For earlier posts on Truxel Bridge, see category Truxel Bridge.

The City of Sacramento hosted a meeting for stakeholders about the Truxel Bridge yesterday. The city on January 10, 2024 hosted a Community Conversation, and also offered an online questionnaire, which is now closed. City and consultant staff opened with and repeated that this meeting was not about whether the project should include private motor vehicles, which was off the table, but only about the horizontal alignment and bridge cross-section.

The horizontal alignment issue is that the selected river crossing location connecting Sequoia Pacific Blvd south of the river and Truxel Road north of the river is not entirely in the public right-of-way. It goes beyond the end of the Sequoia Pacific roadway on three private parcels with two buildings that have existed since 1985 and 1990. The width between buildings at that point is 80 feet. 80 feet would be sufficient for the original SacRT transit-walking-bicycling bridge, but is not sufficient for the city concept of a private vehicles-transit-walking-bicycling project. It is hard to understand why the city even selected this alignment given the constrained width. What is does mean is that there is only room for transit and private vehicles. Walking and bicycling will have to be separated from the route at the south end of the bridge, using the Two Rivers Trail to access 5th Street. This trail connection is not a bad idea, but forcing walkers and bicyclists away from the transportation corridor is questionable.

The city has produced several variations of the A, B, and C cross-sections to address concerns raised during the community meeting. The original cross-sections have not been provided to the public, but a photo of them is in our first Truxel Bridge post, and STAR has produced cross-sections similar to the city’s A, B, C. City staff refused to provide the new alternative cross-sections to the stakeholder group, and we did not capture them in photos. The city generated cross-sections still do not offer widths of each modal element (sidewalk, bikeway, travel lane, transit lanes).

I stated that from a transit perspective, mixed use lanes (private cars and transit) are unacceptable because they produce pinch points where transit can be delayed by private vehicle congestion, break-down, and crashes, and constrain scheduling because transit must wait for opposing direction transit vehicles. Therefore the cross-section A and related alternatives is unacceptable.

Others stated their preference for mixed lanes, so as to reserve as much width for walking and bicycling as possible. STAR understands this desire, and in fact sees modal priorities as walking first, then bicycling, then transit, with private vehicles last, if at all.

This conflict between walking and bicycling, and transit, has been created by the city’s insistence that private vehicles be included on the bridge, and that they receive priority. This conflict is unnecessary. The original transit bridge concept, approved by SacRT and Sacramento County through the American River Parkway Plan, allows walkers, bicyclists, and transit to co-exist.

There was quite a bit of discussion about mixing of bicyclists and walkers, as was shown on some of the alternative cross-sections. Deb Banks of SABA stated that mixing is not a good idea due to the higher speed differential of electric bikes from walking speed, as opposed to non-electric bikes planned for in bikeways. The group agreed that mixing of walkers and bicyclists was a bad idea. The width of the bikeway may also be insufficient, as it appears (the city did not provide any widths) that they are old designs developed before the increase in cargo bike and trailer use. See the Getting Around Sacramento post bike lane widths for more information.

Stephen Green, President of the Save the American River Association (SARA) stated that if the bridge includes private vehicles, in contradiction of the parkway plan, the association would sue. Lawsuits against transportation projects often do not succeed in stopping projects, but do often succeed in modifying projects and requiring the funding of mitigation measures. Apparently the city wants to go this route, rather than addressing the real community concerns about the design concept that includes private vehicles. Unfortunately, the outcome may be that the bridge will not be built at all, leaving walkers and bicyclists to go way out of their way during flood incidents.

Though not on the agenda, the issue of VMT (vehicle miles traveled) was brought up again. The city is claiming that the bridge would reduce VMT because motor vehicle trips are shorter by about one mile. This claim is doubtful. When the project gets to the CEQA/NEPA stage, if it ever does, VMT claims will have to be backed up by hard data and current calculations, not on 11-year-old speculation.

• Truxel Bridge