For previous posts on Truxel Bridge, see category ‘Truxel Bridge‘.

On November 13, the City of Sacramento held a Truxel Bridge Community Open House at SMUD Museum of Science and Curiosity (MoSaC). There were more people in attendance than any meeting I’ve attended during the pandemic, and for several years beforehand, indicating good community engagement and a high level of interest in the potential bridge. Though the ‘usual suspects’, transportation advocates for a more equitable and efficient transportation system, were there, so were many people I’d never seen before.

I did not capture the comments written on charts adjacent to some of the board, nor do I know what was entered on the comment cards. Most of the chart comments were in opposition to private motor vehicles on the bridged, or supporting or objecting to details of the bridge cross-sections. Overheard comments were more evenly split between people supporting private motor vehicles on the bridge, and opposing them. A few comments brought up the city’s rejection of the far less environmentally damaging but perhaps more expensive bridge alignment with the Highway 160 crossing of the American River.

It is apparent that the city did not respond to the stakeholder group objections to inclusion of motor vehicles on the bridge. In fact, almost nothing about the proposal has changed since the initial meeting in January and the stakeholder meeting in April. The city is still insisting that the bridge on this alignment has been approved, and is only seeking input on the bridge cross-section. It is also continuing to insist that the bridge would decrease vehicle miles traveled, though they are being vague about this now after being ridiculed by experts and the public. The city continues to downplay the fact that a new bridge for motor vehicles is prohibited by the American River Parkway Plan, so would require county modification of that plan, and state approval of that modification.

The city is also saying that the width of the bridge doesn’t really matter that much. Of the four alternative presented, Alternative 1 is 84 feet, Alternative 2 is 69 feet, Alternative 3A is 90 feet, and Alternative 3B is 96 feet. A bridge without private motor vehicles would be about 53 feet, depending on details of design. A simple reference is to look at Alternative 3A, removing the two motor vehicle lanes and the two shoulders. The city has refused to offer a design with transit, walking, and bicycling for comparison.

Photos of most of the poster boards are in the gallery below. The city has said these should be up on the Truxel Bridge web page within several days.

• Truxel Bridge