Sacramento River Crossings Alternatives Study

Summary Report

February 2011

Project Team Greater Broadway Partnership – Teresa Rocha Fran Halbakken, City of Sacramento Indian Heritage Center – Joe Goeden Sparky Harris, City of Sacramento Land Park Community Association – Tom Zeidner, City of Sacramento Mark Abrahams Maureen Pascoe, City of West Sacramento Le Rivage Hotel – Mark Salquest Greta Vohlers, City of West Sacramento Ramco Enterprises – Dan Ramos

River District – Patty Kleinknecht Consultants The Rivers Community Association – Project Lead – Fehr & Peers Joseph Barankin

Environmental – ICF International SABA – Walt Seifert

Cost Estimates – Dokken Engineering SACOG – Matt Carpenter

Stakeholder and Public Outreach – Sacramento Metro Chamber – Kelly Brenk AIM Consulting / Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD – Endicott Communications, Inc. Chris Morfas

Sacramento Regional Transit – Paul Marx Stakeholders Sacramento River Crossings Association – ASB Properties – David Stroud Jim Randlett

Bryte and Broderick Community Action Sacramento Walking Sticks – Susan Martimo Network – Jim Brewer Southside Park Neighborhood Association – California Department of General Services – Sharon Sprowls Cathy Buck WALKSacramento – Anne Geraghty California State Railroad Museum – West Sacramento Chamber of Commerce – Cathy Taylor Denice Seals Caltrans District 3 – Alyssa Begley Yolo County Transportation District – Capitol Area Development Authority – Erik Reitz Jackie Whitelam

Downtown Sacramento Partnership – Kevin Greene Contents Introduction ...... 1 Alternatives Development and Analysis ...... 4 Evaluation Criteria ...... 10 Transportation Analysis ...... 12 Cost Estimates ...... 17 Findings ...... 19 North Market Alternatives ...... 19 South Market Alternatives ...... 21 Other Considerations...... 21 Next Steps ...... 22

List of Tables Table ES-1 – Evaluation Criteria Performance Measures ...... 11 Table ES-2 – Conceptual Construction Cost Estimates ...... 18

List of Figures Figure ES-1 – Study Area and Existing Bridge Crossings ...... 5 Figure ES-2 – Illustrative Crossing Types ...... 8 Figure ES-3 – Land Use Forecasts ...... 13 Figure ES-4 – Transportation Analysis ...... 14 Figure ES-5 – Market Area ...... 20

Sacramento River Crossings Alternatives Study

Introduction

For over a decade, the concept of another Sacramento River crossing has surfaced in multiple forms, including the City of Sacramento and City of West Sacramento General Plans, the Sacramento Riverfront Master Plan (SRMP), and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). Mobility, economic development, riverfront accessibility, connectivity, air quality, safety, and security have been cited as benefits of a new Sacramento River crossing, while community and environmental impacts are often presented as concerns.

Summary Report | Page 1 Sacramento River Crossings Alternatives Study

The purpose of the Sacramento River Crossings Based on this statement, the clear need for a Alternatives Study was to take a comprehensive new crossing stems from limited connectivity, look at the need for a new crossing and to which is a barrier to economic activity, social answer the following key questions. exchanges, recreational opportunities, and access to jobs. This barrier eff ect creates • Why is a new crossing needed? long trip lengths that discourage walking • What are the objectives a new crossing and bicycling while creating dependence on should achieve? automobile use that generates negative public • What locations are feasible for constructing health eff ects and adverse environmental a new crossing? eff ects. A new crossing would respond to • What travel modes should a new crossing the need but also be expected to accomplish serve? additional objectives listed under the project • How would a new crossing influence future purpose. These objectives were defined by the travel demand? project team with input from the stakeholders

• How much would a new crossing cost to and public. construct? The other key components of the study • How do stakeholders and the public feel included a constraints and opportunities about new crossings? analysis to identify potential crossing locations. This was followed by an alternatives In answering these questions, the study analysis that evaluated each crossing location engaged stakeholders and the public in the in terms of modal options, transportation transportation planning process. It started performance, environmental impacts, and with defining the need and purpose of a new construction costs. This information was crossing, which directly responds to the first synthesized and reviewed against the need two questions, and then refining it throughout and purpose statement to develop the final the study based on stakeholder and public study recommendations. Key elements of the input. The final Need and Purpose Statement, study are described in this executive summary, shown on the opposite page, is grounded in while the Technical Information Compilation the community values stated in the principles Report contains the detailed information of the SRMP, the General Plan policies from developed during the study and presented to both cities, and expressed by stakeholders the stakeholders and the public. and the public during the planning process.

The Sacramento Riverfront Master Plan builds on four central guiding principles identifi ed by the communities:

• Creating riverfront neighborhoods and districts • Establishing a web of connectivity • Strengthening the green backbone of the community • Making places for celebration

Page 2 | Summary Report Sacramento River Crossings Alternatives Study

NEED AND PURPOSE STATEMENT

NEED: The proposed action is needed for the reasons listed below.

• Limited connectivity across the river creates longer trip lengths, which discourage walking and bicycling. • Longer trip lengths create dependence on automobile use that generates negative public health eff ects and adverse environmental eff ects such as emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases (GHGs). • Limited connectivity across the river creates concentrated vehicle traffi c fl ows on existing bridges and their connecting approach roadways, resulting in undesirable travel delays for vehicle traffi c, including public bus transit during weekday peak periods and special events. • Limited connectivity across the river reduces options for emergency response teams, thereby increasing response times and limiting alternatives for evacuations. • The I Street, Tower, and Pioneer bridges do not fully comply with current design standards, which limits or restricts multimodal use, increases seismic vulnerability, and exacerbates the potential eff ects of natural disasters. • Limited connectivity across the river is a barrier to economic activity, social exchanges, recreational opportunities, and access to jobs within the urban core of Sacramento and West Sacramento. • Limited connectivity to the riverfront reduces the potential to achieve planned urban development and redevelopment of opportunity sites identifi ed in the adopted plans of Sacramento and West Sacramento. • Limited connectivity reduces opportunities to use the riverfront for enjoyment and recreation.

PURPOSE: The proposed action is intended to achieve the following objectives.

• Increase the number of river crossings that meet current design standards and encourage travel by walking, bicycling, low energy vehicles, and public transit. • Increase the number of persons that can safely, effi ciently, and reliably cross the river. • Increase options for emergency response teams to cross the river. • Increase options for evacuations. • Improve the connectivity to, and accessibility of, businesses, recreational areas, and new or redevelopment opportunity sites located in the urban core of Sacramento and West Sacramento. • Reduce trip length distances across the river between major origins and destinations. • Reduce the growth in vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and vehicle hours of delay (VHD). • Reduce the growth in transportation-related energy use, air pollution emissions, and GHG emissions. • Reduce the growth in vehicle traffi c on local neighborhood streets, especially cut- through traffi c. • Minimize use of the Pioneer Bridge by local traffi c.

Summary Report | Page 3 Sacramento River Crossings Alternatives Study

Alternatives Development and Analysis

The Sacramento River Crossings Alternatives • Environmental – These constraints include Study started with a large study area that biological (i.e., plants, animals, water, and extended from the confluence of the American air quality) and cultural resources that are River to the Freeport Bridge approximately regulated by federal, state, and regional 13 miles to the south. The Need and Purpose agencies.

Statement was used to assess and refine this • Physical – These constraints include initial study area to the final limits shown in natural and manmade physical features Figure ES-1. This refined study area was the that would influence the feasibility or cost focus of the alternatives development and of constructing a new crossing. analysis, which started with an evaluation of • Land Use – These constraints include land existing constraints under the following topics uses that have a special status or sensitivity to identify potential opportunities for new that would influence the feasibility or cost crossing locations. of constructing a new crossing.

Page 4 | Summary Report FINAL STUDY AREA AND EXISTING BRIDGE CROSSINGS FIGURE ES-1

American River N Rd H k a an rb b o r r e B iv l R Richards Blvd

Sunset Av St N 7th St th 12 N B St N Sacramento Av B St N 16th St 6th St 5 C St I Street Bridge D St F St 3rd St H St 80 F St E St 8th St G St 12th St

Tower Bridge 16th St v Capitol Mall W Capitol Av ley A Merk s t 15th St i 7th St I St Riske Ln m Evergreen Av 3rd St i L St L N St y K St d tu 9th St S 21st St Capitol Ave Q St 5th St 15th St PioneerRd Westacre Bridge R S River Rd St P St Industrial Bl 10th St

19th StT St W St

Broadway

24th St

Alhambra Blvd

Vallejo Way 2nd Ave

Sacramento River

Stonegate Dr Vallejo Way

Lake W Village Pk ash in g to n Riverside Blvd

Linden Rd 24th St

Land Park Dr

Freeport Blvd

Sutterville Rd

S River Rd 21st Ave

NOT TO SCALE Sacramento River Crossings Alternatives Study

The constraints were based on a review of • Location 1 – This location could connect available information and input from the development/redevelopment opportunity stakeholder advisory committee. Opportunity sites on both sides of the river, including crossing locations were identified by the River District Specific Plan area, The reviewing the constraints and the following Rivers development area, and the planned information. California Indian Heritage Center. The location also offers the potential to connect • Planned development and redevelopment directly to I-5. A pedestrian- and bicycle-only areas (also known as opportunity bridge was previously identified in this area development sites). in the Riverfront Master Plan. • Existing and planned transportation • Location 2 – This location could connect network, including roadways, rail lines, development/redevelopment opportunity bikeways, and pedestrian facilities. sites on both sides of the river including the • Stakeholder input from their second meeting River District Specific Plan area, Railyards and the June 14, 2010, site tour. Specific Plan area, Washington Specific Plan The main product of the constraints and area, and the planned California Indian opportunities analysis was a technical Heritage Center.

memorandum that included a preliminary • Location 3 – This location focuses on map of potential crossing locations and modal the existing I Street Bridge corridor and options for each crossing. The memo and map strengthening the connection between were the key items presented at the third downtown Sacramento, the Railyards stakeholder meeting and the public workshop. Specific Plan area, and the Washington At this point in the study, the modal options Specific Plan area and surrounding included bridges, ferries, and aerial trams. neighborhood. A key question is whether it Further assessment of these modal options, would be more cost effective to upgrade the based on the Need and Purpose Statement existing bridge or to replace it altogether. during the alternatives analysis, revealed that The presumption for this study is that any a ferry or aerial tram would fail to meet key modification in this area would not increase project purpose objectives. Figure ES-2 on the number of lanes for vehicles but would pages 8 and 9 shows the final map of eight enhance the crossing for automobiles, potential crossing locations and the various transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. modal options they could support. Transit vehicles do not use the I Street Following is a summary of the eight crossing Bridge because it is too narrow, and location opportunities. bicyclists must share the narrow travel lanes with vehicles given the absence of shoulders.

Page 6 | Summary Report Sacramento River Crossings Alternatives Study

• Location 4 – This location focuses on the the Docks project and Miller Park existing Tower Bridge corridor and would redevelopment area in Sacramento, with continue to connect the core of downtown the Pioneer Bluff Redevelopment area in Sacramento with north-south gateways West Sacramento. This area also captures to the Washington Specific Plan area and the existing Pioneer Bridge, which presents Bridge District development area. While a an opportunity for enhancing this existing new crossing would not likely be added here, vehicle crossing to accommodate non- enhancements to the existing Tower Bridge auto modes. A new crossing in this area could be made to accommodate rail transit may present an opportunity to leverage or provide additional space for bicycles and planned relocation of the existing fuel pedestrians. tank farms on both sides of the river to the

• Location 5 – This location could connect Port of Sacramento. The Riverfront Master existing developed areas and develop- Plan proposed extending Broadway as a ment/redevelopment opportunity sites on multimodal bridge across the river in this both sides of the river. The Sacramento area. Broadway already crosses under I-5. side of the river includes the P, Q, and R • Location 7 – This location could connect Street corridors. The R Street corridor is development/redevelopment opportunity a planned mixed-use growth area. On the sites on both sides of the river, including the West Sacramento side of the river, this Miller Park Redevelopment Project area location could connect to the Bridge District. in Sacramento and the Southport Specific A pedestrian- and bicycle-only bridge was Plan and Stone Lock project areas in West previously identified in this area in the Sacramento.

Riverfront Master Plan. The elevation of P, • Location 8 – This location could connect the Q, and R Streets above I-5 in this area would existing Land Park area in Sacramento with help address the challenge of crossing both the Southport Specific Plan area in West the river and I-5. Sacramento. This location also offers the • Location 6 – This location could connect potential for a direct connection to I-5, with development/redevelopment opportunity or without a connection to Sutterville Road. sites on both sides of the river, including

Summary Report | Page 7 Destinations/Crossing Connections Key Map Ped/Bike Only American River

River District 1. California Indian Heritage Center/ Speci c Plan The Rivers to River District Richards Blvd 1

§¨¦5 2. Washington Speci c Plan to B St 2 River District/Railyards 6th St

3. Washington Speci c Plan to Railyards D St 3 (I Street Bridge) F St 3rd St H St

4. Washington Speci c Plan/ 8th St Bridge District to Downtown Sacramento 4 (Tower Bridge) Capitol Mall L St

7th St

Riske Ln 3rd St 5. Bridge District to R St. Corridor 5 N St

9th St

Q St 5th St R St

6. Bridge District/Pioneer Blu to S River Rd Front St 6 10th St Docks/Miller Park (Pioneer Bridge) -

W St

Broadway

7. Stone Lock to Miller Park 2nd Ave 7 Vallejo Way

Sacramento River

Village Pk

Riverside Blvd

8. Southport to I-5/Sutterville Rd. Linden Rd Land Park Dr

Sutterville Rd §¨¦5 S River Rd

Notes: Shaded cells denote crossing type not best suited due to low population and employment density, long distances between major destinations for non-motorized modes, or high demand for motorized modes. (1) Transit bridges would have dedicated lanes for the exclusive use of transit vehicles. (2) Auto bridges could be two or more lanes and would be used by buses operating in mixed trac. ILLUSTRATIVE CROSSING TYPES FIGURE ES-2

BRIDGES

Ped/Bike with Transit (1) All Modes - 2 Lanes (2) All Modes - 4 Lanes Sacramento River Crossings Alternatives Study

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The alternatives analysis focused on Internet-based public survey, which included evaluation criteria developed by the project almost 1,700 responses. This approach team in collaboration with the stakeholders. ensured that the alternatives analysis The evaluation criteria was linked to specific would relate directly to the community community values identified early in the study values expressed as being important to the process based on adopted local, regional, and stakeholders and the public. Table ES-1 shows state plans, plus stakeholder input and an the final evaluation criteria.

Page 10 | Summary Report Sacramento River Crossings Alternatives Study

Table ES-1 – Evaluation Criteria Performance Measures

QUANTITATIVE QUALITATIVE COMMUNITY VALUES PERFORMANCE MEASURES PERFORMANCE MEASURES Accessibility • Population and employment within ½ mile • Travel market map based on estimated • Increase accessibility to the riverfront (walk) radius of each river crossing location distribution of vehicle trips using each • Remove barriers to travel, especially by • Population and employment within a crossing walking and bicycling 5-minute drive of each river crossing • Potential to reduce emergency vehicle • Reduce gaps in the transportation network location response times Aesthetics • Location is compatible with existing or • Maintain local character and identity planned development • Design would be consistent with scale of existing development Connectivity • Number of new crossings • Increase the number of river crossings • Number of vehicle lanes crossing the river • Improve pedestrian and bicycle network • Number of sidewalks/paths crossing connectivity the river • Number of bike lanes/paths crossing the river • Change in average spacing between crossings Economic • Population and employment within ½ mile • Cost compared to funding estimate • Minimize impedance to movement of (walk) radius of each river crossing location goods, services, and workers • Population and employment within a • Develop cost-eff ective alternatives 5-minute drive of each river crossing • Align costs and funding location Environment • Change in regional vehicle miles of travel • Environmental and cultural resource • Protect environmental and cultural (VMT) disruption resources • Transportation energy demand reduction • Protect and restore riverfront environment potential • Reduce travel-related energy and emissions Mobility • Travel times for select origin-destination • Potential to induce new travel • Reduce undesired future congestion pairs by mode • Improve roadway utilization • Change in regional VMT • Reduce travel times to cross the river by all • Congested lane-miles within study area modes Neighborhoods/Community • Percent change in neighborhood cut- • Potential to induce new growth beyond • Preserve existing conditions through traffi c current plans • Minimize through traffi c • Vehicle traffi c volume change on major neighborhood roadways Safety • Meets current design standards • Improve travel safety • Reduce severity of collisions • Improve emergency vehicle response

Summary Report | Page 11 Sacramento River Crossings Alternatives Study

TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS

Accessibility, connectivity, and mobility are the related evaluation criteria from Table ES-1. community values that resonated most strongly This information suggests that each crossing with the stakeholders. These values are would serve diﬀ erent amounts of population directly related to existing and future levels of and employment, with those closer to the population and employees. Figure ES-3 shows urban core serving the most. However, the that the study area has a significant amount core area already has existing bridges, whereas of planned population and employment the areas to the north and south have none. growth, especially in the urban core areas of This condition partly explains why adding new Sacramento and West Sacramento. Figure ES-4 bridges to the north or south has a greater relates this growth to each crossing location influence on reducing vehicle miles of travel based on select accessibility and mobility (VMT).

Sacramento, CA Portland, OR

7 .60

.41 7 7 7 .38

7 7

.31 7

.76

7 7

.37 7

7 .327

7 .37

7 7 .51

Infl uence of accessibility on development

LEGEND .60 Distance Between Bridges (miles)

Areas of Less Intense Development Partly Due to Limited Assessibility

Page 12 | Summary Report LAND USE FORECASTS ew at ay FIGURE ES-3 G

Orchard Ln Orchard O

k Rd Truxel Eleanor Ave Northgate Blvd

s Auburn Blvd

Wright St

r W

El Camino Ave Orchard Orchard Ln

Arden WayEvergreenSt

N Rd Bell St H nk American River Way Ethan a ba Del Paso Blvd rb er o iv Alta Arden Expy r R B Ric HoweAve l har Expo ds Blvd sition Blvd Reed Av

Sacramento Av B St Ethan Way Ethan 6th St Hurley Way 5 N 7th St C St F St 3rd St v I St F St A 80 y 12th St 80 Elvas Ave le rk C St Me Sierra Blvd 7th St 3rd St J St

8,507 H St Carlson Dr

16,938 28,968 46,222 d Capitol Ave Westacre Westacre Rd R Parkway Bl r 5th St e Industrial Bl iv 9th St G St R S W St e 16th St v 16,806 33,078 A

143,589 172,244 y it 29th St s 51st St r Elvas Ave e Broadway 24th St Uni v

39th St T St 58th St Sacramento River 2nd Ave 50 Southport Pk ate College Town Dr neg Dr S St to S V il l a

g Riverside Blvd 59th St e

P 24th St Linden Rd k

Land Park Dr 12th Ave 14th Ave 65th St

21st Ave 17,113 14,120 16,101 20,349

5,886 1,788 Irvin Way 26th Ave

16,321 15,839 99

Stockton Blvd

r D 41st Ave k r a

Havenside Dr

d 24th St Jefferson Bl n 47th Ave

5 a

S River Rd 65th Street Expy P a r Gloria Dr k Ri Briggs Dr vie ra Wa y Florin Rd

29thSt G re 66th Ave Palmer House Dr 4,100 6,285 en 16,966 17,281 h a

v 21st St e Dr e idg n

b D d n r i W okfield Pocket Rd Bro Dr Tangerine Ave 29,060 43,458 19,521 30,554

Mack Rd Elsie Ave Inn Power Rd LEGEND

2005 Dwelling Units

S Stevenson Ave t o 2035 Dwelling Units c k t C on Ehrhardt Aveosu Meadowhaven Blvd Dr 2005 Total Employment N mn es River Blvd W St o c 2035 Total Employment k t NOT TO SCALE o n

Calvine Rd B E Stockton Blvd l Carlin Ave v e d v Jacinto Rd A o t

Jac i n

Sims Rd i

e t

S Dwight Rd Amber Creek Dr s i w Laguna Star Dr e L Destinations/Crossing 2005 Pop. Plus 2035 Pop. Plus 2005 Pop. Plus 2035 Pop. Plus Key Map Employ.within Employ. within Employ. within Employ. within Connections 1/2 mile 1/2 mile 5 min. Drive 5 min. Drive

American River 3,201 7,171 15,254 41,359 River District 1. Richards Boulevard -

Speci c Plan 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% California Indian Heritage Richards Blvd Center/The Rivers to 1 River District §¨¦5 2. C Street - 5,966 22,941 33,821 68,342 Washington Speci c Plan to B St 2

6th St 0% 100% 0% 100%

River District/Railyards 100% 100% 0% 0% 3. I Street (Modi ed) - Washington Speci c Plan to 3 D St F St 3rd St Railyards H St 4. Tower Bridge - 8th St 61,279 100,996 Washington Speci c Plan/ 11,850 33,674 Bridge District to 4 0% 100% Capitol Mall 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% Downtown Sacramento L St

7th St

Riske Ln 5. R Street - 3rd St Bridge District to R St. 5

Corridor 9th St 23,448 44,425 63,954 95,981

5th St 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100%

6. Broadway - S River Rd Front St 10th St Bridge District/Pioneer Blu 6 to Docks/Miller Park -

16,909 36,449 69,603 106,097 Broadway 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 7. Marina View - 2nd Ave Stone Lock to Miller Park 7 Vallejo Way 4,422 12,799 65,915 98,545

Sacramento River 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100%

Village Pk

Riverside Blvd 4,176 5,684 7,658 24,503 8. Sutterville Rd. - 0% 100% 0% 100% Southport to I-5/ Linden Rd Land Park Dr 0% 100% 0% 100% Sutterville Rd.

8 2,364 3,660 11,850 19,377

Sutterville Rd 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% §¨¦5 S River Rd

Notes: Shaded cells denote highest value. (1) [2035 with new bridge] - [2035 no project] (2) Change within study area during PM peak period. (3) MT = Metric ton. Assumes one vehicle mile of travel generates approx. 1 lb. of CO2 equivalent. * Congested lane miles increased by 1.9 for this alternative. TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS FIGURE ES-4

2035 Regional 2035 Total River 2035 Lane-Miles 2035 Annual Potential Residential Neighborhoods Daily VMT Crossing Daily of Congestion GHG Emission A ected by Trac Volume Changes Change (1) Volume Change (1) Change (1, 2) Change (1, 3) Sacramento West Sacramento

-95,760 16,090 -2.00 -15,850 MT 3 3 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100%

-90,920 5,790 -3.70 -15,050 MT 5 4 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100%

No Change Compared to No Project

-90,300 11,360 -5.30 -14,950 MT 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 5 3

-82,440 13,400 * -13,650 MT 5 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 2

-92,880 11,840 -7.50 -15,370 MT 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 5 2

-92,830 21,930 -14.60 -15,370 MT 7 3 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% Sacramento River Crossings Alternatives Study

North To better understand the specific areas or

Blvd way N F ree

e “markets” being served by each crossing, a Av

5 od wo Nor visual analysis was conducted, as shown in the Silver Eagle Rd 80

San Juan Rd

r D images on this page, to show how the location o d e

Ln z d

A Blv

way O te

a Rd

te k ard ard Orch a G s of a new bridge aﬀ ects the distribution of D

Truxel Northga

the vehicle trips that cross it. Three distinct ard Ln ard Orch W El Camino Ave Natom as r P D a er r k

W Riv D markets were revealed: north, central, and r A rd ector en Garden Conn Blvd Paso Del south. The central market is already served N Rd H k a an rb b o r r e B iv l R Richards Bl by the I Street and Tower Bridges although vd

Su h St nset St N 7t th Av 12 N B S N St t th Sacramen to Av B I Street does not accommodate all modes and St

h St N 16

t St C St D d S

F St 3r H is in need of significant maintenance. The St St F St 80 t th St E St 8th G 12 St

16th S t v C S itol Av y A apit t W Cap Merkle ol Ma ll h S 15th t

ke Ln S north market (north of I Street) and the south Mc St 7t t ki is th nl I S ey ergreen Av R St Bl Ev 3rd h v L St 29 d 0t N St 3 h St K St St 9t J st St H S St t 21 Cap market (south of Pioneer Bridge) are not h itol Ave acre Rd acre Q St 5t t S

15th St th West River Rd th S R S St P St 39 In 10 d us St t St ri h al Bl h

Bl served by any bridges. When a new bridge is 19t T St 39t W St LEGENDvd

Broad St h St w t mbra Bl ay a h 24 Market Area Servedt lh A 39 St introduced into these areas, the users tend to

4th T S Higher3 Tripst 2 Vallejo Way nd Ave be concentrated from the same area. Dr Stonegate Lower Trips Va lvd llejo Way B e Lake V 5 Wa illa sh sid in g g ver

Central South

Natom d a N R s H k P a n a r a iver Dr r b rb k o e r v W R D B Ri r l A rd ector Richa en Garden Conn rds Blvd

aso Blvd P Sun h St Del 7t t s S et Av N th 12 N B St N St N Rd h H k Sacra a n men 6t a to Av St rb b B St

r h o e N 1 r iv B 6t l R Richa C St St rds Blvd St D d

F St 3r Su H ns t St F S St t N 7th St h 80 h St h St et Av t t 2 S E St 1 St 8t G St N B S N 12 t th Sac 16th ramen t to Av B St

h St N 16 v Capit W Capitol Av ey A o 6t Merkl l Ma 5th S ll 1 t t Mc S 7th St t ki C St iske Ln St St I S S R D Evergreen Av 3rd t 9th S d L St 2 th

F S 3r t N St 30 H St K St St St F St t 9th St J 80 h st St St th E 8t St G St 21 Cap 12 St Rd h itol acre Rd acre Q Ave 16th S 5t t St 15th St River h S v C West api th St R W Capitol Av y A tol S S le 5 Parkway Bl t P St erk M 10t M all t t h St 1 In S ke Ln 7t Mck du h is i I St str R S Evergreen Av t 9t h St 3rd S L h ial St 2 Bl 30t 19t T N St d St K h St St W St lv 9t st St J St t St 21 Capitol Broadw h S

acre Rd acre t th Q Ave 5 St ay 15th St St 24 hambra B Al West R S River Rd St Pa P St Indus 10th rkwa 4th St T t 3 tri S h 2nd al t y Valle jo A B Bl Way ve 19 l T St W St vd t a Bl e Dr Broadway br t h S Stonega t m vd l Vall 24 ha ejo Way Al St Lake V 5 Wa illage ide B h sh s in 4t T g 3 ver to 2nd n Pk Ri Vallejo Way Dr Ave Bl rk

Pa Linden 24 d vd Rd th St Bl te Dr Lan t Stonega

Valle epor lvd jo Way 12th Fre Lake V 5 Wa illage Pk ide B Ave sh s in g Sutt nu to e B n River er Dr yp B ville R l d

rk lv a d Linden Rd 24 d P vd th St

Bl Lan B ngJr

t i River Rd S 21st Ave K er epor

12th A th

Fre u

venue L n i

Sut Davis rt ter Byp Rd ville Ma 26th Ave

Rd Irvin Way Blvd

d LEGEND ngJr Seam LEGEND ver R as Ave Ri

S 21st Ave Ki er

GregoryAv u

Bl h

Market Area Served n t Market Area Served

n L n i 35th 24 Da ferso Ave vis Rd Mart Jef Higher Trips Irvin Way 26th Ave Higher Trips

43rd

y Av y A Seamas A ve 41st Ave

or ve

eg St Gr Lower Trips Lower Trips

Bl h Blair Ave t son r 35th 24 fe Ave ef J iver Rd Dr

Page 16 | Summary Report Sacramento River Crossings Alternatives Study

Another important community value identified included in the transportation analysis by the stakeholders was the preservation of summaries. Likewise, each two-lane bridge existing residential neighborhoods and the would add the same number of vehicle lanes, desire to minimize regional cut through traffic sidewalks, and bike lanes. As for aesthetics, on residential streets that would occur due it is too early in the planning process to have to a new crossing. The planning level analysis bridge designs prepared. However, this was conducted for this study did not contain an important criterion for many stakeholders sufficient detail or sensitivity to draw definitive (with a strong preference for low profile conclusions about potential residential bridge designs such as Tower Bridge) and will neighborhood eﬀ ects, but the analysis did need to be addressed as the project progresses provide evidence that new crossings connecting into design phases. directly to, or adjacent to, existing residential neighborhoods had a high likelihood of COST ESTIMATES attracting new traffic through these areas and The alternatives analysis also included cost should be studied in closer detail in subsequent estimates. The cost estimates considered three project development phases. potential crossing types, as listed below.

A complete summary of the transportation • Fixed bridge with a 55' vertical clearance analysis can be found in the Technical to comply with U.S. Coast Guard Navigable Information Compilation Report, which Waterways design requirements (similar to is a compilation of the information that Pioneer Bridge height). was produced during this study and used • Fixed bridge with a 30' vertical clearance, in stakeholder meetings and the public assuming an exception to the U.S. Coast workshop. Since any new bridge would Guard Navigable Waterways design comply with current design standards and requirements. would improve current emergency response • Moveable bridge similar to Tower Bridge or capabilities, these criteria were not directly I Street Bridge.

Summary Report | Page 17 Sacramento River Crossings Alternatives Study

For each bridge type, the cost estimates These cost estimates represent a significant included three diﬀ erent cross-sections with range and do not include right-of-way, varying widths to accommodate the modal environmental mitigation, or enhanced options shown in Figure ES-2. Actual bridge aesthetic designs. Each of these items can add widths could vary by as much as 10 feet from significantly to the cost amount, depending the widths assumed for these preliminary on the specific location, although the estimates. For example, the pedestrian/ environmental assessment did not identify bicycle-only option was assumed to be at major environmental constraints that would least 20 feet so it could also accommodate dramatically change the cost estimates between modes such as neighborhood electric the alternative locations. While a complete cost vehicles. Narrower options that would is difficult to estimate at this early planning accommodate only pedestrian/bicycle stage, the range in Table ES-2 is generally in line modes would have lower construction costs. with the current funding projection contained Table ES-2 summarizes the cost estimates. in the Sacramento Regional Metropolitan Additional details about the cost estimates Transportation Plan, SACOG, 2008, of are available in the Technical Information approximately $100 million. However, this plan Compilation Report. is being updated and additional funding may be designated for new river crossings.

Table ES-2 – Conceptual Construction Cost Estimates

Bridges Ped/Bike Ped/Bike with Transit All Modes - 2 Lanes All Modes - 4 Lanes Width 20' 60' 60' 100' Types Range of Costs (in millions of dollars) Fixed = 30' $35-$70 $45-$145 $40-$130 $110-$205 Fixed = 55' $65-$80 $65-$165 $60-$150 $140-$250 Moveable $80-$115 $115-$180 $105-$165 $200-$270 Notes: The values in this table are estimates with ranges of costs. These costs include a 25% contingency cost, escalation in cost for 15 years (3% per year), 20% engineering and environmental cost, and 10% construction administration cost. Costs do not include right-of-way or environmental mitigation. Source: Dokken Engineering, 2010.

Page 18 | Summary Report Sacramento River Crossings Alternatives Study

Findings

The principal finding of this study is that a alternatives for each market, as shown on clear need exists for a new crossing of the Figure ES-5, and the purposes they would Sacramento River, but instead of just one serve, are described below. new crossing, at least two new crossings are needed. This is particularly evident for the NORTH MARKET ALTERNATIVES under-served markets north and south of the The crossings at Locations 2 and 3 would provide I Street and Pioneer Bridges. New crossings connectivity between major planned developments, would accomplish the following objectives. including the Washington Specific Plan and California Indian Heritage Center in West Sacramento, and • Increase economic activity and access to jobs the Railyards and River District in Sacramento. • Improve the potential to achieve planned urban development and redevelopment Location 2: C Street to Railyards Boulevard • Reduce trip lengths to make walking and This crossing would maintain the west bicycling viable travel modes across the river approach of the existing I Street Bridge at • Reduce undesirable delays to automobiles, C Street, but shift the east approach away from trucks, and public transit I and J Streets (and the associated I-5 ramps) to • Increase the opportunities for public access Railyards Boulevard. This crossing is likely to be to the riverfront for recreation less costly and disruptive to implement because • Improve travel safety and increase evacuation its alignment north of the I Street Bridge alternatives during emergency situations allows the existing I Street Bridge to remain in operation. After the three core bridges The five-mile study segment of the Sacramento (Locations 3, 4, and 5), it has the highest 2035 River is served by two local bridges, the Tower population and employee total within both a Bridge and the I Street Bridge, located just less one-half mile area and a five-minute drive. than one-half mile apart. Travel by all modes across the river must use these two bridges for Location 3: I Street Bridge Replacement east-west travel, except for vehicles that have the option of using US 50 (Pioneer Bridge). The This crossing would replace the I Street Bridge I Street Bridge is 100 years old and its upper at its current location, but widen it to provide roadway is too narrow to serve buses, it has no pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The existing bicycle facilities, and it has very narrow sidewalks. rail line would be maintained and the roadway widened to allow buses to use the bridge. The two new crossings should include one Replacement of the I Street Bridge would that serves the “north market” and one that require maintenance of freight and passenger serves the “south market.” The most promising rail traffic during construction.

Summary Report | Page 19 MARKET AREA FIGURE ES-5

LEGEND American River N d H R a k r Crossing Locationan Alternatives b b River District o er r iv Bl R Speci c Plan Opportunity Sites for Richards Blvd Planned Development or 1 RedevelopmentSunset Av St N 7th St th §¨¦5 12 Planned Roadways N B St N Sacramento Av B St 2 North Market N 16th St

6th St Central Market C St 3 D St F St 3rd St South Market H St F St E St 8th St G St 12th St

16th St 4 Av Capitol Mall W Capitol Av erkley M 15th St

7th St N I St Evergreen Av Riske Ln 3rd St L St 5 N St NOT TO SCALE K St

9th St

21st St Capitol Ave Q St 5th St 15th St

Westacre Rd Westacre R St S River Rd Front St P St Industrial Bl 6 10th St

19th StT St W St

Broadway

¤£50 24th St Alhambra Blvd

7 Vallejo Way 2nd Ave

Sacramento River Stonegate Dr Vallejo Way

Lake Village Pk Wash in g to n Riverside Blvd Bl

Linden Rd 24th St ·|þ}99

Land Park Dr

Freeport Blvd 8

Sutterville Rd §¨¦5

S River Rd 21st Ave

Davis Rd

Irvin Way 26th Ave Sacramento River Crossings Alternatives Study

SOUTH MARKET ALTERNATIVES OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

The crossing at Location 6 would provide Public and stakeholder sentiment suggests that connectivity between the Pioneer Bluﬀ , any new crossing should accommodate multiple a planned redevelopment area along the modes, including bicycles, pedestrians, and West Sacramento riverfront, and the Docks vehicles. This was based on a number of factors, development project, Miller Park, and the including the desire for new crossings to serve as Broadway commercial district in Sacramento. complete streets that accommodate all users.

The crossing at Location 8 would provide Other important considerations drawn connectivity between primarily residential for each market area during the study are neighborhoods, including the Southport area described in detail below. in West Sacramento and the Land Park area • North Market – This area has no existing in Sacramento, but also attract regional traffic bridges and substantial planned growth on to the new shorter distance route between both sides of the river. Without a new bridge, SR 99/I-5 and I-80. this area will have limited accessibility Location 6: 15th Street to Broadway or W that could affect the amount of future Street/X Street couplet development. This could mean that some population and employment growth occurs This crossing is located just south of the farther from the urban cores of Sacramento existing Pioneer Bridge. It would serve and West Sacramento, which would likely multiple purposes, including improving access increase the amount of vehicle travel that to jobs and supporting planned riverfront occurs in the region and contribute to development. Compared to the other crossings greater levels of energy use and emissions. located outside the existing core (crossings 1, • Central Market – This area is already 7, and 8), it yields the highest 2035 population served by the I Street and Tower Bridges. and employment within both a one-half mile The Tower Bridge functions well and area and a five-minute drive. accommodates multiple modes, but Location 8: Linden Road to Sutterville Road modifications would be required to accommodate rail transit. Another crossing This crossing is located at the southern edge opportunity for bicycles and pedestrians of the study area. The distance between this does not exist south of Tower Bridge. A crossing and the nearest crossing to the north new bridge at Location 5 (R Street) would (Pioneer Bridge) is approximately two miles. improve accessibility and connectivity to As such, a crossing at this location would yield this area for all modes. After the existing a significant benefit in terms of reducing trip Tower and I Street Bridges, it has the highest lengths required to cross the river. level of 2035 population and employment

Summary Report | Page 21 Sacramento River Crossings Alternatives Study

within both a one-half mile area and a NEXT STEPS five-minute drive. However, the inclusion of Advancing a specific bridge alternative vehicles would likely increase traffic volumes to the next phase of project development through residential neighborhoods. would involve preliminary engineering, • South Market – This area has the highest more detailed alternative analysis, and level of existing population and employment environmental review to comply with the that is not served by a bridge. The area is California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) large enough that more than one bridge and the National Environmental Policy could be justified. This area has some key Act (NEPA). The preliminary engineering challenges related to any bridge crossings work will be essential to determine specific at Locations 7 (Marina View) and 8 footprint locations, right of way issues, and (Sutterville). Location 7 would require a how a new bridge would connect to the bridge through Miller Park, which could existing roadway system. Other important disrupt existing public recreational areas engineering details include whether the bridge and cause circuitous routing. A bridge at would be fixed or moveable. The alternative Location 8 would likely increase traffic analysis would include more refined travel volumes through residential neighborhoods. demand forecasts and traffic operations analysis to help determine the number of lanes for each alternative and whether modifications are required to connecting roadways, transit lines, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities. The environmental review will include the typical biological and cultural resource evaluation, but this project would likely involve special issues related to residential neighborhood sensitivity, aesthetics, construction in a river ecosystem, and U.S. Coast Guard vertical clearance requirements.

Page 22 | Summary Report