90% fine to medium sand; 10%
low plasticity fines; 0% gravel.

LEAN CLAY (CL); 95% medium plasticity fines; 5%
sand; 0% gravel.

SILTY SAND (SM); very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2);
moist; 55% fine sand; 45% low plasticity fines; 0%
gravel.

LEAN CLAY with Sand (CL); dark yellowish brown
(10YR 3/6); moist; 77% medium plasticity fines; 23%
fine sand; 0% gravel.

As above except dark olive gray (5Y 3/2).

SANDY ELASTIC SILT (MH); very soft; very dark gray
(2.5Y 3/1); moist; 53% medium plasticity, medium dry
strength, rapid dilatancy, low toughness fines; 47% fine sand; 0% gravel.

As above except wet.

ELASTIC SILT (MH); very soft; very dark gray (2.5Y
3/1); wet; 90% medium plasticity, medium dry strength,
rapid dilatancy, low toughness fines; 10% fine sand;
0% gravel.

Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM); greenish black
(5G 2.5/1); wet; 90% fine to medium sand; 10% low
plasticity fines; 0% gravel.

HD
S03B
Box3
S03C
S04A
S04B
Box4
S04C
NPiezometer Installation Schematic 60(ASTM) PP or TV, tsf Water Content, % Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Elevation, feet 20 15
10 5
0 Depth, feet
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45

REMARKS AND

PIEZOMETER
INSTALLATION Material Graphics
NOTES

LABORATORY DATA

LOG OF BORING
WCSBAR_002M
Sheet 2 of 5
Final Report Version 5/21/2010
Fines, % < #200

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)
Sample Location Other Lab Tests Sample Number Blows per 6 in. [Blows per ft] Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations
Program
Engineering Support Services
DWR LEVEE U/NU SOIL + PIEZ LOG REV1; AMERICAN RIVER LEVEE BORINGS 6-16-2010.GPJ; DWR OFFICIAL LIBRARY 032210.GLB; 6/16/10 Borehole Location: South Bank Crest County: Sacramento
Survey Method: GIS/LiDAR
Channel / River Name / Feature: American River
Easting: 6,706,270.57
Latitude: 38.60170 Longitude: -121.49400
Levee Station or Milepost: 1044+59 Levee Mile: 0.88
Coordinates: Northing: 1,981,351.55
Levee Segment
Coord. System: CA State Plane Zone II
Transition Seal
(3/8" Bentonite
Chips)
Filter Pack
(RMC Pacific
Monterey #3
[8x20])
2" ID Sch. 40
PVC Screen
(0.020" slot)
2" ID Sch. 40
PVC End Cap
6 3
6 Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM); as above.

As above except dark olive gray (5Y 3/2); 94% fine to
medium, predominantly medium sand; 6% fines.

Poorly Graded GRAVEL (GP); greenish black (10GY

2.5/1); wet; 86% fine to coarse, subrounded to rounded
gravel, max. 3 in.; 11% fine to medium sand; 3% fines.

As above except increasing gravel; decreasing sand.

Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM); greenish black
(5G 2.5/1); wet; 94% fine to medium, subrounded to
rounded sand; 6% fines; 0% gravel.

Box5
S05A
S05B
Box6
S05C
Box7
S05D
S06A
NPiezometer Installation Schematic 60(ASTM) PP or TV, tsf Water Content, % Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Elevation, feet -5
-10
-15
-20
-25
Depth, feet
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 70

REMARKS AND

PIEZOMETER
INSTALLATION Material Graphics
NOTES

LABORATORY DATA

LOG OF BORING
WCSBAR_002M
Sheet 3 of 5
Final Report Version 5/21/2010
Fines, % < #200

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)
Sample Location Other Lab Tests Sample Number Blows per 6 in. [Blows per ft] Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations
Program
Engineering Support Services
DWR LEVEE U/NU SOIL + PIEZ LOG REV1; AMERICAN RIVER LEVEE BORINGS 6-16-2010.GPJ; DWR OFFICIAL LIBRARY 032210.GLB; 6/16/10 Borehole Location: South Bank Crest County: Sacramento
Survey Method: GIS/LiDAR
Channel / River Name / Feature: American River
Easting: 6,706,270.57
Latitude: 38.60170 Longitude: -121.49400
Levee Station or Milepost: 1044+59 Levee Mile: 0.88
Coordinates: Northing: 1,981,351.55
Levee Segment
Coord. System: CA State Plane Zone II
Bottom Seal
(3/8" Bentonite
Chips)
Driller notes
cobble lodged in
barrel
Backfill below
Seal
5 12
2 Poorly Graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM); as above.

Poorly Graded GRAVEL with Silt (GP-GM); dark
greenish gray (10GY 4/1); wet; 85% fine to coarse
gravel, max. 3 in.; 30% cobbles or boulders, max. 3.5
in; 10% fine to coarse sand; 5% medium plasticity
fines.

As above except 20% cobbles; 82% gravel, 7% sand;
12% fines.

Poorly Graded SAND (SP); very dark gray (2.5Y 3/1);
wet; 98% fine to medium sand; 2% low plasticity fines;
0% gravel.

Well-Graded SAND with Silt (SW-SM); dark olive gray
(5Y 3/2); wet; 90% fine to coarse sand; 10% low
plasticity fines; 0% gravel.

HD
HD
S06E
S06G
S06B
Box8
S06M
S06F
S06D
S06C
S07A
Box9
NPiezometer Installation Schematic 60(ASTM) PP or TV, tsf Water Content, % Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Elevation, feet -30
-35
-40
-45
-50
Depth, feet
70 71
72 73
74 75
76 77
78 79
80 81
82 83
84 85
86 87
88 89
90 91
92 93
94 95

REMARKS AND

PIEZOMETER
INSTALLATION Material Graphics
NOTES

LABORATORY DATA

LOG OF BORING
WCSBAR_002M
Sheet 4 of 5
Final Report Version 5/21/2010
Fines, % < #200

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)
Sample Location Other Lab Tests Sample Number Blows per 6 in. [Blows per ft] Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations
Program
Engineering Support Services
DWR LEVEE U/NU SOIL + PIEZ LOG REV1; AMERICAN RIVER LEVEE BORINGS 6-16-2010.GPJ; DWR OFFICIAL LIBRARY 032210.GLB; 6/16/10 Borehole Location: South Bank Crest County: Sacramento
Survey Method: GIS/LiDAR
Channel / River Name / Feature: American River
Easting: 6,706,270.57
Latitude: 38.60170 Longitude: -121.49400
Levee Station or Milepost: 1044+59 Levee Mile: 0.88
Coordinates: Northing: 1,981,351.55
Levee Segment
Coord. System: CA State Plane Zone II
Borehole terminated at 97 feet.

LEAN CLAY (CL); yellowish brown (10YR 5/4); moist;
90% medium plasticity, medium toughness fines; 10%
fine to medium sand; 0% gravel.

NPiezometer Installation Schematic 60(ASTM) PP or TV, tsf Water Content, % Liquid Limit Plasticity Index Elevation, feet -55
-60
-65
-70
-75
Depth, feet
95 96
97 98
99 100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120

REMARKS AND

PIEZOMETER
INSTALLATION Material Graphics
NOTES

LABORATORY DATA

LOG OF BORING
WCSBAR_002M
Sheet 5 of 5
Final Report Version 5/21/2010
Fines, % < #200

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIALS
(Description)
Sample Location Other Lab Tests Sample Number Blows per 6 in. [Blows per ft] Urban Levee Geotechnical Evaluations
Program
Engineering Support Services
DWR LEVEE U/NU SOIL + PIEZ LOG REV1; AMERICAN RIVER LEVEE BORINGS 6-16-2010.GPJ; DWR OFFICIAL LIBRARY 032210.GLB; 6/16/10 Borehole Location: South Bank Crest County: Sacramento
Survey Method: GIS/LiDAR
Channel / River Name / Feature: American River
Easting: 6,706,270.57
Latitude: 38.60170 Longitude: -121.49400
Levee Station or Milepost: 1044+59 Levee Mile: 0.88
Coordinates: Northing: 1,981,351.55
Levee Segment
Coord. System: CA State Plane Zone II

|
Disregard prints bearing eorber surbens —| em DRAWING No. PR- \ L
NOTE: Classification of earth material as shown on this sheet is based upon field inspection and © not to } be construed to imply mechanical

ENGINEERING GEOLOGY SECTION

FIELD STUDY by 2. MHIg2r T- Gd
DRAWN By A. Errpions /O=B~Gad

CHECKED

SRIDGE DEPARTMENT

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL BASED ON STANDARD GRADE SIZE LIMITS =
.
5 ASR
Sy fev dL

DIAGRAMS SHOWING THE BAIS FOR XATIMATES
: OF GRAGE ATE BIETAIBVIION USES 1 DETER=
WINATION AF GLASS MAUKS, ! %, IP GRAVEL 13 PRESENT 14 APPRECIABLE coy, AMOUMTE THE TURM *GRAVELLY® MAY %, BE ADDKD TO THE CLASS NAME, VIZ,
0 "amAveiLy aAND) THE TERMS 40 CCOARSEY *MUDIUM® Asp “FINE? 0 WHEN USED TO DESCRIBE SAND,

ILT AND GRAVEL REFER TO CY STANDARD GMALE AZ
Lite,
F 0
Approval Aecommirded by,

a Ww

LEGEND OF EARTH MATERIALS
L =
7 Suty Guay on
=GRAVEL
% Craver Siuy
Prat Aon iE 3aMD BE Oraarc MATTER
2} Sir
Zl CLAY
iN anor CLAY OR CLAYEY SANDFE Sauoy SY or Id Sieve Sanp € prucyromeryes.@ 2%" Conn PanrrronerEn
B Sazprer Boring (bRY)
=£1] Rovany sorute (weY)
E23 Avoca BeRING (DRY)
owul Jer pone
& Cory poriNa
J Test mv
3 Fie Margriat
atEous Rock
i Stomaourary Rock
4 BH Meramormue Rock l
Miowvs pass fool (Vung tls fund harvmer mith 8 187 Pree Ot) Gravrdmler Jorlcen IM, Top Holo El. Casing driven = of Bice of campter Groin y Bliows pes rool (Uaing » HOT hamsner with #36" (L351 4 oie, or 23 hol
7 rg stort Uneriined corprasyiyog ET
Vana gee Shoor afrergth En
%
\
(a SCanformalio material char:

FEstimated meter! change
Unconformeiis maferial ching 77: on apewe YS weretiomy BoTItant od i Bescripn™n of material
0 Unit weight,
7 4 Atos, bm EXSY Conselidation Tas?

IA OWS,
(co
n
ore
i
Ri
Graphic representation of Cirising rate

LOG OF TEST BORINGS NO.

Ee
commen abutment of J
SHracd ridge
ar. F722
=
=
T-bom & cop IE
S
sAM Aon C-<8”
Sea,
im Concrafe e552 £ of SE
Sor2
ré&éoors
Sheet
Ela,
"
CesS082 SOT
Fgix
Sat Mon G-57
T-tar & cop S378 TRF
-
Fa
Z-1G ©
37 28
AASEAeEEARSS TT 5
3 4
1 AS BUILT PLANS
Contract No. 14-0797
Date Completed_3-68
Document No. 3ccccasz

Shoat &
|{

AMERICAN RIVER BRIDGE
52s
5 392
@
2-/8
“CLINE ~
*s
HOOD PRDOLY Sons I
©
8-27
8-20
0 TC
<5
WoOLAAE

Sheet 2
Ny0
eC)
oNZY
>
o SHCRA| rtprp,
WwEY Lins
61d Ed 20 27
“C,” 12 +3842 POT
“2% g2/+38 52 £C
Sheet 3
8-77
)
2%
hnwi
27 28 29 20
ev-10
“CU LnE ~ exec soreeanr1265

oor. Cogary
03 sec
5 Vlsd/75\078
LIES KASAI Con (AIG—LaRaas $3
Rowtx Sacnos

wo.
waxy

AmrwTa
Yotas

£5. ROAD
iV. Ko.
7 CALIF,

STATE] 7. A PROJICT NO.

SHEET
269.

TOTAL
SALETS

DIST. COUNTY ROUTE POST MILES - TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL SHEETS 3 SAC
17-Jul-24

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DATE
Unknown Datum Conversion: Unknown
CU: BRIDGE NO.

EA:

NOTE: A COPY OF THIS LOG OF TEST BORINGS IS AVAILABLE AT

OFFICE OF STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS,

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
As-Built Vertical Datum:

As-Built Log of Test Borings sheet is considered an informational document only. As such, the State of California registration seal with signature, license number and registration certificate expiration date confirm that this is a true and accurate copy of the original document. It does not attest to the accuracy or validity of the information contained in the original document. This drawing is available and presented only for the convenience of any bidder, contractor or other interested party.

SHEET NO.

PROJECT NAME
LOG OF TEST BORINGS 1 OF 5

IXY TOTAL

TERROAR STATE] ». apaniey sn. wT} fercrs

nN esr. CXnINTY RITE BETTI i fr ar
:: O3lsnc| » Pd761/77
I
fi :
3 3 SL
or
t i 3 = LLL Gos Dasara VI
st : >
$
$ y
HI2 3 onsen25,1965
$3V | \ ® 3 ks) Q
ar 2%
8-3
@ if FP N
3 ¥ Ele“a -
VE 2 gi 8 3 9 Tor
FY.
wn N 2-4 Comme ~~
0 fF 2zo 3 9 N + 20 Gs2
A
220
P 27 Pe
o
20 27= 2372
2 223 23
—
-
-
hed N TN N 3 '87g2/r 3352 £C re id i v Q
HE /q 2 nN
ToT 197338 Sor a2 Sra
. 3 N oN S 30 8-26 g-25 eso /\ . AS > -
x £ BC oe" N _
uw 3
os
=
$
k
3 |
26= 8ze N [nN 25 8 Ne
1 $3 3 i 7 ks) , J y X
& $3 3 hi 12 | i] Sofr brown clayey SilF 3
$ b 2 yey 8-24 PN » Q
o Rd £8 T 4 | rrrerbedd2 with 274 5 2 20 9 Gili | eemmm 8Yass, : a; 2 £ Ba & 2 |
%
KE A rr@——<— Loose groy raterry 4 hy ©
S
° { 2 EE ds : Sse
a
5 2, ) 3 2
+ n Lo , 2
2 z ~ \ 3 Jo .

Slightly Frme modzradely compacy brown Esx
al2
0 g% ‘N 0
0 - ph i - i 7 2
Sa 3
¥ | RA Silty sand | 7 "2 : : 3 . i. 7 1) AN 2 3B River Waorer Elevation SL \ : . Lo yy , « PIE RT EIZzH Loose gray mcsccous 7, 5 ? 8-2 Aas = w PSO lire S :
0 § SH § g | Led vary S//ty Fine sond <, 22 /& _ Gg) &-/ along . ™ Pp 8-3 o o iy ® Py [STi wh organic material. 1% 2 CS = | C3 = 1 fs) 7 ebiify SEEN E
4 iHTH Stightly compact,
gray ! 2
2) 2
2} | very loose oroy medium - in Zeal] some . o : . $ WILANY :

Fine
.

Fo medium os
ed 3 .

Pe
CY Vary loose groy oorse od
="
* 5 8 k
“ -
° Ks i -10 Z7! BeZ| Silty sand. WA&
"3 7 Tl"| Loose groy rmadium Fo
Zz 17.9 -
"| sone :!
teira},
ri coove
Fo vary ery
loose= gray
gro : 3
13i { taa | -| Stighity compact; gray =% 55 i: hn| coarse sono - ol1| fryloose feoseory4madiuerr ; ——_—| |Tens sand 3 + 5 7 Le Eg] . ¥- medium Po cosrse I 7 . . '; wd 0 to sord | >; # 5.7) Stightly compact gray | Loos gray ccomse Sor. rs i=20 * 20 A # [alee Y medwers Fo coisa —_—ize} ] = 5. Loose groy madsen Fo - i z 2 = , 5
2, AN Fl Same ; 5 p / q Cozrgs sara.
“ 2] Stightly compact oray I5 re7] Dolesl!] Hbtoosa Fo slightly LC compro . ‘
: [TE
|
Come
Vary
fo
jeose
rations
groy clayey
comes Coral:

Zl
: o Yada Some 5 2 { Ee gray radium Fo cosrse } bi i gel LL -20 w I -30 TEE] spahtly zermpoct gray ' tleJZ al77 -
FET.<)~ Bamsar . -
: =a
te EY
Leesa gro
Y
clay
7 gravel. —
a
2&2A) Some
ComoIcl
# gravel
FO dene
|
Coors en
a
2 ETL& < £
9 L rayadres vary Hom Sard sifF lenses. wih 2)z 2
i i EL2
Bass
: z . 1 oh? i} }
eo LI hd gravel : I= = Danse grovel SEDanse light gray si/r 771 TEER e 2
»] 3 ~~ - ; so] Leos 2 7a] | | Compact gray medium fo 2a : oy Pemser gravel -£0 yaEd gg“8z &
2;8 Ek i) {
Seated| Varyo£ dense buFF sifF
$< B2 2
0 oy oo ; re CL —_ on \ nr & Sime SifFy zis TZ
Ij CaBrse Su fT TEEN) Sighly cormpralt Fon clayEy ya] ET Semis Lime ES $zey , 38 ¢ 7 [Feat] # Aime somo . x YE PE Some wiFH Sore Sond FOEAg § x 2 5 : BX — . ) madiurry Send z B - Lu FE Foirradt : :
= 5 > w eo ¥ | Dense Suid irom sro } — os ji i : i
oe=([me £3422 59 eirm BBUZ(| s/F Zaro hard clayey |
a
> 7%7-47-G “e 22 } LA| some CompactFo sty layersSand. of silt & i PE . | . =
———% Danse Ercwr medium Fo -55
¥ oy “50 “s
G asiLey!
Sy
Vary dense readin Fo oo(EEE ComrSa Some wif SommeT—
EL, «8 8 | Very sEEE bull clyey ~ 22 Compact Sify Sano’ wits | coarse S2md & paz ordsal & Sora SIE langsas " o 3 grovel | grovel | : ~ -~ - o] § r= ® ov = o TZIBX il N i 4 33 £ § & z z EER J fo ot Pa. 5d h Cormened Srowr mediums -z0 3 3 £5 2 : § 22 Compe: fo arse Growers Era] Compose? Grown silty a] soma : Zz Bi <z 2 A san gravel . S200 - ; - Solna OF : Y sl Bory or g 3 g z 2 GO i ~ = - - i] radu somo. - Een Sary SHAE Aor silty clay : Wil 53388 £ £2 5 = | Vary fons brown sify — :] ’% ¥ : ~ Dense Grown Si Sd iNEoEEA BEL CY => ; 5 on 5 2
“p X 5 So | 7-2/6 1 n he Bersse ork Grow Fo brows 3 Dense sono & groval wits oro SEFE2L sn = ohTai ri L 3 ul 2% Se -70 = Ee =z : ; SEY Fine sare - zl & Sanoly $717 farses ; Yale o Sy 93 { 7-17-G% | % NN zl 3 oe 5 x RE 4 : TRIN gl § £ 2 53:3: i (1) Vary dense broom siffy :
.

Ux
2152
i
NX
\
-
& id 2
a
o
~80
|
i
aFirs sono . » Dense f2n Fine fo medver sal. Damsa Eves mmsCTE oe eeBE :i =o {551dsand wilh cermamimd 3 somo oF Cd famsas i ‘ 2 > 3 o ;; 4]7 ] : !
8] lo E
oli) HHH#
alEl 8:58 LE¥euie oo i¢ x
ov Sansa gray SIF | Varmy densa
; Sighs
se
Sowers
; Hae eg SRY SY sry Fina sand witis -20_ ol&l8l E w| 28 3338s i 2lelEl = al 3: igRfgf: -20 :
.
posed= Amesomo. me Fy rime Sa ef _
podJ camanies’ si/F JansSES — Fo mam Semsa
- z Bl gg $3 8:83 < gl o3ské IF § 2% /o- 7-63 F , ssa Crown Sine ir Darse isranOcoYad layers Fy somo.

MES ERSTE iy oFsi/ty Fina sand, Ares’ o| 32223 ged? 5 nd Pres a gl y3.32833:%8¢ e 23 uo S5eit {
Zend
Frm clayey SOF gray -/00
Z si3fzeyy 3s -/00 —
= :

E > a = Sd —_ - E212 EEN Srna fo cocrse sama .
—_ -
5 Epsseg3igss : . i FO-D-23 z
0 =}5
$32gE833% ;yEigase I. (C-2-G3 : : EE gl 35333, i i ! & 9 a Is 25 ’ j ; ul a
£ ~1/0 ‘ R : po _— ~ so fz SK = EY PN 8 ARES 25 r/o G20 627 20 zdig<9 IsEls Fix oN]a5i - : } ETS TSTez2s 38 £C a "-Cs —
nf F3 ERAT Por E OROFILE Ta A 2
em _— an 0 S o +
VERY. 1 TzdD
wza 0 2
E
ag 1 AS BU| Ld PLANS : TTT mesiz. sms
2 z §2 - J —~ oz §@ Contract No. 24-0e179¢ AMERICAN RIVER BRIDGE E EL I——0 Date Completed_z- ez o oo x 2
0 x ification of earth mate- . ate Lompiete J
@ 8GJ iol NOTE:osshown Comosionof on thisert shes hosed oct Document No. 3aceaasz- LOG OF TEST BORINGS NO.2 upon inspection be construed to imply mechanical Cn SCALE £5 Norms’ SmDet 24-43 3 foi prawns 25 55-3 analysis. ) : . p
~~. ~)

{

Disragord pends becriog earber nombirs ——>

|

PEL. DRAWING No. PR-. [asdX04] | |
DIST. COUNTY ROUTE POST MILES - TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL SHEETS 3 SAC
17-Jul-24

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DATE
Unknown Datum Conversion: Unknown
CU: BRIDGE NO.

EA:

NOTE: A COPY OF THIS LOG OF TEST BORINGS IS AVAILABLE AT

OFFICE OF STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS,

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
As-Built Log of Test Borings sheet is considered an informational document only. As such, the State of California registration seal with signature, license number and registration certificate expiration date confirm that this is a true and accurate copy of the original document. It does not attest to the accuracy or validity of the information contained in the original document. This drawing is available and presented only for the convenience of any bidder, contractor or other interested party.

SHEET NO.

PROJECT NAME
LOG OF TEST BORINGS 2 OF 5
As-Built Vertical Datum:

BRIDGE DEPARTMENT

ENGINEERING GEOLOGY SECTION
CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL BASID ON STANDARD GRADE Sng LIMITS NOTE: Ci
cial as shown on this
of earth mateis based

#1€:.0 STUDY br R, MIger 7- GR
DNAWN by AK. Enon (O=/~C¥ CHECKED By fDi Jo LD De
Aprrens) Acconmended wi72ACT . Fajinm ing Ciretagns

eo oN " oe

LEGEND OF EARTH MATERIALS
L ¥ a BE N ©
‘Hury CLAY or
mo Gravel
7 CuAvey GiLy
(sao BE Beatonthatren
Fo El Sy £3 Fie Maramiau
. ota "COARNEY ‘MEDLEY Aup “Fird”
3 N\ZN/N 3 MH LED TO DUSCAIBE BAND Cray YN ACsTrakAY ,, HILT AKD 4SAYEL REAP, TO \N/N/N/\X STANDAND GRADE SEK
B Satine CLAY Of
KA, -, LIMITS, CLAYEY JAKD ad 38 » BLT OR
3 irdavis
= Meravorsse Rock
DiAgrAtA iowTHE SAIS FOR RATMATRS
OF ASABE LIIE DETAIRVTION USED IM DETER~ X= MIKALION OF CLARE HAYES, q soy IF GRAVEL 58 PRESENT 14 APFARCIABLE
g % % AMOUNTS TUE TNL *ARAVILLYY MAY $20 Ma AGDLD TO THU CLASS MAME, VIX, ©Panemoveree
@ 24"Conn Panatmorerer:
i © Sampuan goin (oR) rons par foal
f= Rotany oma (wey) (Quag anib hind Jarrpners pith 8
i of Avot Boring (ORY) 1? pres fant)
8 JET BORG
& (CORE BORING
t WG tamaveruy sand? THE Terma
8 lanuoua Roex

EDIMENTARY ROCK
[7 Tesy mir
bE] 9 Description of matersd
Unit whi! (Ac 1, (ot iar)
AT ANT Connotication Tast cams LeffLIEme : v | Conformalie material Chars Air Diwvmen 1157} oN Eatimated ruleal change ,
. Aree shir soc Unconformeba meferizl charga firo] PS
fur of Pen .

20 /0
o
-/0
-20
-30
~-<20
Ee
-¢o
-70
80 !
Ei
S20

§ Nu. HEEASEESRTERIR ERI RnTy Va PuyG0Bk
E20
8 5)
tinaleRDg,
1 Bf VE
ze
e-/-a< of
ZooAS \/
ANl
i
1 . oS
1 yr
Td RE EEEToatoioryPulmantag KoFibobolTaTa 0Foilop,210s“a y
©
A { | ®!

-
GS,
®°N

ac ’Lre,25r02
322
“ LE RPC 2D
8-12 ®
243 £/. GE S-11-c4
{
26 No oe i
Taras WaFinh
OphRnRBLL,ThlleofFayToeTH
1 CR

5 %
17£37
od
E
5 .

G-lO-GS
£
Very ov. rer
onse Gray SU
Vary A
o/syey SY
Vary
sl
z= egy,
age~
Lz
miescacus $i/F Fo
XK gray SilF
Vary Soff gray elayay
Yay
Sed $7
= =
MC
oderk gro
SIIF iFH
maffer |
Danse
Demme
OF arpa
FF a
HE
aL pr.

FF or
YY
L_ SofF dork groy Sloyay
& clay .
loose Fork
5 Silty somo |
oo
77 Sifts Soro’ wer
smal! gravel .

SwFF
Serna scorfarasd
Bree:
on
Serres
mreSCacus
Gra
PTI
oy Fime
i
i
i
F-&
G
~
. I}
HN
Loose brown € grayish
brown Sify Frrme
gravel & cobbles .
-s
27H/5
LL
ey
=~.
.
23 Sand- Sora rmr/ed
Vary loose Fo loose
Som rnYardes'cad
Garo Silty clay |
LY
Vary $EF7F &lue -
Fame $0
CoEGE
my Fror
|
i3
weEh rradiver seme
tom clayey sil.
aw
danse blagray
gray silty eioy Fo
radi Sond,
27 SI Sano interbedded
ery cofYbloat gray 2/By #ia1g
Cevmpact Groat Sad

Sy Sfty ely,
Sansa Ercwrr fre 2,
Sv.
ed
rie
{et
Fol
Aa wr
;
ARR
loyars
2 :

TE
{3 i7«

1g i)«
[72
, A freadCN
4 ment) § vod Lode AASTOI ho
i
PVTfr

TT rearie oo NYEwh,
’
wd
7INCek
%
52s. 4
TOLL,
j=
Ly ——

~
acy
=
)
~

7.& 2
L
A

2 3
—
Sh E GL
i [2

RaRrC,"26r23

ive 40 L1'C, 27430
TRE RTEREREALREERRNA REEMA ERAERASE SaInTiara DnnO
RC,C27 7e
27 28

CTT ol
i
28 Sr
22: %
£f. 152
Z-o-cd
msmtneTN
"
A: WBE JGLRAS Gohala Sl(baleShBad bySi) SRG PSAANGY]
rnin meri
—
= « NS | ©
he

&) 1
© “
8 HOLS CC," 28160
Aha a Bp on ARRrC,"28/62 ER
29 Na
0 , CLINE ™N
s0

A=Oraplin represents?en af orig ruts
Slog CG ucanes par 4

22 200

PROFILE
VERT. 17240"
PLAN
/7=50"
HORIZ "= 30°
SCALE 25 Nodeo! | ease eas £
AMERICAN RIVER 3RIDGE
LOG OF TEST BORINGS NO.3
Mekal 1 111 | hoNv16 7
Z
zen
i742 &
oi<y’,
= =

EIENBE
=
& Hy
x Sa
2 Wi
0&
EET)
~-80

vi
2 3Gn
>
N
No Yee
IN NS
NW
N
SF
=
oN
\
~
Lm

>
2 2
br
Zh
Sense
SIE
~~
o
Vary Y-Tord
SAF
Vary oer
1i
WJ amy loose Gros
¥
ErTiarer
gray
Sa
£0.

S2
Us cloy .

App
sg
E-so- aX
.
ry Sense Erowm Sand,
os
Sema Fo
OFF Fo sof?
7 fm ram
=
rs oz
£¥
olbfes - Some clay Cinder
veal iL cocclas |
Gmsiw,
Sra
<7
oo
, Groval §
wr SifFy hoy
F brouers clayey SF.
$F
me L
Crow?
cizyay
z
OAT2 Te
eras’
prowrd fins
alorg C,7 Vins ™,
§
[<
°o
0 2
-50
o

20 | ax ‘Rr’c, 29-82

Contract No.

Bars
6!

AS BUILT PLANS
’
Date Completed_3-628
Document No.30cccof7

By Drviakiis ONG TR——LCran (133

DIV. Wo.

TER. ROAD

O03 |secl $5 FASro 1/77 1779

Ouapy. Coury
STATE]
wows
7 A PROJECT
Secoow
NG.

SNTEY
no
weaxt
ne,

Toren
TC TAL

SRLITS
DIST. COUNTY ROUTE POST MILES - TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL SHEETS 3 SAC
17-Jul-24

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DATE
Unknown Datum Conversion: Unknown
CU: BRIDGE NO.

EA:

NOTE: A COPY OF THIS LOG OF TEST BORINGS IS AVAILABLE AT

OFFICE OF STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS,

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
As-Built Log of Test Borings sheet is considered an informational document only. As such, the State of California registration seal with signature, license number and registration certificate expiration date confirm that this is a true and accurate copy of the original document. It does not attest to the accuracy or validity of the information contained in the original document. This drawing is available and presented only for the convenience of any bidder, contractor or other interested party.

SHEET NO.

PROJECT NAME
LOG OF TEST BORINGS 3 OF 5
As-Built Vertical Datum:
~— FIELD STUDY By PR, Hagar Z-ed
§ . DRAWN By AC, Emc/oiv /O=-2~Gk
~~
a
2 CHECKED By eredO~ 0- Co [SN BRIDGE DEPARTMENT
ow ENGINEERING GEOLOGY SECTION

Appronal Recommended b ANECt ring Grolaght

CLASSIFICATION OF MATERIAL BASED ON STANDARD GRADE SIZE LIMITS LEGEND OF EARTH MATERIALS DiAcanss anovie 1: eg HE BASIS FUR EATIVATES El Graver
7 JuurySuayon
€ Penerromerer
» OF GRADE SITE CUTRIEWTION USED IN DETER~ MINATION OF CLASS AMES, @ 2/4" Conn PenerrovETER 5 on 3 IF GRAVEL 13 PRESENT IN ASPRECIASLE FE s 3] Sear on TER ; . . A AMOUNTS THE TRRM *GRAVELLY® MAY AND GANIC MA 1) Saupren tora (ory) Le Groundtmter sumtice % y §, BE ADDED TO THE CLASS NAME, VIZ, 0% "amavaLLY 8AN0! THE TERMS fl Sir £5 FiLL MATERIAL £1] Rovary Borsa (wen) *COARALY, “MEDIUM” AMD “IIE? fd A FE UOER LORNA (ORY, WIEN USED YO DESCRIBE SAND, [7] CLAY Bl leneous Rock mo : or ILY AND GRAVEL RUFER TO ig JET BouHG STANDARD GRADY LIZS BN 8AubdY CLAY oR [5 . LIMITS, CLavey Sano LER Scomentary Rock ® Cor BORG
anal
be construed to imply mechanical
ysis.
escripfren of meferiol
# recig)nt(feu rt) Ho _counbrIERE Fo ou Meisfore, hammer itt 0BERLdlaseaO Consclication Test Secends per fool,
s Baits MSKierran=Terrd TConfarmebla matorial clang Air Aunmer O15 ps) ia Estimated miter hoga 27D 3 Ey KN Arorage Skin w800 if a2 ~ - R\ct/ncanrermebl material chongo anBhdtorng Toa anca yar Cour 6; NE PENEIRATION Boring
5 Top Hote {=
Graphio repreentation Unconfined “ow Seep! criving rate bist75 52 “ng
XY SS 3 ; Sanoy Suton [8[I . == SILY vescruraats
8 3iLYY SAND idl Mevamorsitc Rock Ud esr oir
upon field inspection and is not to
NOTE: Classification of earth material as shown on this sheet is based 22 /0
o
-/O
-20
30 LO
-s50
GQ
-70
-80
-90
|
B AN
(=
\ .

JA
N Nf

AL LFCSI AOR REEBSTRSER SE CER

AESATE,CRE
aRiNoloOa
A
a

{uy
8vy

&-9-6¢
z/
§ ”

— fe .
~ Nn ne
™
5 Jeon EE = a2 RrC,g2r22 ty ©

AEY RTUE TRTTER
AHE
A
A
ATr c®
=

ty
5 tuIM
8-12 @®
>700.

202
1 e ner,
a2 LC,BF FRO ©
W

JODBX
)
»
a.

Erstt
N
-
,
A $y send.
\
~
’
,
(LL
1 »
t
x
&
oj .
»
[Ava] s
a
G-l5-asd
S

GS-12
vl & gravel lsysrs |
SAF.
2 Sone worth pebbles
Soft brown clayey
SIF.
cloyY
£
c/oy .

5. & grovel
MN WVery densa sornd
28) Vary demse é
Soft brown clay .

SOF, browr silty
® Slightly compact Grown
NY Fire silty sand |
37 ii

SoFF browr clayay
| Vary Soft browr silty
i
i
‘(Dense brown Are
I
i

Fo coarse silty send,
greve/ & cobbles .
2 | Very demse Slockish
ol miescasws radius
MN Compost brews sMHF
roar Tire
8-18 ® Nh
0fon RL RFCSrE ©

RG TN Nl

{mY 7 ~ T. ESSonGASSL S000 WOATR4 buigStag@ 401
perme rmed ®}
| 8
Fla

CHS,AINA

WEL
=
==
3 i
i
i
IE
a/c ®
os
Gy0
200
&
20&

SLLEC, BEAR

37 RhTRNe
I
ATr!
ransom va Wan ———
|
fo nN

\/

7-2-6
8-/6
@
Fe
DES
i
4 Bi J pists bears
3&
©
8-77
;YC," LINE
10 alorg C,”

PROFILE
VERY, 17107
Herz IT 30
&
Bran
172 50°
Approximate growno lim
firme
=,

=
ws £1. 2%

SCALE AS Morso

eorker combers |PREL. DRAWING No. PR-. to
~I~ [~~ 7CILrC
IST ASG topo (Non
t
B
afy D4
—

sey
5 14
o TETEEERG
i THEE, - PETERAE SRSARSEREYAYAAGLOHADYt fe Iatli po

AMERICAN
BRILGE 24 G8
Er
2% | rie

7 EN
3 AN

FLD. ROAD
BEV. No.
7 32

OEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE
CALIF.

{

RIVER BRIDGE
DRAWING 2”
LOG OF TEST BORINGSNO.4 |}
2 7

FA PROUECT No.

5G
Ter
bo.

A 1111]
—20
i|
3 2-G
3 i
i
;
NO.
oer TOTAL
—
2 CO GadOeLLCETl $153
Taian
SrgxTe

03 sacl 5 [*7%:4/781/72
- BLE Kairie
warrenDetobar1965
SHELTS

DIST.
3 COUNTY
SAC

ROUTE POST MILES - TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL SHEETS
17-Jul-24

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DATE
Unknown Datum Conversion: Unknown
CU: BRIDGE NO.

EA:

NOTE: A COPY OF THIS LOG OF TEST BORINGS IS AVAILABLE AT

OFFICE OF STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS,

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
As-Built Log of Test Borings sheet is considered an informational document only. As such, the State of California registration seal with signature, license number and registration certificate expiration date confirm that this is a true and accurate copy of the original document. It does not attest to the accuracy or validity of the information contained in the original document. This drawing is available and presented only for the convenience of any bidder, contractor or other interested party.

SHEET NO.

PROJECT NAME
LOG OF TEST BORINGS 4 OF 5
As-Built Vertical Datum:

FIELD SYUDY by A. fADORr P=-Gd
DRAWN By AK, Edom /O=3 ~Ged.

CHECKED |

SRE DEPARTME FNGINTERING GEOLOGY SECTION
ar
=.

CLASSIFICATION OF MavesiaL BASED
ON STANDARD GryDE sre Livers
DIAGRAM 4HOWIIG THE BAILS FU RSSIMATER
OF GRATE SIXT DLYUDLYION USED I DLTER~ MUATION OF CLASSE WAMES, © ~BrGRAVEL [3 SRESENT IN APPRECIASLE 2, AMOUNTS THE TaRM *GRAVILLY MAY ,, BY ADDED TO THE Clas HAME, VIZ, ¢ vamavaity sano? Tus voews 40 SCOARSET “MEOWM” Ap “FINE WHEN USED TO DESCRIBE SAND, BILY AND GRAVEL REFER. 10 STANUARD GRADE a1ZK LiMiTs,
anal
be construed to imply mechanical
ysis. wl
yy 9 KS SILY rarcrarascs
upon field inspection and is not to
NOTE: Classification of earth material as shown on this sheetis based

LEGEND.OF EARTH MATERIALS
2 Spd larer
Ais)
Stury Car oR ‘CLAvey Sur
SEAT AWDon
7 =Z| FiLL MAteriat
3 Gravee
@Saup
ER Sir22 Cray
=
faNEOUSs Rock
Sanpy Cuay or CLAYEY SAND
SAnpy SILT IR if SiLry Sano

ORGANIC MATTER
SEDIMENTARY Rock
ES Merauorenis Rack
rr
@ PENLTROMETER oo® 2%"CONE PENZTROMETED
A Samprr EORING (ory)
“Ei Rovany Boring (WEY) (Lung tb fund |
meBORING (ORY)
3 JET BORING
& CORE BORING

L.
| Tapeh By
Blows per Foot
hammer ritha 12% Prea 21)
3 | Test piv
1 ii Bazeription of matcriol
0) SY rune win(feoc)
=oh Atos
or 28 noted)
Average whi friction phove 1458 Yeint@ig10)
Sir Aarne©11pa)
5%ehef daring
ests
Peng TRATION Boring
Graphic repressntatnn
dlecenan ges foes
of driving rare

50 EO
- 70
go
“SO
2c
-30
=~/0No
20 <Q

ve <e

20%
(ZT7=
-Ei
(=2lr <4] =
brolre 2
—alra=LL
Eredi
f<éii= IR

\
~
Ly
2 N
Ro
n
a
3 Ny*]

“| mradiurr Som
LE] Dense coanse sVary ok
7/G et
Lense Gray radium Send .

J Very danse fo dense Srowrs
> .
2 Lanse gray rradiumr Sond .
ernse Codrs=
Dense gray madivrn sono .
ne ¥ grovel,
SY Danse Cosrse Sono’ & grovs/ .

Cory & grovel .

Sr
iE
Mord frig
“J Sor 1igh
| Dense Lg :
7 ‘
lad
7 i
EEsmell cobbles
7 brows clayey
Darrse cosrse Sord, grovel
A brown c/oyeay

8.1 Very dense cosrse sor ¢ graval.

FP Orowrm rmiadiurrr Sor.

Fes ?=Gt
J
2 23
SOIT
orgam/z mare brows cloyay
SWS) EM.-2E
i
rio &
roofs .
| Seofared pebbles .

S/F with
’ Vary Sokt dark brown sh Sty eloy with small
Vary soft Fo sof lipht
b
~N
[3oo———FSREAERET
A
pi |
% -

SNARAT Y
2 7]
7 2RENN
3 NnA
g

0 7]
7]
#51
750:
z
7 L/7

TRE fm ®7
23 i
\
GwS, £/. ~2
TeraSS
2 ~

Fo)
|
reE
verr. 17/0"
00 AROSEPRESAIRY 330 gdh NS BB Sat Bos fof
7=-20-6¢
=
®

HORrZ . VT 3C
mn7}

BAS,
|
~
®
n
UPo
#
@
ERSERELE Ebay BRC HSors ~ 0
i
1 SL
|
: |
| i
i N
i
¢
|\EDIFE
J
>
ioJARRRIRR35 HEH3%bly GPP
prance ae
~/7lo
I
nE-Sh
— @.IKPN10(I

a
| LE PEEEE TREATYNUShbaSCova MN
EE croYe,”
| ZL RA ‘e, ARRhyUn paPy,TrBT be/

38 +50

ROA JO

2 Rr."a2 03
SN oR:‘ere r82
ty#3LrRIAD)
183 LC,rd AGE
Zl
Gt
=

M
SCaLL AS AOFeo’

= ir-<h
Z3i7= is.

La
[F722 <
ER:

FR
}
|<i
Et
Ea
{ 77 Le

8 17. &

=F

ra
Me
’
/
A
~N
\
’

T
1 Disragond picts raring ecrber cumbers —]PRE. DRAWING No. PR-.

Sf Danse
Jd oroees
’ :

NN
2 mma S20
SHED
|
oo .

Baise 2-68 4 | Fue
Fo

STAIE OF CALIFGRMIA

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

AMERICAN RIVER BRIDGE

~So
Soir. 7] Con
$e
&
TR
& grove/
DeiFE Qronrr COSIES SR
“20 &
Corneacs brown somo’ .
s
Danse bro
,
ors
er I]
clayey SOF.
yp Sanda .
vel
,
—
Hd Compact brew cosmse
Seomes :
wer Somg F gravel
Fema
o -20

orawns 2 468-6
LOG OF TEST RORINGS NO.5

|

Soil &or,=
Y
pF Sori breve
eloyeay S/F Fo $i/F
A Vary SEFgroy & dark Drow

ov
cvs, =i. ~3%
: - He GS
so.
2-12
iy)
SAF
Soff dark
SFFFg.
ofFy 2/ay
ITA Vary SofFroark Emo
v
. along
&
—
—y
A SEEF clori brown ©
& dark
Agoroxirma
rons ef, Lyay
<y
A
3 browr Slayay £
Fa growrnd line
“fire ~~
=
>.
20 10

borerears

Date C
D

AS BUILT
ompleted
Contract No. 24-0et119¢ PLANS
ocument No._3ceo. £
2-68
ntSR
8-18
UPD
8-27
PLAN
VacK-v-2
38 tg
mo
Sat
©Q
5 ars Ar, 2oVLS

2 [CEE

Cri LRSM ELI3565

DIV. Ko.

FED. ROAD

SYATE
CALIF.

F. A. PROJECT NO.

EXEKT
NO.

TOTAL
DALAT

DIST. COUNTY ROUTE POST MILES - TOTAL PROJECT TOTAL SHEETS 3 SAC
17-Jul-24

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DATE
Unknown Datum Conversion: Unknown
CU: BRIDGE NO.

EA:

NOTE: A COPY OF THIS LOG OF TEST BORINGS IS AVAILABLE AT

OFFICE OF STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS,

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
As-Built Log of Test Borings sheet is considered an informational document only. As such, the State of California registration seal with signature, license number and registration certificate expiration date confirm that this is a true and accurate copy of the original document. It does not attest to the accuracy or validity of the information contained in the original document. This drawing is available and presented only for the convenience of any bidder, contractor or other interested party.

SHEET NO.

PROJECT NAME
LOG OF TEST BORINGS 5 OF 5
As-Built Vertical Datum:

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

ANALYSES AND CALCULATIONS
ARS Online V3.1.0
Using the tool: Specify latitude and longitude in decimal degrees in the input boxes below. Alternatively, Google Maps can be used to find the site location. Specify the timeaveraged shear-wave velocity in the upper 30m (Vs30) in the input box. After submitting the data, the USGS 2014 hazard data for a 975-year return period will be reported along with adjustment factors required by Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (SDC) V2.0.

Latitude: 38.6043 Longitude: -121.4963 Vs30 (m/s):
213 Submit
Caltrans Design Spectrum (5% damping)
Period(s) Sa2014
(g) Basin2014 Near Fault Amp Design Sa2014(g)
PGA 0.26 1 1 0.26

0.10 0.46 1 1 0.46

0.20 0.67 1 1 0.67

0.30 0.74 1 1 0.74

0.50 0.71 1 1 0.71

0.75 0.57 1 1 0.57

1.0 0.45 1 1 0.45

2.0 0.25 1 1 0.25

3.0 0.16 1 1 0.16

4.0 0.12 1 1 0.12

5.0 0.09 1 1 0.09
Copy table
Deaggregation (based on 2014 hazard)
Mean moment magnitude (for PGA) 6.68
Mean site-source distance, km (for Sa at 1s) 89.1
Option: recalculate Near Fault amplification with user specified distance 6/11/24, 10:13 AM This is a an example title
https://arsonline.dot.ca.gov/index.php/home 1/2
Site-source distance, km: 89.1 Update
6/11/24, 10:13 AM This is a an example title
https://arsonline.dot.ca.gov/index.php/home 2/2
Liquefaction Analysis S2815-05-01
B1 (2022, Township 9, no lab)
z = sample depth in meters
rd = Stress Reduction Coefficient
(1 - 0.4113*z0.5 + 0.04052*z + 0.001753*z1.5) / (1 - 0.4177*z0.5 + 0.05729*z - 0.006205*z1.5 + 0.001210*z2) CSR = Cyclic Stress Ratio

0.65 (PGA) (σvo / σ'vo) * rd
(N1)60 = Field blow counts corrected per Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction Evaluation module

20.0 feet Field N * CE * CN * CB * CR * CS

21.0 feet GW Depth (Design)1
: -3.0 feet
-1.0 feet Site PGA: 0.26 g Kσ = Overburden stress correction factor, Kσ ≤ 1.0

80.0 % Mean Magnitude (M): 6.68 (σ'vo/Pa
)
(f-1)
140 pounds Kα = Static shear stress correction, requires additional research 30 inches 1.0 (Recommended value)
Drilling Rod Stick-up: 2 feet FS = Factor of Safety against liquefaction (CRR7.5/CSR) * MSF * Kσ * Kα
Liquefaction Factor of Safety2: 1.00 (N1
)60cs = Clean sand value (modified (N1)60 for fines content) DR = Relative Density (%) α + β*(N1)60 100 * [(N1
)60cs/46]0.5 Sr
= Undrained residual shear strength of liquefied soil
GW Elevation (Design)= 23.0 feet CRR7.5 = Cyclic Resistance Ratio, for M=7.5 earthquake Pa = Atmospheric pressure (defined) 2,116*exp(-8.444 + 0.109*(N1 )60 + 5.379*(σ'vo/2,116)

0.1 )
1/[34-(N1)60cs] + (N1)60cs/135 + 50/[10*(N1cs)60+45]2 - 1/200 2.116 ksf MSF= 1.34 MSF = Magnitude Scaling Factor
102.24 / M2.56
References:

Boulanger and Idriss, Liquefaction Susceptibility Criteria for Silts and Clays (ASCE JGGE, November 2006) Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction Evaluation module (January 2020) Caltrans ARS Online (https://arsonline.dot.ca.gov/)
Idriss and Boulanger, Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes (2008) Youd, et al, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils (ASCE JGGE, April 2001) Residual
Shear
Strength
Sample
Number
Sample
Depth (feet)
Depth to
Bottom of
Layer (feet)
Top of Layer
Elevation
(feet)
Sample
Elevation
(feet)
Bottom of
Layer
Elevation
(feet)
Layer
Thickness
(feet)
Soil Type
(USCS) Field N
Total Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Average
Grain Size,
D50
(mm)
Percent
Fines
(-#200)
(%)
Liquid Limit
LL
Plasticity
Index
PI
"Clay-Like"
Soil?3 Rock?4
Soil Above
GW?5
Total Stress
at Layer
Midpoint
(psf)
Effective
Stress (at
Time of
Drilling)
σ'vo
(psf)
Effective
Stress
(Design)
σ'vo
(psf)
rd CSR
(N1)60
(Caltrans,
for liq.
analysis)
α β (N1
)60cs CRR7.5
7 DR
(%)
f Kσ Kα FS FS ≤ 1.0?
8 Sr
(psf)
5 5 9.9 20 15 10.1 9.9 SM 6 115.0 569 569 263 0.990 0.36 4 5.00 1.20 10 0.12 47.3 1 1.00 1.00 0.43 LIQ 58 10 10 14.9 10.1 10 5.1 5 ML 7 120.0 1,439 1,439 667 0.979 0.36 6 5.00 1.20 12 0.14 52.0 0.74 1.00 1.00 0.51 LIQ 108 15 15 21 5.1 5 -1 6.1 SP 12 115.0 2,089 2,089 972 0.969 0.35 6 5.00 1.20 12 0.13 51.2 0.74 1.00 1.00 0.50 LIQ 125

21.1 21.1 23 -1 -1.1 -3 2 SP 15 120.0 2,560 2,498 1,190 0.954 0.35 8 5.00 1.20 14 0.15 55.2 0.72 1.00 1.00 0.58 LIQ 166 25 25 28 -3 -5 -8 5 SP 15 120.0 2,980 2,699 1,391 0.942 0.34 7 5.00 1.20 13 0.14 53.7 0.73 1.00 1.00 0.56 LIQ 168 30 30 33 -8 -10 -13 5 SP 21 120.0 3,580 2,987 1,679 0.921 0.33 9 5.00 1.20 16 0.17 59.0 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.69 LIQ 237 35 35 38 -13 -15 -18 5 SP 19 120.0 4,180 3,275 1,967 0.891 0.32 8 5.00 1.20 15 0.16 57.1 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.67 LIQ 236 40 40 43 -18 -20 -23 5 SP 27 125.0 4,793 3,576 2,268 0.851 0.30 11 5.00 1.20 19 0.20 63.6 0.68 0.98 1.00 0.86 LIQ 353 45 45 83 -23 -25 -63 40 GP 63 130.0 7,705 5,084 3,776 0.804 0.28 22 5.00 1.20 32 NL 85 85 89.9 -63 -65 -69.9 6.9 SM 81 130.0 10,754 6,669 5,362 25 90 90 94.9 -69.9 -70 -74.9 5 SP 50 130.0 11,527 7,072 5,764 36 95 95 99.9 -74.9 -75 -79.9 5 CL-ML 99 130.0 12,177 7,410 6,102 71 100 100 104.9 -79.9 -80 -84.9 5 ML 118 130.0 12,827 7,748 6,440 53 105 105 109.9 -84.9 -85 -89.9 5 SP 150 130.0 13,477 8,086 6,778 42 110 110 111.5 -89.9 -90 -91.5 1.6 SM 68 130.0 13,906 8,309 7,001 46 NOTES: 1 Design groundwater depth for liquefaction should be the measured (or an average) groundwater elevation. Per Caltrans, "use a higher elevation than measured only if there is clear evidence for seasonal or long-term fluctuations." 2 Per Caltrans, "use a factor of safety against liquefaction of 1.0" 3 Per Caltrans, "use Boulanger and Idriss (2006) to determine if fine-grained soils are likely to behave as sand-like material and thus should be considered as susceptible to liquefaction." (PI < 7, or PI < 5 if the LL < 27) 4 Per Caltrans, rock is not considered to be liquefiable. 5 Soils above design groundwater elevation are not considered saturated and therefore are non-liquefiable. 6 Per Caltrans, liquefaction analysis using this method is limited to a maximum depth of 70 feet (depth cutoff implemented in these calculations); use with caution below a depth of 50 feet. 7 NL = non-liquefiable. Per Caltrans, "for (N1)60cs ≥ 30, clean granular soils are too dense to liquefy and are classified as non-liquefiable." 8 LIQ = potentially liquefiable (Factor of Safety is less than or equal to 1.0 for liquefaction in sand-like materials).

Overburden Correction
Corrections
Liquefaction
Potential?
DR ≤ 40
DR
DR ≥ 80

0.8 1 - 0.005*DR

0.6 f
CSR CRR (SPT) 6
40 < DR < 80
Hammer Energy Ratio (ERi):

Hammer Weight:

Hammer Drop:
α
0 [0.99 + (FC1.5 /1,000)]

1.0 1.2
exp[1.76 - (190/FC2)]

5.0 Project: S2815-05-01
Project No.: Truxel Road Bridge at American River
By: REL
Screening Checks Overburden Stresses
Boring: B1 (2022, Township 9, no lab)
Date: 6/9/2024
Boring Elevation: Only fill in/edit shaded boxes.

Groundwater (GW) Depth:

Groundwater (GW) Elevation: β
Data
5% < FC < 35%
FC ≤ 5%
FC ≥ 35%
Fines Content
%
Liquefaction Settlement Analysis S2815-05-01
B1 (2022, Township 9, no lab)

20.0 feet GW Depth (Design): -3.0 feet N160 = Blow counts corrected for sampler size, hammer efficiency, and overburden pressure (per AASHTO)

21.0 feet Site PGA: 0.26 g CSR = Cyclic Stress Ratio (Youd, 2001) -1.0 feet Mean Magnitude (M): 6.68 0.65 (PGA) (σvo / σ'vo) * rd

80.0 % MSF = Magnitude Scaling Factor (Youd, 2001)
140 pounds Liquefaction Factor of Safety: 1.00 102.24 / M2.56 30 inches CSR7.5 = Cyclic Resistance Ratio, for M=7.5 earthquake (Lee, 2007) Drilling Rod Stick-up: 2 feet GW Elevation (Design)= 23.0 feet CSR7.5 / MSF εv = Volumetric strain due to soil liquefaction, for CSR7.5 / N160 > 0.01 MSF= 1.34 10 * (N160)
-0.6
References:

Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction Evaluation module (January 2020) Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction Induced Downdrag module (January 2020) Lee, Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Saturated Sandy Soils (ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences (August 2007) - based on Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) Youd, et al, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils (ASCE JGGE, April 2001) Sample
Number
Sample
Depth (feet)
Depth to
Bottom of
Layer (feet)
Top of Layer
Elevation
(feet)
Sample
Elevation
(feet)
Bottom of
Layer
Elevation
(feet)
Layer
Thickness
(feet)
Soil Type
(USCS) Field N
N160
(AASHTO) Liq. FS ≤ 1.02 CSR CSR7.5 CSR7.5 / N160
εv
(%)
Liquefaction
Settlement
(feet)
5 5 9.9 20 15 10.1 9.9 SM 6 5 LIQ 0.36 0.27 0.058 4.0 0.39 10 10 14.9 10.1 10 5.1 5 ML 7 7 LIQ 0.36 0.27 0.039 3.2 0.16 15 15 21 5.1 5 -1 6.1 SP 12 6 LIQ 0.35 0.26 0.040 3.3 0.20

21.1 21.1 23 -1 -1.1 -3 2 SP 15 8 LIQ 0.35 0.26 0.034 3.0 0.06 25 25 28 -3 -5 -8 5 SP 15 7 LIQ 0.34 0.25 0.034 3.0 0.15 30 30 33 -8 -10 -13 5 SP 21 10 LIQ 0.33 0.25 0.025 2.5 0.13 35 35 38 -13 -15 -18 5 SP 19 9 LIQ 0.32 0.24 0.027 2.7 0.14 40 40 43 -18 -20 -23 5 SP 27 12 LIQ 0.30 0.23 0.019 2.3 0.11 45 45 83 -23 -25 -63 40 GP 63 24
85 85 89.9 -63 -65 -69.9 6.9 SM 81 27
90 90 94.9 -69.9 -70 -74.9 5 SP 50 39
95 95 99.9 -74.9 -75 -79.9 5 CL-ML 99 74
100 100 104.9 -79.9 -80 -84.9 5 ML 118 56
105 105 109.9 -84.9 -85 -89.9 5 SP 150 44
110 110 111.5 -89.9 -90 -91.5 1.6 SM 68 48
NOTES: 1 Detailed N160 calculation and liquefaction analysis are performed on separate spreadsheet tabs. A summary of pertinent results is presented here. 1.34 feet 2 LIQ = potentially liquefiable (Factor of Safety is less than or equal to 1.0 for liquefaction in sand-like materials). 16.0 inches Hammer Weight:

Hammer Drop:

Data1
Total:

Calculation
Project: S2815-05-01
Project No.: Truxel Road Bridge at American River
Boring: B1 (2022, Township 9, no lab)
Groundwater (GW) Depth:

Groundwater (GW) Elevation:

Hammer Energy Ratio (ERi):

By: REL
Date: 6/9/2024
Boring Elevation:

Liquefaction Analysis S2815-05-01
B2 (2022, Township 9, no lab)
z = sample depth in meters
rd = Stress Reduction Coefficient
(1 - 0.4113*z0.5 + 0.04052*z + 0.001753*z1.5) / (1 - 0.4177*z0.5 + 0.05729*z - 0.006205*z1.5 + 0.001210*z2) CSR = Cyclic Stress Ratio

0.65 (PGA) (σvo / σ'vo) * rd
(N1)60 = Field blow counts corrected per Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction Evaluation module

21.0 feet Field N * CE * CN * CB * CR * CS

22.0 feet GW Depth (Design)1
: -2.0 feet
-1.0 feet Site PGA: 0.26 g Kσ = Overburden stress correction factor, Kσ ≤ 1.0

80.0 % Mean Magnitude (M): 6.68 (σ'vo/Pa
)
(f-1)
140 pounds Kα = Static shear stress correction, requires additional research 30 inches 1.0 (Recommended value)
Drilling Rod Stick-up: 2 feet FS = Factor of Safety against liquefaction (CRR7.5/CSR) * MSF * Kσ * Kα
Liquefaction Factor of Safety2: 1.00 (N1
)60cs = Clean sand value (modified (N1)60 for fines content) DR = Relative Density (%) α + β*(N1)60 100 * [(N1
)60cs/46]0.5 Sr
= Undrained residual shear strength of liquefied soil
GW Elevation (Design)= 23.0 feet CRR7.5 = Cyclic Resistance Ratio, for M=7.5 earthquake Pa = Atmospheric pressure (defined) 2,116*exp(-8.444 + 0.109*(N1 )60 + 5.379*(σ'vo/2,116)

0.1 )
1/[34-(N1)60cs] + (N1)60cs/135 + 50/[10*(N1cs)60+45]2 - 1/200 2.116 ksf MSF= 1.34 MSF = Magnitude Scaling Factor
102.24 / M2.56
References:

Boulanger and Idriss, Liquefaction Susceptibility Criteria for Silts and Clays (ASCE JGGE, November 2006) Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction Evaluation module (January 2020) Caltrans ARS Online (https://arsonline.dot.ca.gov/)
Idriss and Boulanger, Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes (2008) Youd, et al, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils (ASCE JGGE, April 2001) Residual
Shear
Strength
Sample
Number
Sample
Depth (feet)
Depth to
Bottom of
Layer (feet)
Top of Layer
Elevation
(feet)
Sample
Elevation
(feet)
Bottom of
Layer
Elevation
(feet)
Layer
Thickness
(feet)
Soil Type
(USCS) Field N
Total Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Average
Grain Size,
D50
(mm)
Percent
Fines
(-#200)
(%)
Liquid Limit
LL
Plasticity
Index
PI
"Clay-Like"
Soil?3 Rock?4
Soil Above
GW?5
Total Stress
at Layer
Midpoint
(psf)
Effective
Stress (at
Time of
Drilling)
σ'vo
(psf)
Effective
Stress
(Design)
σ'vo
(psf)
rd CSR
(N1)60
(Caltrans,
for liq.
analysis)
α β (N1
)60cs CRR7.5
7 DR
(%)
f Kσ Kα FS FS ≤ 1.0?
8 Sr
(psf)
5 5 9.9 21 16 11.1 9.9 ML 9 125.0 619 619 313 0.990 0.33 10 5.00 1.20 18 0.19 61.7 1 1.00 1.00 0.76 LIQ 121 10 10 13 11.1 11 8 3.1 SP 9 110.0 1,408 1,408 697 0.979 0.33 5 5.00 1.20 11 0.12 49.1 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.49 LIQ 97 15 15 18 8 6 3 5 SP 9 110.0 1,854 1,854 889 0.969 0.34 5 5.00 1.20 11 0.12 48.1 0.76 1.00 1.00 0.47 LIQ 105 20 20 22 3 1 -1 4 SP 10 110.0 2,349 2,349 1,104 0.957 0.34 5 5.00 1.20 11 0.12 49.4 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.48 LIQ 124 25 25 28 -1 -4 -7 6 SP 6 115.0 2,914 2,726 1,357 0.942 0.34 7 5.00 1.20 13 0.14 53.2 0.73 1.00 1.00 0.55 LIQ 162 30 30 33 -7 -9 -12 5 SP 2 95.0 3,496 2,966 1,596 0.921 0.34 2 5.00 1.20 8 0.09 40.6 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.36 LIQ 107 35 35 38 -12 -14 -17 5 SP 14 125.0 4,046 3,204 1,834 0.891 0.33 15 5.00 1.20 23 0.26 71.0 0.64 1.00 1.00 1.05 40 40 43 -17 -19 -22 5 SP 8 120.0 4,659 3,504 2,134 0.851 0.31 8 5.00 1.20 15 0.16 57.0 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.68 LIQ 245 45 45 47 -22 -24 -26 4 SP 9 120.0 5,199 3,763 2,394 0.804 0.29 9 5.00 1.20 16 0.17 58.6 0.71 0.96 1.00 0.74 LIQ 281 50 50 78 -26 -29 -57 31 GP 47 130.0 7,454 4,926 3,557 0.753 0.27 41 5.00 1.20 54 NL 85 85 86.5 -57 -64 -65.5 8.5 ML 82 130.0 10,021 6,261 4,892 41 NOTES: 1 Design groundwater depth for liquefaction should be the measured (or an average) groundwater elevation. Per Caltrans, "use a higher elevation than measured only if there is clear evidence for seasonal or long-term fluctuations." 2 Per Caltrans, "use a factor of safety against liquefaction of 1.0" 3 Per Caltrans, "use Boulanger and Idriss (2006) to determine if fine-grained soils are likely to behave as sand-like material and thus should be considered as susceptible to liquefaction." (PI < 7, or PI < 5 if the LL < 27) 4 Per Caltrans, rock is not considered to be liquefiable. 5 Soils above design groundwater elevation are not considered saturated and therefore are non-liquefiable. 6 Per Caltrans, liquefaction analysis using this method is limited to a maximum depth of 70 feet (depth cutoff implemented in these calculations); use with caution below a depth of 50 feet. 7 NL = non-liquefiable. Per Caltrans, "for (N1)60cs ≥ 30, clean granular soils are too dense to liquefy and are classified as non-liquefiable." 8 LIQ = potentially liquefiable (Factor of Safety is less than or equal to 1.0 for liquefaction in sand-like materials).

Overburden Correction
Corrections
Liquefaction
Potential?
DR ≤ 40
DR
DR ≥ 80

0.8 1 - 0.005*DR

0.6 f
CSR CRR (SPT) 6
40 < DR < 80
Hammer Energy Ratio (ERi):

Hammer Weight:

Hammer Drop:
α
0 [0.99 + (FC1.5 /1,000)]

1.0 1.2
exp[1.76 - (190/FC2)]

5.0 Project: S2815-05-01
Project No.: Truxel Road Bridge at American River
By: REL
Screening Checks Overburden Stresses
Boring: B2 (2022, Township 9, no lab)
Date: 6/9/2024
Boring Elevation: Only fill in/edit shaded boxes.

Groundwater (GW) Depth:

Groundwater (GW) Elevation: β
Data
5% < FC < 35%
FC ≤ 5%
FC ≥ 35%
Fines Content
%
Liquefaction Settlement Analysis S2815-05-01
B2 (2022, Township 9, no lab)

21.0 feet GW Depth (Design): -2.0 feet N160 = Blow counts corrected for sampler size, hammer efficiency, and overburden pressure (per AASHTO)

22.0 feet Site PGA: 0.26 g CSR = Cyclic Stress Ratio (Youd, 2001) -1.0 feet Mean Magnitude (M): 6.68 0.65 (PGA) (σvo / σ'vo) * rd

80.0 % MSF = Magnitude Scaling Factor (Youd, 2001)
140 pounds Liquefaction Factor of Safety: 1.00 102.24 / M2.56 30 inches CSR7.5 = Cyclic Resistance Ratio, for M=7.5 earthquake (Lee, 2007) Drilling Rod Stick-up: 2 feet GW Elevation (Design)= 23.0 feet CSR7.5 / MSF εv = Volumetric strain due to soil liquefaction, for CSR7.5 / N160 > 0.01 MSF= 1.34 10 * (N160)
-0.6
References:

Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction Evaluation module (January 2020) Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction Induced Downdrag module (January 2020) Lee, Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Saturated Sandy Soils (ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences (August 2007) - based on Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) Youd, et al, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils (ASCE JGGE, April 2001) Sample
Number
Sample
Depth (feet)
Depth to
Bottom of
Layer (feet)
Top of Layer
Elevation
(feet)
Sample
Elevation
(feet)
Bottom of
Layer
Elevation
(feet)
Layer
Thickness
(feet)
Soil Type
(USCS) Field N
N160
(AASHTO) Liq. FS ≤ 1.02 CSR CSR7.5 CSR7.5 / N160
εv
(%)
Liquefaction
Settlement
(feet)
5 5 9.9 21 16 11.1 9.9 ML 9 11 LIQ 0.33 0.25 0.023 2.4 0.24 10 10 13 11.1 11 8 3.1 SP 9 6 LIQ 0.33 0.25 0.045 3.6 0.11 15 15 18 8 6 3 5 SP 9 5 LIQ 0.34 0.25 0.050 3.8 0.19
20 20 22 3 1 -1 4 SP 10 5 LIQ 0.34 0.26 0.049 3.7 0.15
25 25 28 -1 -4 -7 6 SP 6 7 LIQ 0.34 0.25 0.035 3.1 0.18 30 30 33 -7 -9 -12 5 SP 2 2 LIQ 0.34 0.25 0.109 6.0 0.30 35 35 38 -12 -14 -17 5 SP 14 16
40 40 43 -17 -19 -22 5 SP 8 9 LIQ 0.31 0.23 0.027 2.7 0.14 45 45 47 -22 -24 -26 4 SP 9 9 LIQ 0.29 0.22 0.023 2.6 0.10 50 50 78 -26 -29 -57 31 GP 47 44
85 85 86.5 -57 -64 -65.5 8.5 ML 82 44
NOTES: 1 Detailed N160 calculation and liquefaction analysis are performed on separate spreadsheet tabs. A summary of pertinent results is presented here. 1.41 feet 2 LIQ = potentially liquefiable (Factor of Safety is less than or equal to 1.0 for liquefaction in sand-like materials). 16.9 inches Hammer Weight:

Hammer Drop:

Data1
Total:

Calculation
Project: S2815-05-01
Project No.: Truxel Road Bridge at American River
Boring: B2 (2022, Township 9, no lab)
Groundwater (GW) Depth:

Groundwater (GW) Elevation:

Hammer Energy Ratio (ERi):

By: REL
Date: 6/9/2024
Boring Elevation:

Liquefaction Analysis S2815-05-01
D-1
z = sample depth in meters
rd = Stress Reduction Coefficient
(1 - 0.4113*z0.5 + 0.04052*z + 0.001753*z1.5) / (1 - 0.4177*z0.5 + 0.05729*z - 0.006205*z1.5 + 0.001210*z2) CSR = Cyclic Stress Ratio

0.65 (PGA) (σvo / σ'vo) * rd
(N1)60 = Field blow counts corrected per Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction Evaluation module

15.0 feet Field N * CE * CN * CB * CR * CS

20.0 feet GW Depth (Design)1
: -8.0 feet
-5.0 feet Site PGA: 0.26 g Kσ = Overburden stress correction factor, Kσ ≤ 1.0

60.0 % Mean Magnitude (M): 6.68 (σ'vo/Pa
)
(f-1)
140 pounds Kα = Static shear stress correction, requires additional research 30 inches 1.0 (Recommended value)
Drilling Rod Stick-up: 2 feet FS = Factor of Safety against liquefaction (CRR7.5/CSR) * MSF * Kσ * Kα
Liquefaction Factor of Safety2: 1.00 (N1
)60cs = Clean sand value (modified (N1)60 for fines content) DR = Relative Density (%) α + β*(N1)60 100 * [(N1
)60cs/46]0.5 Sr
= Undrained residual shear strength of liquefied soil
GW Elevation (Design)= 23.0 feet CRR7.5 = Cyclic Resistance Ratio, for M=7.5 earthquake Pa = Atmospheric pressure (defined) 2,116*exp(-8.444 + 0.109*(N1 )60 + 5.379*(σ'vo/2,116)

0.1 )
1/[34-(N1)60cs] + (N1)60cs/135 + 50/[10*(N1cs)60+45]2 - 1/200 2.116 ksf MSF= 1.34 MSF = Magnitude Scaling Factor
102.24 / M2.56
References:

Boulanger and Idriss, Liquefaction Susceptibility Criteria for Silts and Clays (ASCE JGGE, November 2006) Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction Evaluation module (January 2020) Caltrans ARS Online (https://arsonline.dot.ca.gov/)
Idriss and Boulanger, Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes (2008) Youd, et al, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils (ASCE JGGE, April 2001) Residual
Shear
Strength
Sample
Number
Sample
Depth (feet)
Depth to
Bottom of
Layer (feet)
Top of Layer
Elevation
(feet)
Sample
Elevation
(feet)
Bottom of
Layer
Elevation
(feet)
Layer
Thickness
(feet)
Soil Type
(USCS) Field N
Total Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Average
Grain Size,
D50
(mm)
Percent
Fines
(-#200)
(%)
Liquid Limit
LL
Plasticity
Index
PI
"Clay-Like"
Soil?3 Rock?4
Soil Above
GW?5
Total Stress
at Layer
Midpoint
(psf)
Effective
Stress (at
Time of
Drilling)
σ'vo
(psf)
Effective
Stress
(Design)
σ'vo
(psf)
rd CSR
(N1)60
(Caltrans,
for liq.
analysis)
α β (N1
)60cs CRR7.5
7 DR
(%)
f Kσ Kα FS FS ≤ 1.0?
8 Sr
(psf)
1 5 8 15 10 7 8 ML 25 116.0 93.0 464 464 268 0.990 0.29 27 5.00 1.20 38 NL 2 10 13 7 5 2 5 ML 30 117.0 96.0 41 29 YES 1,221 1,221 619 27 3 15 20 2 0 -5 7 ML 19 117.0 95.0 43 29 YES 1,923 1,923 947 14 4 22 25 -5 -7 -10 5 MH 16 120.0 86.0 58 40 YES 2,632 2,476 1,282 12 5 27 37 -10 -12 -22 12 MH 29 124.0 86.0 3,676 2,990 1,795 0.934 0.32 20 5.00 1.20 29 0.39 78.9 0.61 1.00 1.00 1.64 6 47 50 -22 -32 -35 13 GP 50 129.0 5,259 3,792 2,598 0.783 0.27 24 5.00 1.20 33 NL NOTES: 1 Design groundwater depth for liquefaction should be the measured (or an average) groundwater elevation. Per Caltrans, "use a higher elevation than measured only if there is clear evidence for seasonal or long-term fluctuations." 2 Per Caltrans, "use a factor of safety against liquefaction of 1.0" 3 Per Caltrans, "use Boulanger and Idriss (2006) to determine if fine-grained soils are likely to behave as sand-like material and thus should be considered as susceptible to liquefaction." (PI < 7, or PI < 5 if the LL < 27) 4 Per Caltrans, rock is not considered to be liquefiable. 5 Soils above design groundwater elevation are not considered saturated and therefore are non-liquefiable. 6 Per Caltrans, liquefaction analysis using this method is limited to a maximum depth of 70 feet (depth cutoff implemented in these calculations); use with caution below a depth of 50 feet. 7 NL = non-liquefiable. Per Caltrans, "for (N1)60cs ≥ 30, clean granular soils are too dense to liquefy and are classified as non-liquefiable." 8 LIQ = potentially liquefiable (Factor of Safety is less than or equal to 1.0 for liquefaction in sand-like materials).

Overburden Correction
Corrections
Liquefaction
Potential?
DR ≤ 40
DR
DR ≥ 80

0.8 1 - 0.005*DR

0.6 f
CSR CRR (SPT) 6
40 < DR < 80
Hammer Energy Ratio (ERi):

Hammer Weight:

Hammer Drop:
α
0 [0.99 + (FC1.5 /1,000)]

1.0 1.2
exp[1.76 - (190/FC2)]

5.0 Project: S2815-05-01
Project No.: Truxel Road Bridge at American River
By: REL
Screening Checks Overburden Stresses
Boring: D-1
Date: 6/11/2024
Boring Elevation: Only fill in/edit shaded boxes.

Groundwater (GW) Depth:

Groundwater (GW) Elevation: β
Data
5% < FC < 35%
FC ≤ 5%
FC ≥ 35%
Fines Content
%
Liquefaction Analysis S2815-05-01
WCSBAR_001B
z = sample depth in meters
rd = Stress Reduction Coefficient
(1 - 0.4113*z0.5 + 0.04052*z + 0.001753*z1.5) / (1 - 0.4177*z0.5 + 0.05729*z - 0.006205*z1.5 + 0.001210*z2) CSR = Cyclic Stress Ratio

0.65 (PGA) (σvo / σ'vo) * rd
(N1)60 = Field blow counts corrected per Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction Evaluation module

36.7 feet Field N * CE * CN * CB * CR * CS

34.9 feet GW Depth (Design)1
: 13.7 feet

1.8 feet Site PGA: 0.26 g Kσ = Overburden stress correction factor, Kσ ≤ 1.0

83.0 % Mean Magnitude (M): 6.68 (σ'vo/Pa
)
(f-1)
140 pounds Kα = Static shear stress correction, requires additional research 30 inches 1.0 (Recommended value)
Drilling Rod Stick-up: 2 feet FS = Factor of Safety against liquefaction (CRR7.5/CSR) * MSF * Kσ * Kα
Liquefaction Factor of Safety2: 1.00 (N1
)60cs = Clean sand value (modified (N1)60 for fines content) DR = Relative Density (%) α + β*(N1)60 100 * [(N1
)60cs/46]0.5 Sr
= Undrained residual shear strength of liquefied soil
GW Elevation (Design)= 23.0 feet CRR7.5 = Cyclic Resistance Ratio, for M=7.5 earthquake Pa = Atmospheric pressure (defined) 2,116*exp(-8.444 + 0.109*(N1 )60 + 5.379*(σ'vo/2,116)

0.1 )
1/[34-(N1)60cs] + (N1)60cs/135 + 50/[10*(N1cs)60+45]2 - 1/200 2.116 ksf MSF= 1.34 MSF = Magnitude Scaling Factor
102.24 / M2.56
References:

Boulanger and Idriss, Liquefaction Susceptibility Criteria for Silts and Clays (ASCE JGGE, November 2006) Caltrans Geotechnical Manual, Liquefaction Evaluation module (January 2020) Caltrans ARS Online (https://arsonline.dot.ca.gov/)
Idriss and Boulanger, Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes (2008) Youd, et al, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils (ASCE JGGE, April 2001) Residual
Shear
Strength
Sample
Number
Sample
Depth (feet)
Depth to
Bottom of
Layer (feet)
Top of Layer
Elevation
(feet)
Sample
Elevation
(feet)
Bottom of
Layer
Elevation
(feet)
Layer
Thickness
(feet)
Soil Type
(USCS) Field N
Total Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Average
Grain Size,
D50
(mm)
Percent
Fines
(-#200)
(%)
Liquid Limit
LL
Plasticity
Index
PI
"Clay-Like"
Soil?3 Rock?4
Soil Above
GW?5
Total Stress
at Layer
Midpoint
(psf)
Effective
Stress (at
Time of
Drilling)
σ'vo
(psf)
Effective
Stress
(Design)
σ'vo
(psf)
rd CSR
(N1)60
(Caltrans,
for liq.
analysis)
α β (N1
)60cs CRR7.5
7 DR
(%)
f Kσ Kα FS FS ≤ 1.0?
8 Sr
(psf)
4 4 8 36.7 32.7 28.7 8 SM 31 130.0 27.0 YES 520 520 520 57 6 10 13.7 28.7 26.7 23 5.7 SP-SM 9 120.0 6.0 YES 1,382 1,382 1,382 13 8 15 19.9 23 21.7 16.8 6.2 ML 12 125.0 62.0 2,112 2,112 1,918 0.969 0.18 15 5.00 1.20 23 0.25 70.4 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.89 12 20 23 16.8 16.7 13.7 3.1 SM 19 125.0 44.0 2,693 2,693 2,209 0.957 0.20 23 5.00 1.20 33 NL 14 25 26.5 13.7 11.7 10.2 3.5 SM 15 125.0 44.0 3,105 3,105 2,416 0.942 0.20 17 5.00 1.20 26 0.30 74.5 0.63 0.95 1.00 1.89 16 30 34.9 10.2 6.7 1.8 8.4 ML 11 120.0 58.0 3,828 3,828 2,767 0.921 0.22 11 5.00 1.20 19 0.20 63.5 0.68 0.92 1.00 1.14 18 35 39 1.8 1.7 -2.3 4.1 SM 22 125.0 19.0 4,588 4,460 3,137 0.891 0.22 22 3.43 1.07 27 0.34 76.7 0.62 0.86 1.00 1.78 20 40 43 -2.3 -3.3 -6.3 4 SW-SM 17 125.0 11.0 5,095 4,714 3,391 0.851 0.22 17 1.21 1.03 18 0.19 62.9 0.69 0.86 1.00 1.04 22 45 49.9 -6.3 -8.3 -13.2 6.9 SW-SM 21 125.0 11.0 5,776 5,055 3,732 0.804 0.21 20 1.21 1.03 21 0.23 68.3 0.66 0.82 1.00 1.24 24 50 54.9 -13.2 -13.3 -18.2 5 SP-SM 20 125.0 8.0 6,520 5,428 4,105 0.753 0.20 18 0.30 1.01 19 0.20 63.7 0.68 0.81 1.00 1.07 26 55 56.5 -18.2 -18.3 -19.8 1.6 GW 34 130.0 6,936 5,638 4,315 0.703 0.19 30 5.00 1.20 41 NL 28 60 63 -19.8 -23.3 -26.3 6.5 SW-SM 19 125.0 11.0 7,446 5,896 4,573 0.659 0.18 17 1.21 1.03 18 0.19 62.9 0.69 0.78 1.00 1.13 30 65 70 -26.3 -28.3 -33.3 7 GW 150 130.0 8,308 6,336 5,013 0.622 0.17 126 5.00 1.20 156 NL NOTES: 1 Design groundwater depth for liquefaction should be the measured (or an average) groundwater elevation. Per Caltrans, "use a higher elevation than measured only if there is clear evidence for seasonal or long-term fluctuations." 2 Per Caltrans, "use a factor of safety against liquefaction of 1.0" 3 Per Caltrans, "use Boulanger and Idriss (2006) to determine if fine-grained soils are likely to behave as sand-like material and thus should be considered as susceptible to liquefaction." (PI < 7, or PI < 5 if the LL < 27) 4 Per Caltrans, rock is not considered to be liquefiable. 5 Soils above design groundwater elevation are not considered saturated and therefore are non-liquefiable. 6 Per Caltrans, liquefaction analysis using this method is limited to a maximum depth of 70 feet (depth cutoff implemented in these calculations); use with caution below a depth of 50 feet. 7 NL = non-liquefiable. Per Caltrans, "for (N1)60cs ≥ 30, clean granular soils are too dense to liquefy and are classified as non-liquefiable." 8 LIQ = potentially liquefiable (Factor of Safety is less than or equal to 1.0 for liquefaction in sand-like materials).

Overburden Correction
Corrections
Liquefaction
Potential?
DR ≤ 40
DR
DR ≥ 80

0.8 1 - 0.005*DR

0.6 f
CSR CRR (SPT) 6
40 < DR < 80
Hammer Energy Ratio (ERi):

Hammer Weight:

Hammer Drop:
α
0 [0.99 + (FC1.5 /1,000)]

1.0 1.2
exp[1.76 - (190/FC2)]

5.0 Project: S2815-05-01
Project No.: Truxel Road Bridge at American River
By: REL
Screening Checks Overburden Stresses
Boring: WCSBAR_001B
Date: 6/10/2024
Boring Elevation: Only fill in/edit shaded boxes.

Groundwater (GW) Depth:

Groundwater (GW) Elevation: β
Data
5% < FC < 35%
FC ≤ 5%
FC ≥ 35%
Fines Content
%
Project: Truxel Road Bridge at American River
Overlay Normalized Plots
CLiq v.2.2.0.37 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/18/2024, 9:06:18 PM 1 Project file: R:\GEOCON WORKING FILES\S2800-S2849\S2815-05-01 Truxel Road Bridge\Analysis\CPT\Truxel CPT liq.clq Project: Truxel Road Bridge at American River
Overlay Intermediate Results
CLiq v.2.2.0.37 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/18/2024, 9:06:18 PM 2 Project file: R:\GEOCON WORKING FILES\S2800-S2849\S2815-05-01 Truxel Road Bridge\Analysis\CPT\Truxel CPT liq.clq Project: Truxel Road Bridge at American River
Overlay Cyclic Liquefaction Plots
CLiq v.2.2.0.37 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/18/2024, 9:06:18 PM 3 Project file: R:\GEOCON WORKING FILES\S2800-S2849\S2815-05-01 Truxel Road Bridge\Analysis\CPT\Truxel CPT liq.clq Project: Truxel Road Bridge at American River
Overlay Strength Loss Plots
CLiq v.2.2.0.37 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/18/2024, 9:06:18 PM 4 Project file: R:\GEOCON WORKING FILES\S2800-S2849\S2815-05-01 Truxel Road Bridge\Analysis\CPT\Truxel CPT liq.clq Overall vertical settlements report
Project title : Truxel Road Bridge at American River
Location : Sacramento, CA
CLiq v.2.2.0.37 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 1 Project file: R:\GEOCON WORKING FILES\S2800-S2849\S2815-05-01 Truxel Road Bridge\Analysis\CPT\Truxel CPT liq.clq Axial Capacity (kips)
Truxel, Abut 1, 24" PP, open, GS=23, GW=23, TOP=20
Depth (ft)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Skin Friction
Tip Resistance
Total Capacity
========================================================================= APILE for Windows, Version 2015.7.3
Serial Number : 136156632
A Program for Analyzing the Axial Capacity
and Short-term Settlement of Driven Piles
under Axial Loading.
(c) Copyright ENSOFT, Inc., 1987-2015
All Rights Reserved
========================================================================= This program is licensed to :

Geocon Consultants, Inc.

Rancho Cordova, CA
Path to file locations : R:\GEOCON WORKING FILES\S2800-S2849\S2815-05-01 Truxel Road Bridge\Analysis\Piles\APILE\
Name of input data file : PRELIM Abut 1.ap7d
Name of output file : PRELIM Abut 1.ap7o
Name of plot output file : PRELIM Abut 1.ap7p
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Time and Date of Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: July 18, 2024 Time: 07:58:52
1 *********************
* INPUT INFORMATION *
*********************
Truxel, Abut 1, 24" PP, open, GS=23, GW=23, TOP=20
DESIGNER : REL
JOB NUMBER : S2815-05-01
METHOD FOR UNIT LOAD TRANSFERS :
- API RP 2A (American Petroleum Institute)
Unfactored Unit Side Friction and Unit Side Resistance are used.

COMPUTATION METHOD(S) FOR PILE CAPACITY :
- API RP 2A (American Petroleum Institute)
TYPE OF LOADING :
- COMPRESSION
PILE TYPE :

Steel pipe pile or non-tapered portion of monotube pile - Open-Ended Pile
DATA FOR AXIAL STIFFNESS :
- MODULUS OF ELASTICITY = 0.290E+08 PSI
- CROSS SECTION AREA = 452.19 IN2
CIRCULAR PILE PROPERTIES :
- OUTSIDE DIAMETER, OD = 24.00 IN.
- INTERNAL DIAMETER, ID = 0.50 IN.
- TOTAL PILE LENGTH, TL = 58.00 FT.
- PILE STICKUP LENGTH, PSL = 0.00 FT.
- ZERO FRICTION LENGTH, ZFL = 3.00 FT.
- INCREMENT OF PILE LENGTH
USED IN COMPUTATION = 1.00 FT.
- LENGTH OF ENHANCED
END SECTION = 58.00 FT.
- INTERNAL DIAMETER OF
ENHANCED END SECTION = 0.50 IN.

PLUGGED/UNPLUGGED CONDITIONS :

Internal Pile Plug Calculated by Program
SOIL INFORMATIONS :

LATERAL EFFECTIVE FRICTION BEARING

SOIL EARTH UNIT ANGLE CAPACITY

DEPTH TYPE PRESSURE WEIGHT DEGREES FACTOR
FT. LB/CF

0.00 SAND 0.80 53.00 31.00 8.00

49.00 SAND 0.80 53.00 31.00 8.00

49.00 SAND 0.80 68.00 38.00 50.00

83.00 SAND 0.80 68.00 38.00 50.00

83.00 CLAY 0.00 68.00 0.00 0.00
108.00 CLAY 0.00 68.00 0.00 0.00
108.00 SAND 0.80 68.00 38.00 50.00
114.50 SAND 0.80 68.00 38.00 50.00

MAXIMUM MAXIMUM UNDISTURB REMOLDED

UNIT UNIT SHEAR SHEAR BLOW UNIT SKIN UNIT END

FRICTION BEARING STRENGTH STRENGTH COUNT FRICTION BEARING

KSF KSF KSF KSF KSF KSF

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 5.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 5.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
* MAXIMUM UNIT FRICTION AND/OR MAXIMUM UNIT BEARING
WERE SET TO BE 0.10E+08 BECAUSE THE USER DOES NOT
PLAN TO LIMIT THE COMPUTED DATA.

LRFD FACTOR LRFD FACTOR

ON UNIT ON UNIT

DEPTH FRICTION BEARING
FT.

0.00 1.000 1.000

49.00 1.000 1.000

49.00 1.000 1.000

83.00 1.000 1.000

83.00 1.000 1.000
108.00 1.000 1.000
108.00 1.000 1.000
114.50 1.000 1.000

PLASTIC YIELD Qc

INDEX STRESS FROM

DEPTH PI RATIO CPT
FT. % KSF

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00

49.00 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00

49.00 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00

83.00 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00

83.00 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00
108.00 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00
108.00 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00
114.50 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00
1 **********************
* COMPUTATION RESULT *
**********************
**********************
* API RP-2A (1994) *
**********************

PILE TOTAL SKIN END ULTIMATE

PENETRATION FRICTION BEARING CAPACITY
FT. KIP KIP KIP

0.00 0.0 0.0* 0.0

1.00 0.0 1.3* 1.3

2.00 0.0 2.7 2.7

3.00 0.2 3.9 4.1

4.00 0.6 5.3 6.0

5.00 1.2 6.7 7.9

6.00 1.9 8.0 9.9

7.00 2.8 9.3 12.1

8.00 3.8 10.7 14.4

9.00 4.9 12.0 16.9

10.00 6.1 13.3 19.4

11.00 7.5 14.7 22.1

12.00 9.0 16.0 24.9

13.00 10.6 17.3 27.9

14.00 12.3 18.6 31.0

15.00 14.2 20.0 34.2

16.00 16.2 21.3 37.6

17.00 18.4 22.6 41.0

18.00 20.7 24.0 44.6

19.00 23.1 25.3 48.4

20.00 25.6 26.6 52.2

21.00 28.3 28.0 56.2

22.00 31.1 29.3 60.4

23.00 34.0 30.6 64.6

24.00 37.0 32.0 69.0

25.00 40.2 33.3 73.5

26.00 43.5 34.6 78.2

27.00 47.0 36.0 82.9

28.00 50.5 37.3 87.8

29.00 54.2 38.6 92.9

30.00 58.1 40.0 98.0

31.00 62.0 41.3 103.3

32.00 66.1 42.6 108.8

33.00 70.4 44.0 114.3

34.00 74.7 45.3 120.0

35.00 79.2 46.6 125.8

36.00 83.8 48.0 131.8

37.00 88.6 49.3 137.8

38.00 93.4 50.6 144.0

39.00 98.4 51.9 150.4

40.00 103.6 53.3 156.8

41.00 108.8 54.6 163.4

42.00 114.2 55.9 170.2

43.00 119.7 57.3 177.0

44.00 125.4 58.6 184.0

45.00 131.2 59.9 191.1

46.00 137.1 61.3 198.4

47.00 143.1 65.6* 208.7

48.00 149.3 67.0* 216.3

49.00 155.6 68.5* 224.1

50.00 163.1 307.5 470.6

51.00 171.9 373.0 544.9

52.00 181.0 440.0 621.0

53.00 190.2 450.7 640.9

54.00 199.7 461.3 661.0

55.00 209.4 472.0 681.4

56.00 219.3 482.7 702.0

57.00 229.5 493.4 722.9

58.00 239.8 504.1 743.9
NOTES:
- AN ASTERISK IS PLACED IN THE END-BEARING COLUMN

IF THE TIP RESISTANCE IS CONTROLLED BY THE FRICTION
OF SOIL PLUG INSIDE AN OPEN-ENDED PIPE PILE.
*************************************************
* COMPUTE LOAD-DISTRIBUTION AND LOAD-SETTLEMENT *
* CURVES FOR AXIAL LOADING *
*************************************************
T-Z CURVE NO. OF DEPTH TO CURVE LOAD TRANSFER PILE MOVEMENT NO. POINTS FT. PSI IN.
1 10 0.0000E+00

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.0000E+00 0.1000E-01

0.0000E+00 0.2000E-01

0.0000E+00 0.4000E-01

0.0000E+00 0.6000E-01

0.0000E+00 0.8000E-01

0.0000E+00 0.9000E-01

0.0000E+00 0.1000E+00

0.0000E+00 0.5000E+00

0.0000E+00 0.2000E+01
2 10 0.2453E+02

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.3590E+00 0.1000E-01

0.7180E+00 0.2000E-01

0.1436E+01 0.4000E-01

0.2154E+01 0.6000E-01

0.2872E+01 0.8000E-01

0.3231E+01 0.9000E-01

0.3590E+01 0.1000E+00

0.3590E+01 0.5000E+00

0.3590E+01 0.2000E+01
3 10 0.4896E+02

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.7645E+00 0.1000E-01

0.1529E+01 0.2000E-01

0.3058E+01 0.4000E-01

0.4587E+01 0.6000E-01

0.6116E+01 0.8000E-01

0.6881E+01 0.9000E-01

0.7645E+01 0.1000E+00

0.7645E+01 0.5000E+00

0.7645E+01 0.2000E+01
4 10 0.4900E+02

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.9032E+00 0.1000E-01

0.1806E+01 0.2000E-01

0.3613E+01 0.4000E-01

0.5419E+01 0.6000E-01

0.7225E+01 0.8000E-01

0.8128E+01 0.9000E-01

0.9032E+01 0.1000E+00

0.9032E+01 0.5000E+00

0.9032E+01 0.2000E+01
5 10 0.6603E+02

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.1145E+01 0.1000E-01

0.2291E+01 0.2000E-01

0.4582E+01 0.4000E-01

0.6873E+01 0.6000E-01

0.9164E+01 0.8000E-01

0.1031E+02 0.9000E-01

0.1145E+02 0.1000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.5000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2000E+01
6 10 0.8296E+02

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.1145E+01 0.1000E-01

0.2291E+01 0.2000E-01

0.4582E+01 0.4000E-01

0.6873E+01 0.6000E-01

0.9164E+01 0.8000E-01

0.1031E+02 0.9000E-01

0.1145E+02 0.1000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.5000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2000E+01
7 10 0.8300E+02

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.3436E+01 0.3840E-01

0.5727E+01 0.7440E-01

0.8591E+01 0.1368E+00

0.1031E+02 0.1920E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2400E+00

0.1031E+02 0.4800E+00

0.1031E+02 0.7200E+00

0.1031E+02 0.1200E+01

0.1031E+02 0.4800E+01
8 10 0.9553E+02

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.3436E+01 0.3840E-01

0.5727E+01 0.7440E-01

0.8591E+01 0.1368E+00

0.1031E+02 0.1920E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2400E+00

0.1031E+02 0.4800E+00

0.1031E+02 0.7200E+00

0.1031E+02 0.1200E+01

0.1031E+02 0.4800E+01
9 10 0.1080E+03

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.3436E+01 0.3840E-01

0.5727E+01 0.7440E-01

0.8591E+01 0.1368E+00

0.1031E+02 0.1920E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2400E+00

0.1031E+02 0.4800E+00

0.1031E+02 0.7200E+00

0.1031E+02 0.1200E+01

0.1031E+02 0.4800E+01
10 10 0.1080E+03

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.1145E+01 0.1000E-01

0.2291E+01 0.2000E-01

0.4582E+01 0.4000E-01

0.6873E+01 0.6000E-01

0.9164E+01 0.8000E-01

0.1031E+02 0.9000E-01

0.1145E+02 0.1000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.5000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2000E+01
11 10 0.1113E+03

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.1145E+01 0.1000E-01

0.2291E+01 0.2000E-01

0.4582E+01 0.4000E-01

0.6873E+01 0.6000E-01

0.9164E+01 0.8000E-01

0.1031E+02 0.9000E-01

0.1145E+02 0.1000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.5000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2000E+01
12 10 0.1145E+03

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.1145E+01 0.1000E-01

0.2291E+01 0.2000E-01

0.4582E+01 0.4000E-01

0.6873E+01 0.6000E-01

0.9164E+01 0.8000E-01

0.1031E+02 0.9000E-01

0.1145E+02 0.1000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.5000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2000E+01

TIP LOAD TIP MOVEMENT
KIP IN.

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.3150E+02 0.1200E-01

0.6301E+02 0.2400E-01

0.1260E+03 0.4800E-01

0.2520E+03 0.3120E+00

0.3781E+03 0.1008E+01

0.4537E+03 0.1752E+01

0.5041E+03 0.2400E+01

0.5041E+03 0.3600E+01

0.5041E+03 0.4800E+01

LOAD VERSUS SETTLEMENT CURVE
****************************

TOP LOAD TOP MOVEMENT TIP LOAD TIP MOVEMENT
KIP IN. KIP IN.

0.5200E+00 0.1231E-03 0.2625E+00 0.1000E-03

0.5200E+01 0.1231E-02 0.2625E+01 0.1000E-02

0.2600E+02 0.6156E-02 0.1313E+02 0.5000E-02

0.5200E+02 0.1231E-01 0.2625E+02 0.1000E-01

0.2556E+03 0.6132E-01 0.1270E+03 0.5000E-01

0.3937E+03 0.1168E+00 0.1508E+03 0.1000E+00

0.5290E+03 0.5240E+00 0.2861E+03 0.5000E+00

0.6195E+03 0.1029E+01 0.3766E+03 0.1000E+01

0.7158E+03 0.2034E+01 0.4730E+03 0.2000E+01
Axial Capacity (kips)
Truxel, Abut 21, 24" PP, open, GS=23, GW=23, TOP=20
Depth (ft)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Skin Friction
Tip Resistance
Total Capacity
========================================================================= APILE for Windows, Version 2015.7.3
Serial Number : 136156632
A Program for Analyzing the Axial Capacity
and Short-term Settlement of Driven Piles
under Axial Loading.
(c) Copyright ENSOFT, Inc., 1987-2015
All Rights Reserved
========================================================================= This program is licensed to :

Geocon Consultants, Inc.

Rancho Cordova, CA
Path to file locations : R:\GEOCON WORKING FILES\S2800-S2849\S2815-05-01 Truxel Road Bridge\Analysis\Piles\APILE\
Name of input data file : PRELIM Abut 21.ap7d
Name of output file : PRELIM Abut 21.ap7o
Name of plot output file : PRELIM Abut 21.ap7p
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Time and Date of Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: July 18, 2024 Time: 07:52:28
1 *********************
* INPUT INFORMATION *
*********************
Truxel, Abut 21, 24" PP, open, GS=23, GW=23, TOP=20
DESIGNER : REL
JOB NUMBER : S2815-05-01
METHOD FOR UNIT LOAD TRANSFERS :
- API RP 2A (American Petroleum Institute)
Unfactored Unit Side Friction and Unit Side Resistance are used.

COMPUTATION METHOD(S) FOR PILE CAPACITY :
- API RP 2A (American Petroleum Institute)
TYPE OF LOADING :
- COMPRESSION
PILE TYPE :

Steel pipe pile or non-tapered portion of monotube pile - Open-Ended Pile
DATA FOR AXIAL STIFFNESS :
- MODULUS OF ELASTICITY = 0.290E+08 PSI
- CROSS SECTION AREA = 452.19 IN2
CIRCULAR PILE PROPERTIES :
- OUTSIDE DIAMETER, OD = 24.00 IN.
- INTERNAL DIAMETER, ID = 0.50 IN.
- TOTAL PILE LENGTH, TL = 58.00 FT.
- PILE STICKUP LENGTH, PSL = 0.00 FT.
- ZERO FRICTION LENGTH, ZFL = 3.00 FT.
- INCREMENT OF PILE LENGTH
USED IN COMPUTATION = 1.00 FT.
- LENGTH OF ENHANCED
END SECTION = 58.00 FT.
- INTERNAL DIAMETER OF
ENHANCED END SECTION = 0.50 IN.

PLUGGED/UNPLUGGED CONDITIONS :

Internal Pile Plug Calculated by Program
SOIL INFORMATIONS :

LATERAL EFFECTIVE FRICTION BEARING

SOIL EARTH UNIT ANGLE CAPACITY

DEPTH TYPE PRESSURE WEIGHT DEGREES FACTOR
FT. LB/CF

0.00 CLAY 0.00 53.00 0.00 0.00

49.00 CLAY 0.00 53.00 0.00 0.00

49.00 SAND 0.80 68.00 38.00 50.00

83.00 SAND 0.80 68.00 38.00 50.00

83.00 CLAY 0.00 68.00 0.00 0.00
108.00 CLAY 0.00 68.00 0.00 0.00
108.00 SAND 0.80 68.00 38.00 50.00
114.50 SAND 0.80 68.00 38.00 50.00

MAXIMUM MAXIMUM UNDISTURB REMOLDED

UNIT UNIT SHEAR SHEAR BLOW UNIT SKIN UNIT END

FRICTION BEARING STRENGTH STRENGTH COUNT FRICTION BEARING

KSF KSF KSF KSF KSF KSF

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 5.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 5.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.10E+08* 0.10E+08* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
* MAXIMUM UNIT FRICTION AND/OR MAXIMUM UNIT BEARING
WERE SET TO BE 0.10E+08 BECAUSE THE USER DOES NOT
PLAN TO LIMIT THE COMPUTED DATA.

LRFD FACTOR LRFD FACTOR

ON UNIT ON UNIT

DEPTH FRICTION BEARING
FT.

0.00 1.000 1.000

49.00 1.000 1.000

49.00 1.000 1.000

83.00 1.000 1.000

83.00 1.000 1.000
108.00 1.000 1.000
108.00 1.000 1.000
114.50 1.000 1.000

PLASTIC YIELD Qc

INDEX STRESS FROM

DEPTH PI RATIO CPT
FT. % KSF

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00

49.00 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00

49.00 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00

83.00 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00

83.00 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00
108.00 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00
108.00 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00
114.50 0.00 0.00 0.000E+00
1 **********************
* COMPUTATION RESULT *
**********************
**********************
* API RP-2A (1994) *
**********************

PILE TOTAL SKIN END ULTIMATE

PENETRATION FRICTION BEARING CAPACITY
FT. KIP KIP KIP

0.00 0.0 14.1 14.1

1.00 0.0 14.1 14.1

2.00 0.0 18.8 18.8

3.00 1.0 23.6 24.6

4.00 3.0 28.3 31.3

5.00 5.2 28.3 33.5

6.00 7.5 28.3 35.8

7.00 10.0 28.3 38.2

8.00 12.4 28.3 40.7

9.00 15.0 28.3 43.3

10.00 17.7 28.3 45.9

11.00 20.4 28.3 48.7

12.00 23.2 28.3 51.4

13.00 26.0 28.3 54.3

14.00 28.9 28.3 57.2

15.00 31.8 28.3 60.1

16.00 34.8 28.3 63.1

17.00 37.8 28.3 66.1

18.00 40.9 28.3 69.2

19.00 44.1 28.3 72.3

20.00 47.3 28.3 75.5

21.00 50.5 28.3 78.8

22.00 53.9 28.3 82.2

23.00 57.3 28.3 85.6

24.00 60.8 28.3 89.1

25.00 64.4 28.3 92.7

26.00 68.0 28.3 96.3

27.00 71.8 28.3 100.0

28.00 75.6 28.3 103.8

29.00 79.4 28.3 107.7

30.00 83.4 28.3 111.6

31.00 87.3 28.3 115.6

32.00 91.4 28.3 119.7

33.00 95.5 28.3 123.8

34.00 99.7 28.3 128.0

35.00 104.0 28.3 132.2

36.00 108.3 28.3 136.5

37.00 112.6 28.3 140.9

38.00 117.1 28.3 145.3

39.00 121.6 28.3 149.8

40.00 126.1 28.3 154.4

41.00 130.7 28.3 159.0

42.00 135.4 28.3 163.6

43.00 140.1 28.3 168.4

44.00 144.9 28.3 173.1

45.00 149.7 28.3 177.9

46.00 154.6 28.3 182.8

47.00 159.5 30.0* 189.5

48.00 164.5 30.0* 194.5

49.00 169.5 30.1* 199.6

50.00 176.4 295.6 472.0

51.00 185.2 366.9 552.1

52.00 194.2 440.0 634.2

53.00 203.5 450.7 654.1

54.00 213.0 461.3 674.3

55.00 222.7 472.0 694.7

56.00 232.6 482.7 715.3

57.00 242.7 493.4 736.1

58.00 253.1 504.1 757.2
NOTES:
- AN ASTERISK IS PLACED IN THE END-BEARING COLUMN

IF THE TIP RESISTANCE IS CONTROLLED BY THE FRICTION
OF SOIL PLUG INSIDE AN OPEN-ENDED PIPE PILE.
*************************************************
* COMPUTE LOAD-DISTRIBUTION AND LOAD-SETTLEMENT *
* CURVES FOR AXIAL LOADING *
*************************************************
T-Z CURVE NO. OF DEPTH TO CURVE LOAD TRANSFER PILE MOVEMENT NO. POINTS FT. PSI IN.
1 10 0.0000E+00

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.0000E+00 0.3840E-01

0.0000E+00 0.7440E-01

0.0000E+00 0.1368E+00

0.0000E+00 0.1920E+00

0.0000E+00 0.2400E+00

0.0000E+00 0.4800E+00

0.0000E+00 0.7200E+00

0.0000E+00 0.1200E+01

0.0000E+00 0.4800E+01
2 10 0.2453E+02

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.1199E+01 0.3840E-01

0.1998E+01 0.7440E-01

0.2997E+01 0.1368E+00

0.3597E+01 0.1920E+00

0.3996E+01 0.2400E+00

0.3597E+01 0.4800E+00

0.3597E+01 0.7200E+00

0.3597E+01 0.1200E+01

0.3597E+01 0.4800E+01
3 10 0.4896E+02

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.1976E+01 0.3840E-01

0.3293E+01 0.7440E-01

0.4940E+01 0.1368E+00

0.5927E+01 0.1920E+00

0.6586E+01 0.2400E+00

0.5927E+01 0.4800E+00

0.5927E+01 0.7200E+00

0.5927E+01 0.1200E+01

0.5927E+01 0.4800E+01
4 10 0.4900E+02

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.8671E+00 0.1000E-01

0.1734E+01 0.2000E-01

0.3469E+01 0.4000E-01

0.5203E+01 0.6000E-01

0.6937E+01 0.8000E-01

0.7804E+01 0.9000E-01

0.8671E+01 0.1000E+00

0.8671E+01 0.5000E+00

0.8671E+01 0.2000E+01
5 10 0.6603E+02

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.1145E+01 0.1000E-01

0.2291E+01 0.2000E-01

0.4582E+01 0.4000E-01

0.6873E+01 0.6000E-01

0.9164E+01 0.8000E-01

0.1031E+02 0.9000E-01

0.1145E+02 0.1000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.5000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2000E+01
6 10 0.8296E+02

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.1145E+01 0.1000E-01

0.2291E+01 0.2000E-01

0.4582E+01 0.4000E-01

0.6873E+01 0.6000E-01

0.9164E+01 0.8000E-01

0.1031E+02 0.9000E-01

0.1145E+02 0.1000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.5000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2000E+01
7 10 0.8300E+02

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.3436E+01 0.3840E-01

0.5727E+01 0.7440E-01

0.8591E+01 0.1368E+00

0.1031E+02 0.1920E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2400E+00

0.1031E+02 0.4800E+00

0.1031E+02 0.7200E+00

0.1031E+02 0.1200E+01

0.1031E+02 0.4800E+01
8 10 0.9553E+02

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.3436E+01 0.3840E-01

0.5727E+01 0.7440E-01

0.8591E+01 0.1368E+00

0.1031E+02 0.1920E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2400E+00

0.1031E+02 0.4800E+00

0.1031E+02 0.7200E+00

0.1031E+02 0.1200E+01

0.1031E+02 0.4800E+01
9 10 0.1080E+03

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.3436E+01 0.3840E-01

0.5727E+01 0.7440E-01

0.8591E+01 0.1368E+00

0.1031E+02 0.1920E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2400E+00

0.1031E+02 0.4800E+00

0.1031E+02 0.7200E+00

0.1031E+02 0.1200E+01

0.1031E+02 0.4800E+01
10 10 0.1080E+03

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.1145E+01 0.1000E-01

0.2291E+01 0.2000E-01

0.4582E+01 0.4000E-01

0.6873E+01 0.6000E-01

0.9164E+01 0.8000E-01

0.1031E+02 0.9000E-01

0.1145E+02 0.1000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.5000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2000E+01
11 10 0.1113E+03

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.1145E+01 0.1000E-01

0.2291E+01 0.2000E-01

0.4582E+01 0.4000E-01

0.6873E+01 0.6000E-01

0.9164E+01 0.8000E-01

0.1031E+02 0.9000E-01

0.1145E+02 0.1000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.5000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2000E+01
12 10 0.1145E+03

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.1145E+01 0.1000E-01

0.2291E+01 0.2000E-01

0.4582E+01 0.4000E-01

0.6873E+01 0.6000E-01

0.9164E+01 0.8000E-01

0.1031E+02 0.9000E-01

0.1145E+02 0.1000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.5000E+00

0.1145E+02 0.2000E+01

TIP LOAD TIP MOVEMENT
KIP IN.

0.0000E+00 0.0000E+00

0.3150E+02 0.1200E-01

0.6301E+02 0.2400E-01

0.1260E+03 0.4800E-01

0.2520E+03 0.3120E+00

0.3781E+03 0.1008E+01

0.4537E+03 0.1752E+01

0.5041E+03 0.2400E+01

0.5041E+03 0.3600E+01

0.5041E+03 0.4800E+01

LOAD VERSUS SETTLEMENT CURVE
****************************

TOP LOAD TOP MOVEMENT TIP LOAD TIP MOVEMENT
KIP IN. KIP IN.

0.4763E+00 0.1216E-03 0.2625E+00 0.1000E-03

0.4763E+01 0.1216E-02 0.2625E+01 0.1000E-02

0.2381E+02 0.6082E-02 0.1313E+02 0.5000E-02

0.4763E+02 0.1216E-01 0.2625E+02 0.1000E-01

0.2279E+03 0.6043E-01 0.1270E+03 0.5000E-01

0.3279E+03 0.1147E+00 0.1508E+03 0.1000E+00

0.5077E+03 0.5232E+00 0.2861E+03 0.5000E+00

0.5982E+03 0.1028E+01 0.3766E+03 0.1000E+01

0.6946E+03 0.2033E+01 0.4730E+03 0.2000E+01
Ultimate Skin Friction (tons)
Truxel, Pier, 96" CIDH, GS=15, GW=23, TOP=10
Depth (ft)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 Dia=8 ft
========================================================================= SHAFT for Windows, Version 2017.8.10
Serial Number : 500126445

VERTICALLY LOADED DRILLED SHAFT ANALYSIS
(c) Copyright ENSOFT, Inc., 1987-2017
All Rights Reserved
========================================================================= Path to file locations : R:\GEOCON WORKING FILES\S2800-S2849\S2815-05-01 Truxel Road Bridge\Analysis\Piles\SHAFT\
Name of input data file : PRELIM Pier.sf8d
Name of output file : PRELIM Pier.sf8o
Name of plot output file : PRELIM Pier.sf8p
Name of runtime file : PRELIM Pier.sf8r
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Time and Date of Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: July 18, 2024 Time: 09:07:22
Truxel, Pier, 96" CIDH, GS=15, GW=23, TOP=10
PROPOSED DEPTH = 145.0 FT
----------------
NUMBER OF LAYERS = 4
------------------
WATER TABLE DEPTH = 0.0 FT.
-------------------
FACTOR OF SAFETY APPLIED TO THE ULTIMATE SIDE FRICTION CAPACITY = 1.00 ------------------------------------------------------- FACTOR OF SAFETY APPLIED TO THE ULTIMATE BASE CAPACITY = 1.00 ------------------------------------------------------

SOIL INFORMATION
---------------
LAYER NO 1----SAND

AT THE TOP

SIDE FRICTION PROCEDURE, BETA METHOD
SKIN FRICTION COEFFICIENT- BETA = 0.120E+01 (*)
INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE, DEG. = 0.310E+02
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.115E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.400E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.000E+00

AT THE BOTTOM

SIDE FRICTION PROCEDURE, BETA METHOD
SKIN FRICTION COEFFICIENT- BETA = 0.636E+00 (*)
INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE, DEG. = 0.310E+02
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.115E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.400E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.410E+02
LAYER NO 2----SAND

AT THE TOP

SIDE FRICTION PROCEDURE, BETA METHOD
SKIN FRICTION COEFFICIENT- BETA = 0.636E+00 (*)
INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE, DEG. = 0.380E+02
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.130E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.400E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.410E+02

AT THE BOTTOM

SIDE FRICTION PROCEDURE, BETA METHOD
SKIN FRICTION COEFFICIENT- BETA = 0.331E+00 (*)
INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE, DEG. = 0.380E+02
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.130E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.400E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.750E+02
LAYER NO 3----CLAY

AT THE TOP
STRENGTH REDUCTION FACTOR-ALPHA = 0.464E+00 (*)
END BEARING COEFFICIENT-Nc = 0.900E+01 (*)
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, LB/SQ FT = 0.500E+04
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.130E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.550E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.750E+02

AT THE BOTTOM
STRENGTH REDUCTION FACTOR-ALPHA = 0.464E+00 (*)
END BEARING COEFFICIENT-Nc = 0.900E+01 (*)
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, LB/SQ FT = 0.500E+04
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.130E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.550E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.100E+03
LAYER NO 4----SAND

AT THE TOP

SIDE FRICTION PROCEDURE, BETA METHOD
SKIN FRICTION COEFFICIENT- BETA = 0.250E+00 (*)
INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE, DEG. = 0.380E+02
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.130E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.400E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.100E+03

AT THE BOTTOM

SIDE FRICTION PROCEDURE, BETA METHOD
SKIN FRICTION COEFFICIENT- BETA = 0.250E+00 (*)
INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE, DEG. = 0.380E+02
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.130E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.400E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.165E+03
(*) ESTIMATED BY THE PROGRAM BASED ON OTHER PARAMETERS

INPUT DRILLED SHAFT INFORMATION
------------------------------
MINIMUM SHAFT DIAMETER = 8.000 FT.

MAXIMUM SHAFT DIAMETER = 8.000 FT.

RATIO BASE/SHAFT DIAMETER = 0.000 FT.

ANGLE OF BELL = 0.000 DEG.

IGNORED TOP PORTION = 5.000 FT.

IGNORED BOTTOM PORTION = 8.000 FT.

ELASTIC MODULUS, Ec = 0.300E+07 LB/SQ IN

COMPUTATION RESULTS
-------------------
- CASE ANALYZED : 1
VARIATION LENGTH : 1
VARIATION DIAMETER : 1

DRILLED SHAFT INFORMATION
-------------------------
DIAMETER OF STEM = 8.000 FT.

DIAMETER OF BASE = 8.000 FT.

END OF STEM TO BASE = 0.000 FT.

ANGLE OF BELL = 0.000 DEG.

IGNORED TOP PORTION = 5.000 FT.

IGNORED BOTTOM PORTION = 8.000 FT.

AREA OF ONE PERCENT STEEL = 72.392 SQ.IN.

ELASTIC MODULUS, Ec = 0.300E+07 LB/SQ IN
VOLUME OF UNDERREAM = 0.000 CU.YDS.

SHAFT LENGTH = 145.000 FT.

PREDICTED RESULTS
-----------------
QS = ULTIMATE SIDE RESISTANCE;
QB = ULTIMATE BASE RESISTANCE;
WT = WEIGHT OF DRILLED SHAFT (FOR UPLIFT CAPACITY ONLY); QU = TOTAL ULTIMATE RESISTANCE;
QBD = TOTAL ALLOWABLE LOAD USING A FACTOR OF SAFETY
APPLIED TO THE ULTIMATE BASE RESISTANCE;
QDN = TOTAL ALLOWABLE LOAD USING FACTORS OF SAFETY

APPLIED TO THE ULTIMATE SIDE RESISTANCE AND
THE ULTIMATE BASE RESISTANCE.

LENGTH VOLUME QS QB QU QBD QDN QU/VOLUME
(FT) (CU.YDS) (TONS) (TONS) (TONS) (TONS) (TONS) (TONS/CU.YDS)

14.0 26.07 4.25 21.06 25.31 25.31 25.31 0.97

15.0 27.93 9.16 21.93 31.10 31.10 31.10 1.11

16.0 29.79 14.71 22.81 37.51 37.51 37.51 1.26

17.0 31.65 20.86 23.68 44.54 44.54 44.54 1.41

18.0 33.51 27.60 24.55 52.15 52.15 52.15 1.56

19.0 35.38 34.90 25.43 60.33 60.33 60.33 1.71

20.0 37.24 42.75 26.30 69.05 69.05 69.05 1.85

21.0 39.10 51.12 27.17 78.30 78.30 78.30 2.00

22.0 40.96 60.00 28.05 88.05 88.05 88.05 2.15

23.0 42.82 69.37 28.92 98.29 98.29 98.29 2.30

24.0 44.69 79.21 29.79 109.00 109.00 109.00 2.44

25.0 46.55 89.50 30.66 120.16 120.16 120.16 2.58

26.0 48.41 100.22 49.38 149.60 149.60 149.60 3.09

27.0 50.27 111.37 69.56 180.94 180.94 180.94 3.60

28.0 52.13 122.93 91.25 214.18 214.18 214.18 4.11

29.0 54.00 134.87 114.46 249.33 249.33 249.33 4.62

30.0 55.86 147.19 139.22 286.41 286.41 286.41 5.13

31.0 57.72 159.87 165.56 325.43 325.43 325.43 5.64

32.0 59.58 172.90 193.49 366.39 366.39 366.39 6.15

33.0 61.44 186.26 223.05 409.31 409.31 409.31 6.66

34.0 63.31 199.94 250.05 450.00 450.00 450.00 7.11

35.0 65.17 213.93 274.44 488.37 488.37 488.37 7.49

36.0 67.03 228.21 296.13 524.34 524.34 524.34 7.82

37.0 68.89 242.78 315.04 557.82 557.82 557.82 8.10

38.0 70.75 257.61 331.10 588.71 588.71 588.71 8.32

39.0 72.62 272.70 344.24 616.94 616.94 616.94 8.50

40.0 74.48 288.03 354.39 642.42 642.42 642.42 8.63

41.0 76.34 303.60 361.46 665.06 665.06 665.06 8.71

42.0 78.20 319.38 368.53 687.91 687.91 687.91 8.80

43.0 80.06 335.38 375.60 710.98 710.98 710.98 8.88

44.0 81.92 351.57 382.67 734.24 734.24 734.24 8.96

45.0 83.79 367.95 389.73 757.69 757.69 757.69 9.04

46.0 85.65 384.51 396.80 781.31 781.31 781.31 9.12

47.0 87.51 401.23 403.87 805.10 805.10 805.10 9.20

48.0 89.37 418.10 410.94 829.04 829.04 829.04 9.28

49.0 91.23 435.12 418.01 853.13 853.13 853.13 9.35

50.0 93.10 452.21 425.08 877.29 877.29 877.29 9.42

51.0 94.96 469.54 432.15 901.69 901.69 901.69 9.50

52.0 96.82 487.09 439.22 926.31 926.31 926.31 9.57

53.0 98.68 504.86 446.29 951.15 951.15 951.15 9.64

54.0 100.54 522.82 453.36 976.18 976.18 976.18 9.71

55.0 102.41 540.97 460.43 1001.40 1001.40 1001.40 9.78

56.0 104.27 559.29 467.50 1026.79 1026.79 1026.79 9.85

57.0 106.13 577.76 474.57 1052.33 1052.33 1052.33 9.92

58.0 107.99 596.38 481.64 1078.02 1078.02 1078.02 9.98

59.0 109.85 615.13 488.71 1103.84 1103.84 1103.84 10.05

60.0 111.72 634.00 507.95 1141.95 1141.95 1141.95 10.22

61.0 113.58 652.97 527.43 1180.40 1180.40 1180.40 10.39

62.0 115.44 672.04 547.11 1219.14 1219.14 1219.14 10.56

63.0 117.30 691.18 566.96 1258.14 1258.14 1258.14 10.73

64.0 119.16 710.40 586.96 1297.36 1297.36 1297.36 10.89

65.0 121.03 729.67 607.08 1336.75 1336.75 1336.75 11.05

66.0 122.89 748.99 627.28 1376.27 1376.27 1376.27 11.20

67.0 124.75 768.33 647.55 1415.88 1415.88 1415.88 11.35

68.0 126.61 787.70 664.98 1452.68 1452.68 1452.68 11.47

69.0 128.47 807.08 679.67 1486.75 1486.75 1486.75 11.57

70.0 130.33 826.45 691.69 1518.15 1518.15 1518.15 11.65

71.0 132.20 845.81 701.14 1546.96 1546.96 1546.96 11.70

72.0 134.06 865.15 708.10 1573.25 1573.25 1573.25 11.74

73.0 135.92 884.44 712.66 1597.10 1597.10 1597.10 11.75

74.0 137.78 903.69 714.89 1618.58 1618.58 1618.58 11.75

75.0 139.64 922.88 714.89 1637.77 1637.77 1637.77 11.73

76.0 141.51 941.99 714.89 1656.88 1656.88 1656.88 11.71

77.0 143.37 961.03 714.89 1675.92 1675.92 1675.92 11.69

78.0 145.23 979.97 714.89 1694.86 1694.86 1694.86 11.67

79.0 147.09 998.82 714.89 1713.70 1713.70 1713.70 11.65

80.0 148.95 1017.54 714.89 1732.43 1732.43 1732.43 11.63

81.0 150.82 1036.15 714.89 1751.03 1751.03 1751.03 11.61

82.0 152.68 1054.61 714.89 1769.50 1769.50 1769.50 11.59

83.0 154.54 1072.94 714.89 1787.82 1787.82 1787.82 11.57

84.0 156.40 1102.08 714.89 1816.97 1816.97 1816.97 11.62

85.0 158.26 1131.22 704.65 1835.88 1835.88 1835.88 11.60

86.0 160.13 1160.37 693.81 1854.18 1854.18 1854.18 11.58

87.0 161.99 1189.51 682.37 1871.89 1871.89 1871.89 11.56

88.0 163.85 1218.66 670.33 1888.99 1888.99 1888.99 11.53

89.0 165.71 1247.80 657.69 1905.49 1905.49 1905.49 11.50

90.0 167.57 1276.95 644.44 1921.39 1921.39 1921.39 11.47

91.0 169.44 1306.09 630.59 1936.68 1936.68 1936.68 11.43

92.0 171.30 1335.24 616.14 1951.38 1951.38 1951.38 11.39

93.0 173.16 1364.38 603.49 1967.88 1967.88 1967.88 11.36

94.0 175.02 1393.53 592.66 1986.19 1986.19 1986.19 11.35

95.0 176.88 1422.67 583.62 2006.30 2006.30 2006.30 11.34

96.0 178.74 1451.82 576.40 2028.22 2028.22 2028.22 11.35

97.0 180.61 1480.96 570.98 2051.94 2051.94 2051.94 11.36

98.0 182.47 1510.11 567.37 2077.48 2077.48 2077.48 11.39

99.0 184.33 1539.25 565.56 2104.81 2104.81 2104.81 11.42 100.0 186.19 1568.40 565.56 2133.96 2133.96 2133.96 11.46 101.0 188.05 1597.54 565.56 2163.10 2163.10 2163.10 11.50 102.0 189.92 1626.69 565.56 2192.25 2192.25 2192.25 11.54 103.0 191.78 1655.83 565.56 2221.39 2221.39 2221.39 11.58 104.0 193.64 1684.98 565.56 2250.54 2250.54 2250.54 11.62 105.0 195.50 1714.12 565.56 2279.68 2279.68 2279.68 11.66 106.0 197.36 1743.27 565.56 2308.83 2308.83 2308.83 11.70 107.0 199.23 1772.41 565.56 2337.97 2337.97 2337.97 11.74 108.0 201.09 1801.56 565.56 2367.12 2367.12 2367.12 11.77 109.0 202.95 1820.92 565.56 2386.48 2386.48 2386.48 11.76 110.0 204.81 1840.50 565.56 2406.06 2406.06 2406.06 11.75 111.0 206.67 1860.29 565.56 2425.85 2425.85 2425.85 11.74 112.0 208.54 1880.30 565.56 2445.86 2445.86 2445.86 11.73 113.0 210.40 1900.52 565.56 2466.08 2466.08 2466.08 11.72 114.0 212.26 1920.94 565.56 2486.50 2486.50 2486.50 11.71 115.0 214.12 1941.58 565.56 2507.15 2507.15 2507.15 11.71 116.0 215.98 1962.44 565.56 2528.00 2528.00 2528.00 11.70 117.0 217.85 1983.50 565.56 2549.06 2549.06 2549.06 11.70 118.0 219.71 2004.78 565.56 2570.34 2570.34 2570.34 11.70 119.0 221.57 2026.27 565.56 2591.83 2591.83 2591.83 11.70 120.0 223.43 2047.98 565.56 2613.54 2613.54 2613.54 11.70 121.0 225.29 2069.89 565.56 2635.45 2635.45 2635.45 11.70 122.0 227.15 2092.02 565.56 2657.58 2657.58 2657.58 11.70 123.0 229.02 2114.36 565.56 2679.92 2679.92 2679.92 11.70 124.0 230.88 2136.91 565.56 2702.47 2702.47 2702.47 11.71 125.0 232.74 2159.68 565.56 2725.24 2725.24 2725.24 11.71 126.0 234.60 2182.66 565.56 2748.22 2748.22 2748.22 11.71 127.0 236.46 2205.85 565.56 2771.41 2771.41 2771.41 11.72 128.0 238.33 2229.25 565.56 2794.81 2794.81 2794.81 11.73 129.0 240.19 2252.86 565.56 2818.42 2818.42 2818.42 11.73 130.0 242.05 2276.69 565.56 2842.25 2842.25 2842.25 11.74 131.0 243.91 2300.73 565.56 2866.29 2866.29 2866.29 11.75 132.0 245.77 2324.98 565.56 2890.54 2890.54 2890.54 11.76 133.0 247.64 2349.45 565.56 2915.01 2915.01 2915.01 11.77 134.0 249.50 2374.12 565.56 2939.68 2939.68 2939.68 11.78 135.0 251.36 2399.01 565.56 2964.57 2964.57 2964.57 11.79 136.0 253.22 2424.11 565.56 2989.67 2989.67 2989.67 11.81 137.0 255.08 2449.43 565.56 3014.99 3014.99 3014.99 11.82 138.0 256.95 2474.95 565.56 3040.51 3040.51 3040.51 11.83 139.0 258.81 2500.69 565.56 3066.25 3066.25 3066.25 11.85 140.0 260.67 2526.64 565.56 3092.20 3092.20 3092.20 11.86 141.0 262.53 2552.81 565.56 3118.37 3118.37 3118.37 11.88 142.0 264.39 2579.18 565.56 3144.74 3144.74 3144.74 11.89 143.0 266.26 2605.77 565.56 3171.33 3171.33 3171.33 11.91 144.0 268.12 2632.57 565.56 3198.13 3198.13 3198.13 11.93 145.0 269.98 2659.58 565.56 3225.14 3225.14 3225.14 11.95

AXIAL LOAD VS SETTLEMENT CURVES
-------------------------------

RESULT FROM TREND (AVERAGED) LINE

TOP LOAD TOP MOVEMENT TIP LOAD TIP MOVEMENT
TON IN. TON IN.

0.1320E+00 0.2212E-04 0.2062E-02 0.1000E-04

0.6600E+00 0.1106E-03 0.1031E-01 0.5000E-04

0.1320E+01 0.2212E-03 0.2062E-01 0.1000E-03

0.6618E+02 0.1107E-01 0.1031E+01 0.5000E-02

0.9930E+02 0.1661E-01 0.1546E+01 0.7500E-02

0.1324E+03 0.2215E-01 0.2062E+01 0.1000E-01

0.3310E+03 0.5538E-01 0.5155E+01 0.2500E-01

0.6618E+03 0.1107E+00 0.1031E+02 0.5000E-01

0.9738E+03 0.1654E+00 0.1546E+02 0.7500E-01

0.1212E+04 0.2135E+00 0.2062E+02 0.1000E+00

0.2066E+04 0.4508E+00 0.5155E+02 0.2500E+00

0.2514E+04 0.7500E+00 0.1030E+03 0.5000E+00

0.2734E+04 0.1239E+01 0.1951E+03 0.9600E+00

0.2833E+04 0.2699E+01 0.3620E+03 0.2400E+01

0.3039E+04 0.5133E+01 0.5740E+03 0.4800E+01

RESULT FROM UPPER-BOUND LINE

TOP LOAD TOP MOVEMENT TIP LOAD TIP MOVEMENT
TON IN. TON IN.

0.1960E+00 0.2759E-04 0.2946E-02 0.1000E-04

0.9802E+00 0.1380E-03 0.1473E-01 0.5000E-04

0.1960E+01 0.2759E-03 0.2946E-01 0.1000E-03

0.9843E+02 0.1382E-01 0.1473E+01 0.5000E-02

0.1477E+03 0.2074E-01 0.2209E+01 0.7500E-02

0.1969E+03 0.2765E-01 0.2946E+01 0.1000E-01

0.4923E+03 0.6914E-01 0.7364E+01 0.2500E-01

0.9787E+03 0.1381E+00 0.1473E+02 0.5000E-01

0.1417E+04 0.2047E+00 0.2209E+02 0.7500E-01

0.1705E+04 0.2581E+00 0.2946E+02 0.1000E+00

0.2500E+04 0.4952E+00 0.7364E+02 0.2500E+00

0.2803E+04 0.7825E+00 0.1468E+03 0.5000E+00

0.2936E+04 0.1264E+01 0.2715E+03 0.9600E+00

0.3039E+04 0.2724E+01 0.4298E+03 0.2400E+01

0.3220E+04 0.5153E+01 0.6108E+03 0.4800E+01

RESULT FROM LOWER-BOUND LINE

TOP LOAD TOP MOVEMENT TIP LOAD TIP MOVEMENT
TON IN. TON IN.

0.7676E-01 0.1721E-04 0.1178E-02 0.1000E-04

0.3838E+00 0.8607E-04 0.5891E-02 0.5000E-04

0.7676E+00 0.1721E-03 0.1178E-01 0.1000E-03

0.3844E+02 0.8611E-02 0.5891E+00 0.5000E-02

0.5767E+02 0.1292E-01 0.8837E+00 0.7500E-02

0.7690E+02 0.1723E-01 0.1178E+01 0.1000E-01

0.1923E+03 0.4307E-01 0.2946E+01 0.2500E-01

0.3846E+03 0.8613E-01 0.5891E+01 0.5000E-01

0.5743E+03 0.1291E+00 0.8837E+01 0.7500E-01

0.7439E+03 0.1705E+00 0.1178E+02 0.1000E+00

0.1531E+04 0.3975E+00 0.2946E+02 0.2500E+00

0.2214E+04 0.7168E+00 0.5915E+02 0.5000E+00

0.2531E+04 0.1214E+01 0.1188E+03 0.9600E+00

0.2628E+04 0.2675E+01 0.2941E+03 0.2400E+01

0.2859E+04 0.5113E+01 0.5373E+03 0.4800E+01
Ultimate Total Capacity (tons)
Truxel, Pier, 96" CIDH, GS=15, GW=23, TOP=10, EE Comp
Depth (ft)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 Dia=8 ft
========================================================================= SHAFT for Windows, Version 2017.8.10
Serial Number : 500126445

VERTICALLY LOADED DRILLED SHAFT ANALYSIS
(c) Copyright ENSOFT, Inc., 1987-2017
All Rights Reserved
========================================================================= Path to file locations : R:\GEOCON WORKING FILES\S2800-S2849\S2815-05-01 Truxel Road Bridge\Analysis\Piles\SHAFT\
Name of input data file : PRELIM Pier EE Comp.sf8d
Name of output file : PRELIM Pier EE Comp.sf8o
Name of plot output file : PRELIM Pier EE Comp.sf8p
Name of runtime file : PRELIM Pier EE Comp.sf8r
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Time and Date of Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: July 18, 2024 Time: 10:13:39
Truxel, Pier, 96" CIDH, GS=15, GW=23, TOP=10, EE Comp
PROPOSED DEPTH = 142.0 FT
----------------
NUMBER OF LAYERS = 4
------------------
WATER TABLE DEPTH = 0.0 FT.
-------------------
FACTOR OF SAFETY APPLIED TO THE ULTIMATE SIDE FRICTION CAPACITY = 1.00 ------------------------------------------------------- FACTOR OF SAFETY APPLIED TO THE ULTIMATE BASE CAPACITY = 1.00 ------------------------------------------------------

SOIL INFORMATION
---------------
LAYER NO 1----CLAY

AT THE TOP
STRENGTH REDUCTION FACTOR-ALPHA = 0.550E+00 (*)
END BEARING COEFFICIENT-Nc = 0.600E+01 (*)
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, LB/SQ FT = 0.240E+03
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.115E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.550E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.000E+00

AT THE BOTTOM
STRENGTH REDUCTION FACTOR-ALPHA = 0.550E+00 (*)
END BEARING COEFFICIENT-Nc = 0.900E+01 (*)
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, LB/SQ FT = 0.240E+03
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.115E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.550E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.410E+02
LAYER NO 2----SAND

AT THE TOP

SIDE FRICTION PROCEDURE, BETA METHOD
SKIN FRICTION COEFFICIENT- BETA = 0.636E+00 (*)
INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE, DEG. = 0.380E+02
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.130E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.400E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.410E+02

AT THE BOTTOM

SIDE FRICTION PROCEDURE, BETA METHOD
SKIN FRICTION COEFFICIENT- BETA = 0.331E+00 (*)
INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE, DEG. = 0.380E+02
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.130E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.400E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.750E+02
LAYER NO 3----CLAY

AT THE TOP
STRENGTH REDUCTION FACTOR-ALPHA = 0.464E+00 (*)
END BEARING COEFFICIENT-Nc = 0.900E+01 (*)
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, LB/SQ FT = 0.500E+04
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.130E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.550E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.750E+02

AT THE BOTTOM
STRENGTH REDUCTION FACTOR-ALPHA = 0.464E+00 (*)
END BEARING COEFFICIENT-Nc = 0.900E+01 (*)
UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH, LB/SQ FT = 0.500E+04
BLOWS PER FOOT FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST = 0.000E+00 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, LB/CU FT = 0.130E+03
MAXIMUM LOAD TRANSFER FOR SOIL, LB/SQ FT = 0.550E+04
DEPTH, FT = 0.100E+03
LAYER NO 4----SAND