I ask that the council direct staff to ensure that any designs for the Truxel bridge only have transit and pedestrian/cyclist options. There are other ways for cars to make the trip to South Natomas. We should be prioritizing transit oriented solutions to minimize the number of vehicle miles traveled. We need more transit and pedestrian/cyclist opportunities on the grid. Especially if we are planning on moving forward with the Truxel extension of light rail. The last thing we need to do is undermine ridership by maximizing vehicular opportunities.

In Sacramento, we need to prioritize the density and transit over sprawl and personal vehicles. The latter will not help us meet our climate goals and will in fact lean into the worst impulses of development. Infrastructure is more easily maintained when density is the goal. Ridership is able to meet the needs of a fluctuating transit budget by ensuring the maximum number of riders.

Additionally as another commenter stated…
Adding cars to Truxel bridge is not only illegal according to the 2008 ARPP-it's not only 1.5-2x as expensive to build as a transit-/ped-only bridge-it's not only a maintenance liability which will create tens of millions of dollars of surprise CIP spending every 20 years-it's not only inconsistent with the 2040 General Plan's VMT reduction targets—it's not only a stroad lengthening project which will make it even harder to diet Truxel to make it safer. The main problem with adding cars to Truxel bridge is that it will incentivize the exact kind of suburban development patterns which led to Sacramento's current half-billion dollar unfunded street maintenance backlog (on track to exceed $1 billion by 2030), and led to the unfortunate achievements of being among the top 10 most dangerous cities to drive in, and the most deadly California city to walk or roll in.
Natomas (D1/D3) deserves a walkable, safe, and economically productive Main Street, NOT an even bigger stroad.

I am in support of the ATC’s recommendation in the letter to the Mayor and Council. I believe that means option 3) reject the Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study and instead recommend that the City Council direct staff to evaluate and study a Truxel Bridge alternative without personal motor vehicles.

Unless we enjoy watching LA burn, Europe flood, and the east coast be ripped apart by monster hurricanes, we need to be serious about combating climate change. The good news is that solutions to climate change can simultaneously increase our public health and safety, and quality of life. Give people attractive alternatives to driving and everyone benefits, even those continuing to drive.

Make the choice that will save money and lives. Build the bridge for light rail, bikes, and pedestrians.

Please consider working around the present nature. Please do not destroy nature any more.

Please recommend that council direct staff to evaluate a no-car Truxel bridge (with controlled access for emergency vehicles if necessary).

As a member of Strong SacTown, our very own Strong Towns local conversation, I'm committed to improving the livability of this City for all residents, D1/D3/D4 or otherwise. For us, that means urging the city to select projects that create wealth-multipliers and help the city fund its long-term maintenance liabilities without having to cut services. That means selecting projects which incentivize traditional development patterns, and neighborhoods which produce the tax revenue that can sustain its own infrastructure maintenance. We want a fiscally solvent city, not one that is perpetually in deficit.

Adding cars to Truxel bridge is not only illegal according to the 2008 ARPP—it's not only 1.5-2x as expensive to build as a transit-/ped-only bridge—it's not only a maintenance liability which will create tens of millions of dollars of surprise CIP spending every 20 years—it's not only inconsistent with the 2040 General Plan's VMT reduction targets—it's not only a stroad lengthening project which will make it even harder to diet Truxel to make it safer. The main problem with adding cars to Truxel bridge is that it will incentivize the exact kind of suburban development patterns which led to Sacramento's current half-billion dollar unfunded street maintenance backlog (on track to exceed $1 billion by 2030), and led to the unfortunate achievements of being among the top 10 most dangerous cities to drive in, and the most deadly California city to walk or roll in.

Natomas (D1/D3) deserves a walkable, safe, and economically productive Main Street, NOT an even bigger stroad.

My name is Ansel Lundberg. I am a homeowner, dad, and House Sacramento member in Curtis Park/District 7. I also ride my bike across the American River frequently for leisure and to do shopping. Though I support the dire need for increased connectivity between the north and south sides of the American River, I would recommend adding a project goal for the Truxel Bridge Project that aligns with the 2040 General Plan goals of limiting vehicle miles traveled and providing safe multimodal transportation options. Frankly there are enough ways to get across the American River by private automobile. I would also recommend directing staff to evaluate and study a Truxel Bridge alternative that considers a transit/bike/pedestrian bridge option only (with an access-controlled emergency vehicle lane). The current alternatives do not meet the 2040 General Plan Mobility Element goals.

Let's plan for the vision outlined in the 2040 General Plan Mobility Element M-1.11 "Increase Bicycling and Walking." I.e., let's study a Truxel Bridge that would achieve our vision of striving to increase bicycling and walking citywide so that we can meet our equity, VMT reduction, and sustainability goals.

Thank you to ATC members and staff for your engagement on this issue. Let's help the city council make the right decision for this plan.

I strongly encourage this Commission to recommend that the City Council direct staff to evaluate and study a Truxel Bridge alternative without personal motor vehicles. A car-free Truxel Bridge better aligns with the City's CURRENT long-term plans and priorities and would positively support its climate, transportation, and public safety goals. The primary arguments posed against a car-free alternative is that the Concept and Feasibility Study wasn't scoped to assess it and that it would require the city to amend old, outdated plans. A silver lining of the City's lack of dedicated funding for active transportation which leads to projects languishing on the vine is that it gives us time to reconsider the recommendations from the flawed Alternatives Study from 12 years ago. Adopting Alternative 3B because it presents the path of least resistance is not a good enough reason to lock in decades of increased VMT and set the city back in it efforts to meet its stated climate and transportation goals. This is an opportunity! Take advantage of it!

I oppose another automobile bridge over the American River in Discover Park. There are already two bridges. Interstate 5 provides adequate transit for auto's and is located less than 1000 meters from Truxel. If the Interstate 5 bridge is temporarily closed in one or both directions, there is access for emergency vehicles over Tiscornia/thru Discovery. I do support a light rail bridge over the river, with Pedestrian access. When Discovery Park floods, the only option for bike commuters is the very narrow, debris filled lane along I-5.

Stop violating people's rights because they do not have a home, you are spending money on things that allow others to pursue happiness.
THE POOR PEOPLE'S CAMPAIGN will continue!
We demand that you stop using the police to bully people. "Give us your blanket or go to jail"-this is what you promote? There are no housing options, there is no room in the shelters-taking the little property they have will not get them into a house. How dare you do this to the people you are supposed to represent! How dare you say you are for us! You are against us!

In December 1967, Dr. King had announced a new campaign, to bring attention to issues faced by poor Americans of all backgrounds. He envisioned a march on Washington and a campaign of massive civil disobedience to demand jobs, housing and education. In order to achieve this, King called for a “new and unsettling force,” a multi-racial “nonviolent army of the poor, a freedom church of the poor.” In his last Sunday sermon, he preached:

We are coming to Washington in a poor people’s campaign. Yes, we are going to bring the tired, the poor, the huddled masses … We are coming to demand that the government address itself to the problem of poverty. We read one day: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But if a man doesn’t have a job or an income, he has neither life nor liberty nor the possibility for the pursuit of happiness. He merely exists … We are coming to ask America to be true to the huge promissory note that it signed years ago. And we are coming to engage in dramatic non-violent action, to call attention to the gulf between promise and fulfillment; to make the invisible visible.
If you a reading this contact me at sistergirl916@gmail.com
Stop being scared to speak against the EVILS they do to us. You give them reverence when they suppress us.

Please do not go to Sun Spa, located at 6804 Fruitridge Rd #A
Sacramento, CA, 95820, They will claim that they are too busy for you.